Theories of Second Language Acquisition
Introduction
Students to whom English is a second or third language are increasingly becoming integral to public schools in the United Kingdom. Consequently, teachers face the issue of teaching pupils who do not understand English. Lack of adequate understanding of English prevents compromised performances of such students. Thus, the stakeholders of education have obliged schools to consider such students and provide programs for teaching English (Bahrani, 2011). On the other hand, these programs may not fully achieve the objective for which they were developed. Successful programs must be premised on specific theories of second language acquisition to guarantee that learners with English as a second or third language acquire the language to be in a position to compete with students who have English as their first language (Chamot, 2005). This paper discusses some of the theories to evaluate their relevance in helping students who do not speak English acquire the language. Some of the theories that will be discussed include the monitor theory, Inter-language theory, the input theory, and the Universal grammar theory.
The Monitor Theory
The monitor theory was proposed by Stephen Krashen, then a lecturer at the University of Southern California, in the early 1980s (Benthin, 2000). This theory outlines the relationship between spontaneous and guided language learning. The theorist explains the relationship between the two concepts in a five-hypothesis model, the monitor model (Benthin, 2000). The theory has been praised as the most motivating yet the most controversial theory of second language acquisition (for example, Bahrani, 2011). Despite its huge impact on second language research and teaching, the theory has received a considerable amount of criticism. The following sections will discuss the five hypotheses that comprise the model.
The Acquisition-learning Hypothesis
The first hypothesis, the acquisition-learning hypothesis, suggests that adult humans have two systems of mastering a second language, namely acquisition, and learning, which are subconscious and conscious respectively (Gregg, 1984 cited in Bahrani, 2011). This hypothesis asserts that the students of the second language are unconscious of the grammatical rules of the language they are learning, the way a child learns his or her first language. On the other hand, language learning involves awareness of the second language, involving understanding the rules of the language; thus, language learning occurs mostly in formal instructions (Bahrani, 2011). Krashen (1981) asserts that the systems must be kept distinct. This hypothesis, suggests that adults retain the ability to acquire languages that they used during their early childhood, corresponding to about 2 years old., and can access the same natural language acquisition device (LAD) (Krashen, 1981). Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) highlighted that learning does not transform into acquisition whatsoever.
The Natural Order Hypothesis
Based on the natural order hypothesis, the second language learner acquires grammatical structures in a predictable order. The learners acquire some grammatical structures early and others late, regardless of his or her first language, age, and circumstances surrounding the exposure to the second language (Krashen 1981). The order does not depend on how simple the form is. According to Gitsaki (1998) and Wilson (2000), the natural order dictates the process of language acquisition that differs from the order that learning might follow.
Monitor Hypothesis
The monitor hypothesis holds that formal learning has the sole function of a monitor for the output of the learner (Krashen, 1981). Schulz (1981) and Schutz (2005) argue that the monitor functions well under three conditions, namely when there is enough time, when the focus of interaction between the educator and learner is on form and not meaning, and when the learner is familiar with the rule in question. The process of monitoring entails self-correction of the learned language rules, which deviates from monitoring during acquisition.
The Input Hypothesis
The input hypothesis assumes that humans acquire language only after when they understand language which contains a structure that is slightly past their current level. Wilson (2000) argues that humans achieve the mentioned state with the aid of extralinguistic or context information. In addition, Krashen provides the ‘silent period’ as evidence for this hypothesis (Romeo 2000). This hypothesis implies that the learners must be given an initial ‘silent period’ to amass acquired competence in the language before they begin to exhibit mastery of the language (Bahrani, 2011).
The Affective Filter Hypothesis
Based on this hypothesis, several effective factors facilitate the acquisition of a second language, including motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Learners with high motivation, good self-image, low anxiety, and self-confidence are inclined to succeed in acquiring a second language (Krashen, 1981). Conversely, debilitating anxiety coupled with low motivation, and low self-esteem increases an affective filter and a mental block that hinders the learner's use of comprehensible input to acquire the target language. Thus, a high affective filter inhibits acquisition while a low affective filter supports it (Bahrani, 2011). Of note, the affective filter affects adults, but not children (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).
