Lecture 6

Types of Theories Explaining Second Language Acquisition.

Differences in L2 Acquisition of Children and Adults.

6.1. Introduction
Second language acquisition is the process by which people learn a second
language in addition to their native language. The current lecture is an attempt to
provide an answer to the following questions:
 Why is second language learning possible?;
 What are the mechanisms that are used when learning a second
language?;
 What theories are there that explain second language acquisition?

6.2. Second language acquisition

The term second language is used to describe the acquisition of any language
after the acquisition of the mother tongue. The language to be learned is often referred
to as the target language or L2, compared to the first language (L1), referred to as the
source language.
A second language can be acquired in a variety of ways, at any age, for different
purposes, and to varying degrees. Generally linguists distinguish two types of second
language learning – spontaneous and guided.
Spontaneous second language learning is the learning of a second language in
everyday communication, “in a natural fashion, free from systematic guidance” [Klein,
1986:15]*. An example for this kind of L2 acquisition can be given with adult immigrants
who go to live in another country and who manage to acquire – through their sporadic
and unsystematic intercourse with the broader society – some knowledge of the
language. Spontaneous language acquisition is not uniform. It takes place in the
course of everyday communication and is free from any systematic intervention.
Guided second language learning is the acquisition of a foreign language under
the “guidance” of a tutor. It usually happens at school or in an educational context (as
part of university education, adult language course, etc.). In guided learning teachers
follow a syllabus, they select the teaching materials, grade them according to their
difficulty, and adapt them if necessary. The teachers also focus learners’ attention on
grammar and vocabulary and attach importance to the development of the four
language skills.
It should be noted, however, that regardless of the type of L2 learning, second
language acquisition is a process of enormous complexity in which variety of factors
work and which cannot be described easily.

*
Klein, W. (1986) Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press

1
 To start the discussion of second language learning we will focus on a quote
that touches upon the essence of it.
While child language development theory must explain invariant
‘success’, foreign language learning theory must explain variation
and lack of success
[Epstein et al., 1996:718]*

6.3. THEORIES EXPLAINING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

During the 20th century a number of different theories of second language
acquisition have been formed in an effort to:
a) provide explanations about how language learning takes place;
b) identify the variables responsible for second language acquisition; and
c) offer guidance to second language teachers.
Each theory explores and analyzes language acquisition from a different
perspective. Generally speaking there are three basic types of theories that explore
second language learning (Fig. 6.1).

Theories explaining
second language
acquisition

The Nativist The Behaviourist The Interactionist

Theories Theories Theories

People have an innate

language acquisition Second language Second language
device that plays a key learning is a matter of acquisition takes place
role in the acquisition of habit formation in human interaction
any language
Fig. 6.1. Types of theories explaining second language acquisition

6.3.1. Some starting points

Before focusing our attention on the above mentioned theories we will briefly
discuss two hypotheses that attempt to explain L2 acquisition – the identity hypothesis
and the contrastive hypothesis.
1. The identity hypothesis
According to this hypothesis first and second language learning are basically
the same processes governed by the same laws. Still there are some differences
between the acquisition of L1 and L2, namely:

*
Epstein D.E., S. Flynn & G. Martohardjono (1996) ‘Second language acquisition: Theoretical and
experimental issues in contemporary research’. In Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, pp. 677-758.

2
 1. L1 acquisition is usually part of a child’s cognitive and social
development, while in L2 this development has more or less been
completed.
2. A first language is normally acquired with perfect pronunciation, while the
cases of adults acquiring a second language without any accent are very
rare.
3. There is no one to one correspondence in the acquisition of language
elements when learning first and second language.
4. There are both similarities and differences between L1 and L2 acquisition
so from the methodological point of view it might be possible to develop
a theory that would explain both modes of language acquisition.
2. The contrastive hypothesis
“The identity hypothesis asserts that the acquisition or availability of one
language has little or no influence on the acquisition of another language” (Klein,
1986:25). Opposite to that the contrastive hypothesis claims that the acquisition of a
second language is determined to a large extent by the structure of an earlier acquired
language. The structures of the second language that coincide with the corresponding
structure of the first language are assimilated easily as a result of the “positive transfer”.
Contrasting structures present considerable difficulty and lead to errors which are a
result of negative transfer or interference between the two languages.
This theory has a number of variants some of which are stronger and some of
which are weaker. The proponent of the original theory is Lado (1957) *. His theory,
expressed in his book Linguistics Across Cultures, was largely applied and used in
developing L2 teaching throughout the years.
Lado’s original idea was that it is possible to predict from a systematic
comparison of any two languages the problems that learners would encounter, or even
to predict the most effective order of acquisition for the various structures of the target
language. In his influential book Linguistics across Cultures, Lado claimed:

Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution
of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign
language and culture – both productively when attempting to speak the
language and to act in the culture, and receptively when attempting to grasp
and understand the language and the culture as practiced by natives.
[Lado, 1957: 2]
His ideas gave rise to a number of contrastive analysis projects and research.
And it also leads to the development of error analysis – a discipline that examines the
errors learners make and the implications of that for the teaching and learning process.
The work of Lado and was an inspiration for subsequent research in the field of
language transfer, a subfield of SLA. Language transfer is closely related to
behaviourist theories of L2 learning, which was predominant in the 1950s and 1960s.

