8 Theories of Second Language Learning

Dr. Kavita Tiwari

 

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a discipline that is a diversified subject. Since, 1960s, SLA research attempts to understand the processes that occur as individuals learn a second language (L2). Acquisition requires natural conversation in the objective language – natural communication – in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding. Since ages, the popular methodology for acquiring the command upon second language was to focus on grammar patterns and sentences construction first and then on diction. However, there has been a remarkable change now towards the recognition, that learning diction can pave for  more success.

A strong base of word power and grammar makes learning of a language and sentence structure easier. The Byki program is based on this concept of building a solid foundation of vocabulary before handling other aspects of the language successfully. Byki is an acronym for “Before You Know It”. This article also focuses on the five principles of effective vocabulary and word power learning described in Joe Barcroft’s Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A mentally approved Lexical Input Processing Approach. following certain guidelines helps make this program the best way to exercise command on vocabulary and ultimately leads to learn a new language.

Specifically, researchers work upon three catagories:

• documenting phenomenon, which happens during the acquisition of a second language;
• explaining these languages acquisition,
• to understand the factors which improve L2 acquisition (Long, 2007).

Second language is closely related to various disciplines including linguistics, neuro-science and education. Second language theories can be studied as an inter disciplinary field. The 70s were dominated by naturalistic studies of people learning English as the second language. By 1900s, the theories of Stephen Khasphen took the prominent form, and were collectively known as Input Hypothesis, but these hypothesis left some important process unexplained in secondary language theories. To fill these gaps researches were made in 1980 which included earners competence and approaches based upon Psychology. The most fundamental of all the  hypotheses in Krashen’s theory is Acquisition-Learning distinction which is the most widely known among linguistic experts and language practitioners.

According to Krashen there are two independent systems of assessment of second language performance: first ‘the acquired system’ and second ‘the learned system’. The ‘acquired system’ or ‘acquisition‘ is the result of a subliminal process which is similar to the process children go through when they get hold of their first language. It requires significant interface in the target language – innate communication in which speakers resolute not in the structure of their utterances, but in the expansive act.

Due to the diversity of SLA research fields, conducted in a number of academic arenas including psychology, linguistics, applied linguistics, cognitive science, neuroscience and education; the fact that academic research is often separated in a way that experts in one field may not pursue the research in another, many theories have been proposed to describe particular aspects of SLA, but no general agreed upon umbrella theory exits (Long, 2007). Moreover new researchers to the field will find a superfluity of terminology originating in different fields that describes the same or similar SLA processes.

There is an abundance of evidence that language acquisition is a developmental process. VanPatten & Williams (2007) in a discussion of SLA theories, proposed ten observations that researchers have widely reported. These include:

• The target language is important.
• Focus on the meaning of utterances makes learners quick.
• Learners produce more output as language than they take as input.
• A learner’s speech output is in a predictable order.
• Learners can develop at variable rates while learning under the same conditions.
• Learner’s competency can vary in multiple areas of language (e.g., strong speaking skills but weak writing skills).
• Sometimes Learners may not learn the frequently used language.
• A learner’s first language plays very powerful role in learning process, and may have a major impact on the acquisition of the second language.
• Instructional effects are limited on the learning capacity of the student. A particular aspect of language which is taught and practiced may not match the student’s intellect.
• Although language production is important, the acquisition of second language is a restricted field.
• Observations propose that, researchers move to the second basic task of SLA research, which isto explain how to acquire language. The answer lies in the fact that researchers have examined the relation between the internal cognitive processes and the external socio-cultural factors.
• 1990s was a year of researches, made in the field of Second language Acquisition and   the  Psychological approaches such as skill acquisition theory and connections were the topics researched widely.

Widely the theories given in this field can be studied as follows:

(1) Semantic Theory–

This theory holds a lot of importance in second language acquisition as meaning is the soul of a language several meanings can be concluded as – Semantic, Lexical, Grammatical and Pragmatic meanings.

•  Semantic Meaning is the word
•  Lexical meaning is stored in our Mental
•  Grammatical Meaning means Morphology, calculating the meaning of a Sentence ex-ed for past
•  Pragmatic Meaning is the meaning that depends on content, for example if someone says – “Hang out with me today” means Move along with me.

