Early approaches to second

language acquisition

:Presented by
Amal Mohammed Albshri
:The early approaches to SLA are

Contrastive Analysis - CA
Error Analysis - EA
Interlanguage - IL
Morpheme order studies
Monitor Model
 Contrastive analysis
CA was produced by Robert Lado in (1957), the main idea was that it is •
possible to identify the areas of difficulty a particular foreign language
will present for native speakers of another language by comparing the two
languages and cultures. If the two languages and cultures are similar,
learning difficulties will not be expected, and if they are different, then
.learning difficulties are to be expected
The ultimate goal of contrastive analysis is to predict areas that will be •
.either easy or difficult for learners
 …Continue
Based on behaviourist and structuralist theories, the basic assumption for this * •
hypothesis was that “the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the
”… interference of the first language system with the second language system
.Another assumption is the transfer in learning from L1 to L2 *
Positive transfer - where features of the L1 and the L2 match, acquisition of the
)L2 is facilitated. ii
.Negative transfer (L1 interference) - acquisition hindered where L1 and L2 differ
 …Continue
: Types of interference •
Same form and meaning, different distribution- •
Same meaning, different form- •
Same meaning different from and distribution- •
Different form, partial overlap in meaning- •
Similar form, different meaning- •
 Criticism
The criticism is that Contrastive Analysis hypothesis could not be sustained •
by empirical evidence. It was soon pointed out that many errors predicted by
Contrastive Analysis were not observed in learners' language. Moreover,
some errors were made by learners irrespective of their L1. It thus became
clear that Contrastive Analysis could not predict learning difficulties.
Furthermore, CA was not suitable for the study of SLA, because it follows
the behaviorist notions which can not explain the logical problem of language
leaning. However, this approach was useful to descriptive studies and to
.translation, including computer translation
 Error Analysis
Error analysis is an approach that focus on the learner’s ability to build a •
language, it study and analyze the error committed by learners in the L2, it is an
alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism,
Error analysis proved that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great
.majority of errors
It is Inspired by Chomsky’s Transformational Generative Grammar. (From •
finite number of rules to infinite number of uses.), therefore, it Perceives
language as rule-governed behavior. Focuses on an interaction between
.environment and individual
 Error Analysis
Error analysis In second language acquisition was established in 1960’s •
by Stephen pit Corder and hiscolleagues. He claimed that “Learners errors
are not bad habits but sources of insight into the learning process” it could
give us information about how much the learner had learnt, how language
was learnt, and also serve as devices by which the learner discovered the
.rules of the target language process of L2 acquisition
 Methodology of Error analysis

Collection of a sample learner language: collecting data from speakers who* •

.have respond to the same test over the period of week, month, or year
Identification of errors : Distinguish between A systematic error and a mistake.*
systematic Error- are usually made due to the lack of L2 knowledge. So, the
.action was wrong because it was different from the rules, model or specific code
Mistake -are usually accidental. You know it’s wrong. In other •
.words, mistakes are performance based, and can be self-corrected
 Methodology of Error analysis
Description of errors: classifying error according to their level* •
) phonological, morphological, syntactical...etc ( •

?Explanation of errors: why an error was made* •

Interlingual (between two languages) •
Intralingual (within language) •
 …Continue
:Example
.The man are high*

Interlingual
Intralingual

.The man is tall

Evaluation of errors: explanation of the effect of these error (How* •
.serious they are)
 Criticism
:Ambiguity in classification of some error * •
)?interlingual? intralingual? L1 influence( •
Lack of positive data •
Potential for avoidance •
Influence of L2 curricula •
 Interlanguage
Selinker (1972) introduced the term the Interlanguage theory, which is a •
reaction to the CAH, basically understands second language learning as “a
creative process of constructing a system in which the learner is
consciously testing hypotheses about the target language from a number
of possible sources of knowledge …” (Brown 1980: 162); these sources
.include, among other factors, both L1 and L2
this linguistic approach has been named different terms, such as •
.transitional competence, interlanguage, and approximative systems
 Morpheme order studies

These studies argue that there is a natural order of the acquisition of •

English morphemes no matter what the one’s native language is. Thus,
there is an evidence for the lack of importance of native language
 influence
 … Continue
: Studies and researches
First was the research conducted by Roger Brown (Brown, 1973) who
proposed a consistent order for L1 acquisition which later on was supported
.by de Villiers (de Villiers 1973)
Second, In 1974, Dulay and Burt carried out a study to see whether L2
English students follow a consistent order when acquiring the L2. the subject
of the study were Spanish and Chinese students, They used eight of Brown’s
:functors
 … Continue
Present progressive –ing - Plural -s - Past irregular - Possessive –s - ( •
Articles the, a 4 - Third person singular –s - Contractible copula be -
.)Contractible auxiliary be

They conclude the study with the claim that there is an internal driven
acquisition which they call it the creative constructions, the L2 create a
mental grammar which enable them to produce words they have not heard
.before
 Criticism
The findings from ESL/EFL-only studies are ultimately impossible to generalize to •
other languages. This severely limits the usefulness of morpheme order studies to
teachers of non-English L2s. It also limits the usefulness of morpheme order
.studies as a tool for understanding the processes underlying language acquisition
The morpheme order studies did not consider L1 transfer as a possible factor for •
.the variance in L2 developmental sequences
However, this is a very important approach for understanding SlA, the awareness •
of the order of acquisition that is natural to L2 learners may help teachers and
.educational policy makers
 Monitor Model

The last approach to second language acquisition, The Monitor Model is •

an interesting set of hypotheses that was developed by Stephen Krashen in
the late 1970s. He adopted the notion of language acquisition device
(LAD). The LAD was a feature in the brain that helped people learn
.languages
 :The five hypothesis
: Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
Krashen saw acquisition as subconscious learning that was facilitated by something
Chomsky had proposed called the language acquisition device (LAD). If acquisition was
subconscious, then the learning part of the hypothesis was what actually happens in the
classroom. Since the educator is making the students consciously aware of the
.information, this was considered learning which is not as affective as acquisition

The Monitor Hypothesis: Learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor or
editor. Moreover, learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our
 .utterance, after it has been produced by the acquired system
Natural Order Hypothesis Krashen states that there is a natural order to acquiring •
language rules. We acquire the rules of language in a predictable order, like the
.Morpheme order studies

The Input Hypothesis : it is based on students receiving an appropriate amount of input.

However, it is not just input, but comprehensible input that is easily understood by the learner
.that will deliver the grammar needed

Affective Filter Hypothesis: Comprehensible input may not be utilized by second-language

acquirers if there is a mental block that prevents them from fully profiting from it. The
affective filter acts as a barrier to acquisition: if the filter is down, the input reaches the LAD
and becomes acquired competence; if the filter is up, the input is blocked and does not reach
.the LAD
 Criticism
Many critics feel that Krashen has delivered a model without properly •
explaining its many variations and functions, thus when empirically
testing it the result are unsatisfying . Had Krashen taken that into account,
he might have been able to propose a more testable, viable and useable
Monitor. However, Krashen’s Monitor Theory has had significant impact
.on EFL teaching
 The End •
Thank you •