Explaining Second Language

Learning
• Contexts for Language Learning
• Behaviorism
• Innatism
• Cognitive/developmental perspective
– Information Processing
– Connectionism
– The Competition Model
• The Sociocultural Perspective

1/43
Contexts for Language Learning

• A child or adult learning a second

language is different from a child
acquiring a first language in terms of both
1) learner characteristics
and
2) learning conditions

2/43
 Differences in Learning L1 &
L2
Learner Characteristics L1 L2
Child Child Adolescent Adult
(informal) (formal) (informal)
1. Knowledge of another
- ? + +
language
2. Cognitive maturity - - + +

3. Metalinguistic awareness - ? + +

4. World Knowledge - - + +

5. Anxiety about speaking - - + +

3/47
 Differences in Learning L1 &
L2
Learning Conditions L1 L2
Child Child Adolescent Adult
6. Freedom to be silent (informal) (formal) (informal)

7. Ample time & contact + + - -

8. Corrective feedback: + + - ?
(grammar and - - + -
pronunciation)
+ + + +
9. Corrective feedback:
(meaning, word choice, + + + +
politeness) Child-directed Foreigner talk or
speech Teacher talk
10. Modified input
4/47
Differences in Learning L1 & L2
• Summary:

SLA (Second Language Acquisition) theories

need to account for language acquisition by
learners with a variety of characteristics and
learning in a variety of contexts.

5/43
 Behaviorism
• Four characteristics of behaviorism:
1) imitation, 2) practice, 3) reinforcement, and
4) habit formation

• Brooks (1960) & Lado (1964):

- emphasizing mimicry and memorization
(audiolingual teaching methods)

6/43
 Behaviorism / CAH
• A person learning an L2 starts off with the habits formed in
the L1 and these habits would interfere with the new ones
needed for the L2.
• Behaviorism was often linked to the Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis (CAH):
It predicts that where there are similarities between the L1
and the target language, the learner will acquire target-
language structures with ease; where there are differences,
the learner will have difficulty.

7/43
 Behaviorism / CAH

• Criticisms about the CAH:

Though a learner’s L1 influences the acquisition of an L2,
researchers have found that L2 learners do not make all the
errors predicted by the CAH.
1. Many of their errors are not predictable on the basis of their
L1 (e.g. ‘putted’; ‘cooker’ meaning a person who cooks;
‘badder than’)
2. Some errors are similar across learners from a variety of L1
backgrounds (e.g. he/she; “th” sound; the use of the past
tense; the relative clauses)

8/43
 Behaviorism / Summary

• The L1 influence may not simply be a matter of the transfer of

habits, but a more subtle and complex process of
- identifying points of similarity,
- weighing the evidence in support of some particular
feature, and
- reflecting (though not necessarily consciously) about
whether a certain feature seems to ‘belong’ in the L2.
• By the 1970s, many researchers were convinced that behaviorism
and the CAH were inadequate explanations for SLA.

9/43
 Innatism
• Universal Grammar (UG) in relation to second
language development

• Competence vs. Performance

• Krashen’s “monitor model”

10/43
 Innatism:
Universal Grammar

• UG and SLA
1. Chomsky has not made specific claims about the implications of his
theory for second language learning.
2. Linguists working within the innatist theory have argued that UG
offers the best perspective to understand SLA. UG can explain why
L2 learners eventually know more about the language than they
could reasonably have learned (i.e. UG can explain L2 learners’
creativity and generalization ability).
3. Other linguists argue that UG is not a good explanation for SLA,
especially by learners who have passed the critical period (i.e. CPH
does not work in SLA).
(* Note: See Chapter 3: Age of acquisition and CPH)

11/43
 Innatism:
Universal Grammar

• How UG works in SLA:

Two different views -
1. The nature and availability of UG are the same in L1 and L2
acquisition.
Adult L2 learners, like children, neither need nor benefit
from error correction and metalinguistic information. These
things change only the superficial appearance of language
performance and do not affect the underlying competence
of the new language (e.g., Krashen’s “monitor model”).

