The NA Home
Overview
The Natural Approach
Application
 From Theory to Practice
How to Apply the Approach
How We Applied It
Treatment of Errors
Theory
Language Acquisition Theories
LA Theories (Part 2)
LA Theories (Part 3)
LA Theories (Part 4)
Computers and L2 Acquisition
CALL and Acquisition
Computer Supported Learning
The Role of Innate Knowledge
Innate Knowledge in L1 and L2
Plato and Chomsky
Domain Specific or General
Piaget and Skinner
Nativism
Wanna Contraction
Universal Grammar
Turkish Learners
Summary
The Role of Receptive Skills
From Reception to Production
Studies
Experimental Design
Leisure Time Activities
Conclusion
Online Sources
The Internet TESL Journal
TESOL Articles Online
TESL EJ
English Proficiency Plus
EFLWEB Magazine
Hands on English
NCLEnotes
CALL Journal
Teach English
Other TESL/TEFL Web Sites
Ellidokuzoglu on Krashen
Educational Technology
Krashen and SLA Theories
NCLE Eric Digests
Multilingual Research Center
EL Easton
Library
NCLE Publications
Language Education Associates
ALI Applied Linguistics Index
Books
Articles in Turkish
Temel Prensipler
Edinme - Ögrenme
Dil Edinim Cihazi
Dil Bilgisi
Edinimi Hizlandirma
Yeni Yuzyilda Dil Ogretimi
|
 |
| A DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES |
| Vedat Kiymazarslan |
PART IV
III. CONCLUSION
The most important implication of language acquisition theories is obviously the fact that applied linguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the acquisition of a language not only as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. In addition, only when we distinguish between a general theory of learning and language learning can we ameliorate the conditions L2 education. To do so, applied linguists must be aware of the nature of both L1 and L2 acquisition and must consider the distinction proposed in this study.
Ridgway (2000, 13) notes that the educational linguist (not the applied linguist) is a practitioner who applies and adapts the policies of others in the classroom creatively. If the educational linguist is to adapt language models proposed by others (applied linguists) for classroom practice, it becomes more important “how” he or she will adopt them. How, for instance, should s/he utilize the findings of SLA studies conducted on syntax or natural order and use them for his or her particular classroom settings? How should grammar points be handled? Should they be taught inductively or deductively? Or should there be a balance between grammar lessons and acquisition lessons just as proposed by the proponents of the Monitor Model? How should vocabulary teaching be like and how should a syllabus be designed? How will the results of language planning proposed by the government be implemented? Most of these “how” questions can be answered properly only through a detailed analysis and a thorough understanding of language acquisition theories.
Here, on the shoulders of the methodologists lays quite a heavy responsibility. As we often see, linguistics and TEFL/TESL are largely based on the nurturist facet of language acquisition, emphasizing discourse and ethnolinguistic studies. It would, of course, be unwise to deemphasize such studies and their role in accounting for language acquisition and reaching a possible theory of educational linguistics. However, in this article it has been shown that language acquisition is also a considerable matter of innate factors. What is then the role of that “nature” part of theories in the overall sketch of language acquisition and methodology?
In addition, the author wishes to emphasize the necessity of the subfield “educational psycholinguistics”. In Stubbs’ point of view (1986:283), a thorough description of language in use, language variation, levels of language such as phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics and discourse will form the bases of a complete educational theory of language. If such a theory is expected to be beneficial to foreign and second language teaching, then it should not only include these environmentalist components but also include the subfield “educational psycholinguistics” which would mainly focus on “naturist” accounts as discussed in previous parts of this article. The inclusion of educational psycholingustics in this sense will make the current position of applied linguistics and language teaching far stronger. No longer should mind and innateness be treated as dirty words (Pinker, 1994:22). This will most probably lead to innovative proposals for syllabus development and the design of instructional systems, practices, techniques, procedures in the language classroom, and finally a sound theory of L2 teaching and learning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LOOR, T., M. BLOOR. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.
BROWN, H.D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
CHOMSKY, N. 1959. “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior.” Language. Vol. 35,
Number 1. Pp. 26-58. In “Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics”. Frank Smolinski (Ed.). USIA. Washington: 1986.
COOK, V. 1996. Second Language Learning and Teaching. London: Arnold.
ELLIDOKUZOGLU, H. 1991. “Grammar Can Make a Difference. But How?” TTR. Bogazici
University.
ELLIDOKUZOGLU, H. 1999. “The Role of Innate Knowledge in Second Language Acquisition”.. Science Journal of Army Academy. Vol. 1:1, 13-30.
ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
EYSENECK, M. 1990. The Blackwell Dictionary of Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Blackwell.
FODOR, J.A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
KIYMAZARSLAN, V. 2000. “A Promising Approach to Second Language Acquisition”.
Science Journal of Army Academy. Vol. 1:2, 72-82.
