Theories of Second Language Acquisition

The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed

light on how people who already know one language learn a second language.
The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such
as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience,
and education.

Semantic Theory

For the second-language learner, the acquisition of meaning is arguably the most
important task. Meaning is at the heart of a language, not the exotic sounds or
elegant sentence structure. There are several types of meanings: lexical,
grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic. All the different meanings contribute to
the acquisition of meaning resulting in the integrated second language
possession.

Lexical meaning – meaning that is stored in our mental lexicon;

Grammatical meaning – comes into consideration when calculating the

meaning of a sentence; usually encoded in inflectional morphology (ex. - ed for
past simple, -‘s for third person possessive)

Semantic meaning – word meaning;

Pragmatic meaning – meaning that depends on context, requires knowledge of

the world to decipher; for example, when someone asks on the phone, “Is Mike
there?” he does not want to know if Mike is physically there; he wants to know
if he can talk to Mike.

Universal Grammar

From the field of linguistics, the most influential theory by far has
been Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar (UG). The core of this theory lies

1
on the existence of an innate universal grammar, grounded on the poverty of the
stimulus.

From a UG perspective, learning the grammar of a second language is simply a

matter of setting the correct parameters. Take the pro-drop parameter, which
dictates whether or not sentences must have a subject in order to be
grammatically correct. This parameter can have two values: positive, in which
case sentences do not necessarily need a subject, and negative, in which case
subjects must be present. In German the sentence "Er spricht" (he speaks) is
grammatical, but the sentence "Spricht" (speaks) is ungrammatical. In Italian,
however, the sentence "Parla" (speaks) is perfectly normal and grammatically
correct.  A German speaker learning Italian would only need to deduce that
subjects are optional from the language he hears, and then set his pro-
drop parameter for Italian accordingly. Once he has set all the parameters in the
language correctly, then from a UG perspective he can be said to have learned
Italian; i.e., he will always produce perfectly correct Italian sentences.

Universal Grammar also provides a succinct explanation for much of the

phenomenon of language transfer. Spanish learners of English who make the
mistake "is raining" instead of "It is raining" have not yet set their pro-
drop parameters correctly and are still using the same setting as in Spanish.

The main shortcoming of Universal Grammar in describing second-language

acquisition is that it does not deal at all with the psychological processes
involved with learning a language. UG scholarship is only concerned with
whether parameters are set or not, not with how they are set. 

2
 Acquisition–learning Hypothesis
Stephen Krashen is a Second Language Acquisition researcher and professor at
University of Southern California who has been publishing and speaking since
the 1980’s. 

"Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical

rules, and does not require tedious drill." Stephen Krashen

"The best methods are, therefore, those that supply 'comprehensible input' in
low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear.
These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow
students to produce when they are 'ready', recognizing that improvement comes
from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing
and correcting production." Stephen Krashen

Krashen’s theory has five main hypotheses:

 the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis,
 the Monitor hypothesis,
 the Input hypothesis,
 the Natural Order hypothesis,
 and the Affective Filter hypothesis.

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: 

Language “acquisition” is a subconscious process similar to that which children

undergo with their first language. There is focus on meaning of messages, not on
the form of the language. “Learning,” by contrast, is a conscious process
resulting in knowledge 'about' the language (ex: knowledge of grammar rules).

Other concepts have also been influential in the speculation about the processes
of building internal systems of second-language information. Some thinkers
hold that language processing handles distinct types of knowledge. According to

3
Krashen, L2 acquisition is a subconscious process of incidentally “picking up” a
language, as children do when becoming proficient in their first languages.
Language learning, on the other hand, is studying, consciously and intentionally,
the features of a language, as is common in traditional classrooms. Krashen sees
these two processes as fundamentally different, with little or no interface
between them.

1. The Monitor Model

Monitoring is an important concept in some theoretical models of learner use of
L2 knowledge. According to Krashen, the Monitor is a component of an L2
learner's language processing device that uses knowledge gained from language
learning to observe and regulate the learner's own L2 production, checking for
accuracy and adjusting language production when necessary. However, Krashen
warns that over-monitoring can cause language production to be more geared
towards accuracy than fluency.

2. Input Hypothesis
Learners' most direct source of information about the target language is the
target language itself. When they come into direct contact with the target
language, this is referred to as "input." When learners process that language in a
way that can contribute to learning, this is referred to as "intake. By the way, the
amount of input learners take in is one of the most important factors affecting
their learning. However, it must be at a level that is comprehensible to them.

