You are on page 1of 3

SCHOOL OF THOUGHT BEHAVIOURISM

FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROPONENT B. F. SKINNER

INNATIST PERSPECTIVE NOAM CHOMSKY THE CRITICAL PERIOD HYPOTHESIS

JEAN PIAGET INTERACTIONIST / DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE LEV VYGOTSKY CONNECTIONISM JEFFREY ELMAN

THEORY When children imitated the language produced by those around them, their attempts to reproduce what they heard received positive reinforcement. If a particular response is reinforced, it becomes habitual, or conditioned. All human languages are fundamentally innate. Children are biologically programmed for language. Childrens minds are not blank slates to be filled by imitating language they hear in the environment. Animals, including humans, are genetically programmed to acquire certain kinds of knowledge and skill at specific times in life. What children need to know is essentially available in the language they are exposed to as they hear it used in thousands of hours of interactions with the people and objects around them. Language is a symbol system that could be used to express knowledge acquire through interaction with the physical world. Language develops primarily from social interaction. ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT. Thought was essentially internalized speech, and speech emerged in social interaction. Language acquisition does not require a separate module of the mind but can be explain in terms of learning in general. What children need to know is essentially available to them in the language they are exposed to.

SCHOOL OF THOUGHT BEHAVIOURISM

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROPONENT NELSON BROOKS (1960) ROBERT LADO (1964) NOAM CHOMSKY LYDIA WHITE (2003)

INNATIST PERSPECTIVE BONNIE SCHWARTZ (1993)

THEORY Classroom activities emphasized mimicry and memorization, students learned dialogs and sentence patterns by heart. Innate knowledge of the principles of universal grammar permits all children to acquire the language of their environment during a critical period of their development. Universal grammar offers the best perspective from which to understand second language acquisition. Formal instruction changes only the superficial appearance of language performance and do not affect the underlying systematic knowledge of the new language. We acquire as we are exposed to samples of the second language, with no conscious attention to language form. We learn through conscious attention to form and rule learning. The natural order: as in first language acquisition, second language acquisition unfolds in predictable sequences. The input hypothesis: acquisition occurs when one is exposed to language that is comprehensible. Affective filter hypothesis: a metaphorical barrier that prevents learners from acquiring language even when appropriate input is available. Learners have to pay attention at first to any aspect of the language that they are trying to understand or produce. Frequency with which learners encounter specific linguistic features in the input and the frequency with which features occur together. An explanation for language acquisition that takes into account not only language form but also language meaning and language use. Conversational interaction is an essential condition for second language acquisition.

MONITOR MODEL STEPHEN KRASHEN (1982)

INFORMATION PROCESSING

NORMAN SEGALOWITZ (2003)

CONNECTIONISM

NICK ELLIS (2002)

THE COMPETITION MODEL

ELIZABETH BATES AND BRIAN MACWHINNEY (1981) EVELYN HATCH (1978), MICHAEL LONG (1983, 1996), TERESA PICA (1994), SUSAN GASS (1997)

THE INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS

THE NOTICING HYPOTHESIS

RICHARD SCHMIDT (1990, 2001)

Nothing is learned unless it has been noticed.