UNIT 2

GENERAL THEORIES ON LEARNING AND

ACQUISITION OF A FOREIGN LANGUAGE.
THE CONCEPT OF INTERLANGUAGE.
THE TREATMENT OF ERROR

1. INTRODUCTION
2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
3. KEY ISSUES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
3.1. THE ROLE OF FIRST LANGUAGE IN SLA
3.2. THE NATURAL ROUTE (INTERLANGUAGE) 3. 3. INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES
3.3. THE ROLE OF INPUT AND INTERACTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
3.4. LEARNER STRATEGIES
4. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
5. SOME THEORIES ON SLA
6. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS: ERROR TREATMENT AND REMEDIAL TEACHING.
7. LANGUAGE LEARNING ACQUISITION TODAY
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 1
1. INTRODUCTION

Throughout this unit we shall give an insight in the complex processes that involve second
language acquisition (SLA). We shall first have a look at second language acquisition from a
historical perspective trying to focus on those facts that have mostly influence today's
perspective on this matter. Mentalist and Cognitive views on first and second language
acquisition will therefore be our main referents. We will also attempt to describe all the
factors that are involved in this process (input, individual differences etc) trying to offer a
wide framework for the study of second language acquisition. Furthermore, we will consider
first language acquisition and in what ways it is similar and different from second language
acquisition. Finally we will offer a set of theories that try to explain comprehensibly the
process of second language acquisition. We shall concentrate on Krashen's hypothesis and
theories as they very well summarize the latest concerns in this matter.
This unit has been foregrounded on some of the most relevant scholars in the field , namely
Howatt, A History of English Language Teaching (1984) Richards, & Rodgers, Approaches
and Methods in Language Teaching .(1992) and VanPatten, From Input to Output.,( 2003)

2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

A relevant characteristic of contemporary second and foreign language teaching is the

proliferation of approaches, methods and theories so as to search for more efficient and
effective ways of teaching languages.
Many theories about the learning and teaching of languages have been proposed from a
historical perspective, and have been influenced by developments in the fields of linguistics,
psychology, anthropology, and sociology. The findings from these disciplines used on the
teaching of L, help us to make decisions to overcome the problems involved in teaching.
The study of these theories and how they influence language teaching today is called
applied linguistics. As we have seen in the preceding sections, many of our modern
practices find their roots, or at the least are inspired, in the practices of our predecessors.
The extent and importance of the teaching of English as a foreign language, and therefore,
the development of language learning theories, make it reasonable to define some key
concepts that can be better understood in a wider historical perspective.
From a historical perspective foreign language learning has always been an important
practical concern. Whereas today English is the world's most widely studied foreign
language, five hundred years ago it was Latin, for it was the dominant language of
education, commerce, religion, and government in the Western world. In the mid-late
nineteenth century, opportunities for communication increased among Europeans and there
was a high demand for oral proficiency in foreign languages.
Second language learning has always tended to follow in the footsteps of first language
acquisition and, in fact, throughout the history of language teaching, we find several
attempts to make second language learning more like first language learning. The
importance of meaning in learning, and the interest on how children learn languages as a
model for language teaching were the first approaches to a language learning theory.

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 2
Thus, if we trace back to the sixteenth century, we find out that the Frenchman Montaigne
described his own experience on learning Latin for the first years of his life as a process
where he was exclusively addressed in Latin by a German tutor. In the nineteenth century,
he was followed by individual language teaching specialists like the Frenchman C. Marcel,
the Englishman T. Prendergast, and the Frenchman F. Gouin (Howatt 1984).
Prendergast was one of the first to record the observation of children in speaking, followed
by Gouin, one of the best known representatives of language teaching due to his
observations of children's use of language. In 1880 Gouin attempted to build a methodology
around observation of child language learning when publishing L'art d'enseigner et d'etudier
les langues, which turned out to be a total failure. However, his turning to observations of
how children learn a second language is one of the most impressive personal testimonials in
the recorded annals of language learning.
Attempts to develop teaching principles from observation of child language learning were
made but these new ideas were not sufficient within the educational movement at that
time. However, toward the end of the nineteenth century, the interests of reform-minded
language teachers, and linguists, coincided and first attempts to language learning theories
were to be taken into consideration.
Regarding the learning of languages, three main theories have approached, from different
perspectives, the question of how language is learnt. Thus, behaviourism emphasizes the
essential role of the environment in the process of language learning whereas mentalist
theories give priority to the learners' innate characteristics from a cognitive and
psychological approach. A third approach claims for relevant concepts such as a
comprehensible input and a native speaker interaction in conversations for students to
acquire the new language.
Hence, mentalist accounts of language acquisition originated in the rejection of behaviourist
explanations. Chomsky emphasized the role of mental processes rather than the
contribution of the environment in the language acquisition process. This "Chomskian
revolution" initially gave rise to eclecticism in teaching, but it has more recently led to two
main branches of teaching approaches: the humanistic approaches based on the charismatic
teaching of one person, and content-based communicative approaches, which try to
incorporate what has been learned in recent years about the need for active learner
participation, about appropriate language input, and about communication as a human
activity.
Following Richards & Rodgers (1992), prominent figures in this field, such as Stephen
Krashen, Tracy D. Terrell, and Noam Chomsky developed the language learning theories
which are the source of principles in language teaching nowadays. A psycholinguistic and
cognitive approach is necessary to understand learning processes, such as habit formation,
induction, inferencing, hypothesis testing, and generalization.
The advances in cognitive science and educational psychology made by Jean Piaget and
Vygotsky in the first half of the century strongly influenced language teaching theory in the
1960s and 1970s. Their theories were intended to explain the ineffectiveness of the
traditional prescriptive and mechanistic approaches to language teaching and later serve as
a basis for the new natural-communicative approaches. Beginning in the 1950s, Noam
Chomsky and his followers challenged previous assumptions about language structure and
language learning, taking the position that language is creative (not memorized), and rule