(2) Socio cultural Theory – This theory was conceived by wretch is 1985. This theory is the notion that the human brain and its function is always integrated to social and cultural actuaries.

Social internationalist, focused on the here language learners use their linguistic environment to construct their knowledge of Second language Vygotsky Explained the role of social environment on a child is first/learnt socially.

Swain (1990) argued that there is a gap between a Learner’s talk and the knowledge, which is a predisposible act for the menta linguistic activity, which means thinking about the language.

(3) Behaviourist Theory – This theory was given by B. F. Skinner and it widely affected almost all Scientific areas. This theory illustrated that human behavior can be learned through various stimulus and response. This process applies the way people learn language and human behavior Chomsky said that this innate ability to use language as Language Acquisition Device (LAD). He argued that development of cognitive abilities is not same as the ability to learn language. Symbolically and expressively, a child learns the language skill sets as the age of Chomsky Theory focused on generative phonology and transformational grammar.

However, few cognitive Scientists did not agree with chomosky’s LAD hypothesis. They argued humans language acquiring ability as a highly complex cognitive structure. In 1983,R. C. Anderson developed the highly Adaptive control of Thought (AACT) model which argues that intelligence is simply the gathering together and timing up of many small units of knowledge that produce complex thinking. This theory gives hypothesis that all the human knowledge can be either decretive knowledge or Procedural Knowledge.

Dectrorative knowledge is learned rapidly and is stored in long term memory through images and cognition. Procedural Process is complex in which a person learns gradually to do things successfully. The ACT model is enormously complex which in a shell states that learning begins with declarative knowledge and slowly becomes proceduralized.

(4)  Universal Grammar Modal– The UG approach claims that humans inherit a mental language faculty which highly constrains the shape that human languages can take. Children require their first Language easily and speedily, inspite of the fact that It is complex and abstract.

Even if one accepts the view that language development is highly constrained, we need to understand the acquisition of syntax and morphology, lexical acquisition and development of pragmatic and Sociolinguistic theory. In order to know SLA. We need to understand the Language system as well as the procedure to efficiently use this system.

HYPOTHESIS BASED ON SECOND LANGUAGE

(1) Input Hypothesis- When the Learner comes direct into the contact of target language, which is referred as input when this language is processed by Learner in a such a way that it contributes to learning, is referred as intake.

One of the most important factors which affects learning .is the amount of input, learners take. But it must be on the inclusive level. In his input hypothesis, Krashen spoke that language acquisition depends upon learner’s contemporary level of L2 proficiency. According to this input, our brain’s minute part filters out L2 input and creates the input process of L2 a little bit difficult. Input is an indispensable factor in Krashen’s model, but further research was conducted in linguistic area. The Input hypothesis is Krashen’s endeavour to elucidate how a learner acquires a second language. In other words, this supposition is Krashen’s elucidation of how second language acquisition takes it form. So, the Input hypothesis is only apprehensive with ‘acquisition’, and not ‘learning’. As the hypothesis claims, that the learner augments and progresses along the ‘natural order’ when he/she receives second language ‘input’. It can be summarized as a step ahead of his/her existing stage of linguistic proficiency. For example, if a learner is at a phase ‘A’, then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to ‘lucid Input’ that belongs to echelon ‘A+’. In view of the fact that not all of the learners can be at the similar level of linguistic capability at the same time, Krashen suggests the natural communicative input is the solution to scheming a course outline. It ensures this way that every learner will obtain some ‘A + 1′ input that is apposite for his/her current juncture of linguistic aptitude.

