See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360834971
Second Language Learning Theories Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles, Emma
Marsden
Presentation · May 2022
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28794.98243
CITATIONS
READS
0
12,953
4 authors:
Rosamond Mitchell
Florence Myles
University of Southampton
University of Essex
112 PUBLICATIONS 3,420 CITATIONS
75 PUBLICATIONS 3,091 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Emma Marsden
Zahra Farajnezhad
The University of York
Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch
99 PUBLICATIONS 2,663 CITATIONS
25 PUBLICATIONS 1,438 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Zahra Farajnezhad on 25 May 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Second Language Learning Theories Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles, Emma Marsden
 What makes for a good theory?
We need to understand SLL better than we do, for two basic reasons:
1. Because improved knowledge in this particular domain is interesting in itself, and can also contribute to
more general understanding about the nature of language, of human learning and of intercultural
communication, and thus about the human mind itself, as well as how all these are interrelated and affect each
other.
2. Because the knowledge will be useful. If we become better at explaining the learning process, and are
better able to account for both success and failure in SLL, there will be a payoff for millions of teachers, and tens
of millions of students and other learners, who are struggling with the task.
We can pursue a better understanding of SLL in an organized and productive way if our efforts are guided by
some form of theory. A theory is a more or less abstract set of claims about the units that are significant within
the phenomenon under study, the relationships that exist between them and the processes that bring about
change. Thus, a theory aims not just at description but also at explanation. Theories may be Embryonic and
restricted in scope, or more elaborate, explicit and comprehensive. They may deal with different areas of interest
to us:
 A property theory will be concerned with modelling the nature of the language system that is to be acquired,
whereas
 A transition theory will be concerned with modelling the change or developmental processes of language
acquisition.
Theories are produced collaboratively, and evolve through a process of systematic enquiry in which the claims
of the theory are assessed against some kind of evidence or data. This may take place through a process of
hypothesis testing through formal experiment, or through more ecological procedures, where naturally occurring
data are analyzed and interpreted.
The process of theory building is reflexive: new developments in the theory lead to the need to collect new
information and explore different phenomena and different patterns in the potentially infinite world of ‘facts'
and data. Puzzling 'facts', and patterns which fail to fit in with expectations, lead to new theoretical insights.
 Evaluation of theories depends on:




Clear and explicit statements of the ground the theory is supposed to cover, and the claims it is making.
Systematic procedures for confirming or disconfirming the theory, through data gathering and interpretation:
a good theory must be testable or falsifiable in some way.
Not only descriptions of second-language phenomena, but attempts to explain why they are so, and to
propose mechanisms for change.
Engagement with other theories in the field, and serious attempts to account for at least some of the
phenomena that are 'common ground' in ongoing public discussion (Long, 1990a).
 Views on the nature of language: Competence and Performance:
1|Page
Two important issues in 20th century: Should researchers be involved in the collection and analysis of actual
samples of language in use; for example, by recording and analyzing people's speech? Or, should it be to theorize
underlying principles and rules that govern language behavior, in its potentially infinite variety?
Chomsky argued that it is the business of theoretical linguistics to study and model underlying language
competence, rather than the performance data of actual utterances that people have produced. Competence
involves “knowing” the language and performance involves “doing” something with the language. The difficulty
with this construct is that it is very difficult to assess competence without assessing performance.
Competence is the knowledge one has of a language (in terms of phonology, syntax, morphology etc) whereas
performance is the ability to use that knowledge.
 The language learning process: Nature and nurture
How much of human learning derives from innate predispositions, that is, some form of genetic preprogramming, and how much of it derives from social and cultural experiences that influence us as we grow up?
Nature states that a child is born with genetic inheritance. Nurture is the result of exterior influences after the
child is born, e.g. exposure and experience in learning. The nativist theory defends that all children are born with
the ability to develop language skills and to organize them within the grammatical rules of their native language.
Language is innate to the individuals and part of the human experience.
Problems with this view:
Language performance data are believed to be imperfect reflections of competence, partly because of the
processing complications that are involved in speaking or other forms of language production, and which lead to
errors and slips. More importantly, it is believed that, in principle, the infinite creativity of the underlying system
can never adequately be reflected in a finite data. Many researchers of language competence believe it can be
accessed only indirectly, and under controlled conditions, through different types of tests such as grammaticality
judgment tests.
Skinner
In Skinner's case, the mechanisms were those envisaged by general behaviorist learning theory, copying and
memorizing behaviors encountered in the surrounding environment. Children could learn language by imitating
the speech of their caretakers. He was of the idea that a child has a mind that is more productive in studying
observable behavior rather than internal mental events. Behavior that is followed by pleasant consequences is
possible to be repeated, and behavior that is not acceptable by unpleasant penalties is unlikely to be repeated.
Thus, language is learned through imitation and through rewards from parents. The strength of this theory is
imitation.
Chomsky
Chomsky argued consistently that human language is too complex to be learnt in its entirety, from the
performance data actually available to the child. We must have some innate predisposition to expect natural
languages to be organized in particular ways and not others. For example, all natural languages have word classes,
such as Noun and Verb, and grammar rules that apply to these word classes. It is this type of information which
Chomsky doubts children could discover from scratch; in the speech they hear around them. He argues that there
2|Page
must be some innate core of abstract knowledge about language form, which pre-specifies a framework for all
natural human languages. This core of knowledge is currently known as Universal Grammar.
 How does the nature-nurture debate affect SLL theories?
If humans are given an innate predisposition for language then perhaps they should be able to learn as many
languages as they need or want to, provided that the time, possibilities and motivation are available. The
Environmental possibilities for SLL differ systematically from first-language learning, except where infants are
raised in multilingual surroundings. Should we be aiming to reproduce the natural possibilities of first-language
learning as far as possible for the SLL student? This was a fashionable view in the 1970s, but one which
downplayed some very real social and psychological blocks. In the last 30 years, there has been a closer and more
critical examination of 'environmental 'factors which seem to influence SLL.
 Modularity
A further issue of controversy for students of the human brain and mind has been the extent to which the
mind should be viewed as modular or unitary. 'Modularity' refers to specialization: language processing is
specialized in the brain to the extent that it occurs partially in different areas than other types of information
processing such as visual input.
Chomsky believes in modularity: A range of distinct learning mechanisms contribute to the learning of
different aspects of language. Vocabulary and pragmatics, for example, would be learnt by mechanisms quite
different from those which account for grammar learning. The concept of Modularity (i.e., the degree to which
the lexicon, syntax, and other neurocognitive domains work independently of one another) has played an
important role in theorizing about brain architecture and function, both in development and in adulthood.
 Controversy between Piaget & Chomsky
Piaget: Language was simply one manifestation of the more general skill of symbolic representation, acquired
as a stage in general cognitive development; no special mechanism was required to account for first language
acquisition. Piaget developed his Cognitive Theory. He believed that children are born with the biological ability
of adapting to the environment. A child is genetically ready to develop and acquire knowledge and intelligence.
In his theory, there were two concepts: assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation says that a child has the
capacity to integrate new information and mix it into established structures. Accommodation was the changes
in the mental process to make space for new knowledge. Intelligence is the connection between assimilation and
association. Piaget also believed that development happens in stages.
Piaget’s cognitive theory recalled the importance of understanding that human development cannot be
explained just by taking into account the nature or the nurture factors individually.
