1

Table of contents

Unit one
APPLIED LINGUISTICS

1.1 HISTORY

1.2 ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION

1.3 DICHOTOMIES RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINE

Unit two

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2.1 CDA: A DEFINITION

2.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF CDA

2.2.1 Macro vs. micro

2.2.2 Power as control

2.3 AREAS OF CDA

2.3.1 Gender
2.3.2 The media
2.3.3 Political discourse
2.3.4 Ethnicity

2.4 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

Unit three
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section A

3.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

3.2 COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING – section B

3.2.1 Situational factors

2
 3.2.2 Input

3.2.3 Learner differences

2.2.3.1 Personal factors
2.2.3.2 General factors

Unit four
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section B
4. COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING – section B

4.1. Learner processes

4.1.1 Other knowledge
4.1.2 Language processing
4.1.3 L2 knowledge

4.2. Output

Unit five
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section C

5.1 SLA APPROACHES

5.1.1 Cognition-oriented theories

5.1.1.1 Innatist theories
5.1.1.2 Cognitive theories

5.1.2 Context-oriented theories

5.2 FORMS OF INSTRUCTION

5.2.1 Theoretical positions

5.2.2 Issues in formal instruction

5.3 TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ROLES

3
5.1 SLA APPROACHES

The following section gives a brief account of theories that have a central place in current SLA
research. However, a caveat is needed: although SLA is a young discipline, it is extraordinarily
prolific, so keeping up with research is a formidable task. Also, its many sub-divisions, not
always clearly differentiated, can at times blur the focus. Moreover, at present there are no
absolute answers to questions such as what knowledge of a language means, how that
knowledge is acquired, or how that knowledge is put to actual use. Nevertheless, there is
consensus as regards the fact that different approaches contribute different knowledge, and
that this knowledge is complementary.

Some theories or models concentrate on the inner processes, while others pay more attention
to the social context. This gap between the psycholinguistic and the sociolinguistic approaches
has caused some tension. Tarone (2000, p. 187) summarises the issue:

Thus SLA researchers who take a sociolinguistic or co-constructionist orientation have

a good deal of evidence showing that L2 learners' IL USE is variably affected by
identifiable features of social context, they have usually not tried to show that those
social features change the process of L2 ACQUISITION -- specifically, the acquisition of
an IL linguistic system-- in any clear way. They have assumed it, and asserted it, but
not often accumulated the evidence to prove it. Research on second-language
acquisition that takes a psycholinguistic, or cognitive, orientation, whether it operates
within a UG framework or not …is clearly focused on the goal of explaining how an
interlanguage grammar gets acquired over time… And since, in such studies, the
social context is greatly controlled or reduced in complexity, and is usually fairly

4
 similar across university studies, such researchers have assumed that social factors
are irrelevant for their work.

In short, different strands of SLA focus on different data and attempt to answer different
questions, thus making a unified theory of acquisition hard to envisage. This section will
therefore provide only an introduction to current research, and will necessarily leave many
areas out. It will focus especially on the approaches that bear a closer relation to the teaching
situation in our country, that is, the teaching of English as a foreign language in instructional
settings.

The first section will look at approaches that focus on learners’ internal mechanisms, within the
field of cognition-oriented theories. Then it will look at context-oriented theories, that is, those
that look at the context of learning and its relationship with the learning process, and which
therefore consider that communication plays a central role in the process of L2 learning.

5.1 Cognition-oriented theories

5.1.1.1 Innatist theories

The Input Hypothesis Model

The Input Hypothesis was advanced by Stephen Krashen in the early 1980’s, as a reformulation
of a previous model. The Input Hypothesis, controversial from the beginning, was, in Cook’s
words (1993, p. 68) “the first attempt at a wider explanation of second language acquisition”,
and even if it does not relate directly to instructed settings, it is worth considering for the
prominence it enjoyed and for some of its principles. The theory consists of five interrelated
“hypotheses”:

1. The Input Hypothesis: ‘Humans acquire language in only one way – by

understanding messages or by receiving “comprehensible input”’ (Krashen, as
cited in Cook, 1993, p. 51). In other words, learners acquire language only if they

