Toward a Theory of Second

Language Acquisition
RUZAINI BINTI IBRAHIM GS37936
NUR LIYANA BT SAHRIF GS37001
OKOH GRACE IFEOMA GS 39937

Introduction

Second language learning is a complex process.

According to Larsen- Freeman (1997),
complexity means there are so many separate
interrelated factors within one intricate entity
that it is exceedingly difficult to bring order and
simplicity to that chaos.

Building a Theory of SLA

This part will cover the following topics:

Domains and Generalizations
Hypothesis and Claims
Criteria for a Viable Theory

Building a Theory of SLA

Several decades ago Yorio
(1976), proposed a
taxonomy - Classification of
Learner Variables.
(Figure 10.1, Pg.: 286).

The taxonomy shows many

different domains of inquiry
that must be included in a
theory of SLA.

Domains and Generalizations

Classification of learner Variables (Yorio, 1976).
1) Age
2) Cognition
3) Native language
4) Input
5) Affective Domain
6) Educational Background

Domains and Generalizations (1)

AAsetset
of domains
of consideration
in a theory
SLA include:
of domains
of consideration
in a of
theory
of SLA
include:
1) General understanding of what language is, what learning
1) isGeneral
understanding
of what language is, what
& what teaching
is.
learning isof&how
whatchildren
teachinglearn
is. their L1.
2) Knowledge
2) Knowledge of how children learn their L1.
3) Understand the differences between adult and child
3) Understand the differences between adult and child
learning and between first and second language
learning and between first and second language
acquisition.
acquisition.
4)4) General
of of
human
learning
andand
intelligence
Generalprinciples
principles
human
learning
intelligence
controls
controlstotosecond
secondlanguage
languagelearning.
learning.

Domains and Generalizations (2)

5) Personality- the way people view themselves and reveal
themselves in communication.
6) Affect quantity and quality of L2 learning.
7) Learning a second language is often intricately
intertwined with learning a second culture.
8) The acquisition of communicative competence is in
many ways language socialization- ultimate goal of L2
learners.
9) The linguistic contrasts between the native and target
language form one source of difficulty in learning L2.

Domains and Generalizations (3)

Beneficial learner strategies cannot be specified without
reference to age, human learning in general, and some crucial
affective factors.
In comparing and contrasting the first and second language
acquisition, it is impossible to ignore affective and cultural
variables and differences between adult and child cognition.
Determining the source of L2 learners error inevitably involves
consideration of cognitive strategies and styles, group dynamics
and even the validity of data gathering procedures.
No single component of this theory is sufficient alone: the
interaction and interdependence of other components are
necessary.

Hypothesis and Claims

A theory of SLA is an interrelated set of

hypotheses/ claims about how people become

proficient in a second language.

The popular hypothesis/ claims include:

Ten Generalizations about SLA (Lightbown, 1985)

Claims of Lightbown and Spada (1993)- Myths about SLA

Lightbown's Ten Generalizations about SLA

(1)
In summary of research findings on SLA , Lightbown
(1985) has made the following claims:
1)
2)

3)

4)
5)

Adults and adolescents can "acquire" a second language.

The learner creates a systematic interlanguage that is often
characterized by the same systematic errors as [those of]
the child learning the same language as the first language,
as well as others based on the learner's own native
language.
There are predictable sequences in acquisition so that
certain structures have to be acquired before others can be
integrated.
Practice does not make perfect.
Knowing a language rule does not mean one will be able to
use it in communicative interaction.

Lightbown's Ten Generalizations about SLA

(2)
6)
7)

8)
9)
10)

Isolated explicit error correction is usually ineffective in

changing language behaviour.
For adult learners, acquisition stops- fossilizes- before
the learner has achieved nativelike mastery of the target
language.
One cannot achieve nativelike command of a second
language in one hour a day.
The learners task is enormous because language is
enormously complex.
A learners ability to understand language in a
meaningful context exceeds his or her ability to
comprehend decontextualized language and to produce
language of comparable complexity and accuracy.

Myths
about
SLA
Following
are some
myths about SLA that may not be
supported by research (Lightbown & Spada 1993:111116):
1
2
3
4
5
6

Languages are learned mainly through imitation.