Chomsky: Language is too complex to be learnt from environmental exposure (his criticism of Skinner), it is
too distinctive in its structure to be 'learnable' by general cognitive means.
Language acquisition was a result of the innate processes. Innate is something which is in mind since birth.
The theory is proved in children living in the same linguistic community. They are not predisposed by the external
3|Page
experiences bringing comparable grammar. His theory on language acquisition says that “all children share the
same internal constraints which characterize the grammar they are going to construct.”. He stated that all of us
live in a biological world and mental world. There are stages of development. Thus, language development is
achieved at a certain age. Chomsky rejected that human mind is a clean slate at birth and is filled in by experience.
There are inborn structures in the baby’s brain to acquire a language.
Chomsky’s Universal Grammar that says that a child has the ability to learn a language. Universal Grammar
for Chomsky was nature. He proposed that the child has a natural ability that permits him/her to learn and
permits language development. The child is born with the linguistic tools he/she needs to learn a language by
himself/herself.
Modularity and second language learning
If such innate mechanisms exist, there are four logical possibilities:
1. They continue to operate during SLL, and make key aspects of SLL possible, in the same way that they
make first-language learning possible.
2. After the acquisition of the first language in early childhood, these mechanisms cease to be operable, and
second languages must be learnt by other means.
3. The mechanisms themselves are no longer operable, but the first language provides a model of a natural
language and how it works, which can be 'copied' in some way when learning a second language.
4. Distinctive learning mechanisms for language remain available, but only in part, and must be
supplemented by other means. (From a Universal Grammar point of view, this would mean that Universal
Grammar was itself modular, with some modules still available and others not.)
 'Systematicity' and variability in SLL
Learners ‘second-language words may be deviant by comparison with target language norms, they are by no
means lacking in the system. Errors and mistakes are patterned, and some common errors are caused by the
effect of the first language, this is by no means true of all of them. There is a good deal of evidence that learners
work their way through a number of developmental stages, from primitive and deviant versions of the second
language to more elaborate and target-like versions. Like fully proficient users of a language, their language
productions can be described by a set of underlying rules; these interim rules have their own integrity and are
not just used versions of the target language rules.
As far as key parts of the second language grammar are concerned, learners' development follows a common
route, even if the speed (or rate) at which learners actually travel along this common route may be very different.
Learner language (or interlanguage) is not only characterized by systematicity. Learner language systems are
presumably -indeed, hopefully -unstable and in course of change; they are characterized by high degrees of
variability. ① Systematicity: developmental stages of LA follow a common route ② Variability: individual
variations in the process of learning (rate of development) => Interlanguage (learner language) is characterized
by both systematicity & variability
 Incomplete success and fossilization
4|Page
Fossilization refers to the process in which incorrect language becomes a habit and cannot easily be corrected.
Many advanced level learners who have Spanish as an L1 do not distinguish between 'he' and 'she'. This could be
a fossilized error. Not all learners succeed like native speakers. Reasons:
Psycholinguistic: The language-specific learning mechanisms available to the young child simply cease to work
for older learners and no amount of study and effort can recreate them.
Sociolinguistic: Older second language learners do not have the social opportunities, or the motivation, to
identify completely with the native speaker community, but may instead value their distinctive identity as
learners or as members of an identifiable minority group.
 Cross-linguistic influences in SLL
Everyday observation tells us that learners' performance in a second language is influenced by the language,
or languages, that they already know. e.g., their pronunciation or some structures (agree). This kind of
phenomenon in learner productions is often called language transfer. Cross linguistic influence (CLI) involves two
languages that can affect one another in a bilingual speaker. Cross-linguistic influence(CLI) is defined as the
influence that knowledge of one language has on an individual’s learning or use of another language. This
influence can involve various aspects of language.
• Behaviorists: considerer as major source of error.
• Interactionists: look for other sources.
 The relationship between second language use and SLL
There is a consensus that language input of some kind is essential for normal language learning. (Krashen:
comprehensible input hypothesis)
Criticism: language production was ignored.
Information-processing theorists argue that language competence consists of both a knowledge component
('knowing that') and a skill component ('knowing how'). Skill component needs language use. Swain:
comprehensible output hypothesis
 Views of the language learner
The learner as language processor: inner mental mechanisms are important. The focus is on route: the
sequence of linguistic stages through which learners seem to pass. Proponents tend to minimize or disregard
social and contextual differences among learners; their aim is to document universal mental processes available
to all normal human beings.
Differences between individual learners
• Cognitive factors: Affective factors:
• Intelligence Attitude
• Language aptitude Motivation
• Language learning strategies Language anxiety and willingness to communicate
5|Page
 The learner as social being
Social class, power, ethnicity and gender make their appearance as potentially significant for SLL research.
The recent history of second language learning research: The kind of questions researchers are asking today
are for the most part rooted in earlier developments in linguistics, psychology, sociology and pedagogy.
 The 1950s and 1960s: It started with Structuralism.
1. The conviction that language systems consisted of a finite set of 'patterns ‘or 'structures' which acted as
models for the production of an infinite number of constructed sentences;
2. The belief that repetition and practice resulted in the formation of accurate and fluent foreign language
habits;
3. A methodology which set out to teach 'the basics' before encouraging learners to communicate their own
thoughts and ideas.
 Behaviorism
language learning is seen like any other kind of learning, as the formation of habits. The learning of any kind
of behaviour as being based on the notions of stimulus and response. Human beings are exposed to numerous
stimuli in their environment. The response they give to such stimuli will be reinforced if successful, that is, if some
desired outcome is obtained. Through repeated reinforcement, a certain stimulus will elicit the same response
time and again, which will then become a habit.
When learning a first language, the process is relatively simple: all we have to do is learn a set of new habits
as we learn to respond to stimuli in our environment.
When learning a second language we run in to problems: we already have a set of well-established responses
in our mother tongue. The SLL process involves replacing those habits by a set of new ones.
The complication is that the old first-language habits interfere with this process, either helping or inhibiting
it. If structures in the second language are similar to those of the first, then learning will take place easily. If,
however, structures are realized differently in the first and the second language, then learning will be difficult.
From a teaching point of view, the implications of this approach were twofold.
First, it was strongly believed that practice makes perfect; in other words, learning would take place by
imitating and repeating the same structures time after time.
Second, teachers needed to focus their teaching on structures which were believed to be difficult and difficult
structures would be those that were different in the first and second languages.
Result: Teachers should prepare a list of differences to work on. This is Contrastive Analysis (Fries).
 Behaviorism under attack
6|Page
Linguistics saw a shift from structural linguistics, which was based on the description of the surface structure
of a large corpus of language, to generative linguistics that emphasized the rule-governed and creative nature of
human language.
In the field of psychology, the role for the environment in shaping the child's learning and behavior was losing
ground in favor of more develop mentalist views of learning, such as Piaget's cognitive developmental theory, in
which inner forces drive the child, in interaction with the environment
 Chomsky's criticisms: The creativity of language:
This is only possible because they internalize rules. Complex learning of human cannot be compared with
animals. Given the complexity and abstractness of linguistic rules it is amazing that children are able to master
them so quickly and efficiently, especially given the limited input they receive. And correction does not work.
Result: Innate faculty is at work.
