Resource Material

The materials in this resource pack

have been selected from a variety of

sources to support the activities in

Session handouts. If you wish to cite

any of this information, please refer to

the bibliography included.

Module 2

Language

Acquisition

Session 1

2 | P a g e

ORDER OF ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................4

1. One-word Stage: .............................................................................................................................................4

2. Two-word Stage: .............................................................................................................................................4

3. Telegraphic Stage: ..........................................................................................................................................4

4. Function-word Stage: .....................................................................................................................................5

Chomsky's Theory on Language Development in Children ........................................................................................6

Biological Inheritance of Syntax .............................................................................................................................6

"Government-Binding" Theory ...............................................................................................................................6

Linguistics as Psychology ........................................................................................................................................6

Chomsky's Theory Challenged ................................................................................................................................7

Cognition vs. Heredity ............................................................................................................................................7

HOW WE LEARN LANGUAGE ......................................................................................................................................8

B.F. Skinner and Early Language Theory ...............................................................................................................8

Chomsky's Criticism of the Behaviorist Approach ................................................................................................8

The Importance of Grammar .................................................................................................................................8

Children Use Grammar to Learn Language during a Critical Period.....................................................................8

CHOMSKYS LAD .........................................................................................................................................................9

Brown's Stages of Language Development ............................................................................................................. 13

Stage I .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Stage II ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Stage III ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Stage IV ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Stage V ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Stage V+ ............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses: ............................................. 15

WHAT IS COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT? ................................................................................................................... 16

Criticisms of Krashen ........................................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 Do children and adults acquire language in the same way? ......................................................................... 19

3.2 The Acquisition-Learning Distinction ............................................................................................................. 20

3.3 The role of input ............................................................................................................................................ 21

3.4 The Natural Order Hypothesis ....................................................................................................................... 23

3 | P a g e

3.5 The Monitor Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................ 24

3.6 Is the Affective Filter necessary? ................................................................................................................... 25

4 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................ 27

Useful Links .............................................................................................................................................................. 28

4 | P a g e

ORDER OF ACQUISITION First language development is a field that researchers only partially understand. Young children have certain innate characteristics that predispose them to learn language, for example, the vocal tract and the ability to understand a number of grammatical principles. Researchers have found a remarkable consistency in the order in early language development of children all over the world. This sequence of development is called order of acquisition.

1. ONE-WORD STAGE: The earliest stage of grammatical development hardly seems like grammar at all, since only single words are involved. Most of the words at this stage seem to have a naming function, but about 20% express actions: mama, dada, cookie, doggie. This stage is most noticeable between 12 18 months.

2. TWO-WORD STAGE: At around eighteen months, vocabulary growth reaches the rate of a new word every two hours that the child will maintain through adolescence. Children also begin to string two or more words together at this age. As soon as two-word utterances are made, they show the target word order:

possessor / possessed - Mommy shoe

actor / action - Daddy sleeping

action / object - Drink milk

noun / location - Ball floor

3. TELEGRAPHIC STAGE: By age 2, spoken vocabulary probably exceeds 200 words. And at this age, many children produce sentences that are three or four words in length, and combine these words in different ways to produce a variety of grammatical constructions. Typically, the child ignores tense and prepositions and focuses on word order. Sentences at this stage include: Mommy go store vs Mommy is going to the store. Him got car vs Hes got a car. Towards the age of 3, there is a major grammatical advance, with the appearance of sentences containing more than one clause: I let go cos it hurted me.

Children can speak in grammatically correct sentences; the most common error is overgeneralization: for example, the child puts a regular suffix, like the past tense -ed, onto a word that forms its past tense in an irregular way (i.e., goed).

5 | P a g e

4. FUNCTION-WORD STAGE: According to numerous studies in first language acquisition, children develop grammatical morphemes, like the third person singular s, or ed for past tenses in a remarkably similar sequence. The following list shows the approximate order of their acquisition:

a. Present Progressive: Mommy running b. Plural s: two books c. Irregular past forms: Baby went d. Possessive s: Daddys hat e. Present tense of be as copula: Annie is a nice girl f. Articles the and a g. Regular past ed: She walked h. Simple present, third person singular -s: She runs i. Present Tense of the verb be as an auxiliary is learned last: He is going.

It is not always easy to describe L2 learning in the classroom because it happens in different ways in

different classrooms. Of course, L2 learning takes place outside the classroom when children or adults

pick up language. In this situation, L2 learning is more similar to L1 learning, except that the learner

often does not get as much exposure to the language as the L1 learner and may not be so motivated to

learn. Another big difference between L1 and L2 learning is that L1 learning is nearly always fully

successful it is.

6 | P a g e

CHOMSKY'S THEORY ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN CHILDREN Are children born with a universal language syntax encoded, as it were, in their DNA ---so that learning to speak

and write is just a matter of fitting the particulars of their language into this template? Or is language acquisition

a more complex and subtle process of learning and thinking? These have been the polarities of a fierce linguistic

controversy set off a half century ago by the publication of Noam Chomsky's "Syntactic Structures." That debate

that still rages today.

