Toward A Theory of Second Language Acquisition
 Second Language Learning – a
complex process that there are so many
separate interrelated factors within one
intricate entity that it is exceedingly
difficult to bring order and simplicity to
that “chaos” (Larsen-Freeman, 1997)
Building Theory on SLA:
 Yorio (1976) – proponent of the
Taxonomy of the Classification of the
Learner Variable
 Taxonomy of the Classification of the
Learner Variable – shows different
domains of inquiry that must be
included/considered in SLA theories
(Age, Cognition, Native Language, input,
Affective Domain, Educational Background)
DOMAINS and GENERALIZATION:
A set of domains of
consideration in a theory of SLA
include:
1) General understanding of what
language is, what learning is & what
teaching is.
2) Knowledge of how children learn their
L1.
3) Understand the differences
between adult and child
learning and between first
and second language
acquisition.
4) General principles of human
learning and intelligence
controls to second language
learning
5) Personality- the way people
view themselves and reveal
themselves in communication.
6) Affect quantity and quality of
L2 learning.
7) Learning a second
language is often intricately
intertwined with learning a
second culture.
8) The acquisition of
communicative competence is
in many ways language
socialization- ultimate goal of
L2 learners.
9) The linguistic contrasts
between the native and target
language form one source of
difficulty in learning L2.
HYPOTHESIS and CLAIMS:
 Theories of SLA – interrelated
set of hypotheses or claims
about how people become
proficient in a second language
 Lightbown’s10
Generalizations about Second
Language Learning:
1) Adults and adolescents can
"acquire" a second language.
2) The learner creates a
systematic interlanguage that
is often characterized by the
same systematic errors as
[those of] the child learning
the same language as the first
language, as well as others
based on the learner's own
native language.
3) There are predictable
sequences in acquisition so
that certain structures have to
be acquired before others can
be integrated.
4) Practice does not make
perfect.
5) Knowing a language rule
does not mean one will be
able to use it in
communicative interaction.
 6) Isolated explicit error
correction is usually
ineffective in
changing language
behaviour.
7) For adult learners,
acquisition stops-
“fossilizes”- before
the learner has achieved
nativelike mastery of the
target language.
8) One cannot achieve
nativelike command of a
second language in one hour
a day.
9) The learner’s task is
enormous because language
is
enormously complex.
10) A learner’s ability to
understand language in a
meaningful context exceeds
his or her ability to
comprehend decontextualized
language and to produce
language of comparable
complexity and accuracy.
MYTHS ABOUT SLA
 Languages are learned
mainly through imitation.
 Parents usually correct young
children when they make
errors.
 People with high IQ’s are
good language learners.
 The earlier a second language
is introduced in school
programs the greater the
likelihood of success in
learning.
 Most of the mistakes that
second language learners
make are due to interference
from their first language.
 Learners’ errors should be
corrected as soon as they are
made in order to prevent the
formation of bad habits.
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis –
one of the most controversial
theoretical perspectives in SLA
FIVE SLA HYPOTHESIS
ACCORDING TO
KRASHEN:
 ACQUISITION-
LEARNING
HYPOTHESIS
- Acquisition. Subconscious
and intuitive process of
constructing the system of
language
- Learning. Conscious
learning in which learners
attend to form, figure out
rules, aware of their own
process.
 MONITOR HYPOTHESIS
“Monitor”
involved in
learning, not
acquisition
 A device for
“watchdogging
” one’s output:
Editing
Making alterations, or
Corrections (consciously perceived)
 Explicit and intentional learning
are largely avoided, as it is
presumed to hinder acquisition.
 Once fluency is established,
optimal amount of monitoring
or editing be employed by
learner.
  NATURAL ORDER can verbalize complex rules governing
HYPOTHESIS language
- We acquire language rules in INTERACTION
a predictable or natural order HYPOTHESIS (MICHEAL
 INPUT HYPOTHESIS LONG, 1985-1996)
- Krashen’s recommendation: speaking not A social constructivist
be taught directly or very early in language perspectives emphasize the
classroom. Speech will emerge once dynamic nature of the interplay
acquirer has built enough comprehensible between learners, their peers, and
input (i + 1). their teachers, and others with
 AFFECTIVE FILTER whom they interact.
HYPOTHESIS MODIFIED INTERACTION
- Environment where anxiety is low Interaction between native
defensiveness absent is equivalent to speakers with L2 learners.
best acquisition Native speakers corrects the
individual as they hear them
MCLAUGHLIN’S ATTENTION speak with erroneous sentence
PROCESSING MODELS – a more construction
sound heuristic for conceptualizing Native speakers slow down
language acquisition process and one speech for L2 learners for
that avoid any direct appeal to a comprehension checks
consciousness continuum L2 learners should learn to
communicate with sense
FOCAL=EXPLICIT IMPLICATION OF THE SLA
PERIPHERAL=IMPLICIT THEORIES
Practitioners are thought of as
EXPLICIT – one’s knowledge about teachers who are out there sin
language classroom everyday stimulating,
IMPLICIT – information that is encouraging, observing and
automatically and spontaneously used in assessing real-life learners.
language task They are made to feel that they
- enable learners to perform language are the recipient of a researcher
but not necessarily to cite rules or therorist’s findings and
governing the performance prognostications with little to
offer in return
UNANALYZED
KNOWLEDGE=IMPLICIT
General from in which we know most
things without being aware of the
structure of that knowledge

ANALYZED
KNWOLEDGE=EXPLICIT
Learners are overtly aware of the
structure of analyzed knowledge. They