Critique Paper for Unit

3: L1 and L2 Acquisitions; Issues and Insights

A. Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a linguistic theory that was originally developed in

1929 by a linguist named Edward Sapir. It was expanded upon by Sapir's student, Benjamin
Whorf, leading to the hypothesis's name. The simplest Sapir-Whorf hypothesis definition is a
theory of language that suggests that the language a person speaks determines or
influences how they think. According to Sapir-Whorf, a person's native language has a major
impact on how they see the world. This theory is highly controversial among linguists, and
many reject it outright. Few linguists today believe that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is
correct in its original form, but some acknowledge that the language a person speaks may
have a minor effect on some aspects of thought. Although the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not
considered strong science, it is still an important part of the history of linguistics.

There are two major forms of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: linguistic

determinism and linguistic relativism. Linguistic determinism is considered the strong version
of the theory and it is generally thought to be incorrect today. Essentially, linguistic
determinism states that language not only influences but determines how a person thinks.
One's native language is, therefore, something of a psychological destiny. According to
linguistic determinism, there are certain ways of thinking and certain concepts that can only
be understood by people who have a word for them in their language.

One common example of linguistic determinism is the idea that the Inuit have a
much more sophisticated understanding of snow than people from other cultures do
because Inuktitut has many different words for snow. This is incorrect for a number of
reasons. First, Inuktitut has many different words to describe snow because it is a
polysynthetic language, meaning that a single word can contain many morphemes and some
sentences can be made up of a single long word. By virtue of its linguistic structure,
Inuktitut sometimes expresses in one word what might take several in English; this does not
indicate a particular understanding of snow, but rather a linguistic quirk found in languages
 around the world.
Second, to whatever
extent Inuit people have a more sophisticated understanding of snow than members of
other cultures, that understanding can be attributed to cultural knowledge and experiences,
not language. In other words, an individual who grew up without a strong connection to
Inuit culture and history, and without living in a place with a lot of snow, but with Inuktitut
as a native language, would have no reason to understand snow better than speakers of
other languages living near them.

While linguistic determinism is not considered a valid theory, linguistic relativity still
has some defenders. Relativism is essentially the less intense version of determinism in this
case. According to linguistic relativism, a person's native language influences, but does not
determine, how they see the world. While linguists are still debating the merits of linguistic
relativism, there is some evidence that it may be true in some cases. One example of
linguistic relativism is the difference between egocentric and geocentric languages. In
egocentric languages, like English, people typically describe scenes and directions in terms
of directions like left and right; directional terms are relative to the speaker's body. In
geocentric languages, people use cardinal directions (north, south, east, and west) to
describe spatial relationships. While studies vary, there is some evidence to suggest that
people who speak geocentric languages are more aware of the cardinal direction that they
are facing at any given time than speakers of egocentric languages are. This suggests that
one's native language can impact thought patterns to some extent.

There are a number of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis examples that have been put forward
over the years. Some linguistic determinism examples, like the myth about words for snow
in Inuktitut, are easily debunked. However, other examples may hold some weight. Some
proponents of linguistic relativism argue that sexist and racist language influence thought
and behavior. Using sexist language may contribute to a culture of disrespect and violence
toward women. When people use more respectful terms for others, the argument goes, they
ultimately become less sexist or racist. Likewise, using gender-neutral terms like ''firefighter''
instead of ''fireman'' may help to change the culture around gendered job expectations.
Detractors of this argument might point out that the cultural shift is what drives the
linguistic shift, and not the other way around.
 B. Input
Hypothesis

The input hypothesis, which applies only to language acquisition and not to language
learning, posits the process that allows second language learners to move through the
predictable sequence of the acquisition of grammatical structures predicted by the natural
order hypothesis. According to the input hypothesis, second language learners require
comprehensible input, represented by i+1, to move from the current level of acquisition,
represented by i, to the next level of acquisition. Comprehensible input is input that contains
a structure that is “a little beyond” the current understanding—with understanding defined
as understanding of meaning rather than understanding of form—of the language learner.

Second language acquisition, therefore, occurs through exposure to comprehensible

input, a hypothesis which further negates the need for explicit instruction learning. The
input hypothesis also presupposes an innate language acquisition device, the part of the
brain responsible for language acquisition, that allows for the exposure to comprehensible
input to result in language acquisition, the same language acquisition device posited by the
acquisition-learning hypothesis. However, as Krashen cautions, like the time, focus, and
knowledge required by the Monitor, comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for
second language acquisition.

