Report on

Second Language Acquisition Hypothesis

Kathleen A. Abroguina
Elysha Cassidy C. Rigodon
Kin Barkly E. Tibang

Second Language Acquisition Hypothesis

Skill Based Theory
Sees practice as the key ingredient of language acquisition. The most well-known of
these theories is based on John Anderson's adaptive control of thought model.
Order of Acquisition
The order of acquisition is a concept in language acquisitiondescribing the specific order
in which all language learners acquire the grammatical features of their fir frequently
related to the over-use of the 'monitor'.
Input Hypothesis
The hypotheses put primary importance on the comprehensible input (CI) that language
learners are exposed to. Understanding spoken and written language input is seen as
the only mechanism that results in the increase of underlying linguistic competence, and
language output is not seen as having any effect on learners' ability. Furthermore,
Krashen claimed that linguistic competence is only advanced when language is
subconsciously acquired, and that conscious learning cannot be used as a source of
spontaneous language production. Finally, learning is seen to be heavily dependent on
the mood of the learner, with learning being impaired if the learner is under stress or
does not want to learn the language.
Interaction Hypothesis
Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is strongly facilitated
by the use of the target language in interaction. Similarly to Krashen's Input Hypothesis,
the Interaction Hypothesis claims that comprehensible input is important for language
learning. In addition, it claims that the effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly
increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning.
Comprehensible output
Developed by Merrill Swain, the comprehensible output (CO) hypothesis states that
learning takes place when a learner encounters a gap in his or her linguistic knowledge
of the second language (L2). By noticing this gap, the learner becomes aware of it and
may be able to modify his output so that he learns something new about the language.
Competition model
Some of the major cognitive theories of how learners organize language knowledge are
based on analyses of how speakers of various languages analyze sentences for
meaning. MacWhinney, Bates, and Kliegl found that speakers of English, German, and

Italian showed varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive sentences

containing more than one noun. English speakers relied heavily on word order; German
speakers used morphological agreement, the animacy status of noun referents, and
stress; and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al.
interpreted these results as supporting the Competition Model, which states that
individuals use linguistic cues to get meaning from language, rather than relying on
linguistic universals. According to this theory, when acquiring an L2, learners sometimes
receive competing cues and must decide which cue(s) is most relevant for determining
meaning.
Connectionism
Was first mentioned in Thorndike's study (1898) of the way cats learn in incremental
stages. Connectionism as a paradigm of learning has its roots in associationism.
Associationism dates from classical times but was substantially refined by the
seventeenth century philosophers Hobbes and Locke. The fundamental belief of
associationism is that learning could be regarded as the formation of associations
between previously unrelated information based on their contiguity.
Noticing hypothesis
Attention is another characteristic that some believe to have a role in determining 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. In his noticing hypothesis,
Schmidt posits that learners must notice the ways in which their interlanguage
structures differ from target norms. This noticing of the gap allows the learners internal
language processing to restructure the learners internal representation of the rules of
the L2 in order to bring the learners production closer to the target. In this respect,
Schmidts understanding is consistent with the ongoing process of rule formation found
in emergentism and connectionism.

Processability
Some theorists and researchers have contributed to the cognitive approach to secondlanguage acquisition by increasing understanding of the ways L2 learners restructure
their interlanguage knowledge systems to be in greater conformity to L2 structures.
Processability theory states that learners restructure their L2 knowledge systems in an
order of which they are capable at their stage of development. For instance, In order to