The 1970s
It seems that children all over the world go through similar stages, use similar constructions in order to express
similar meanings, and make the same kinds of errors.
The rate at which children learnt morphemes varies, the order in which they acquire them is the same for all
children. Not only do children acquire a number of grammatical morphemes in a fixed order, but they follow rigid
stages during the acquisition of a given area of grammar. Another important characteristic of child language that
started to receive attention is that it is rule-governed: because it is consistent. See Page.36 for examples
 Specific Characteristics of 1970s
• children go through stages_ These stages are very similar across children for a given language, although the
rate at which individual children progress through them is highly variable. These stages are similar across
languages
• Child language is rule-governed and systematic, and the rules created by the child do not necessarily
correspond to adult ones. Children are resistant to correction
• Children's processing capacity limits the number of rules they can apply at any one time, and they will revert
to earlier hypotheses when two or more rules compete.
 Second language learning: the birth of Error Analysis
7|Page
Teachers were finding out in the classroom that constructions that were different in pairs of languages were
not necessarily difficult, and that constructions that were similar in two languages were not necessarily easy
either. Developments in first language acquisition and disillusionment with Contrastive Analysis led to EA (the
systematic investigation of second language learners' errors).
Error Analysis thus showed clearly that the majority of the errors made by second language learners do not
come from their first language. Where do such errors come from? They are not target-like, and they are not first
language-like; they must be learner-internal in origin.
The term interlanguage was coined in 1972, by Selinker. The language produced by the learner is a system in
its own right, obeying its own rules; and it is a dynamic system, evolving over time.
 Morphological Studies
Results pointed to a systematic sequence of learning morphemes. The existence of such an order suggested
that second-language learners are guided by internal principles that are largely independent of their first
language; this was a serious blow for any proponents of Contrastive Analysis. This order has been found in
relation to the development of syntax.
What can we make of the finding that second language learners also follow an order of acquisition, but that
this order is different? The fact that they do follow such an order suggests that they are indeed guided by some
set of internal principles, as children are. This order varies from that found for first languages, suggests that these
internal principles are different, in some respects at least.
 Krashen's Monitor Model
Krashen based his general theory around a set of five basic hypotheses:
1. the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
2. the Monitor hypothesis
3. the Natural Order hypothesis
4. the Input hypothesis
5. the Affective Filter hypothesis.
 The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis
The basic premise is that language acquisition, on the one hand, and learning, on the other, are separate
processes. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis states that there is a distinction between language acquisition
and language learning. In language acquisition, the student acquires language unconsciously. This is similar to
when a child picks up their first language. On the other hand, language learning happens when the student is
consciously discovering and learning the rules and grammatical structures of the language.
Acquisition: Subconscious process, the result of natural interaction with the language via meaningful
communication, which sets in motion developmental processes akin to those outlined in first language
acquisition
Learning: 'conscious process, the result of classroom experience, in which the learner is made to focus on
form and to learn about the linguistic rules of the target language.
What is claimed to be important is the difference between meaningful communication, on the one hand,
which can very well take place in the natural environment, and which will trigger subconscious processes, and
8|Page
conscious attention to form, on the other, which can take place in language classroom, with older learners who
might explicitly request grammatical information from people around them. Problems:
• The claim is vague.
• Difficult to test in practice.
• How can we tell when a learner's production is the result of a conscious process and when it is not?
• language knowledge acquired or learnt by these different routes cannot eventually become integrated into
a unified whole.
 The Monitor hypothesis
Learning has only one function: as a Monitor or editor ‘: only to 'make changes in the form of our utterance,
after it has been "produced" by the acquired system.
Acquisition is responsible for fluency, and learning for accuracy.
Learners might make use of the Monitor in order to consciously modify the output produced by the acquired
system. Monitor Hypothesis states that the learner is consciously learning the grammar rules and functions of a
language rather than its meaning. This theory focuses more on the correctness of the language. To use the
Monitor Hypothesis, three standards must be met:
 The acquirer must know the rules of the language.
 The acquirer must concentrate on the exact form of the language.
 The acquirer must set aside some time to review and apply the language rules in a conversation. In regular
conversations there’s enough time to ensure correctness of the language.
→ Criticism
The pressures and demands of conversing in the second language in real time do not often allow for such
monitoring to take place. Attempts to test its predictions have been unsuccessful, for example in studies
comparing learners' performance when given more time or being made to focus on form or checking whether
learners who are able to explain the rules perform better than learners who do not
→ Monitor and individual differences in learners
Monitor 'over users ‘: do not like making mistakes and are constantly checking what they produce against the
conscious stock of rules they possess. Their speech is consequently very halting and non-fluent.
Monitor 'under-users': do not seem to care very much about the Errors they make, and for them, speed and
fluency are more important.
‘Optimal' Monitor users: use the Monitor hypothesis when it is appropriate, that is, when it does not interfere
with communication.
Criticism: They are at present impossible to test empirically: How do we know when a learner is consciously
applying a rule or not, or, whether the source of the rule that has been applied is the acquired system or the
learnt system?
 The Natural Order hypothesis
We acquire the rules of language in a predictable order, some rules tending to come early and others late.
The order does not appear to be determined solely by formal simplicity and there is evidence that it is
independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes. Natural Order Hypothesis is based on the
9|Page
finding that language learners learn grammatical structures in a fixed and universal way. There is a sense of
predictability to this kind of learning, which is similar to how a speaker learns their first language.
→ Criticism
•The claim is too strong.
•It ignores well-documented cases of language transfer, or of individual variability.
•It is based almost exclusively on the morpheme studies with their known methodological problems which
reflect accuracy of production rather than acquisition sequences.
 The Input hypothesis
We move along the developmental continuum by receiving comprehensible input. Input Hypothesis places
more emphasis on the acquisition of the second language. This theory is more concerned about how the language
is acquired rather than learned. The Input Hypothesis states that the learner naturally develops language as soon
as the student receives interesting and fun information.
A) Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause.
B) If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided.
The language teacher does need to attempt to teach the next structure along the natural order -it will be
provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient amount of
comprehensible input.
→ Criticism
It is vague and imprecise: how do we determine level i, and level i+1?
The claim is somewhat circular: Acquisition takes place if the learner receives comprehensible input, and
comprehensible input has been provided if acquisition takes place.
The theory becomes impossible to verify, as no independently testable definitions are given of what
comprehensible input consists of, and how it might relate to acquisition. Nor does the theory specify the internal
workings of the 'Language Acquisition Device' where acquisition takes place –this remains a black box.
 The Affective Filter hypothesis
In Affective Filter, language acquisition can be affected by emotional factors. If the affective filter is higher,
then the student is less likely to learn the language. The learning environment for the student must be positive
and stress-free so that the student is open for input. Learners need to 'let that input in ‘.
Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input,
but they will have a high or strong affective filter-even if they understand the message, the input will not reach
that part of the brain responsible for language acquisition, or the Language Acquisition Device.
Those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and obtain more input,
they will have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input, and it will strike 'deeper'.
→ Criticism
•It is vague and a theoretical.
• many self-conscious adolescents suffer from low self-esteem and presumably have a 'high filter. Are they
all bad language learners? And are all the confident and extrovert adults (with a 'low' filter) good language
10 | P a g e
learners? they are not. Moreover, how does the Affective Filter actually work? All these issues remain vague and
unexplored.