Moniter hypothesis- In the speculation of building second language information few thinkers hold that language processing handle different types of knowledge. In 1970s the concept of exploring the ideas of SLA research was to explore the theory of Selinker and corder which refuted behaviorist theory. Bialystok and smith had a distinct explanation of how learners build and used L2 and inter language structures. They emphasized on the language processing ability for two specific kinds of languages. They presented two possibilities of L2 acquisition, first, the grammatical structure and ability to analyze the target language and using it objectively and second to use the L2 linguistic knowledge under time constraint so that they can accurately comprehend input and produce output in the L2 First Possibility is termed as representation and second is called as “control”. They argued that non-native speakers of a language have higher level of representation their native speakers but the control is low. Finally, Bialystok has framed the acquisition of language as an interaction between analysis and control. To under stand the Niles of target language is analysis and acquisition of these rules for the production of language is control As stated by krashen, Monitor is another important concept in the theoretical models of Learner use of L2 knowledge, which further states that monitor is a component of L2 learners language processing device which uses knowledge to regulate the learner’s own L2 production. 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”.

Interaction Hypothesis

Very much alike to krashen’s input Hypothesis, the Interaction hypothesis proposes that comprehensive input is important for language learning and the language acquisition is facilitated the use of the target language in interaction when ever a learner negotiate for a meaning in language, the effectiveness of comprehensible input increases. For example if a learner’s interlocutordo not understand some signs but after negotiating they understand the correct form. If learners give more time to process the input they receive, It will lead better understanding and possibility of acquisition of new language forms. Interaction serves as a way of focusing learner’s attention on the difference b/w the knowledge of target language and the read by what they near.

Output Hypothesis

This theory proposes the concept that for any language learning, meaningful output is equally important as meaningful input. However, no research very strongly recommend this hypothesis. Every theory supports single logic that effective processing of input is more important in language learning.

Noticing Hypothesis 

Role of attention is another characteristic that determines the success or failure of language processing. Richard Schmidt states that although explicit metalinguistic knowledge of a language is not always essential for acquisition, the learner must be aware of L2 input in order to gain from it.[16] Schmidt emphasizes that learners must notice the route in which their inter language structures differ from target norms. This noticing of the gap enables the learner’s internal language processing to reconstruct the learner’s representation of the rules of the L2.

Variability – The Variability that occurs in L2 development, informs of rate of acquisition and outcome did never received required attention. Empirical researches have been carried out but a

(1)    Variability of route

As a matter a fact, L2 learning route is a relatively rigid route, as L1 has an impact upon L2 Learning as the Linguistic structure differs, as transforming their L1 system would lead to acquisition of correct system.

(2)    Variability in rate and outcome-

The rate and process of acquisition of L2 are highly variable Acquisition of L1 is almost similar in all the children while it variable speed and rate for L2 acquisition in similar group.

It is viewed that in some people rate of 2L acquisition is higher how first language. Some Factors such as age can be an important Part in this. Adults and Teenagers have been found better in L2 acquisition where as children carry on progressing until they become indistinguishable from native speakers.

Next important difference b/w L1 and L2 outcome is that native competence is in reference to L1 generally and L2 rarely. This is known as fossilization. In L2 some structures are difficult to acquire in spite of a lot of input which suggests that some aspect of language resist spontaneous acquisition.

To explain the variability in rate and outcome, SLA researchers investigate the role of external factors in the acquisition Process.

First investigation line throws light on the nature of the input and the role of interaction in the learning process, and second line envisions upon the role of variables like intelligence aptitude and attitude. Socio-linguistic variables also play important role. Motivation is widely recognized as a strong variant to learn SLA.

Barcroft’s Five Principles of Effective Second Language Vocabulary Instruction

1.  Present      new      words      frequently      and      repeatedly       in       input.  The more recurrently language learners are open to the elements to overseas terminology; the more probable they are to memorize it. Studies put forward that most  learners  need  between  5-16   ‘meetings’  with  a  word  in  order  to  retain     it. Byki attempts an exceptional job providing this repeated exposure. Every statement and expression must be appropriately recognized numerous times to acquire the premier score, while the diversity of drills and tricks prevents this reiteration from being mind-numbing. Language learners are accustomed to exploit and take pleasure in the curriculum long adequate to bring about an adequate number of ‘meetings’ to command the new glossary.

