This document discusses key concepts in second language acquisition (SLA) research. It covers Universal Grammar and how it relates to both first and second language learning. It also describes Stephen Krashen's Monitor Theory and its hypotheses about acquisition vs learning, the role of comprehensible input, and the affective filter. The concept of interlanguage is introduced, which refers to a learner's developing mental grammar system that draws on their first language but is also distinct from both the first and target languages. Research on developmental sequences in language learning is also mentioned.

1. Week 5

2. SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION (SLA) AS AN
ESSENTIAL AREA OF ENQUIRY
IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

3. Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
 Spada & Lightbown (2010) (cited in Schmitt, 2010)
 Second language acquisition research focuses on the
developing knowledge and use of a language by
children and adults who already know at least one
other language.

4.  This field of research has both theoretical and
practical importance.
 Theoretical importance – related to our
understanding of how language is represented in the
mind and whether there is a difference between the
way language is acquired and processed and the way
other kinds of information are acquired and processed.

5.  Practical importance – arises from the assumption
that an understanding of how languages are learned
will lead to more effective teaching practices.

6.  A knowledge of SLA may help educational policy
makers set more realistic goals for programmes for
both foreign/second language courses and the
learning of the majority language by minority
language children and adults (Schmitt, 2010).

7. Key Questions in SLA
 What exactly does the L2 learner come to know?
 How does the learner acquire this knowledge?
 Why are some learners more (or less) successful than
others?

8. Linguistic Perspective of SLA
 Language acquisition is based on the presence of a
specialized module of the human mind containing
innate knowledge of principles common to all
languages – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR.
 The idea that there exists a universal grammar (UG) of
human languages originated with Noam Chomsky’s
(1968) view on first language (L1) acquisition.

9.  Chomsky pointed out that children were exposed to
samples of (adult) language that were incomplete and
sometimes ‘degenerate’ (exp. slips of tongues, false
starts, etc.)
 Parents did not provide systematic feedback when
young children produced speech that did not match
the adult language.

10.  Yet, children would eventually leave behind their
childish errors and acquire full competence in the
language they were exposed to.
 Thus, Chomsky inferred that children must have an
innate language faculty.

11.  This faculty, originally referred to as the
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION DEVICE (LAD) and
later as UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR (UG), was
described as a specialized module of the brain,
pre-programmed to process language.
 UG was said to contain general principles
underlying all languages. The child’s task would be
to discover how the language of his or her
environment made use of those principles
(Schmitt, 2010)

12. Question
 Is Universal Grammar applicable to L2 learning?

13. Is Universal Grammar applicable to
L2 learning?
 VIEW 1
 It is suggested that while UG permits a young child to
acquire language (L1) during a particular
developmental period, referred to as the ‘critical
period’ for language acquisition, UG is no longer
available to older learners.

14.  According to Bley-Vroman (1989) cited in Schmitt
(2010), UG is no longer available after puberty and that
older L2 learners must make use of more general
learning processes.
 Because these processes are not only specific to
languages, SLA by older learners is more difficult that
for young learners and it is never complete.

15.  VIEW 2
 Language acquisition continues to be based on UG.
However, once a first language has been learned, UG is no
longer neutral and open to the acquisition of any language.
 Thus, although L2 grammars are still consistent with
universal principles of all human languages, learners tend
to perceive the L2 in a way that is shaped by the way their
L1 realizes these principles (White, 2003) (cited in Schmitt,
2010).

16. SLA THEORY: THE MONITOR
THEORY
 Monitor Theory shares the UG approach but its scope
is specifically second language acquisition.
 Stephen Krashen (1982) developed this theory in the
1970s and presented it in terms of several ‘hypotheses’.

17. Krashen’s Hypotheses
KRASHEN’S
HYPOTHESES
Acquisition-
learning
Monitor
Natural
Order
Input
Affective
Filter
Reading

18. Krashen’s Acquisition-learning
Hypothesis
 The fundamental hypothesis of Monitor Theory is that
there is a difference between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’.
 ACQUISITION is hypothesized to occur in a manner
similar to L1 acquisition – with the learner’s focus on
communicating messages and meanings (Schmitt, 2010).
 LEARNING is described as a conscious process – one in
which the learner’s attention is directed to the rules and
forms of the language (Schmitt, 2010)

19. Application for teaching
 The optimal way a language is learned is through
natural communication.
 Need to create a situation where language is used in
order to fulfill authentic purposes. This will help
students to ‘acquire’ the language instead of just
‘learning’ it.

20. Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis
 Suggests that although spontaneous speech originates
in the ‘acquired system’, what has been learned may be
used as a monitor to edit speech if the L2 learner has
the time and the inclination to focus on the accuracy
of the message (Schmitt, 2010).

21. Application for teaching
 Need to strike a balance between encouraging
accuracy and fluency in students.
 This balance depends on numerous variables
including the language level of the students, the
context of language use and the personal goals of
each student.
 This balance is known as ‘communicative
competency’.

22. Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis
 Suggests that L2 learners, just like L1 learners, go
through a series of predictable stages in their
acquisition of linguistic features (Schmitt, 2010).
 For any given language, certain grammatical structures
are acquired early while others are acquired later in the
process.

