4.

Explaining SLA: Main Perspectives /

Theories / Paradigms / Approaches /

1. Behaviorist Perspective / Structural Linguistics

2. Innatist Perspective
3. Cognitive Perspective
4. Constructivist Perspective:
 Cognitive Constructivism
 Social Constructivism: Socio-cultural perspectiv
e / Interactionist/

5/15/2018
1/65
Language – Learning - Teaching

Language
Linguistics

Learning Psychology
Process: Implicit
vs Explicit Neurology

Pedagogy
The learner
Teaching

5/15/2018 2
 Language: Definitions

 Language is:
 Systematic, multilevels: Phonology, morphology,
syntax, discourse.
 Used to convey meanings >>> semantics and pra
gmatics
 Largely universal: Implicit vs explicit rules
 For communication
 Operating in a specific socio-cultural contexts

5/15/2018 3
Language learning / acquisition an
d teaching
 Learning vs acquisition
 Implicit vs explicit learning (Declarative vs Pro
cedural knowledge)
 “Teaching cannot be defined apart from learni
ng. Teaching is guiding and facilitating learnin
g, enabling the learner to learn, seeting the c
onditions for learning” D Brown p.7.

5/15/2018 4
Schools of Thought in SLA

 Behaviorism / Structuralism
 Cognitive Psychology
 Constructivism

5/15/2018 5
 School of Thought in SLA

5/15/2018 6
I) The Behaviorist Perspective

 Four characteristics of behaviorism:

1) imitation, 2) practice, 3) reinforcement, and
4) habit formation
 Brooks (1960) & Lado (1964):
- emphasizing mimicry and memorization
(audiolingual teaching methods)

5/15/2018
7/43
Behaviorist Perspective / CAH

 A person learning an L2 starts off with the habits form

ed in the L1 and these habits would interfere with the
new ones needed for the L2.
 Behaviorism was often linked to the Contrastive Ana
lysis Hypothesis (CAH):
It predicts that where there are similarities between th
e L1 and the target language, the learner will acquire
target-language structures with ease; where there are
differences, the learner will have difficulty.
5/15/2018
8/43
 Behaviorism / CAH

 Criticisms about the CAH:

Though a learner’s L1 influences the acquisition of an L2,
researchers have found that L2 learners do not make all t
he errors predicted by the CAH.
1. Many of their errors are not predictable on the basis of th
eir L1 (e.g. ‘putted’; ‘cooker’ meaning a person who cook
s; ‘badder than’)
2. Some errors are similar across learners from a variety of
L1 backgrounds (e.g. he/she; “th” sound; the use of the p
ast tense; the relative clauses)

5/15/2018
9/43
Behaviorism / Summary

 The L1 influence may not simply be a matter of the transfer

of habits, but a more subtle and complex process of
- identifying points of similarity,
- weighing the evidence in support of some particular f
eature, and
- reflecting (though not necessarily consciously) about
whether a certain feature seems to ‘belong’ in the L2.
 By the 1970s, many researchers were convinced that behav
iorism and the CAH were inadequate explanations for SLA.

5/15/2018
10/43
II) The Innatist Perspective

 Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG) in

relation to second language developme
nt

 Competence vs. Performance

 Krashen’s “monitor model”

5/15/2018
11/43
Innatism:
Universal Grammar
 UG and SLA
1. Chomsky has not made specific claims about the implications
of his theory for second language learning.
2. Linguists working within the innatist theory have argued that U
G offers the best perspective to understand SLA. UG can expl
ain why L2 learners eventually know more about the language
than they could reasonably have learned (i.e. UG can explain
L2 learners’ creativity and generalization ability).
3. Other linguists argue that UG is not a good explanation for SL
A, especially by learners who have passed the critical period (i
.e. CPH does not work in SLA).
(* Note: See Chapter 3: Age of acquisition and CPH)
5/15/2018
12/43
Innatism:
Universal Grammar
 How UG works in SLA:
Two different views -
1. The nature and availability of UG are the same in L1 a
nd L2 acquisition.
Adult L2 learners, like children, neither need nor benefi
t from error correction and metalinguistic information.
These things change only the superficial appearance o
f language performance and do not affect the underlyi
ng competence of the new language (e.g., Krashen’s “
monitor model”).
5/15/2018
13/43
Innatism:
Universal Grammar

