Hi!everybody here are some theories that give a clear idea about how a second language be acquired.
Second Langauge Acquisition Theories
The systematic study of how people acquire a second language is a quite recent observable fact which belongs to the second half of the twentieth century. It was natural to appear due to the appearance of the “global village” and the expanded interaction between people further than their local speech communities. Second Language (L2) acquisition can be defined as the way the people can learn a language other than their mother tongue inside or outside the classroom, and so ‘Second Language Acquisition’ (SLA) is the study of this (Ellis, R, 1994:3). In the 1950s and early 1960s, theorize about SLA was still very much an attachment to the practical business of language teaching. However, the idea that language teaching methods had to be justified in terms of an underlying theory was well-established, since the pedagogic reform movement of the late 19th century at last (Mitchell & Mylles, 2004)
All theories focused on how a second language can be acquired and if it is similar to the same system of the first language or they are different. Studying ‘TESOL and the learner’ course gives answers to the questions which concern with the nature of the second language acquisition and how it can be acquired. The learner and his interests, styles, motivation also tried to be given a great deal of importance. In this paper, there will be a brief argument to some of the theories which tried clearly to clarify the process of (SLA). There will be some reflection on my context in order to reveal how it really works and how we can get benefit when we act upon theoretical background rather than being acting according to traditional beliefs which are away from being tested or justified.
Behaviourism
Behaviourism was the prevailing psychological theory of the 1950s and 1960s. It was developed according to a lot of experiments on animals when it was noticed that birds can perform different tasks by encouraging habit forming. The behaviourist B. F. Skinner anticipated that this theory explain language acquisition in humans and he clarified saying; “Recent work has shown that the method can be extended to human behaviour without serious modifications” (Skinner, 1957 cited in Ellis, 1994). According to this theory, language learning is like any other kind of learning as it involves habit formation. Those habits are formed when learners respond to stimulus in the environment and consequently they have their responses reinforcement so these responses are remembered. Learning takes place when learners had the opportunity to practise making the correct response to a given stimulus. Learners imitate models of correct language and receive positive reinforcement if they were correct and negative reinforcement if they are incorrect (Ellis, R, 1997:31). Behaviourism is criticised because learning can not only happened through imitation as any language is based on a set of structures and roles. Ellis argues that behaviourists emphasized only on what can be observed and neglected what goes on the learner’s mind. Piaget criticised and argued that inner forces drive the child in interaction with the environment (Piaget, J. 1970 cited in Mitchell and Myles, 1998). Acquiring second language through imitation and habit formation aroused the dissatisfaction of Chomsky who believed in the internal capabilities in (SLA), and so it leads to the appearance of the Universal Grammar approach.
Universal Grammar (UG)
Chomsky defines Universal grammar as” The system of principles, conditions and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages; the essence of human language” (Chomsky, 1976). He claimed that children create and produce sentences due to internalising rules of language not just imitating adult utterances. He argued that children have an innate faculty that guides them in their learning of language (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Chomsky believed that there are basic rules in common among all humans. He held that there was a universal grammar existed into the brain of all humans and so children produce their language according to the universal grammar as a support structure (Chomsky, 2000: 5). The Universal Grammar model claims that a lot of principles, which are the common features of all languages, and parameters, which are the differences, are built into the human mind and they control the shape human language can take (Chomsky, 1986a). Children do not need to learn structure dependency because their minds automatically entail it on any language they meet (Cook, V. 2001:182). The UG model reminds us that learners have minds and that the form that language takes in the human mind is crucial. It was generally acknowledged that learners possessed some kind of built-in syllabus for learning the grammar of a language (Corder, 1967). Chomsky argued that a theory of language must reflect how much each particular language can be derived from a uniform initiate state under the ‘boundary conditions’ set by experience (Chomsky, 2000: 7)
Krashan Monitor Theory
The Monitor theory began as an account of some aspects of language processing in the1970s and became an all-embracing theory in the early 1980s. This theory consists of five hypotheses:
1- Learning against Acquiring
The first hypothesis distinguishes between acquisition and learning. Acquisition is the product of a sub- conscious process which needs interaction and communication in the target language and not to concentrate on the form but on the meaning and communication. Learning is produced consciously which depend on the knowledge about the language such as the grammar rules (Krashen, 1985). Krashen considers learning is less an important than acquisition. Krashen is criticised for his vague definition of what constitute conscious versus sub-conscious process as they are very difficult to be tested (Mitchell and Myles 1998: 112). Krashen demonstrates that learning can not turn into acquisition as the knowledge that are gained by those two different routes can not be integrated into a unified whole (Krashen and Scarcella, 1978: 45).