BIOLOGICAL INHERITANCE OF SYNTAX Linguist Noam Chomsky challenged old ideas about language acquisition in his first book, "Syntactic Structures,"

published in 1957. He rejects the notion that all language must be learned afresh by each child. Instead.

Chomsky says, normal children everywhere are born with a kind of hard-wired syntax that enables them to grasp

the basic workings of language. The child then chooses the particular grammar and language of the environment

from the available options in the brain.

Thus the capacity for language is a biological inheritance and specific languages are then activated largely

through the child's interaction with the native environment. It's as if the child's brain is a CD player already set

to "play" language; when the CD for a certain language is inserted, that is the language that the child learns.

"GOVERNMENT-BINDING" THEORY Chomsky advanced his "government-binding" theory in a 1981 book in which he says a child's native knowledge

of syntax consists of a group of linguistic principles that define the form of any language. These principles are

connected with parameters, or "switches," triggered by the child's language environment.

Chomsky stresses the importance of the child's genetic inheritance of the syntax imprint. For Chomsky, the

"growth" of language is analogous to the growth of internal organs and arms and legs--determined by internal

mechanisms but nourished by the environment, whether verbal or nutritional.

Chomsky sees language development in the child as a separate aspect of knowledge, apart from the rest of

cognition, or mental functioning.

LINGUISTICS AS PSYCHOLOGY Chomsky says knowing a language is synonymous with the capacity to produce an infinite number of sentences

never previously spoken, and to understand sentences never before heard. This ability is what Chomsky calls the

"creative aspect" of language.

Understanding the mechanics of language elucidates patterns of human thought, and places linguistics within

the realm of psychology. Evidence that children are born with an understanding of syntax is the ease and facility

with which they learn language, according to Chomsky.

7 | P a g e

CHOMSKY'S THEORY CHALLENGED

Chomsky's concept clashes directly with that of behaviorist B. F. Skinner, who espoused the idea that language is

a direct result of conditioning, and with psychologist Jean Piaget, viewed language acquisition as a part of overall

cognitive development in children.

His theory that children use an innate "language acquisition device" to select a grammar from a limited range of

options has come under fire. Chomsky's idea of a "generative grammar" presupposes the brain operates in a

binary fashion, like a computer. Critics say this conflicts with evolutionary anthropology that views language

acquisition as a gradual adaptation of the brain and vocal chords--not a spectrum of binary choices.

COGNITION VS. HEREDITY In the half-century since Chomsky's theory was first proposed, debate about the origins of language has shifted

away from an emphasis on innate capabilities and toward a greater awareness of the role of learning. Language

acquisition is now perceived as a process more complex than binary choices that requires more cognition, or

thinking. (Miskimon)

By Robert Miskimon

http://www.livestrong.com/article/224250-chomskys-theory-on-language-development-in-

children/#ixzz2BMpQ8DZT

8 | P a g e

HOW WE LEARN LANGUAGE

B.F. SKINNER AND EARLY LANGUAGE THEORY Before Chomsky, B.F. Skinner, the founder of Behaviorism, had his own ideas about how children learn language. The school of Behaviorism claims that all behavior is learned and that humans enter the world with no innate abilities. He famously said, "Give me a child, and I'll shape him into anything." With language, Skinner thought, it should be no different. In his 1957 book, Verbal Behavior, he attempted to explain language acquisition as nothing more than association, imitation, and reinforcement. Therefore, according to Skinner, learning a language operates on the same principles that a rat will use to learn a maze or to learn to press a button.

CHOMSKY'S CRITICISM OF THE BEHAVIORIST APPROACH In 1959, Chomsky wrote an article in the journal Language that argued against Skinner's book. A child learns language too quickly for the process to be wholly dependent on such straight-forward learning. Surely language is too complex to be learned one sentence at a time. Where the behaviorists asserted that language learning arises through imitation, children utter sentences that they never would have heard before. For example, a child could say "I don't want to take a bath!" without ever having heard someone else say that sentence. Chomsky's 1987 essay, "Language in a psychological setting" draws a useful metaphor to separate his linguistic theory from the behaviorists'. He compares the behaviorist approach to filling a bottle with water while his view of language acquisition is more like "helping a flower to grow in its own way."

THE IMPORTANCE OF GRAMMAR Grammar, the collection of rules that govern sentence construction, is what allows people to create novel sentences without having heard them before. Using these rules, people can generate and endless number of sentences that make sense. People also use these rules to identify sentences that are ungrammatical. A popular example of a perfectly grammatical sentence used by Chomsky is "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." The sentence makes grammatical sense even though it is virtually meaningless, but arranges the words differently and people easily reject the sentence on the grounds of grammar. "Sleep ideas green colorless furiously."