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 3
governed (not based on habit), and that universal phenomena of the human mind underlie
all language.
In addition to Chomsky's generativism, new trends favouring more humanistic views and
putting a greater focus on the learner and on social interaction, gave way to the Natural
(USA) and Communicative (England) approaches. Psychologist Charles Curran's Community
Language Learning and Krashen's and Terrell's Natural Approach (in the 1980s) are very
representative of this latest trend in language teaching.
Stephen Krashen and Tracy D. Terrell have proposed ideas that have influenced language
teaching. Thus, Krashen studied the way that children learn language and applied it to adult
language learning. He proposed the Input Hypothesis, which states that language is acquired
by using comprehensible input (the language that one hears in the environment) which is
slightly beyond the learner's present proficiency. Learners use the comprehensible input to
deduce rules. Krashen's views on language teaching have given rise to a number of changes
in language teaching, including a de-emphasis on the teaching of grammatical rules and a
greater emphasis on trying to teach language to adults in the way that children learn
language. While Krashen's theories are not universally accepted, they have had an influence.
Most recently, there has been also a significant shift toward greater attention to reading and
writing as a complement of listening and speaking, based on a new awareness of significant
differences between spoken and written languages, and on the notion that dealing with
language involves an interaction between the text on the one hand, and the culturally-based
world knowledge and experientially-based learning of the receiver on the other.

3. KEY ISSUES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is not a predictable phenomenon. There is no single way
in which learners acquire a knowledge of a second language (L2). SLA is the product of many
factors pertaining to the learner on the one hand and the learning situation on the other. It
is important, therefore, to start by recognizing the complexity and diversity of these two
factors (Ellis, 1986: 4). Different learners in different situations learn in different ways.
Variability and individuality of language learning is a fact but there are somehow elements
that remain relatively stable , if not in all learners at least in large groups, and it is from
these that we can draw conclusions and talk in general terms of SLA.
1
Second Language Acquisition is interested in how competence is developed. This is the
object of the vast majority of SLA studies. However, because the rules the learner has
internalized are not open to direct inspection, it has been necessary to examine how the
learner performs, mainly in production. The learner's productions are, therefore, treated as
windows through which the internalized rule can be viewed. In short, performance is
treated as evidence for what is going on in the learner's head. This is has traditionally been a
draw back regarding SLA studies as we might ask ourselves to what extent can competence
be inferred from performance.
Having pointed out these difficulties that arise in the study of SLA, let's now concentrate on
the main elements that should be taken into account in the investigation of SLA as a whole.

1
According to Chomsky (1965), competence consists of the mental representation of linguistic rules which constitute
the speaker's internalized grammar. Performance consists of the comprehension and production of language.

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 4
Any attempt to explain and analyze the process of SLA should always take into account the
following:
1. The Role of First Language in SLA
2. The existence or not of a natural route and its contextual variations
3. How the individual differences (age, motivation, cognitive style) affect SLA
4. The different strategies the learner uses
5. The role of the input

3.1. The role of first language in SLA

Although there a popular belief SLA is a strongly influenced by the learner's L1, there is
considerable disagreement among researchers about the extent and nature of the role of
the L1. Behaviourism saw transfer from L1 as main source of errors, and devised a
contrastive analysis theory in order to tackle this difficulty. Errors were the result of
negative transfer from L1 and in order to avoid these, the target language and the mother
tongue should be analyzed carefully and predict those areas of difficulty learner's might
encounter. Errors were therefore the result of interference from habits in the L1. Massive
practice on those areas of interference would eliminate chance of errors. However, many of
the errors predicted by contrastive analysis did not arise and many errors that were not
predicted occurred. It is because of this that the validity of the transfer theory that
accounted for errors was questioned.
Dulay and Burt (1973 and 1974) claimed after some studies that only 3% of the errors could
be accounted for negative transfer. Other studies showed that many errors could not be
accounted for transfer from L1 but on the contrary were the result of internal development
of L2. If SLA is seen as a developmental process (interlanguage), this is, a cognitive one. Then
errors cannot be seen as negative, but on the contrary they are a sing of processing and
therefore progress.
In short , we might say that negative transfer cannot account for all second language
learners errors.. Perhaps it is in phonology were this negative transfer is more obvious and
generalised. With respect to the rest of errors second language learners make, some will
derive from their L1 but others will basically be developmental and result from the use of a
variety of cognitive strategies.

3.2. The natural route (Interlanguage)

The behaviourist and structuralist's view that language was learnt by habit formation led
them to establish that the L1 was a source of interference as a result of negative transfer
onto the L2. This view was challenged by those studies that showed that children learning
their mother tongue followed a predictable "natural route". The question was if there was a
natural route in SLA and if so, did it match that of the first language. Both Cross. Sectional
(error analysis) and Longitudinal studies were carried out and these studies showed that
there are striking similarities in the ways different L2 learners learn a second language and
that this sequence resembles a lot that reported for first language acquisition.
2
Chomsky was about the first to criticize the habit formation theory . He formulated his
theory of first language acquisition. He talked of innateness, rule governed process and of a
language acquisition device that allowed us to learn our first language. The counterpart of
this acquisition device in SLA was that of the "creative construction". This is, SLA was seen
not as the result of habit formation but as a series of evolving systems which comprised the
"interlanguage continuum". SLA is viewed as a restructuring continuum stretching from the

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 5
learner's L1 to the target language. Later it was viewed as a recreation continuum in which
the learner gradually added to the complexity of the interim systems. Many were the
cognitive processes responsible for this interlanguage. Transfer was only one of them. As we
have mentioned before transfer could not account for all Second learner's language. There
i
were other cognitive processes responsible for generating this interlanguage . Selinker
(1972) suggested that five principal processes operated in interlanguage:

