Language Learning Theory
Yi Hong
yihongbetty@163.com
03/07
References of the course
• The Study of Second Language Acquisition
(by Rod Ellis, 1994, published by Oxford
University Press)
• 语言学高级教程 (胡壮鳞 姜望琪主编)
• Materials from the lecturer
• Journals to read: 外语界; 外语教学与研究;
外语教学; 国外语言学; etc
Introduction
• Rationale: Research into SLA provides
insights into the language teaching and
learning process that are invaluable for
language teachers as well as those who
are interested in language learning. This
course aims to extend students’
knowledge of research into, and theories
of, SLA and to explore possible
pedagogical implications.
• Such understandings about how language
is acquired also inform students,
classroom teachers and researchers in
other areas of SLA. Topics covered will
include theories and research in SLA (see
the main contents after the objectives).
Objectives
• On completion of this course, participants should
be:
(1) familiar with the major (sometimes
conflicting) theories of SLA and be able to
evaluate these in terms of their strengths and
weaknesses;
(2) familiar with the current issues in SLA and
their possible implications for language teaching
practice and classroom-based research;
• (3) aware of the role of individual
differences in language acquisition;
• 4) able to explore how the insights gained
might be used to create positive
environments for English learning in China
and to develop more effective programs
and teaching strategies for use with young
children, adolescents or adults;
(5) familiar with SLA research methodology and
instrumentation and able to analyze the
language occurring in language classrooms
and/or natural settings in order to develop a
better understanding of its potential contribution
to language development.
Major contents of the course
• Session 1: Theories of SLA (2W)
• Session 2: Interlanguage Studies and
Error Analysis (2W)
• Session 3: Learning Strategies &
Other Individual Differences (2W)
Session:
• Theories of SLA
1. Nativist Theories of SLA
Chomsky’s Universal Grammar
(i) Humans are innately endowed with
specifically linguistic knowledge (Universal
Grammar)
(ii) UG = “The system of principles, conditions
and rules that are elements or properties of
all human languages not merely by accident
but by necessity.” (Chomsky 1976:29).
• (ii) The primary determinant of acquisition
is the 'language acquisition device', which is
biologically determined and provides a
general set of principles about language
which can be used to discover the rules of a
particular L1.
• (iv) Input data is required to trigger
the process by which the 'language
acquisition device' discovers the rules
of the L1.
• Critics question three key assumptions
1) that learning occurs quickly and is
largely completed by age 5;
• Critics: there is evidence of late acquisition
and certainly children add to their generic
repertoire long after the age of 5
• 2) that certain syntactic principles are
unlearnable, and therefore innate;
• Critics: the process may involve the initial
adoption of conservative hypotheses,
followed by movement along a
developmental continuum ( of gradually
increasing complexity ) governed by a
learning theory and guided by positive
evidence ( “the set of well-formed
sentences to which learners are exposed.”)
3) that the input available to learners is
inadequate and lacks essential negative
evidence (implicit or explicit ‘information
that is provided to learners concerning the
correctness of an utterance’).
• the UG argument goes that only innate
principles could remedy excessive
complexity and overgeneralization in the
absence of any negative evidence.
• Critics: they argue that the fact that lexical
rules are language- and culture-specific
and so not regulated innately suggests
that there has to be a theory of learning
that constrains the initial hypotheses in
some way and then modifies them via
positive evidence. If this works for lexical
rules why shouldn’t it work also for basic
syntactic rules?
• (i) Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
• (ii) Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.
Krashen’s Monitor Theory
Five basic hypotheses:
1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
• Acquisition: naturally, subconscious,
informal,
Learning: consciously, formal, “know
about the second language, analysis
and correction of errors formally and
explicitly addressed.
• Krashen supports this claim as follows:
(i) there can be acquisition without
learning.
Competent language learners may
speak the language without consciously
knowing the rules.
• (ii) there are cases where people can
“know” a rule but do not use it in normal
interaction.
• (iii) in any case, nobody knows all the
rules of a language. Grammatical
explanations even in languages as widely
studied as English do not cover the largely
unconsciously knowledge of a nativespeaker. It often takes linguists years to
describe rules which are relatively easily
acquired (Ellis 1985).
• Acquisition and Learning are not defined
by “where” a second language occurs.
Formal learning in the street. The
distinction is a central idea in education
theory: between deductive (推理:from
general to particular) and inductive (归
纳)approaches; classroom and naturalistic
learning; formal and informal language
learning.
2) The Natural Order Hypothesis
• Grammatical structures are acquired in a
predictable order for both children and
adults, irrespective of the language being
learnt. Some rules tend 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.
• When a learner engages in natural
communication, then the standard order
will occur.
• The Monitor Hypothesis
• The Monitor is an editing device that may
operate before language performance.
