Second

Language
Acquisition
Second Language Acquisition
• It is not just the learning of a
subsequent language to that
learnt in childhood but also
the study of the processes
involved and of those who
are learning it.
 Traditional Method
Direct translation from
L1 to L2; Lectures in
Submersion Method grammar in L1
Learner is surrounded Direct Method All
exclusively by speakers teaching done in L2
of the L2 usually in a with emphasis on
social setting or foreign conversational skills
country

Methods Audiolingual Method

Immersion Method
Learner taught to teach a Speaking and listening
are emphasized rather
exclusively through
medium of L2 second than reading and
writing
language
 The Main Theories in SLA
• Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)
• Error Analysis (EA) and Inter-language (IL)
• Monitor Model Hypothesis
Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis (CAH)
Gass and Selinker
 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CAH)
• Gass and Selinker (1994)
• It is a way of comparing languages in
order to determine potential errors for
the ultimate purpose of isolating what
needs to be learned and what does not
need to be learned in a second language
learning situation.
 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CAH)
• It focuses on the differences and
similarities between the L1 and the
Second Language (L2).
• This means that the similarities and
differences between L1 and L2 play a
crucial role in learners’ production.
 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CAH)
• Saville-Troike (2006) also points
out that there will be a transfer of
elements acquired in the L1 to
the target L2.
 Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(CAH)

• This transfer is considered positive if the same

structure exists in both languages and the transfer
results in the correct production of language in the
L2.
• However, it can also be negative if a language
structure from the L1 does not exist in the L2 but the
structure is transferred leading to the production of
incorrect language.
• Mitchell and Myles (1998: 30) say that the
predictions of CAH, that all the errors made in
learning the L2 are due to interface from L1, were
shown to be unfounded. They claim that many
studies and research explain convincingly that the
majority of errors could not be attributed to the L1.
In other words, CAH might not predict learning
difficulties, and was only useful in the retrospective
explanation of errors. This point considerably
weakened its appeal. However, the heightened
interest in this area did lead to the origin of Error
Analysis.
Error Analysis (EA)
Inter-language (IL)
Mitchell and Myles
Saville and Troike
 Error Analysis (EA)
• Mitchell and Myles (2004) consider this
approach to be influenced by
behaviorism through the use of
fundamental distinctions between the
learners’ first and second languages to
predict errors, adding that EA showed
that CA was not able to predict most
errors.
 Error Analysis (EA)
• Troike (2006) observes that EA
distinguishes between systematic
errors, which are due to a lack of L2
knowledge and mistakes, which are
made when the knowledge has been
processed.
 Error Analysis (EA)
• Some shortcomings of EA
1. Some people do not make errors because of L1 interface.

2. Focusing only on errors does not provide information regarding what

the learner has acquired.

3. Learners may not produce errors because they avoid difficult

structures.

For example, Arab students avoid using models auxiliaries since they
have difficulties in understanding their role in each sentence. They
may use I want…, I need …., instead of could I have, I would like ……..?
 Inter-language (IL)
• Saville-Troike (2006) states that the
term IL was introduced by Selinker in
1972, “to refer to the intermediate
states (or interim grammars) of a
learner’s language as it moves
toward the target L2″.
 Inter-language (IL)

• Ellis (1997) hypothesizes that

the nature of variability
changes during the process of
L2 development in the stages
[found in the succeeding
slide].
 Inter-language (IL)

1. One form for multi-functions e.g., I live in Manchester, last year I live in
London, next year I live in Amman.
2. Some forms have been acquired e.g. I live in Manchester, last year I
lived in London, next year I lived in Amman.
3. The various forms start to be used systematically. Here the student may
write the forms correctly but still use the incorrect forms when
speaking.
4. The student uses the forms correctly and consistently.
The Monitor Model Theory
1. Acquisition-Learning Theory
2. Monitor Hypothesis
3. Natural Order Hypothesis
4. Input Hypothesis
5. Affective Filter Hypothesis
Stephen Krashen
 Acquisition-Learning
Hypothesis

• Acquisition is a sub-conscious process, as in

the case of a child learning its own language or
an adult 'picking up' a second language simply
by living and working in a foreign country.
• Learning is the conscious process of
developing a foreign language through
language lessons and a focus on the
grammatical features of that language.
 Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
• According to Krashen learned language cannot
be turned into acquisition. It is pointless
spending a lot of time learning grammar rules,
since this will not help us become better users
of the language in authentic situations. At most,
the knowledge we gain about the language will
help us in direct tests of that knowledge or in
situations when we have time to self-correct, as
in the editing of a piece of writing.
 Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

• Gass and Selinker (1994) criticize this hypothesis.

They claim that it does not show evidence of the
distinction between acquisition and learning as two
separate systems.
• However, Krashen said that many can produce
language fluently without having been taught any
rules and there are many that know the rules but
are unable to apply them whilst speaking
(Lightbown and Spader, 1999).
 Natural Order Hypothesis
• Language is acquired in a predictable
order by all learners. This order does not
depend on the apparent simplicity or
complexity of the grammatical features
involved. The natural order of acquisition
cannot be influenced by direct teaching
of features that the learner is not yet
ready to acquire.
 Natural Order Hypothesis
• It is claimed that the natural order of
acquisition is very similar for a native-English
child learning its own language and for an
adult learning English as a foreign language.
• For example, the ’-ing’ form (present
continuous) will be acquired early on and
almost certainly before the  ’-s’ inflection in
the third person present simple (she likes, he
eats, etc.)
 Natural Order Hypothesis
• As Krashen points out, much of the
frustration experienced by teachers
and their students in grammar
lessons results from the attempt to
inculcate a grammatical form which
the learner is not yet ready to
acquire.
 Monitor Hypothesis
• We are able to use what we have learned
(in Krashen's sense) about the rules of a
language in monitoring (or self-correcting)
our language output.
• Conscious editor or monitor works.
• Clearly, this is possible in the correction of
written work. It is much more difficult
when engaging in regular talk.
 Monitor Hypothesis

