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.

2. Language Used for Social Interaction Versus Language Used for Academic Learning

As previously discussed, there is a distinction between language used for basic social interaction, and language used for academic purposes. Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) are language skills needed for social conversation purposes, that is they can speak English well enough to interact with their peers, talk on the telephone, and negotiate meanings with adults. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) refers to formal language skills, including listening, speaking, reading, and writing, used for academic learning. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency refers to the ability to demonstrate academic competence in the new language orally and in writing at a level commensurate with that of their native-speaking peers. For students with no prior schooling and no primary language support (i.e. neither the student nor members of their family have attended school in their native language) may take as much as seven to ten years to acquire academic skills in their new language. (Thomas & Collier, 2002). In other words, newcomers may need substantial time and educational support to develop English skills necessary for success in school.

In addition to mastery of academic English language terms and sentence constructs, academic language use, whether oral or written, requires a growing reservoir of background knowledge pertinent to any given discipline, along with knowledge of the conventions and structures of oral and written English.

Equally important for students new to English is explicit instruction in socially and culturally appropriate ways of using English, oral and written. At the primary levels, socialization of children into the conventions of sharing, saying “please” and “thank you” is a normal part of the curriculum.  At the upper grade levels, teachers assume that these culturally appropriate speech patterns and behaviors have already been learned. It is frequently assumed that the rules of classroom behavior such as taking turns, talking, listening, and responding to other students and the teacher in appropriate ways have also been learned in the earlier grades.  None of these social/cultural conventions can be taken for granted with respect to the English Language learner.

3. Classroom Practice Implications of Second Language Acquisition Theory

With the demise of Behaviorism as a theory undergirding classroom practice, particularly in the teaching of English as a Second Language, educators need to focus on a) the ability of the student to comprehend what is said, and respond to what is said or asked, without necessarily understanding all the words, b) the ability of the student to make him/herself understood, even if ungrammatically, and c) the negotiations that develop linguistic competence and confidence through interactions with native-English speakers (teachers and fellow students). The strategies that have been shown to be most effective in the classroom include 1) differentiated instruction, 2) scaffolding, and 3) group work of various types (successive modules will delve into each of these areas separately). 

Grade level/classroom organization needs to allow all English Language Learners to develop the content knowledge necessary for Academic English Proficiency, as well as the vocabulary that accompanies it and the grammar of English sentence construction.  This means a combination of inclusion classrooms which encourage interaction-based (negotiated) learning, and sheltered English instruction, whether focused on basic acquisition of English, or on the development of content knowledge. Categorically referred to SDAIE (Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English), SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol) is the most thoroughly researched version of SDAIE and has been shown to be highly effective in bringing English Language Learners to academic proficiency.

To insure Comprehensible Input (see Innatist Theory), such teaching/speaking devices as paraphrasing, repetition of key points, reference to concrete materials, and acting out meanings are some of the ways teachers can provide comprehensible input and convey meaning to English Language Learners.  By pairing verbal and nonverbal channels of communication words and meanings become more accessible, and also form the basis for the learner to construct the new language system for herself.  For example, when a maps, globes, and photographs are used in a geography or social studies lesson, the student has more opportunities to take in and to express the new knowledge.  Similarly the use of diagrams and charts in biology lessons, astronomy, or other science lessons creates additional avenues for learning.

Error correction can be carried out in a sensitive and natural way. It is important to keep in mind that there is a natural progression of mastering the grammatical intricacies and ELLs in the early stages of learning will make grammatical errors that do not affect understanding.  There is no reason, at that stage, to correct those errors.  Vocabulary errors which interfere with comprehension are important because it is through mastery of new verbs and nouns that students improve their comprehension of English conversation and instruction, as well as their ability to express themselves clearly.

For example in a third-grade English language development classroom, the children are playing a board game with the teacher standing nearby. One of the children, a beginning in English says, “I putting the marker on the points.”  The teacher does not try to correct the pronoun or verb usage because it does not interfere with comprehension. She might tell the children that “those are called ‘dots’; you are putting the marker on the dots”.