 How UG works in SLA:

Two different views -
2. UG may be present and available to L2 learners, but its
exact nature has been altered by the prior acquisition of
the first language.
L2 learners need to be given some explicit information a
bout what is not grammatical in the L2. Otherwise, they
may assume that some structures of the L1 have equivale
nts in the L2 when, in fact, they do not.

5/15/2018
14/43
Innatism:
Competence vs. Performance
 Competence:
It refers to the knowledge which underlies our ability t
o use language.
 Performance:
It refers to the way a person actually uses language i
n listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Performan
ce is subject to variations due to inattention, anxiety,
or fatigue whereas competence (at least for the matur
e native speaker) is more stable.
5/15/2018
15/43
Innatism:
Competence vs. Performance
 SLA researchers from the UG perspective (innatism)
are more interested in the language competence (i.e.,
knowledge of complex syntax) of advanced learners r
ather than in the simple language of early stage learn
ers.
 Their investigations often involve comparing the judg
ments of grammaticality made by L2 and L1 learners,
rather than observations of actual language performa
nce (i.e., use of language).

5/15/2018
16/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model” (1982)

 The acquisition-learning hypothesis

 The monitor hypothesis

 The natural order hypothesis

 The input hypothesis

 The affective filter hypothesis

5/15/2018
17/43
 History
Stephen Krashen and Tracy T
errell developed the "Natural A
pproach" in the early eighties
(Krashen and Terrell, 1983), b
ased on Krashens’ five theorie
s on second language acquisit
ion.
“Language acquisition does n
ot require extensive use of
conscious grammatical rule
s, and does not require tedi
ous drill."
5/15/2018
"Acquisition requires meaning
ful interaction in the target lan
guage - natural communicatio
n - in which speakers are con
cerned not with the form of th
eir utterances but with the me
ssages they are conveying an
d understanding."
18
 The Natural Approach
Combines

L2 Acquisition
Theory Curriculum
During

Learning
Process
Focused on

Spoken
Production
5/15/2018 19
 Theoretical base
“Reflecting the cognitive psychology and humanistic appro
ach prominent in the field of education at that time, Krashe
ns’ five theories on second language acquisition
shifted the culture of the language classroom 180 degrees
and brought a sense of community to the students by their
sharing of the experience of learning the same language to
gether.”
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001)

5/15/2018 20
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
 The acquisition-learning hypothesis
 Acquisition: we acquire L2 knowledge as we are exposed to
samples of the L2 which we understand with no conscious at
tention to language form. It is a subconscious and intuitive pr
ocess.
 Learning: we learn the L2 via a conscious process of study a
nd attention to form and rule learning.
 Krashen argues that “acquisition” is a more important proces
s of constructing the system of a language than “learning” be
cause fluency in L2 performance is due to what we have acq
uired, not what we have learned.
5/15/2018
21/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
 The monitor hypothesis
 The acquired system acts to initiate the speaker’s utteranc
es and is responsible for spontaneous language use, where
as the learned system acts as a “monitor”, making minor c
hanges and polishing what the acquired system has produce
d.
 Such monitoring takes place only when the speaker/writer h
as plenty of time, is concerned about producing correct lang
uage, and has learned the relevant rules.

5/15/2018
22/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
 The natural order hypothesis
 L2 learners acquire the features of the TL in predictabl
e sequences.
 The language features that are easiest to state (and th
us to ‘learn’) are not necessarily the first to be acquired
.
e.g. the rule for adding an –s to third person
singular verbs in the present tense

5/15/2018
23/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
 The input hypothesis
 Acquisition occurs when one is exposed to language th
at is comprehensible and that contains “i +1”.
 If the input contains forms and structures just beyond t
he learner’s current level of competence in the languag
e (“i +1”), then both comprehension and acquisition will
occur.

