EPB4053 LANGUAGE AND TEACHING METHODOLOGY

Course Notes Writer: ASSOC. PROF. DR. MOHD SOFI BIN ALI

LESSON TWO:

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: FUNDAMENTAL THEORIES

1.0 Introduction

This lesson deals with the fundamental theories of second language acquisition. It starts off by defining some key terms in English language teaching (ELT). At the end of the lesson, you will be able to

(a) Describe the differences and similarities of L1, L and other languages.(b) Explain the definition of language acquisition (c) Describes the stages in second language acquisition(d) Explain various second language acquisition theories(e) Explain FIVE (5) components of Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition

Theory.

2.0 Languages

2.1 Language Defined

Language as a mental faculty, organ or instinct.One definition sees language primarily as the mental faculty that allows humans to undertake linguistic behaviour: to learn languages and produce and understand utterances. This definition stresses the universality of language to all humans and the biological basis of the human capacity for language as a unique development of the human brain.[4][5] This view often understands language to be largely innate, for example as in Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar or Jerry Fodor’s extreme innatist theory. These kinds of definitions are often applied by studies of language within a cognitive science framework and in neurolinguistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language). .

Language as a formal symbolic system, i.e., language is seen as a formal system of symbols governed by grammatical rules combining particular signs with particular meanings. It stresses on the fact that human languages can be described as closed structural systems consisting of rules that relate particular signs to particular meanings. This structuralist view of language was first introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure. Some proponents of this view of language, such as Noam Chomsky, define language as a particular set of sentences that can be generated from a particular set of rules. The structuralist viewpoint is commonly used in formal logic, semiotics, and in formal and structural theories of grammar, the most commonly used theoretical frameworks in linguistic description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language).

Language as a tool for communication, i.e. language as a system of communication that enables humans to cooperate. This definition stresses the social functions of language and the fact that humans use it to express themselves and to manipulate objects in their environment. This view of language is associated with the study of language in a functional or pragmatic framework, as well as in socio-linguistics and linguistic anthropology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language). It is a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols; "he taught foreign languages"; "the language introduced is standard throughout the text"; "the speed with which a program can be executed depends on the language in which it is written" (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

2.2 First Language, Second language and Foreign Languages(a) First Language

A first language (also known as native language, arterial language, L1, mother tongue, or native tongue) is the language(s) a person has learned from birth or within the critical period, or that a person speaks the best and so is often the basis for sociolinguistic identity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_language)

The first language is the language a person learns first (ie., the native language, mother tongue) Correspondingly, the person is called a native speaker of the language. (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/First_language)

(b) Second LanguageA second language (L2) is any language learned after the first language or mother tongue (MT). Some languages, often called auxiliary languages, are used primarily as second languages or lingua francas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language)

(c) Foreign Languages(http://www.allwords.com/word-foreign+language.htmlAny language other than that spoken by the people of a specific place)any language used in a country other than one's own; a language that is studied mostly for cultural insight (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foreign+language)

2.3 Similarities and differences between L1 and L2

Task 1

Summarize the similarities and differences stated in the following text and discuss with your lecturer in class.

Similarities and Differences between L1 and L2

(Source: (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Speed

Acquiring a second language can be a lifelong learning process for many. Despite persistent efforts, most learners of a second language will never become fully native-like in it, although with practice considerable fluency can be achieved. However, children by around the age of 5 have more or less mastered their first language, with the exception of vocabulary and a few grammatical structures.

Stages

Acquiring a second language occurs in systematic stages. Much evidence has been gathered to show that basic sounds, vocabulary, negating phrases, forming questions, using relative clauses, and so on are developed. This development is independent of input (we do not hear nor read language in this order) and learning situation (in the classroom or on the street). It is also generally applicable across a spectrum of learners (from different language backgrounds). This is similar to the learning stages that babies go through when acquiring the first language: babbling (bababa), vocabulary (milk then later milk drink), negation (no play), question forming (where she go), and so on.

Correction

Error correction does not seem to have a direct influence on learning a second language. Instruction may affect the rate of learning, but the stages remain the same. Adolescents and adults who know the rule are faster than those who do not. In the first

language, children do not respond to systematic correction. Furthermore, children who have limited input still acquire the first language.

Depth of knowledge

Learners in the first or second language have knowledge that goes beyond the input they received, in other words, the whole is greater than the parts. Learners of a language are able to construct correct utterances (e.g. phrases, sentences, and questions) that they have never seen or heard before.

Success

Success in language learning can be measured in two ways: likelihood and quality. First language learners will be successful in both measurements. It is inevitable that all first language learners will learn a first language and with few exceptions, they will be fully successful. For second language learners, success is not guaranteed. For one, learners may become fossilized or stuck as it were with ungrammatical items. (Fossilization occurs when language errors become a permanent feature. See Canale & Swain (1980), Johnson (1992), Selinker (1972), and Selinker and Lamendella (1978)). The difference between learners may be significant. Finally, as noted elsewhere, L2 learners rarely achieve complete native-like control of the second language.