5
 listen to meaningful speech and try to understand it. Acquisition will take place
when learners understand input that is a little beyond their current level of
competence (i + 1). If meaningful language is absent, for example in classroom
activities that focus on the forms of the language rather than on meaning, or if
there is a psychological block, acquisition will not take place. Listening is crucial,
and speaking is seen as the result of acquisition, not as a cause, so its only role is
that of allowing learners to obtain more input.
2. The Acquisition / Learning Hypothesis: this distinction is at the heart of Krashen’s
theory. Acquisition and learning are two separate processes, which lead to
different outcomes. L2 acquisition proceeds in the same way as L1 acquisition, and
it is a subconscious process, responsible for the ability to communicate. Learning,
on the other hand, is a conscious process that results from the study of the target
language rules. Learnt knowledge comes into play through the monitoring of
speech (see below), and can never be used to produce communicative language.
Krashen’s theory is a non-interface position, in that it does not recognise any
connections between acquisition and learning.
3. The Monitor Hypothesis: consciously learnt knowledge provides a conscious check
on output, either before or after actual production. Ellis (1985, p. 262) lists three
conditions for the use of the Monitor: first, there must be sufficient time; second,
the focus must be on form, not meaning; and third, the user must know the rule.
4. The Natural Order Hypothesis: “we acquire the rules of the language in a
predictable order, some rules tending to come early and some late” (Krashen, as
cited in Cook 1993, p. 53). This hypothesis is based on the sequences of
acquisition discussed above.
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis attempts to explain why not all learners are equally
successful, even when they receive seemingly identical comprehensible input.
There can be a mental block that prevents learners from absorbing the relevant
parts of the input. If the filter is up, comprehensible input will not find the way
into the learner’s mind. This may be due to anxiety, lack of motivation or lack of
self-confidence.

6
Several criticisms have been advanced on the Input Hypothesis. Cook (1993, pp. 65-66) states
that Krashen’s model provides rather simple explanations for which sound evidence is lacking.
First, as regards an explanation for what constitutes knowledge of language, the Input
Hypothesis does not explain the cognitive processes that are responsible for learning or
acquisition. Also, the complete separation of learning and acquisition has been found to have
no foundation, as learnt knowledge becomes acquired knowledge with automatisation (Ellis
1985, p. 264). Moreover, Krashen minimises the role of the L1 as a fall-back option when
learners have not yet acquired an L2 rule needed in performance (Krashen, 1982). From Cook’s
point of view (1993, p. 66), “The overall problem is the failure to recognise that the L2 user has
two languages in one mind. The Krashen theories treat L2 acquisition as an impoverished
version of L1 acquisition rather than having the complexity and richness of multi-competence.”

The Universal Grammar Model

(This section expands on the one on language processing above.)

UG is relative to linguistic competence, based on the Chomskyan model of linguistics, which

uses universal principles and language-specific parameters that constrain the hypotheses
learners formulate about language to explain acquisition. In Cook’s words, (1993, p 200)
acquisition within this theory is “the process through which language data goes into the LAD
‘black box’ and a grammar comes out; the LAD evaluates alternative grammars to see which
best fits the incoming data.”

One aspect that differentiates UG theory from cognitive ones is the fact that UG ascribes to the
modularity of the language faculty. In Ellis’ words (1994, p. 438) “The claim that grammar
constitutes an autonomous body of knowledge follows from the hypothesis that speakers
possess a language faculty that is independent of other cognitive systems such as those
responsible for perception, problem-solving or memorization.”

UG describes grammar in terms of principles and parameters. Principles, which are part of the
language faculty, are highly abstract properties of grammar that apply to all languages, and

7
that, even if they are not manifest in some languages, they are never contravened. Parameters,
on the other hand, vary in certain restricted ways from language to language, thus allowing for
variation between languages.

The syntax that underlies UG establishes that the structure of phrases is constrained by the
lexical items in them. According to the Projection Principle, “properties of lexical items project
onto the sentence the particular structures within which they may appear” (Cook, 1993, p.
158). Thus, the features of the head of the phrase dictate what complements, for instance, the
phrase may have. Cook (1993, p. 158) provides the following example: “The verb ‘sigh’
…usually has an animate subject in front of it, but no grammatical object after it; ‘Fred sighed’
but not *’The book sighed’ or *’Fred sighed Helen’.” Speakers know the restrictions for ‘sigh’,
and when they are broken, in this case for stylistic effect, as in “ ‘The heavens sighed a groan of
thunder.’ ”