CHILDREN USE GRAMMAR TO LEARN LANGUAGE DURING A CRITICAL PERIOD Because all languages share common grammatical building blocks (e.g. noun and verbs), Chomsky developed the notion of "linguistic universals." He believed that the human brain is structured in such

9 | P a g e

a way as to understand these common grammars automatically. In the early years of a human life, the brain flips these grammar switches that allow the rapid acquisition of language. The catch is that the human brain only keeps these grammar switches flipped for a few years. This span of time when the switches are on is known as the "critical period," and if a child is not exposed to language during this time, he or she will never be able to develop language normally. The other implication of the critical period is in second-language learning. Because young children are the most biologically adept at learning language, this is the best time in life to learn a second language. At this age, children will easily pick up a number of languages presented at the same time. For adults, because the grammar switches have turned off, it is much more difficult to learn a new language.

CHOMSKYS LAD The language acquisition device or LAD as it is better known is theoretically a device or section in the brain that helps assimilate language and its varying complexities. It was first proposed by Noam Chomsky to explain the seeming ease at which children pick up language with minimal input and almost no formal training. The LAD is a concept that supports the nativist theory of language. According to nativisim there are certain abilities that are inherent in a human being. Language is supposed to be one of those skills. During the time that it was proposed it was in direct contrast to B.F. Skinners theory of behavioral psychology, which emphasized the learning of a language to be based on the principles of imitation and classic operant conditioning and gave minimum importance to the biological or innate aspects that may be present. In 1965 Chomsky set out to understand the way children acquire language. The acquisition takes place with minimal input (primary linguistic data PLD), incorrectly used words (parents will frequently use short, partial sentences often spoken in a totally different way) and no particular structure to the sentences being spoken. To answer these questions Chomsky postulated the following: 1. There must be a method of understanding input signals 2. There must be a method of presenting the structural information about them 3. The child already knows the rules and the structure of human language 4. The child already knows how to apply these rules and structures with respect to each

sentence All of the above allows the child to select the appropriate structures and rules to the primary linguistic data (PLD).

10 | P a g e

Using the above observations, the basis for LAD was defined by Chomsky. According to Chomsky LAD is supposed to progress through the following stages: 1. LAD searches within the language structures and selects the various possible grammar that is

compatible with the PLD 2. LAD tests for compatibility, on the basis of the known implications of each grammatical structure

for the sentences 3. One grammar is selected as compatible with the PLD 4. The grammar is used to interpret the input sentences. This has the capacity to represent structural

information and applying grammar to the sentences

Through this process of language acquisition a child knows a lot more about the language than what has been learned in the classic sense. The child acquires knowledge about the language which is far more than the PLD. It is also the view by some people that LAD stops at a certain age and becomes unavailable thereafter.

11 | P a g e

ASSIMILATION AND ACCOMMODATION

Assimilation and Accommodation are the two complementary processes of Adaptation

described by Piaget, through which awareness of the outside world is internalized. Although one

may predominate at any one moment, they are inseparable and exist in

a dialectical relationship. The terms are also used to describe forms of knowledge in Kolbs elaboration of the cycle of experiential learning.

In Assimilation, what is perceived in the outside world is incorporated into the internal world

(note that I am not using Piagetian terminology), without changing the structure of that internal

world, but potentially at the cost of "squeezing" the external perceptions to fit hence pigeon-holing and stereotyping.

If you are familiar with databases, you can think of it this way: your mind has its database already

built, with its fields and categories already defined. If it comes across new information which fits into those fields, it can assimilate it without any trouble.

In Accommodation, the internal world has to accommodate itself to the evidence with which it

is confronted and thus adapt to it, which can be a more difficult and painful process. In the

database analogy, it is like what happens when you try to put in information which does not fit the

pre-existent fields and categories. You have to develop new ones to accommodate the new information.

12 | P a g e

In reality, both are going on at the same time, so thatjust as the mower blade cuts the grass, the grass gradually blunts the bladealthough most of the time we are assimilating familiar material in the world around us, nevertheless, our minds are also having to adjust to accommodate it. (Atherton, 2011)

Atherton J S (2011) Learning and Teaching; Assimilation and Accommodation [On-line: UK] retrieved 23 March

2013 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/assimacc.htm

13 | P a g e

BROWN'S STAGES OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

STAGE I Early in stage 1, from 12 months of age to 26 months, children will be able to connect the agent with an

action and an action with an object; for example, they can say dad walk, give ball. A simple no is used for

negation. For a series of objects they just name them, without using connectors. From 22 months of age to 26

months, the late part of Stage I, they can form complete subject-verb-object sentences, use no and not

interchangeably, connect words with and, while learning the present progressive -ing, to say Mom cooking, for

instance. Prepositions in and on also appear.

STAGE II The second stage occurs between 27 and 30 months of age, when children learn the meaning and how to

use gonna, wanna and other embedding. Copula start appearing, as well as don't and can't in negative

sentences, while the negative element is placed between the subject and the predicate. In interrogative

sentences, an early inversion makes its appearance, in what and where sentences. Children will have learned

how to use in and on prepositions, while during this stage, they will start using regular plurals, as well as

irregular past, such as fell and ran.

STAGE III Between the age of 31 and 34 months, children will start using the auxiliary verbs both in declarative and

interrogative questions. In addition, auxiliary verbs will appear with copula in the later parts of the stage.

Children will start using conjunctions such as if, so, or and but. Won't will start appearing in negative sentences.

Possessives, articles and regular past should have been used regularly by kids at this stage.

