De La Salle University Manila

College of Education

IMPORTANCE OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND SECOND

LANGUAGE LEARNING
RAMSEY S. FERRER
MAELED

A review on the history of research and approaches as regard second language

acquisition and second language learning has provided gargantuan knowledge and
diverse interpretation of the underlying theories that have eventually paved the way in
understanding the very nature of SLA and SLL vis--vis their implicative functions to
language learning and teaching. To be able to channel the importance of SLA and SLL, it
is important to define primarily the two in order to account for clear implications. In an
effort to distinguish SLA and SLL, Krashens theory has made a distinction of the two.
According to Krashen, language acquisition is a subconscious process while learning is
conscious. It has been hypothesized that there is a fairly stable order of acquisition of
structures in language acquisition, that is, one can see clear similarities across acquirers
as to which structures tend to be acquired early and which tend to be acquired late
(Brown, 1973; Dulay and Burt, 1975, cited in Krashen, 1982). In this regard, acquirers
need not have a conscious awareness of the "rules" they possess, and may self correct
only on the basis of a "feel" for grammaticality. However, conscious language learning is
thought to be helped a great deal by error correction and the presentation of explicit rules
(Krashen & Seliger, 1975 in Krashen, 1984). But the idea whether such feedback on
these rules has an effect to a significant degree remains an open question (Fanselow,

1977; Long, 1977). Although acquisition is far more important, since the competence
developed through it, both play a role in developing second-language competence
(Krashen, 1984). Indeed, SLA and SLL are two big ideas that have long been explicated
in different perspectives due to the two opposing major principles. On one hand, learning
a second language is successfully realized through conditioning and habit formation
(Skinner, 1957) which perpetuated the notion of the behaviorist theory in SLA. On the
other hand, language learning is generally acquired quickly and effortlessly because
language development occurs naturally as the innatist theory will define it (Choamsky,
1959). These two huge theories have been central in the discussion and investigation of
SLA and SLL since the 1950s. One possible reason is that studying SLA and SLL
necessitates an interrelated set of hypotheses and/or claims (Ellis, 1981) about how
people acquire a second language and learn this language later on. Another reason is that
studying second language learning is always associated with studying the nature of
language per se. Language, indeed, is complex that is has to account not only for its
phonological feature but also for other aspects such as syntax, pragmatics, and the like
(Yule, 2005) as purposive to any study.. These premises have eventually grounded a
number of studies that tried to look into the very reason of studying SLA and SLL.
Likewise, the growth in each study is seen as important to what it really accounts for
subsequent investigations. According to Ellis (2005), the purpose of such studies is to
examine theory and research that has addressed what constitutes effective pedagogy for
the acquisition of a second language. It is therefore important to recognize the different
theories and utilize them according to ones objective. Since the ultimate goal of studying
SLA and SLL is not only achieving language proficiency but also performing

communicative competence, theoretical studies should focus on the multi-faceted aspects

(phonology, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics) of learning a second language. Thus,
two major points can be implicated: 1) understanding SLA and SLL helps language
teachers scrutinize not only the errors but also the reasons why language learners
experience such difficulties with varying degrees; and 2) language teachers themselves
can make language appropriations and interventions in so far as SLA and SLL
rudimentary analysis is concerned.
It has been hypothesized that second language acquisition resembles some phases
vis--vis second language learning when it comes to acquiring morphemes and
grammatical rules (Krashen, 1982 cited in Tricomi, 1986). Thus, errors that may be
committed in first language acquisition are more likely predictable in second language
learning. In this regard, simplified lessons can be more lenient to the appropriate
competencies of language learners in studying the target language. Furthermore, language
teachers may likewise be able to create lessons that are aptly designed for language
learners level of proficiency. Although desired lessons will give learners opportunity to
acquire the target language through error discovery studies (contrastive analysis and error
analysis, to name a few), learning a second language does not take place successfully
unless much more attention is given on the reasons why such errors occur. In this regard,
a much more complex scrutiny on SLA and SLA is necessary to address such issues. A
considerable amount of studies in language learning have provided abundant information
on this respect which looks forward to scrutinizing various factors (e.g. motivation,
intelligence, and attitude) that influence SLA and SLL. Theoretical underpinnings
modelled by cognitive and social constructivist theories may have already shed light on

these factors apart from Krashens theory in SLA. Cognitive theory may lend awareness
on the complex processes that language learning undergoes. Similarly, language learners
may have different language strategies used in the learning process. Thus, understanding
the nature of SLA and SLL vis--vis the complexity of language per se may inform
language teachers of utilizing various strategies (e.g. differentiated instruction) in the
teaching-learning process. However, social constructivist theory has emphasized the
dynamic nature of the interplay between learners and their peers and their teachers and
others with whom they interact. According to Britton (1982), they learn from each other
and with each other (cited in Tolentino, 2004, p. 29). Thus, establishing an authentic
atmosphere of the target language may also benefit language learners through immersion
and communicative language learning. On the other hand, the SLA theory espoused by
Krashen has also offered considerable hypotheses (e.g. Monitor hypothesis, input
hypothesis, and affective filter hypothesis) that may explain the reasons behind learning a
second language. These hypotheses are indispensable in both SLA and SLA; however,
they are expressed in different phases of language development. For instance, the monitor
hypothesis is more likely involved in learning than in acquisition. It is a watchdogging
of ones output, and for editing and making alterations or corrections which may establish
fluency should an optimal amount of monitoring, or editing, be employed by the learner
(Krashen, 1982). In this sense, it is worth mentioning that self correction through
monitoring can be a good strategy in learning a second language. Thus, language learners
should be aware of their own strategy towards developing communicative competence.
Likewise, language teachers should consider their way of correcting learners mistakes.
Apart from intelligence and motivation, the affective filter hypothesis may also inform

them as to whether learners form positive or negative attitude towards monitoring their
own learning. It may well be said that no matter how comprehensible that teachers are in
giving input, learning a second language does not guarantee a success due to other factors
in SLA and SLL.
A theory of SLA includes an understanding, in general, of what language is, what
learning is, and for classroom context, what teaching is. Likewise, knowledge of
childrens learning of their first language provides essential insights to an understanding
of SLA and its implication to language curricula and teaching. Though different models
of SLA have focused on different aspects of SLA and general linguistic research, no
single model of SLA has gained wide acceptance. Therefore, a systematic modeling of
SLA is necessary to address issues and problems that may provide informed decision in
the pedagogical aspect of learning a second language.

List of references:

Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. NZ:

Ministry of Education
Fanselow, J. (1977) "The treatment of error in oral work." Foreign Language Annals 10:
583-593.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, 1982.
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: research, theory, and application. Oxford: Pergamon
Institute of English, 1984.
Long, M. (1977) "Teacher feedback on learner error: mapping cognitions." In H. D.
Brown, C. Yorio, and R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77: Teaching and learning
English as a second language: Trends in research and practice. Washington:
TESOL, pp. 278-294.
Tolentino, E. (2004). I dont know if I can read the pictures: The role of talk in
emergent literacy. Proquest Information and Learning Company.
Tricomi, E.L. (1986). Krashens second-language acquisition theory and the teaching of
edited American English. Journal of Basic Writing, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1986
Yule, G. (2006). The Study of Language. United States of America: Cambridge
University Press.