12/43
 Innatism:
Universal Grammar

• How UG works in SLA:

Two different views -
2. UG may be present and available to L2 learners, but its
exact nature has been altered by the prior acquisition of
the first language.
L2 learners need to be given some explicit information
about what is not grammatical in the L2. Otherwise, they
may assume that some structures of the L1 have
equivalents in the L2 when, in fact, they do not.

13/43
 Innatism:
Competence vs. Performance
• Competence:
It refers to the knowledge which underlies our ability to use
language.

• Performance:
It refers to the way a person actually uses language in
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Performance is
subject to variations due to inattention, anxiety, or fatigue
whereas competence (at least for the mature native speaker)
is more stable.

14/43
 Innatism:
Competence vs. Performance
• SLA researchers from the UG perspective (innatism) are more
interested in the language competence (i.e., knowledge of
complex syntax) of advanced learners rather than in the
simple language of early stage learners.

• Their investigations often involve comparing the judgments of

grammaticality made by L2 and L1 learners, rather than
observations of actual language performance (i.e., use of
language).

15/43
 Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model” (1982)

• The acquisition-learning hypothesis

• The monitor hypothesis
• The natural order hypothesis
• The input hypothesis
• The affective filter hypothesis

16/43
 Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”

• The acquisition-learning hypothesis

– Acquisition: we acquire L2 knowledge as we are exposed to
samples of the L2 which we understand with no conscious
attention to language form. It is a subconscious and intuitive
process.
– Learning: we learn the L2 via a conscious process of study and
attention to form and rule learning.
– Krashen argues that “acquisition” is a more important process of
constructing the system of a language than “learning” because
fluency in L2 performance is due to what we have acquired, not
what we have learned.

17/43
 Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
• The monitor hypothesis
– The acquired system acts to initiate the speaker’s utterances and is
responsible for spontaneous language use, whereas the learned
system acts as a “monitor”, making minor changes and polishing what
the acquired system has produced.
– Such monitoring takes place only when the speaker/writer has plenty
of time, is concerned about producing correct language, and has
learned the relevant rules.

18/43
 Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
• The natural order hypothesis
– L2 learners acquire the features of the TL in predictable
sequences.
– The language features that are easiest to state (and thus to
‘learn’) are not necessarily the first to be acquired.
e.g. the rule for adding an –s to third person
singular verbs in the present tense

19/43
 Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”
• The input hypothesis
– Acquisition occurs when one is exposed to language that is
comprehensible and that contains “i +1”.
– If the input contains forms and structures just beyond the
learner’s current level of competence in the language (“i +1”),
then both comprehension and acquisition will occur.

20/43
 Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”

• The affective filter hypothesis

– “Affect” refers to feelings, motives, needs, attitudes, and
emotional states.
– The “affective filter” is an imaginary/metaphorical barrier
that prevents learners from acquiring language from the
available input.
– Depending on the learner’s state of mind, the filter limits
what is noticed and what is acquired. A learner who is tense,
anxious, or bored may “filter out” input, making it
unavailable for acquisition.

21/43
 Innatism:
Krashen’s “monitor model”

• Summary
– Krashen’s “monitor model” (i.e., acquisition vs. learning,
monitor, natural order, comprehensible input, and affective
filter) has been very influential in supporting communicative
language teaching (CLT), which focuses on using language for
meaningful interaction and for accomplishing tasks, rather
than on learning rules.
– Krashen’s hypotheses are intuitively appealing, but those
hypotheses are hard to be tested by empirical evidence.

22/43
 Information processing

• Cognitive psychologists working in this model

– compare language acquisition to the capacities of computers for
storing, integrating, and retrieving information.
– do not think that humans have a language-specific module (i.e.
LAD) in the brain.
– do not assume that ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ are distinct
mental processes.
– see L2 acquisition as the building up of knowledge that can
eventually be called on automatically for speaking and
understanding (i.e., general theories of learning can account for
SLA).