5/15/2018
24/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
 The affective filter hypothesis
 “Affect” refers to feelings, motives, needs, attitudes, an
d emotional states.
 The “affective filter” is an imaginary/metaphorical barrie
r that prevents learners from acquiring language from t
he available input.
 Depending on the learner’s state of mind, the filter limit
s what is noticed and what is acquired. A learner who is
tense, anxious, or bored may “filter out” input, making it
unavailable for acquisition.

5/15/2018
25/43
Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
 Summary
 Krashen’s “monitor model” (i.e., acquisition vs. learning,
monitor, natural order, comprehensible input, and affecti
ve filter) has been very influential in supporting communi
cative language teaching (CLT), which focuses on using
language for meaningful interaction and for accomplishi
ng tasks, rather than on learning rules.
 Krashen’s hypotheses are intuitively appealing, but thos
e hypotheses are hard to be tested by empirical evidenc
e.
5/15/2018
26/43
Criticisms of Krashen’s Five Hypotheses

5/15/2018 27
Criticisms of Krashen’s
Five Hypotheses

5/15/2018
28/47
1. Input Hypothesis

 McLaughlin claims that the concept of a learn

er’s “level” is extremely difficult to define, just
as the idea of i+1
 How can we know which language data conta
ins i+1 rather than i+3
 It is difficult to determine the learners' current
levels due to individual differences

5/15/2018
29/43
1. Input Hypothesis

 no clear evidence shows that increased input

will result in more language acquisition, and t
hat increased output will not
 if comprehensible input is necessary, then so
is comprehensible output

5/15/2018
30/43
 2. Affective Filter Hypothesis

 First, Krashen claims that children lack the affe

ctive filter that causes most adult second langua
ge learners to never completely master their seco
nd language.
 Such a claim fails to withstand scrutiny because
children also experience differences in non-lingu
istic variables such as motivation, self-confiden
ce, and anxiety that supposedly account for chil
d-adult differences in second language learning.

5/15/2018
31/43
 2. Affective Filter Hypothesis

 Furthermore, evidence in the form of adult

second language learners who acquire a sec
ond language to a native-like competence e
xcept for a single grammatical feature
 problematizes the claim that an affective
filter prevents comprehensible input from
reaching the language acquisition device.

5/15/2018
32/43
 2. Affective Filter Hypothesis

 Again, if the absence of the filter can make

children such effective learners, how to expl
ain the achievement of some adults who attain
native-like proficiency — what happens in th
eir case is left unexplained.
 In other words, the affective filter hypothes
is fails to answer the most important questio
n about affect alone accounting for individua
l variation in second language acquisition.

5/15/2018
33/43
 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesi
s

 It is difficult to accept the idea of a fully oper

ational Language Acquisition Device (LAD) i
n adults, since adults are well past the age o
f puberty.
McLaughin (1978, 1987) and Gregg (1984)

5/15/2018
34/43
 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesi
s

 Acknowledge the limited accessibility of LAD

in adults but not in children.
 LAD declines as you age.
 The older you get, the limited access you ha
ve towards LAD.
Chomsky (1975)

5/15/2018
35/43
 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesi
s

 Feels the needs of an accurate definition for

the vague terminology of that Krashen used
i.e. acquisition/learning, conscious/subconsc
ious etc.
 However, Krashen does not seem to be anxi
ous by the critics (Zafar, 2009).
McLaughin (1978, 1987)

5/15/2018
36/43
 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesi
s

 Difficult to perceive how acquisition and lear

ning ‘housed’ in two separate linguistics syst
ems, could be put into use by L2 learners.
Gass and Selinker (1994)

5/15/2018
37/43
 3. Acquisition-Learning Hypothesi
s

 Acquisition could be better understood when de

scribed as a process enriched by the learned sy
stem.
 Instead of drawing a borderline separating acqui
sition and learning into two discrete disciplines, t
he cross-currents at both are constantly at work
in SLA are to be acknowledged and explained.
Zafar (2009)

5/15/2018
38/43
4. Monitor Hypothesis

To activate the Monitor System, three conditions must be

fulfilled – time, focus on form and knowledge of the rules.