STAGE IV During the fourth stage, between 35 and 40 months of age, double auxiliary verbs will appear in declarative

sentences. Children will use such verbs in negative sentences too, while adding isn't, aren't, doesn't and didn't to

their vocabulary. In interrogative sentences, they will be able to invert the copula and subjects in polar (yes/no)

questions, as well as do the auxiliary verb --- subject inversion. When and how will also appear in answers.

Embedded why questions and infinitive phrases at the end of sentences will also appear, as well as because, to

express cause and effect.

STAGE V Between 41 and 46 months of age, the indirect object will make its appearance in sentences. Children will

start using wasn't, wouldn't, couldn't and shouldn't. Tag questions will start appear, such as "He is tall, isn't he?"

Children will start using relative clauses to connect very simple sentences, while three clause declaratives will

appear. By now the regular third person and the irregular third person will be easily used.

14 | P a g e

STAGE V+ After the age of 4, children will add the indefinite forms nobody, nothing, none and no one in negative

sentences, but will still have problem with double negatives. Gerunds will also appear during this stage, as well

as embedding and conjoining within the same sentence. Kids will also extend the use of clausal conjoining in

their speech. In addition, contractible auxiliary, such as dad's sleeping, will be widely used by children of this

age. (Vossos, 2011)

http://www.ehow.com/info_7907581_browns-stages-language-development.html#ixzz2CDvgRKYU

15 | P a g e

KRASHEN'S THEORY OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION CONSISTS OF FIVE

MAIN HYPOTHESES:

The Acquisition-Learning hypothesis, The Monitor hypothesis, The Natural Order hypothesis, The Input hypothesis, The Affective Filter hypothesis.

The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of all the hypotheses in Krashen's theory

and the most widely known among linguists and language practitioners. According to Krashen there

are two independent systems of second language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned

system'. The 'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to

the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires meaningful interaction

in the target language - natural communication - in which speakers are concentrated not in the form of

their utterances, but in the communicative act. The 'learned system' or 'learning' is the product of

formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about'

the language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. According to Krashen 'learning' is less

important than 'acquisition'.

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the 'monitor' or the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting function when three specific conditions are met: that is, the second language learner has sufficient time at his/her disposal, he/she focuses on form or thinks about correctness, and he/she knows the rule. It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is - or should be - minor, being used only to correct deviations from 'normal' speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance. Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor' appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-use of the 'monitor'.

The Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend

16 | P a g e

to be acquired early while others late. This order seemed to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the agreement between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.

The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second language. In other words, this hypothesis is Krashen's explanation of how second language acquisition takes place. So, the Input hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.

Finally, the fifth hypothesis, the Affective Filter hypothesis, embodies Krashen's view that a number of 'affective variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.

WHAT IS COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT?

A critical concept for second-language development for students with and without learning difficulties

is comprehensible input. Comprehensible input means that students should be able to understand

the essence of what is being said or presented to them. This does not mean, however, that teachers

must use only words students understand. In fact, instruction can be incomprehensible even when

students know all of the words. Students learn a new language best when they receive input that is just

a bit more difficult than they can easily understand. In other words, students may understand most,

but not all, words the teacher is using.

Making teacher talk comprehensible to students goes beyond the choice of vocabulary and involves

presentation of background and context, explanation and rewording of unclear content, and the use of

effective techniques such as graphic organizers. By using context or visual cues, or by asking for

17 | P a g e

clarification, students enhance their knowledge of English. When input is comprehensible, students

understand most aspects of what is required for learning, and the learning experience pushes them to

greater understanding.

One way teachers can ensure that material is sufficiently comprehensible is to provide relevant

background knowledge and content. Teachers should try to explain ideas or concepts several times

using slight variations in terminology and examples.

Comprehensible input is related to more than just language development and curriculum content.

Appropriate context is crucial. One way for teachers to be sensitive to the language and cultural

backgrounds of their English-language learners with learning difficulties is to provide instruction that

draws on the experiences of their students. This does not mean that teachers have to be experts in

their students' cultures, but they do have to understand how effective it can be to connect students'

learning to their past experiences. Such understanding can often be gained by listening carefully and

attentively to students.

Many other techniques can be used to increase the likelihood that students will understand what is

being said to them, such as the use of consistent language, frequent use of visuals, and providing

frequent opportunities for students to express their ideas. Comprehensible instruction requires that

teachers carefully control their vocabulary and use graphic organizers, concrete objects, and gestures

when possible to enhance understanding. It is important to limit the length and number of lecture-type

presentations.

During instructional dialogs, the focus should be primarily on accuracy of content, not rigid

requirements associated with correct language use. Spending time defining, discussing, and clarifying

vocabulary words unlikely to be familiar to the students prior to reading a passage has demonstrated

consistently positive effects on reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension for students with

learning, speech, and language disabilities.

To continually modulate and clarify the language of instruction, teaching must also be highly

interactive. Teachers must constantly involve students, ask many questions, and encourage students

to express their ideas and thoughts in the new language. One strategy for motivating students is to

give them opportunities to share their language, culture, country, and experiences. Opportunities to

use language orally create, in turn, opportunities to increase receptive language skills.