 Schumann's Pidginization or acculturation model
•It was proposed in inthelate1970s. Schumann's Acculturation Theory as presented in The Pidginization
Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition (1978) predicts that the degree of a learner's success in second
language (L2) acquisition depends upon the learner's degree of acculturation. Schumann proposed the
Acculturation/Pidginization model as a context-sensitive model that emphasizes identification with the L2
community as the primary requirement of L2 acquisition.
•He noticed that early interlanguage resembled pidgin languages (i.e. simplified trading languages which lack
native speakers) with the features of fixed word order and lack of inflections. It could be related to SLA: The closer
L2 learners feel to the target language speech community, the better learners will 'acculturate', and the more
successful their SLL will be. The more alienated from that community they perceive themselves to be, the more
pidgin-like their second language will remain.
 Cognitive approaches to second language learning
Cognitive learning is a way of learning that helps students use their brains more effectively. This method of
learning is active, constructive, and long-lasting. It encourages students to fully engage in the learning process so
learning, thinking, and remembering get easier. Cognitive theory maintains that how one thinks largely
determines how one feels and behaves. This relates to all forms of knowing, including memory, psycholinguistics,
thinking, comprehension, motivation, and perception.
•Universal Grammar-based researchers put the emphasis on the language dimension of SLL, and see
language as a separate module in the mind, distinct from other aspects of cognition. Universal Grammar is a
property theory.
•The second language acquisition researchers put more emphasis on the learning component of SLL, that is,
they are interested in transition theories. we can understand the second language acquisition process better by
first understanding how the human brain processes and learns new information.
 Difference between UG supporters and Cognitivists
Universal Grammar theorists were interested in competence in the linguistic system underlying second
language grammars, and in its construction. They are not concerned with how learners access this linguistic
knowledge in real time, or in the strategies they might employ when their incomplete linguistic system lets them
down, or why some individuals are better than others at learning other languages.
→ For cognitive theorists these are central issues.
 Processing Approaches
Pienemann, or Towell & Hawkins are theorists who believe that language knowledge might be special in some
way, but are concerned to develop transition or processing theories to complement property theories such as
UG or Lexical Functional Grammar. Processing Approaches Investigate how SL learners process linguistic
information, and how their ability to process the second language develops over time; Focus on computational
dimensions of language learning; They are divided to: Information Processing Approach & Process Ability Theory.
11 | P a g e
All such theories are interested in the way in which the brain's processing mechanisms deal with the second
language. Major point: complex behavior builds on simple processes. These processes are modular and can be
studied independently of one another.
Information-Processing models of SLL:
 McLaughlin’s (1987-1990) Information-processing model.
 Anderson’s Active Control of Thought ACT model.
Theories of SL Processing.
 Process ability Theory.
 Teachability.
 Perceptual Saliency Approach
 Application of this theory to SLA
Second language learning is viewed as the acquisition of a complex cognitive skill. To learn a second language
is to learn a skill because various aspects of the task must be practised and integrated in to fluent performance.
This requires the automatization of component sub skills. Learning is a cognitive process, because it is thought to
involve internal representations that regulate and guide performance.
As performance improves, there is constant restructuring as learners simplify, unify, and gain increasing
control over their internal representations.
These two notions- automatization and restructuring-are central to cognitive theory.
Automatization: the way in which we process information may be either controlled or automatic, and that
learning involves a shift from controlled towards automatic processing. Learners first resort to controlled
processing in the second language. This controlled processing involves the temporary activation of a selection of
information nodes in the memory, in a new configuration. Such processing requires a lot of attentional control
on the part of the subject, and is constrained by the limitations of the short-term memory.
Through repeated activation, sequences first produced by controlled processing become automatic.
Automatized sequences are stored as units in the long-term memory, which means that they can be made
available very rapidly whenever the situation requires it, with minimal attentional control on the part of the
subject. As a result, automatic processes can work in parallel, activating clusters of complex cognitive skills
simultaneously. Once acquired, such automatized skills are difficult to delete or modify.
 McLaughlin’s Information-processing model:
Automatization: is the shift-involved in learning- from controlled processing of information towards
automatic one.
Controlled Processing: the temporary activation of a selection of information nodes in the memory, in a new
configuration. It needs a lot of attentional control by limitations of the short-term-memory.
Automatic Processing: automatic sequences are stored as units in the long- term-memory. So they can be
available very rapidly with minimal attentional control whenever the situation requires it. Practice (Repeated
Activation)
12 | P a g e
Restructuring: the continuous movement from controlled to automatic processing within the linguistic
system of the SL learner. It destabilizes some structures in the interlanguage (previously acquired) which accounts
for the reappearance of SL errors. It’s the result of exemplar-based representations becoming rule-based. What
happens when a controlled process become automatic prematurely, before it’s native-like? Fossilization.
Learning: the movement from controlled to automatic processing via practice (repeated activation). When
this shift occurs, controlled processes are freed to deal with higher levels of processing (i.e. the integration of
more complex skill clusters), the short-term memory is not taken up by the production of this string. Thus,
explaining the incremental (step by step) nature of learning.
It is necessary for simple sub-skills and routines to become automatic before more complex ones can be
tackled. This continuing movement from controlled to automatic processing results in a constant restructuring of
the linguistic system of the second language learner. This phenomenon may account for some of the variability
characteristic of learner language. Restructuring destabilizes some structures in the interlanguage, which seemed
to have been previously acquired, and hence leads to the temporary reappearance of second language errors.
Second language learners often start by memorizing unanalyzed chunks of language, which will after be
analysed and give rise to productive rules. For example, a learner might first memorize a question as an
unanalyzed chunk: have you got a pet?, without having a productive rule for interrogatives, involving inversion.
When this learner starts generating interrogatives that are not rote-learned chunks, he or she might produce an
alternative, uninverted form, such as you have pet? This can account for fossilization. Fossilization in this model
would arise as a result of a controlled process becoming automatic, before it is native-like.
Automatic processes are difficult to modify as they are outside the attentional control of the subject. Thus
they are likely to remain in the learner's interlanguage, giving rise to a stable but erroneous construction. This
general idea does not explain why some structures seem much more likely to fossilize than others.
 Anderson's ACT model It is based on:
Declarative knowledge (i.e. knowledge that something is the case, only knowledge) to become
Procedural knowledge (i.e. knowledge how to do something, by practice/automatized).
There are 3 kinds of memory: Working memory, similar to McLaughlin's short-term memory and tightly
capacity-limited, and two kinds of long term memory: a declarative long-term memory and a procedural longterm memory.
 The move from declarative to procedural knowledge takes place in three stages:
1. The cognitive stage: a description of the procedure is learnt.
2. The associative stage: a method for performing the skill is worked out. The learner learns to associate an
action (or a set of actions) with the corresponding declarative knowledge.
3. The autonomous stage: The skill becomes more and more rapid and automatic. The corresponding
declarative knowledge may even be lost; our learner might not be able to explain or even be conscious of what
they are doing.
In FLL: The learner's speech becomes more fluent as more knowledge becomes proceduralized, and is
accessed more quickly and efficiently, and the working memory is freed to work on higher level knowledge.