The implementation of the hypothesis in real-life situation is

difficult.

This hypothesis could be applied in case of ‘simple’ rules

only, but as for ‘difficult’ rules – this hypothesis is not useful.

Zafar (2009)
5/15/2018
39/43
4. Monitor Hypothesis

It is often difficult to use the monitor correctly since the

rules of a language can be extremely complex.

Most normal conversation simply does not provide enough

time to activate the Monitor System. As a result, learners
might prevent themselves from speaking due to the fear of
making mistake in their utterances.

Zafar (2009)
5/15/2018
40/43
 4. Monitor Hypothesis

 Krashen assumes that young learners are bet

ter language learners than adolescents beca
use they are less affected by linguistic monito
rs.
 But McLaughlin stated that children and adol
escents are equally capable of L2 acquisition.
McLaughlin (1992)

5/15/2018
41/43
 4. Monitor Hypothesis

McLaughlin (1987)
“People have rules for language use in their head
s, but these rules are not those of the grammaria
n. People operate on the basis of informal rules of
limited scope and validity. These rules are someti
mes conscious and sometimes not, but in any giv
en utterance it is impossible to determine what the
knowledge source is.”
5/15/2018
42/43
5. Natural Order Hypothesis

 Krashen claimed for a natural order is based

mainly on English morphemes order studies
which has been demonstrated unsatisfactory.
(Gass and Selinker, 1994; McLaughlin, 1987).

5/15/2018
43/43
5. Natural Order Hypothesis

 The natural order hypothesis fails to account f

or the considerable influence of the first langu
age on the acquisition of a second language.
 In fact, the results of other studies indicate th
at second language learners acquire a secon
d language in different orders depending on t
heir native language.
(Wode 1977, Zobl, 1980, 1982).

5/15/2018
44/43
III. Cognitive Perspective
 Since 1990s, Cognitive psychologists working in this model h
ave contributed to further understanding of SL development:
 compare language acquisition to the capacities of computers for st
oring, integrating, and retrieving information.
 do not think that humans have a language-specific module (i.e. LA
D) in the brain.
 do not assume that ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are distinct mental p
rocesses.
 see L2 acquisition as the building up of knowledge that can eventu
ally be called on automatically for speaking and understanding (i.e.
, general theories of learning can account for SLA).

5/15/2018
45/43
 3.1. Information processing models:

1. Attention-processing

2. Skill learning

3. Restructuring

4. Transfer appropriate processing (TAP)

5/15/2018
46/43
Information processing

1. Attention-processing: McLaughlin’s Model

 This model suggests that learners have to pay attention at first
to any aspect of the language that they are trying to understan
d or produce.
 It also suggests there is a limit to how much information a lear
ner can pay attention to or engage in at one time.
 Gradually, through experience and practice, information that w
as new becomes easier to process, and learners become able
to access it quickly and even automatically.
 This can explain why L2 readers need more time to understand
a text, even if they eventually do fully comprehend it.
5/15/2018
47/43
 Information processing

2. Skill Learning: Implicit vs explicit learning

 Some researchers (Robert DeKeyser et al 1998, 2007) regard SL
A as ‘skill learning’. They suggest that most learning, including lan
guage learning, starts with declarative knowledge (knowledge tha
t).
 Through practice, declarative knowledge may become procedural
knowledge (knowledge how).
 Once skills become procedualized and automatized, thinking abou
t the declarative knowledge while trying to perform the skill disrupt
s the smooth performance of it.
 In SLA, the path from declarative to procedural knowledge is often
like classroom learning where rule learning is followed by practice.
5/15/2018
48/43
Information processing
3. Restructuring:
 Sometimes changes in language behavior do not seem to b
e explainable in terms of a gradual build-up of fluency throug
h practice.
 Restructuring may account for what appear to be sudden bu
rsts of progress and apparent backsliding.
 It may result from the interaction of knowledge we already h
ave and the acquisition of new knowledge (without extensive
practice).
e.g. “I saw” → “I seed” or “I sawed” –
overapplying the general rule.