23. Application for teaching
 Teachers should be aware that certain structures of a
language are easier to acquire than others and
therefore language structures should be taught in an
order that is conducive to learning.
 Easy - difficult

24. Krashen’s Input (Comprehension)
Hypothesis
 Suggests that L2 learning, like L1 learning, occurs as a result
of exposure to meaningful and varied linguistic input.
 Linguistic input will be effective in changing the learner’s
developing competence if it is comprehensible (with the
help of contextual information) and also offers exposure to
language which is slightly more complex than that which
the learner has already acquired (Schmitt, 2010).

25. Application for teaching
 Highlights the importance of using the Target
Language in the classroom – to communicate
effectively.
 Provide as much comprehensible input as possible, to
create a more effective opportunity for language
acquisition.

26. Krashen’s Affective Filter
Hypothesis
 Suggests that a condition for successful acquisition is
that the learner be motivated to learn the L2 and thus
receptive to the comprehensible input (Schmitt, 2010).

27. Application for teaching
 It is important to create a safe, welcoming
environment in which students can learn.
 In order to take in and produce language, learners
need to feel that they are able to make mistakes and
take risks.

28. Krashen’s Reading Hypothesis
 States that the more we read in a SL or target language,
the greater our vocabulary will be.

29. Application for teaching
 It is important to involve reading in the language
classroom to increase knowledge of the language and
the way it is used in real-life contexts.

30. LEARNER LANGUAGE
 Spada & Lightbown (2010) (cited in Schmitt, 2010)
 In the 1970s, a number of researchers began to
emphasize that, although the language produced
by L2 learners did not conform to the target
language, the ‘errors’ that learners made were not
random, but reflected a systematic, if incomplete,
knowledge of the L2 (Corder, 1967) (cited in
Schmitt, 2010).

31.  Thus, the term ‘INTERLANGUAGE’ (Selinker, 1972)
(cited in Schmitt, 2010) was coined to characterize this
developing linguistic system of the L2 learner.

32. Interlanguage
 Coined by linguist Larry Selinker (1972) (cited in Ellis,
1997) in recognition of the fact that L2 learners
construct a unique linguistic system that draws, in
part, on the learner’s L1 but is also different from it and
also from the target language.

33.  The learner constructs a system of abstract linguistic
rules which underlies comprehension and production
of the L2. This system of rules is viewed as ‘mental
grammar’ and is referred to as an ‘interlanguage’
(Ellis, 1997)

34.  The grammar is permeable – open to influence from
the outside (i.e. through the input) and from the
inside (i.e. omission, overgeneralization, and transfer
errors)(Ellis, 1997).

35.  The grammar is transitional. Learners change their
grammar from one time to another by adding rules,
deleting rules, and restructuring the whole system.
 This results in an ‘interlanguage continuum’ –
learners construct a series of mental grammars or
interlanguages as they gradually increase the
complexity of their L2 knowledge (Ellis, 1997).

36.  Example (Ellis, 1997):
 Initially, learners may begin with a very simple
grammar where only one form of the verb is
represented (i.e. ‘paint’), but over time they add other
forms (i.e. ‘painting’ and ‘painted’), gradually sorting
out the functions that these verbs can be used to
perform.

37. DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE:
 In the 1960s and 1970s, studies were conducted on
interlanguage and language development.
 Brown’s (1973)(cited in Schmitt, 2010) longitudinal
research on the language development of children
found that the children acquired grammatical
morphemes such as possessive ‘s and past tense –
ed in a similar order.

38.  Other studies showed that children acquire
syntactic patterns, such as interrogative and
negative sentences of the L1, in a series of stages
that are common to all children learning the same
L1.

39.  L1 learners also make errors which show that
they are not simply repeating words or
phrases exactly as they have heard others
produce them. (Exp. Putting an ‘s’ on ‘foot’
to express the plural.)

40.  Thus, the finding that children go through a series
of predictable stages in the acquisition of the first
language, and that their errors are systematic and
similar among learners, is used as evidence to
support the hypothesis that language learning is
based at least in part on internal processes, and
not just on simple imitation of speech or
environmental factors such as frequency of
occurrence and feedback on error (Schmitt, 2010).

41. L1 Influence
 Spada & Lightbown (2010) (cited in Schmitt, 2010)
 Current research shows that L1 influence is a subtle and
evolving aspect of L2 development.
 However, learners do not simply transfer all patterns from
the L1 to the L2, and there are changes over time, as
learners come to know more about the L2 and thus to
recognize similarities between L1 and L2 that were not
evidence in earlier stages of L2 acquisition.

42.  It has been observed that some aspects of language
are more susceptible to L1 influence than others
(Schmitt, 2010).
 Example: pronunciation and word order are more
likely to show L1 influence than grammatical
morphemes

43. (- learners seem intuitively to know that it
is not possible to simply add a grammatical
inflection such as –ing to a verb in another
language)

44. INSTRUCTION AND SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
 Research shows that instruction can have a significant
effect on L2 acquisition, at least in terms of the rate of
learning and the long-term success that learners
achieve in using the language accurately.

45.  Instruction does not prevent learners from going
through developmental stages which are similar to
those of learners whose exposure to the L2 is primarily
outside a classroom.

46.  But it may permit learners to move through the stages
faster, and to replace some learner language
characteristics with more target-like use of the L2
(Spada & Lightbown, 2010)(cited in Schmitt, 2010).