Introduction

This assignment serves to expound Innatist theory, introduced by Chomsky, as well as Jim
Cummins’s Common Underlying Proficiency model, in relation to second and foreign language
teaching and learning. The criteria adopted in choosing the two articles is based on the articles’
relevance to each perspective, variance, and recency – in fact, both articles were written in 2020. Each
approach is later explicated in relation to the teaching and learning of the English Language in Maltese
education and discussion of possible further research will conclude this text. Through the utilisation of
subheadings, the assignment is organised into sections: one for each article summary, one for the
discussion of each theory in relation to the teaching of English as a second language, a comment on
future research in second language acquisition, followed by a general conclusion.

Heather (2020): Summary

Heather’s (2020) article, The Relevance of Chomsky in 21st Century Second Language
Acquisition aims to critique Chomskian theory and question its relevance within the realm of English as
a second language teaching and learning. According to Heather (2020), Chomsky’s Innatist theory is
outdated and insufficient due to the simple fact that it is not adequately based on empirical evidence.

Heather (2020) explains, ‘Chomsky proposed that a child is programmed to learn language, and that
humans are born with a Universal Grammar’ (p. 243) and quotes Chomsky’s (1976) definition of
Universal Grammar as a ‘system of principles, conditions and rules that are elements or properties of all
human language’ and ‘a theory of knowledge [concerned] with the internal structure of the human
mind’ (p. 29). This innate language (Universal Grammar) equips children to gradually develop
sophisticated grammatical knowledge, subconsciously. Thus, according to Chomskian Theory, children
are born with the possession of knowledge on the grammatical structures of all languages, from which
they select those structures pertaining to the language/s spoken by the parents / guardians, and advance
in the acquisition of the particular language/s. This process of “language recognition” is made possible
via the Language Acquisition Device (LAD); since it ‘set[s] the parameters for grammar in which a
child first recognizes what kind of language the parents are dealing with, and then sets his grammar to
the correct one’ (Heather, 2020, p. 243).

In order to consolidate the author’s critical view of an unintegrated, Innatist Theory, he mentions other
theories relevant to SLA and includes a section discussing the arguments posed by Chomsky’s critics;
namely: Tomasello, Deacon, and Searle. Reference is made to the fact that, at first, Chomsky seems to
ignore the evolutionary element of language learning. Although later, after being criticised on such

1
grounds, he changes his mind: ‘Chomsky too, no longer in denial, described an evolutionary model for
the language instinct’ (Chomsky, Hauser, & Fitch, 2002; in Heather, 2020, p. 244). Searle (2002) ‘says
that after years of the “Chomsky Revolution” the results are inconclusive’, which leads us back to
Heather’s (2020) point that the Innatist perspective has not been empirically proven (Heather, 2020, p.
245). Despite the overall negative view of this theory, there is acknowledgement that Chomsky’s
Innatist Theory may have inspired humanistic language teaching methods and theories, such as CLT
(Communicative Language Teaching) and Krashen’s Monitor Model and Natural Approach (Heather,
2020).

After heavily criticising Chomskian thought, the discussion of the opposition between nativist and non-
nativist perspectives, is interesting because of the fact that nativist theory has emerged from Chomsky’s
own Innatist theory. In fact, Heather (2020) admits:

‘This paper has focused on Chomsky’s ideas of innatism in acquiring language and has
discussed the contributions/implications to TESL methods. In addition it introduced other
positions and compared them in relation to Chomsky. For all of the “newness” these theories
claim, the reality is they may be seen as mere extensions of the original nativist/non-nativist
(nature/nurture) perspectives’ (p. 246).