2.  Use  meaning-bearing  comprehensible  input  when  presenting   new   words. To productively make the association between a distant language word and its denotation for the learners. Meaning must be conveyed in a lucid manner. One technique for the assembly of foreign terms comprehensible and thus promoting expressions  knowledge   is   to   present   every   sound   in   a   multiplicity   of ways. Byki therefore uses a versatile quantity of techniques to make strange language vocabulary unforgettable for language learners. For example, every far-off language expression is presented not only as transcript, but also as auditory, so that lingo learners can hear the accurate articulation as long as they need to fix it in their  psyche.

3.  Limit  forced  output   during   the   initial   stages   of   learning   new   words. To force the language learners to sprint into sentence configuration can impede with terminology learning for the duration of the commencement stages of acquiring a innovative language. As an unconventional way, learners must be given time to take up the meanings of individual words at their individual swiftness before the word are required to be used in a bigger perspective. Language learners who acquire that time are outlying more likely to employ the words appropriately when they have to form sentences. Byki gives speech learners all the time they need to focal point on strange language stipulations.

Progress from less demanding to more demanding vocabulary-related activities. researches prove that language learning is most efficient when learners begin off with a diminutive set of expressions, then progressively append supplementary terms as the initial ones are mastered. Byki takes care of this route robotically, by observance of the track of the expressions that a learner must be working upon and introducing new glossary at the most apposite times. The movements in Byki also steps forward from  easier  to  more  exigent,  allowing  learners  to  gradually  fabricate  their  self- reliance and their capability to construct the foreign tongue.

5. Limit forced semantic elaboration during the initial stages of learning new words.

This program proposes that we should not force the beginning language learners to instantly produce complete sentences. A language curriculum should also evade other types of amplification that might produce negative effects on the learning of new words.  Some  learners  find  it  disturbing  or  perplexing  when  they are  expected to execute additional responsibilities at the similar time when they are trying to commit new words to reminiscence. Studies show that, learners who were supposed to  catalog their poignant relations for distant language stipulations or if they have to count the letters in each foreign term they were learning  had inferior evoke for those lexis words than the learners who resolute just on the words themselves. Byki focuses on creating precise one-to-one relations between the unfamiliar language expressions and their native tongue meanings.

Conclusion

The research and the theories proposed for second language development are unsurprisingly, highly complex, and many factors have been identified as playing their roles .Different ways of presenting structural input have also been explored, with overt form-focused instructions being contrasted with implicit form-focused tutoring.

SLA research is an extremely jaunty field of study which has engrossed much conjectural and pragmatic work during three decades. Notable progress has been made in getting hold of a better perceptive of the processes involved in learning second languages. Although these harmonizing agendas remain less incorporated, still bridges are being built which connect them. Similarly,  the implications of SLA research for teaching pedagogy are now receiving good attention, but much more work vestiges to be completed in these areas.

Reference

• Doughty, C. J. & Long, M.H. (eds.) (2003). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Hawkins, R. (1998). Explaining the Difficulty of French Gender Attribution for Speakers of English. Paper presented at the EUROSLA conference, Paris.
• Hawkins, R. (2001b). The Theoretical Significance of Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research 17, 4:345-67.
• Aljaafreh, A. & J. P. Lantolf (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal 78, 4:465-83.
• Berry, J. W. (1998). Official Multiculturalism. In J. Edwards (ed.), Language in Canada, 84- 101 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Cook, V., & Newson, M. (1996) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Doughty, C. & J. Williams (eds) (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, N. C. & R. Schmidt (1997). Morphology and Longer Distance Dependencies: Laboratory Research Illuminating  the  A  in  SLA. Studies  in  Second  Language Acquisition 19:145-71.
• Flynn, S., G. Martohardjono & W. O’Neil (eds) (1998). The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
• Gallaway,    C.    &    B.    Richards    (eds)    (1994). Input    and    Interaction    in    Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gass, S. (1997) Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Gass, S. & E. Varonis (1994). Input, Interaction and Second Language Production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:283-302.
• Harley, B. (1998). The Role of Focus-on-form Tasks in Promoting Child L2 Acquisition. In C. W. Doughty & J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, 156-174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hernández-Chávez,  E.  (1972). Early Code  Separation  in  the  Second  Language  Speech of Spanish-Speaking  Children.  Paper  presented  at  the  Stanford  Child  Language  Research Forum, Stanford University.