1. language transfer
2. overgeneralization
3. transfer of training
4. strategies of l2 learners
5. strategies of l2 communication

This interlanguage theory was the result of cognitive and mentalist views on second
language learning. One of the most visible results of this theory on language teaching and
learning was that no longer were errors seen as a sign of faulty productions but as a source
of progress and processing. Error analysis" becomes a way of investigating the processes
underlying the learner's production. Errors unlike other behaviourist views are treated as
evidence of the active contribution of the learner to acquisition. Errors are the external
manifestation of hypothesis testing process which is responsible for the continual revision of
2
interlanguage system .
It was the study of this interlanguage that helped many researchers to see consistencies and
similarities in language learner's language and therefore to affirm the existence of a natural
route in second language learning to a lesser or greater extent. However, learner language is
also variable, this is, that this interlanguage will very much depend on contextual factors
such as the situation and the linguistic content and individual factors such as age,
motivation, etc. This means that the learner's interlanguage is not homogeneous but rather
heterogeneous and dependent on multiple factors. Factors such as they type of task or the
situation will vary the choice of interlanguage. Other factors such as the learner's individual
differences will also influence the choice of interlanguage.
In short, interlanguages as they develop, particularly in unstructured learning situations, do
bear resemblances to each other. The resemblances that have been found are almost
syntactic ones. The phonology and the phonetics of interlanguage have been extensively
studied and invariably they show features related to the phonology of the mother tongue.
At this level there is clearly interference from learner's mother tongue. But as we have said
there is quite consistency in the syntactic features of learner's interlanguage and when
variability exists, as it quite clearly does, it can be satisfactorily accounted for by appeal to
particular features of the learning situation (contextual factors, type of instruction etc) or
the nature of the learner.

3. 3. Individual differences
We have previously pointed out that L2 learners follow a natural route of development in
the L2 acquisition. This natural route was established by examining how the learner
performs in spontaneous language use. One of the questions that arise from these

2
Corder suggested that both L1 and L2 learners make errors in order to test out certain hypotheses about the nature of
the language they are learning

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 6
investigations is if this sequence is affected by individual learner variables such as age, aptitude,
learning style etc. The available evidence indicates that the natural sequence is not affected by
these variables. On the other hand, we can affirm that these variables do affect the "rate" at
which the learner progresses along this natural route and the overall level of proficiency
achieved. In other words, how quickly they learn and how successful they are.
Age, aptitude motivation and personality (but less certainly cognitive style) account for
substantial amount of the variability in the learning rate and learning outcomes of different
learners:
 Age for instance will not affect the natural route in which SLL (second language
learners) acquire language. Age does affect the rate of learning. Where grammar and
vocabulary are concerned, adolescent learners do better than either children or
adults, when the length of exposure is held constant. Both number of years of
exposure and starting age affect the level of success. The number of year's exposure
contributes greatly to the overall communicative fluency of the learner, but starting
age determines the levels of accuracy achieved particularly in pronunciation.
(Oyama, 1976)
 Attitude and Motivation: Savignon (1976:295) claims that "attitude is the single most
important factor in SLA. Gardener and Lambert (1972) claim that the level and type
of motivation is highly influenced by the social context in which learning takes place.
This will very much depend on the role of the L2 in the learner's community. But
once more we must highlight that motivation will influence the rate of success and
not the natural route.
 Personality: Some aspects of language learning are closely related to success in
different areas of SLA. For instance personal characteristics such as sociability are
related to the promptness in the acquisition of communicative skills. However, other
personality characteristics such as quickness in grasping new concepts, perfectionist
tendencies favour the rapid development of linguistic abilities.

3.4. The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition

3 4
What is the role that input and interaction in SLA? For Behaviourist for instance the
5
linguistic environment is seen as the crucial determining factor in SLA. For Chomsky .on the
other hand, language exposure could not account satisfactorily for acquisition. Input is seen
exclusively as a trigger which activates the internal mechanisms. The focus of study is
therefore the learners linguistic output in order to research into the learner's strategies of
language acquisition. Nativist views (Chomsky) precluded the possibility that at least some
aspects of the learner's output be explained in terms of the characteristics of the input.
A third view, however, is feasible. A view where, both the linguistic environment and the
learners cognitive processing and strategies account for acquisition. This interactionist view
suggests that language acquisition derives from collaborative e fforts of the learner and his
interlocutors and involves dynamic and interplay between internal and external factors.
The key question is therefore if SLA is significantly affected by the quality and quantity of
interaction, and if so, how.

3 Language that is addressed to the L2 learner Esther by a native speaker or by another L2 learner.
4 Interaction is discourse jointly constructed by the learner and his interlocutors: Input is therefore the result of
interaction.
5 Chomsky argued that the imperfect nature of the mother's speech in first language acquisition made it unlikely that
any
www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 7
We shall first consider if input affects the natural route of development of SLA. We can
somehow affirm that input may facilitate the development of SLA by means of
6 7
comprehensible input formulaic speech etc. Comprehensible input seems to be a key
issue in SLA. SLA seems to aided by two way communication in which comprehensible input
8
is provided by means of interactional adjustments (negotiation of meaning ) However, two-
way communication is not a necessary nor a sufficient condition for SLA. What is therefore
the contribution of interaction and which of internal processing in SLA is something still to
be determined.
Whatever the role of the linguistic environment may be, and whether it is or not a
determinant of the learning sequence, what does seem clear is that the linguistic
9
environment is a major factor in determining the speed at which the learners .

