SLA: Universal Hypothesis and A Neurofunctional Theory

The Universal Hypothesis A language pattern or phenomenon which occurs in all known languages. For example, it has been suggested that: a. if a language has dual number for referring to just two something, it also that PLURAL number (for referring to more than two). This type of universal is sometimes called an implication universal. b. There is a high probability that the word referring to the female parent will start with NASAL consonant, e.g. /m/ in English mothe, in German Mutter, in Swahili mama and in Chinese (Mandarin) muqin. Evaluation The Hypothesis provides an interesting account of how the linguistic properties of target language and the learners first language may influence the course development. The value of the Universal hypothesis for SLA theory is twofold: (1) it focuses attention on the nature on the target language itself, and (2) it provides a suitable and persuasive reconsideration of transfer as an important factor in SLA. In addition, the Universal Hypothesis operates on the assumption that linguistic knowledge is homogeneous and, therefore, ignores variability. 7. A Neurofunctional Theory The basic premise of a neurofunctional view of SLA is that there is a connection between and the neural anatomy. It is important to recognize, as Hatch (1983a:213) puts it, there is no single black box for language in the brain. Lamendella claims that SLA can be explained neurofunctionally with reference to (1) which neurofunctional system is used-the communication or cognitive-and (2) which level within the chosen neurofunctional system is engage. Evaluation Neurofunctional explanations of SLA are based on the premise that is possible to trace the neurolinguistic correlates of specific language function. Neurolinguistic and neurofunctional explanations are perhaps best treated as affording additional understanding about SLA, rather than an explanation of it. However, in the long run it will be useful if psycholinguistic construct used to explain SLA can be matched up with neurofunctional mechanisms.

There are seven theories of Second Language Acquisition. They are: 1. The Acculturation Model 2. Accommodation Theory 3. Discourse Theory 4. The Monitor Model 5. The Variable Competence Model 6. The Universal Hypothesis 7. A Neurofunctional Theory

SLA: Monitor and Variable Competence Model

The Monitor Model Krashens Monitor Model has enjoyed considerable prominence in SLA research. However, as I shall attempt to show later, the theory is seriously flawed in a number of respects, in particular in its treatment of language-learner variability. The Monitor Model consists of five central hypotheses; The five hypotheses 1. The acquisition learning hypothesis The acquisition learning distinction has already been considered. Acquisition occurs subconsciously as result of participating in natural communication where the the focus is on meaning. And Learning occurs as a result of conscious study of the formal properties of the language. In storage, acquired knowledge is located in the left hemisphere of the brain in the language area; it is not linguistic nature. 2. The natural order hypothesis The natural order hypothesis draws on the SLA research literature that indicates that learners may follow a more or less invariant order in the acquisition of formal grammatical features. 3. The Monitor hypothesis The monitor is the device that learners use to edit their language performance. It utilizes learnt knowledge by acting upon and modifying utterances generated from acquired knowledge. Krashen gives three monitoring conditions for its use: (1) there must be sufficient time, (2) the focus must be on the form and not meaning; and (3) the user mus know the rule for fuller discussion. 4. The input hypothesis It states that acquisition takes place as result of the learner having understood input that is a little beyond the current level of his competence ( i + 1 level). Input that is comprehensible to learner will automatically be at the right level. 5. The affective filter hypothesis Affective factor which determine its strength have to do with the learners motivation, self confidence, or anxiety state. Learners with high motivation and self confidence and with low anxiety have low filters. And learners h\with low motivation, little confidence, and high anxiety have high filters.

Causative variables taken into account in the Monitor Model Krashen also discusses a number of other factors, each of which figures conspicuously in the SLA research literature. 1. Aptitude 2. Role of the first language 3. Routines and patterns 4. individual differences There is no individual variation in acquisition process. And Krashen indicates three types of Monitor Users: (1) over-users, (2) under user, (3) optimal user (i.e those who apply conscious knowledge when it is appropriate). 5. Age. Age influences SLA. Older learners are the better better suited to study language than younger. Evaluation The acquisition learning distinction has been called theological in that it has been formulated in order to confirm a specific goal, namely that successful SLA is the result of acquisition. Variable. The monitor model is a dual competence, that is acquisition and learning (Krashen-labe,) it consists of variable performance, seen as a reflection of stylistic continuum, and variable competence model best fits the known fact about SLA. 5. The Variable Competence Model The model is based on two distinctions-one of which refers to the process of language use, and second refers to language product. Language use is to understood in term of the distinction between linguistic knowledge (procedure). It refers to the competence and capacity. The following is from the process of language use that product. 1. a variable competence, i.e the user processes a heterogeneous rule system; 2. variable application of procedures for actualizing knowledge in discourse. The VCM of SLA claims that both occur.. To summarize, the Variable Competence Model proposes: 1. there is a single knowledge score containing variable inter-language rules according to how automatic and how analyzed the rules are. 2. the leaner process a capacity for language use which consists of primary and secondary discourse, or secondary process and cognitive process.

3. L2 performance is variable. 4. Development occurs as result of (a) acquisition of new L2 rules through participation in various types of discourse. (b) Activation of L2 rules which initially exist in either a non automatic dis-analyzed form or in an analyzed form so they can be used in unplanned discourse. Evaluation The VCM of SLA attempts to account for (1) variability of language-learner language, and (2) the external and internal processes responsible for SLA. SLA is the result of the exchange of linguistic process of discourse construction involving both the leaner and interlocutor. ..................................................