Like for the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the first critique of the input hypothesis
surrounds the lack of a clear definition of comprehensible input; Krashen never sufficiently
explains the values of i or i+1. As Gass et al. argue, the vagueness of the term means that
i+1 could equal “one token, two tokens, 777 tokens”; in other words, sufficient
comprehensible input could embody any quantity.

More importantly, the input hypothesis focuses solely on comprehensible input as

necessary, although not sufficient, for second language acquisition to the neglect of any
possible importance of output. The output hypothesis as proposed by Merrill Swain seeks to
rectify the assumed inadequacies of the input hypothesis by positing that language
acquisition and learning may also occur through the production of language. According to
Swain who attempts to hypothesize a loop between input and output, output allows second
 language learners to
identify gaps in their
linguistic knowledge and subsequently attend to relevant input. Therefore, without
minimizing the importance of input, the output hypothesis complements and addresses the
insufficiencies of the input hypothesis by addressing the importance of the production of
language for second language acquisition.

Thus, despite the influence of the Monitor Model in the field of second language
learning and acquisition, the input hypothesis, the fourth hypothesis of the theory, has not
been without criticism as evidenced by the critiques offer.

C. The Language of the Second Language Learner Theory

A critical evaluation of the most prominent pedagogical models that have dealt with
the language of the second language (L2) learner starting from the second half of the 20th
century. The three most influential approaches in the domain are investigated in this study:
contrastive analysis (CA), error analysis (EA), and interlanguage (IL). Each of these models
is tackled in terms of its beginning, psychological background, essential tenets, mechanism,
and its pedagogical value. Prominently, this work is aimed at teasing apart the confusion
that surrounds the fields of acquiring second/foreign language. It also endeavors to clear
out the overlapping of both terminology and concept that cloud these areas. Focus is placed
on IL owing to the dominant share of attention it has received from researchers and applied
linguists who have found many of their questions answered and many information-gaps
filled in with this theory. This review paper is an extract of an in-progress PhD dissertation
on interlanguage pragmatics of Kurdish university EFL learners, which is an applied study
addressing both the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge of the students.

Applied linguists have always been searching for the methods of teaching an L2 that
may enable the learners to communicate with least amount of errors. Relying on trending
schools of psychology that theorize the mechanism of second language acquisition (SLA),
CA, EA, and IL have been proposed. Also, in the frame of these models, researchers (Lado
1957; Corder, 1967, 1981; Stern, 1983; Ellis, 1994, 1997) have attempted to account for L2
errors and explain their causes so as to suggest the appropriate solutions to be applied by
 teaching
methodologists and L2
teachers. CA, pedagogically associated with behaviourism and structuralism, flourished in
Europe and North America during the 1950s and the 1960s. Scholars like Fries, Lado,
Weinreich, and others were the distinctive researchers in the domain. Later in 1967 when
the seminal paper of Corder, The Significance of Learner’s Errors, EA appeared as a new and
more welcome model to replace CA on one hand, and to signal the domination of cognitive
psychology over behaviorism, on the other. With EA, according to this psychological
framework shift, the orientation of pedagogists has switched from teaching to learning
(Corder, 1967). Shifting from the interest of accounting for the L2 learner to the brain-based
system responsible for the errors has lead Selinker to hypothesize IL in a seminal article
entitled Interlanguage in 1972. Psychologically, latent linguistic system of Lennberg (1967),
who believed that language acquisition was an age-confined process, was the trigger of
Selinker’s IL theory besides his notice of the language of the L2 learner for being colored by
forms which are neither of L1 nor of L2. Errors are attributed to different sources related to
the basic processes of L2 learning. A detailed account of IL and the previous models are
provided in the sections to follow.

Interlanguage is a term with applied linguistic color. It is defined by its coiner, Larry
Selinker (1972), who in his article Interlanguage, views this term as “a separate linguistic
system based on the observable output which results from a learner’s attempted production
of a target language (TL) norm”. His definition draws our attention to the oddness of the
second language (L2) learner’s language despite his/her attempt to follow the linguistic rules
of L2. Additionally, labeling this linguistics system as a separate one implies that it is neither
first language (L1)-like linguistic system nor an L2-like one. Relying on Selinker’s definition,
Tarone (1994) swiftly paraphrases the technical term saying that “interlanguage is viewed
as a separate linguistic system, clearly different from both the learner’s native language (NL)
and the TL being learned, but linked to both NL and TL by interlingual identifications in the
perception of the learner”. She adds that this linguistic system covers not only the
phonology, morphology, and syntax, but also the lexical, pragmatic, and discourse levels of
the interlanguage. Takač (2008), on the other hand, restricts this linguistic system to
grammar, which sounds too limited.