13 | P a g e
Stages of Learning (movement from declarative to procedural knowledge): It explains the step-by-step nature
of learning. The proceduralized knowledge is available quickly and efficiently, difficult to modify and applicable
only to the situation that gave rise to it.
 Application of ACT* to learning strategies (O'Malley & Chamot,1990)
→ Learning strategies are complex procedures that individuals apply to tasks; they may be represented as
procedural knowledge which may be acquired through cognitive, associative, and autonomous stages of learning.
14 | P a g e
→ As with other procedural skills at the different stages of learning, the strategies may be conscious in early
stages of learning and later be performed without the person's awareness. They make it clear that this approach
deals with the rate of learning and how learning strategies influence it rather than the language learning rout
followed by students.
 O'Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 217) sum up the general benefits of applying cognitive theory to the field
of second language acquisition as follows:
•
•
•
•
Learning is an active and dynamic process in which individuals make use of a variety of information and
strategic modes of processing.
Language is a complex cognitive skill that has properties in common with other complex skills in terms of
how information is stored and learnt.
Learning a language entails a stage wise progression from initial awareness and active manipulation of
information and learning processes to full automaticity in language use.
Learning strategies parallel theoretically derived cognitive processes and have the potential to influence
learning outcomes in a positive manner. This is related to rate not root of learning.
 ACT* and fluency development in second language acquisition Towell and Hawkins (1994):
1. A hypothesis will best order in the declarative long-term memory (controlled).
2. When put to use, this kind of internally derived knowledge will give rise to a production stored in the
procedural long-term memory, initially in 'associative' form (i.e. under attentional control from the learner).
3. The hypothesis may then be revised and cause some reorganization of the declarative knowledge, which
will then give rise to other revised productions.
4. After successive reorganizations, these productions will become autonomous (i.e. automatized and free
from attentional control) and are stored as such in the 'autonomous' part of the procedural memory.
Towell & Hawkins reject the idea that Anderson’s model can account for all aspects of SLL, the acquisition of
‘core’ grammatical knowledge. Their model attempt to integrate how learners learn the SL system with how they
learn to use the system. In order to explain the natural order of grammatical structure and the rigid stages SL
learners go through in their SLL they resort to UG. They argue that Declarative knowledge could be implicit or
explicit & the learner will not have a conscious analyzed knowledge of UG. This model attempts to reconcile
internal UG-derived hypothesis with what actually happens during the processes of LL and Language use.
 Processability theory
The Processability theory outlined by Pienemann (1998, 2003) claims we need to use both a theory of
grammar and a processing component to understand second language acquisition.
But this grammar is different from Chomskey. It is called Lexical Functional Grammar. It represents both
linguistic knowledge and language processing within the same framework. It is psychologically plausible, that is,
to be in line with the cognitive features of language processing.
Processability theory aims to clarify how learners acquire the computational mechanisms that operate on the
linguistic knowledge they construct.
15 | P a g e
Pienemann believes that language acquisition itself is the gradual acquisition of these computational
mechanisms, that is, the procedural skills necessary for the processing of language.
Learning is step wise. Learners should match grammatical features against linguistic elements (called feature
unification), like third person S against subject: Peter walks. Learners have hypothesis space that develops over
time. Its utilization at another point in the constituent structure. E.g. a noun & its article should have the same
gender, number and case features. *Peter walk a dogs. Learners cannot access hypotheses about the SL that they
cannot process. There is hierarchy of processing resources in which learners will gradually move ‘up’ the
structure, first accessing words, then their syntactic categories, then joining them in a phrase. E.g. a word need
to be added to the L2 lexicon before its grammatical category can be assigned.
 Perceptual Saliency
•It is one of the features of Pienemann Theory. It’s the Perceptual Saliency that drives the learning process,
rather than an innate language-specific module LMC (language making capacity). The beginning and end of stimuli
are easier to remember and to manipulate. This means that learners will first be able to move elements from
inside to outside the sentence, that is, to sentence-initial or sentence-final positions, then from outside to inside
before being able to move elements within the sentence.
→ Mostly work of Slobin: He argues that the similarity in linguistic development across children and across
language sis because human beings are programmed to perceive and organize information in certain ways. It is
this perceptual saliency that drives the learning process, rather than an innate language-specific module. He used
the notion of LMC (language making capacity), an analogue to LAD. It consists of some operating principles for
child language acquisition. He devised a number of operating principles which guide children in their processing
of the linguistic strings they encounter. They are based on the claim that certain linguistic forms are more
accessible or more salient to the child than others. They are 5 cognitive (rather than linguistic) principles that
characterize the way in which children perceive their environment and try to make sense of it.
 Teachability hypothesis
• This is another feature of Pienemann Theory.
• Learners follow a fairly rigid route in their acquisition of certain grammatical structures.
• Structures only become learnable when the previous steps on this acquisition a path have been acquired.
• Learners can only operate within their Hypothesis Space, which is constrained by the processing resources
they have available to them at that time.
• It tries to establish a link between learning and teaching.
 Connectionism
• Connectionism, or parallel distributed processing likens the brain to a computer that would consist of neural
networks: complex clusters of links between information nodes.
• These links or connections become strengthened or weakened through activation or non-activation.
• Connectionism is a general theory of learning. The key feature of connectionism: it can explain learning by
observations rather than suggested explanations of unobservable internal states.
16 | P a g e
• Connectionism is a movement in cognitive science that hopes to explain intellectual abilities using artificial
neural networks (also known as “neural networks” or “neural nets”). Neural networks are simplified models of
the brain composed of large numbers of units together with weights that measure the strength of connections
between the units. These weights model the effects of the synapses that link one neuron to another. Experiments
on models of this kind have demonstrated an ability to learn such skills as face recognition, reading, and the
detection of simple grammatical structure.
 Learning in Connectionism
• Learning occurs on the basis of associative processes, rather than the construction of abstract rules.
• The human mind is predisposed to look for associations between elements and create links between them.
• These links become stronger as these associations keep recurring, and they become part of larger networks
as connections between elements become more numerous.
• The learning theory of Thorndike represents the original S-R (stimuli -response) framework of behavioral
psychology: Learning is the result of associations forming between stimuli and responses. Such associations or
“habits” become strengthened or weakened by the nature and frequency of the S-R pairings. The paradigm for
S-R theory was trial and error learning in which responses come to dominate others due to rewards. The hallmark
of connectionism (like all behavioral theory) was that learning could be explained without referring to any
unobservable internal states. Thorndike’s theory consists of three laws:
(1) law of effect – responses to a situation which are followed by a rewarding state of affairs will be
strengthened and become habitual responses to that situation,
(2) law of readiness – a series of responses can be chained together to satisfy some goal which will result in
annoyance if blocked, and
(3) law of exercise – connections become strengthened with practice and weakened when practice is
discontinued. A corollary of the law of effect was that responses that reduce the likelihood of achieving a
rewarding state (i.e., punishments, failures) will decrease in strength.
 Connectionism and SLL
Connectionism claims that learners are sensitive to regularities in the language input (i.e. the regular cooccurrence of language forms) and extract probabilistic patterns on the basis of these regularities.
Learningoccursasthesepatternsbecomestrengthenedbyrepeatedactivation.Itdoesnotbelievethatthelearning
ofrulesunderliestheconstructionoflinguisticknowledge.
 Evaluation of Cognitivists views
•They do not say much about the nature of language itself.