Students need to be given more opportunities in the classroom to use oral language and to engage in

cognitively challenging tasks. Cooperative learning and peer tutoring strategies have the potential to

18 | P a g e

effectively and rapidly increase English-language development, particularly when working with highly

decontextualized and cognitively challenged language concepts.

For older students, expressing ideas orally can be risky in some classrooms. The use of dialog journals,

even computer journals, with feedback from the teacher, can become a more comfortable vehicle for

English language development.

In conclusion, it is important to realize that comprehensible input is as much an ideal as it is an

achievable reality. In teaching English-language learners with learning difficulties, we can attempt to

reach this ideal level of support and challenge, but in the context of complex and fast-paced classroom

interactions, it may rarely be achieved as much as we would like. Nonetheless, this is a critical principle

as you develop an instructional program for each English-language learner.

CRITICISMS OF KRASHEN

Krashen has been criticized on several grounds. Criticism covers both the way his theory is

constructed and the evidence he uses to support it. The disagreement Krashen provokes is

extensive and even extends to how various writers classify his theory. This difference in

classification is interesting in so far it indicates the authors perception of the key element in

Krashens ideas. For example, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) classify it as a nativist theory due

to the reliance of his explanation of acquisition on a biologically given language acquisition device.

Cook (1991) sees it as a mixed model relying both on innate faculties and language processing

abilities.

Returning to Larsen-Freeman and Long, they make the following comment about constructing

theories; Thus, whereas every hypothesis much be testable, this is not true of every statement in a

theory, provided it is of a causal-process form. A theory remains falsifiable as long as parts of it are

testable and all untestable parts are related to testable ones.

For them this causes a problem with Krashens theory of acquisition as it relies on constructs

(i, i +1 and the Affective Filter) that cann ot themselves be tested. They conclude; Monitor

Theory, that is to say, is untestable, and so unfalsifiable, in its post- 1980 formulation. Ellis

(1990) is perhaps less charitable in his comment; The input hypothesis is a bucket full of holes.

Other commentators have suggested that aspects of Krashens ideas are metaphors, however,

Cook (1993) notes that metaphors and metaphorical models have a role to play in understanding

the world and suggests at this level Krashen has made a contribution

19 | P a g e

3.1 DO CHILDREN AND ADULTS ACQUIRE LANGUAGE IN THE SAME WAY? One assumption that occurs in Krashens work is the basic similarity between first and second

language acquis it ion . This has been disputed by Bley-Vroman (1989) and Schachter

(1988). Bley-Vroman proposes The Fundamental Difference Hypotheses. He puts forward the

proposal that children have a system for acquiring language that has two parts. The first part

includes a possible grammar such as Universal Grammar and the second a set of language specific

learning procedures. In contrast adults have their native language knowledge and general problem

solving skills. For Schachter the question then becomes one of specifying what is innate and what

aspects of language can be learned by cognitive systems not designed for language.

Some reasons for advocating this basic division between child first language learners and adult

second language learners are explored in Schachter who bases her claim of difference on four main

issues. They are:

1) COMPLETENESS

2) EQUIPOTENTIALITY

3) PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE

4) FOSSILIZATION

By completeness she refers to the state of mastery adults normally acquire in their first language.

While there may be differences in verbal behavior between two adults speaking their first

language, the differences would not be of the degree to say that one speaker was not a native

speaker. However, she suggests adults learning a second language rarely if ever reach this stage.

Equipotentiality refers to the fact that a child first language learner is equally capable of learning

any first language. In contrast, the ease with which adults can learn a second language is

influenced by the relationship of their first language to their target language. This is taken as an

indication that adults do not access the same mechanism as children do.

Previous knowledge of L1 also influences L2 production in a way that cannot always be blamed on

an absence of L2 knowledge. Schachter also poses the question why children do not appear to

fossilize, that is retaining earlier acquired developmental linguistic forms, yet adults do. It should

be noted Krashen (1985) offers an explanation for fossilization in terms of his theory. This issue is

not resolved but as long (1990) points out the differing success of children and adults can be

theorized in two ways. Either there are different mechanisms as argued by Bley-Vroman or

20 | P a g e

different access to the same mechanisms. Krashen takes the latter option in his proposal for an

affective filter. The success of his argument for an affective filter is discussed below in 3.6

3.2 THE ACQUISITION-LEARNING DISTINCTION At this stage it is useful to ask as Gregg (1989) does But what is it that is acquired when one has

acquired a language?

According to Gregg, it is linguistic knowledge that is acquired. This is qualified by the statement

that some of this knowledge would be innate. What flows from restricting acquisition to

linguistic knowledge is a further distinction between competence and performance.

Competence is seen as linguistic knowledge whereas performance is seen as learner

behavior. The relationship between competence and performance is problematic. One

cannot be directly inferred from the other. Gregg gives the example of knowing the rules of chess

without being able to play it. Thus observed behavior is not reliable as evidence of competence.

Second language acquisition, however, is not only interested in what is acquired, the product, but

how it is acquired, the process.