An example of a parameter is pro-drop, which determines whether a certain language can omit
subject pronouns. English, which does not normally does so, is a non-pro-drop language, while
Spanish is a pro-drop one. This parameter has only two settings; others may have more.
As regards acquisition, in L1 it is the task of the child to “discover how [a] parameter should be
“set” for the particular language he or she encounters. Once it has been set, the child has
information relevant to all parts of the language to which the head parameter applies. These
principles and parameters thus explain how the child learns much more about the language
than he or she could have learnt from the input alone.” (Littlewood, 2004, p. 535) The input
children get is usually insufficient for them to develop a complete knowledge of grammar, as
most of it is simplified, and it does not provide evidence of constructions that are not possible.
Also, children do not usually get negative evidence (corrections). Within the UG framework, all
this suggests that grammar must be innate. This argument is known as the
poverty-of-the-stimulus argument, or the logical problem of language acquisition.

Much of the current debate as regards UG within the field of SLA is whether UG is actually
involved in L2 learning. According to Cook (1993, pp. 210-211), there are three positions:

8
 1. The no-access position claims that “L2 learners acquire the L2 grammar without
any reference to UG; the grammar is learnt through other faculties of the human
mind.”
2. The direct-access position claims that L2 learners “learn in exactly the same way as
L1 learners; they set values for parameters according to the L2 evidence they
encounter without any other influence.”
3. The indirect-access position states that “L2 learners have access to UG through
what they know of the L1, but they start with the L1 parameter settings rather
than the initial or default state.”

Several researchers have advanced arguments against the availability of a full or partial access
to UG for SLA, based on the following facts:

1. Knowledge of the L2 is not so complete or so good, in that the ultimate level of

attainment is rarely the same as in L1.
2. Learning an L2 is never as easy as learning an L1.
3. L2 learners get fossilised at some stage, while this never happens in the L1.
4. L2 learners vary in level of success and in ways of learning, in contrast with
children learning their L1.

An influential argument is that of Bley-Vroman, (as cited in Cook, 1994, p. 211) who “puts
forward the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis that L2 learning differs from L1 learning
because of changes in the language faculty with age….while the child uses UG and
language-specific processes to learn the L1, the adult L2 learner uses the L1 and general
problem-solving processes.” Other theorists support a dual access position, in which adults
have continued access to UG and at the same time use general problem-solving mechanisms,
which are limited in that they can only process structures at an elementary level of complexity.
(Ellis, 1994, p. 455)

Ellis (1985, pp. 210-212) refers, among others, to a basic problem of the Universal Hypothesis:
the innateness explanation of linguistic universals rules out other explanations that may be

9
equally valid. In particular, UG theory separates competence from performance, language from
use, which for some researchers is totally unacceptable.

Further reading:
Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, chapters 3, 8 and 9
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition, chapter 8

5.1.1.2 Cognitive Theories

Cognitive theories attempt to account for language learning within the field of general learning
theory. While they focus on SLA processes that go on inside learners’ minds, in contrast to the
models presented above, they do not adhere to the belief that there is a language-specific
module that drives language learning. Instead, they believe that language learning is similar to
other types of learning, and is related to how people store and acquire knowledge in general.
Cook (1993, p. 265) summarises factors that are common to cognitive approaches:

1. the mind is seen as a single overall ‘network’ in which everything is connected;

2. speech production is information-processing – a process of activating the network
in all its complexity, driven top-down to achieve particular goals;
3. learning is a process from declarative, ‘controlled’, well-attended, data to
procedural, ‘automatic’, non-attended processes;
4. learning is acquiring strengths for parts of this network based on frequency of
occurrence.

Information-processing Model

Barry McLaughlin’s model sees human beings as processors of information who are limited by
the amount of attention they can give to a task and by how well they can process the
information received. This model distinguishes between automatic and controlled processes.
Automatic processes are quick, and require little or no attention. They are built by practice, and

10
are very efficient in that they need little capacity to perform. They are hard to alter. On the
other hand, controlled processes are less efficient in that they need a lot of attention, and are
therefore limited in capacity. They are easier to modify. Automatic and controlled processes are
not two kinds of processes, but two ends in a continuum. Within this model, learning takes
place when learners, who start from controlled processes, move from them to automatic ones,
by means of practice.