3.0 Language Acquisition

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive,

produce and use words to understand and communicate. This capacity involves the

picking up of diverse capacities including syntax, phonetics, and an

extensive vocabulary. This language might be vocal as with speech or manual as in

sign. Language acquisition usually refers to first language acquisition, which studies

infants' acquisition of their native language, rather than second language acquisition,

which deals with acquisition (in both children and adults) of additional languages

(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

3.1 Stages of Second Language Acquisition

(Source: Judie Haynes

http://www.everythingesl.net/inservices/language_stages.php)

Task 2.

Class discussion. Discuss this with your lecturer in class.

All new learners of English progress through the same stages to acquire language.

However, the length of time each students spends at a particular stage may vary

greatly.

Stage I: Pre-production

This is the silent period. English language learners may have up to 500 words in their

receptive vocabulary but they are not yet speaking. Some students will, however, repeat

every thing you say. They are not really producing language but are parroting.

These new learners of English will listen attentively and they may even be able to copy

words from the board. They will be able to respond to pictures and other visuals. They

can understand and duplicate gestures and movements to show comprehension. Total

Physical Response methods will work well with them. Teachers should focus attention

on listening comprehension activities and on building a receptive vocabulary.

English language learners at this stage will need much repetition of English. They will

benefit from a “buddy” who speaks their language. Remember that the school day is

exhausting for these newcomers as they are overwhelmed with listening to English

language all day long.

Stage II: Early production

This stage may last up to six months and students will develop a receptive and active

vocabulary of about 1000 words. During this stage, students can usually speak in one-

or two-word phrases. They can use short language chunks that have been memorized

although these chunks may not always be used correctly.

Here are some suggestions for working with students in this stage of English language

learning:

o Ask yes/no and either/or questions.

o Accept one or two word responses.

o Give students the opportunity to participate in some of the whole class

activities.

o Use pictures and realia to support questions.

o Modify content information to the language level of ELLs.

o Build vocabulary using pictures.

o Provide listening activities.

o Simplify the content materials to be used. Focus on key vocabulary and

concepts.

o When teaching elementary age ELLs, use simple books with predictable text.

o Support learning with graphic organizers, charts and graphs. Begin to foster

writing in English through labeling and short sentences. Use a frame to scaffold

writing.

Stage III: Speech emergence

Students have developed a vocabulary of about 3,000 words and can communicate with

simple phrases and sentences. They will ask simple questions, that may or may not be

grammatically correct, such as “ May I go to bathroom? ” ELLs will also initiate short

conversations with classmates. They will understand easy stories read in class with the

support of pictures. They will also be able to do some content work with teacher

support. Here are some simple tasks they can complete:

4.0Sound out stories phonetically.5.0Read short, modified texts in content area subjects.6.0Complete graphic organizers with word banks.7.0Understand and answer questions about charts and graphs.8.0Match vocabulary words to definitions.9.0Study flashcards with content area vocabulary.10.0 Participate in duet, pair and choral reading activities.11.0 Write and illustrate riddles.12.0 Understand teacher explanations and two-step directions.13.0 Compose brief stories based on personal experience.14.0 Write in dialogue journals.

Dialogue journals are a conversation between the teacher and the student. They are

especially helpful with English language learners. Students can write about topics that

interest them and proceed at their own level and pace. They have a place to express

their thoughts and ideas.

Stage IV: Intermediate fluency

English language learners at the intermediate fluency stage have a vocabulary of 6000

active words. They are beginning to use more complex sentences when speaking and

writing and are willing to express opinions and share their thoughts. They will ask

questions to clarify what they are learning in class. These English language learners will

be able to work in grade level math and science classes with some teacher support.

Comprehension of English literature and social studies content is increasing. At this

stage, students will use strategies from their native language to learn content in English.

Student writing at this stage will have many errors as ELLs try to master the complexity

of English grammar and sentence structure. Many students may be translating written

assignments from native language. They should be expected to synthesize what they

have learned and to make inferences from that learning. This is the time for teachers to

focus on learning strategies. Students in this stage will also be able to understand more

complex concepts.

Stage V: Advanced Fluency

It takes students from 4-10 years to achieve cognitive academic language proficiency in

a second language. Student at this stage will be near-native in their ability to perform in

content area learning. Most ELLs at this stage have been exited from ESL and other

support programs. At the beginning of this stage, however, they will need continued

support from classroom teachers especially in content areas such as history/social

studies and in writing.

3.2 Second language Acquisition Theory

Task 3:

Read the following three articles on language acquisition theories. In groups of three, explain briefly the various second language acquisition theories described in these articles.