• Krashen states that it is often difficult to use the monitor

correctly since the rules of a language can be extremely
complex.
• Two examples from English are the rules about the articles
(a/the) and the future "tense".
• Even assuming the learner has a good knowledge of the rule in
question, it is difficult to focus on grammar while
simultaneously attempting to convey meaning (and possibly
feeling).
• Most normal conversation simply does not provide enough
time to do so.
 Monitor Hypothesis
• There are variations in use of the monitor that
affect the language that learners produce.
• Acquired language skills can lead to improved
fluency but overuse of the monitor can lead to
a reduction in fluency (Krashen, 1988).
• Moreover, Krashen (1988) believes that there
is individual variation among language
learners with regard to ‘monitor’ use.
 Monitor Hypothesis
• He claims that the learners who use the
‘monitor’ all the time are ‘over-users’,
often producing stilted language, whereas
‘under-users’ will often speak quickly but
with a lot of errors.
• Learners who use the monitor
appropriately are considered ‘optimal-
users’.
 Monitor Hypothesis
• These find a good balance between
speed and accuracy, continuing to refer to
want they have learnt but acknowledging
the importance of communication.
• He emphasizes that lack of self-
confidence is the major cause for the
over-use of the ‘monitor’.
 Input Hypothesis
• We acquire language in one way only: when
we are exposed to input (written or spoken
language) that is comprehensible to us.
• Comprehensible input is the necessary but
also sufficient condition for language
acquisition to take place. It requires no effort
on the part of the learner.
 Input Hypothesis
• Krashen now refers to this as the Comprehension
Hypothesis.
• It states that learners acquire language when they
are exposed to input at i+1, where i is the current
state or stage of language proficiency.
• Learners use their existing acquired linguistic
competence together with their general world
knowledge to make sense of the messages they
receive in language just beyond where they currently
are (the +1).
 Input Hypothesis
• Given comprehensible input at i+1, acquisition
will take place effortlessly and involuntarily.
• This theory has clear implications for language
teachers; namely, that their language
instruction should be full of rich input (both
spoken and written language) that is roughly
tuned at the appropriate level for the learners
in the class.
 Affective Filter Hypothesis
• Comprehensible input will not result in
language acquisition if that input is
filtered out before it can reach the
brain's language processing faculties. The
filtering may occur because of anxiety,
poor self-esteem or low motivation.
 Affective Filter Hypothesis
• Learners with a low affective filter will
not only be efficient language acquirers
of the comprehensible input they
receive. They are also more likely to
interact with others, unembarrassed by
making mistakes for example, and thus
increase the amount of that input.
 Affective Filter Hypothesis
• He claims that learners who are highly
motivated, self-confident and less anxious are
better equipped for success in SLA.
• Low motivation, low self-esteem, and high
anxiety contribute to raise the affective filter
which prevents comprehensible input from
being used for acquisition.
 Affective Filter Hypothesis
• In other words, if the filter is high, the
input will not pass through and
subsequently there will be no acquisition.
• On the other hand, if the filter is low and
the input is understood, the input will
take place and acquisition will have taken
place.
 Affective Filter Hypothesis
• Gass and Selinker (1994) criticize the Filter
Hypothesis because it does not explain how it
works? Or how the input filter works?
• However, others see that it as something that
can be seen and applied in the classroom and
that it can explain why some students learn
and produce better language than others
(Lightbown and Spader, 1999).
 References
• Altarriba, J. & Soltano, E. G. (1996). Repetition Blindness and Bilingual Memory:
Token Individuation for Translation Equivalents. Memory and Cognition
• Buck, M., Lambert, W. E. & Tucker, G. R. (1976). Cognitive and Attitudinal
Consequences of Bilingual Schooling: The Saint Lambert Project Through Grade
Six. International Journal of Psycholinguistics
• Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-Five Years of Research on Foreign Language
Aptitude. Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
• Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing Motivation in Foreign Language Learning.
Language Learning
• Duskova, L. (1969). On Sources of Errors in Foreign Language Learning.
International Review of Applied Linguistics
• Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
• Ellis, N. C. & Beaton, A. (1993). Factors Affecting the Learning
of Foreign Language Vocabulary: Imagery Keyword and
Phonological Short-Term Memory. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology
• Gass, S.M. and Selinker, L. (1994). Second Language
Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ/ London:
Lawrence Erlbaum
• Harley, T. A. (2008). The Psychology of Language: From Data to
Theory (3rded).UK: Ashford Colour Press Ltd
• Kersten, A. W. & Earles, J, L. (2001). Less Really is More for
Adults Learning a Miniature Artificial Language. Journal of
Memory and Language
• Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practices
in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon
• Krashen, S. D. (1988). Second Language
Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
HemelHempstead: Prentice Hall
• McLaughlin, B. & Heredia, R. (1996).
Information-Processing Approaches to
Research on Second Language Acquisition and
Use. London: Academic Press
• Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998). Second
Language Learning Theories London: Edward
• Newmar, L. (1966). How Not to Interfere with Language Learning.
Cognitive Science
• Papagno, C., Valentine, T. & Baddeley, A. (1991). Phonological
Short-Term Memory and Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning.
Journal of Memory and Language
• Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Sharpe, K. (1992). Communication, Culture, Context, Confidence:
The Four Cs of Primary Modern Language Teaching. Language
Learning Journal
• Robinson, P. (2001). Individual Differences, Cognitive Abilities and
Aptitude Complexes. Second Language Research
• White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal
Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press