3.5. Learner strategies™

When we talk of learner strategies we refer to the internal and cognitive processes that
account for how the learner handles input data and how the learner utilizes L2 resources in
the production of messages in the L2. We are therefore looking at the internal mechanisms
or the "Black Box".
The learner has two types of knowledge: declarative and procedural. Declarative
knowledge is "knowing that"; it consists of internalized L2 rules and memorized chunks of
language. Procedural knowledge is "knowing how"; it consists of the strategies and
procedures employed by the learner to process L2 data for acquisition and for use.
This procedural knowledge can be subdivided into social and cognitive components. Social
strategies are those that help us manage the interaction in L2 situations: strategies such as
relying on friends to communicate when finding difficulties or empathizing with others by
developing cultural understanding or becoming aware of other's thoughts and feelings.
10
Within cognitive strategies that are part of our procedural knowledge we must distinguish
between: Learning Strategies that account for how the learner accumulates new L2 rules
and automatizes the existing ones (hypothesis testing, inferencing etc). Production, (such as
11
semantic or linguistic simplification) and communication strategies (asking for clarification,
word coinage etc) refer to how this knowledge is put into practice and used. They refer to
the various strategies the learner uses to produce, understand and compensate for lack of
12
knowledge .

4. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

When they begin speaking, children produce certain utterances which they have not heard
before. This fact leads us to think that there must be an inner mechanism which, basing
itself on the outer linguistic data, allows the production of different grammatical structures.
From this generative-transformational point of view (Chomsky's) these phenomena can be

child could successfully internalize the rule system of a language if he worked on this alone.
7
Negotiation of meaning implies a the use of set of structures by the learner in order to make the input comprehensible.
This negotiation will help make the input comprehensible and thus fosters acquisition.
8
9 a high quantity of input , exposure to high quantity of directives opportunities for uninhibited practice create a
favourable environment for successful SLA.
10 Cognitive strategies are those that comprise various mental processes envolved in internalizing and
automatizing new knowledge and using L2 knowledge. So cognitive involve both learning and internalizing and using.
11 That is why communication strategies are also called Compensatory strategies as the can be defined as those
that the language learner uses when he lacks knowledge or resources in order to communicate

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 8
explained through the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which makes children know the
linguistic universals (word order, linguistic categories, etc), as well as the procedures which
are necessary to acquire a language.
Mother tongue acquisition begins in the very moment the child is given birth, when s/he
hear the first sounds, voices and even his/her own cry. When s/he is three or four years old,
s/he has already got hold of the way how his/her language works, and is able to
communicate more or less effectively with the speakers of the same language.
The innate ability to oral communication is a characteristic of all human beings, except from
those who suffer from some sort of serious congenital illness or disability. As it has been
said before, intelligence is not directly related to language acquisition because those people
who are not relatively clever have been successful in acquire their native language.
Within the whole process of mother tongue acquisition, there exist some steps followed by
children:
• Pre-linguistic stage: From birth to the age of eight months, children acquire
spontaneously the use of auditory mechanisms. It is the stage when they produce non-
symbolic sounds.
• First word production: When they are 11 months old, children produce a voice sound
which is somehow symbolic for them. This is the stage in which they give names to people
or objects placed around them.
• Second year: Children's messy vocalic structures begin to get shape and they begin to
participate into communicative exchanges. Their parents' role gets more and more
importance. However, it is not a matter of repetition of what they say, but beyond that,
children create by themselves sounds which they regard as correct or wrong depending on
the adults reactions. These criteria of validation help the child to take or opt out the
different strings of language they are giving birth to. Those strings which s/he considers to
be correct are the same that the ones produced by adults and are reinforced by means of
continuous repetition.
• Between 3 and 4 years old: The process of acquisition keeps on developing. This is a
period of great creativity and less difficulty for auditory discrimination, and for imitation.
The essential aspects of the process of acquisition are developed in full. The following
grammatical systems children build on are very similar to those which respond to the
adults' grammatical rules.
• Entering school: The school substitutes their parents in the acquisition process and
provides them with written code. It is just in this moment when the process of learning
begins.

Moving on, another section of this topic concerns the basic differences and similarities
between the acquisition of a mother tongue and the learning of a Foreign Language. Firstly,
we will examine the similarities. They are three:
• -the interlingual development,
• -the subconscious mental process and
• -the variation.
We are going to explain now what we understand by the interlingual development process.
When a language is learned, the learner is not ready to use it for some years. Interlingual
development is the process a learner must go through before is able to speak fluently or as
well as a native speaker. The second similarity is the subconscious mental process; the brain
organises the input received to allow the mechanisms to speak. The third similarity is the

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 9
variation. Not all language learners follow the same path. There are individual variations
which make some students learn slower than others. Psychological personality and others
also come into play here.
Now, let us consider the differences. There are three important differences between the
acquisition of the mother tongue and the learning of a FL. These are:
• -the age,
• -the phenomenon of fossilization and
• -the transference.

According to many authors, age is a factor that determines the success or failure in second
language learning. Today there is absolute unanimity in the fact that is approximately in
puberty when the ability to acquire language under natural conditions is lost.
However, these considerations should be analyzed carefully and as we have mentioned
before, we should not generalize this issue assuming that proficiency and competence
cannot be acquired in a second language after puberty. As we have shown above,
adolescents' aptitude for learning languages outruns children and older people in many
areas, especially in those of grammar, although it is true that as long as pronunciation is
concerned children do outrun the rest for various reasons.
Another difference is the phenomenon of fossilisation. Many second language learners
never quite learn the Language correctly. This may be due to the type of teaching given, the
problems of motivation or the students' personal characteristics.
The third difference is transference. When we speak a second language, it is almost
impossible not to make mistakes influenced by our native Language although as we have
seen, only some errors can be accounted for negative transference, others as we have
studied are developmental.
As we have explained, a basic difference between the acquisition of a mother tongue and
the learning of a Foreign or Second language is that the first one is a natural process which
nd
does not need a methodology, whereas the 2 one does; the foreign language learning
usually happens in a classroom and not in social life.
In mother tongue acquisition there is continuous linguistic information, and a direct contact
between the Language and its cultural environment; the correction of errors appears after
training and effort. On the contrary, we find that Foreign Language Learning involves
planning with special objectives and a specific didactic method.
There is a general feeling that second language learning is rather unsuccessful, in
comparison with first language acquisition. Various explanations for these differences have
been offered. It has been argued that children do not learn their first language in the usual
sense but that they are born with it. It also has been stated that children are much better at
13
language learning than adults or adolescents etc. The fact is that the vast majority of first
language learners acquire proper communicative competence and not many second
language learners do. Corder and Allan (1975:286) argue that this is due to the different
conditions under which second language learning takes place and not due to natural or
innate abilities children have which adults or adolescents do not. These conditions Corder
and Allan point out as responsible for the differences between first and second language
acquisition are:

13
However as we have pointed out earlier, recent studies don't confirm this statement, at least in all areas of second
language learning.

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 10
 1. Exposure. A typical second language learner is exposed to the target language
from four to six hours a week. This cannot begin to approximate to the amount of
exposure experienced by a child learning his first language.
2. Drive. The child's drive, this is , his need to be understood and communicate,
cannot be compared in terms of intensity with the SL learner's need or motivation to
learn. Only in extreme situations , this is, total linguistic immersions situations does
learning occur really fast
3. Context. Children learn in direct and immediate situational context while Second
Language learners usually learn in an artificially constructed environment although
good language teachers must create an appropriate context in a classroom situation
for language learning to take place.
4. Reinforcement. Children at home learning their first language receive immediate
feedback about whether they have been understood or not. In second language
learning conditions immediate feedback of right and wrong is difficult to arrange.
In short, we can affirm that as the learner grows older he may lose something of his skills in
perceptual and articulatory functions although he will be increasingly able to handle
abstract concepts explicitly. If this increasing cognitive capacity (superior to that of children)
is aided by a strong will and motivation and plenty of feedback, the SL Learner would then
be in a similar position to that of the child, except for those perceptual and articulatory
functions mentioned, pronunciation mainly.

iv
5. SOME THEORIES ON SLA

There has been a shortage of theorizing about second language acquisition. However we
shall now attempt to give a brief overview of some of the models and major theories in SLA.
We have selected those that we believe are relevant and in consonance with the SLA
framework we have pictured in previously. Each of these theories, as we shall see, will
emphasize some of the elements that in one way or another influence SLA and that we have
already explained in detail.
• The Acculturation Model.
The term "acculturation" is defined as 'the process of becoming adapted to a new culture'
(Ellis 1985). This is an important aspect of Second Language Acquisition since language is
one of the most observable expressions of culture and because in second language settings,
the acquisition of a new language is seen as tied to the way in which the learner's
community and the target language community view each other. A central premise on this
model is that a learner will control the degree to which he acquires the second language. His
attitude and view towards the other culture will determine his motivation and thus his
degree of learning the target language.
• Accommodation Theory.
This theory derives from the research of Giles and focuses on the uses of language in
multilingual communities such as Britain. It operates within a socio-psychological framework
and its primary concern is to investigate how inter-group uses of language reflect basic
social and psychological attitudes in interethnic communication. This theory shows how
people consciously or unconsciously converge (or accommodate) or diverge with standards
of the dominant community according to social, political or personal aspects.
• Discourse Theory.

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 11
This theory is proposed by Halliday (1975) and his view of first language acquisition. It
derives from Hymes' description of communicative competence in which communication is
treated as the matrix of linguistic knowledge.
It is believed, according to discourse theorists, that language acquisition will successfully
take place when language learners "know" how and when to use the language in various
settings and when they have successfully "cognized" various forms of competence such as
grammatical competence (lexis, morphology, syntax and phonology) and pragmatic
competence (e.g., speech acts). A language learner needs to "know" conversational
strategies to acquire the language. Halliday (cited in Ellis, 1985: 259), for example,
conducted a study on his own son's first language acquisition experience and asserted that
basic language functions arise out of interpersonal uses and social interaction.
• The Universal Hypothesis.
In the words of Ellis (1985), this hypothesis states that second language acquisition is
determined by certain linguistic universals. Those working on this tradition argue that there
is a Universal Grammar that constrains the kind of hypotheses that the learner can form and
that it is innate.
The relationship between Universal Grammar and acquisition of the first language is, in fact,
a necessary one, as Chomsky's primary justification for Universal Grammar is that it provides
the only way of accounting for how children are able to learn their mother tongue.
• The Monitor Model.
Krashen's Monitor Model is one of the most prominent and comprehensive of existing
theories in second language acquisition. It is an account on language-learner variability
within the framework of the Monitor Model. It consists of five central hypotheses, and
related to them, a number of factors which influence second language acquisition.
The five hypotheses are first, the acquisition-learning hypothesis where the terms
'acquired' and 'learnt' are defined as subconscious and conscious study of language;
secondly, the natural order hypothesis which affirms that grammatical structures are
'acquired' in a predictable order; thirdly, the monitor hypothesis, where the monitor is the
device that learners use to edit their language performance; fourth, The Monitor Hypothesis
emphasizes the role of grammar, as the learned knowledge to correct ourselves when we
communicate, but through conscious learning, in both first and in second languages. This
may happen before we actually speak or write. However, the Monitor use itself is limited to
three specific requirements. Thus, the performer first, has to have enough time to think
about rules; secondly, the learner has to focus on form, on what rather than how; and
finally, the learner has to know the rule. The input hypothesis by which 'acquisition' takes
place as a result of the learner having understood input a little beyond the current level of
his competence; and finally, the affective filter hypothesis, where the filter controls how
much input the learner comes into contact with, and how much is converted into intake. The
term affective deals with motivation, self-confidence, or anxiety state factors (Ellis 1985).
This theory will be approached in detail in the following section.
• Swain's Output Hypothesis
Although theorists adhering to interactionist thought consider both input to, and input from
the learner as important, output is often viewed as secondary. However, Swain (1995) in her
"comprehensible output hypothesis" asserts that output is also critical and hypothesizes
that it serves four primary functions in SLA: (1) enhances fluency; (2) creates awareness of
language knowledge gaps; (3) provides opportunities to experiment with language forms
and structures; and (4) obtains feedback from others about language use. Comprehensible