As a useful guide, error correction for beginning English learners, needs to focus on those words which affect comprehension. These are more likely to be remembered and many of the grammatical issues will sort themselves out as the learner gains self-confidence and engages in more frequent communication activities.

Cultural Competence can be taught through role-playing as a way to help students learn both the language and behaviors appropriate to specific social situations.  These can include meeting new friends at a party, using the telephone, applying for a job (older students), going to the doctor, and most important, asking the teacher for assistance.  Even ways of expressing emotions such as sympathy, gratitude, and enthusiasm are all part of developing communicative (cultural) competence in English.

Readers' Theater Resources:

Busy Teachers Cafe

Readers Theater - ReadWriteThink resource

4. Examples of linguistic theory in classroom situations

Social Context and Pragmatics

A first- grade classroom is responsible for a small flower garden on the grounds of the school.  As the children prepare to go out to the garden, the teacher asks: Who remembers what the flowers need?

The social context is established by default.  The teacher is in charge and most student talk is in response to teacher questions.  This is the structure that is (culturally) expected in classroom settings.  The students know from experience that when this kind of question is asked, they are free to call out their responses. The teacher’s question serves two pragmatic functions: focusing the children’s thoughts on what they need to do in the garden, and reviewing plant knowledge learned recently. So the social context and the purpose/ pragmatics have been established.

How do speech utterances convey meaning?  As an English-speaking adult, the teacher is not thinking about these factors, but they affect how the English language learners (and everyone else) understand what she is saying.  Meaning is conveyed in all languages by the systematic and coordinated use of rules governing sounds, including intonation, pitch, and juncture (phonology), word formation (morphology), and word order (syntax). Each language in the world uses a finite set of sounds that make a difference for meaning: phonemes. Of course different languages follow different rules, but the components of sounds such as intonation, pitch, and juncture (the relationship between one sound and the sounds that immediately precede and follow it e.g. ice cream and I scream) phonology,  word formation (morphology), and word order (syntax) are the rule-governed components of all languages. Each language in the world uses a finite set of sounds that make a difference for meaning: phonemes. For example /p/ and /b/ are phonemes in English because the sound differences make a difference in meaning. 

In the classroom conversation referenced above, the children responded to the teacher that they were going to “pull the weeds.” If they had said “pull the seeds,” varying the response by only one phoneme, it would still make sense but would change the meaning completely, in a way that would be disastrous for the garden! If the children had said “pull the grickl,” they would have used a combination of sounds that is not English at all.  The correctness of their answer is a function of understanding phonology.

Had the children responded with we will “weeds the pull,” they would have made an error of syntax, that is of English rules of word order or syntax.  Alternatively, had they said “pull the weed” instead of “weeds” this would be an issue of morphology because they needed the plural form with the -/s/ suffix to accurately convey meaning.  Prefixes, suffixes, and root words are the building blocks or morphemes from which words are formed and, in all languages, the structure of the linguistic building is governed by rules. All three rule-governed systems - phonology, morphology and syntax - work together simultaneously to help create meaningful sentences.  Native speakers of any language acquire these structures through imitation and interaction. Polishing sophisticated language production comes with schooling. Second language learners need to acquire (and learn) these linguistic components in a variety of ways during their school experience.

References

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S. and Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of universal grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research, 4, 1 32.

Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In J. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.*

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.  and (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (eds) (1986). Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Fry, D. (1977). Homo loquens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.

Meisel, J., Clahsen, H. and Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109 35.

O'Grady, W. (1987). Principles of Grammar and Learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The nature of early child grammars in English. Oxford: Blackwell. *

Sachs, J., Bard, B. and Johnson, M. (1981). Language learning with restricted input: case studies of two hearing children of deaf parents. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 33 54.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Towell, R. and Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 207–227.

 Behazadi, A. and Sayadian, S. (2015) The Relevance of SLA Research to Language Teaching from Teachers‟ Perspective.  International Journal of Educational Investigations Vol.2, No.1: 19-24, 2015, (January) Available online @ http://www.ijeionline.com

Johnson, K. and Johnson H. eds. (1999) A Handbook for Language Teaching. Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998, 1999