A DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES - Vedat Kiymazarslan - Education - http://maxpages.com/thena/ladiscussion3

Refer This Site
To A Friend

The NA Home

Overview
The Natural Approach
Application

From Theory to Practice

How to Apply the Approach

How We Applied It

Treatment of Errors
Theory

Language Acquisition Theories

LA Theories (Part 2)

LA Theories (Part 3)

LA Theories (Part 4)
Computers and L2 Acquisition

CALL and Acquisition

Computer Supported Learning
The Role of Innate Knowledge

Innate Knowledge in L1 and L2

Plato and Chomsky

Domain Specific or General

Piaget and Skinner

Wanna Contraction

Universal Grammar

Turkish Learners

Summary
The Role of Receptive Skills

From Reception to Production

Experimental Design

Leisure Time Activities

Conclusion
Online Sources

The Internet TESL Journal

TESOL Articles Online

English Proficiency Plus

EFLWEB Magazine

Hands on English

Teach English
Other TESL/TEFL Web Sites

Ellidokuzoglu on Krashen

Educational Technology

Krashen and SLA Theories

NCLE Eric Digests

Multilingual Research Center

EL Easton
Library

NCLE Publications

Language Education Associates

ALI Applied Linguistics Index

Books
Articles in Turkish

Temel Prensipler

Edinme - Ögrenme

Dil Edinim Cihazi

Edinimi Hizlandirma

Yeni Yuzyilda Dil Ogretimi

A DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES

Vedat Kiymazarslan

Visit Our FREE Template Gallery & Create Your FREE Web Site!

NEW! Poetry and Doll Maker with Galleries! [Learn About Our Ecommerce]

Graphics Gallery!

PART III

2.7. The Universal Grammar Theory

Among theories of language acquisition, Universal Grammar (UG) has recently gained wider acceptance and popularity. Though noted among L2 acquisition theories, the defenders of UG are not originally motivated to account for L2 acquisition, nor for first language (L1) acquisition. However, UG is more of an L1 acquisition theory rather than L2. It attempts to clarify the relatively quick acquisition of L1s on the basis of 'minimum exposure' to external input. The 'logical problem' of language acquisition, according to UG proponents, is that language learning would be impossible without 'universal language-specific knowledge' (Cook, 1991:153; Bloor & Bloor: 244). The main reason behind this argument is the input data:

"…[L]anguage input is the evidence out of which the learner constructs knowledge of language – what goes into the [brain]. Such evidence can be either positive or negative. … The positive evidence of the position of words in a few sentences [the learner] hear[s] is sufficient to show [him] the rules of [a language]." (Cook, 1991: 154)

The views supports the idea that the external input per se may not account for language acquisition (Ellidokuzoglu, 1999:20). Similarly, the Chomskyan view holds that the input is poor and deficient in two ways. First, the input is claimed to be 'degenerate' because it is damaged by performance features such as slips, hesitations or false starts. Accordingly, it is suggested that the input is not an adequate base for language learning. Second, the input is devoid of grammar corrections. This means that the input does not normally contain 'negative evidence', the knowledge from which the learner could exercise what is 'not'possible in a given language.

As for L2 acquisition, however, the above question is not usually asked largely because of the frequent failure of L2 learners, who happen to be generally cognitively mature adults, in attaining native-like proficiency. But why can't adults who have already acquired an L1, acquire an L2 thoroughly? Don't they have any help from UG? Or if they do, then how much of UG is accessible in SLA? These and similar questions have divided researchers into three basic camps with respect to their approach to the problem:

Direct access -L2 acquisition is just like L1 acquisition. Language acquisition device (LAD) is involved.

No access - L2 learners use their general learning capacity.

Indirect access - Only that part of UG which has been used in L1 acquisition is used in L2 acquisition.

Proponents of UG, for example, believe that both children and adults utilize similar universal principles when acquiring a language; and LAD is still involved in the acquisition process. This view can be better understood in the following quote.

[A]dvocates of [UG] approach working on second-language learning... argue that there is no reason to assume that language faculty atrophies with age. Most second-language researchers who adopt the [UG] perspective assume that the principles and parameters of [UG] are still accessible to the adult learner. (McLaughlin, 1987:96)

To support the view above, the acquisition of the third person “-s” can be given as an example. According to research (1996, Cook: 21) both child L1 and adult L2 learners (e.g. Turkish learners of English) acquire the third person “-s” morpheme at a later stage of their overall acquisition process and have a great difficulty in acquiring it when compared to other morphemes such as the plural morpheme “-s” or the progressive morpheme “-ing”. This shows that such learners are somewhat affected by UG-based knowledge. However, in the case of foreign/second language teaching it is very well known that the third person “-s” is taught at the very beginning of a second language learning program and presented in a great majority of textbooks as the first grammatical item.