Article 1:

Language acquisition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive,

produce and use words to understand and communicate. This capacity involves the

picking up of diverse capacities including syntax, phonetics, and an

extensive vocabulary. This language might be vocal as with speech or manual as in

sign. Language acquisition usually refers to first language acquisition, which studies

infants' acquisition of their native language, rather than second language acquisition,

which deals with acquisition (in both children and adults) of additional languages.

The capacity to acquire and use language is a key aspect that distinguishes humans

from other organisms. While many forms of animal communication exist, they have a

limited range of non-syntactically structured vocabulary tokens that lack cross cultural

variation between groups.[1]

A major concern in understanding language acquisition is how these capacities are

picked up by infants from what appears to be very little input. A range of theories of

language acquisition has been created in order to explain this apparent problem

including innatism in which a child is born prepared in some manner with these

capacities, as opposed to the other theories in which language is simply learned.

History

Plato felt that the word-meaning mapping in some form was innate. Sanskrit

grammarians debated over twelve centuries whether meaning was god-given (possibly

innate) or was learned from older convention—e.g. a child learning the word for cow by

listening to trusted speakers talking about cows[2].

In modern times, empiricists like Hobbes and Locke argued that knowledge (and for

Locke, language) emerge ultimately from abstracted sense impressions. This led

to Carnap's Aufbau, an attempt to learn all knowledge from sense datum, using the

notion of "remembered as similar" to bind these into clusters, which would eventually

map to language.

Under Behaviorism, it was argued that language may be learned through a form

of operant conditioning. In B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behaviour(1957), he suggested that

the successful use of a sign such as a word or lexical unit, given a certain

stimulus, reinforces its "momentary" or contextual probability. Empiricist theories of

language acquisition include statistical learning theories of language

acquisition, Relational Frame Theory, functionalist linguistics, social interactionist

theory, and usage-based language acquisition.

This behaviourist idea was strongly attacked by Noam Chomsky in a review article in

1959, calling it "largely mythology" and a "serious delusion"[3]. Instead, Chomsky argued

for a more theoretical approach, based on a study of syntax.

General approach

Social interactionism

Social interactionist theory consists of a number of hypotheses on language acquisition.

These hypotheses deal with written, spoken, or visual social tools which consist of

complex systems of symbols and rules on language acquisition and development. The

compromise between “nature” and “nurture” is the “interactionist” approach. In addition,

for years, psychologists and researchers have been asking the same question. What

are the language behaviors that nature provides innately and what are those behaviors

that are realized by environmental exposure, which is nurture.

Relational frame theory

The relational frame theory (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, 2001), provides a wholly

selectionist/learning account of the origin and development of language competence

and complexity. Based upon the principles of Skinnerian behaviorism, RFT posits that

children acquire language purely through interacting with the environment. RFT

theorists introduced the concept of functional contextualism in language learning, which

emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events, such as

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, by focusing on manipulable variables in their context.

RFT distinguishes itself from Skinner's work by identifying and defining a particular type

ofoperant conditioning known as derived relational responding, a learning process that

to date appears to occur only in humans possessing a capacity for language. Empirical

studies supporting the predictions of RFT suggest that children learn language via a

system of inherent reinforcements, challenging the view that language acquisition is

based upon innate, language-specific cognitive capacities.[4]

Emergentism

Emergentist theories, such as MacWhinney's Competition Model, posit that language

acquisition is a cognitive process that emerges from the interaction of biological

pressures and the environment. According to these theories, neither nature nor nurture

alone is sufficient to trigger language learning; both of these influences must work

together in order to allow children to acquire a language. The proponents of these

theories argue that general cognitive processes subserve language acquisition and that

the end result of these processes is language-specific phenomena, such as word

learning and grammar acquisition. The findings of many empirical studies support the

predictions of these theories, suggesting that language acquisition is a more complex

process than many believe.[5]

Syntax

Generativism

Generative grammar, associated especially with the work of Noam Chomsky, is

currently one of the principal approaches to children's acquisition of syntax.[6] The

leading idea is that human biology imposes narrow constraints on the child's

"hypothesis space" during language acquisition. In the Principles and

Parameters Framework, which has dominated generative syntax since Chomsky's

(1980) Lectures on Government and Binding, the acquisition of syntax resembles

ordering from a menu: The human brain comes equipped with a limited set of choices,

and the child selects the correct options using her parents' speech, in combination with

the context.[7][8]

An important argument in favor of the generative approach is the Poverty of the

stimulus argument. The child's input (a finite number of sentences encountered by the

child, together with information about the context in which they were uttered) is in

principle compatible with an infinite number of conceivable grammars. Moreover, few if

any children can rely on corrective feedback from adults when they make a grammatical

error.[9] Yet, barring situations of medical abnormality or extreme privation, all the

children in a given speech-community converge on very much the same grammar by

the age of about five years.[10] An especially dramatic example is provided by children

who for medical reasons are unable to produce speech, and therefore can literally never

be corrected for a grammatical error, yet nonetheless converge on the same grammar

as their typically developing peers, according to comprehension-based tests of

grammar.[11][12]