Conceptualizing language acquisition as a process of change means how learners move from being

monolingual speakers to bilingual or even multi-lingual learners has to be explained. In doing so I

have found the diagram below helpful. Each of the boxes represents a learners position

regarding the acquisition of particular knowledge.

Diagram 1

1

You dont know you

dont know

4

You dont know you

know 2

You know you dont

know

3

You know you know

Box 1 represents an initial position where a learner knows nothing about what has to be learnt.

Box 2 represents a position where the learner realizes that something is unknown, for example, the

grammar of conditional sentences. Box 3 represents a position of having both explicit and implicit

knowledge of conditional sentences. Box 4 represents position where something has become

acquired; a learner has knowledge available for automatic use but is not able to describe that

knowledge. They may have knowledge of various conditional sentence forms but have forgotten the

21 | P a g e

types. In examining how learners move from one box to another we can return to Krashen. Box 1

is a steady state and could continue indefinitely. Movement to Box 4 is accomplished by input and

the help of a language acquisition device. Movement is direct with no necessity to pass through

Boxes 2 or 3. Acquisition is incidental or unconscious and caused by input. This still leaves us with

Boxes 2 and 3. What causes movement from Box 1 to Box 2? Or Box 2 to Box 3? In terms of logical

possibilities a learner in Box 2 could a) give up b) use existing linguistic resources or strategies c)

try and find out more knowledge. There is no automatic progress assumed between the boxes. Is

Krashen correct in his assertion of no interface between learning and acquisition (Boxes 3 and 4 in

the diagram)?

In exploring the role of input below, some of the possible causes of movement are examined.

3.3 THE ROLE OF INPUT As previously stated the Input Hypothesis proposes that acquisition takes place through

comprehensible input. Krashen lists the following sources of evidence to support this idea.

1) Caretaker speech - People responsible for looking after children tend to talk simpler in order to

be understood. This speech is not strictly graded but roughly tuned to the childs leve l . A

further difference is that talk is generally limited to the childs surroundings which also helps

make it comprehensible to the child.

2) Simple codes- By this he refers to teacher and foreigner talk where utterances are modified in

order to help comprehension.

3) The silent period - Often children who go to a new country and acquire the target language

there go through a period of not talking. According to Krashen (1985) it is not unusual for this

period may last six months.

4) The limited contribution of L1 - Learners may outperform their competence by using an L1

rule before learning the appropriate L2 rule. However, the L1 rule and the L2 rule may differ

resulting in error. This situation can only be resolved by further acquisition.

5) Method comparison research - He suggests methods emphasizing input have been more

successful (1982) and also stresses the success of immersion and sheltered language teaching (1985).

In reviewing the evidence that comprehensible input causes acquisition Ellis (1994) suggests the

relationship may be one of correlation. There is a co-occurrence of acquisition with caretaker

22 | P a g e

talk, for example, but this does not demonstrate how caretaker results in acquisition. He further

argues that the process of comprehension needs to be more carefully defined.

If learners can rely extensively on top-down processing they may pay little attention to the form of

the input and therefore not acquire anything new.

White (1987) also criticizes the input hypothesis for its lack of precision and makes proposals

how it could be changed. She sees it as important to accept Krashens emphasis of defining

acquisition in learner terms. Krashen states that teachers should not try to manipulate input to the

learners level because they do not know the learners current level. White uses this claim to

criticize Krashens assumption that simplified input is important for acquisition. She states;

Indeed, one might argue that many forms of simplified input would result in i - 1, rather than i + 1!

In reviewing how input brings about change she suggests understanding new structures through

context is not the only way change occurs. The trigger for change may be the result of the

learner using their current linguistic knowledge to make sense of utterances. In both cases it is

incomprehensible input that acts as a stimulus to change rather than comprehensible input. She

illustrates the processes with examples of how the passive might be acquired.

Taking the sentence The book was read by John the learner is able to use their knowledge

of the world to understand the meaning. The learner knows that books do not read and that people

read books. Thus they can be expected to infer the meaning of the sentence even if initially

puzzled by the structure. Referring back to Section 3.2 Diagram 1 input would have prompted a

move from Box 1 to Box 2 with the learner using their linguistic sources in an attempt to move from

Box 2 to Box 3. In a second example, John was hit, the learner could use their linguistic

knowledge to try and understand the utterance. White suggests;

When a sentence like John was hit is heard, something must be interpreted as the obligatory

theme of the verb.