Accordingly, Fodor’s views have some parallels with the UG Theory. Jerry Fodor studied the relationship between language and mind and his view that language is a modular process has important implications for a theory of language acquisition. The term modular is used to indicate that the brain is seen, unlike older views such as behavioristic view of learning and language learning, to be organized with many modules of cells for a particular ability (for instance, the visual module). These modules, according to Fodor (1983:47), operate in isolation from other modules that they are not directly connected. The language module, if we are to follow Fodor’s ideas, is one of such modules. This modular separateness has been termed as “informational encapsulation” by Fodor. To put it simply, each module is open to specific type of data. In other words, modules are domain specific. This is another way of saying that conscious knowledge cannot penetrate your visual module or language module or any other subconscious module.

Basically, Fodor’s arguments are somewhat similar to that of Chomsky or the proponents of UG Theory in that the external input per se may not account for language acquisition and that language acquisition is genetically predetermined. Add to this, such a modular approach to language acquisition is totally different from the views of Piaget and Vygotsky who have laid the primary emphasis on the role of social or environmental factors in language development.

In the case of foreign/second language teaching, the common view is that inductive learning (teaching a language through hidden grammar or) leads to acquisition. However, dwelling on Fodor’s views as discussed above, it is obvious that inductive learning is confused with acquisition and that by learning something via discovery learning, students just improve their problem-solving skills, but not acquire a language.

As for the problems with Universal Grammar, it can be said that UG’s particular aim is to account for how language works. Yet UG proponents had to deal with acquisition to account for the language itself. “Acquisition part” is thus of secondary importance. A second drawback is that Chomsky studied only the core grammar of the English language (syntax) and investigated a number of linguistic universals seems to be the major problem. And he neglected the peripheral grammar, that is, language specific rules (i.e., rules of specific languages which cannot be generalized). Thirdly, the primary function of language is communication, but it is discarded. The final and the most significant problem is a methodological one. Due to the fact that Chomsky is concerned only with describing and explaining 'competence', there can be little likelihood of SLA researchers carrying out empirical research.

In summary, UG has generated valuable predictions about the course of interlanguage and the influence of the first language. Also, it has provided invaluable information regarding L2 teaching as to how L2 teachers (or educational linguists) should present vocabulary items and how they should view grammar. As Cook (1991:158) puts it, UG shows us that language teaching should deal with how vocabulary should be taught, not as tokens with isolated meanings but as items that play a part in the sentence saying what structures and words they may go with in the sentence. The evidence in support of UG, on the other hand, is not conclusive. If the language module that determines the success in L1 acquisition is proved to be accessible in L2 acquisition, L2 teaching methodologists and methods should study and account for how to trigger this language module and redesign their methodologies. The UG theory should, therefore, be studied in detail so as to endow us with a more educational and pedagogical basis for mother tongue and foreign language teaching.

2.8. The Monitor Model

Krashen’s Monitor Model is an example of the nativist theories. The model forms the basis of the Natural Approach, which is a comprehension-based approach to foreign and second language teaching. The model consists of five hypotheses The explanations of the hypotheses below have been taken from an article titled “A Promising Approach to Second Language Acquisition” (Kiymazarslan, 2000:72-82).

(1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen (1985), in his theory of second language acquisition (SLA) suggested that adults have two different ways of developing competence in second languages: Acquisition and learning. “There are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages. ‘Acquisition’ is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language, ... [and] ‘learning’..., [which is] a conscious process that results in 'knowing about' [the rules of] language” (Krashen 1985:1).

Krashen (1983) believes that the result of learning, learned competence (LC) functions as a monitor or editor. That is, while AC is responsible for our fluent production of sentences, LC makes correction on these sentences either before or after their production. This kind of conscious grammar correction, ‘monitoring’, occurs most typically in a grammar exam where the learner has enough time to focus on form and to make use of his conscious knowledge of grammar rules (LC) as an aid to ‘acquired competence’. The way to develop learned competence is fairly easy: analyzing the grammar rules consciously and practising them through exercises. But what Acquisition / Learning Distinction Hypothesis predicts is that learning the grammar rules of a foreign/second language does not result in subconscious acquisition.

The implication of the acquisition-learning hypothesis is that we should balance class time between acquisition activities and learning exercises.

(2) The Natural Order Hypothesis

According to the hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predicted progression. Certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language acquisition and there is a similar natural order in SLA. The implication of natural order is not that second or foreign language teaching materials should be arranged in accordance with this sequence but that acquisition is subconscious and free from conscious intervention.