Parents usually correct young children when they make
errors.
People with high IQs are good language learners.
The earlier a second language is introduced in school
programs, the greater the likelihood of success in
learning.
Most of the mistakes that second language learners
make are due to interference from their first language.
Learners' errors should be corrected as soon as they are
made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.

Certain claims about SLA demand caution; prefaced with a

"Well, it depends" sort of caveat.

Group Activity: SLA Myths

Figure out why each statement is a myth

ii. Provide examples or counter-examples
in the language classroom.
i.

1) Languages are learned mainly through imitation.

2) Parents usually correct young children when they make
errors.
3) People with high IQs are good language learners.
4) The earlier a second language is introduced in school
programs, the greater the likelihood of success in
learning.
5) Most of the mistakes that second language learners
make are due to interference from their first language.
6) Learners' errors should be corrected as soon as they are
made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.

Criteria for a Viable Theory

Diane Larsen-Freeman (1997), argued that SLA is a
dynamic, complex and non-linear system
Each learner takes a different path to achieve success.
Larsen- Freeman (1997) suggested some lessons from
chaos theory to help us design a theory of SLA:
Beware of false dichotomies (contradictions). Look for
complementarity, inclusiveness and interface.
Beware of linear, causal approaches to theorizing because
SLA is very complex with so many interacting factors.
Beware of overgeneralizations- focus on details.
Beware of reductionist thinking- oversimplifying a
complex system.

Longs Criteria for a Theory of SLA

Michael Long (1990) offered eight criteria for a comprehensive theory of

SLA:
1 Account for universals.
2 Account for environmental factors.
3 Account for variability in age, acquisition rate and proficiency level.
4 Explain both cognitive and affective factors.
Account for form-focused learning, not just subconscious
5 acquisition.
6 Account for other variables besides exposure and input.
Account for cognitive/ innate factors which explain interlanguage
7 systematicity.
Recognize that acquisition not a steady accumulation of
8 generalizations.

Hot Topics in SLA Research

Help define terms not covered in previous chapters and
review crucial terms in understanding theoretical models of
SLA.
Explicit and Implicit Learning
Awareness
Input and Output
Frequency

Explicit and Implicit Learning (1)

Researchers are still occupied with the questions about
the effectiveness of explicit and implicit learning.
Explicit Learning- involves conscious awareness and
attention.
Implicit Learning- learning without conscious
attention or awareness.
Related concepts: intentional and incidental learning.
Attention can occur under both conditions.

Explicit and Implicit Learning (2)

There is a universal agreement that both explicit
and implicit learning offer advantages and
disadvantages.
The central questions are complex:
Under what conditions, for which learners and for what
linguistic elements is one approach is advantageous to
SLA?
How are we to measure (Ellis, 2004) explicit knowledge?
Generalizations are not possible, all the specifics of
a given context should be considered before making
a conclusion.

Awareness (1)
Awareness is similar to conscious ( vs. subconscious)
learning, where learners are intentionally controlling their
attention and some aspect of input and output.
Schmidts (1990) proposed the noticing hypothesis in
which he suggested a central role for focal attention,
stemming from awareness, for a learner to notice language
input.
Noticing may be an essential prerequisite to a learners ability to
convert input into intake (Schmidt, 1990; Robinson, 2003; Ellis, 1997;
Leow, 2000).

Input refers to the subset of all input that actually

gets assigned to our long-term memory store.
Intake is what you take with you over a period of
time and can later remember.

Awareness (2)
The debate over requisite levels of awareness in SLA is
complex and demands a careful specification of conditions
before any conclusion can be offered.
Certain degree of focus on form can be beneficial.
It seems advantageous that learners are aware of their own
strengths and weaknesses and to consciously employ
strategic options in their learning (Brown, 2002).
However, many learners are much too consciously
involved in the forms of the target language that it blocks
their ability to focus on meaning.

Input and Output

The relationship of input to output in SLA was controversial but is
becoming less so.
Input- the process of comprehending language (listening and reading).