5/15/2018
49/43
Information processing
4. Transfer appropriate processing:
 This hypothesizes that Information is best retrieved in situatio
ns that are similar to those in which it was acquired. This is be
cause when we learn something our memories also record so
mething about the context and the way in which it was learne
d.
 This can explain why knowledge that is acquired mainly in rul
e learning or drill activities may be easier to access on tests th
at resemble the learning activities than in communicative situa
tion.
 On the other hand, if learners’ cognitive resources are occupi
ed with a focus on meaning in communicative activities, they
may find grammar tests very difficult.
5/15/2018
50/43
3.2. Usage based learning: Connect
ionist views
 Cognitive psychologists see no need to hypot
hesize the existence of a neurological module
dedicated exclusively to language acquisition
but simply the ability to learn in general rather
than any specific linguistic principles or rules.
 Learners develop a stronger network of conn
ections or associations between language fea
tures and the contexts in which they occur thr
ough practice and observations.
5/15/2018
51/43
 3.3. The Competition Model
 The competition model is closely related to the connectionist perspecti
ve. It is based on the hypothesis that language acquisition occurs with
out the necessity of a learner's focused attention or the need for any in
nate capacity specifically for language.
 This model takes into account not only language form but also langua
ge meaning and language use.
 Through exposure to thousands of examples of language associated
with particular meanings, learners come to understand how to use the
‘cues’ with which a language signals specific function.
 Most languages make use of multiple cues, but they differ in the prima
cy of each. Therefore, SLA requires that learners learn the relative imp
ortance of the different cues appropriate in the language they are lear
ning.
5/15/2018
52/43
3.4. Brain - Based Learning

 Different or same brain areas responsible for f

irst and second language learning, how input
is processed at each stage of maturity ?
 Still new area of research.

5/15/2018
53/43
SLA classroom applications

 The interaction hypothesis

 The noticing hypothesis

 Input processing

 Processability theory

 The role of practice

5/15/2018
54/43
The Interaction Hypothesis

 Long’s original formulation (1983) of the Interaction

Hypothesis:
1. Interactional modification makes input comprehe
nsible;
2. Comprehensible input promotes acquisition;
Therefore,
3. Interactional modification promotes acquisition.

5/15/2018
55/43
 The Interaction Hypothesis

 Modified interaction involves linguistic simplifications a

nd conversational modifications.
 Examples of conversational modifications:
elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture, additional c
ontextual cues, comprehension checks, clarification r
equests, and self-repetition or paraphrase.

 Research has demonstrated that conversational adjust

ments can aid comprehension in the L2.

5/15/2018
56/43
 The Interaction Hypothesis

 Long’s revised version (1996) of the Interaction Hypothe

sis:
- more emphasis is placed on the importance of
corrective feedback during interaction.
- “negotiating for meaning” is seen as the opportunity for
language development.

 “Comprehensible output hypothesis” (Swain, 1985)

The demands of producing comprehensible output “pus
h” learners ahead in their development.

5/15/2018
57/43
 The Noticing Hypothesis

 Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 2001)

- Nothing is learned unless it has been noticed.
- Noticing does not itself result in acquisition, but it is the
essential starting point.
- L2 learners could not begin to acquire a language
feature until they had become aware of it in the input.
 Whether learners must be aware that they are “noticing”
something in the input in order to acquire linguistic featu
re is considered debatable.
5/15/2018
58/43
 Input Processing

 Input processing (VanPatten, 2004)

- Learners have limited processing capacity and cannot
pay attention to form and meaning at the same time.
- They tend to give priority to meaning. When the
context in which they hear a sentence helps them
make sense of it, they do not notice details of the
language form.

