Second language acquisition theories

Popular beliefs (Lightbown & Spada,1993)

1. Languages are learnt mainly through imitation.2. Parents usually correct young children when

they make errors.3. People with a high IQ are good language

learners.4. Early start in L2 learning brings more success.5. Most mistakes learners make in L2 derive from

interference of the L1.6. Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon

as they occur to prevent bad habits.

Criteria for a theory of SLA/SLL(Long, 1990)

Account for1. universals.2. environmental factors.3. age, acquisition rate and proficiency.4. cognitive and personal variables.5. learning as well as acquisition.6. other varibles besides exposure and input. 7. interlanguage systemacity.8. the varied cognitive processes involved in

acquisition.

An Innatist model:Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1977-1997)Aspects:

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis• Conscious vs. Unconscious• No interface

2. The Monitor Hypothesis

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis

4. The Input Hypothesis• Comprehensible input „i+1”• Emergence of speech

5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis• Low stress and anxiety

Criticism of Krashen’s model

• What is conscious or unconscious learning?(McLaughlin, 1978, 1990)

• Is there no interface? (Gregg, 1984)• „Zero option” for grammar? (Ellis, 1997)• Comprehensible input= language learning success?

- intake - Seliger (1983): High and Low Input Generatiors

- Lapkin (1995): Output Hypothesis• How to define „i+1”?• Waiting for speech to emerge?

A Cognitive model: McLaughlin’s Attention-Processing Model (1978-1990)

Controlled Automatic

Focal formal rule learnig test situation

Peripheral implicit or analogic communication learning

Controlled processes:

- Capacity limited and temporary- Focus on new skills (driving)

Automatic processes:

- Relatively permanent- Automatising or restructuring info

used together (cf. Krashen’s „no interface”)

Both can be focal and peripheral Controlled and automatic processing can be used

interchangeably

A Social Constructivist Model:Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996)

Major claim: Comprehensible input results from modified interaction:

- slow-down- comprehension checks„Go down the subway – do you know the word

subway?”- clarifications/repair requests„Did you say to the right?”- paraphrase„Could you give me a hanky- you something to

wipe my nose with?”

Relation between interaction andacquisition

Awareness, autonomy and authenticity

Contexts of interaction are carefully designed

Individual learner language through a socially constructed process

A Humanistic Approach: Rogers’s Humanistic Psychology (1951)

Involving the whole person in the learning process

Non-threatening environmentFully functioning personShift of focus from teaching to learningLearning to learn – autonomy and

responsibilityDelegating rights of decision to learners

Teachers as facilitators

establish interpersonal relationships with learners

are real and genuine (congruent) give up their role as controller appreciate learners as valuable

individuals communicate openly and

empathically

Criticism of Rogers

Non-directive approach, discovering everything – too time-consuming

Non-threatening enviroment eliminates facilitative tension (competition)

Learner training!

Paolo Freire (1970)

Empowerment of students in

- negotiating learning outcomes

- cooperating with teachers and learners

- engaging in critical thinking

- relating learning material to their own reality