SEVEN THEORIES OF SLA

1. The Acculturation Model

Proponent: John Schumann (1978)

Central Premise: “... second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to
which a learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires
the second language.”(Schumann 1978:34)

Brown (1980) defines acculturation as ‘the process of becoming adapted to a new culture’.

Acculturation, and hence SLA, is determined by the degree of social & psychological distance
between the learner and the target language culture.

When social and psychological distances are great, the learner fails to progress beyond the early
stages, with the result that his language is pidginized.

Nativization model (Andersen, 1980,-81,-83)

Evaluation: The Acculturation & Nativization Models address naturalistic SLA, where the L2 learner has
contact with the target language community. What is missing from these models is an account of the
role of the interaction between situation & learner.

2. Accommodation Theory

Proponent: Giles (

Main Principles: Ingroup defines itself in relationship to the outgroup.

Key Variables: Level of motivation is a reflex of how learners see themselves in ethnic terms.

a. Identification of the individual learner with his ethnic ingroup

b. Inter-ethnic comparison
c. Perception of ethno-linguistic vitality
d. Perception of ingroup boundaries
e. Identification with other ingroup social categories

In language acquisition, learner leans towards upward divergence. In fossilization, learner leans
towards downward divergence.

Evaluation: This theory relates the acquisition of a new dialect or accent to the acquisition of a L2, as
both are seen as a reflection of the learner’s perception of himself with regard to his own social group
and the target language/dialect group. Further, this theory provides an explanation of language-learner
language variability.

3. Discourse Theory

Proponent: Evelyn Hatch (1978)

Main Principles: 1) SLA follows a 'natural' route in syntactical development;

 2) Native speaker adjust their speech in order to negotiate meaning with non-native speakers;

3) The conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning, and the resulting adjusted input,
influence the rate and route of SLA in a number of ways, namely: a) the learner learns the grammar of
the L2 in the same order as the frequency order of the various features in the input, b) the learner
acquire commonly occurring formulas and then later analyses these into their component parts & c)
learner is helped to construct sentences vertically; vertical structures are the precursors of horizontal
structures;

4) Thus, the ‘natural' route is the result of learning how to hold conversations.

Evaluation: The discourse theory does not address the nature of the learner strategies responsible for
SLA.

There is no specification of the relationship between external and internal processes.

Hatch only talks of external process- those which can be observed in face-to-face interaction- not
internal processes, those that can only be inferred by observing how learners perform but of course, she
does not dismiss the cognitive side of SLA.

4. The Monitor Model

Proponent: Krashen (1981, -82)

Five Central Hypothesis:

1) Acquisition learning hypothesis;

2) Natural order hypothesis;

3) Monitor hypothesis - monitoring has an extremely limited function in language performance, even
where adult are concerned. Krashen gives three conditions for its use; a) there must be sufficient time. b)
the focus must be on form and not meaning and. c) the user must know the rule;

4) Input hypothesis- input that comprehensible to the learner will automatically be at the right level;

5) Affective filter hypothesis. It deals with how affective factors relate to SLA, and covers the ground of
the Acculturation model.

Causative variables taken into account in the Monitor Model: aptitude, role of the first language,
routines and patterns, individual differences and age.

Evaluation: Despite the comprehensiveness of the this model, it poses serious theoretical problems
regarding the validity of the acquisition-learning distinction, the operation of Monitoring, and the
explanation of variability in language-learner language.