The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research

Second Language Learning Theories Chaptere 2

IntroductionIn order to understand recent developments in second language learning research , it is helpful to retrace its recent history. The kinds of questions that researchers are asking today are for the most part firmly rooted in earlier developments in the

fields of: a. Linguisticsb. Psychologyc. Sociologyd. pedagogy

The 1950s and 1960s

The writings of language teaching experts in the 1950s and 1960s include consideration of learning theory , as preliminaries to their practical recommendations (for example , Lado ,1964; Rivers ,1964, 1968).

‘’Progressive’’ 1950s language pedagogy drew on a version of structuralism developed by the British linguist Palmer in the 1920s , and subsequently by Fries and Michigan colleagues in the 1940s.

Key Features of StructuralismHowatt (2004 , pp. 229-300) sums up key features of

structuralism as follows:1.Learning the spoken language means acquiring a set of

appropriate speech habits .2.Courses of instruction should be built round a graded

syllabus of structural patterns to ensure systematic step by step progress…

3.Grammar should be taught inductively through the presentation and practice of new patterns…with visual

and/or textual support…4.Errors should be avoided through adequate practice

and rehearsal.

Behaviourism

In the behaviourist view , language learning is seen like any other kind of learning ,as the formation of habits. It stems from the work in psychology which saw the learning of any kind of behaviour as being

based on the notions of stimulus and response.The learning of any skill is seen as the formation of habits, that is , the creation of stimulus-response pairings which become stronger with reinforcement.

BehaviourismFrom the behaviourist point of view , when learning a first language, the process is relatively simple: all we have to do is learn a set of new habits as we learn to respond to

stimuli in our environment. When learning a second language ; however, we run into problems: we already have a set of well-established responses in our mother

tongue. The second language learning process therefore involves replacing those habits by a set of new ones. The

complication is that the old habits interfere with this process, either helping or inhibiting it. If structures in

the L2 are similar to those of L1 , then learning will take place easily. If , however , structures are different, then

learning will be difficult.

The 1970s First Language Acquisition

Research in the 1960s led to the investigations of the acquisition of language in young children , by researches such as Kilma and Bellugi (1966) , Slobin(1970) , or Brown(1973). They found striking similarities in the language learning behaviour of young children , whatever language they were learning.

It seemed that children all over the world go through similar stages , use similar constructions in order to express similar meanings , and make the

same kinds of errors .

Stages of First Language Acquisition(Aitchison , 2008, p. 80)

Language Stage1.Crying2.Cooing3.Babbling4.Intonation patterns5.One-word sentences6.Two-word-sentences7.Word inflections8.Questions,negatives9.Rare or complex constructions

10.Mature speech

Beginning AgeBirth

6 weeks6 months8 months1 year

18 months2 years2 years 3 months5 years

10 years

The 1970sThe research emphasis of the time was on the universal nature of these stages , which were claimed to be followed by children learning any language . Similarly , when studying children ‘s learning of particular languages , a consistent order of acquisition was found for the emergence of new structures. Roger Brown’s (1973) so-called ‘’morpheme study’’ is probably the best known L1 study of that time ,and was to be very influential for second language acquisition research.

Second Language Learning :The Birth of Error Analysis and the Concept of Interlanguage

Developments in first language acquisition and disillusionment with CA –meant that researchers and teachers became increasingly interested in the language produced by learners rather than the target language or the first language. This was the origin of Error Analysis ,the systematic investigation of second language learners’ errors.

The language produced by learners began to be seen as a linguistic system in its own right.

Error AnalysisRichards & Schmidt (2010) define error analysis as the study and analysis of the errors made by second language learners. Error analysis can be

carried out in order to :

1.identify strategies which learners use in language learning

2.Try to identify the causes of errors3.Obtain information on common difficulties in

language learning , as an aid to teaching or in the preparation of teaching materials

InterlanguageRichards & Schmidt (2010) define interlanguage as the type of language produced by second and foreign language learners who are in the process of learning a language.

In language learning ,learner language is influenced by several different processes including:

1.Borrowing patterns from the mother tongue2.Extending patterns from the target language

3.Expressing meanings using the words and grammar which are already known

Cont.The term interlanguage was coined in 1972 , by Selinker, to refer to the language produced by the learners, both as a

system which can be described at any one point in time as resulting from systematic rules , and as the series of

interlocking system that characterize learner progression. In other words , the interlanguage concept relies on two

fundamental notions: the language produced by the learner is a system on its own right, obeying its own

rules , and it is a dynamic system , evovling over time. Interlanguage studies thus moved a major step beyond

Error Analysis , by focusing on the learner system as a whole , rather than only on its non-target-like features .

Krashen’s Monitor Model

Krashen based his general theory around a set of five hypotheses:

1.The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis 2.The Monitor Hypothesis 3.The Natural Order Hypothesis 4.The Input Hypothesis 5.The Affective Filter Hypothesis

1 .The Acquisition-Learning HypothesisThe basic premise of this hypothesis is that language acquisition and learning are separate processes. For Krashen, acquisition refers to ‘subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language’ , and learning refers to the ‘conscious process that result in ‘’knowing about ‘’ language’(1985,p1).In other words ,acquisition is the result of natural interaction with the language via meaningful communication ,which sets in motion developmental processes akin to those in first language acquisition , and learning is typically the result of classroom experience in which the learner is made to focus on form and to learn

about the linguistic rules of the target language .