Considerations such as these have led Chomsky, Jerry Fodor, Eric Lenneberg and

others to argue that the types of grammar that the child needs to consider must be

narrowly constrained by human biology (the nativist position)[13]. These innate

constraints are sometimes referred to as universal grammar, the human "language

faculty," or the "language instinct." [14]

Empiricism

Since Chomsky in the 1950s, many criticisms of the basic assumptions of generative

theory have been put forth. Critics argue that the concept of a Language Acquisition

Device (LAD) is unsupported by evolutionary anthropology, which tends to show a

gradual adaptation of the human brain and vocal chords to the use of language, rather

than a sudden appearance of a complete set of binary parameters delineating the whole

spectrum of possible grammars ever to have existed and ever to exist. (Binary

parameters are common to digital computers but not, as it turns out, to neurological

systems such as the human brain.)

Further, while generative theory has several hypothetical constructs (such as

movement, empty categories, complex underlying structures, and strict binary

branching) that cannot possibly be acquired from any amount of linguistic input, it is

unclear that human language is actually anything like the generative conception of it.

Since language, as imagined by nativists, is unlearnably complex, subscribers to this

theory argue that it must therefore be innate. A different theory of language, however,

may yield different conclusions. While all theories of language acquisition posit some

degree of innateness, a less convoluted theory might involve less innate structure and

more learning. Under such a theory of grammar, the input, combined with both general

and language-specific learning capacities, might be sufficient for acquisition.

Since 1980, linguists studying children, such as Melissa Bowerman, and psychologists

following Jean Piaget, like Elizabeth Bates and Jean Mandler, came to suspect that

there may indeed be many learning processes involved in the acquisition process, and

that ignoring the role of learning may have been a mistake.

In recent years, opposition to the nativist position has multiplied. The debate has

centered on whether the inborn capabilities are language-specific or domain-general,

such as those that enable the infant to visually make sense of the world in terms of

objects and actions. The anti-nativist view has many strands, but a frequent theme is

that language emerges from usage in social contexts, using learning mechanisms that

are a part of a general cognitive learning apparatus (which is what is innate). This

position has been championed by Elizabeth Bates [15] ,Catherine Snow, Brian

MacWhinney, Michael Tomasello [1] , Michael Ramscar [16] , William O'Grady [17] , and others.

Philosophers, such asFiona Cowie [18]  and Barbara Scholz with Geoffrey Pullum [19]  have

also argued against certain nativist claims in support of empiricism.

Statistical learning

Some language acquisition researchers, such as Elissa Newport, Richard Aslin,

and Jenny Saffran, believe that language acquisition is based primarily on

general learning mechanisms, namely statistical learning. The development

of connectionist models that are able to successfully learn words and syntactical

conventions[20] supports the predictions of statistical learning theories of language

acquisition, as do empirical studies of children's learning of words and syntax.[21]

Chunking

Chunking theories of language acquisition constitute a group of theories related to

statistical learning theories in that they assume that the input from the environment

plays an essential role; however, they postulate different learning mechanisms. The

central idea of these theories is that language development occurs through the

incremental acquisition of meaningful chunks of elementary constituents, which can be

words, phonemes, or syllables. Recently, this approach has been highly successful in

simulating several phenomena in the acquisition of syntactic categories[22] and the

acquisition of phonological knowledge[23]. The approach has several features that make

it unique: the models are implemented as computer programs, which enables clear-cut

and quantitative predictions to be made; they learn from naturalistic input, made of

actual child-directed utterances; they produce actual utterances, which can be

compared with children’s utterances; and they have simulated phenomena in several

languages, including English, Spanish, and German.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology have developed

a computer model analyzing early toddler conversations to predict the structure of later

conversations. They showed that toddlers develop their own individual rules for

speaking with slots into which they could put certain kinds of words. A significant

outcome of the research was that rules inferred from toddler speech were better

predictors of subsequent speech than traditional grammars.[24]

Vocabulary acquisition

The capacity to acquire the ability to incorporate the pronunciation of new words

depends upon the capacity to engage in speech repetition.[25][26][27][28] Children with

reduced abilities to repeat nonwords (a marker of speech repetition abilities) show a

slower rate of vocabulary expansion than children for whom this is easy.[29] It has been

proposed that the elementary units of speech has been selected to enhance the ease

with which sound and visual input can be mapped into motor vocalization.[30] Several

computational models of vocabulary acquisition have been proposed so far.[31][32][33][34][35]

[36][37]

Meaning

Children learn on average 10 to 15 new word meanings each day, but only one of these

words can be accounted for by direct instruction.[38]The other nine to 14 word meanings

need to be picked up in some other way. It has been proposed that children acquire

these meanings with the use of processes modeled by latent semantic analysis; that is,

when they meet an unfamiliar word, children can use information in its context to

correctly guess its rough area of meaning.[38]