White assumes that in acquiring the word hit the learner also acquired some knowledge that it is

followed by a direct object. They thus are able to infer the object has moved to the right of the

verb. This shows the importance of paying attention both to the semantic and grammatical

properties of lexical items. (At this point while I accept the process described I think she is unduly

optimistic with her use of must. My students would probably make the mistake of relatingthe

structure to John was ill and find the structure John was hit unremarkable. An example such

23 | P a g e

as The chair is broken might provoke interest because is would be seen as present and

broken would be seen as past. If learner perceptions of grammar were explored, it might be

possible to identify where guidance in grammar would be helpful. )

White sees the trigger for change coming from attempts by the learner to process input. Swain

and Lapkin (1995) see the possibility of change coming from attempts by the learner to process

output. They state Noticing a problem pushes the learner to modify his/her output. p. 372

Citing Nobuyoshi and Ellis (1993)3, Swain and Lap kin ref er to the need both to acquire forms and

acquire the ability to use this knowledge accurately. It can be inferred from this th at practice has a

role to play in acquisition. Krashen (1985) denies a role for output a s s e r t i n g that acquisition is

subconscious and does not require production. Acquisition, however, is not the only process

available to the learner. The act of noticing would be a conscious process implying that it is, if

Krashens distinction is accepted, learning. Thus output may be influencing the conscious learning

process rather than unconscious acquisition. As a language learner myself, I find the processes by

White and Swain and Lapkin intuitively appealing. I have noticed both the process described by

White and that described by Swain and Lapkin occurring.

While the descriptions above offer accounts of movement from boxes 1 to 2 and to 3, movement

from 3 to 4 is still not described. According to the Andersons (1980) cognitive theory of

learning cited in OMalley and Chamot (1990), extensive practice is one way for this to happen.

3.4 THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS The distinction between competence and performance made earlier lies at the basis of criticisms

of the morpheme studies that suggest an order of development to acquisition.

Widdowson (1990) sees the morpheme studies providing evidence for an accuracy order in

performance p.17 He goes on to say; Accuracy has to do with behavior, acquisition has to with

knowledge. p. 20. He rejects performance as an indicator of competence. Other people have

criticized the morpheme studies on methodological grounds suggesting the method employed

to elicit data (the Bilingual Syntax Measure) may have caused the correlation (Hakuta and Cancino,

1977 cited in Ellis, 1994:106). Larsen - Freeman and Long in their criticism add that there is no

explanation offered of the morpheme orders. Writing by herself Larsen-Freeman (1978) remarks on

the correlation between the order of accuracy of morpheme production by ESL learners and

their frequency of occurrence in native speaker speech. From this she suggests the need to

consider the possibility of a stimulus - response mechanism operating and the importance of

examining the input the learner receives.

24 | P a g e

Not all researchers are so critical. Zobl (1995) lists developmental orders as occurring in other

structures. These include interrogative structures, negation, relative clauses, control structures,

pronouns, and word order in main and embedded clauses. He suggests this uniformity su pp orts

b ot h th e n at ura l ord er hypothesi s an d the acqu is i t ion -learning distinction. Thus

uniformity is a key ingredient in motivating the existence of a language -specific module.

Discussion o v e r acquisition-learning distinction and developmental sequences of acquisition

has resulted in a closer examination of the role of grammar in organizing a syllabus. Ellis (1993)

argues that a structural syllabus has a role as a basis for facilitating intake through the

comprehension of specific grammatical items p.105. Grammar could be taught with the aim of

aiding comprehension but not immediate production. His survey of research leads him to be more

optimistic about grammar instruction. He concludes that grammar instructions can increase the

rate of learning and increase accuracy. The grammar instruction should be appropriate to the

learners stage of development. White (1987) comments on the limitations of input in

immersion programs and also suggests a role for grammar instruction in fine tuning.

3.5 THE MONITOR HYPOTHESIS

The Monitor Hypothesis refers to the use of conscious knowledge in production in order to correct

or control utterances. Suggestions when to teach for Monitor uses are made in Krashen and

Terrell (1983). For example, being able to check their own work is particularly relevant for

my students who are learning English for academic purposes. They would have time in their

written assignments to use their Monitor. Encouraging self and peer correction in class is a

technique many teachers now use. This does not mean the teacher abandons error correction but

rather uses occasions to train or guide students in what to correct. Teaching simple

straightforward grammar rules is sensible advice and can limit the area the student is expected to

correct as well. Checklists are also a way of guiding checking and ensuring realistic monitoring takes

place. One could also argue that peer correction is a means of increasing comprehensible input as

students peers are likely to produce language at a level understandable to other students.

At the level of theory, however, there are problems with Krashens hypothesis. McLaughlin

(1987) argues that is difficult to show evidence of Monitor use and says it is untestable. He makes

the point;

People have rules for language use in their heads, but these rules are not those of the

25 | P a g e

grammarian. People operate on the basis of informal rules of limited scope and validity. These rules

are sometimes conscious and sometimes not, but in any given utterance it is impossible to

determine what the knowledge source is.

The restriction of the Monitor to second language users by Krashen raises the question of how the

Monitor functions in f i r s t language learners. Does it exist? Are first language learners more

efficient Monitor users? The restrictions Krashen places on the conditions on Monitor use for

second language users might lead one to suggest second language learners need to use their

Monitor more efficiently. Morrison and Low (1983) comment that the effect of Krashens

conceptualization has been monitoring now tends to be seen as a superficial artifact of classroom

instruction rather than a deep-seated ability on which a l l language abi l ity depends . They

posit a broader descript ion of monitoring including a possible role in acquisition and

explaining variable performance. Monitoring may help settle conflicts in the rules of a learners

grammar as described by White above.