Processing at both ends of the continuum can happen with focal or peripheral attention to
task, that is, focusing attention centrally or simply on the periphery. However, focal attention
should not be equated to conscious attention, as both focal and peripheral attention may
happen while performing one complex task. In fact, in most situations, both focal and
peripheral attention occur simultaneously. (Brown, 2007)

The following table shows the practical applications of McLaughlin’s model to SLA:

Controlled processes
Automatic processes

Focal attention Grammatical explanation “Keeping an eye for something”

Word definition Self monitoring
Pre-fabricated patterns Scanning
Discrete-point exercises Editing
First stages of memorising a
dialogue

Peripheral attention Simple greetings Open-ended group-work

Later stages of memorising a Rapid reading
dialogue Normal conversational exchanges
of some length

Adapted from Brown (2007: 302)

11
Anderson’s ACT * Model (Adaptive Control of Thought)

This model, developed by John Anderson, distinguishes three forms of memory: working
memory “is used for the actual performance of the production rule and draws on the other
two. Declarative memory is for storing actual information in the form of cognitive units such as
propositions or images. Procedural memory consists of processes for checking the parts of the
rule against declarative memory.”(Cook, 1993, p. 247) Anderson’s model states that procedural
knowledge of language is not available to consciousness. It contains, for example, grammatical
morphemes such as “the”1. Declarative knowledge of language, on the other hand, consists of
lexical morphemes such as “table”, whose meanings are consciously available to speakers.
Speech requires use of a production rule in working memory with interaction between
declarative and procedural memory. Within his model, learning implies moving from
declarative to procedural knowledge in three stages:

1. The declarative, or cognitive, stage: “New information is perceived as declarative

‘facts’. When the mind starts to learn a new production rule or system, it has no
pre-set procedures, so it relies purely on declarative knowledge… Such new
declarative information can be handled by following general problem solving
procedures, or by inference or analogy from already known behaviours”.
2. The knowledge compilation, or associative, stage: in order to be more efficient,
the mind tries to compile the information stored in declarative memory into more
specific procedures. Gradually, the learner discovers how to do things.
3. The tuning productions, or autonomous, stage: this stage implies making
generalisations of productions to other conditions. This procedural ability is no
longer available to consciousness.

In the context of classroom L2 learning, the learner starts with declarative knowledge of a rule
given by the teacher. This rule gradually turns into the ability to use the foreign language
automatically.

1
Anderson’s consideration of morphemes contrasts with Ullman’s presented above in that the latter
views the as part of the lexical/declarative system.

12
5.1.2 Context-oriented theories

Models within this perspective pay special attention to the way in which the learning context
can affect the process of acquisition.

Interaction Hypothesis

The Interaction Hypothesis is based on “the assumption that language learning is stimulated by
communicative pressure, and examines the relationship between communication and
acquisition and the mechanisms (e.g., noticing, attention) that mediate between them… Input
provides language-specific information which interacts with whatever innate structure an
individual (child or adult) brings to the language learning situation.” (Gass, 2005, pp. 175-176)

This model claims that there are at least three basic components that are required for
successful language learning: positive evidence, negative evidence and output. Input provides
learners with positive evidence from which they can form hypotheses. This can be both
authentic or modified to suit the learners’ level of competence. Negative evidence is the type
of feedback learners receive as to the incorrectness of their utterances. It can be both explicit,
as in the case of an overt correction, and implicit, as when there is a communication
breakdown or a recast, i.e. a rephrasing of an incorrect utterance with a correct version. A third
fundamental component is output, which moves learners from semantic use of language to a
syntactic one, since they are forced to give syntactic structure to their utterances. Also, it is
through production that learners can receive feedback, either implicit or explicit, in negotiation
of meaning. Furthermore, output provides learners with opportunities to test their hypotheses
and develop automaticity.

The Interaction Hypothesis claims that negotiated interaction between native and non-native
speakers, between non-native and proficient non-native speakers, and between non-native
speakers plays an essential role in the development of L2 proficiency, as it views conversation
as not only a medium of practice but also as the means by which learning takes place. Michael
Long, one of the developers of the Interaction Hypothesis states that

13
 negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional
adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because
it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and
output in productive ways… it is proposed that environmental contributions to
acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2
processing capacity, and that these resources are brought together most usefully,
although not exclusively, during negotiation for meaning. Negative feedback obtained
during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative of L2 development, at least
for vocabulary, morphology, and language-specific syntax, and essential for learning
certain specifiable L1-L2 contrasts.” (Long, as cited in Gass, 2005, p. 183)

In other words, during focused negotiation for meaning, learners’ attention may be directed to
certain mismatches between target-language forms and learner-language forms. (Gass, 2005)

The Interaction Hypothesis is relevant to classroom settings in that it focuses attention on the
type of interaction that may be conducive to L2 learning. Thus, tasks such as role-play,
problem-solving or discussions may offer learners the right type of interaction to foster
language development.