23/43
 Information processing

1. Attention-processing

2. Skill learning

3. Restructuring

4. Transfer appropriate processing

24/43
 Information processing

• Attention-processing:
– This model suggests that learners have to pay attention at first to any
aspect of the language that they are trying to understand or produce.
– It also suggests there is a limit to how much information a learner
can pay attention to or engage in at one time.
– Gradually, through experience and practice, information that was
new becomes easier to process, and learners become able to access
it quickly and even automatically.
– This can explain why L2 readers need more time to understand a text,
even if they eventually do fully comprehend it.

25/43
 Information processing

• Skill Learning:
– Some researchers regard SLA as ‘skill learning’. They suggest that
most learning, including language learning, starts with declarative
knowledge (knowledge that).
– Through practice, declarative knowledge may become procedural
knowledge (knowledge how).
– Once skills become procedualized and automatized, thinking about
the declarative knowledge while trying to perform the skill disrupts
the smooth performance of it.
– In SLA, the path from declarative to procedural knowledge is often
like classroom learning where rule learning is followed by practice.

26/43
 Information processing

• Restructuring:
– Sometimes changes in language behavior do not seem to be
explainable in terms of a gradual build-up of fluency through
practice.
– Restructuring may account for what appear to be sudden bursts of
progress and apparent backsliding.
– It may result from the interaction of knowledge we already have
and the acquisition of new knowledge (without extensive
practice).
e.g. “I saw” → “I seed” or “I sawed” –
overapplying the general rule.

27/43
 Information processing

• Transfer appropriate processing:

– This hypothesizes that Information is best retrieved in situations
that are similar to those in which it was acquired. This is because
when we learn something our memories also record something
about the context and the way in which it was learned.
– This can explain why knowledge that is acquired mainly in rule
learning or drill activities may be easier to access on tests that
resemble the learning activities than in communicative situation.
– On the other hand, if learners’ cognitive resources are occupied
with a focus on meaning in communicative activities, they may find
grammar tests very difficult.

28/43
 Connectionism (I)

• Connectionists attribute greater importance to the role of the

environment than to any specific innate knowledge.
• They argue that what is innate is simply the ability to learn, not any
specifically linguistic principles.
• They emphasize the frequency with which learners encounter
specific linguistic features in the input and the frequency with which
features occur together.

29/43
 Connectionism (II)

• Connectionists suggest that learners gradually build up their knowledge

of language through exposure to the thousand of instances of the
linguistic features they hear or see.
• Eventually, learners develop stronger mental ‘connections’ between the
elements they have learned; thus, the presence of one situational or
linguistic element will activate the other(s) in the learner’s mind.
• Evidence comes from the observation that much of the language we
use in ordinary conversation is predictable or formulaic. Language is
often learned in chunks larger than single words.

30/43
 Connectionism (III)

• Findings of connectionist Research :

– Research has shown that a learning mechanism, simulated by a
computer program, can not only “learn” what it hears but can also
“generalize”, even to the point of making overgeneralization errors.

– These studies have dealt almost exclusively with the acquisition of

vocabulary and grammatical morphemes, that is, aspects of the
language which innatists will grant may be acquired largely
through memorization and simple generalization. How this model
can lead to knowledge of complex syntactic structure is still under
investigation.

31/43
 The Competition Model
• The competition model is closely related to the connectionist perspective. It
is based on the hypothesis that language acquisition occurs without the
necessity of a learner's focused attention or the need for any innate capacity
specifically for language.
• This model takes into account not only language form but also language
meaning and language use.
• Through exposure to thousands of examples of language associated with
particular meanings, learners come to understand how to use the ‘cues’ with
which a language signals specific function.
• Most languages make use of multiple cues, but they differ in the primacy of
each. Therefore, SLA requires that learners learn the relative importance of
the different cues appropriate in the language they are learning.

