Theories of Second Language Acquisition

Theories and methods of foreign language teaching have always developed in a

field of tension between linguistic and psychological theories of learning on the
one hand, and pedagogical aims and the exigencies of classroom teaching on
the other hand. Pure theories hardly ever proved solid and complex enough to
be transposed without comprises into foreign language teaching. However, they
always were and continue to be quite influential. We here outline the
characteristic traits of three prominent theories of language acquisition:
behaviourist, innatist, and constructivist theories. They provide the
theoretical underpinnings to some of the approaches to FLT which are
described in the other parts of this module. Their relation to the
neurophysiological underpinnings of language and learning is discussed in the
modules on brain, mind, and language.

The Structuralist-Behaviourist Position

In the first half of the 20th century some schools of thought developed in
linguistics and psychology which criticized earlier studies for relying too much
on introspection and subjective interpretations of language forms and their
meaning. They argued that researchers, as scientists, should shun speculative
explanations of why people produce certain forms of language or behaviour and
focus exclusively on the objective description and scientific analysis of the
observable facts.

In linguistics that call for scientific methods gave rise to descriptive and
taxonomic structuralism. It focuses, as its name suggests, on the description,
segmentizing analysis and cateloging of surface forms. It largely excludes any
consideration of meaning from linguistic studies because it is under suspicion of
bringing into play subjective and unscientific categories. Proponents of this
brand of linguistics claim that the identification and distributional analysis of the
phonological, morphological, and syntactic units of a specific language is
possible without the linguist to necessarily know and speak the analysed
language.

In psychology a parallel development gave rise to behaviourist theories of

learning. Behaviourists ground their theories on studies of animal behaviour in
laboratory experiments. Their claim is that all animals, including man, are born
with a set of instinctive responses to external stimuli, and that by the
reinforcement of responses which produce 'good results' animals learn to
acquire secondary skills which go beyond their primary instinctive responses.
Famous are Pawlow's experiments with dogs, and Thorndike's experiments with
cats in mazes. When faced with novel tasks animals may learn to solve them by
a series of haphazard trial-and-error responses. If a specific response pattern
produces 'good results' it is reproduced (imitated) the next time round. A number
of 'laws of learning' state that by, for example, the frequent repetition of SR-
pairs and instantenous feed-back on 'good' or 'bad' results learning can be
effected.
Extrapolating from such animal experiments behaviourists claim that all
language learing, too, is the result habit formation by a reinforcement of
'successful behaviour'. Children imitate the language behaviour of their parents
and other members of their social group. The theory was popularized by the
American researcher B.F. Skinner. In his famous book Verbal Behavior he
argues that by a deliberate reinforcement (or 'blocking') of desirable (or not
desirable) behaviour the experimenter or trainer (teacher) can 'engineer' the
formation of speech habits. This was called operant conditioning and habit
formation.

In FLT behaviouristic concepts of language learning underlie the set of formal

exercises typical of the audio-lingual method. Characteristic features of that
approach are pattern drills in combination with formal ('objective') tests and
taxonomies of teaching aims couched in terms of formal descriptions of the
language behaviour that learners should show at the end of a drill phase. Errors
could not be tolerated under this approach because their toleration would give
room to the development of 'bad habits'. Exclusive use of the target language in
class was necessary because if learning is the result of imitation and habit
formation then teachers must set good examples and learners must learn by
imitating them. Language laboratories were hailed as one of the best ways for
promoting language acquisition because they guarantee untiring target
language input, and immediate feed-back. Some people called this
'individualizing learning processes' because each learner would be given the
chance to do the exercises at his/her own pace.

Language teaching methods based on behaviouristic theories were eventually

criticized for being too mechanistic and boring. They, too, did not produce the
positive results which they had promised. On theoretical grounds one of the
main points of criticism is that behaviourists cannot explain how people learn to
produce grammatically correct sentences which they never heard anyone say
before. This takes us to cognitivist and nativist (innatist) theories of language
acquisition which represent the theoretical alternative.

The Nativist Position

The best known and most influential proponent of the innatist position is Noam
Chomsky. In his famous review of Skinner's book Verbal Behavior he pointed
out that imitation and SR-theories of learning fail to explain how people come to
produce sentences which they never heard before. He argues that cognition
plays the decisive part in creating the ability to produce an unlimited number of
sentences with the knowledge of a limited number of grammatical rules. He
calls this ability language competence and distinguishes it from performance,
that is the actual use of language which under the heat of communicative
exchanges or when people are tired may lead to the production of
grammatically faulty sentences.