The Variable Competence Model

This model, developed by Ellis, claims that “the way language is learnt is a reflection of the way
it is used.” (Ellis, 1985, p. 266), and it is based on two distinctions: language use as process and
as product. The product of language use consists of a continuum of discourse types that range
from entirely planned (discourse that requires conscious thought and preparation, e.g. careful
writing, or lecture), to entirely unplanned (spontaneous communication, e.g. everyday
conversation). This is directly related to the context of language use. On the other hand, the
process of language use is understood in terms of the difference between linguistic knowledge

14
(rules) and the ability to use this knowledge (procedures). In this view, the product of language
use is the result of a variable competence, and/or variable application of procedures for
realising knowledge in discourse.

Variable competence refers to the access the learner has to his/her L2 knowledge, that is,
whether access is automatic or non-automatic. Also, variable competence is related to whether
knowledge is analysed or not. These two distinctions, which are not polarities, but constructs
that lie on a cline, can be represented thus:

The variable application of procedures for realising knowledge in discourse refers to two types
of processes: primary and secondary. Primary processes are responsible for engaging in

15
unplanned discourse, and draw on knowledge that is relatively unanalysed and automatic.
Secondary processes are evident in planned discourse, and draw on knowledge that is more
analysed and less automatic. These two types of processes account for the variability of learner
language. They also account for acquisition: “language acquisition is the result of our capacity
to make sense. New rules are created when we endeavour to use existing knowledge in
relation to the linguistic and situational context in order to create shared frames of reference.”
(Ellis, 1985, p. 268)

In sum, the Variable Competence Model proposes (Ellis, 1985, p. 269) :

1. There is a single knowledge store containing variable interlanguage rules

according to how automatic and how analysed the rules are.
2. The learner possesses a capacity for language use which consists of primary and
secondary discourse and cognitive processes.
3. L2 performance is variable as a result of whether primary processes employing
unanalysed rules are utilized in unplanned discourse, or secondary processes
employing analysed L2 rules are utilized in planned discourse.
4. Development occurs as a result of:
a) Acquisition of new L2 rules through participation in various types of
discourse (i.e. new rules originate in the application of procedural
knowledge);
b) Activation of L2 rules which initially exist in either a non-automatic
unanalysed form or in an analysed form so they can be used in unplanned
discourse.

This model also suggests that SLA follows developmental stages, thus, early SLA features
semantic simplification (e.g. use of non-verbal devices, like miming) because this procedure
requires little L2 knowledge. Also, the model claims that knowledge which is at first only
available via secondary processes (because it only exists in analysed form) may eventually be
accessed by means of primary processes, and therefore be used in both planned and
unplanned discourse.

16
The Output Hypothesis

Swain’s Output Hypothesis has been described above under the heading of output, so it will
not be dealt with here. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned as it belongs in the area of
context-oriented theories.

A Variationist Perspective

Variationist SLA research focuses on how social settings influence L2 input, its cognitive
processing, speech production and occasionally, stages of acquisition. This strand of thought
will be represented by Elaine Tarone’s article Social context and cognition in SLA: a variationist
perspective, which is part of the accompanying bibliography, or may be accessed at
https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/items/.../303587.pdf -

5.2 FORMS OF INSTRUCTION

Language instruction, which is practical in nature, seems to be detached from SLA, although it
is mediated by language pedagogy. Ellis (1997) acknowledges the existence of a gap between
SLA and language pedagogy, the first being mainly concerned with technical knowledge, while
the second is concerned with practical knowledge. As a way of bridging the gap “SLA should
not so much be used to tell practitioners what to do, as to inform their understanding of how
L2 acquisition takes place so that they will know better what it is possible to achieve in a
classroom” (Ellis, 1997, p. 12) In other words, SLA can help teachers make informed decisions
as to methodology in general and language practices in particular, in accordance with the role
of mediator between theory and practice of applied linguistics. However, language pedagogy is
out of the scope of this module, as material on methodology is easily available. This section
will, then, focus on some aspects of SLA that can provide a link between research and teaching.

17
Traditionally, L2 teaching has emphasised the teaching of language forms. This was evident in
the Grammar Translation and Audiolingual methods. More recently, especially after Hymes’
introduction of the concept of Communicative Competence, language pedagogy has
recognised the need to pay attention to communication, giving rise to the Communicative
Approach. Even within this approach, there has been disagreement as to the role of grammar
teaching. Even so, in classroom settings, grammar has a central role, although it tends to be
taught in communicative contexts, thus recognising the importance of language use.