Brain-Based Research

According to several linguistic experts, Brain-Based Research has confirmed many

standards of language learning, such as: "learning engages the entire person (cognitive,

affective, and psychomotor dominas), the human brain seeks patterns in its searching

for meaning, emotions affect all aspects of learning, retention and recall, past

experience always affects new learning, the brain's working memory has a limited

capacity, lecture usually results in the lowest degree of retention, rehearsal is essential

for retention, practice [alone] does not make perfect, and each brain is unique" (Sousa,

2006, p. 274). Experts also stress "the importance of language learners having a low

level of anxiety and a high level of motivation in order to be successful in acquiring a

language. Regardless of age at which language study is begun, a critical variable is

time on task" (Glisan and Schrum, 2010, p. 77). Several foreign language studies have

found that "it takes hundreds of hours of contact time to achieve a survival level of

proficiency in languages such as French and Spanish and two to three times longer for

languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean" (Liskin-Gasparrro, 1932). A

considerable aspect in brain-based research is that "practice does not make perfect, but

rather permanent, allowing the learner to use a learned skill in a new situation" (Sousa,

2006). Therefore, "practice alone doesn't make perfect unless the learner understands

what needs to be done to improve and is motivated to do so" ([39], p. 78). In terms of

genetics, the gene ROBO1 has been associated with phonological buffer integrity or

length [40]

References

1. ^ a b Tomasello, M., Origins of Human communication, MIT Press 2008

2. ̂  Bimal Krishna Matilal (1990). The word and the world: India's contribution to the

study of language. OUP.0

3. ̂  Chomsky Noam (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal

Behavior Language, 35: 26-58.

4. ̂  Steven C. Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, Brian Roche, ed (2001). Relational

Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition

(Hardcover). Plenum Press.ISBN 0-306-46600-7.

5. ̂  Brian MacWhinney, ed (1999). The Emergence of Language. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3010-3.

6. ̂  Crain, Stephen and Diane C. Lillo-Martin (1999). An Introduction to Linguistic

Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

7. ̂  Crain & Lillo-Martin, op.cit.

8. ̂  Baker, Mark C. (2001). The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of

Grammar. New York: Basic Books.

9. ̂  Brown, Roger and Camile Hanlon. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of

acquisition in child speech. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. J.

R. Hayes. New York: Wiley

10. ̂  Crain & Lillo-Martin, op.cit.

11. ̂  Lenneberg, Eric. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.

12. ̂  Stromswold, Karin. 2009 - Lessons from a mute child. Paper presented at 'Rich

Languages from Poor Inputs: A Workshop in Honor of Carol Chomsky'. MIT,

Cambridge, MA, 11 December 2009.

13. ̂  Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.

14. ̂  Pinker, Steven (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates

Language. New York: Harper Collins.

15. ̂  Bates, E. and Elman, J. and Johnson, M. and Karmiloff-Smith, A. and Parisi, D.

and Plunkett, K. (1998). "Innateness and emergentism". A companion to

cognitive science (Oxford / Basil Blackwell): 590–601.

16. ̂  Ramscar, Michael (2007). "Developmental change and the nature of learning in

childhood". Trends in Cognitive Science 11 (7): 274–9.

17. ̂  William O’Grady (April 2008). "Innateness, universal grammar, and

emergentism". Lingua 118 (4): 620–631.

18. ̂  Cowie, F. (1999): What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered(Oxford University

Press, New York).

19. ̂  Barbara Scholz and Geoffrey Pullum (2006). Robert J. Stainton. ed. "Irrational

Nativist Exuberance". Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science (Oxford /

Basil Blackwell): 59–80.

20. ̂  Seidenberg, Mark S.; J.L. McClelland (1989). "A distributed developmental

model of word recognition and naming.".Psychological Review 96 (4): 523–

568. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523. PMID 2798649.

21. ̂  Saffran, Jenny; R.N.Aslin, E.L. Newport (1996). "Statistical learning by 8-

month-old infants.". Science 274 (5294): 1926–

1928. doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926. PMID 8943209. Retrieved 23

December 2008.

22. ̂  Freudenthal, Daniel; J.M. Pine, F. Gobet (2005). "Modelling the development of

children's use of optional infinitives in English and Dutch using

MOSAIC.". Cognitive Science 30: 277–310.doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_47.

Retrieved 2 April 2009.

Article 2

THEORIES OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Over the last fifty years, several theories have been put forward to explain the process by which children learn to understand and speak a language. They can be summarised as follows:

Theory Central Idea Individual most often associated with theory

Behaviourist

Children imitate adults. Their correct utterances are reinforced when they get what they want or are praised.

Skinner

Innateness A child's brain contains special language-learning Chomsky

mechanisms at birth.

Cognitive Language is just one aspect of a child's overall intellectual development.

Piaget

Interaction This theory emphasises the interaction between children and their care-givers.