The Monitor Hypothesis
The second hypothesis, ‘the monitor hypothesis’, claims that learning is only usable as a way of checking things we have acquired. According to Krashen acquisition makes the learners initiates utterances while the learning can be the monitor and the editor. He emphasized that the more you use the monitor the less you will be fluent and vice versa. McLaughlin argues that the monitor is thought to modify the output of the acquired system before or after the utterance, is actually written or spoken, but the acquired system initiates the utterance (McLaughlin, 1987: 24). This monitor is criticised because real life conversation in the second language acquisition gives no way to the monitor to work or take place (Ellis, 1982: 70)
The natural Order Hypothesis
The natural order hypothesis suggests that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a natural order which cab be predicted. Krashen explained that when implicating this natural order it does not demand a syllabus to be based on this order. On the contrary, when language acquisition stands as an object, the grammatical sequence is rejected (Krashen, 1982).
The Input Hypothesis
The input hypothesis deals with acquisition not learning. It claims that humans acquire by understanding messages or by receiving “comprehensible input” (Krashen, 1981b). The learner progress when he receives second language input that is to be one step beyond his/here current stage of competence. Krashen ensures that each individual learner should receive ‘i+1’ input that is appropriate for his current stage of linguistic competence (Krashen, 1985:2). It is argued that input at the right level of difficulty was all that necessary for second language acquisition to take place (Krashen, 1982).
THe Affective Filter Hypothesis
The Affective filter hypothesis puts together several of the individual variables as a mental block or filter that can get in the way of acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that “learners with high motivation, self confidence and low anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition” (Krashen, 1985). On the contrary, those learners with low motivation, low self confidence and low self esteem, and high level of anxiety can raise the affective filter which can be a mental block which inhibits the comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. Swain states that Krashen was unusual in not seeing any central role for language production in his theory (Swain, 1985).It is assumed that acquiring language can be achieved when attempting to transmit a message but fail and have to try again until we reach the correct form of our utterances (Swain and Lapkin, 1982)
Interactionists Theory
In contrast to the work of Chomsky, recent theorists indicated the importance of the language input that children receive from their parents or care-givers. Accordingly, communication is the purpose of the existence of language as it can be learned through interaction with others. Interactionists like Jerome Burner suggests that the language behaviour of adults when dealing with children is to support the process of acquisition and what is described as scaffolding for the child’s language learning (Burner,1957 cited in Mitchell and Myles 2004). When the interaction between children and their parents is studied, it is found that conversation is developed through games and verbal communication along time before the utterance of actual words. Long first advanced the argument that in order to understand more fully the nature and usefulness of input for SLL, great attention should be paid to the interaction in which learners were engaged (Long, 1981).“Interaction should become increasingly well-targeted to the particular development needs of the individual learner.” (Long and Porter,1985).