acquire the correct morphological and syntactic forms for English questions, learners
must transform declarative English sentences. They do so by a series of stages,
consistent across learners. Clahsen proposed that certain processing principles
determine this order of restructuring. Specifically, he stated that learners first, maintain
declarative word order while changing other aspects of the utterances, second, move
words to the beginning and end of sentences, and third, move elements within main
clauses before subordinate clauses.
Interface hypothesis
The Interface Hypothesis in adult second language acquisition is an attempt to explain
non-target-like linguistic behavior that persists even among highly advanced speakers.
The hypothesis was first put forward by Antonella Sorace. The hypothesis posits that for
adult second language learners, acquiring grammatical properties within a given
linguistic area, such as phonology, syntax, or semantics, should not be problematic.
Interfacing between those modules, such as communicating between the syntax and
semantic systems, should likewise be feasible. However, grammatical operations where
the speaker is required to interface between an internal component of the grammar, and
an external component, such as pragmatics or discourse information, will prove to be
very difficult, and will not be acquired completely by the second language learner, even
at very advanced levels.
Generative second-language acquisition
The generative approach to second language (L2) acquisition applies theoretical
insights developed from within generative linguistics to investigate how second
languages are learned by adults and children. Research is conducted in syntax,
phonology, morphology, phonetics and semantics. The main questions in generative
second language acquisition include whether Universal Grammar is available to the
adult second language learner to guide acquisition, as it is to the first language learner;
whether second language learners can reset linguistic parameters; whether secondlanguage learners experience difficulties interfacing between different modules of the
grammar; and whether child second language acquisition differs from that of adults. As
generative second language research endeavors to explain the totality of L2 acquisition
phenomena, it is also concerned with investigating the extent of linguistic transfer,
maturational effects on acquisition, and why some learners fail to acquire a target-like
L2 grammar even with abundant input.

FULL TEXT
Skill-based theories of second-language acquisition are theories of secondlanguage acquisition based on models ofskill acquisition in cognitive psychology. These
theories conceive of second-language acquisition as being learned in the same way as
any other skill, such as learning to drive a car or play the piano. That is, they
see practice as the key ingredient of language acquisition. The most well-known of
these theories is based on John Anderson's adaptive control of thought model.
Order of Acquisition
One of the first steps toward demonstrating the importance of factors other than first
language interference was taken in a series of research studies by Heidi Dulay and
Marina Burt. They even went so far at one point as to claim that transfer of L1 syntactic
patterns rarely occurs in child second language acquisition. They claim that children
learning a second language use a creative construction process, just as they do in their
first language. This conclusion was supported by some massive research data collected
on the acquisition order of eleven English morphemes in children learning English as a
second language. Dulay and Burt found a common order of acquisition among children
of several native language backgrounds, an order very similar to that found by Roger
Brown using the same morphemes but for children acquiring English as their first
language.
There were logical and methodological arguments about the validity of morpheme-order
findings. Rosansky argued that the statistical procedures used were suspect, and others
noted that eleven English morphemes constitute only a minute portion of English
syntax, and therefore lack generalizability. More recently, Zoble and Liceras, in a
search for a unified theoretical account for the L1 and L2 morpheme orders,
reexamined the morpheme-order studies and concluded the
generalizability of morpheme acquisition order.
The input hypothesis claims that an important condition for language acquisition to
occur is that the acquirer understand (via hearing or reading) input language that
contains structure a bit beyond his or her current level of competence. If an
acquiring is at stage or level i, the input he or she understands should contain i + I. In
other words, the language that learners are exposed to should be just far enough
beyond their current competence that they can understand most of it but still be
challenged to make progress. The corollary to this is that input should neither be so far
beyond their reach that they are overwhelmed (this might be, i+2) nor so close to their
current stage that they are not challenged at all (i + 0).
An important part of the Input Hypothesis is Krashens recommendation that speaking
not be taught directly or very early in the language classroom. Speech will merge once
the acquirer has built up enough comprehensible input.
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a second
language how second language acquisition takes place. The Input hypothesis is only

concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner
improves and progresses when he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step
beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a
stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input'
that belongs to level 'i + 1'. We can then define 'Comprehensible Input' as the target
language that the learner would not be able to produce but can still understand. It goes
beyond the choice of words and involves presentation of context, explanation,
rewording of unclear parts, the use of visual cues and meaning negotiation. The
meaning successfully conveyed constitutes the learning experience.
The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of
second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s
and 1980s. Krashen originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five
hypotheses, but over time the term has come to refer to the five hypotheses as a group.
The hypotheses are the input hypothesis, the acquisitionlearning hypothesis, the
monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. The
input hypothesis was first published in 1977.