In my opinion, it is difficult to buy-into all of the opinions promoted in this article, possibly due to the
fact that some of the arguments seem shallow and as these are mainly based on the briefly-mentioned
views produced by others. Thus, the points seem to lack coherence to a well-established aim; I do not
feel that the aim of criticising Chomsky’s theory is a valid or sufficient purpose for writing. This article
was nonetheless chosen because discussive literature is of great academic value, despite the common
misconception that its range of contribution is miniscule compared to data collection methods of
research. Despite this, I feel that in this case, due to the lack of the author’s personal opinion, precise
aim and/ or sophisticated rhetoric, the text’s effect on the reader is underwhelming. Perhaps with some
linguistic embellishment and a more balanced view of Chomskian approach to teaching and learning
language, The Relevance of Chomsky in 21st Century Second Language Acquisition (Heather, 2020)
might be more convincing.

Tsang & Lo (2020): Summary

This article describes the findings of a mixed-methods case study that aims to understand the
effects of Cummins’ CUP model and cross-linguistic transfer theory in promoting L1 and L2
development. The study involved nine children (five additional learners constitute the control group)
from Hong Kong who speak Cantonese (L1) and English (L2) within the context of a language-
2
enrichment course. The skills observed were mainly speaking and writing skills – thus, productive skills
– via competence tests and questionnaires. Throughout the process, both the parents and researchers
noted the behaviour and attitudes of the students in and out of class.

Tsang and Lo (2020) assert that although most bilingual or multilingual schools disappointingly adopt
the monolingual principle or two-solitudes approach, translanguaging models like Cummins’ Common
Underlying Proficiency (CUP) model may be more beneficial to the learners. This is because the
separation of languages in bilingual education programmes results in ‘fail[ure] to accommodate the
multilingual practices in reality generated by today’s context of globalisation and new technologies’ (p.
1). The article upholds the value of cross-linguistic transfer to enhance L2 learner confidence, more
effective collaboration, reduction of ‘cognitive overload and learning anxiety’ (p. 2).

Translanguaging is a process involving the utilisation of different languages to the advantage of the
language teacher and learners to derive meaning and communicate’ (Baker, 2001; European Union,
2018). As Tsang and Lo (2020) clarify: ‘there is no clear-cut boundary between languages since they
are all the surface features of a unitary linguistic repertoire’ (p. 2).

The article does not dwell on the definition of CUP for long, however, a strong case is made for the
relevance, efficacy and importance of teaching techniques that exploit the benefits of translanguaging.
The five types of transfer, which Cummins based on CUP, are also listed in the article, showing
precisely which features of language knowledge are shared between any two languages. These are: ‘(1)
conceptual elements; (2) metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies; (3) pragmatic aspects of language
use; (4) specific linguistic elements; and (5) phonological awareness’ (p. 2). This means that
irrespective of how different languages may appear to be from one another, there will always be these
five common language competences in common; and every language equips the user with these features
to facilitate second or multi-language learning. In fact, CUP is compared to ‘dynamic systems theory’
which ‘suggests that language systems that are already available can facilitate the learning of other
languages, including the L1, thereby pointing to an underlying multilingual system that plays a role in
the learning of all languages’ (ibid., p. 2).

After a short course in which the students were taught both languages simultaneously, the students
‘registered a significant improvement’ in their reading and writing skills, together with enhancement of
self-efficacy, autonomy, curiosity towards L1 and/or L2 and language awareness. As with everything,
there were some less-than-positive effects observed. Through the logbooks kept by parents and
researchers, it was noted that the students engaged in both languages outside the classroom, meaning
that the second language (English) was practised more than before.

3
Some learners reported confusion when alternating between the two languages, which highlights the
idea that this switching between languages has high demands on the students’ cognitive abilities.
Perhaps, if the learners were not used to the strictly separate language teaching method this would not
be such an issue; and if the intervention period was longer, perhaps the students would have had more
time to adapt to this major change. The notion of motivation being an influencing variable is also
mentioned: ‘in a school environment, not all learners have very strong learning motivation; whether the
pluri-centric approach could successfully engage them requires further research in school contexts’
(ibid., p. 9).

In addition, the pluri-centric approach could form a way of ensuring effective use of resources that
mimics the natural occurrence of languages in the bilingual context. Therefore, one may argue that
although this system may be confusing to a certain extent, it may be a more authentic mode of language
teaching in that it better represents the context outside the classroom.