Utterances may be modified by being
acted upon by the Monitor of learnt
knowledge. Such editing may occur before
the natural output of speech; it may occur
after the output via a correcting device.
• Krashen suggests that monitoring occurs
when there is sufficient time, when there
is pressure to communicate correctly and
not just convey meaning, and when the
appropriate rules of speech are known.
• Put it the other way:
1) there must be time for a speaker to use
conscious rules effectively. Normal
conversation does not allow for this
monitoring.
• 2) time alone is not enough. The speaker’s
attention must also be focused on Form.
• 3) the speaker must know the rule before
the monitor can be used.
• Examples include knowing the correct
tense to use, when to use the third or first
person and rules about plurals. This
hypothesis has been criticized for being
untestable and for a lack of supportive
research evidence.
4)The Input Hypothesis
• To explain how language acquisition
occurs, Krashen proposes that when
learners are exposed to grammatical
features a little beyond their current level,
those features are ‘acquired’. Krashen
emphasizes that ‘acquisition’ is the result
of comprehensible language input and not
of language production. Input is made
• comprehensible because of the help
provided by the context. If the language
student receives understandable input,
language structures will be, according to
Krashen, naturally acquired. For Krashen,
the ability to communicate in a second
language ‘emerges’ rather than is directly
put in place by teaching. Second language
• is said to be caused by the process of
understanding second language input.
• Krashen lists a number of lines of evidence
to support the input hypothesis:
⊙ the silent period: this is based on the
fact that children in an L2 situation
sometimes remain silent for several weeks.
Similarly, young children are exposed to
their mother tongue (and obviously
understand it) before they begin to speak.
⊙ age difference: younger learners may get more
comprehensible input because they tend to
engage in ‘here-and-now’ interactions. Older
learners may make faster progress initially,
however, because they are exposed to more
comprehensible input thanks to their broader
world knowledge and because of the
communicative strategies they have already
developed in their L1.
⊙ the effect of exposure: the more
learners are exposed to comprehensible
input, the more their language proficiency
develops. Learners who do not have
access to comprehensible input are held
up in their development.
⊙ immersion, bilingual and sheltered
language teaching: students in these
programs learn effectively because they
receive comprehensible input where the
focus is on the subject matter being
taught rather than the form of the
language.
⊙ simple codes (care taker speech,
motherese, foreigner talk, etc.) provide
ideal input because (a) they are used to
communicate meaning, not form, (b) they
are roughly tuned to the learners’ current
level of linguistic competence, and © they
follow the ‘here-and-now’ principle which
helps the learners understand.
• ⊙ the effects of instruction: instruction is
helpful when it is the primary source of
comprehensible input. Formal instruction
is only helpful because it is source of
comprehensible input. Methods that focus
on comprehensible input are assumed to
be superior to grammar-based or drillbased methods which focus on learning
• Input is language which a learner hears or
receives and from which he/she can learn.
Intake is input which is actually integrated
into the learner’s interlanguage.
• “speakers acquire language in only one
way – by understanding messages, or by
receiving ‘comprehensible (or better still
comprehended) input’… We move from i,
our current level, to i + 1, the next level
along the natural order, by understanding
input containing i +1”.
• 5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis
• An affective filter was proposed by Dulay
& Burt (1977) with the idea that there is a
filter that determines how much a person
learns in a formal or informal language
setting. The filter comprises affective
factors such as attitudes to language,
motivation, self-confidence and anxiety.
• Thus learners with favorable attitudes and
self-confidence may have ‘a low filter’ with
consequent efficient second language
learning. Those with unfavourable
attitudes and / or high anxiety have ‘high
filters’ and so the input of second
language learning may be blocked or
impeded. The affective filter proposed
by Krashen influences the rate of
development in second language learning
and the level of success in becoming
bilingual.
• Krashen: comprehensible input may not
be utilised by second language acquirers if
there is a ‘mental block’ that prevents
them from fully profiting from it. If the
affective barrier is down (i.e. when the
learner is motivated, confident, and not
anxious), comprehensible input reaches
the Language Acquisition Device.
• The affective filter has 4 functions:
i) it determines the selection of language
models;
ii) it determines which part of the language
will be attended to first;
iii) it determines when language acquisition
efforts should cease;
iv) it determines the speed of acquisition
• Summary of the 5 hypothesis
“People acquire second languages only if
they obtain comprehensible input and if their
affective filters are low enough to allow the
input 'in'. When the filter is 'down' and
appropriate comprehensible input is presented
(and comprehended), acquisition is inevitable
It is, in fact, unavoidable and cannot be
prevented - the language 'mental organ'
will function just as automatically as any
other organ”
(Krashen 1985:4)
• Krashen’s theory applied to the classroom
(discuss)
• (1) the goal of teaching must be to supply
understandable input in order for the child
or adult to acquire language easily. A good
teacher therefore is someone who
continuously delivers at a level
understandable by the second language
speaker.