Bruner

We shall consider each of these in turn. Before we do, it is important to recognise that they should not be seen simply as conflicting theories, replacing each other in a sequence. Although Behaviourism is now seen as offering only a very limited explanation, each theory has added to our overall understanding, placing emphasis on different aspects of the process.

BehaviourismThe behaviourist psychologists developed their theories while carrying out a series of experiments on animals. They observed that rats or birds, for example, could be taught to perform various tasks by encouraging habit-forming. Researchers rewarded desirable behaviour. This was known as positive reinforcement. Undesirable behaviour was punished or simply not rewarded - negative reinforcement.

The behaviourist B. F. Skinner then proposed this theory as an explanation for language acquisition in humans. In Verbal Behaviour (1957), he stated:

"The basic processes and relations which give verbal behaviour its special characteristics are now fairly well understood. Much of the experimental work responsible for this advance has been carried out on other species, but the results have proved to be surprisingly free of species restrictions. Recent work has shown that the methods can be extended to human behaviour without serious modifications."

(cited in Lowe and Graham, 1998, p68)

Skinner suggested that a child imitates the language of its parents or carers. Successful attempts are rewarded because an adult who recognises a word spoken by a child will praise the child and/or give it what it is asking for. Successful utterances are therefore reinforced while unsuccessful ones are forgotten.

Limitations of Behaviourism

While there must be some truth in Skinner's explanation, there are many objections to it.

Language is based on a set of structures or rules, which could not be worked out simply by imitating individual utterances. The mistakes made by children reveal that they are not simply imitating but actively working out and applying rules. For example, a child who says "drinked" instead of "drank" is not copying an adult but rather over-applying a rule. The child has discovered that past tense verbs are formed by adding a /d/ or /t/ sound to the base form. The "mistakes" occur because there are irregular verbs which do not behave in this way. Such forms are often referred to as intelligent mistakes or virtuous errors.

The vast majority of children go through the same stages of language acquisition. There appears to be a definite sequence of steps. We refer to developmental milestones. Apart from certain extreme cases (see the case of Genie), the sequence seems to be largely unaffected by the treatment the child receives or the type of society in which s/he grows up.

Children are often unable to repeat what an adult says, especially if the adult utterance contains a structure the child has not yet started to use. The classic demonstration comes from the American psycholinguist David McNeill. The structure in question here involves negating verbs:

Child: Nobody don't like me

Mother: No, say, "Nobody likes me."

Child: Nobody don't like me.

(Eight repetitions of this dialogue)

Mother: No, now listen carefully: say, "Nobody likes me."

Child: Oh! Nobody don't likes me.

(McNeil in The Genesis of Language, 1966)

Few children receive much explicit grammatical correction. Parents are more interested in politeness and truthfulness. According to Brown, Cazden and Bellugi (1969): "It seems to be truth value rather than well-formed syntax that chiefly governs explicit verbal reinforcement by parents - which renders mildly paradoxical the fact that the usual product of such a training schedule is an adult

whose speech is highly grammatical but not notably truthful." (cited in Lowe and Graham, 1998)

There is evidence for a critical period for language acquisition. Children who have not acquired language by the age of about seven will never entirely catch up. The most famous example is that of Genie, discovered in 1970 at the age of 13. She had been severely neglected, brought up in isolation and deprived of normal human contact. Of course, she was disturbed and underdeveloped in many ways. During subsequent attempts at rehabilitation, her carers tried to teach her to speak. Despite some success, mainly in learning vocabulary, she never became a fluent speaker, failing to acquire the grammatical competence of the average five-year-old.

InnatenessNoam Chomsky published a criticism of the behaviourist theory in 1957. In addition to some of the arguments listed above, he focused particularly on the impoverished language input children receive. Adults do not typically speak in grammatically complete sentences. In addition, what the child hears is only a small sample of language.

Chomsky concluded that children must have an inborn faculty for language acquisition. According to this theory, the process is biologically determined - the human species has evolved a brain whose neural circuits contain linguistic information at birth. The child's natural predisposition to learn language is triggered by hearing speech and the child's brain is able to interpret what s/he hears according to the underlying principles or structures it already contains. This natural faculty has become known as the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Chomsky did not suggest that an English child is born knowing anything specific about English, of course. He stated that all human languages share common principles. (For example, they all have words for things and actions - nouns and verbs.) It is the child's task to establish how the specific language s/he hears expresses these underlying principles.

For example, the LAD already contains the concept of verb tense. By listening to such forms as "worked", "played" and "patted", the child will form the hypothesis that the past tense of verbs is formed by adding the sound /d/, /t/ or /id/ to the base form. This, in turn, will lead to the "virtuous errors" mentioned above. It hardly needs saying that the process is unconscious. Chomsky does not envisage the small child lying in its cot working out grammatical rules consciously!