Output- is the production of language (speaking and writing).

Both input and output are necessary processes, which are in varying
degree of complementary distribution in L2 learners language
learning process.
There is still a great debate over what constitutes optimal quality of
input and output.

Frequency
Frequency- how many
times a specific word,
structure, or other defined
element of language
captures the attention of a
learner.

Frequency may be more

important than we once
thought.

Educators cannot simply

ignore the possibility that
frequency can potentially
influence acquisition.

Innatist Model: Krashens Input

Hypothesis

One of the most controversial theoretical perspectives

in SLA
Proposed by Stephen Krashen (1997, 1981, 1992, 1985,
1992, 1997)

Monitor
Model

AcquisitionLearning
Hypothesis

Input
Hypothesis

Innatist Model: Krashens Input

Hypothesis
AcquisitionLearning
Hypothesis
Affective
Filter
Hypothesis

Input
Hypothesis

Monitor
Hypothesis

Natural
Order
Hypothesis

1.Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Acquisition
Subconscious & intuitive process of
constructing the system of language.

Learning
Conscious learning process in which
learners attend to form, figure out
rules, aware of their own process.

1. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis (1)

Krashen (1981)
Fluency in second language
performance is due to what we
have acquired, not what we have
learned.
Adults should do as much
acquiring as possible in order
to achieve communicative
fluency; other wise they will
get stucked in:
-rule learning
-too much conscious
attention to forms of language &
watching own progress.

Krashen (1982)
Conscious learning
processes and subconscious
acquisition processes are
mutually exclusive:
-Learning cannot
become acquisition
No interface between
acquisition & learning is
used to strengthen the
argument;
-large doses of acquisition
activity in classroom
-minor role assigned to
learning

2. Monitor Hypothesis
Monitor involved in learning, not acquisition
A device for watchdogging ones output:

Editing
Making alterations, or
Corrections (consciously perceived)
Explicit and intentional learning are largely avoided, as it is
presumed to hinder acquisition.
Once fluency is established, optimal amount of monitoring
or editing be employed by learner.
(Krashen, 1981)

3. Natural Order Hypothesis

We acquire language rules in a predictable or

natural order.
Follows the earlier morpheme order studies of Dulay
and Burt (1974, 1976).

4. Input Hypothesis (1)

Comprehensible input is the only true cause of

second language acquisition.

Important condition for language acquisition to
occur: the acquirer understand (via hearing
/reading) input language that contains structure a
bit beyond his/her current level of competence.

4. Input Hypothesis (2)

If acquirer at the stage i, the input he/she understands

should contain i+1. (Krashen, 1981).

Language exposed should be just far enough beyond
their current competence, that they can understand most
of it but still be challenged to make progress.
Input should neither so far beyond (i + 2), nor so close to
their current level (i + 0). (not challenged at all)
Krashens recommendation: speaking not be taught
directly or very early in language classroom. Speech will
emerge once acquirer has built enough comprehensible
input (i + 1).

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

Environments where
anxiety is low,
defensiveness absent
= best acquisition

Evaluations of Five Hypothesis

Critique on the
distinction between
subconcious
(acquisition) and
conscious (learning
process)

No interface, overlap
between acquisition
and learning.
Second language learning
is a process in which
varying degrees of
learning and of
acquisition can both be
beneficial, depending on
one;s own styles and
strategies
(Swain, 1998)

Implication that the

notion of i +1 is a
novel idea;
reiteration of a
general principle of
learning that has
been discussed.
Ausubels terms
Vygotskys ZPD

The Output Hypothesis (1)

It is important to distinguish between input and

intake.
Input: information that gets assigned to out longterm memory store.
Intake: what you take with you over a period of time
and can later remember.

The Output Hypothesis (2)

Krashen (1983) suggests that input gets converted to

intake through a learners process of linking forms to

meaning and noticing gaps between the learners
current internalized rule system and new input.
Seliger (1983) broader conceptualization of the role of
input that gives learners more credit for eventual success.
HIGH INPUT
GENERATORS
(HIGs)

LOW INPUT
GENERATORS
(LIGs)

The Output Hypothesis (3)

HIGH INPUT
GENERATORS
(HIGs)

LOW INPUT
GENERATORS
(LIGs)

People who are good at initiating and

sustaining interaction, or generating
input from teachers, etc.

