UNIT-4.

pdf

_cristina3

Aprendizaje y adquisición del inglés como lengua extranjera

3º Grado en Estudios Ingleses

Facultad de Filosofía y Letras

Reservados todos los derechos.

No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
 UNIT 4: INTERNAL FACTORS IN SLA
UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR: CHOMSKY

The theory of Universal Grammar proposes that if human beings are brought up under normal conditions (not
those of extreme sensory deprivation), then they will always develop language with certain properties (e.g.,
distinguishing nouns from verbs, or distinguishing function words from content words).
Universal Grammar Theory proposes that there is an innate, genetically determined language faculty that
knows these rules, making it easier and faster for children to learn to speak than it otherwise would be. This
faculty does not know the vocabulary of any particular language (so words and their meanings must be
learned), and there remain several parameters which can vary freely among languages (such as whether

No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
adjectives come before or after nouns) which much also be learned.
The LAD model in Chomsky is essentially as follows: Input (language data) → Language Acquisition Device →
Output (a grammar of a language).
Acquisition is the process through which language data goes into the LAD ‘black box’ and a grammar comes
out; the LAD evaluates alternative grammars to see which best fits the incoming data. The UG theory fleshes
out this model by establishing the crucial features of the input, the contents of the black box, and the
properties of the resultant grammar.
How then does someone acquire knowledge? “What we know innately” are the principles of the various
subsystems of Sº (initial state of child’s mind) and the manner of their interaction, and the parameters

Reservados todos los derechos.

associated with these principles. What we learn are the values of the parameters and the elements of the
periphery.

- Principles: they are not in a sense acquired from outside since they are already present as part of UG
inside the mind; instead, they become attached to the person’s knowledge of a particular language
together with values for parameters.
- Parameters: even if you have the pro-drop parameter present in your mind, you still need to detect
which setting is right for it. The parameter has to be ‘triggered’ by something in the language input
the child hears. This is seen predominantly as caused by positive evidence.
A further controversy surrounds the issue of whether all the principles and parameters are present in the
mind to start with, or whether they come into being over time.
In principle, the same model could be applied directly to L2 learning: L1 Input → UG principles parameters →

a grammar of L1. (The same with L2). It might be that L2 grammars are not describable in principles and

parameter terms, but if the L2 user’s knowledge of language indeed consists of principles and parameters,

the principles are no more learnable in an L2 than in an L1. If the UG argument is correct, no grammar should

ever exist in the human mind that breaches principles of UG or that has variation in core grammar not covered

by the setting for parameters. If L2 grammars are indeed independent L2 grammars learnt by ‘natural’

language acquisition, being human grammars, they should manifest the same principles and choose from the

same parameter setting as any other language.

a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-6803189
 The question that has been most often considered by L2 researchers is whether UG is actually involved in L2
learning. Some general arguments against it:
- knowledge of L2 is not so complete or so good.
- all languages are not equally easy to learn as second languages.
- learners get fossilised at some stage.
- L2 learner vary in level of success and in ways of learning
UG is only concerned with the acquisition of highly abstract and complex principles and parameters of core
grammar via the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument; it has no brief to explain language acquisition outside this
are by venturing into areas of the periphery, or performance, or of development.
The Critical Period Hypothesis

No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
A period during which language acquisition is easy and complete (i.e. native speaker ability is achieved).
Beyond this period, language acquisition is difficult and incomplete. Thys hypothesis was grounded in research
which showed that people who lost their linguistic capabilities, for example, as a result of an accident, were
able to regain them totally before puberty (about the age of 12) but were unable to do so afterwards.
EXAMPLE: Evidence that L2 learners who begin learning as adults are unable to achieve native-speaker
competence in grammar or pronunciation. The case of immigrants in the US: if they arrive before puberty
they go on to achieve much higher levels of grammatical proficiency. Sometimes they become
indistinguishable from native speakers. However, there does not appear to be a sudden-cut age, beyond
which full competence is impossible.

Reservados todos los derechos.

KRASHEN’S INPUT HYPOTHESIS MODEL

The theory consists of five linked ‘hypotheses’: input, acquisition/learning, monitor, natural order, and
affective filter.
H1: The Input Hypothesis
“Humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving ‘comprehensible
input’”. That is to say, “language acquisition depends upon trying to comprehend what other people are
saying. Provided that the learner hears meaningful speech and endeavours to understand it, acquisition will
occur”. L2 acquisition fails to occur when the learner is deprived of meaning language, say by classroom
activities that concentrate on forms of language rather than on meaning.

“Listening is the crucial activity. L2 learners acquire a new language by hearing it in contexts where the
meaning of sentences is made plain to them”. Speaking is either unnecessary or is positively harmful; active
knowledge never comes from production. This emphasis on listening at the expense of production
distinguishes Krashen’s theory from most others, for instance, form communicative teaching theories.
H2: The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis
“Knowledge that is acquired vs knowledge that is learnt”
“The process of L2 acquisition uses the language faculty in essentially the same unconscious way as first
language acquisition; it leads to the ability to actually use the L2. In the process of language learning, however,
knowledge is gained through conscious understanding of the rules of the language.” Hence, learning occurs
in the second language but is extremely rare in the first.

Krashen accepts that other things than comprehensible input can lead to language knowledge but he denies
that the form such knowledge takes is capable of being the basis for normal use of language.

H3: The Monitor Hypothesis

a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-6803189
 “Learnt knowledge comes into play through the Monitoring of speech; Monitoring provides a conscious check
on what the speaker is saying”. “Anything the learner wants to say comes from acquired knowledge; learnt
knowledge can Monitor this speech production before or after actual output”. This hypothesis claims that
consciously ‘learnt’ knowledge is only available form Monitoring rather than usable in other ways. Learnt
knowledge can never be converted into acquired (no interface).

H4: The Natural Order Hypothesis

“We acquire the rules of the language in a predictable order, some rules tending to come early and some late.
The developmental scale is made up of rules treated as discrete items learnt in sequence.”
H5: The Affective Filter Hypothesis

No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
“A mental block, caused by affective factors… that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition
device”. This block, called ‘the affective filter’ might be because ‘the acquirer is unmotivated, lacing in self-
confidence, or anxious. This hypothesis ascribes variation between learners to their psychological states.
SCHMIDT’S NOTICING HYPOTHESIS
The noticing hypothesis is a theory within second-language acquisition that a learner cannot continue
advancing their language abilities or grasp linguistic features unless they consciously notice the input.
In other words, learners cannot learn the grammatical features of a language unless they notice them.
Noticing alone does not mean that learners automatically acquire language; rather, the hypothesis states
that noticing is the starting point of acquisition.

Reservados todos los derechos.

Schmidt identifies three aspects of consciousness: awareness, intention and attention. Conscious as
awareness= noticing. “What learners notice in input is what becomes intake for learning”.

Two stages are involved in the process of input becoming implicit knowledge:

Noticing: a mediating role between input and memory systems

There are some of the following factors noticing in the input:

- Instruction.
- Frequency.
- perceptual salience.
- task demands.
- comparing

a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-6803189