2. 1. The Acculturation Model- (John Schumann)
The Acculturation Theory (and closely associated with it, the
Nativization Model) is the process of becoming adapted to a
new culture.
Social Variables:
1. The target groups and second language groups view each
other as socially equal (no discrimination).
3. 2. The target groups and second language groups are
both desirous that L2 group will assimilate (to absorb, to
be like).
3. Both the TGs and L2 groups expect the L2 groups to
share social facilities with the TG.
4. Both groups have positive attitudes toward each
other.
4. 2. Accommodation Theory- (H. Giles)
Giles argues that it is how the ingroup (learner’s social
group) defines its relationship to the out group (Target
Language community) that is important in SLA.
Giles sees intergroup relationships as subject to constant
negotiation during the course of each interaction.
5. Giles argues with Gardner that motivation is the primary determinant
to L2 proficiency and understanding ethnic groups. He considers the
level of motivation to be a reflex of how individual learners define
themselves in ethnic terms.
This, in turn, is governed by a number of key variables:
Identification of the individual learner with his ethnic group;
Inter-ethnic comparison
-whether learner makes favorable or unfavorable comparisons
between his own ingroup and outgroup)
6. 3. Discourse Theory- (Hatch)
The Discourse Theory, proposed by Hatch (1978)
follows from a theory of language use, in which
communication is treated as the matrix of linguistic
knowledge (as proposed for instance in Hyme’s
description of communicative competence), that
language development should be considered in terms
of how learner discovers the meaning potential of
language by participating in communication. This is
how Michael Halliday (1975) views first language
acquisition.
7. In a study of how his own child acquired language, Halliday
shows that the development of the formal linguistic devices
for realizing basic language function grows out of the
interpersonal uses to which language is put. Because the
structure of language is itself a reflection of the functions it
serves, it can be learned through learning to communicate.
As Cherry (1979) puts it:
Through communicating with other people, children
accomplish actions in the world and develop rules of
language structure and use.
8. 4. The Monitor Model- (Stephen Krashen)
Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists
of five main hypotheses:
the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis;
the Monitor hypothesis;
the Natural Order hypothesis;
the Input hypothesis;
and the Affective Filter hypothesis.
9. The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in
Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language
practitioners.
According to Krashen there are two independent systems of second language
performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired system' or
'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the process
children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful
interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are
concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the communicative act.
The "learned system" or "learning" is the product of formal instruction and it comprises
a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the language, for
example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen
'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'.
10. The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and
defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the
practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is
the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or
the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three
specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at
his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows
the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language
performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor,
being used only to correct deviations from "normal" speech and to give
speech a more 'polished' appearance.
11. Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners
with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the
'monitor' all the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who
prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners
that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the
person's psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong.
Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-
users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the
"monitor".
Monitor Hypothesis…continued
12. The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974;
Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the
acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is
predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be
acquired early while others late. This order seemed to be independent of the
learners' age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the
agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies,
there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a
Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the
implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program
syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects
grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.
13. The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a
second language – how second language acquisition takes place. The Input
hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this
hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when
he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current
stage of linguistic competence.
For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she
is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of
the learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence at the same time,
Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a
syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that
is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
14. Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's
view that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role
in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-
confidence and anxiety.
Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-
image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second
language acquisition.
Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise'
the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input
from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes
language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not
sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
15. 5. The Variance Competence Model (R. Ellis)
This model is based on two distinctions-one of which refers to the process of
language use, and the other to the product. The theory also proposes to
account for SLA within a framework of language use. In other words, it claims
that the way a language is learnt is a reflection of the way it is used.
The product of language use comprises a continuum of discourse types
16. 6. The Universal Hypothesis- (Noam Chomsky)
This approach draws heavily on Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar and
also typological universals. Cook (1985) in an explanation of the Chomskyan view of
Universal Grammar writes:
The language properties inherent in the human mind make up ‘Universal
Grammar’, which consists not of particular rules or of a particular language, but a
set of general principles that apply to all languages.
Chomsky’s explanation for the innateness of Universal Grammar is that
without a set of innate principles it would not be possible for a child to learn the
grammar of his mother tongue. This is because the data available from the input are
insufficient to enable the child to discover certain rules.
17. 7. A Neurofunctional Theory- (J. Lamendella)
The basic premise of a neurofunctional view of SLA is that there is a connection between language
function and the neural anatomy.
Neurofunctional accounts of SLA have considered the contribution of the two areas of the brain: (1) the right
hemisphere, and (2) the areas of the left hemisphere in particular those known as Wernicke's and Broca’s
areas), which clinical studies have shown to be closely associated with the comprehension and production of
language.
Right hemisphere functioning
Right hemisphere functioning is generally associated with holistic processing, as opposed to serial or
analytic processing, which occurs in the left hemisphere. The RH is responsible for the storing and processing
of formulaic speech.
Left Hemisphere functioning
The left hemisphere is associated with creative language use, including syntactic
and semantic processing and the motor operations involved in
speaking and writing.