KRASHEN, S. 1983. Principle and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
KRASHEN, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.
LIGHTBOWN, P. and N. SPADA. 1993. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford Univesrity Press.
McLAUGHLIN, B. 1987. Theories of Second-Language Learning. Great Britain: Edward
Arnold.
MURPHY, B. 1983. A Review of “CONVERSATIONS OF MIGUEL AND MARIA: HOW
CHILDREN LEARN A SECOND LANGUAGE” by Linda Ventriglia. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company”. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 17: 123.
RICHARDS, J. ET AL. 1991. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman
Group Limited.
RIDGEWAY, C. 2000. “Applied Linguistics and Educational Linguistics”. Unpublished
Paper. Submitted to Prof.Dr. M. Demirezen. Hacettepe University.
PINKER, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
SPOLSKY, B. 1990. “Educational Linguistics: Definitions, Progress Problems.”
Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 6. Thessaloniki.
STUBBS, M. 1986. Educational Linguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
VYGOTSKY, L.S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T.
Press. (edited and translated by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar).
WOLFSON, N. 1986. “Research Methodology and the Question of Validity”. TESOL Quarterly
Vol.20: 82-92.
ZOBL, H. 1995. Converging evidence for the "acquisition-learning" distinction. Applied Linguistics. 16: 35-56.
APPENDIX
Overview of Other Language Acquisition Theories
Gramsci’s Theory of Language (reflects the environmentalist view): Language is important in establishing cultural hegemony and the prescriptivist teaching of prestigious forms of language to workers and peasants is encouraged in order to empower them. This theory has not resulted from any prevailing schools of psychology or linguistics.
Bakhtin’s Theory of Polyphony or Dialogics (reflects the environmentalist view): Language cannot be usefully studied in isolation from social and political factors. The theory stresses the value of linguistic diversity and pluralism. Language evolves dynamically and is affected by the culture that produces it as it helps to shape that culture. In this sense, the theory can perhaps partially be likened to Sapir-Whorf’s “relativity theory” asserting that each language imposes on its speaker a particular world view. There is no record showing that this theory has arisen out of any prevailing schools of psychology or linguistics. Yet it is obviously seen that Bakhtin has been influenced from Vygotsky and Piaget to some extent.
The Competition Model (reflects the environmentalist view): Language has four main facets: word order, vocabulary, word forms and intonation. Whatever the speaker wants to communicate has to be achieved by means of these four. Children learn their mother language by attaching particular weights to particular clues. For example, the English children lay the emphasis on word order while the Russian children on word endings. This model is an example of discovery learning and fails to account realistic language acquisition.
The Acculturation Model (Socio-Educational Model) (reflects the environmentalist view): Successful learning means acculturation, that is, becoming part of the target culture. Learners should view them as neither superior nor inferior in the target language community to acquire the language better. Sociocultural factor may be important in acquiring a language, but is it not possible to acquire a foreign/second language without being a part of the target society? According to the nativists, it is possible to acquire it anywhere in case the necessary conditions for acquisition are provided.
Accommodation Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Language acquisition is seen as a matter of nurture only. Learners adjust their speech towards that of the person they are talking to when they want to reduce social distance, show solidarity or get something from that person yet adjust their speech the other way when they wish to create social distance. This theory might help us to know more about some sociolinguistic preconditions in maintaining communication rather than help us see how a language is really acquired.
The Variable Competence Model (based on the environmentalist view): This is an L2 theory stating that language acquisition is a two sided phenomenon: the process and the product of language. The process refers to the distinction between the linguistic rules and the ability to make use of these rules. The product of language refers to discourse types to be generated from unplanned to planned.
The Identity Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that any language which is capable of serving as a medium for inter-personal communication must necessarily presuppose the existence of a motivationally ideal environment for a child to acquire L2 and L1 successfully. According to Erik Erikson (cited in Murphy, 1983:123), the self or identity is a dynamic state by which the child continually defines selfhood. A learner (student) may act more differently at home than he acts at school. It is not a static phenomenon. Erikson does not see identity crisis, therefore, as an evil or as a malfunctioning of the personality. The theory implies that, in language acquisition, both motivational and sociolinguistic factors are of crucial importance in facilitating the overall language development.
The Connectionist Model (based on the environmentalist view): Language learning is seen as establishing the potencies between the vast numbers of connections in the brain and language acquisition does not take place in a gradual mode but simultaneously. This model fails to account how language is acquired because it just studies how the brain makes the connections when a language is processed. The only difference from the other nurturist models is that the black box (i.e., the brain) is opened, yet not studied as the nativists do
The Interactionist View of Language Acquisition (based on the environmentalist view): The acquisition of language is viewed as the result of an interaction between the learner’ mental abilities (cognition) and the linguistic input. This model might perhaps be regarded as the best model since it seems as if it combines both naturist and the nurturist ideas. However, it is not for the nativists believe that the combination of general learning capacity (cognition) and the environmental input do not lead to language acquisition.
