4.
EXPLAINING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Preview
A general theory of second language acquisition needs to account for language learning by
children and adults in a variety of contexts in a variety of different ways. We will keep our
description of the main lines of thinking as concise as possible, bearing in mind that this is not a
book about language acquisition. We will look at how behaviourist and innatist explanations for
first language acquisition might be applied to second language learning. Then we will examine
two cognitive approaches. We will also look at how theories from outside psychology—those
from sociology and second language research in particular—have increasingly influenced second
language acquisition research. Then, to finish the chapter, we will look more specifically at a
number of theories relating to the teaching of second languages, and apply these where possible
to classroom language work in a typical school.
The behaviourist perspective
As we saw in Chapter 1, behaviourist theory explained learning in terms of imitation, practice,
reinforcement (or feedback on success), and habit formation. Such a stimulus-response model
dominated thinking about learning in the 1940s and 1950s. Many of the early second language
behaviourists saw the new task as being very similar: people would imitate what they heard, and
if they were rewarded (for example, by praise or success in an exam), then these patterns would
‘stick’, and become habits.
Second language applications: Mimicry and memorisation
Behaviourism had a powerful influence on second and foreign language teaching, especially in
North America, from the 1940s to the 1960s. The Audio-lingual Method and the Army Method
(which were two approaches that grew out of this perspective) relied directly on the development
of reliably used and habitual language materials and in teacher training. Classroom activities
typically demanded lots of mimicry and memorisation. Students drilled sentence patterns
repeatedly to acquire correct language habits. Although the influence of behaviourism is no
longer dominant in the second language field, its basic ideas continue to affect teaching in more
limited ways.
The innatist perspective
As we saw in Chapter 1, the rejection of behaviourism as an explanation of first language
acquisition came with the work of Noam Chomsky, who argued that language learning could not
take place solely through imitation. Chomsky (1959) claimed that children were biologically
programmed for language and that language developed in the child in the same way as other
biological functions. He argued for the existence of an innate human capacity—what he called a
language acquisition device (LAD).
Grammar offers the best perspective from which to understand second language acquisition.
Chomsky, the linguist Robert Bley-Vroman (1990) and psycholinguist Stephen Krashen (1981)
among others have argued that the innate ability which children bring to first language learning
does not remain fully intact in adults, especially in the context of language instruction in the
classroom. This leads to an important issue for second language learning: are second languages
learned in the same way as first languages? Or are they fundamentally different, because the
LAD becomes less active with age?
Krashen’s view is that adults do have access to the LAD, but that this capacity is not as fully
available as it is for children. He argues that second language learners of all ages can acquire
language in a natural way from the input they are exposed to, provided they have enough of it
and it is meaningful. In his Monitor Model, he identifies two ways in which we learn a second
language: through acquisition (an unconscious process that occurs when language is used for
real communication), and learning (a conscious process that occurs when rules are studied and
learned explicitly).
Second language applications: Krashen’s Monitor Model
Perhaps the best known model of second language acquisition influenced by innatist theories is
the one proposed by linguist Stephen Krashen (1982). Krashen made a distinction between
learning and acquiring a language. Learning was defined as the conscious study of rules and
forms, while acquisition was defined as the development of language through subconscious
processes.
In his five hypotheses on second language learning, Krashen said that we have two ways of
developing language skills: (1) acquiring it (through meaningful interaction in natural
communication), and (2) learning it (through formal instruction and study of grammar rules).
According to Krashen, acquisition is far more important than learning. He said that we can use
learning to monitor or edit what we say or write, but fluency comes from what we have acquired
rather than what we have learned. The rules we consciously know about language don’t always
get used in real communication.
Now, according to the monitor hypothesis, second language users draw on what they have
learned only when the proper time is available and they are not too busy using the language to
communicate. In conversation, we often do not have time to think about grammatical rules. So
Krashen’s Monitor Model places greater emphasis on acquiring language than on conscious
grammar study, and it supports teaching approaches that provide lots of opportunities for
exposure to language in use.
The Monitor Model has been challenged
The Monitor Model has been challenged by other researchers and theorists, some of whom have
argued that it is too passive to see Krashen’s hypothesis as the main source of second language
success. They say that the idea of unconscious acquisition is hard to prove, and that successful
learners often do study rules and apply them. Moreover, Krashen’s model fits more with fluent
and experienced learners than with beginners. It was developed during a time when language
teaching was in transition from structure-based approaches (that emphasised rules) to more
meaningful dialogues, so approaches that focused on meaningful interaction gained favour.
Some researchers argue that comprehension-based approaches (like those suggested in Krashen’s
hypotheses) are not enough on their own. Learners need to be pushed to produce language, not
just receive it. Others argue that the Monitor Model underplays the role of practice, feedback,
and correction in successful second language learning.
ACTIVITY: Examine the Monitor Model
As a number of writers have questioned the validity of Krashen’s Monitor Model, partly on the
basis that it offers too much to the hypothesis in empirical research, it is worth reflecting on the
theory and evaluating its impact on second language teaching.
1. Can you think of some reasons why this might be so?
2. Which of the hypotheses do you find intuitively convincing?
3. Which ones leave you sceptical? Why?