*
Lado, R., Linguistics Across Cultures, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1957

3
 6.3.2. The Nativist theories
The first basic type of theories – the Nativist theories – explains the acquisition
of language due to an innate biological mechanism that makes learning possible. This
idea has been expressed by Noam Chomsky (1969).
The Universal Grammar theories are based on Chomsky’s claim that there are
certain principles that form the basis on which knowledge of language develops. These
principles are biologically determined and specialized for language learning (Chomsky,
1969, 1980, 1986). Originally, the Universal Grammar theory did not refer to second
language learning but to first language acquisition. However, its principles were
adopted by second language researchers and were applied in the field of second
language acquisition. The Universal Grammar principles were used in order to provide
explanations for the existence of developmental sequences in interlanguage* and to
support the view of interlanguage as a natural language [Hilles, 1986:45].
A model very similar to Chomsky's Universal Grammar was proposed by Felix
(1985). The Competition Model consists of two subsystems: the Language-Specific
Cognitive System (LSC-system) and the Problem-Solving system (PSC-system).
These two systems are responsible for the differences in the learning processes of
children and adults. It is argued that the children’s learning process is guided by the
LSC-system, while adults employ the problem solving module which then enters into
competition with the language-specific system. Even though the LSC-system is
governed by principles similar to the principles of the Universal Grammar, the principles
of the PSC-system are largely unknown (Felix, 1985:70)**.
Another Universal Grammar based theory, the Creative Construction theory,
was suggested by Dulay and Burt (1974)***. According to this theory children engaged
in second language learning progressively reconstruct rules for the target language
speech they hear guided by “universal innate mechanisms”. Those mechanisms lead
them to construct certain types of hypotheses about the system of the language they
are acquiring until the mismatch between what they are exposed to and what they
actually produce is resolved [Dulay and Burt, 1974:37]. Empirical evidence from
comparing the errors produced by Spanish children learning English with those
produced by children learning English as their mother-tongue, showed that most of the
syntax errors in English produced by the Spanish children were of the same type of
errors made by children learning English natively (Dulay and Burt, 1973). Also, finding
Spanish and Chinese children acquiring English morphemes in similar orders, Dulay
and Burt conclude that it is the L2 system rather than the L1 system that guides the
acquisition process (Dulay and Burt, 1974:52).

*
Interlanguage – the language that an L2 learner is using at any particular moment in his learning
sequence. It is neither the L1, nor the L2. It is a third language, with its own grammar, its own lexicon
and so on.
**
Felix, S. (1985) “More evidence on competing cognitive systems”. In Second Language Research,
Vol. 1: 47-72.
***
Dulay, H.C. and M. K Burt (1974) “Natural Sequences in Child Language Acquisition”. In Language
Learning, Vol. 24, pp.37-53.

4
 The effect of the mother-tongue in determining the magnitude of the second
language learning task is reflected in the model of the learning process that Corder
(1978) suggested. Corder’s theory touches upon learner variety – i.e. the knowledge
and skills that any learner of a second language acquires and masters so that he can
communicate on the language.
According to this model the learner begins his learning task from a basic
Universal Grammar (or built-in syllabus) which gradually becomes more complex in
response to the learner’s exposure to target language data and the communicative
needs he is faced with. This elaboration process follows a constant sequence for all
learners of a particular second language, but the progress of any particular learner is
affected by the degree to which his/her knowledge of the target language in the form
of mother-tongue-like features facilitates his/her learning process.
In summary, the Universal Grammar theories of second language acquisition
were generated in order to provide explanations for empirical evidence and they were
primarily concerned with the internal mechanisms that lead to the acquisition of the
formal aspects of the target language and the similarities and differences between
acquiring a particular language as a first or a second language. Although researchers
have used Universal Grammar to generate a number of interesting hypotheses about
second language acquisition, and generative theorists regard it as the best theory of
grammar because of its descriptive and explanatory adequacy (Ellis, 1994:429),
empirical evidence has been restricted to the acquisition of a small set of syntactic
phenomena. A general theory of second language acquisition needs to cover a wider
range of phenomena [McLaughlin, 1987:108].