Learning Strategies
Studying learning strategies has been an explosion of activity in recent years (Skehan, 1990: 285). A language learning strategy is an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language. “A strategy consists of mental or behavioural activity related to some specific stages in the overall process of language acquisition or language use” (Oxford, 1990: 76). The learner strategy is the choice he makes while learning or using the second language. Oxford describes learner strategy as any step taken by the learner to make learning a language successful, enjoyable and self-directed (Oxford, 1990). The learner strategies are classified into meta-cognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social strategies (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). Oxford and Nyikos found that the degree of expressed motivation was the single most powerful authority on the choice of language learning strategies (Oxford and Nyikos, 1989: 249). Though, SLA research has as yet paid little attention to it (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991). The usual meaning of motivation for the teacher is the interest that something generates in the students. Consequently, high motivation causes successful learning; in reverse, successful learning causes high motivation (Cook, V, 2001: 115)
The various theories should not be seen simply as alternative. Rather, each of them offers a partial explanation of the process. Each theory tries to describe how a second language could be acquired; presents a contribution to help with other theories make an integrated view. In fact it is considered a pioneer work to be involved in studying about all these theories which help more to formulate the new way of thinking and teaching. It is considered an absurdity to deal with something without having a complete idea about its theory and the principles on which it is based (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991).
ABBS, B. & I, F. (1980) Developing Strategies, London, Longman.
BROWN, J., D (1995) The Elements of Language Curriculim: A systematic Approach to Program Development, New York, Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
BRUMFIT, C. J. (1984) Communicative methodology in language teaching : the roles of fluency and accuracy, Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
BURNER, J. J. & AUSTIN, G. (1957) A study of thinking, In MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (2004) Second Langauge Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
CHOMESKY, N. (1976) Reflection on Langauge, London, Temple Smith.
CHOMESKY, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use, New York, Praeger.
CHOMESKY, N. (1988) Language And Problems Of Knowledge: The Nicaraguan Lectures, Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
CHOMESKY, N. (2000) New Horizons In The Study of Langauage and Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
COOK, V. (2001) Second Langauge Learning and Language Teaching, Oxford, Arnold.
CORDER, S., P (1967) The Significance of Learners’ Errors’. International Review of Applied Linguistics 63: 544-73.
ELLIS, R. (1987a) Second Language Acquisition in Context, London, Prentice-Hall International.
ELLIS, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ELLIS, R. (1997) Second language acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FINOCCHIARO, M. B. & BRUMFIT, C. J. (1983) The functional-notional approach : from theory to practice, New York, Oxford University Press.
HEDGE, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Langauge Classroom, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HOLIDAY, A. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context, Cambridge, Library of Congress cataloging- in- Publication Data.
KRASHEN, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, London, Longman.
KRASHEN, S. & SCARCELLA, R. (1978) On Routines and Patterns in Second Language Acquisition and Performance’. Language Learning 28: 283-300.
KRASHEN, S. D. (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning, Oxford, Pergamon.
KRASHEN, S. D. (1982) Principles and Practices in Second Langauge Acquisition, Oxford, Pergamon.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. & LONG, M. (1991) An Introduction To Second Langauge Acquisition Acquisition Research, London Longman.
LONG, M. (1981a) Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition’ in Winitz (ed.) 1981b.
LONG, M. & PORTER, P. (1985) Interlangauge Talk and Second Language Acqisition, TESOL Querterly.
MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1987) Theories of Second Language Learning, London, Edward Arnold.
MEDGYES, P. (1986) Quaries from a communicative Language teacher. ELT Journal, 40, 107-112.
MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (2004) Second Langauge Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
O’MALLEY, J. & CHAMOT, A. (1990) Learning Strategies In Second Language Acqisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
OXFORD, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, Rowley, Mass.:, Newbury House.
OXFORD, R. & NYIKOS, M. (1989) Variables Affected Choice of Langauge Learning Strategies by University Students. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
PIAGET, J. (1970) Genetic Epistemology. In MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
SKEHAN, P. (1990) The Relationship Between Native and Foreign Language Learning Ability.
SKINNER, B. F. (1957) Verbal behavior. In ELLIS, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press
SWAIN, M. (1985) Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output In Its Development, London, Longman
.