•They rely on controlled laboratory research, often involving experiments with artificial languages or small
fragments of real languages.
 Disadvantages of controlled research in Connectionism
• It is questionable how far you can isolate variables that would be interacting in a natural context, and how
far results obtained in that way actually mirror what happens in real life with real languages.
• The questions are very specific and local.
17 | P a g e
• They concentrate on simple, discrete, language phenomena.
• They have been criticized for their rather clinical and fragmentary view of language, ignoring social and
linguistic phenomena.
• They do not adequately explain what the mental grammar of the learner consists of, and what constrains
learners' hypotheses about the language system.
• They do not explain the acquisition of highly complex linguistic phenomena.
 Cognitivists' view of language learning
• The connectionists ideas enriched our understanding of SLA.
• Our understanding of how second language learners use and process language has greatly increased.
• They enlightened us on what processes are involved in the speeding up of the acquisition process.
• Cognitivists believed that "the environment in which language learners participated in talk wouldn't give
enough examples to develop the kinds of language associations that the behaviorist theory needed". Thus, the
concept that learning involves pre-existing knowledge emerged.
• Cognitivism is a learning theory that focusses on how information is received, organized, stored and
retrieved by the mind. It uses the mind as an information processer, like a computer. Cognitivism looks beyond
observable behaviour, viewing learning as internal mental processes.
• A cognitive theory of learning sees SLA as a conscious and reasoned thinking process, involving the
deliberate use of learning strategies. Learning strategies are special ways of processing information that enhance
comprehension, learning or retention of information.
 Cognitivists' view of the language learner
• They are concerned with the individual, and do not view the learner as a social being.
• They are interested in the learner's mind, as a process or of information rather than in the specificity of the
linguistic information it contains.
• Cognitivism contends that “the black box” of the mind should be opened and understood. The learner is
viewed as an information processor. Knowledge can be seen as schema or symbolic mental constructions and
learning is defined as change in a learner's schemata.
 Functional/pragmatic perspectives on second language learning
• They argue that the great variety of interlanguage forms produced by second language learners cannot be
sensibly interpreted unless we pay attention to the speech acts that learners are seeking to perform, and to the
ways they exploit the social, physical and discourse context to help them make meaning.
• Functionalism in linguistics is the explication and explanation of grammatical structure in which semantic
and pragmatic constructs are integral'.
• According to functionalism, the study of second language acquisition begins with the assumption that the
purpose of language is communication, and that development of linguistic knowledge (in L1 or L2) requires
communicative use.
18 | P a g e
• A functional approach to language development offer ways of engaging students in exploring meaning in
texts through classroom discussions about language. This approach provides a metalanguage for talking about
the meanings in the choices authors make.
 Functional perspectives on first language development
• Children's two-word utterances being interpreted as expressing arrange of semantic relations. For example,
'Daddy hit' is interpreted not as an expression of the formal syntactic relationship Subject+Verb, but as a
combination of semantic categories of 'Agent' (or 'doer') plus 'Action'. The child's language at this point is lacking
in function words and overt morphological markers of case, tense, number, etc.
• Syntactic categories develop as prototypes based on semantic information.
• Interactions between syntactic, semantic and pragmatic information are vital in driving forward first
language acquisition.
• Budwig’s (1995) child 1st language acquisition: cognitive orientation, textual orientation, social orientation
and multifunctional orientation.
• Functionalism focuses on the relationship between language form and social meaning. That is, language is
not so much a system of rules as posed by Chomsky, but a means of performing socially communicative functions.
It sees language as a resource for making meaning. We use language for various purposes connected to various
audiences and situations which realize systematic patterns of choices.
 Cognitive orientation
• It initiated with the work of Slobin (1985).
• Slobin proposes the existence of a basic child grammar, in which children construct their own form-function
relationships to reflect a child's-eye view of the world.
• Cognitive orientation is a means of approaching the study of knowledge in which due regard is paid to both
dimensions, the empirical and the analytical, the psychological and the philosophical.
 Textual orientation
• The extent to which particular linguistic devices are employed to help organize stretches of discourse both
Intra sentential and across broader stretches of text.
• Functional linguists are interested in 'how both vocabulary and grammar (e.g. connectives such as
and/but/whereas, deictic elements such as this/that, pronoun systems, etc.) are deployed to create textual
cohesion across sequences of clauses and sentences.
• They develop in the course of time, as children grow older.
 Social orientation
• Relationships between the development of children's formal language system, and aspects of their social
world. For example: use of speech acts
 Multifunctional orientation
• The relations between grammatical development and prototype events; between grammar, pragmatics and
text organization; and between grammar and the social world.
19 | P a g e
 Early functionalist studies of second language learning
 Pragmatic vs. syntactic modes of expression:
• Many of the syntactic structures in interlanguage are not complete, they should be inferred from context
pragmatically. Like the use of future tense which is represented only by adverb: tomorrow.
** Givon (1979):
• Both informal speech and learner speech (whether first or second language) convey meaning through a
reliance on context, where as more formal styles of language rely on more explicit language coding, with reduced
dependence on contextual meaning.
•For Givon, these pragmatic and syntactic 'modes' are the ends of a continuum, rather than discrete
categories; he interprets language acquisition, language change and language variation in terms of movement
along this continuum.
 Form-to-function analysis
Early learner utterances maybe characterized by topic-comment organization; 'the rules governing various
aspects of the interlanguage grammar were influenced by the structure of discourse. So all changes in the
interlanguage begin at the level of discourse or pragmatics and move to an examination of syntax and morphology.
 Function-to-form analysis
Learners' interlanguage moved from parataxis to syntacticization.
• Parataxis: extensive reliance on discourse-pragmatic factors in face-to face communication and minimal
use of target language (TL) morpho-syntactic devices in expressing propositions. Discourse-pragmatic factors
include shared knowledge between interlocutors, collaboration between interlocutors in the expression of
propositions, and the distribution of propositional content over a sequence of utterances rather than within a
single utterance.
• Syntacticization: the process through which the use of morpho-syntactic devices in interlanguage increases
over time, while the reliance on discourse-pragmatic context declines.
20 | P a g e
 What are the most important contributions of the functionalist tradition to our understanding of SLL?
•The scope and achievements of the functionalist perspective:
• The functionalist tradition is well established in SLL theory.
• Its fundamental claim is that language development is driven by pragmatic communicative needs, and that
the formal resources of language are elaborated to express more complex patterns of meaning.
• Functionalist research takes the form of naturalistic case studies of individuals or groups of learners; most
these have been adults in the early stages of second language learning, who are acquiring the language in
informal environments rather than in the classroom.
 Functionalism and the nature of interlanguage
• ‘Functionalist' first language acquisition researchers have simply given semantic and pragmatic
considerations some role in the acquisition of formal linguistic systems.
• Functionalist researchers have shown the wide range of devices (lexical and pragmatic as well as formal)
which interlanguage users deploy to convey meaning.
• Functionalist researchers have drawn our attention to the issue of textual or discourse organization in
learner language, and offered evidence in support of the view that early learner varieties rely on parataxis rather
than on syntax to structure and express both individual propositions and inter-propositional relationships.
Limitations of Functionalist Approach
• Most attention has been paid to the earliest stages of development (the 'basic variety').