3.6 IS THE AFFECTIVE FILTER NECESSARY? Anxiety consumes cognitive resources according to Gardner and MacIntyre (1992). They cite their

own research (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989)6 to support this and it might be seen as being

consistent with Krashens claim (1982) that the effect of affect is outside the language

acquisition device proper. One of the consequences of this is the need to create a classroom

atmosphere where anxiety is low. This is a practical suggestion which many teachers follow in

attempting to a communicative classroom. At the level of theory, however, again there are

problems. Cook (1993) points to the paradox of using the Affective Filter to explain the differences

in second language acquisition. Children acquiring their first language do so with any blocks from a

filter and he asks why adults using the same process should be affected. Krashen states there is

a strengthening of the affective filter around puberty. If this was accepted, the inference would

be that starting to learn a language as a teenager would be a bad idea. But evidence cited by

McLaughlin (1987) does not support the proposal. In fact it suggests early adolescence is the

best time to start learning a second language. In his evaluation McLaughlin rejects the

Affect ive Filter Hypothesis saying Krashen has provided no coherent explanation for the

development of the affective filter and no basis for relating the affective filter to individual

differences in language learning.

4 CONCLUSION From the review of Krashens critics it can be seen that there are many questions about his theory.

Part of any assessment of his work would have to consider that while there are questions about his

26 | P a g e

theory he has challenged others to come up with better explanations for the phenomena he

observed. His terminology, although challenged, also appears to have a wide currency. His

emphasis on language acquisition and that Acquisition takes time(Krashen,1982:187) is also

salutary for the teacher driven by the coursebook or syllabus. In my introduction I suggested that

one of attractive features of Krashens ideas was their comprehensive nature. It is possibly one

source of his flaws. He tries to explain too much in a single model. Some researchers such as Gregg

(1989) recognize the difficulty of trying to account for all the variables in second language

acquisition and argue for a modular approach to the study of second language acquisition.

What conclusions can be drawn for teaching practice? Certainly, taking Krashens theory I concur with Ellis (1990) that there is more to teaching than comprehensible input. Krashens teaching proposals, however, can be evaluated more positively MacLaughlin (1987), perhaps one of Krashens strongest critics, comments:

This is not to say that Krashen is wrong in his prescriptions about language teaching. Many researchers working in the field agree with him on basic assumptions, such as the need to move from grammar-based to communicatively orientated language instruction, the role of affective factors in language learning, and the importance of acquisitional sequences in second language development.

The uncertainty mentioned at the beginning of the essay remains. In looking at specific classroom practice, it is instructive to return to Widdowson (1990);

The pedagogic relevance of research outside the classroom can only be realized by research inside the classroom. (Fry, 2004)

27 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY Atherton, J. S. (2011). http://www.learningandteaching.info. Recuperado el 23 de March de 2013, de

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/assimacc.htm

Fry, C. (01 de October de 2004). http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa. Recuperado el 23 de March de 2013, de

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/PYP/cfry/M4KRASH.pdf

Miskimon, R. (s.f.). Recuperado el 23 de March de 2013, de http://www.livestrong.com/article/224250-

chomskys-theory-on-language-development-in-children/#ixzz2BMpQ8DZT

Vossos, T. (2011). http://www.ehow.com. Recuperado el 23 de March de 2013, de

http://www.ehow.com/info_7907581_browns-stages-language-development.html#ixzz2CDvgRKYU

REFERENCES Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition London: Macmillan Press Ellis, R. (1990)

Instructed Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd

Ellis, R. (1993) The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition in TESOL Quarterly 27(1) pp.91-113

Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gardner, R.C. & MacIntyre (1992) A students contribution to second language learning. Part 1: Cognitive Variables Language Teaching 25, pp. 211-20

Krashen, S.D.(1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning Oxford: Pergamon Press

Krashen, S.D.(1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition Oxford:Pergamon Press

Krashen, S.D. (1985) The Input Hypothesis Harlow: Longman Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T (1983) The Natural Approach New York:Pergamon Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978) An explanation for the morpheme accuracy order of learners of English

as a Second Language. in Hatch, E.M. Second Language Acquisition Rowley: Newbury House Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research

Harlow:Longman Long, M. (1990) The Least a Second Language Theory Needs to Explain TESOL Quarterly, 24:649

666 reprinted in Brown, H.D. & Gonzo, S (1995) Readings on Second Language Acquisition New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents

McLaughlin, B. (1987) Theories of Second-Language Learning London Edward Arnold Morrison, D. &Low, G. (1983) Monitoring and the second language learner in

OMalley, J.M. & Chamot, A. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Richards, J.R. & Schmidt, R.W. (eds) Language and Communication Harlow: Longman Pincas, A (1996)

28 | P a g e

Memory in Foreign Language Learning Modern English Teacher Vol.5 No.4, pp. 9-17 Schachter, J. (1988) Second Language Acquisition and Its Relationship to Universal

Grammar Applied Linguistics 9(3),pp. 219-235

USEFUL LINKS Behaviorist Theory and Language Learning

http://www.efdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/19883MEHMET%20DEM%C4%B0REZEN.pdf

Child Language Acquisition Theory

http://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/chomsky/