6.3.3. The Behavourist theories

According to behaviourist theories (Skinner, 1957) the process of language
learning is a process of habit formation, and the old habits formed when learning L1
would get in the way of learning new habits in L2, thus leading to errors. Or said in
other words: the learner would transfer L1 habits into the L2. For example: learners
would transfer the “sound patterns from L1, resulting in accents characteristic of
learners with a given mother tongue. And they would … use L2 vocabulary in the same
way in which they would use L1 equivalents, that is, assuming that given words or
phrases would be appropriate or inappropriate in just the same situations as their
equivalents would have been in the L1” [Jordens and Lalleman, 1996:72]* .
This type of theory allows researchers to monitor the verbal behaviour from the
outside. Behaviour is observable – it reflects habits and habits are frequent observable
events that could be measured. As behaviourists view knowledge as something
abstract that cannot be measured, they were not interested in it.

6.3.4. The Interactionist Theories

*
Jordens, P. and J. Lalleman (eds.) (1996) Investigating Second Language Acquisition, Walter de
Gruyter

5
 The Interactionist theories are more powerful than the nativist or envirnmentalist
(behaviourist) theories because they use both innate and environmental factors to
explain language learning.
Social-interactionists see language as a rule-governed cultural activity learned
in interaction with others, while nativists perceive language ability as an innate capacity
to generate syntactically correct sentences. In other words, interactionists believe that
environmental factors are more dominant in language acquisition, while nativists
believe inborn factors are more dominant.
Lev Vygotsky (1896 – 1934), a psychologist and social constructivist, laid the
foundation for the interactionists view of language acquisition. According to him, social
interaction plays an important role in the learning process and proposed the zone of
proximal development (ZPD), where learners construct the new language through
socially mediated interaction.He claims that interaction provides scaffolding – the
means through which one person assists another one who can not perform
independently. External scaffolding includes modeling, coaching, providing feedback,
while internal scaffolding is when learner is engaged in self-monitoring and reflection.
Another Interactionist – Michael H. Long also believes that language acquisition
takes place during human interaction in the target language environment. But he also
stresses the significance of interactional modifications which occur in the negotiating
meaning when communication problems arise. Or said in other words: Long assumes
that speakers in conversations negotiate meaning. In the case of conversations
between learners and others, this negotiation will lead to the provision of either direct
or indirect forms of feedback, including correction, comprehension checks, clarification
requests, topic shifts, repetitions, and recasts. This feedback draws the learner’s
attention to mismatches between the input and the learner’s output.
Although this type of theory examines how negotiation of meaning pushes
learners to produce more comprehensible utterances, it is not very clear whether those
utterances can result in the acquisition of new linguistic features.

6.3.5. OTHER THEORIES

6.3.5.1. The Monitor Model
The first type of model that will be examined is the Monitor Model developed
by Stephen Krashen. This model is one of the most influential and well-known theories
of second language acquisition.
In the late 1970s Krashen developed the Monitor Model, an “overall” theory of
second language acquisition, which had important implications for language teaching.
The five central hypotheses underlying the Monitor Model:
1. The Acquisition versus Learning Hypothesis. There are two ways in which
adults learn a foreign language – acquisition and learning. Acquisition is a
subconscious process, much like first language acquisition, while learning is a
conscious process resulting into "knowing about language" [Krashen, 1982:10]
and involves learning grammar rules. Learning does not "turn into" acquisition
and it usually takes place in formal environments, while acquisition can take
place without learning in informal environments (Krashen, 1976; 1982).

6
 2. The Monitor Hypothesis. Learning has the function of monitoring and editing the
utterances produced through the acquisition process [Krashen, 1982:15]. The
use of the Monitor is affected by the amount of time that the second language
learner has at his disposal to think about the utterance he is about to produce,
the focus on form, and his knowledge of second language rules [Krashen,
1981:3-4].
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis. There is a natural order of acquisition of second
language rules. Some of them are early-acquired and some are late-acquired.
This order does not necessarily depend on simplicity of form while it could be
influenced by classroom instruction (Krashen, 1985). Evidence for the Natural
Order Hypothesis was provided by a series of research studies investigating
morpheme acquisition orders.
4. The Input Hypothesis. According to Krashen, receiving comprehensible input is
the only way that can lead to the acquisition of a second language. If a learner’s
level in a second language is i, he can move to an i+1 level only by being
exposed to comprehensible input containing i+1 (Krashen, 1985).
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis. Comprehensible input will not be fully utilized
by the learners if there is a ‘mental block’, i.e. the ‘affective filter’, which acts as
a barrier to the acquisition process (Krashen, 1985).
Krashen's Monitor Theory is an example of a macro theory attempting to cover
most of the factors involved in second language acquisition: age, personality traits,
classroom instruction, innate mechanisms of language acquisition, environmental
influences, input, etc., but not without limitations. Despite its popularity, the Monitor
Theory was criticized by theorists and researchers because it presents a hypothesis
about how a language is acquired.

