Principles and

Theories of Language
Acquisition and
Learning
Module 9

Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

• Objectives:
• Explore the differences between first and second language acquisition.
• Examine various models of second language acquisition, including the
Input Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis.
L1 vs. L2 Acquisition
• First language acquisition (L1)
occurs naturally in infancy and early
childhood.
• Children acquire their native
language(s) without formal
instruction, through extensive
exposure in social interaction; this
process is largely unconscious and
driven by universal cognitive
capacities.
• In contrast, second language
acquisition (L2) usually
happens later, often after the
first language is established.
• L2 learning often involves
formal instruction, conscious
study of grammar, and
sometimes limited exposure.
• As Ipek (2009) notes, Krashen
“sees first language
acquisition and second
language acquisition as two
different phenomena” .
Age/Critical Period
• Neurologically, children benefit from
a “plastic” brain and articulatory
flexibility.
• Childhood is often called a “golden
age” for language: young learners
typically achieve native-like fluency
and pronunciation, whereas adults
rarely do .
• For example, Brown (1994) argues
that after puberty the ability to
attain a native accent sharply
declines.
Transfer and Fossilization
• A learner’s L1 can both help and hinder L2 acquisition.
• Linguistic similarities (e.g. cognate vocabulary or shared
grammar) can facilitate learning (positive transfer), whereas
differences (e.g. unfamiliar sounds or syntax) can cause errors
and confusion (negative transfer).
• Over time, some L2 errors become fossilized – entrenched in the
learner’s interlanguage – so that adult learners may never fully
correct them.
• For instance, Klein (1996) observes that adult SLA often shows
“selectivity of fossilisation”: phonology (accent) and certain
grammatical inflections often remain imperfect even if other
aspects (vocabulary, complex syntax) improve .
Learning Conditions
• L1 acquisition generally occurs through immersive interaction
(children playing or communicating in their community).
• L2 acquisition often happens in classrooms or controlled settings.
This means L2 learning typically involves explicit instruction,
conscious error correction, and affective factors (motivation,
anxiety, identity) playing a larger role.
• Krashen famously distinguished acquisition (unconscious,
“going for meaning”) from learning (conscious study of form).
• Instructors should note that while children effortlessly acquire
language through need-driven interaction, adult L2 learners often
benefit from both input and intentional practice, balancing
implicit acquisition and explicit learning.
 Key Theoretical Models in SLA
• Behaviorism (Early Theory)
• Innatist/Universal Grammar
• Krashen’s Monitor Model (1982)
• Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1983)
Behaviorism (Early Theory)
• Behaviorist theory (Skinner, 1957) viewed language learning as
habit formation: learners imitate language models, receive
reinforcement for correct usage, and gradually form habits.
• Practice and repetition are emphasized.
• However, this model fails to explain how learners produce novel
utterances or internalize complex grammar.
• While behaviorism laid the groundwork for drill-based teaching
techniques, later theories highlighted its limitations for explaining
creative language use.
Innatist/Universal Grammar
• Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG) posits an innate language
faculty with parameters, explaining why children readily infer
grammatical rules.
• In SLA, UG-based approaches suggest adults rely on universal
structures too.
• However, adult learners may face maturational constraints; for
example, younger learners more naturally set UG parameters (e.g.
word order) than older learners.
• Critics argue UG alone doesn’t account for the slow, incomplete
nature of L2 learning in adulthood, indicating that input and
experience also matter.
Krashen’s Monitor Model (1982)