• Just as father/mother talk (motherese)
helps the young child to acquire the first
language by a simplified and
comprehensible language (and nonverbal
language), so an effective teacher is said
to facilitate second language learning by
ensuring a close match between the level
of delivery and the level that is
understandable.
• (2) teaching must prepare the learner for
real life communication situations. The
classroom needs to provide conversational
confidence so that, when in the outside
world, the student can both linguistically
cope and continue language learning.
• Language and communication are the two
sides of the same coin.
• Teachers should provide
opportunities for communication.
McNamara (1973) has argued
that ‘the really important part of
motivation lies in the act of
communication.
• Rossier (1975) also emphasizes the
importance of a desire to communicate,
arguing that without this, students’
motivation may not be effective. It is the
need to get meanings across and the
pleasure experienced when this is
achieved that provides the motivation to
learn an L2.
• Teachers also should provide
opportunities for group work.
Teachers should try to ensure that
students’ interest is engendered
as a result of a good rapport with
the learners. As Finocchiaro (1981)
puts it:
• The moment of truth--- the enhancement
of motivation--- occurs when the teacher
closes the classroom door, greets his
students with a warm, welcoming smile,
and proceeds to interact with various
individuals by making comments or asking
questions which indicate personal concern.
• (3) teachers must ensure that learners do
not become anxious or defensive in
language learning. This relates to the
Affective Filter hypothesis. The confidence
of the learner must be encouraged in a
language acquisition process.
• When a learner is relaxed, confident and
not anxious, then the input of the
classroom situation will be more efficient
and effective. If teachers insist on children
conversing before they feel comfortable in
doing so, or a teacher constantly corrects
errors and makes negative remarks, the
learner may feel inhibited in learning.
• (4) formal grammar teaching is of limited
value because it contributes to learning
rather than acquisition. Only simple rules
should be learnt. Complex rules will not be
used consciously or unconsciously by the
language learner. Therefore, there appears
little to be gained from formally teaching
the rules of a second language.
• (5) errors should not be corrected when
acquisition is occurring. They may be
corrected when the goal is formal learning.
Error correction is valuable when learning
simple rules but may have negative effects
in terms of anxiety and inhibition.
For Krashen, a “Natural Approach” is
required in language teaching. The
Natural Approach is very different form
traditional grammar teaching and
language laboratory types of approach. Its
main tenets are as follows:
communicative skills should be the aim of
the good language classroom;
comprehension of language should
precede production (listening should
precede speaking);
• speaking and then writing will emerge
when the language learner is ready and
should not be forced; acquisition rather
than formal learning is central in good
language learning; and the affective filter
needs to be kept low.
• Problems with the Monitor Model
McLaughlin (1987) criticises Krashen for not
defining his terms with enough precision
and for basing his theory on weak
empirical evidence. The theory,
furthermore, fails to make clear
predictions. McLaughlin lists the following
problems:
★ the learning-acquisition distinction is not
clearly enough defined to allow for
empirical testing. Leakage from learnt to
acquired seems not only possible but wellsubstantiated.
When ‘learnt’ knowledge is automatised
through practice it becomes ‘acquired’ (i.e.,
available for spontaneous use).
★ variation is explained in terms of
monitored and unmonitored performance
and there is no provision for partial
monitoring (i.e. the Monitor is either on or
off).
Sociolinguistic research, however, shows
that all speakers engage in ‘small-m’
monitoring in that their speech varies on a
careful-non-careful continuum according
to the level of attention to form. This
attention to form does not necessarily
imply the use of articulated rules of usage.
★ Krashen’s case for the natural order
hypothesis is based largely on morpheme
studies which are questionable and
provide little information about the
process of acquisition because they focus
on final form (i.e. the product).
★ the input hypothesis is untestable
because no definition is given of
‘comprehensible input’ or of the constructs
i and i +1. The hypothesis also fails to
explain the elimination of incorrect
intermediate forms in the learner’s
interlanguage and provides no way of
distinguishing between different
instructional methods because each,
if effective, can be argued to provide
comprehensible input. There seems a
contradiction between the emphasis
placed on the crucial component of ‘rough
tuned’ input (the external environment)
and the natural order hypothesis (an
internal process).
• ★ the affective filter hypothesis is vague
and does not explain how the filter
develops or why, for example, it affects
language acquisition in adults but not in
children. Affectivity may just as well
influence a learner’s conscious learning by
interfering with or aiding concentration,
memory, hypothesis formation, or assiduity.
△ many researchers agree with Krashen on
basic assumptions such as the need to
move from grammar-based to
communication-based instruction, the role
of affective factors in language learning
and the importance of acquisitional
sequences in second language acquisition.
The theory has, nevertheless, been criticized
because it tries to achieve too much and
makes assertions which cannot be proved
or, indeed, contradicted by empirical
evidence.