The Relevance of Chomsky’s Innatist Theory in

English Language Teaching
Chomsky was first to hypothesise that children are naturally all born with the ability to
subconsciously decipher the underlying rules of language – ‘this innate endowment was seen as a sort
of template, containing the principles that are universal to all human languages’ (Lightbown & Spada,
2013, p. 20). The child’s discovery of the nature of language would be influenced by the language
spoken by other humans sharing the same environment. This “template” called the Universal Grammar
is like ‘a schema to which any particular grammar [of any language] must conform’ (Chomsky, 2006, p.
77). During a critical period of development, all children involuntarily make use of this “default”
schema – that is Universal Grammar – to acquire the language of the environment (Lightbown & Spada,
2013). This theory is based on the notion that the deep structures of languages are more or less
invariable, and Chomsky tried to prove such by thoroughly investigating the similarities between a few
languages (Chomsky, 2006). Although some, like Heather (2020), argue that this hypothesis should be
studied more empirically – by increasing the range of languages under scrutiny so that this theory of
universality can be further reinforced – it has not been disproven so far.

Moreover, it is unclear whether the covert influence and function of Universal Grammar is equal in both
first and second language acquisition or if there is a difference in the learner’s accessibility of Universal
Grammar. Some theorists ‘claim that the nature and availability of [Universal Grammar] are the same in
first and second language acquisition. Others argue that [Universal Grammar] may be present and

4
available to second language learners, but that its exact nature has been altered by the acquisition of
other languages’ (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 105).

In following the general Innatist school of thought whilst reflecting on the teaching of English within
the local context (Malta), since English is introduced to children before the age of thirteen – and
therefore falls under the critical development period’s speculated bracket of two to thirteen years of age
– the supposed acquisition of English is not as difficult as the acquisition of foreign languages that are
exclusively taught in secondary. Therefore, according to this theory, the learning of languages like
Italian, French, Spanish, German, etc. is challenging since such languages become a part of students’
school experience during the last bit and after the critical period.

‘Lydia White (1991) and others agree that acquisition of many grammatical features of the new
language takes place naturally when learners are engaged in meaningful use of the language’
(Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 105). Since humans are born with the mechanisms that govern language,
not much input is required from speakers of the target language – apart from the input required during
the child’s process of detecting the language. Therefore, in teaching, although it is also important for the
teacher to model the target language, it seems to make more sense that the student is actively engaged in
producing language, particularly through speaking. This makes the Innatist perspective more
compatible with a student-centred approach in which the learner is encouraged to engage with the
language as opposed to receiving input from the teacher. In fact, ‘Bonnie Schwartz (1993) […]
concludes that instruction and feedback change only superficial aspects of language performance and do
not affect the underlying systematic knowledge of the new language’ (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p.
105).

In the preface of the Learning Outcomes Framework: A Supporting Document (ENGLISH) (2018) for
Year 7 and Year 8, the authors suggest that ‘the integrated-skills approach is to be adopted when
planning to ensure a motivating and meaningful context’ (p. 3) (emphasis not in original text). The more
organic, integrated approach to the development of language skills, as well as the simple choice of
adjective (‘meaningful’) in this text, highlights the relevance of Innatist theory in the Maltese education
system. In addition, the actual Learning Outcomes Framework (for English) advises teachers to ‘look
for authentic, meaningful and socially inclusive learning opportunities’ (Directorate for Quality and
Standards in Education, 2015, p. 60) and to ‘apply interesting and realistic contexts that are personally
meaningful to [students]’ (ibid., p. 6). To support this document, there is also provision of a list of
authentic texts for English language teachers to make use of, which simultaneously serve to promote
activities that ‘encourage student-centred learning’ (“Learning Outcomes Framework: A Supporting

5
Document” for English, 2018, p. 56). An example of one of these activities includes the following
sourced from https://taleinmalta.wixsite.com/elrc/exemplar-tasks-lof:

‘Working in pairs, one student asks questions; another student answers the questions on a given
situation. The students / peers / teacher use the speaking checklist to assess fluency and
coherence, lexical resource, accuracy and pronunciation.’