Passive learners who do less efforts to

get input directed toward them,

Learners who maintained high levels of

interaction (HIGs) in second language,
progressed faster than learners who
interacted little in classroom.
(Seliger, 1983)

The Output Hypothesis (4)

Swain (2005, 1995) suggested three major
functions of output in SLA.

Speech and writing can

offer a means for
learner to reflect on
language itself in
interaction with peers.

Output serves as a
means to try out
ones language to
test various
hypothesis that are
forming.

Three
Major
Output in
SLA

While attempting to
produce target
language, learners
may notice their
erroneous attempts
to convey meaning

Cognitive Models

McLaughlins
AttentionProcessing Model

Implicit and Explicit

Models

McLaughlins Attention-Processing Models (1)

A more sound heuristic for conceptualizing language

acquisition process, and one that avoid any direct

appeal to a consciousness continuum.
Proposed by Mclaughlin and his colleagues;
(McLaughlin, 1990b, 1987; McLeod & McLaughlin,
1986; McLaughlin, Rossman, & McLeod, 1983;
McLaughlin, 1978)

McLaughlins Attention-Processing
Models (2)
Attention to Formal
Properties of Language

INFORMATION PROCESSING
Controlled

Automatic

Focal

(Cell A)
Performance based on
formal rule learning

(Cell B)
Performance in a test
situation

Peripheral

(Cell C)
Performance based on
implicit learning or
analogic learning

(Cell D)
Performance in
communication situations

Table 10.1. Possible second language performance as a function of informationprocessing procedures and attention to formal properties of language
(McLaughlin et al., 1983)

McLaughlins Attention-Processing
Models (3)
Controlled Processes: Typical process of
learning new skill, only few elements of
skill can be retained.

Automatic Processes: Processing more

accomplished skill, brain can manage a
lot of information simultaneously.
Characterized as fast, effortless,
unconscious and independent of the
amount of information being
processed.

Segalowitz, 2003

McLaughlins Attention-Processing
Models (4)
Automatic processes: The automatizing of the

multiplicity data is accomplished by a process of

restructuring in which the components of a task
are coordinated, integrated into new units, and
allows the old component to be replaced by a more
efficient procedure.
Both ends of this continuum of processing can occur
with either focal (focusing attention centrally)or
peripheral attention (focusing attention on the
periphery) .

McLaughlins Attention-Processing Models (5)

CONTROLLED: New skill, capacity
limited

AUTOMATIC: Well trained,

practiced skill capacity is
relatively unlimited

Focal Intentional
Attention

A. Grammatical explanation of a specific

point
Word definition
Copy of a written model
The first stages of memorizing a dialog
Prefabricated patterns
Various discrete-point exercises

B. Keeping an eye out for

something
Advanced L2 learner focuses
on modals, formation, etc.
Monitoring oneself while
talking or writing
Scanning
Editing, peer-editing

Peripheral

C. Simple greetings
The later stages of memorizing a dialog
TPR/Natural Approach
New L2 learner successfully completes a
brief conversation

D. Open-ended group work

Rapid reading, skimming
Free writes
Normal conversational
exchanges of some length

Table 10.2. Practical applications of McLaughlins attention-processing model

(Brown, 2007, p. 302)

Practical Applications of McLaughlins Attention-Processing Model

The cells are described in in terms of ones processing of

and attention to language forms (grammatical,

phonological, discourse rules, etc.)
If, peripheral attention is given to language forms in a
more advanced language classroom, focal attention is
given to meaning, function, purpose or person.
Child second language learning: may consist almost
exclusively of peripheral attention to language forms
(Cell C and D).
Adult second language learning: involves movement
from Cell A through a combination of C and B, to D.
(DeKeyser, 1997).

Implicit and Explicit Models (1)

Explicit processing: ones knowledge about language
Implicit knowledge:

*information that is automatically and

spontaneously used in language tasks
* implicit processes enable learners to perform
language, but not necessarily to cite
rules governing
the performance.