• Stephen Krashen’s influential Monitor Model comprises five

hypotheses.
• The most relevant here is the Input Hypothesis.
• Krashen posited that comprehensible input – language slightly
above the learner’s current level (often labeled i+1) – is the key to
acquisition – Acquisition Learning Hypothesis.
• In his words: “We acquire by understanding
language that contains structure a bit
beyond our current level of competence
(i+1)” .
• In practice, this means learners progress
when exposed to meaningful messages that
stretch their abilities.
• Krashen also emphasized that this process is
unconscious (acquisition, not formal
learning).
• He argued that speaking ability emerges
naturally (“cannot be taught directly”) after
sufficient input and internal processing ,
rather than through explicit grammar drills.
• Krashen’s model also includes the Affective Filter Hypothesis:
emotional factors (anxiety, motivation) act as a “filter” that can block
comprehensible input from being acquired.
• Low-anxiety, high-motivation environments thus aid SLA.
• Although beyond the core models
requested, note that Krashen’s
Natural Order Hypothesis predicts
a common order of morpheme
acquisition, and the Monitor
Hypothesis suggests learners
sometimes edit output using explicit
knowledge.
Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1983)
• Michael Long’s Interaction
Hypothesis builds on Krashen’s
input idea by stressing
interaction.
• Long agreed that comprehensible
input is necessary for SLA, but he
contended it is not sufficient.
• Rather, real-time negotiation of
meaning in conversation is crucial
to make input understandable and
noticeable.
• In Long’s view, when a learner and a speaker encounter a
misunderstanding and negotiate (e.g. using clarification
requests, repetition, rephrasing), the input becomes tailored
to the learner’s level.
• This interaction provides modified, comprehensible input and
often corrective feedback.
• Ellis’s summary of Long’s hypothesis
states two core claims:
• (1) comprehensible input is
necessary for L2 acquisition; and
• (2) “modifications to the
interactional structure of
conversations…in negotiating a
communication problem help make
input comprehensible to an L2
learner.”
• In effect, Long posits CI +
negotiation = effective
learning.
• Long himself contrasts with
Krashen: Krashen viewed CI as
“necessary and sufficient,”
whereas Long argued CI is
“necessary but not sufficient,”
highlighting negotiation as a
key ingredient.
Other Models (briefly)
• Output Hypothesis (Swain): Merrill Swain (1985) argued that producing
language (output) is also important; pushing learners to speak or write
forces them to process form and notice gaps.

• Sociocultural Theory (Vygotsky): Emphasizes social context and Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD): learners progress when they collaborate
with more capable peers/teachers, receiving scaffolding. Interaction (long
emphasized) resonates with Vygotsky’s ideas.

• Connectionist and Cognitive approaches: (e.g. skill acquisition models)

focus on how exposure and practice form neural patterns over time.
• Current SLA theory integrates
several perspectives.
• Krashen provides a reminder to
flood learners with meaningful,
slightly challenging input ; Long
emphasizes that interactive
negotiation makes that input
truly comprehensible.
• Together these models inform
communicative, input-rich
pedagogy.
Pedagogical Implications
Based on these models, an effective SLA-
focused lesson plan will:
• Maximize Comprehensible Input:
Provide rich listening/reading
materials just beyond learners’ current
level (i+1).
• Use visual aids, clear context, and
simplified speech so learners
understand meaning.
• For example, storytelling or graded
readers target vocabulary slightly
above learners’ stage.
• Foster Interaction and Negotiation:
Design activities where learners must
communicate meaningfully with
peers or native speakers.
• Group tasks, role plays, or
information-gap activities require
learners to ask questions, clarify
misunderstandings, and reformulate
utterances – exactly the negotiation
Long highlights.
• For instance, pair students to solve a
puzzle with limited information,
prompting requests for clarification.
• Lower the Affective Filter:
Create a low-stress
environment.
• Encourage self-expression
without immediate error
correction, focusing on
meaning first (to prevent
anxiety).
• Build learner confidence
through success with
comprehensible tasks,
echoing Krashen’s advice to
“go for meaning” .
• Balance Form and Meaning: While meaningful communication is
primary, occasional focused practice on tricky forms (explicit
‘learning’) can be interspersed.
• Krashen suggested that conscious learning (the “Monitor”) has
limited use; still, many teachers find benefit in brief form-focused
exercises once the meaning is clear.
• Use Corrective Feedback
Judiciously: According to
Long, feedback that emerges
from real communication
breakdown is useful.
• Teachers should provide
recasts or clarifications when
learners misunderstand, rather
than immediate explicit
correction.
• This aligns with Long’s point
that such negotiation makes
features of the language salient
to the learner.
• Integrate Learners’ L1 When Beneficial: Use students’ first
language strategically for quick clarification or to draw cognate
vocabulary, but also expose them to the L2 community to enhance
immersion.
• Remember that while L1 can support L2, significant differences
may cause negative transfer.
• Being aware of learners’ L1 interference patterns (e.g. false friends,
phonemes) allows targeted support.
• Overall, teaching guided by SLA
theory emphasizes meaning-
focused, interactive lessons rather
than rote drills.
• Instructors should plan activities
that naturally produce
comprehensible input and require
learners to negotiate meaning (e.g.
jigsaw readings, information
exchange tasks, collaborative
projects) so that theory and
practice align.
References
• Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language
Acquisition. Pergamon.
• Long, M. H. (1983). “Native speaker/non-native speaker
conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input.”
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
• Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University
Press. (Chapters on Input vs. Interaction) .