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 12
output assists learners in conveying meaning while providing linguistic challenges; that is, ".
. . in producing the L2 (the second, or target language), a learner will on occasion become
aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/ her attention either by external
feedback or internal feedback). Noticing a problem 'pushes' the learner to modify his/ her
output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing
mode than might occur in comprehension" (Swain and Lapkin in Chapelle, 1997, p. 2b). From
this perspective, comprehensible output plays an important role in interaction.
In summary, interactionists elaborate upon the innatist notion of comprehensible input
explaining that interaction, constructed via exchanges of comprehensible input and output,
has at least an enhancing effect when meaning is negotiated and support structures are
used.

6. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS: ERROR TREATMENT AND REMEDIAL TEACHING.

What are the teaching implications of these theories of learning and of language learning?
First of all everything that has been said previously leads us to consider "errors" not as a
source faulty learning but as a sign of learning.
Furthermore, errors under this perspective will also be an important source for the study of
student's interlanguage. Error analysis, therefore, will substitute contrastive analysis and the
study of learner's errors will serve us, one in order to understand cognitive processes that our
students undergo, and two, as our starting point in the planning of remedial teaching.
Earlier records on error treatment trace back to the early seventeenth century, when
universities of most European countries started to exchange and spread their scientific and
cultural knowledge.
Children entering "grammar schools" were initially given a rigorous introduction to Latin
grammar (Howatt 1984) and errors were often met with brutal punishment.
From the 1940s to the 1960s, contrastive analyses were conducted, in which two languages
were systematically compared. Researchers at that time were motivated by the prospect of
being able to identify points of similarity and difference between native languages (NLs) and
target languages (TLs). There was a strong belief that a more effective pedagogy would
result when these were taken into consideration. This type of error analysis was known as
Contrastive Analysis.
Prior to the early 1970s, it consisted of little more than collections of 'common' errors and
linguistic classification. In the first half of the twentieth century, behaviourist accounts
approached the concept of error as a sign of non-learning, as they were thought to interfere
with the acquisition of second language habits. The goals of traditional Contrastive Analysis
were pedagogic, in order to provide information to be used for teaching or to devise
remedial lessons. There were no serious attempts to define 'error' in psychological terms.
The strong form of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claims that differences between
learner's first language and the target language can be used to predict all errors whereas the
weak form claims that differences are only used to identify some of the errors that arise. In
accordance with behaviourism, the prevention of errors was more important than mere
identification.
It was S.P. Corder who first advocated in ELT/applied linguistics community the importance
of errors in language learning process. In Corder (1967), he mentions the paradigm shift in
linguistics from a behaviouristic view of language to a more rationalistic view and claims
that in language teaching one noticeable effect is to shift the emphasis away from teaching

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 13
towards a study of learning. He emphasises great potential for applying new hypotheses
about how languages are learned in L1 to the learning of a second language. He says "Within
this context the study of errors takes on a new importance and will I believe contribute to a
verification or rejection of the new hypothesis." It involves collecting samples of learner
language, identifying the errors in the sample, describing and classifying then according to
their hypothesized causes, and evaluating their seriousness. One of the dominant figures in
this field, Corder (1981), helped to give this error treatment a new direction, elevating the
status of errors from undesirability to that of a guide on language learning process.
According to the Natural Order Hypothesis, proposed by Krashen (1983), the acquisition of
grammatical structures takes place in a predictable order in which errors are signs of
naturalistic developmental processes. Errors are no longer seen as 'unwanted forms' but an
active learner's contribution to second language acquisition. By classifying the errors that
learners made, researchers could learn a great deal about the SLA process by inferring the
strategies that second language learners were adopting. It is in this Corder's seminal paper
that he adds to our thinking by discussing the function of errors for the learners themselves.
For learners themselves, errors are 'indispensable,' since the making of errors can be
regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn. (Selinker 1992: 150). This is one of
the main tenets of our current educational system where errors are seen as a positive
contribution to language learning, and give LOGSE students an active role on language
learning process. Error analysis serves therefore a twofold purpose; on the one hand it
serves to understand the underlying processes the learners go through so that we can better
understand the construction of learners' interlanguage. On the other, it will guide us on the
teaching-learning process.
As far as remedial treatment is concern, when analyzing errors and taking teaching
decisions based on that analysis, there are two questions we should ask ourselves. First,
when is remedial treatment necessary and second what the nature of the treatment should
be.
The answer to the first question will very much depend on the student's needs and on the
demands put forward by the official curriculum. Sometimes the degree of the mismatch will
require remedial teaching. Others it will not. Needs analysis and a deep knowledge of the
students abilities and strategies together with a thorough insight of the curriculum will
determine our didactic intervention
However, once we have decided that our didactic intervention is necessary we will have to
decide what aspect of knowledge, skills or ability does the learner require and what are his
needs. This is, what the learner knows and what he can do with the language. This implies
that we must have a clear notion of what it is meant by knowledge of the language.
Establishing clear objectives and evaluation criteria taking into account our students' needs
will very much help us in this respect.
Having said this, we must point out that remedial teaching can be applied in two directions:
a. Bringing the learners' standard up
b. Bringing the demands of the situation down. This happens when after having analyzed
the students' needs and the objectives and evaluation criteria established we become aware
of the necessity of bringing down the standards so that the learner will be able to progress
in his interlanguage. (curricular adaptations established in our curriculum are good example
of this)
In short, we must emphasize the importance of error analysis of our students performances
as a valuable source of information in order to tackle remedial teaching and in this way

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 14
cater for our students needs. However, we must be aware that errors although a valuable
source of information are not the only source in order to find out our students cognitive
process as they develop their interlanguage. Any performance on part of our students will
bring about signs of his cognitive processes and this information is of great value for teacher
in order, not only to plan remedial teaching, but also as a source of information in planning
our teaching intervention.