(Brown, 2007, p. 302)

Implicit and Explicit Models (2)

Ellen Bialystok (1990a, 1982, 1978) is one of those

who have proposed models of Second language

Acquisition (SLA) using the implicit/explicit
distinction.
Bialystok (1982, p.183) equated implicit and explicit
with synonymous terms; unanalyzed and
analyzed knowledge.

Model of Second Language Learning (Bialystok,

1978)

Figure 10.2. Model of second language learning(adapted from Bialystok 1978, p. 71)
(Brown, 2007, p. 303)

Implicit and Explicit Models (3)

Unanalyzed knowledge
General form in which we know
most things without being aware of
the structure of that knowledge.
Learners have little awareness of
language rules

Analyzed knowledge
Learners are overtly aware of the
structure of analyzed knowledge.
Learners can verbalize complex
rules governing language.

Comprehension Check!
What are two terms used in Output Hypothesis

proposed by Seliger (1983)?

How many hypothesis are there in the Innatist
Model? What are they?
What is Controlled Processes and Automatic
Processes?

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONGS

INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS (1)

Two Preceding Theories

Krashens Input
Hypothesis

The Cognitive Model of

Second Language
Acquisition

Focus to a considerable extent

of the learners

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONGS INTERACTION

HYPOTHESIS (2)

The social constructivist perspectives emphasize the

dynamic nature of the interplay between learners,
their peers and their teachers and others with whom
they interact.

The interaction between learners and others is the

focus of observation and explanation

INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS (1)

Micheal Long (1985-1996) takes up where in a sense
Krashen left off. He posits in what has come to be
called the interaction hypothesis, that comprehensive
input is the result of modified interaction.

INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS (2)

Learners learn new forms in a language through the
negotiation around meaning that occurs when they
engage in communication and communication
learning activities.

Modify Interaction (1)

Interaction between native speakers

For example: babies imitate their parents: the

cat fat
Parents might correct: no we dont say that. We
say: the fat cat
Our parents may modify their speech to children
Mommy go bye bye now
Interaction between native speakers with second
language learners.

Modify Interaction (2)

But native speakers often slow down speech to second
language
learners(modification
also
include
comprehension checks)
EX: go down to the subway- do you know the
word subway? and they explain the word subway
Or I went to a new years Eve party,
You know, a night before the first day of a new year.

Modify Interaction (3)

In Longs view:
Interaction and Input are two major players in the
process of acquisition.
Conversation and other interactive communication
are the basic for the linguistic rules.
Further, Longs hypothesis center us on the language
classroom that :
Not only as a place where learners of varying abilities
and styles and background mingle
But also as a place where the contexts for interaction are
carefully designed.

Theories and Models of SLA

INNATIST
(Krashen)
Subconscious

COGNITIVE
(McLauglin /
Bialystok)

CONSTRUCTIVIST
(Long)

Controlled

Interaction

acquisition

/automatic

hypothesis

superior to

processing (McL)

learning &

Focal / peripheral

monitoring

attention (McL)

Comprehensible
input (i+1)
Low affective filter
Natural order of
acquisition

Intake through
social interaction
Output

Restructuring (McL)

hypothesis

Implicit vs. explicit

(Swain)

(B)
Unanalyzed vs.

HIGS (Seliger)
Authenticity

analyzed knowledge Task-Based

From Theory to Practice (1)

Theories are constructed by professors and researchers
who hypothesize, describe, measure and conclude
things about learners and learning and the teachers

From Theory to Practice (2)

Researcher give many skills to teacher in: program
developing, textbook writing, observing, measuring
variables of acquisition applying technology to
teaching.

Practitioners (1)
Practitioners are thought of as teachers who out there
in classroom every day stimulating, encourage,
observing and assessing real- live learners.

Practitioners (2)
A practitioner/ teacher is made to feel that he
or she is the recipient of a researcher/ theorist's
findings and prognostications, with little to offer
in return.

QUESTIONS
What is the interaction hypothesis of Michael Long?
What are cognitive models?
Who is a practitioner?