32/43
 L2 Applications

• The interaction hypothesis

• The noticing hypothesis

• Input processing

• Processability theory

33/43
 The Interaction Hypothesis

• SLA takes place through conversational interaction.

• Long (1983) argued that modified interaction is the necessary
mechanism for making language comprehensible.
• What learners need is not necessarily simplification of the
linguistic forms but rather an opportunity to interact with other
speakers, working together to reach mutual comprehension.
• Research shows that native speakers consistently modify their
speech in sustained conversation with non-native speakers.

34/43
 The Interaction Hypothesis
• Long’s original formulation (1983) of the Interaction
Hypothesis:

1. Interactional modification makes input comprehensible;

2. Comprehensible input promotes acquisition;

Therefore,

3. Interactional modification promotes acquisition.

35/43
 The Interaction Hypothesis

• Modified interaction involves linguistic simplifications and

conversational modifications.

– Examples of conversational modifications:

elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture, additional
contextual cues, comprehension checks, clarification
requests, and self-repetition or paraphrase.

• Research has demonstrated that conversational adjustments

can aid comprehension in the L2.

36/43
 The Interaction Hypothesis

• Long’s revised version (1996) of the Interaction Hypothesis:

- more emphasis is placed on the importance of
corrective feedback during interaction.
- “negotiating for meaning” is seen as the opportunity for
language development.

• “Comprehensible output hypothesis” (Swain, 1985)

The demands of producing comprehensible output “push”
learners ahead in their development.

37/43
 The Noticing Hypothesis

• Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990, 2001)

- Nothing is learned unless it has been noticed.
- Noticing does not itself result in acquisition, but it is the
essential starting point.
- L2 learners could not begin to acquire a language
feature until they had become aware of it in the input.
• Whether learners must be aware that they are “noticing”
something in the input in order to acquire linguistic feature is
considered debatable.

38/43
 Input Processing

• Input processing (VanPatten, 2004)

- Learners have limited processing capacity and cannot
pay attention to form and meaning at the same time.
- They tend to give priority to meaning. When the
context in which they hear a sentence helps them
make sense of it, they do not notice details of the
language form.

39/43
 Processability Theory

• Processability theory (Pienemann, 1999, 2003)

- The research showed that the sequence of development
for features of syntax and morphology was affected by
how easy these were to process.
- It integrates developmental sequences with L1 influence.
- Learners do not simply transfer features from their L1
at early stages of acquisition.
- They have to develop a certain level of processing
capacity in the L2 before they can use their knowledge
of the features that already exist in their L1.

40/43
The Sociocultural Perspective

• Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory

– Language development takes place in the social interactions
between individuals.
– Speaking (and writing) mediate thinking.
– Zone of proximal development (ZPD): when there is support
from interaction with an interlocutor, the learner is capable of
performing at a higher level.
– L2 learners advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge
when they collaborate and interact with speakers of the L2 who
are more knowledgeable than they are.

41/43
The Sociocultural Perspective
• The difference between Vygotsky’s socialcultural theory
and the interaction hypothesis:

Vygotsky Interaction hypothesis

- Language acquisition takes - Interaction needs to be
place in the interactions of modified and through
learner and interlocutor. negotiation for meaning.
- Greater importance is attached - Emphasis is on the individual
to the conversations, with cognitive processes in the
learning occurring through the mind of the learner.
social interaction.

42/43
 Summary
• There is no agreement on a “complete” theory of second
language acquisition yet.
• Each theoretical framework has a different focus and its
limitations.
1. Behaviorism: emphasizing stimuli and responses, but ignoring
the mental processes that are involved in learning.
2. Innatism: innate LAD, based on intuitions
3. Information processing and connectionism: involving
controlled laboratory experiments where human learning is
similar to computer processing.
4. Interactionist position: modification of interaction promotes
language acquisition and development.
43/43