5/15/2018
59/43
 Processability Theory

 Processability theory (Pienemann, 1999, 2003)

- The research showed that the sequence of development
for features of syntax and morphology was affected by
how easy these were to process.
- It integrates developmental sequences with L1 influence.
- Learners do not simply transfer features from their L1
at early stages of acquisition.
- They have to develop a certain level of processing
capacity in the L2 before they can use their knowledge
of the features that already exist in their L1.
5/15/2018
60/43
The Role of Practice (revisited !)

 Practice should be:

 Interactive;
 Meaningful;
 There should be a focus on task-essential for
ms

5/15/2018 61
IV. Constructivism: The Socio-cultural per
spective

 Two branches of Constructivism: Cognitive Constructivism and Social C

ultural Constructivism;
 Unlike other psychological theories that view thinking and speaking (lan
guage and thought) as independent processes, Sociocultural theory vie
ws speaking and thinking as tightly connected.
 SLA takes place through conversational interaction (learning by talking).
 Long (1983) argued that modified interaction is the necessary mechanis
m for making language comprehensible.
 What learners need is not necessarily simplification of the linguistic form
s but rather an opportunity to interact with other speakers, working toget
her to reach mutual comprehension.
 Research shows that native speakers consistently modify their speech i
n sustained conversation with non-native speakers.
5/15/2018
62/43
Social Cognitivism

 Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory

 Language development takes place in the social interaction
s between individuals.
 Speaking (and writing) mediate thinking.
 Zone of proximal development (ZPD): when there is suppor
t from interaction with an interlocutor, the learner is capable
of performing at a higher level.
 L2 learners advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge
when they collaborate and interact with speakers of the L2
who are more knowledgeable than they are.

5/15/2018
63/43
The Sociocultural Perspective
 The difference between Vygotsky’s sociocultural theo
ry and the interaction hypothesis:
Vygotsky
- Language acquisition takes
place in the interactions of
learner and interlocutor.
- Greater importance is
attached to the
conversations, with learning
occurring through the social
interaction.
5/15/2018
Interaction hypothesis
- Interaction needs to be
modified and through
negotiation for meaning.
- Emphasis is on the
individual cognitive
processes in the mind of
the learner.
64/43
 Summary

 There is no agreement on a “complete” theory of s

econd language acquisition yet.
 Each theoretical framework has a different focus a
nd its limitations.
1. Behaviorism: emphasizing stimuli and responses, but ig
noring the mental processes that are involved in learnin
g.
2. Innatism: innate LAD, based on intuitions
3. Information processing and connectionism: involving c
ontrolled laboratory experiments where human learning
is similar to computer processing.
4. Interactionist position: modification of interaction promot
es language acquisition and development.
5/15/2018
65/43
References
Breen,M. & Candlin, C.N. (1980). The Essentials of a communicative curriculum in teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(2):
89-112.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching, (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs: NJ, USA.
Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (2003). The Handbook of second language acquisition.
John & Sons: NJ, USA.
Gregg, K. (1984), 'Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor', Applied Linguistics, 5 (2), 79-100
Krashen, S., (1982). Principle and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S., (1985).The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow Longman
Krashen, S., (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London, Longman.
Krashen, S., (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.  Prentice-Hall International.
Krashen, S., (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.  Prentice-Hall International.
Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (1998). How Languages are Learned. New York: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: NY, USA.
Mitchell,R. & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. Oxford: NY, USA.
Richards,J.C. & Rodgers,T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching, (2nded.). Cambridge: NY, USA.
Saville-Troike,M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge:NY, USA.

Web Links:
http://2.education.ualberta.ca
Cook, V. website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm
http://languageimpact.com/articles/rw/krashenbk.htm
http://sk.com.br/sk-krash.html
http://www.standford.edu/~kenro/LAU/ICLangLit/NaturalApproach.htm
http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/L12_Krashen_Review.htm

5/15/2018
66