(3) The Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning. Krashen (1985:3) claims that people acquire language best by understanding input that is a little beyond their present level of competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that ‘comprehensible input’ (that is, i + 1) should be provided. The 'input' should be relevant and 'not grammatically sequenced'. The foreign/second language teacher should always send meaningful messages, which are roughly tuned, and ‘must’ create opportunities for students to access i+1 structures to understand and express meaning. For instance, the teacher can lay more emphasis on listening and reading comprehension activities.

(4) The Monitor Hypothesis

As mentioned before, adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language. The first is ‘acquisition’ which is a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language. The second means is a conscious learning process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process. The ‘monitor’ is an aspect of this second process. It edits and makes alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived. Krashen (1985:5) believes that ‘fluency’ in second language performance is due to ‘what we have acquired’, not ‘what we have learned’: Adults should do as much acquiring as possible for the purpose of achieving communicative fluency. Therefore, the monitor should have only a minor role in the process of gaining communicative competence. Similarly, Krashen suggests three conditions for its use: (1) there must be enough time; (2) the focus must be on form and not on meaning; (3) the learner must know the rule. Students may monitor during written tasks (e.g., homework assignments) and preplanned speech, or to some extent during speech. Learned knowledge enables students to read and listen more so they acquire more.

(5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The learner's emotional state, according to Krashen (1985:7), is just like an adjustable filter which freely passes or hinders input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must be achieved in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with a low affective filter receive more input and interact with confidence. The filter is ‘affective’ because there are some factors which regulate its strength. These factors are self-confidence, motivation and anxiety state. The pedagogical goal in a foreign/second language class should thus not only include comprehensible input but also create an atmosphere that fosters a low affective filter.

The Monitor Model has been criticized by some linguists and methodologists McLaughlin (1987: 56), notes that the model fails at every juncture by claiming that none of the hypotheses is clear in their predictions. For example, he notes that the acquisition-learning distinction is not properly defined and that the distinction between these two processes cannot be tested empirically. Although it is true that some parts of the theory need more clarification, it would be harsh to suggest that the Model is a pseudo-scientific. Hasanbey (personal communication) define acquisition as follows:

"Any systematic linguistic behavior, the rules of which cannot be verbalized by its performer is the outcome of acquisition. So if one uses a specific language rule in proper contexts and if the same person cannot articulate the underlying language rule which determines its proper context, then that person is said to have acquired the rule in question. On the other hand, if a person can verbalize a language rule, with or without its proper implementation during performance then that person is said to have conscious knowledge of that rule. So one might have acquired and learned the same rule in theory."

While writing these very sentences, I have displayed a curious example of committing an error which proves the acquisition-learning distinction. In the statement “Hasanbey (personal communication) define acquisition as follows” the verb define should have an “-s” attached to it. I, as an EFL learner/teacher of English for about 20 years, "consciously" know when to attach that suffix to the verbs. But when it comes to fluent writing and speaking during which only subconsciously acquired rules have a say, I frequently miss that third person singular –s. So I and many other L2 learners who commit this error in spite of knowing the underlying rule at a conscious level, are the irrefutable evidence proving the distinction between acquisition and learning. The on-going interest in Krashen’s theory and the emergence of articles supporting his theory in recent journals also proves that his theory is far from being pseudo-scientific. Here is a typical example:

"Krashen's 'acquisition-learning' distinction has met harsh criticism but the theory he put forward deserves a more sympathetic reappraisal. First of all, the theory is not insulated against falsification. The results of the studies examining the effects of explicit positive and/or negative evidence in formal learning are not inconsistent with it. Recent studies on the acquisition of functional categories lends support to the existence of the natural order in English L2. It is also possible to single out major dimensions on which processes and products of the 'acquired' and 'learned' systems differ using the principles of markedness and differences in computational complexity."(Zobl, 1995:35)

So far eight theories of language acquisition have been discussed (see Appendix I and II for a brief account of other theories and a classification of theories based on the distinction made here). It can be seen that none of the theories is complete and most of them need developing. Each theory, however, is important for their implications and provides invaluable information as to how a language is acquired. and how language teaching should take place.

GO TO PART 1 2 3 4 OR USE THE TABLE OF CONTENTS BELOW:

Language Acquisition Theories:
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development
Skinner’s Verbal Behavior
Piaget’s View of Language Acquisition
Cognitive Theory: The Language Acquisition View
The Discourse Theory
The Speech Act Theory
The Universal Grammar Theory
The Monitor Model
Conclusion
Bibliography
Appendix

The NA HOME

Language Translator

© Vedat Kiymazarslan, 1997-2007

.

Visitors: 50249

Page Updated Thu May 11, 2006 7:26am EDT