Criticism of the Monitor Theory
Krashen’s theory has received its share of criticisms. According to Bahrani (2011), the basis for such criticism is the fact that the monitor theory was among the first to explain second language acquisition and that it made several claims without empirical evidence. For example, McLaughlin (1978) acknowledged the theorist's effort to develop an extensive and inclusive theory but criticized the theory as inadequate in the sense that some of its key assumptions and hypotheses are not clearly defined. In the same vein, Gitsaki (1998) claimed that such assumptions and hypotheses cannot be tested. Specifically, monitor theory does not sufficiently define acquisition, learning, conscious or subconscious making it complicated to independently distinguish whether a student is learning or acquiring the target language (McLaughlin 1987). Furthermore, Gregg (1984) argues that the theory convinces the readers to believe that language users have two distinct systems for comprehending and interacting with their language. Also, the application of LAD increases its scope of operation to surpass that of Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar. The theorist did not offer any proof that people need two separate systems to learn a language. If indeed two systems for developing a language existed, then humans could not become competent in a formal setting alone. For instance, many students in Iran succeed in learning English despite exposure to the second language in the formal classroom context (Bahrani, 2011). More criticism has been directed at this model of second language acquisition (see. McLaughlin, 1978, 1990; Romeo 2000).
The Universal Grammar Theory
The Universal Grammar (UG) theory stipulates that human languages despite their diversity share certain fundamental similarities that are attributable to inborn principles specific to language, the basis for which Chomsky (1999) asserts that deep down, there is just one human language.Chomsky defined UG as the “system of categories, mechanisms, and constraints shared by all human languages and considered to be innate” (1986, p. 3). The system includes formal universals, such as principles and parameters; and substantive universals, such as lexical categories and features. Generally, consistency is lacking regarding the actual meaning of the supposed universals. Chomsky (1986) perceived UG as “an intricate and highly constrained structure” (148) consisting of “various subsystems of principles” (146).
According to Dabrowska (2011), the theory of universal grammar is a suspect concept, in that very few scholars agree on its explicit content besides having rather weak empirical evidence. Although a range of arguments have been posited as evidence for UG theory, such arguments “are irrelevant, circular, or based on premises which are at best unsubstantiated”, and even false in some cases (Dabrowska, 2011, p. 1).
Conclusion
The monitor theory and the universal grammar theory are very distinct and have different implications for teaching a second language. While the monitoring theory seems superior to the UG, it has received a fair share of criticism. Although both theories have the potential to inform research and pedagogical development of programs for teaching second language acquisition, they have received generally a fair share of criticisms. This state calls for a second language instructor to take caution in applying some of the assumptions and hypotheses.
References
Bahrani, T. (2011). 'The implications of the monitor theory for foreign language education'. Asian Social Science, 7 (10), 281-285.
Benthin, A 2000. Krashen's monitor theory investigates the link between spontaneous and supervised language learning. Seminar paper.
A. Chamot (2005). Language learning approach instruction: Current concerns and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25:112-130.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Understanding Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1999). About the nature, use, and acquisition of language. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Child Language Acquisition (pp. 33–54). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gitsaki, C. 1998. 'Second language acquisition theories: overview and evaluation'. Journal of Communication and International Studies, 4(2), 89-98.
Gregg, K.R. 1984. Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.
Krashen S., 1981. Second language acquisition and learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., and Long, M. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition research. England: Longman.
McLaughlin, B. 1978. Methodological considerations for the monitor model. Language Learning, 28, 309–332.
McLaughlin, B. 1990. Conscious versus unconscious learning. TESOL Journal, 24, 617–634.
Romeo, K. 2000. Krashen and Terrell's "Natural Approach".
Schulz R. (1991). How do second language acquisition theories relate to teaching practice? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 17–26.
Schutz, R.(2005). Stephen Krashen's theory on second language learning.
Wilson, R.(2000). An overview of Stephen Krashen'sA synopsis of Stephen Krashen's "Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition".
Ratings