In his Input Hypothesis, Krashen proposes that language acquisition takes place
only when learners receive input just beyond their current level of L2
competence. He proposes a Language Acquisition Device that uses L2 input to
define the parameters of the L2 and to increase the L2 proficiency of the learner.
A great deal of research has taken place on input enhancement, the ways in
which input may be altered so as to direct learners' attention to linguistically

4
important areas. Input enhancement might include bold-faced vocabulary words
or marginal glosses in a reading text. Research here is closely linked to research
on pedagogical effects, and comparably diverse.

3. The Natural Order Hypothesis

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical
structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and
second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which
a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as
third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not
typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The
hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt,
which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others
during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up
by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well-known input model of
second language learning.

Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition

remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,
explicit teaching and learning cannot change the natural order of acquisition. Put
simply, what you teach is not what students acquire.

One problem is that the natural order hypothesis fails to take into account the
influence of the first language on the acquisition of a second language; in fact
some studies suggest that second language learners acquire a second language in
different orders depending on their native language. Therefore, second language
learners do not necessarily acquire grammatical structures in a predictable
sequence. 

5
There is no agreement about, for example, the order an English native speaker
would naturally acquire French grammar without instruction. This means that
you cannot organize a grammatical syllabus based on natural orders. No one has
been able to do this.

Acknowledging this, supporters of the hypothesis argue that you should not
organize teaching by grammar sequencing at all. They argue, as we have seen,
that grammar is simply not teachable, since teachers cannot control what a
student will naturally acquire. So proponents of this view argue for teaching
through comprehensible input with minimal reference to grammar. This would,
for example, be the position of TPRS practitioners (Teaching Proficiency
through Reading and Storytelling). Learners will pick up grammar only through
meaningful exposure to the second language, not by explicit instruction and
practice. Grammar might be occasionally explained, but more to satisfy the
curiosity of students than to help with its acquisition.

If you find this far-fetched, bear in mind that this view hangs on the assumption
that learning a second language is seen as very similar or identical to learning
the mother tongue. Just as we cannot dictate the order a young child masters
grammar, so we cannot force feed grammar down the throats of second language
learners. It might also chime with the feeling you get that, even after teaching
the same structure umpteen times, some students don't seem to pick it up and use
it spontaneously.

In sum, whilst natural orders clearly exist when acquiring a first language, they
are much more problematic in second language learning. This need not be,
however, a reason for abandoning the sensible sequencing of grammar in
modern language lessons. It is still quite possible that some students at least will
pick up new grammar in the order you choose to teach it. If they do not, this
may be because they do not get enough input and practice to allow it to happen.

6
 4. Affective Filter Hypothesis
The affective filter is an impediment to learning or acquisition caused by
negative emotional ("affective") responses to one's environment. It is
a hypothesis of second-language acquisition theory, and a field of interest
in educational psychology.

According to the affective filter hypothesis, certain emotions, such as anxiety,

self-doubt, and mere boredom interfere with the process of acquiring a second
language. They function as a filter between the speaker and the listener that
reduces the amount of language input the listener is able to understand. These
negative emotions prevent efficient processing of the language input. The
hypothesis further states that the blockage can be reduced by sparking interest,
providing low-anxiety environments, and bolstering the learner's self-esteem.

According to Krashen, there are two prime issues that prevent the lowering of
the affective filter. The first is not allowing for a silent period (expecting the
student to speak before they have received an adequate amount of
comprehensible input according to their individual needs). The second is
correcting their errors too early in the learning process.

7
 2
Interaction Hypothesis

Michael Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is

strongly facilitated by the use of the target language in interaction. Similarly
to Krashen's Input Hypothesis, the Interaction Hypothesis claims
that comprehensible input is important for language learning, and that the
effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly increased when learners have to
negotiate for meaning.

Interactions often result in learners receiving negative evidence. That is, if

learners say something that their interlocutors do not understand, after
negotiation, the interlocutors may model the correct language form. On the other
hand, the process of interaction may also result in learners receiving more input
from their interlocutors than they would. Furthermore, if learners stop to clarify
things that they do not understand, they may have more time to process the input
they receive. This can lead to better understanding and possibly the acquisition
of new language forms. Finally, interactions may serve as a way of focusing
learners' attention on the difference between their knowledge of the target
language and the reality of what they are hearing.

Interaction is beneficial for second language acquisition because it also gives the
learner opportunities to use production through conversations.

Output Hypothesis
In the 1980s, Canadian SLA researcher Merrill Swain stated in his output
hypothesis that meaningful output is as necessary to language learning as
8
meaningful input. However, most studies have shown little if any correlation
between learning and quantity of output. Today, most scholars contend that
small amounts of meaningful output are important to language learning, but
primarily because the experience of producing language leads to more effective
processing of input.