Chomsky's ground-breaking theory remains at the centre of the debate about language acquisition. However, it has been modified, both by Chomsky himself and by others. Chomsky's original position was that the LAD contained specific knowledge about language. Dan Isaac Slobin has proposed that it may be more like a mechanism for working out the rules of language:

"It seems to me that the child is born not with a set of linguistic categories but with some sort of process mechanism - a set of procedures and inference rules,

if you will - that he uses to process linguistic data. These mechanisms are such that, applying them to the input data, the child ends up with something which is a member of the class of human languages. The linguistic universals, then, are the result of an innate cognitive competence rather than the content of such a competence."(cited in Russell, 2001)

Evidence to support the innateness theoryWork in several areas of language study has provided support for the idea of an innate language faculty. Three types of evidence are offered here:

1. Slobin has pointed out that human anatomy is peculiarly adapted to the production of speech. Unlike our nearest relatives, the great apes, we have evolved a vocal tract which allows the precise articulation of a wide repertoire of vocal sounds. Neuro-science has also identified specific areas of the brain with distinctly linguistic functions, notably Broca's area and Wernicke's area. Stroke victims provide valuable data: depending on the site of brain damage, they may suffer a range of language dysfunction, from problems with finding words to an inability to interpret syntax. Experiments aimed at teaching chimpanzees to communicate using plastic symbols or manual gestures have proved controversial. It seems likely that our ape cousins, while able to learn individual "words", have little or no grammatical competence. Pinker (1994) offers a good account of this research.

2. The formation of creole varieties of English appears to be the result of the LAD at work. The linguist Derek Bickerton has studied the formation of Dutch-based creoles in Surinam. Escaped slaves, living together but originally from different language groups, were forced to communicate in their very limited Dutch. The result was the restricted form of language known as a pidgin. The adult speakers were past the critical age at which they could learn a new language fluently - they had learned Dutch as a foreign language and under unfavourable conditions. Remarkably, the children of these slaves turned the pidgin into a full language, known by linguists as a creole. They were presumably unaware of the process but the outcome was a language variety which follows its own consistent rules and has a full expressive range. Creoles based on English are also found, in the Caribbean and elsewhere.

3. Studies of the sign languages used by the deaf have shown that, far from being crude gestures replacing spoken words, these are complex, fully grammatical languages in their own right. A sign language may exist in several dialects. Children learning to sign as a first language pass through similar stages to hearing children learning spoken language. Deprived of speech, the urge to communicate is realised through a manual system which fulfils the same function. There is even a signing creole, again developed by children, in Nicaragua. For an account of this, see Pinker, 1994 (pp 36-7).

(Note: some of this section is derived from the BBC television documentary The Mind Machine.)

Limitations of Chomsky's theoryChomsky's work on language was theoretical. He was interested in grammar and much of his work consists of complex explanations of grammatical rules. He did not study real children. The theory relies on children being exposed to language but takes no account of the interaction between children and their carers. Nor does it recognise the reasons why a child might want to speak, the functions of language.

In 1977, Bard and Sachs published a study of a child known as Jim, the hearing son of deaf parents. Jim's parents wanted their son to learn speech rather than the sign language they used between themselves. He watched a lot of television and listened to the radio, therefore receiving frequent language input. However, his progress was limited until a speech therapist was enlisted to work with him. Simply being exposed to language was not enough. Without the associated interaction, it meant little to him.Subsequent theories have placed greater emphasis on the ways in which real children develop language to fulfil their needs and interact with their environment, including other people.

The Cognitive TheoryThe Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget placed acquisition of language within the context of a child's mental or cognitive development. He argued that a child has to understand a concept before s/he can acquire the particular language form which expresses that concept.

A good example of this is seriation. There will be a point in a child's intellectual development when s/he can compare objects with respect to size. This means that if you gave the child a number of sticks, s/he could arrange them in order of size. Piaget suggested that a child who had not yet reached this stage would not be able to learn and use comparative adjectives like "bigger" or "smaller".

Object permanence is another phenomenon often cited in relation to the cognitive theory. During the first year of life, children seem unaware of the existence of objects they cannot see. An object which moves out of sight ceases to exist. By the time they reach the age of 18 months, children have realised that objects have an existence independently of their perception. The cognitive theory draws attention to the large increase in children's vocabulary at around this age, suggesting a link between object permanence and the learning of labels for objects.

Limitations of the Cognitive TheoryDuring the first year to 18 months, connections of the type explained above are possible to trace but, as a child continues to develop, so it becomes harder to find clear links between language and intellect. Some studies have focused on children who have learned to speak fluently despite abnormal mental development. Syntax in particular does not appear to rely on general intellectual growth.