7. LANGUAGE LEARNING ACQUISITION TODAY

Language acquisition current research has brought about an exceptionally concise portrayal
of changes in language teaching methodology and a focus on form. During the 1970s
previous methodological approaches, such as audiolingualism or grammar-translation were
under pressure from more communicative approaches. In addition, approaches to second
language acquisition research were added to emphasize the need to engage acquisitional
processes within an interaction-driven approach to interlanguage development, and special
attention to the concept of interference when dealing with languages in contact from a
sociolinguistic perspective.

The role of grammar has in recent years been redefined. After being neglected by some
communicative approaches for many years, some scholars such as Bill VanPatten have
alleged that structured input combined with structured output will inevitably contribute to
develop the learners' competence, although he puts forward the urgent need of creating
opportunities for communicating and negotiating meaning for acquisition to take place
Furthermore, the role of input seen as key factor in the achievement of communicative
competence has nowadays been restated. Swain's Comprehensible Output Hypothesis
(1985) maintains that the development of a learner's communicative competence does not
merely depend of comprehensible input: the learner's output has an independent and
indispensable role to play. Swain's thesis has proved to be of relevance to the writer's
experience as a self directed learner. In other words, input as Krashen puts forward is just
not enough.
Another current concern turns on new technologies, such as practising language learning on
the web for distance courses. The traditional home study methods for distance learning
have been replaced in the last few years by the use of computers and CD-ROMs. New
exciting possibilities become available via Internet and much literature is being written
about it as a way to enhance learning through technology. The role of these tools as self-
study and autonomous learning tools is still to be fully developed and much investigation is
still needed in this field.

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Baugh, A. & Cable, T.. A History of the English Language. Prentice-Hall Editions. 1993
• Harmer, J. -. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman, 1983.
• Howatt, A. A History of English Language Teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1984
• Krashen, S. D., and Terrell, T. D. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon, 1983.
• Larsen-Freeman, Diane. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford:

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 15
OUP, 1986
• Nunan, David. Practical English Language Teaching. New York: MacGraw-Hill , 2003
• Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992
• Swain, M. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In Input in second language acquisition. Eds. S.
Gass and C. Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House ,1985.
• VanPatten, Bill. Making Communicative Language Teaching Happen. New York:
MacGraw -Hill , 2003
• VanPatten, Bill. From Input to Output. New York: MacGraw-Hill, 2003

Interlanguage

The term interlanguage was first coined by Selinker (1972) and refers to the systematic
knowledge of a second language which is independent of both the learner's first language
and the target language. The term is related to a theory of learning that stresses the learner-
internal factors which contribute to language acquisition, and it was the first attempt to
examine empirically how a learner builds up knowledge of a language.
Interlanguage was a construct which identifies the stages of development through which L2
learners pass on their way to proficiency. The question was to what extent the order of
development paralleled that in L1 acquisition. Mentalist accounts of first language
acquisition (FLA) stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance
of behaviorist concepts, such as interference, imitation and reinforcement. One of the most
prominent figures in this field, Noam Chomsky, claimed that the child's knowledge of his
mother tongue was derived from a Universal Grammar which consisted of a set of innate
linguistic principles to control sentences formation.
Another mentalist feature that needs mentioning is that the child builds up his knowledge of
his mother tongue by means of hypothesis-testing. Corder (1981) suggests that both L1 and
L2 learners make errors in order to test out certain hypotheses about the nature of the
language they are learning. He saw the making of errors as a strategy. This view was in
opposition to the view of the SLA presented in the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis where L2
errors are the result of differences between the learner's first language and the target
language. In the following section, we will offer an account of the treatment of error.
ii
Error Analysis (EA): its roots and development
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) claims that the study of SLA can be said to have passed
through a series of phases defined by the modes of inquiry researchers have utilized in their
work: contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance analysis and discourse analysis
(p.81). As we look into the roots and development of error analysis, let us first overview
contrastive analysis so as to gain better insight into how error analysis became more
popular among SLA researchers.

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 16
Contrastive Analysis
Before the SLA field as we know it today was established, from the 1940s to the 1960s,
contrastive analyses were conducted, in which two languages were systematically
compared. Researchers at that time were motivated by the prospect of being able to
identify points of similarity and difference between native languages (NLs) and target
languages (TLs). There was a strong belief that a more effective pedagogy would result when
these were taken into consideration. Charles Fries, one of the leading applied linguists of the
day, said: "The most efficient materials are those that are based upon a
scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel
description of the native language of the learner."(Fries 1945: 9)
Robert Lado, Fries' colleague at the University of Michigan, also expressed the importance
of contrastive analysis in language teaching material design:
Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and
meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture - both
productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture and
receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as
practised by natives. (Lado 1 957, in Larsen-Freeman & Long 1 991:52-53)
This claim is still quite appealing to anyone who has attempted to learn or teach a foreign
language. We encounter so many examples of the interfering effects of our NLs.
Lado went on to say a more controversial position, however, when he claimed that "those
elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him, and those elements
that are different will be difficult" (Lado 1957:2). This conviction that linguistic differences
could be used to predict learning difficulty produced the notion of the contrastive analysis
hypothesis (CAH): "Where two languages were similar, positive transfer would occur; where
they were different, negative transfer, or interference, would result." (Larsen-Freeman &
Long 1991: 53)
Corder (1967): Introduction of the Concept 'Error Analysis'
It was S.P. Corder who first advocated in ELT/applied linguistics community the importance
of errors in language learning process. In Corder (1967), he mentions the paradigm shift in
linguistics from a behaviouristic view of language to a more rationalistic view and claims
that in language teaching one noticeable effect is to shift the emphasis away from teaching
towards a study of learning. He emphasises great potential for applying new hypotheses
about how languages are learned in L1 to the learning of a second language. He says "Within
this context the study of errors takes on a new importance and will I believe contribute to a
verification or rejection of the new hypothesis." (in
Richards 1974:.21)
Corder goes on to say that in L1 acquisition we interpret child's 'incorrect' utterances as
being evidence that he is in the process of acquiring language and that for those who
attempt to describe his knowledge of the language at any point in its development, it is the
'errors' which provide the important evidence.(ibid.: 23) In second language acquisition,
Corder proposed as a working hypothesis that some of the strategies adopted by the learner
of a second language are substantially the same as those by which a first language is
acquired. (It does not mean, however, the course or sequence of learning is the same in L1
and L2.)

