Skip to main content
Print this chapterPrint this chapter

Applied Linguistics and Language Acquisition and Development: Theory and Practice

1. Theories of Language Acquisition

First Language and Second Language Acquisition and Development share many commonalities, but there are also important differences. Different theories about First Language Acquisition can be summarized briefly as follows:

Behaviorist theories places primary weight on children imitating what they have heard.  While it is true that some of children’s speech learning is clearly imitative, overall the behaviorist approach provides the least adequate explanation for how first language is acquired. 

The Innatist view (made popular by Noam Chomsky’s cognitive structures theory in the late 1950s and 1960s) presumes the existence of innate, biological mechanisms to account for language acquisition.  The most successful theory of language acquisition takes account of these two views but places primary emphasis on the role of interaction with caregivers, hence it is called the Interactionist perspective.

In the 1960s, Behaviorism produced the audiolingual method with dialogues presented on tapes for students to memorize and repeat. Errors were to be corrected immediately, even if the meaning of a sentence could be understood.  Drill and practice was the preferred approach (sometimes referred to by unhappy students and teachers as “drill and kill”). Research following up on students taught in language laboratories using these methods has confirmed that it is not successful in producing second language competence among its participants. 

While not a totally correct understanding of how first language is acquired, Innatist theories led to emphasis on the use of the second language for relevant communicative purposes, thus following the pattern of language acquisition known to obtain with the first language. Although this theory has flaws, the practice that flowed from it had a positive influence on classroom practice, moving it away from the drill and practice pattern which had been dominant.  The Five Hypotheses proposed by the leading Innatist theoretician and educator (Stephen Krashen, 1982) include the following:

  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 hypothesis (distinguishing between acquisition of a language and learning it.  Acquiring a language is about relevant communication and takes place prior to learning its grammar and organization (morphology and syntax).  Acquisition meant the ability to use the language for communication purposes – even if (in the case of second language learning) the grammar or syntax reflected confusions with the first language.  Learning a language is a formal process carried out in a classroom.

2. The monitor hypothesis, based on the separation of acquisition and learning, proposes that the process of formal learning produces a “monitor” which in a sense watches or monitors the speaker or writer to make sure that correct grammar and usage are produced.

3. Krashen also hypothesized that there was a natural order to the acquisition of the grammatical features or morphemes of a language and, while clearly there are some variations, studies do support this hypothesis:

English morphemes acquired early include:

-ing: verb ending                                Mary is going to the store

-/s/: plural                                          The boys are playing basketball

English morphemes acquired late include:

-/s/: possessive                                  John is going to Ann’s birthday party

-/s/: verb third person singular          She rides her bicycle all over town

4. The input hypothesis argues that both first and second languages are acquired (not learned) as a result of input that is comprehensible to the learner due to various communicative cues (facial expressions, body language, artifacts, pictures, etc.).  The “input” must be just one step beyond the level of competency of the learner.  The speech that emerges is typically not grammatically correct, but it is comprehensible.

5. The affective filter refers to the variables most favorable to both first and second language acquisition: low-anxiety learning environment, student motivation to learn the language, self-confidence, and self- esteem.

Looking back to Module 2: Teaching across Cultures, it is clear that, according to this theoretical perspective, many of the understandings and practices discussed in that section contribute to development of an “affective filter” that will promote second language acquisition.

There is no question that much of value to teachers has come out of the Innatist theoretical framework.  However, further research suggests it is incorrect to suppose that language acquisition will develop naturally through comprehensible input.  In fact, the acquisition/learning distinction – however helpful in eliminating drill and practice pedagogy – ignores the importance of oral and written output in the process of learning to communicate appropriately in a second language. 

Interactionist theory focuses on the conversational opportunities and behaviors of native and non-native speakers. Based on anthropological studies of language learning (both first and second languages) in a variety of settings (home, community, classroom) Interactionists emphasize the ways native speakers adapt to the English-learner (or young child in the case of first language acquisition) in order to be understood. This mutual adaptation is referred to as negotiation of meaning.  In “safe” (see the Affective Filters hypothesis) environments this also allows the language learner to exercise some control over the process and contributes to self-esteem and reduction of anxiety.  Communication is enhanced by gestures, facial expressions, pictures, rewording of sentences, etc. The ideal classroom setting for Interactionist-based Second Language Learning brings native English speakers together with English Language Learners for social interaction aimed at communication.  Errors in second language production are corrected naturally through conversational negotiations between native-speakers and ELLs. It is easy to see how this also encourages the various types of cooperative learning and peer tutoring strategies which will be discussed in subsequent modules. 

Summary of Similarities and Differences between First Language Acquisition and Second Language Acquisition Processes

  • In both processes there are systematic stages of development.
  • First language acquisition displays a number of general characteristics which are common to all mainstream children who have reasonable exposure to the language: acquisition is rapid; there are systematic stages of development; acquisition results from simple contact with naturally occurring tokens of the target language.
  • Second Language Acquisition (unlike first language) not inevitable nor is it rapid (learners may fossilize at different stages of development) and rarely fully successful. The consensus of the research is that it takes a non-native speaker between 6 months and two years to develop Basic Interpersonal (language) Skills (BIC). But it requires at least five years for that same learner to develop Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). In most systems, two years is the time period required prior to early exit from a sheltered bilingual class setting, and five years for late exit.

Note: reading an article by Iranian linguists and TEOFL professionals in an English language research journal the native English speaker can readily discern that the authors, while knowledgeable and comprehensible, are not native English speakers. (See Behazadi, A. and Sayadian, S. 2015).

  • The mental grammars that children develop in 1LA go beyond the information available in the input they get; acquisition is inevitable and successful.
  • For a native speaker, exposure to grammatically correct speech insures the gradual correction and mastery of the rules of a child’s native language. 
  • For the non-native speaker, the development of proficient second language production (CALP), requires formal instruction regarding the rules of the second language output (grammar and syntax).  That is, L2 (SLA or non-native) learners must develop knowledge of the second language beyond what they are exposed to through conversational input.