A Neurofunctional Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Ellis (1985:273) notes that this theory is based on two systems: the communication hierarchy and the cognitive hierarchy. “The communication hierarchy” means language and other forms of interpersonal communication. “The cognitive hierarchy, on the other hand, refers to a number of cognitive information processing activities possibly related with “conscious” processes. The theory also makes a sharp distinction between Primary Language Acquisition (PLA) and Secondary Language Acquisition (SELA). PLA is seen in the child’s acquisition of one or more languages from the age of two to five. SELA is found in both adults and children. It is, in addition, divided into two parts (a) foreign language learning, that is formal classroom language learning, and (b) second language acquisition, that is, the natural acquisition of a second language after the age of five. This theory claims that PLA and (b) is marked through use of the communication hierarchy while (a) is marked by the use of the cognitive hierarchy only. If we are to accept the existence of some innate and subconscious linguistic properties, which is what the nativists have claimed, we then have the right to ask the question of why (a) is treated only as a cognitive process.
The Deficit Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that children from working-class or immigrant backgrounds have insufficient command of grammar and vocabulary to express complex ideas and thus that they are unable to succeed in school.
The Difference Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Unlike the Deficit Theory explained above, the proponents of the theory argues that the speech of working-class children is fully capable of expressing complex ideas, even though their speech is different from the standard speech of middle class speakers and penalized in school.
The Information vs Communication Theory: This, in fact, is a mathematical theory of communication. It is concerned particularly with the transmission of data in one direction and it takes no account of the person receiving the communication. In the case of The Communication Theory, on the other hand, a source encodes and transmits a message along channel; then the message reaches its destination and decoded. Consequently it produces its effect. In SLA and FLA, the latter, the communication theory, is more relevant.
The Immersion Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory claims that a learner is expected to acquire a language and communicate in that language when he or she is surrounded by the language and when s/he hears nothing else.
The Submersion Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that a language may be acquired when the language of instruction is not the first language but the target language for some of the learners. This particularly happens when immigrant children enter school.
The Cognitive Code Theory: This theory holds that language learning is a process which involves active mental processes and not simply the forming habits. The learner’s active part is more important particularly in the course of learning grammar rules. The CLT takes some ideas from this view.
The Mediation Theory (based on the environmentalist view): The theory is the outcome of psychological studies. It holds that certain types of learning occur in terms of links which are formed between a stimulus and a response. This one and such type of theories are obviously associated with behavioristic views.
The Schema Theory: The Schema Theory is based on the term schemata. Schemata (plural of schema) consist of structured groups of concepts that constitute the generic knowledge about events, actions, or scenarios which has been acquired from past experience. According to the Schema Theory, schemata influence the way that new information is processed in a number of ways such as recalling the relevant and irrelevant information and using them. In language acquisition it poses an important question particularly on the role of background knowledge in attaining language proficiency. Its implication for both L1 and L2 teaching, for instance, can be providing the students with anticipation exercises in a reading course, or presenting new vocabulary items in a context whose subject matter appeals to learners (i.e., familiarity) in a way such as to activate the students’ background knowledge (i.e., schemata).
The Bulge Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory is a sociolinguistically oriented theory of language development. In his article, Wolfson (1986: 82) notes that examining the rules of speaking for a particular speech community is the initial step in understanding what it means to be communicatively competent among that group. It is important to have reliable descriptions of these rules and patterns in order to improve second language instruction and assessment. For instance, there is a qualitative difference between the speech behavior which middle-class Americans use to intimates, status-unequals, and strangers, on the one hand, and with nonintimates, status-equal friends, co-workers, and acquaintances, on the other. This is called the bulge theory by Wolfson because of the way the frequencies of certain types of speech behaviors. An implication for education linguistics is that analysing the society for varieties of speech is still important However, in the case of L1 and L2, it fails to account how these speech behaviors are acquired. Therefore, it needs probing further to lay on a pedagogically sound basis.
The Interlingual Theory (based on the environmentalist view): The term interlanguage refers to a language system created by someone learning a second language and it is regarded as a “reduced” version of the target language with many features carried over from the learner’s mother tongue. The theory asserts that language acquisition is a matter of transfer of linguistic items from L1 (interlingual) and L2 (intralingual). The theory emphasized the study of spoken and written discourse to reveal errors that might pose difficulty on acquisition (i.e., the intermediary language).
GO TO PART 1 2 3 4 OR USE THE TABLE OF CONTENTS BELOW:
Language Acquisition Theories:
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development
Skinner’s Verbal Behavior
Piaget’s View of Language Acquisition
Cognitive Theory: The Language Acquisition View
The Discourse Theory
The Speech Act Theory
The Universal Grammar Theory
The Monitor Model
Conclusion
Bibliography
Appendix
The NA HOME
|
|