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 17
By classifying the errors that learners made, researchers could learn a great deal about the
SLA process by inferring the strategies that second language learners were adopting. It is in
this Corder's seminal paper that he adds to our thinking by discussing the function of errors
for the learners themselves. For learners themselves, errors are 'indispensable,' since the
making of errors can be regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn. (Selinker
1992: 150)
Selinker (1992) pointed out the two highly significant contributions that Corder made: "that
the errors of a learner, whether adult or child, are (a) not random, but are in fact systematic,
and are (b) not 'negative' or 'interfering' in any way with learning a TL but are, on the
contrary, a necessary positive factor, indicative of testing hypotheses. (ibid:1 51) Such
contribution in Corder (1967) began to provide a framework for the study of adult learner
language. Along with the influence of studies in L1 acquisition and concepts provided by
Contrastive Analysis (especially language transfer) and by the interlanguage hypothesis (e.g.
fossilization, backsliding, language transfer, communication and learning strategies

iii Learner Strategies figure in power point presentation

iv Summary Second Language Acquisition

Theorists place different values on the role of interaction in second language acquisition
(SLA). Krashen's (1985, 1994) theory became a predominant influence in both second
language teaching practice and later theories. Krashen postulates that SLA is determined by
the amount of comprehensible input, that is, one-way input in the second language that is
both understandable and at the level just beyond the current linguistic competence of
learners. Similar to Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development" (1962), Krashen's scaffolding
theory is referred to as Viewed as an innatist perspective, this theory maintains that a
second language is acquired unconsciously in a manner similar to the acquisition of a first
language. According to Krashen (1996), acquiring language is predicated upon the concept
of receiving messages learners can understand (1996). Teachers can make language input
comprehensible through a variety of strategies, such as linguistic simplification, and the use
of realia, visuals, pictures, graphic organizers, and other current ESOL strategies.
While Krashen (1994) believes that only one-way comprehensible input is required for SLA,
others take an interactionist position acknowledging the role of two-way communication.
Pica (1994), Long (1985), and others assert that conversational interaction facilitates SLA
under certain conditions. According to Lightbrown and Spada (1999), "When learners are
given the opportunity to engage in meaningful activities they are compelled to 'negotiate for
meaning,' that is, to express and clarify their intentions, thoughts, opinions, etc., in a way
which permits them to arrive at a mutual understanding. This is especially true when the
learners are working together to accomplish a particular goal. . . "(p. 122). Pica (1994) goes
on to say that negotiation is defined as "modification and restructuring that occurs when
learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message
comprehensibility" (p.495). A variety of modifications, which may involve linguistic
simplification as well as conversational modifications such as repetition, clarification, and
conformation checks, may be used to gain understanding. The interaction hypothesis of
Long and Robinson (as cited in Blake, 2000) suggests that when meaning is negotiated, input
comprehensibility is usually increased and learners tend to focus on salient linguistic
features. Cognizance of these language forms and structures is seen as beneficial to SLA.

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 18
Other interactionist theorists apply Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory of human mental
processing to define the role of interaction in SLA (Lightbrown and Spada, 1999) and
hypothesize that second language learners gain proficiency when they interact with more
advanced speakers of the language, for example, teachers and peers. Scaffolding structures
such as modelling, repetition, and linguistic simplification used by more proficient speakers
are believed to provide support to learners, thus enabling them to function within their
zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962).
Although theorists adhering to interactionist thought consider both input to, and input from,
the learner as important, output is often viewed as secondary. However, Swain (1995) in her
"comprehensible output hypothesis" asserts that output is also critical and hypothesizes
that it serves four primary functions in SLA: (1) enhances fluency; (2) creates awareness of
language knowledge gaps; (3) provides opportunities to experiment with language forms
and structures; and (4) obtains feedback from others about language use. Comprehensible
output assists learners in conveying meaning while providing linguistic challenges; that is, ". .
. in producing the L2 (the second, or target language), a learner will on occasion become
aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/ her attention either by external
feedback or internal feedback). Noticing a problem 'pushes' the learner to modify his/ her
output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing
mode than might occur in comprehension" (Swain and Lapkin in Chapelle, 1997, p. 2b). From
this perspective, comprehensible output plays an important role in interaction.

In summary, interactionists elaborate upon the innatist notion of comprehensible input

explaining that interaction, constructed via exchanges of comprehensible input and output,
has at least an enhancing effect when meaning is negotiated and support structures are
used. Based on this premise, distance second language learning courses should be designed
to provide interaction that includes negotiation of meaning where comprehensible output
results from input.

E. N. Ariza S. Hancock . Second Language Acquisition Theories as a Framework for Creating

Distance Learning Courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
October 2003

www.oposicionestandem.com Unit 2 P. 19