Critical Period Hypothesis

In 1967, Eric Lenneberg argued the existence of a critical period (approximately
2-13 years old) for the acquisition of a first language. This has attracted much
attention in the domain of second language acquisition. For instance, Newport
(1990) extended the argument of the critical period hypothesis by pointing to a
possibility that when a learner is exposed to an L2 might also contribute to their
second language acquisition. Indeed, she revealed the correlation between age
and second language performance. In this regard, second language learning
might be affected by a learner's maturational state. 

Competition Model
Some of the major cognitive theories of how learners organize language
knowledge are based on analyses of how speakers of various languages analyze
sentences for meaning. English speakers relied heavily on word order; German
speakers used morphological agreement, the status of noun referents, and stress;
and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al.
interpreted these results as supporting the Competition Model, which states that
individuals use linguistic cues to get meaning from language.  According to this
theory, when acquiring an L2, learners sometimes receive competing cues and
must decide which cue(s) is most relevant for determining meaning.

Memory and Second-Language Acquisition

9
Perhaps certain psychological characteristics constrain language processing. One
area of research is the role of memory. Williams conducted a study in which he
found some positive correlation between memory functioning and grammar
learning success . This suggests that individuals with less short-term memory
capacity might have a limitation in performing cognitive processes for
organization and use of linguistic knowledge.

Sociocultural Theory
Coined by Wertsch in 1985 and derived from the work of Lev Vygotsky,
sociocultural theory is the notion that human mental function is from
participating cultural mediation integrated into social activities.   Sociocultural
theory focuses on diverse social, historical, cultural, and political contexts where
language learning occurs and how learners negotiate or resist the diverse options
that surround them.  More recently, Larsen-Freeman (2011) created the triangle
form that shows the interplay of four important concepts in language learning
and education: (a) teacher, (b) learner, (c) language or culture and (d) context.
In this regard, what makes sociocultural theory different from other theories is
that it argues that second learning acquisition is not a universal process. On the
contrary, it views learners as active participants by interacting with others and
also the culture of the environment.

10
 3

Declarative/Procedural Model

Michael T. Ullman has used a declarative/procedural model to understand how

language information is stored. This model is consistent with a distinction made
in general cognitive science between the storage and retrieval of facts, on the
one hand, and understanding of how to carry out operations, on the other. It
states that declarative knowledge consists of arbitrary linguistic information,
such as irregular verb forms, that are stored in the brain's declarative memory. In
contrast, knowledge about the rules of a language, such as grammatical word
order is procedural knowledge and is stored in procedural memory.

Automaticity
Thinkers have produced several theories concerning how learners use their
internal L2 knowledge structures to comprehend L2 input and produce L2
output. One idea is that learners acquire proficiency in an L2 in the same way
that people acquire other complex cognitive skills. Automaticity is the
performance of a skill without conscious control. In the field of cognitive
psychology, Anderson expounds a model of skill acquisition, according to which
persons use procedures to apply their declarative knowledge about a subject in
order to solve problems. On repeated practice, these procedures develop into
production rules that the individual can use to solve the problem, without
accessing long-term declarative memory. Performance speed and accuracy
improve as the learner implements these production rules.
11
Noticing Hypothesis
Schmidt posited that a learner cannot continue advancing their language abilities
or grasp linguistic features unless they are consciously processing the input, and
that what the learner actually notices is called "intake". This definition differs
from that of Krashen's input hypothesis in which intake is similar to
comprehensible input, and that of Chaudron which separates intake into
preliminary intake and final intake. Therefore in order for the language someone
is hearing to become salient and sent to long term memory where it can be used
naturally, the learner must first actively be aware of aspects of language being
presented to them.

Susan Gass put forth a suggestion of a second noticing process. In this case,

learners notice the gaps between their knowledge of the second language and
that of what a native speaker would say.

"Noticing" differs from "understanding" in that the former refers to a finite

moment where an aspect of language is understood and added to long term
memory, rather than a general knowledge.

Processability Theory
It is a theory of second language acquisition developed by Manfred Pienemann.
(Pienemann 1998) The theory has been used as a framework by scientists from
Europe, North America, Asia and Australia. Pienemann's Processability
Theory (1998) claims that the speech production of a language learner at the
time is an in dication of his/her limitation to process information. That is,
while the native speaker's speech processing is automatic and is able to
construct sentences without paying attention to grammatical items such as
number, case, gender and person, the L2 learner must pay attention to

12
grammatical items at the beginning of language acquisition. The locus of
this kind of attention is at the working memory level and its capacity is
highly limited. L2 learners' speech production, accordingly, is limited by the
interaction between working memory capacity and the limited time for
information processing during the course of speech production.

13