The hypotheses put primary importance on the comprehensible input (CI) that language
learners are exposed to. Understanding spoken and written language input is seen as
the only mechanism that results in the increase of underlyinglinguistic competence, and
language output is not seen as having any effect on learners' ability. Furthermore,
Krashen claimed that linguistic competence is only advanced when language is
subconsciously acquired, and that consciouslearning cannot be used as a source of
spontaneous language production. Finally, learning is seen to be heavily dependent on
the mood of the learner, with learning being impaired if the learner is under stress or
does not want to learn the language.
Krashen's hypotheses have been influential in language education, particularly in
the United States, but have received criticism from some academics. Two of the main
criticisms are that the hypotheses are untestable, and that they assume a degree of
separation between acquisition and learning that has not been proven to exist.

A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST MODEL: LONGS INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS

One of the most widely discussed social constructivist positions in the field
originally emerged from the work of Michael Long (1996, 1985). Taking up where, in
a sense, Krashen left off, Long posits, in what has come to be called the
interaction hypothesis, that comprehensible input is the result of modified interaction.
The latter is defined as the various modifications that native speakers and other
interlocutors create in order to render their input comprehensible to learners.

In Longs view, interaction and input are two major players in the process of acquisition,
a combination emphasized by Gass (2003). In a radical departure from an old paradigm
in which second language classrooms might have been seen as contexts for practicing
grammatical structures and other language forms, conversation and other interactive
communication are, according to Long, the basis for the development of linguistic rules.
While Gass and Varonis (1994) ably pointed out that such a view is not subscribed to by
all, nevertheless a number of studies have supported the link between interaction and
acquisition (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; van Lier, 1996;
Jordens, 1996; Loschky, 1994; Gass & Varonis, 1994; Pica, 1987).
The other side of the story is that Longs Interaction Hypothesis has
pushed pedagogical research on SLA into a new frontier. It centers us on the
language classroom not just as a place where learners of varying abilities and styles
and backgrounds mingle, but as a place where the contexts for interaction are
carefully designed. It focuses materials and curriculum developers on creating the
optimal environments and tasks for input and interaction such that the learner will be
stimulated to create his or her own learner language in a socially constructed process.
Further, it reminds us that the many variables at work in an interactive classroom should
prime teachers to expect the unexpected and to anticipate the novel creations of
learners engaged in the process of discovery.

Comprehensible Output
Stephen Krashen
System 26: 175-182, 1998
The comprehensible output (CO) hypothesis states that we acquire language when
we attempt to transmit a message but fail and have to try again. Eventually, we
arrive at the correct form of our utterance, our conversational partner finally
understands, and we acquire the new form we have produced.
The originator of the comprehensible output hypothesis, Merrill Swain (Swain,
1985), does not claim that CO is responsible for all or even most of our language
competence. Rather, the claim is that "sometimes, under some conditions, output
facilitates second language learning in ways that are different form, or enhance,
those of input" (Swain and Lapkin, 1995, p. 371). A look at the data, however,
shows that even this weak claim is hard to support.
The comprehensible output hypothesis has numerous difficulties.
- Output and especially comprehensible output is too scarce to make a real
contribution to linguistic competence.
- High levels of linguistic competence are possible without output.
- There is no direct evidence that comprehensible output leads to language
acquisition.