SWAIN, M. & LAPKIN, S. (1982) Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study., Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
The systematic study of how people acquire a second language is a quite recent observable fact which belongs to the second half of the twentieth century. It was natural to appear due to the appearance of the “global village” and the expanded interaction between people further than their local speech communities. Second Language (L2) acquisition can be defined as the way the people can learn a language other than their mother tongue inside or outside the classroom, and so ‘Second Language Acquisition’ (SLA) is the study of this (Ellis, R, 1994:3). In the 1950s and early 1960s, theorize about SLA was still very much an attachment to the practical business of language teaching. However, the idea that language teaching methods had to be justified in terms of an underlying theory was well-established, since the pedagogic reform movement of the late 19th century at last (Mitchell & Mylles, 2004)
All theories focused on how a second language can be acquired and if it is similar to the same system of the first language or they are different. Studying ‘TESOL and the learner’ course gives answers to the questions which concern with the nature of the second language acquisition and how it can be acquired. The learner and his interests, styles, motivation also tried to be given a great deal of importance. In this paper, there will be a brief argument to some of the theories which tried clearly to clarify the process of (SLA). There will be some reflection on my context in order to reveal how it really works and how we can get benefit when we act upon theoretical background rather than being acting according to traditional beliefs which are away from being tested or justified.
Refferences:
ABBS, B. & I, F. (1980) Developing Strategies, London, Longman.
BROWN, J., D (1995) The Elements of Language Curriculim: A systematic Approach to Program Development, New York, Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
BRUMFIT, C. J. (1984) Communicative methodology in language teaching : the roles of fluency and accuracy, Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
BURNER, J. J. & AUSTIN, G. (1957) A study of thinking, In MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (2004) Second Langauge Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
CHOMESKY, N. (1976) Reflection on Langauge, London, Temple Smith.
CHOMESKY, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use, New York, Praeger.
CHOMESKY, N. (1988) Language And Problems Of Knowledge: The Nicaraguan Lectures, Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
CHOMESKY, N. (2000) New Horizons In The Study of Langauage and Mind, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
COOK, V. (2001) Second Langauge Learning and Language Teaching, Oxford, Arnold.
CORDER, S., P (1967) The Significance of Learners’ Errors’. International Review of Applied Linguistics 63: 544-73.
ELLIS, R. (1987a) Second Language Acquisition in Context, London, Prentice-Hall International.
ELLIS, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ELLIS, R. (1997) Second language acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FINOCCHIARO, M. B. & BRUMFIT, C. J. (1983) The functional-notional approach : from theory to practice, New York, Oxford University Press.
HEDGE, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Langauge Classroom, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HOLIDAY, A. (1994) Appropriate Methodology and Social Context, Cambridge, Library of Congress cataloging- in- Publication Data.
KRASHEN, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, London, Longman.
KRASHEN, S. & SCARCELLA, R. (1978) On Routines and Patterns in Second Language Acquisition and Performance’. Language Learning 28: 283-300.
KRASHEN, S. D. (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning, Oxford, Pergamon.
KRASHEN, S. D. (1982) Principles and Practices in Second Langauge Acquisition, Oxford, Pergamon.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. & LONG, M. (1991) An Introduction To Second Langauge Acquisition Acquisition Research, London Longman.
LONG, M. (1981a) Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition’ in Winitz (ed.) 1981b.
LONG, M. & PORTER, P. (1985) Interlangauge Talk and Second Language Acqisition, TESOL Querterly.
MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1987) Theories of Second Language Learning, London, Edward Arnold.
MEDGYES, P. (1986) Quaries from a communicative Language teacher. ELT Journal, 40, 107-112.
MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (2004) Second Langauge Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
O’MALLEY, J. & CHAMOT, A. (1990) Learning Strategies In Second Language Acqisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
OXFORD, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, Rowley, Mass.:, Newbury House.
OXFORD, R. & NYIKOS, M. (1989) Variables Affected Choice of Langauge Learning Strategies by University Students. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
PIAGET, J. (1970) Genetic Epistemology. In MITCHELL, R. & MYLES, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories, London, Arnold.
SKEHAN, P. (1990) The Relationship Between Native and Foreign Language Learning Ability.
SKINNER, B. F. (1957) Verbal behavior. In ELLIS, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford University Press
SWAIN, M. (1985) Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output In Its Development, London, Longman
.SWAIN, M. & LAPKIN, S. (1982) Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study., Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