The following section will look at how different theoretical positions view the role of
instruction.

5.2.1 Theoretical positions

The non-interface position

The non-interface position, related to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, claims that acquisition
occurs automatically when the learner engages in natural communication, is focused on
meaning, and receives comprehensible input. In contrast, learning is the result of the formal
study of language, and its only function is that of monitoring. According to Krashen, these two
types of knowledge are separate, and learnt knowledge cannot be converted into acquired
knowledge, the actual responsible for communication. (Ellis, 1985, pp. 229-230)

There is substantial disagreement as to the validity of the non-interface position, basically as

regards the lack of connection between acquisition and learning. On the other hand, a focus on
meaning has been reported as highly beneficial, especially as regards the development of
comprehension skills. However, as Lightbown and Spada (1993, p. 91) state, “research does not
support the argument that an exclusive focus on meaning and comprehensible input is enough
to bring learners to mastery levels of performance in their second language.”

Within this position, an effective pedagogical programme should comply with the following
(Ellis, 1985, p. 244):

18
 1. The classroom input must be comprehensible,
2. the programme must consist of communicative activities,
3. a grammatically sequenced programme should not be attempted,
4. the input must be of sufficient quantity.

An inference that can be made from the above discussion is that even theoretical stances that
have been discredited may have valuable issues to take into consideration.

The interface position

This position claims that in spite of the fact that learners possess different kinds of L2
knowledge, these are not entirely apart. It is possible to distinguish between a weak and a
strong interface position.

A weak interface position claims that “the rules that are ‘learnt’ do not describe the internal
knowledge that is called upon in natural communication, so, not surprisingly, they cannot be
held responsible for actual language behaviour.” (Ellis, 1985, p. 234) However, rules do serve a
purpose, as they facilitate acquisition by focusing the learner’s attention on language items,
thus fostering the hypothesis-testing process. In contrast, a strong interface position states that
there is an easy flow of knowledge from learning and acquisition, and vice versa.

Concerning these two positions, there are other related concepts. The term distinction
between ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ knowledge corresponds closely to ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’.
In Bialystok’s model, reported in Ellis (1985, p. 235), “practice serves as the mechanism by
which explicit knowledge turns into implicit knowledge.”

One way in which ‘acquired’ and ‘learnt’ knowledge may be connected is by means of
automaticity. In McLaughlin’s model, SLA implies going from the controlled to the automatic

19
modes of processing, thus presupposing that knowledge types are in fact connected. (Ellis,
1985, p. 235)

As regards the pedagogical implications, grammar teaching can foster language acquisition by
focusing learners’ attention on aspects of the input which, with practice, may become
automatised until they are finally available for natural communication.

A more detailed account of the interface position and instruction is to be found in Ellis’ A
theory of instructed second language acquisition.

The variability position

This position is related to the Variable Competence Model described above. Within this view,
the learner’s IL comprises a number of styles, ranging from the vernacular to the careful. The
style a learner uses depends on the amount of attention he/she can pay to speech. In Ellis’
words (1985, pp. 237-238),

This position emphasises the interrelationship between use and acquisition. The kind
of language use that the learner engages in determines the kind of knowledge that he
acquires. Similarly, different kinds of knowledge are used in different types of
language performance. Thus, acquiring the necessary linguistic knowledge to perform
one kind of activity does not guarantee the ability to perform a different kind of
activity.

The role of instruction in this position is to develop analysed knowledge for use in the careful
style, and to enable unanalysed knowledge to become internalised for use in the vernacular
style, as classroom interaction may serve as input to the learner’s vernacular style.

Ellis (1985, pp. 244-245) refers to the pedagogical implications of the variability position in that
the type of instruction should match the learning processes and goals:

20
 If the goal is to participate in natural conversation, then the learner will need to
develop his vernacular style by acquiring L2 knowledge that is automatic but
unanalysed. This can be achieved directly by means of instruction that emphasizes
communication in the classroom. It may also be achieved indirectly by teaching that
focuses on the code, if there are also sufficient practice opportunities to trigger the
passage of knowledge from the careful to the vernacular style. If the learner’s goal is
to participate in discourse that requires careful, conscious planning, he will need to
develop a careful style by acquiring L2 knowledge that is automatic and analysed. This
can be best accomplished by formal instruction that focuses on the L2 code.