Furthermore, what is interesting here is that the teachers, along with the students, are required to satisfy
the role of assessing student performance – hence, student-centredness.

If most of the effort is to be exerted by the student via the process of language output or production,
there is the need for the presence of a crucial element: motivation to learn and engage with the target
language – whist also risking making mistakes or errors in front of teachers and peers. This is
essentially why the learning materials and topics must be meaningful to the students; the more natural
the interest of the students is, the less effort is required to sustain attention and engagement: ‘above all,
the action-oriented approach implies purposeful, collaborative tasks in the classroom, whose primary
focus is not language’ (CEFR, 2018, p. 27). The students must also feel that the language lessons are
useful, moderately challenging, stimulating, and relevant to the students. In order to ensure students are
actively involved in class, even when receptive skills are being practised, the teacher may opt to insert
the involvement of a productive skill to complement the receptive one. Apart from writing skills, the
speaking skill should be particularly exploited in this case, as it is quick, and immediate, meaning that
more time can be spent efficiently through practising the language (in this case, English). Speaking
activities also allow for more peer interaction – which is more entertaining – and at the same time,
involve more peer assessment and peer learning. This is why Communicative Language Teaching is
said to have emerged from Innatist thought in Heather (2020); because this approach displays
appreciation for the set internal knowledge possessed by all, refusing to underestimate language-
student’s intrinsic aptitude.

For example, students may be asked to take turns to describe the most memorable birthday celebration
they experienced so far, in pairs. This would be taking a familiar, yet exciting topic in order to motivate
the students to practise the English language via the speaking and listening skills – thus integrated.
Under the guise of a positive subject the students relaying their memory of a birthday celebration, will
not realise they are engaging in verb tenses (mainly the past tense), narrative skills, the formulation
descriptions, relevant vocabulary, the production of continuous speech, and possibly, the use of

6
connectives (LS 7.16, LAP 7.1, LAP 7.11, LAP 7.3, LAP 7.4) 1. Whilst the listening student will be
practising listening for understanding and following one’s narration or description, identifying
individual words in continuous speech (LS 7.1, LS 7.15)2.

The Relevance of Cummins’s Common Underlying

Proficiency Model in English Language Teaching
The Common Underlying Proficiency model is based on the notion that with the acquisition of
any language, one gains metalinguistic knowledge and skills that aid in the acquisition of another
language. This theory is perfectly captured in Cummins’s iceberg analogy, as exhibited in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Cummins's Iceberg Analogy - explanation of CUP

Sourced from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F

%2Fwww.pinterest.co.uk%2Fpin
%2F422564377542791911%2F&psig=AOvVaw286jWvLBE8TpIy7eN1eWB
J&ust=1614597378343000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwo
TCLjPo7e6jO8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

As shown in the above illustration, although the surface features of the first and second languages
appear to be dissimilar, the two languages are likely to share many core similarities. This is especially

1
LS 7.16 – I can produce continuous speech with some L1 interference but which is generally intelligible; LAP 7.1 – I can
write and talk about things as they are using accurate sentences; LAP 7.11 – I can narrate events/stories, describe
persons/objects/scenes … ; LAP 7.3 – I can use the past and present tenses and refer to the future accurately when speaking;
LAP 7.4 – I am aware of all the various tenses used in everyday language and can make use of the main ones.

2
LS 7.1 – I can, for the most part, understand what people say to me in everyday situations; LS 7.15 – I can understand and
identify individual words in continuous speech.

7
the case when the familiar and unfamiliar languages originate from the same language “family”; for
example, when both languages emerged from Germanic roots or Slavic languages.

Across the globe, societies are becoming increasingly multicultural and multilingual, probably due to
universal globalisation brought about by great strides in technological advancement and widespread
migration – and Malta is no exception. The perspectives associated with the CUP model are highly
relevant in the local language-learning context, since ‘in learning something new, we build on what we
already know’ (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 57). In fact, the European Union (2018) supports the
utilisation of multilingual pedagogies such as translanguaging strategies. This is due to the fact that the
translanguaging approach may have ‘the potential to foster the interrelation of languages, the
reflectivity about languages, and to consciously embed the languages in the classroom routine’ (ibid., p.
5).

