Instructed Second Language Acquisition

Introduction

Most SLA research makes a basic distinction between uninstructed (naturalistic,

spontaneous, unguided, untutored, informal) second language acquisition (SLA) and
instructed (or guided, tutored, formal) second language acquisition, according to whether the
second language (L2) is learned through spontaneous communication in authentic social
situations or under pedagogical guidance. Meanwhile, the role and effects of instruction in
SLA have always been controversial: Does instruction really enable SLA, or at least facilitate
it? Language teachers have (perhaps obviously) always believed that instruction enables, or at
least facilitates language acquisition, but SLA researchers have some- times been less certain.

1. Does instruction make a difference?

Since the 1970s, scholars have debated to what extent instruction makes a difference in
acquisition of the formal properties of language. By formal properties we mean morphological
and syntactic aspects of language such as verb forms, word order, rules on question formation,
nominal inflections, and the like). Research in this domain is not concerned with, say,
vocabulary acquisition, the acquisition of reading skills, and other aspects of language use and
skill. There are four possible positions: (1) instruction makes no difference; (2) instruction is
constrained; (3) instruction is beneficial; and (4) instruction is necessary.
1.1 Instruction makes no difference
In the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis of the Monitor Theory, Krashen (1982, and
elsewhere) distinguished between conscious learning and unconscious acquisition of an L2
and argues that these two processes are autonomous and unrelated. Of the two, he argues that
acquisition is the more important one, the process responsible ultimately for language use.
According to Krashen (1982), formal instruction has a very limited role in SLA since the
learned knowledge that is the result of instruction does not help learners in the acquisition of
the target language. Krashen claims that formal instruction contributes to the learning of
explicit knowledge and is unrelated to acquisition. In addition, he views the learned system as
having a fragile and peripheral role in acquisition as learned knowledge cannot turn into or
influence the unconscious acquisition of an L2. According to Krashen, there is no interface
between these two systems. Evidence for instruction making no difference emerges from
studies conducted to investigate the effects of formal instruction on the route of acquisition
and accuracy. By “route” we mean acquisition orders and developmental sequences. The

former refers to the order in which particular morphemes such as plural -s, past tense -ed,

and third-person -s are acquired over time. Developmental sequences refer to the stages that
learners traverse in acquiring one particular feature of language. According to the “makes-no-
difference” position, instruction is unable to alter acquisitional sequences; learners cannot
acquire linguistic features out of order nor can they skip developmental sequences. Because
acquisition orders and developmental sequences appear to be immutable, instruction is seen to
have no role in the acquisition of formal features of language. Other researchers (e.g., Cook,

1991) have also argued that instruction is not necessary as learners have access to Universal

Grammar principles and therefore do not need instruction. Acquisition of an L2 occurs

through the interaction between these universal principles and input. Thus, learners reset

parameters not because they are taught, but because the available evidence in the input leads
them to do so.
1.2 Instruction is constrained
Pienemann (1998) has also advanced a series of hypotheses concerning the effects of
instruction on SLA. He has argued that instruction will not enable learners to acquire any

developmental features out of sequence because processability constrains. In addition,

instruction will enable learners to acquire particular features provided that the processing
operations required to produce those features that precede it in the acquisitional sequence
have already been acquired. For example, here is the developmental sequence for ESL
question formation.
􀁺 Stage 1 = SVO (He live here?)
􀁺 Stage 2 = wh- + SVO (Where he is?)
􀁺 Stage 3 = Copula inversion (Where is he?)
􀁺 Stage 4 = AUX (Where has he been?)
(SVO = subject-verb-object; AUX = Auxiliary)
According to Pienemann, each stage implies certain output processing procedures that
the learner has acquired. However, the stages are hierarchical in order and cannot be skipped.
Learners follow a very rigid route in the acquisition of grammatical structures. Structures
become learnable only when the previous steps on the acquisitional path have been acquired.
Thus, a learner at stage 2 cannot be taught to make the output processing procedures for stage
4, for example. However, in Pienemann’s view, instruction can promote language acquisition
in that if the learner is at stage 2 and has successfully acquired the ability to produce the
structure at that stage, the learner can be taught to produce the structure in stage 3. Therefore,
according to Pienemann, instruction can facilitate the SLA process if it coincides with the
point at which the learner is ready to acquire the next stage. As such, instruction can improve
the speed of acquisition. What is more, Pienemann also claims that instruction can affect the
frequency of rule application and the different contexts in which the rule has to be applied.
That is, learners may not be able to skip stages because of acquisition, but instruction at the
right time may help learners better apply rules in their output. Because instruction cannot alter
developmental sequences in any real way but it can help learners in the application of
particular rules when they are ready to use them, Pienemann would claim that instruction is
not completely
useless; instead, instruction is constrained.
1.3 Instruction is beneficial
In direct challenge to Krashen’s position, Long (1983) questioned the relative effects of
instruction in SLA. Long reviewed a series of studies in which classroom only, naturalistic
exposure only, and classroom plus naturalistic exposure were compared. He concluded that
when these studies are taken in the aggregate, instruction is beneficial for adults (intermediate
and advanced stages) as well as for children. Instruction and a combination of instruction and
naturalistic exposure were more beneficial than naturalistic exposure alone, as instruction
seems to have an effect on the rate and success of SLA. Another scholar that provides a series
of arguments in favor of instruction is Richard Schmidt. In Schmidt (1990), for example, he
has suggested that conscious attention to form is an important condition for acquisition to take
place. According to Schmidt, it is increasingly evident that instruction might have a
facilitative role by enabling learners to notice linguistic features in the input. In his well-

known noticing hypothesis, Schmidt has argued that in order to acquire a language it is

necessary for learners to pay conscious attention to forms/structures of the targeted language.
It is necessary for learners to notice forms in the input otherwise learners might just process
input for meaning and fail to process and to acquire specific linguistic features. Many features
and characteristics of the target language might influence and determine whether learners are
able to notice a form in the input (e.g., frequency; perceptual saliency, and communicative
value of a given form/structure). From this position it would follow that instruction would be
beneficial as it would direct learners’ attention to linguistic features. What needs to be clear
from these positions and variations on them is that all scholars agree that the route of
acquisition cannot be altered. That is, instruction cannot alter acquisition orders or
developmental sequences. Instead, those who argue that instruction is beneficial are basically
arguing that instruction can either speed up the processes used by learners as they traverse
acquisitional routes, and/or instruction will help learners get further along.
1.4 Instruction is necessary
A final position on the role of instruction is that it is necessary for the acquisition of formal
features of language. The idea here is that learners’ linguistic systems will fossilize without
instruction. That is, their linguistic systems will cease to develop and exhibit a variety of non-
native-like features without explicit help. This position was somewhat popular in the 1980s,
especially among foreign language educators in the United States (e.g., Higgs & Clifford,
1982), but has since fallen to the wayside in mainstream SLA research. First, nonnativeness is
a widely accepted phenomenon; learners just don’t seem to become native-like in a variety of
domains. Second, the concept of instruction being necessary is not operationalizable in L2
research. How would someone prove that instruction is necessary, especially given that most
L2 learners are not native-like anyway? One would have to find learners who were native-like
and only became like that because of instruction. Because of all the other intervening
variables (e.g., immersion, input and interaction, personality traits), it would be impossible to
demonstrate the actual effects of instruction. In short, the idea that instruction is necessary or
learners can’t learn without it is untenable. It is not clear whether these more acquisition
driven approaches to instructional intervention actually affect SLA in any significant way, but
it is clear that the field has shifted from the more global “Does instruction make a
difference?” to more specific “Does manipulating input make a difference?”.