As can be seen, and not surprisingly, different perspectives emphasise different opportunities
for learning. What is becoming more apparent is that the teaching of grammar alone cannot
guarantee successful acquisition. In the same way, input alone is not sufficient. Also, there is
growing consensus on the fact that learners develop different types of knowledge, and that,
therefore, different learning tasks should be devised so as to facilitate different types of
learning. What follows is a discussion of some methodological options that address the issue of
what type of formal instruction works best (Ellis, 1994).

5.2.2 Issues in formal instruction

Focus on forms vs. focus on form

Focus on forms refers to instruction that is based on a structural syllabus, and teaches and tests
language items one by one, as the main focus of such a syllable is the learning of those forms.
On the other hand, focus on form occurs when learners’ conscious attention is directed
towards a certain language feature during input processing. This can happen by direct
intervention by the teacher, or because learners themselves notice a feature. It can happen
naturally when learners are engaged in communicative tasks while focusing on a specific formal
property at the same time, or when the teacher gives corrective feedback.

21
Focus on forms is argued to be counter-productive, while focus on form results in faster
learning and higher levels of proficiency. Focus on form is related to the notion of ‘noticing’.
According to Schmidt (as cited in Harmer, 2007, p. 54), noticing is a necessary condition for
intake to take place. Unless a learner notices a new language item, he or she is unlikely to
process it, and therefore, the chances of learning it are lessened. Harmer (2007, p. 54)
summarises the argument for a focus on form approach: “students acquire language best when
they have focused on it either because they need it, or have come across it in a
meaning-focused communicative task, or because in some other way they have noticed
language which is relevant to them at a particular time; this kind of acquisition is intrinsically
superior to asking students to focus on a series of pre-determined forms.”

Implicit vs. explicit instruction

Formal instruction can be implicit, i.e. when learners are asked to induce rules from the
examples given, or explicit, when they are given a rule which they then practise. The available
evidence from studies is not conclusive, but it appears to indicate that the type of instruction
treatment may depend on the type of linguistic material to be learnt, and also to the individual
characteristics of the learners.

Practice vs. consciousness-raising

In contrast to practice, consciousness-raising activities do not require the learner to produce

the target structure, only to understand it. While practice aims at developing implicit
knowledge, consciousness-raising aims at explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge may indirectly
affect implicit knowledge through monitoring, thus improving the accuracy of communicative
output. Also, learners who have explicit knowledge of language features will be more likely to
notice them in the input they receive, which will facilitate learning. Finally, explicit knowledge
will facilitate the comparison of input with the learners’ IL, which may in consequence foster
acquisition.

22
Ellis (1994, p. 646) summarises the results offered by research thus:

1. A focus-on-form approach that encourages learners to pay attention to the formal

properties of the language in the context of trying to communicate – either by
means of meaning negotiation or by corrective feedback – may facilitate
acquisition.
2. If a focus-on-forms approach is adopted, this is more likely to succeed if:
- rules are presented explicitly and supported by examples
- the instruction is aimed at developing explicit knowledge through
consciousness-raising activities
- the instruction is directed at enabling learners to establish form-meaning
connections during comprehension
3. In contrast, there is a growing consensus that instruction directed at promoting
growth of learners’ interlanguage systems (i.e. their implicit knowledge) through
production-training is problematic.

To clarify this last point, it should be said that practice may be beneficial only if it takes place
under realistic operating conditions, that is, if it gives learners the opportunity to produce a
target structure in similar circumstances to those that would prevail in normal communication.

Conclusion

The approaches discussed above point to the importance of the principles that underlie
teaching programmes. Although there is still no unified theory of SLA, and in spite of the
disagreement among different theoretical positions, what is evident is that second language
learning is a major feat, achieved by brains that may not be biologically prepared to develop
new language systems after a certain age, or that need to resort to different mechanisms to do
so. As Strozer (1994, p. 207) puts it, “The conclusion that a foreign language can be acquired
only through persistent study, and that a teaching program can only provide valuable but never
sufficient help, is neither negative nor pessimistic. A high level of success on the part of the

23
student, after a considerable amount of prolonged effort, is in a way a far greater individual
achievement than becoming a native speaker in childhood (it is not a particular merit of
children to allow this to happen to them).”