6.3.5.2. Interlanguage Theories

The term interlanguage was first used by Larry Selinker (1969) to describe the
linguistic stage second language learners go through during the process of
mastering the target language. Since then, interlanguage has become a major strand
of second language acquisition research and theory. This section outlines the three
main approaches to the description of interlanguage systems.
According to Selinker (1972) interlanguage is a temporary grammar which is
systematic and composed of rules. Some of the learning strategies used by language
learners include:
 Overgeneralization – the learner uses an L2 rule in situations in which a native
speaker wouldn’t.
e.g. The plural form of nouns is formed by the use of –s at the end of countable nouns.
But there are exceptions to the rule and some English nouns have irregular plurals:
woman – women, man – men, child – children, datum – data, symposium – symposia
etc. An English language learner who studies English as a second or foreign language
might form the plural of the nouns in the following way: womans, mans, childs, datums
etc.

7
 Simplification – the learner uses language that is very simple and resembles the
language of very young children. For example: *This shoe mine (This is my
shoe); *James shoe (This is James’s shoe) etc.
Selinker's description of the interlanguage system has a cognitive emphasis and
a focus on the strategies that learners employ when learning a second language.

6.3.5.3. The Multi-dimensional model

The Multi-dimensional model is developed by Clahsen et al. (1983). The model
suggests that, the learner's stage of acquisition of the target language is determined
by two dimensions: the learner’s developmental stage and the learner’s social-
psychological orientation.
The learner’s developmental stage is defined by accuracy orders and
developmental sequences, but within a stage learners may differ because of their
social-psychological orientation, which is independent of the developmental stage.
According to this model those learners who have a more positive attitude to learning
the target language would be more successful in the acquisition of the L2.
This model explains the stages of second language acquisition and the stages
of language development but it does not explain the processes through which learners
learn the language.
6.4. CHILD LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Child language acquisition is a central and important part of the field of second
language acquisition. Child language acquisition refers to “acquisition from individuals
young enough to be within the critical period, but yet with a first language already
learned” [Foster-Cohen, 1999: 7-8]* or “successive acquisition of two languages in
childhood” [McLaughlin, 1978:99]**.
It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learn a second
language than are adults. However, general second language research has failed to
support the Critical Period Hypothesis in its strong form, which argues that full
language acquisition is impossible beyond a certain age.
The Critical Period Hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist
Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in a 1959 paper Speech and Brain
Mechanisms, and was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological
Foundations of Language. Lenneberg proposed brain lateralisation at puberty as the
mechanism that closes down the brain's ability to acquire language, though this has
since been widely disputed. Other notable proponents of the Critical Period Hypothesis
include Noam Chomsky.
The linguist Eric Lenneberg (1964) stated that the crucial period of language
acquisition ends around the age of 4-5 years. He claimed that if no language is learned
before then, it could never be learned in a normal and fully functional sense. This was
called the "critical period hypothesis."

*
Foster-Cohen,S. H. (1999) An Introduction to Child Language Development, Longman
**
McLaughlin, B (1978) Second-language Acquisition in Childhood, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

8
 Although this theory originally referred to L1 acquisition, it has been extended
to L2 acuqisition. It is observed that older learners of a second language rarely achieve
the native-like fluency that younger learners display, despite often progressing faster
than children in the initial stages. David Singleton (1995) states that in learning a
second language, "younger = better in the long run," but points out that there are many
exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second language even
though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood — long after any critical
period has presumably come to a close.
While the window for learning a second language never completely closes,
certain linguistic aspects appear to be more affected by the age of the learner than
others. For example, adult second-language learners nearly always retain an
immediately-identifiable foreign accent, including some who display perfect grammar
(Oyama, 1976). Some writers have suggested a younger critical age for learning
phonology than for syntax. Singleton (1995) reports that there is no critical period for
learning vocabulary in a second language. Robertson (2002) observed that factors
other than age may be even more significant in successful second language learning,
such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills, settings and time
commitment.
On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that
second-language learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but
"on average, there is a continuous decline in ability [to learn] with age."

6.5. CONCLUSION
The theories presented in this lecture provide a brief overview of the diverse
ideas, problems, hypotheses and research approaches in the field of second language
acquisition. This variety of theoretical frameworks shows that language learning is a
complex process that involves constant reorganization of knowledge into new mental
representations that become more sophisticated, abstract and flexible.