2 .The Monitor HypothesisAccording to Krashen, ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ are used in very specific ways in second language performance. The Monitor Hypothesis states that ‘learning has only one function , and that is as a Monitor or editor’ and that learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance ,after it has been ‘’produced’’ by the acquired system’(1982 ,p 15).Acquisition ‘initiates’ the speaker’s utterances and is responsible for fluency. Thus the monitor is thought to alter the output of the acquired system before or after the utterance is actually written or spoken , but the utterance is initiated entirely

by the acquired system (McLaughlin,1987,p. 24) .

3.The Natural Order HypothesisAccording to Krashen, we acquire the rules of language in a particular order , some rules tending to come early and others late. The order does not appear to be determined solely by formal simplicity and there is evidence that it is independent of the order in which rules are taught in language classes.(Krashen , 1985, P.1)

Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis represents the universalism of 1970s theorizing and has no place for concepts such as language transfer and cross-linguistic influence. In addition , it makes primarily a descriptive claim ,which provides little help in understanding why ‘natural orders‘ should be apparent in L2 development.

4 .The Input HypothesisThe Input Hypothesis is linked to the Natural Order Hypothesis in that it claims that we move along the developmental path by receiving and processing comprehensible input. Comprehensible input is defined as L2 input just beyond the learner’s current L2 competence. If a learner’s competence is i then comprehensible input is i plus 1, that is ,input still understandable by the learner but containing linguistic evidence relevant for the next step in the developmental sequence. Input which is either too simple or too

complex will not be useful for acquisition .

5 .The Affective Filter HypothesisThe Affective Filter Hypothesis captures the relationship between affective variables and the process of second language acquisition by positing that acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of their affective filters. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language acquisition will not only tend to seek less input ,but they will also have a high or strong affective filter-even if they understand the message, the input will not reach the part of the brain responsible for language acquisition ,or the Language Acquisition Device. Those with attitudes more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more open to the input and

it will strike ‘deeper’.(Krashen,1982,p. 31)

Schumann’s Pidginization/Acculturation Model

John Schumann first proposed his pidginization/model in the late 1970s.On the basis of naturalistic studies of untutored learners , he noticed that early interlanguages resemble pidgin languages(that is ,simplified trading languages which lack native speakers), with characteristic features such as fixed word order and lack of

interactions .

Cont.

Second language acquisition was compared to the complexification of pidgins, and this process was

linked to the degree of acculturation of the learners. The closer they feel to the target language speech

community ,according to Schumann, the better learners will ‘’acculturate’’, and the more successful their L2 learning will be .The greater the social and

psychological distance between the learner and the majority community , the more pidgin-like their L2

will remain.

The 1980s: A Turning Point Partly in response to developments in linguistics and in first language acquisition research, partly in reaction to the 1970s proposals of Burt , Dulay, Selinker , Krashen and others , and partly in response to the continuing great postwar expansion of second/foreign language education , the 1980s were a period of strong development for SLL theorizing and empirical research. Many of the main strands of research which continue today can

trace their origins to this period .

The Impact of Comskyan LinguisticsIn the 1980s, researches such as Flynn (1983,1987) and White(1989) began to draw upon Chomskyan generative linguistics and the concept of Universal Grammar to model learners’ formal language knowledge. In particular, Chomsky’s Government and Binding Theory(1981,1986) specified Universal Principles applying to all languages , and a limited set of Parameters which accounted for variation

between languages .

Information Processing Models of SLL

McLaughlin (1987) viewed the mind as a limited capacity processor , with different memory stores; from this view , learning involved moving from controlled processing to automatic processing of language , and the transfer of new knowledge from the (very limited capacity) short memory to long term memory.

The Interaction HypothesisIn response to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, a number of 1980’s researchers also proposed alternative ideas about the role of environmental language in second language learning.

Foremost among these was Michael Long ,with his proposal of the so-called Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1981, 1983).

In the 1980s, Long shared the underlying assumptions of Krashen regarding the existence of some form of LAD, but shifted attention from comprehensible input , as a means of stimulating acquisition, toward more interactive aspects of second language discourse. Long’s early research showed that native speaker-non-native speaker interactions when performing tasks such as informal conversation or game-playing was rich in meaning negotiations, including repetitions, confirmation checks or

clarification requests .

The Output HypothesisThe hypothesis that successful second language acquisition not only requires comprehensible input , but also comprehensible output, language produced by the learner that can be understood by other speakers of the language. It has been argued that when learners have to make efforts to ensure that their messages are communicated (pushed out) this puts them in a better position to notice the gap between their productions and those of proficient speakers, fostering acquisition(Richards

&Schmidt ,2010, p. 416) .

Cont.A different alternative to the Input Hypothesis was proposed by Swain, based on the experience of studying learners of French L2 in the context of immersion schooling. Swain argued that students could often succeed in comprehending L2 texts while only partly processing them; that is concentrating on semantic processing. She took the view that only production(that is , output)really forces L2 learners to undertake full grammatical processing , and thus drives forward most effectively the development of

L2 syntax and morphology .

Continuities in the Research AgendaWhile methods and theories have become more diverse and sophisticated , the SLA research agenda continues to focus on a number of fundamental issues carried forward from the 1970s , as follows:

1 .The role of internal mechanisms a. language-specific

b. cognitive2 .The role of the first language

3 .The role of the psychological variables4 .The role of social and environmental factors

5 .The role of the input

The End