Given the fact that L2 learning equals learning to communicate in the target language, teaching
programmes should be carefully designed to provide learners with the necessary conditions for
it to happen. The emphasis on communication should not be overlooked, although classroom
settings are severely restricted as regards opportunities for real communication. Nevertheless,
as Ellis (1985, p. 143) states, “successful outcomes may depend on the type of language used
by the teacher and the type of interactions occurring in the classroom. In the case of the
language classroom, the growth of interest in the analysis of teacher language and interaction
has been stimulated by the rejection of language teaching methods as the principal
determinant of successful learning.” This does not mean that all methodological approaches
are conducive to learning; rather, that SLA research and its findings should be the basis for both
successful teaching practices and successful L2 learning.

5.3 TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ROLES

All the components of language learning come alive in a classroom. Learning emerges from the
interaction of teachers and students, the final agents of SLA. Different perspectives set
different roles for teachers and students. Larsen-Freeman (2011, p. 162) offers the following
account of teaching:
A traditional view of teaching has been characterized as ‘knowledge transmission’. In
this teaching-centred view, teachers are seen to be responsible for transmitting what
they know to their students. These days it is common to be critical of a knowledge
transmission view of teaching for the passive role it ascribes to language learners…In
contrast to knowledge transmission is a prominent alternative, student-centred, view
of teaching, namely constructivism…[which states] that learning should be socially
constructed and teaching meaningful, building on what students already know. This
should be accomplished through active engagement with fellow students, the teacher,
the world and by reflecting on these experiences. For this reason, a constructivist

24
 approach could also be called ‘experiential’. Practices associated with this approach are
procedures in which students are active thorough experimentation, problem-solving,
and dialoguing. Students are also encouraged to reflect upon these experiences by
talking about what they did and what understanding they came to.

All approaches assign different roles to teachers and students, and in fact, most teachers
nowadays tend to follow an eclectic form of teaching, varying their roles in accordance with the
learners, the nature and objectives of the lesson, the context, etc. This asks for a re-definition
of the word “teacher”, in that they have become reflective practitioners, who can “detach
[themselves] from experience, examine it, and learn from it.” (Larsen Freeman, 2011, p. 163)
Also, teachers are explorers, in that they are “encouraged to experiment, take risks, around
some particular issue of interest in their teaching practice. They are then to step back and
watch what happens. This set of procedures helps them to clarify issues around their own
teaching practice and prevents it from going stale.” (2011, p. 163)

The new roles assigned to teachers are definitely more demanding, especially in that they
require teachers to do a lot of reflection, both before and after each class. Nevertheless, this
extra task makes teaching more professional and rewarding, as it gives teachers a heightened
sense of development.

On the other hand, students also have new roles to play. Class time is too limited for students
to learn all they need to learn, therefore they need to become both active and autonomous
learners. When students are agents of their own learning, motivation is more easily sustained.
One way of fostering learner autonomy is by making students reflect on their language goals,
tasks and strategies, so that they can become active agents of their learning. The more they
know about the learning process, the better they can become engaged in it. Availing
themselves of opportunities to use the target language outside the class is a powerful means of
extending learning. Although engaging in conversations with native speakers is not easy to
achieve in an EFL situation, technology may ease the process, apart from giving students a
clearer idea of the status of English as a lingua franca. Teachers can guide their students along
the path of independent learning, thus re-defining roles for all the participants. In
Larsen-Freeman’s words (2011, p. 163), “In fact, perhaps the most important role for a

25
language teacher is that of mediator between the textbook/curriculum and the students, in
order to address the multifarious and diverse needs of the present class.” In other words,
teachers mediate between the theoretical and practical sides of SLA, facilitating the process of
second language acquisition with their knowledge. In short, teachers do applied linguistics.

References
Brown, D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Pearson Education.
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of SLA. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. (2005). Input and Interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. Long, (Eds.). The handbook of
Second language acquisition (pp. 175-194) . Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell
Publishing.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English second language teaching. Pearson Education
Limited.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Internet edition
downloaded September 1st, 2011 from dkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice.pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Key concepts in language learning and language education. In J.
Simpson Ed). The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp 155-170).
Routledge.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (2004). Second Language Learning. In A. Davies, & C. Elder, (Eds.) The handbook
of applied linguistics (pp 501-524). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Strozer, J. (1994). Language acquisition after puberty. Washington University Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B.
Seidlhofer, (Eds.) Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford University
Press.
Tarone, E. (2000). Still wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory. In Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 20. pp. 182-198

26
27