Input or Interactionist TheoriesIn contrast to the work of Chomsky, more recent theorists have stressed the importance of the language input children receive from their care-givers. Language exists for the purpose of communication and can only be learned in the context of interaction with people who want to communicate with you. Interactionists such as Jerome Bruner suggest that the language behaviour of adults when talking to children (known by several names by most easily referred to as child-directed speech or CDS) is specially adapted to support the acquisition process. This support is often described to as scaffolding for the child's language learning. Bruner also coined the term Language Acquisition Support System or LASS in response to Chomsky's LAD. Colwyn Trevarthen studied the interaction between parents and babies who were too young to speak. He concluded that the turn-taking structure of conversation is developed through games and non-verbal communication long before actual words are uttered.

Limitations of Input theoriesThese theories serve as a useful corrective to Chomsky's early position and it seems likely that a child will learn more quickly with frequent interaction. However, it has already been noted that children in all cultures pass through the same stages in acquiring language. We have also seen that there are cultures in which adults do not adopt special ways of talking to children, so CDS may be useful but seems not to be essential.As stated earlier, the various theories should not be seen simply as alternatives. Rather, each of them offers a partial explanation of the process.

(Source: http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=language+acquisition+theories&fr=yfp-t-701-s&fp_ip=my&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=language+acquisition+theories&d=5047377004988091&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=471e0d99,8a172eaf&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=j9Bx9I1SRJ8U1WsdGeFR0A--)

Article 3:

Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition Theory

Second language acquisition theory seeks to quantify how and by what processes individuals acquire a second language. The predominant theory of second language acquisition was developed by the University of Southern California’s Steven Krashen. Krashen is a specialist in language development and acquisition, and his influential theory is widely accepted in the language learning community.

There are five main components of Krashen’s theory. Each of the components relates to

a different aspect of the language learning process. The five components are as follows:

The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis

The Monitor Hypothesis

The Natural Order Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

This hypothesis actually fuses two fundamental theories of how individuals learn

languages. Krashen has concluded that there are two systems of language acquisition

that are independent but related: the acquired system and the learned system.

The acquired system relates to the unconscious aspect of language acquisition.

When people learn their first language by speaking the language naturally in

daily interaction with others who speak their native language, this acquired

system is at work. In this system, speakers are less concerned with the structure

of their utterances than with the act of communicating meaning. Krashen

privileges the acquired system over the learned system.

The learned system relates to formal instruction where students engage in formal

study to acquire knowledge about the target language. For example, studying the

rules of syntax is part of the learned system.

The Monitor Hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis seeks to elucidate how the acquired system is affected by the

learned system. When second language learners monitor their speech, they are

applying their understanding of learned grammar to edit, plan, and initiate their

communication. This action can only occur when speakers have ample time to think

about the form and structure of their sentences.

The amount of monitoring occurs on a continuum. Some language learners over-

monitor and some use very little of their learned knowledge and are said to under-

monitor. Ideally, speakers strike a balance and monitor at a level where they use their

knowledge but are not overly inhibited by it.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

This hypothesis argues that there is a natural order to the way second language

learners acquire their target language. Research suggests that this natural order seems

to transcend age, the learner's native language, the target language, and the conditions

under which the second language is being learned. The order that the learners follow

has four steps:

1. They produce single words.

2. They string words together based on meaning and not syntax.

3. They begin to identify elements that begin and end sentences.

4. They begin to identify different elements within sentences and can rearrange

them to produce questions.

The Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis seeks to explain how second languages are acquired. In its most basic

form, the input hypothesis argues that learners progress along the natural order only

when they encounter second language input that is one step beyond where they are in

the natural order. Therefore, if a learner is at step one from the above list, they will only

proceed along the natural order when they encounter input that is at the second step.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

This hypothesis describes external factors that can act as a filter that impedes

acquisition. These factors include motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. For example,

if a learner has very low motivation, very low self-confidence, and a high level of

anxiety, the affective filter comes into place and inhibits the learner from acquiring the

new language. Students who are motivated, confident, and relaxed about learning the

target language have much more success acquiring a second language than those who

are trying to learn with the affective filter in place.

A Final Point on Grammar

According to second language acquisition theory, the role of (/grammar-rules/effective-

grammar-instruction.html grammar) in language acquisition is useful only when the

learner is interested in learning grammar. Otherwise, Krashen argues that studying

grammar equates to language appreciation and does not positively influence language

acquisition.

(Source: http://www.yourdictionary.com/esl/Second-Language-Acquisition-Theory.html)

4.0 Issue

Task 4

Class discussion. State your views/opinions on the following issue.

The vast majority of language learners fail to reach fluency in their target language even after years and years of study. Why? Is it because of (a) methods, (b) attitude, (c) materials, or (d) all of the above ? In groups of four, discuss the above issue with special reference to the fundamental theories of language acquisition.. Present your views to the class (Source: L2master.com).

5.0 Closure

What have you learned about the following:

(a) the differences and similarities of L1, L and other language,.(b) the definition of language acquisition, (c) the stages in second language acquisition, and (d) various second language acquisition theories?(e) FIVE (5) components of Krashen’s Second Language Acquisition Theory.