• The range of target languages investigated is not very wide (most research has been done with Germanic
or Romance languages) and the extent of influence of learners 'first languages on post basic varieties is not clear.
Functionalist mono language learning and development
• Functionalist researchers insist on the gradual nature of interlanguage development and syntacticization,
with learners working on only part of the system at any one time, but with possible reorganizational
consequences that may spread through the system.
• Linkages across different sub-systems are not always clear, though functionalist researchers argue
consistently for a multi-level approach to the analysis of IL data.
•While their contribution at a descriptive level has been very strong and varied, however, the contribution of
functionalist studies to the explanation of IL development has so far been limited.
•Functionalist research has concentrated largely on the analysis of learners' interlanguage output, and has
paid less attention to input and even to interaction.
 Functionalism on the language learner
• Much functionalist research has concerned itself with naturalistic adult learners, acquiring a socially
dominant target language in the workplace and other non-domestic settings.
• The driving forces promoting second language acquisition for such learners have been explained by (a)
immediate communicative need and (b) a longer-term and more variable desire for social integration with the
target language community.
 Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition
21 | P a g e
• It is well known that adults and other caretakers use 'special' speech styles when talking with young children,
and terms such as baby talk are used to refer to this.
• The idea that 'baby talk' with its characteristics might be helpful to language acquisition, and the empirical
study of care takers ‘interactions with young children, date back to the 1960s. This empirical research tradition
of investigating child-directed speech (CDS) has remained very active.
• Input and interaction play a critical role in the development of SLA. By all means of interaction, L2 learners
develop their language competence through the comprehensible input where language acquisition takes place.
 Criticism
•Chomsky described as 'absurd' the notion that aspects of first language acquisition could be related to the
input. Some child language specialists have criticized parameter-setting models of acquisition as ignoring
substantial evidence of probabilistic learning from 'noisy' input
•Gallaway and Richards (1994) provide a useful overview of the interactionist tradition within first language
acquisition studies. They point out that child-directed speech might be expected to facilitate language acquisition
in a wide variety of ways, including:
→ managing attention
→ promoting positive affect
→ improving intelligibility
→ facilitating segmentation
→ providing feedback
→ provision of correct models
→ reducing processing load
→ encouraging conversational participation
→ explicit teaching of social routines.
 Findings:
1. Child-directed speech has been studied in English-speaking contexts in the developed world, and usually in
a middle-class family setting. In such contexts, child-directed speech is semantically contingent; that is, the
caretaker talks with the child about objects and events to which the child is paying attention.
• in child-directed speech explicit formal corrections of the child's productions are unusual, but recasts are
common; that is, utterances in which the caretaker produces an expanded and grammatically correct version of
a prior child utterance. Recasts offer children useful negative evidence about their own hypotheses on the
workings of the target language. There is empirical evidence for positive correlations between the proportion of
recasts used by a child's caretakers, and his or her rate of development.
2. Another point is the relationship of particular formal characteristics of child-directed speech and children's
developing control of constructions. For example, there seems to be a relationship between the caretaker's use
of inverted yes-no questions, for example Have you been sleeping?, and children's developing control of verbal
auxiliaries in English as a first language, because the fronted auxiliary is more salient than questions marked
through intonation only But it depends on developmental stage of child.
3. Despite the potential usefulness of child-directed speech as input data, it is clear that caretakers are not
motivated by any prime language teaching goal, nor is their speech in general adapted so as to model the target
22 | P a g e
grammar. Its special characteristics derive from the communicative goal of engaging in conversation with a
linguistically and cognitively less competent partner, and sustaining and directing their attention.
4. Cross-linguistic studies pointed to the fact that only in some cultures child-directed speech is common and
it is rare or absent in many cultures of the world.
 Input in second language acquisition: Krashen's Input hypothesis'
• Like baby talk for children, foreigner talk, a simplified and pidgin-like variety is sometimes used to address
strangers and foreigners. Input hypothesis claims that exposure to comprehensible input is both necessary and
sufficient for SLL to take place. Linked to the hypothesis are two further ideas:
1. Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause.
2. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided.
 How exactly does acquisition take place? Krashen proposed three stages in turning input into intake:
(a) understanding a second language i+ 1 form (i.e. linking it to a meaning);
(b) noticing a gap between the second language i+ 1 form and the
interlanguage rule which the learner currently controls; and (c) the reappearance of the i+ 1 form with
minimal frequency.
•In other versions of the hypothesis, the concept of 'noticing a gap' is omitted, and it seems that acquisition
takes place entirely incidentally or without awareness.
 Criticism
1. There is little empirical evidence, and it is not easily testable.
2. The concepts of 'understanding' and 'noticing a gap' are not clearly operationalized, or consistently
proposed.
3. It is not clear how the learner's present state of knowledge is to be characterized, or whether the 'i+1'
formula is intended to apply to all aspects of language, including vocabulary and phonology as well as syntax.
4.The processes where by language in the social environment is analysed and new elements are identified
and processed by the 'language acquisition device' so that they can influence and modify the learner's existing
inter language system, are not spelled out.
 Interaction in second language acquisition: Long's' Interaction hypothesis ‘
• Through interaction some conversational tactics are used to make speech comprehensible:
→ Confirmation checks: Moves by which one speaker seeks confirmation of the other's preceding utterance
through repetition, with rising intonation, of what was perceived to be all or part of the preceding utterance.
→ Clarification requests: Moves by which one speaker seeks assistance in understanding the other speaker's
preceding utterance through questions (including wh-, polar, disjunctive, uninverted with rising intonation or
tag), statements such as/don't understand, or imperatives such as Please repeat.
→ Comprehension checks: Moves by which one speaker attempts to determine whether the other speaker
has understood a preceding message.
 Rethinking the Interaction hypothesis
• More emphasis was placed on linking features of input and the linguistic environment with 'learner-internal
factors', and explaining how such linkages may facilitate subsequent language development:
23 | P a g e
• Environmental contributions to acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner's developing
L2 processing capacity. These resources are brought together most usefully during negotiation for meaning.
• Negative feedback obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of L2 development,
at least for vocabulary, morphology and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable
L1-L2 contrasts.
 Output in second language acquisition
General idea: Output is necessary to increase fluency, that is, learners must practise producing second
language utterances if they are to learn to use their interlanguage system routinely. Swain added:
• The 'noticing/triggering' function, or what might be referred to as the consciousness-raising role: aware of
gaps and problems in their current L2 system
• The hypothesis-testing function: to experiment with new structures and forms
• The metalinguistic function, or what might be referred to as its 'reflective' role: to reflection, discuss and
analyse these problems explicitly.
 Attention, Consciousness-raising and 'Focus on Form'
• The researchers have developed the idea that the amount of attention which the learner is paying to matters
of form may influence the extent to which second language input and interaction produce second language
intake, that is, new language which has been processed sufficiently for it to become incorporated into the
learner's developing second language system.
• Schmidt is careful to distinguish among different types of attention that learners might pay to language
form. He uses the term noticing to refer to the process of bringing some stimulus into focal attention, that is,
registering its simple occurrence, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.
 Input processing theory
• The theory is concerned to explain how environmental second language input becomes converted into
intake: By Vanpatten
• Intake is defined as the linguistic data actually processed from the input and held in working memory for
further processing. IP attempts to explain how learners get form from input and how they parse sentences during
the act of comprehension while their primary attention is on meaning.