Language teachers who adopt this perspective are likely to value and observe cross-linguistic influence.
Lightbown and Spada (2013) define ‘cross-linguistic influence’ as: ‘the effect on knowledge of one
language by the knowledge of another’ (p. 216). Cross-linguistic influence used to be commonly
referred to as ‘interference’, although this has been replaced so as ‘to indicate that knowledge of one
language can be beneficial to learning another’ as opposed to insinuating that the knowledge of the first
language obstructs or prevents the learning of another language (ibid., p. 216). This process is bi-
directional meaning that the linguistic influence may emerge from the knowledge of the previously
acquired language, to the target language and vice versa – thence, it can work to reinforce the
development of the first language (ibid.). If students take on a positive attitude with regards to the
similarities and complexities between languages, this may greatly benefit them in their second language
learning process. ‘Seeing learners as plurilingual, pluricultural beings means allowing them to use all
their linguistic resources when necessary, encouraging them to see similarities and regularities as well
as differences between languages and cultures’ (CEFR, 2018, p. 27). The perceived abundance of
similarities between languages increases the likelihood that students will take risks or formulate
informed guesses based on morphological, syntactic, pragmatic knowledge to name a few.

When the student’s method of comparing and inferring 3 between languages misses the mark – for
example, when mistaking false friends for cognates – it is important that the teacher and the student
recognise that despite the inaccuracy, the cognitive process involved is valid and should be praised.
What matter is that the student was engaged in metalinguistic awareness and drew upon prior language
knowledge to support their answer. This, for example, would support the following learning outcome: R
3
The skill of inference is indirectly related to the following learning outcome: LS 7.12 – I can listen and make
Inferences ("Supporting Document: Learning Outcomes Framework" (English Year 7 and Year 8), 2018, p. 8).

8
7.1 – ‘I can work out what unfamiliar words mean’ ("Supporting Document: Learning Outcomes
Framework" (English Year 7 and Year 8), 2018, p. 12).

In light of this, some language teachers guide students to observe and analyse languages through
intercomprehension skills and cultivation of positive language awareness attitudes. Reinforcing a
positive language awareness attitude motivates students to engage with languages that may otherwise
appear too different from the known language. On the other hand, the demonisation of native or first
languages should be avoided as it is detrimental to second language learning nonetheless due to the fact
that this is demotivating. Approaches that encourage respect for and acknowledgement of all languages
present in the classroom, complement this school of thought. Including translanguaging resources in the
classroom would likely lessen the effect of ‘the phenomenon of avoidance […] caused […] by learners'
perception that a feature in the target language was so distant and different from their first language that
they preferred not to try it’ (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 58).

Teachers can cultivate a multilingual learning ecology by decorating the learning environment with
cognate charts exposing the similarities between two or more languages and/or multilingual word walls
(where, for example, English words are written alongside their translations in different languages).
Furthermore, this sort of class environment would be student-centred, and learners would have
opportunities to work on projects in their preferred language, after which the final product is presented
in English (or the target language). In this way, the understanding of the concepts would be facilitated
through use of the first language, the final task would then be to translate the conceptual knowledge into
the target language.

Future Research
It is no coincidence that both articles written by Heather (2020) and Tsang and Lo (2020) list
the latest research studies along with possible aims for future research and upcoming language
acquisition theory. Much has been written within the field of second and foreign language teaching and
learning, and yet there is a multitude of gaps waiting to be discovered through research, evaluation and
theorisation.