Explaining language learning on a cognitive basis raises the question, however,

how children come to know the categories and rules of grammar which they
need for a creative production of sentences. In that context the 'logical problem
of language acquisition' and the 'poverty of the input argument' prompt
researchers like Chomsky, Fodor, and Steven Pinker to argue that languages
are not learned like any other complex faculty (flying airplanes or doing complex
mathematical calculations, for instance) but 'acquired' on the basis of an innate
knowledge of grammatical principles contained in a language acquisition device
(LAD). In later versions of Chomskyan theories the LAD is renamed Universal
Grammar. The 'logical problem of language acquisition', which gave rise to the
problematic distinction of 'language acquisition' and learning, is seen to lie in the
fact that adult language generally is full of grammatically errors, unfinished
sentences and similar 'handicaps' which seem to make it impossible for the
human brain/mind as a 'logical machine' to extract from that sort of controversial
input the right sort of grammatical rules. Observation of children and their
parents reveals, too, that adults do not give children explicit instruction in rules
of grammar (which would undo the logical problem of language acquisition).

The protagonists of the nativist position of language acquisition aim to explain

first language acquisition, not second language acquisition. Quite a few
researchers in this camp doubt that UG (Universal Grammar) is available for
second language acquisition. Some of them argue that UG may be available for
second language acquisition up to a critical age only (early puberty) after which
the plasticity of the brain would put an end to the beneficial workings of UG. We
must remember, too, that second language acquisition (SLA) is different from
foreign language learning. SLA takes place in a target language environment
and provides the learners with plenty of language input in contextually
meaningful situations. In contrast foreign language learning takes place under
extreme time limits in a first language cultural context and provides
comparatively poor environmental conditions for language acquisition.

Because of the reasons just mentioned it is problematic to directly connect

nativist theories of language acquisition with new developments in FLT. The
truth is, though, that nativist theories have definitely influenced theories on
second language acquisition and they have indirectly had an effect on theories
and methods in FLT. The perhaps most prominent example of such indirect
influences and subterranean cross currents is the 'comprehensible input
hypothesis' developed by Stephen Krashen. His theory of second language
acquisition actually consists of five main hypotheses: 1. the acquisition-learning
hypothesis, 2. the monitor hypothesis, 3. the natural order hypothesis, 4. the
input hypothesis, and 5. the affective filter hypothesis. His position shares with
nativist theories the learning - acquisition dichotomy. The crucial point of his
arguments is that grammar acquisition is an unconscious process which cannot
really be helped or replaced by the teaching and conscious learning of explicit
rules of grammar. What teachers can do to help their learners is make
comprehensible the second language input which they provide because
learners will find it easier to figure out the rules underlying the production of the
input if they understand its meaning.

The Constructivist Position

The strong nativist claim that nothing less than an innate knowledge of grammar
can resolve the 'logical problem of language acquisition' is not shared by many
other scientists in the cognitive camp. Neurobiologists like Lieberman, for
example, point out that from an evolutionary perspective it is highly
questionable that a domain specific 'language module' could have developed.
Psychologists like Jean Piaget point out that all knowledge is the result of active
processes of knowledge construction by the child in his/her cognitive
development. He argues that it is implausible to assume no cross-influences
from a child's general cognitive development to her/his language development
(and vice versa). Similarly the psychologist Lev Vygotsky views man's complex
cognitive faculties as the result of active processes of knowledge construction.
More than Piaget, however, he underlines the importance of social interactions
for the cognitive and language development of children.

Generally the critics of the UG hypothesis point out that the 'logical problem of
language acquisition' persists only if researchers fail to acknowledge the many
non-linguistic cues to the meaning which allows children to map meaning to
language forms and to next use language forms for the expression of meaning.
How this mapping can work when viewed from a neuroscientific and
psycholinguistic perspective is shown, for example, by the competition model
developed by Brian MacWhinney. And other researchers found out in an
extensive series of field studies of language acquisition in different cultural
contexts that people rely in their learning and use of language on many
conceptual and non-linguistic cues which allow them to figure out meaning and
function of the language used by their fellow men. Another highyl useful theory
in this context is Pienemann's processability theory because it helps resolve the
question why, in core areas of grammar acquisition, all learners proceed along
the same developmental route to increasingly more complex stages of language
competence despite the fact that there are many individual differences between
them which show in things like their speed of learning, the complexity of the
lexical knowledge which they acquire, the pronunciation (strong accent nor
approaching native speaker accent), etc.

There is growing evidence, therefore, that all language learning is the result of
active processes of knowledge construction by the learner in which they rely on
and make use of an interplay of conceptual and linguistic cues to meaning. In
that view knowledge of language emerges as the result of interactions of innate
cognitive abilities with social forces and environmental conditions that take a
shaping influence on their development. That is of interest to second language
acquisition studies and foreign language teaching methodology because it
chimes in with the observation of teachers and classroom researchers that
environmental and affective factors play a prominent role in facilitating or
impeding learning processes. It gives theoretical support to the call for task
based learning and content and language integrated learning which many
researchers and practitioners have found useful from practical experience and
against the background of pragmalinguistic theories of language.