In addition, there is some evidence that suggests that students do not enjoy being
"pushed" to speak.
The original impetus for the CO hypothesis was the observation that students in
French immersion, despite years of input, were not as good as observers felt they
should be in grammatical aspects of their second language (Swain, 1985). Input, it
was suggested, was therefore not enough. It can be argued, however, that we haven't
yet given comprehensible input a real chance. We have yet to see how students will
do if their classes are filled with comprehensible input, if they have access to a great
deal of very interesting reading and listening materials (films, tapes), and if the
acquisition situation is genuinely free of anxiety. (There is evidence that children in
French immersion do very little pleasure reading in their second language; Romney,
Romney and Menzies, 1995).
Given the consistent evidence for comprehensible input (Krashen, 1994) and failure
of other means of developing language competence, providing more
comprehensible input seems to be a more reasonable strategy than increasing
output.
Competition model
Some of the major cognitive theories of how learners organize language knowledge are
based on analyses of how speakers of various languages analyze sentences for
meaning. MacWhinney, Bates, and Kliegl found that speakers of English, German, and
Italian showed varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive sentences
containing more than one noun.[13] English speakers relied heavily on word order;
German speakers used morphological agreement, the animacy status of noun referents,
and stress; and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al.
interpreted these results as supporting the Competition Model, which states that
individuals use linguistic cues to get meaning from language, rather than relying on
linguistic universals. According to this theory, when acquiring an L2, learners sometimes
receive competing cues and must decide which cue(s) is most relevant for determining
meaning.
Connectionism
Connectionism as a term was first mentioned in Thorndike's study (1898) of the way
cats learn in incremental stages. Connectionism as a paradigm of learning has its roots
in associationism. Associationism dates from classical times but was substantially
refined by the seventeenth century philosophers Hobbes and Locke. The fundamental
belief of associationism is that learning could be regarded as the formation of
associations between previously unrelated information based on their contiguity.
Noticing hypothesis

Attention is another characteristic that some believe to have a role in determining 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. In his noticing hypothesis,
Schmidt posits that learners must notice the ways in which their interlanguage
structures differ from target norms. This noticing of the gap allows the learners internal
language processing to restructure the learners internal representation of the rules of
the L2 in order to bring the learners production closer to the target. In this respect,
Schmidts understanding is consistent with the ongoing process of rule formation found
in emergentism and connectionism.
Processability
Some theorists and researchers have contributed to the cognitive approach to secondlanguage acquisition by increasing understanding of the ways L2 learners restructure
their interlanguage knowledge systems to be in greater conformity to L2 structures.
Processability theory states that learners restructure their L2 knowledge systems in an
order of which they are capable at their stage of development.[17] For instance, In order
to acquire the correct morphological and syntactic forms for English questions, learners
must transform declarative English sentences. They do so by a series of stages,
consistent across learners. Clahsen proposed that certain processing principles
determine this order of restructuring.[18] Specifically, he stated that learners first,
maintain declarative word order while changing other aspects of the utterances, second,
move words to the beginning and end of sentences, and third, move elements within
main clauses before subordinate clauses.
Interface hypothesis
The Interface Hypothesis in adult second language acquisition is an attempt to explain
non-target-like linguistic behavior that persists even among highly advanced speakers.
The hypothesis was first put forward by Antonella Sorace.
The hypothesis posits that for adult second language learners, acquiring grammatical
properties within a given linguistic area, such as phonology, syntax, or semantics,
should not be problematic. Interfacing between those modules, such as communicating
between the syntax and semantic systems, should likewise be feasible. However,
grammatical operations where the speaker is required to interface between an internal
component of the grammar, and an external component, such as pragmatics or
discourse information, will prove to be very difficult, and will not be acquired completely
by the second language learner, even at very advanced levels.
Examples of phenomena argued to be influenced by the interface hypothesis include
use of overt vs. null subjects, as well as use of subject placement before or after the
verb to mark focus vs. using prosody, in languages like Italian by native English
speakers.

References

Krashen, S.D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (PDF).
Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (PDF). Oxford:
Pergamon.

Brown, Douglas, Principles of Language Acquisition Third Edition