Heather (2020) speculates that we may one day (in the relatively distant future) confirm which theory or
a new theory that is closest to accurately describing the realities of the acquisition of first and second
languages; showing how limited our actual knowledge of second and foreign language teaching and
learning actually is. With regards to the theoretical approaches that are likely to emerge, I suppose
progression in this would take a more flexible route, perhaps one that integrates aspects of theories to
describe the language acquisition process from an alternative angle.
9
As the second article favours the acquisition of knowledge through the collection of data – as one would
predict, the future research promoted in Tsang and Lo’s (2020) article is related to reinforcing their
findings and broadening the area of knowledge that surrounds the aim of the study. Tsang and Lo
(2020) show interest in ‘comparing the effects of L1 and L2 [when] taught simultaneously and
separately’, how teachers can apply pedagogical practices that facilitate cross-linguistic transfer, and if
any differences emerge from studies replicating this one with the one difference of involving the
instruction of different first and target languages (p. 9).

After undergoing the process of compiling and gathering information from multiple sources to construct
this assignment and formulate my opinions, I am better equipped to presuppose that future SLA
research will be linked to bilingual and multilingual environments and the evaluation of pluri-central
strategies, the promotion of meta-linguistic awareness and further development of skills that support the
analysis of language structures.

The focus is likely to be on deciphering which pedagogical practices best enhance the students’ skills
that encourage independence, an analytical mindset, and those that involve cognitive strategies similar
to problem solving and inference – all within the field of second and foreign language teaching and
learning. Hopefully, we will witness a stronger push for multi-linguistic classrooms, and with this,
knowledge of the most effective pedagogical strategies to support the teachers and students in this
scenario. Ideally, such developments would not only be manifested within the research and theory of
second and foreign language education, but more importantly, in the real-life context of the actual
classroom where new, unfamiliar approaches are more often rejected than they are embraced and
embodied by educators.

Conclusion
No single language acquisition theory or model is entirely accurate to the truth of this process.
However, each of the main perspectives aimed at understanding the way our mind acquires language,
maintain relevance in that each of them inspire an infinite number of unique approaches, all for the sole
purpose of gathering knowledge on the subject of (first, second or foreign) language acquisition. Thus, I
disagree with unbalanced criticism (as in Heather, 2020, for example) as it seems that all hypotheses are
relevant unless systematically proven otherwise.

References
Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon:

10
Buffalo Multilingual Matters. In Tsang, A., & Lo, F. (2020). Bilingual education through a pluri-centric
approach: A case study of the effects of simultaneously learning two languages on L1 and L2 reading
and writing proficiency. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67. Hong Kong.

Chomsky, N. (2016). Language and Mind (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1976). On the nature of language. In Heather, J. (2020). The Relevance of Chomsky in
21st Century Second Language Acquisition.

Chomsky, N., Hauser, M., & Fitch, W. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how
did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569―1579. In Heather, J. (2020). The Relevance of Chomsky in 21st
Century Second Language Acquisition.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR):
learning, teaching, assessment. In Common European Framework. Strasbourg: Cambridge University
Press. https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97

Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, Assessment (Companion Volume with New Descriptors). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
www.coe.int/lang-cefr

European Union. (2018). Migrants in European schools: learning and maintaining languages (Executive
Summary). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/06361

Heather, J. (2020). The Relevance of Chomsky in 21st Century Second Language Acquisition. 241–
255. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MeQ9eiD9LYEJ:https://nanzan-
u.repo.nii.ac.jp/%3Faction%3Drepository_action_common_download%26item_id
%3D3045%26item_no%3D1%26attribute_id%3D22%26file_no
%3D1+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=mt

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ministry of Education and Employment (MEDE). (2015). Educators’ Guide for Pedagogy and
Assessment: using a learning outcomes approach. Malta: Directorate for Quality and Standards in
Education.

Ministry of Education and Employment. (2012). A National Curriculum Framework for All. Malta:
Salesian Press.

Supporting Document: Learning Outcomes Framework (English Year 7 and Year 8). (2018). Malta.

11
Tsang, A., & Lo, F. (2020). Bilingual education through a pluri-centric approach: A case study of the
effects of simultaneously learning two languages on L1 and L2 reading and writing proficiency. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 67. Hong Kong. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100927

12