• The input processing principles assume that learners have preferences for semantic processing over
morphological processing. they process content words in the input before anything else, prefer to extract
semantic information from lexical items rather than grammatical items (such as inflections), and prefer to process
meaningful morphology rather than 'non-meaningful' morphology.
 Autonomous induction theory
Carroll reminds us that the understanding of second language acquisition processes requires:
• an adequate theory of the representation of language in the mind (i.e. a property theory)
• an adequate theory of how language is processed, both receptively and productively
24 | P a g e
• a theory of how our mental representations of language can be changed, when we discover that our
(interlanguage) representations are not adequate to process the environmental language we encounter (i.e. a
transition theory).
Carroll accepts that our mental representations of language involve a number of distinct modules, as
suggested by Universal Grammar, with limited interconnections. she proposes a version of inductive learning (ilearning), which is initiated when we fail to parse incoming language stimuli adequately using our existing mental
representations and analysis procedures. ‘Inductive learning' is the term applied to learning by generalization
from examples.
 Evaluation: the scope of interactionist research
The Input, Output and Interaction hypotheses have led to very active strands of empirical research. A first
phase of research leaned heavily towards documenting the phenomenon of meaning negotiation. If it could be
shown that negotiation increased comprehensibility of target language input, it was assumed that this would also
enhance second language acquisition.
Researchers have shown rather more concern to relate environmental factors in language learning to
linguistic theory, and in particular to the assumptions of Universal Grammar. Interactionists have fixed on
particular aspects of this problem, such as the possible role of selective attention, the usefulness of heightened
saliency for promoting language processing, or the possible influence of a variety of processing constraints on
intake. However, calls for a more principled approach to theory building continue to be made.
 Achievements of interactionist research
• It has been shown that native speaker and non-native speaker interlocutors (child and adult) can and will
work actively to achieve mutual understanding, at least when undertaking a fairly wide range of problem solving
tasks.
• It has been shown that these negotiations involve both linguistic and interactional modifications, which
together offer repeated opportunities to 'notice' aspects of target language form, whether from positive or
negative evidence.
• It has been shown that non-native speaker participants in 'negotiations for meaning' can attend to, take up
and use language items made available to them by their native speaker interlocutors.
• It has been shown that learners receiving negative feedback, relating to particular target language
structures, can in some circumstances be significantly advantaged when later tested on those structures.
 Limitations of interactionist research
• Work on interaction has been carried out almost entirely within a Western or Anglophone educational
setting; more cross-cultural studies of second language interaction will be needed, before any claims can be made
that 'negotiation for meaning' is a universal phenomenon.
• We are still far from identifying what may be the most productive research questions to ask, about the role
of interaction, etc., in learning.
25 | P a g e
• Research in this area is too general: There are still not very many studies that focus on particular language
structures, tracking them through processes of instruction, negotiation, output or recasting, and documenting
learners subsequent use and control of these particular items.
• But we are still not in a position to generalize or to make any very powerful predictions about the likely
usefulness of interaction in either of these domains of variability.
• But we are still not in a position to generalize or to make any very powerful predictions about the likely
usefulness of interaction in either of these domains of variability.
 Usage-Based Theory
According to this theory, language structure emerges from language use, and children build their language
relying on their general cognitive skills. Language acquisition emerges from language use. Usage-based learning
theory is based around the idea that we learn language by using it. Language is essentially a collection of words
and structures that have meaning, and we learn these meanings by using them.
In usage-based models, frequency of usage plays a big role in the production, language comprehension, and
grammaticality of the patterns. The two mentioned types of frequency are token and type frequency. Token
frequency “is how often particular words or specific phrases appear in the input”. “Token frequency is the
frequency of occurrence in language use of individual tokens of a grammatical type, such as English regular past
tense forms”
 What is the difference between the usage-based language learning theory and the universal grammar theory?
As two different approaches in theoretical linguistics, usage-based and universal grammar-based (UG-based)
are two theories in language learning from various perspectives: the former focuses on the influence of
experience, input, and frequency in language learning (i.e., cognitive linguistics), while the latter emphasizes the
existence of an innate universal grammar and a set of rules as underlying basis for the formation of correct
grammatical sentences (i.e., generative grammar).
 The effect of early input in second language acquisition
Some researchers believe that receiving language input at an early age has positive effects on the learning
process. Early language input has a great influence on increasing lexical proficiency level and having less linguistic
input exposure causes learning problems. Because of the effect of receiving early input, cognitive mechanism of
children is different in the word learning process; children find the relationship between words and their usage
by the use of categorization. An increase in the linguistic input has a positive effect on the children’s vocabulary
learning process.
 To what extent are first and second language acquisition the same thing (i.e., involve the same learner-internal
processing and acquisition mechanisms)?
Everyone knows that first and second language acquisition must differ due to contextual differences: quality
and quantity of input and interaction; topic and focus of interactions; exposure to formal rules; differences
between children and adults. But ultimately, acquisition is something that happens in the brain/mind as it
processes and stores language.
26 | P a g e
Various theories would talk about the properties of the L1 in different ways; that is, not all would talk about
parameters. Some would talk about form-function relationships and meaning (e.g., as in functional approaches
or connectionism); others might refer to processing and parsing routines (how learners compute syntactic
relationships in real time while listening or reading), claiming that L1 processing routines are transferred in SLA.
Pienemann (1998), coming from an output processing perspective, believes that L1 output procedures (how
people put together syntax and lexicon in real time while speaking) are not fully transferred into SLA. In his
framework (see Processability), learners must acquire L2 output processing procedures that interface with the
learner’s developing grammar, and that these are responsible for learners’ spontaneous production. L1 output
procedures can only be transferred when the learner is at a point in acquisition where he or she has acquired the
L2 processing routine and there is similarity between the L1 and L2 structure in question. (The issue is more
complex than this and the reader is invited to review the work on Processability and L1 transfer.)
 What are the roles of explicit and implicit learning in SLA?
“Explicit learning is input processing with the conscious intention to find out whether the input information
contains regularities and, if so, to work out the concepts and rules with which these regularities can be captured.
Implicit learning is input processing without such an intention, taking place unconsciously”. 3 potential positions
regarding explicit and implicit processes or learning: (1) SLA is largely or exclusively implicit; (2) SLA is largely or
exclusively explicit; (3) SLA consists of both implicit and explicit learning.
Krashen (1982) has argued that SLA is largely implicit. He distinguishes between acquisition and learning in
adults; the former involves implicit learning and results in competence as we normally define the term, while the
latter involves explicit learning and results in a learned system, available for monitoring.
Most persons working within a Universal Grammar framework would contend that acquisition is implicit, as
underlying competence is a result of the interaction of processed input data with the principles and parameters
of Universal Grammar. This interaction happens outside of learner awareness.
Within nonlinguistic theories, such as those that are based on psychological accounts of learning such as
connectionism, acquisition is largely implicit as well. Within these approaches, learning is the result of
unconscious processing of linguistic tokens in the input, with unconscious frequency tabulation by the learner’s
internal mechanisms playing a major role in acquisition. Ellis (2005) has stated, “the bulk of language acquisition
is implicit learning from usage. Most knowledge is tacit knowledge; most learning is implicit”.
27 | P a g e
View publication stats