THEORIES of SECOND LANGUAGE

ACQUISITION
The main aim of this chapter is to review theories in SLA that reflect the variety of
perspectives evident in SLA studies, they are:
1) The acculturation Model (and closely with it, the nativization model).
2) Accommodation theory.
3) Discourse theory.
4) The monitor model.
5) The variable competence model.
6) The Universal hypothesis.
7) A neurofunctional theory.
The role of theory in SLA research is like what Hakuta (1981: 1) stated “the game of
language acquisition research can be described as the search for an appropriate level of
description for the learner's system of rules”. Other researchers have aim at more than just
description, as Rutherford (1982:85) put it, “We wish to know what it is that is acquired, how it
is acquired and when it is acquired. But were we to have the answers even to these question,
we would still want to know why ...” Theory building is concerned with explanation as well as
with description. But the term explanation is ambiguous, firstly, it can refer to the way in which
the learners work in samples of the input data, converting them into intake, and using
knowledge to produce output. Secondly, what motivates the learner to learn and what causes
him to cease learning. Schumann (1976) distinguishes explanation which refers to 'cognitive
processes' responsible and 'initiating factors' responsible. Ellis (1984a) refers to the two types
as ' assembly mechanisms' and 'power mechanisms’. Long (1983e), drawing on the work of
Reynolds (1971), distinguishes two approaches to theory building; the theory-then-research
approach and the research-then-theory approach. The theory-then-research approach involves
five stages:
1) Develop an explicitly theory.
2) Derive a testable prediction from theory.
3) Conduct research to test the prediction.
4) Modify the theory if the prediction is disconfirmed.
5) Test a new prediction if the first prediction is confirmed.
The starting point of this approach is to invent a theory using a hunches and relevant
research what Popper (1976) calls 'dogmatic thinking'. This theory has strength and
weaknesses; it provides an approximate answer and a basis for systematically testing aspects of
the overall theory. But researchers are not always prepared to abandon theory even in the face
of substantial disconfirmatory evidence. The research-then-theory approach has four stages : 1)
Select a phenomenon for investigation. 2) Measure its characteristics. 3) Collect data and look
for systematic patterns. 4) Formalize significant patterns as rules describing natural event. The
strength and weak of this theory approach means that the researcher is less likely to be 'wrong'
at any time and can provide valuable insight into selected aspects of the whole process being
investigated.
SEVEN THEORIES OF SLA:

The Acculturation
The Acculturation Model Brown (1980) defined 'as the process of becoming adapted to
a new culture'. In addition, an elaborated version of Schumann's model--the Nativization
Model-- is discussed, with reference to Andersen (1980;1981;1983b) “... second language
acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to
the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language.
(Schumann 1978:34) Acculturation, and hence SLA determined by the degree of social and
psychological distance between the learner and the language culture. Schumann (1978b) lists
the various factors that determined them. The social variables govern whether the learning is
'good' or ‘bad’. The psycological factors are effective in nature. They include
1) Language shock
2) Culture shock
3) Motivation and
4) Ego boundaries.
The Nativization Model Andersen builds on Schumann's acculturation model, in
particular by providing a cognitive dimension which Schumann does not consider. He, to a
much greater extent, is concerned with learning processes. Andersen sees two general forces;
nativization and denativization. Nativization consists of assimilation while denativization
involves accommodation. Evaluation; The acculturation and nativist models focus on the power
mechanisms of SLA. They provide explanations of why L2 learners, unlike first language
learners, often fail to achieve a native-like competence. The acculturation and nativization
Models address naturalistic SLA, where the L2 learners has contact with the target language
community.

Accommodation Theory
Accommodation Theory Giles concerns to investigate how intergroup uses languages
reflect basic social and psychological attitudes in inter-ethnic communication. Giles agrees with
Gardner (1979) that motivation is the primary determinant of L2 proficiency. This is governed
by a number of key variables:
1) Identification of the individual learner with his ethnic in group.
2) Inter – ethnic comparison.
3) Perception of ethno-linguistic vitality.
4) Perception of in group boundaries.
5) Identification with other in group social categories.
Accommodation theory also accounts for learner's variable linguistic output. Giles et al.
(1977) writes ...people are continually modifying their speech with others so as to reduce or
accentuate the linguistic(and hence) social differences between them depending on their
perception of the interactive situation. Evaluation; this theory does not explain assembly
mechanisms nor account for the developmental sequence. The strength of accommodation
theory is that it encompasses language acquisition and language use within a single framework.
This theory provides an explanation of language-learner language variability.

Discourse Theory
Discourse Theory Halliday (1975) shows that the development of the formal linguistic
devices for realizing basic language function grows out of the interpersonal uses to which
language is put. As Cherry (1979: 122) puts it: Through communicating with other people,
children accomplish actions in the world and develop the rules of language structure and use.
This view of how the development takes place is called discourse theory. The main principles by
Hatch(1978c;1978d) are:
1) SLA follow a 'natural' route in syntactical development.
2) Native speaker adjust their speech in order to negotiate meaning with non-native
speakers.
3) The conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning, and the resulting adjusted
input, influence the rate and route of SLA in a number of ways, namely:
a. The learner learns the grammar of the L2 in the same order as the frequency
order of the various features in the input.
b. the learner acquire commonly occurring formulas and then later analyses
these into their component parts;
c. Learner is helped to construct sentences vertically; vertical structures are the
precursors of horizontal structures.
4) Thus, the ‘natural' route is the result of learning how to hold conversations.

Evaluation; the basic question that second language acquisition research addresses is:
how can we describe the process of second language acquisition. (Hatch 1980:177—my italic).
He tries to provide an answer to his question by qualitative analyses of face-to-face interaction
involving L2 learners. Hatch herself notes: We have not been able (nor have we tried) to show
how, or if, making messages simpler or more transparent promotes language learning (1980 :
181). Hatch is too aware of the huge leap that is made from 'low inference descriptions' to 'high
-inference explanation'. The discourse theory does not address the nature of the learner
strategies responsible for SLA.

The monitor Model

The monitor Model The theory is seriously flawed in a number of respects, in particular
in its treatment of language-learner variability. The model consists of five hypotheses;
1) The acquisition learning hypothesis.
2) The natural order hypothesis.
3) The monitor hypothesis. Krashen argues that monitoring has an extremely limited
function in language performance, even where adult are concerned. He gives three
conditions for its use;
a. There must be sufficient time.
b. The focus must be on form and not meaning and.
c. The user must know the rule.
4) The input hypothesis, input that comprehensible to the learner will automatically be
at the right level.
5) The affective filter hypothesis. It deals with how affective factors relate to SLA, and
covers the ground of the Acculturation model. Causative variables taken into
account in the Monitor Model. Krashen also discusses a number of other factors;
a. Aptitude.
b. role of the first language
c. Routines and patterns.
d. individual differences and
e. Age.
Evaluation; Three central issues for detailed consideration are the 'acquisition-learning'
distinction, it has been called 'theological', it has been formulated in order to specific goal,
namely that successful SLA is the result of 'acquisition' (James 1980). the monitor, the only
evidence for monitoring lies in the language user's own account of trying to apply explicit rules (
e.g Cohen and Robbins 1976) and Krashen's treatment of variability , Variability the monitor
model is a ‘dual competence' theory of SLA. It proposes that the learner's knowledge of the L2,
which is reflected in variable performance, is best characterized in terms of two separate
competence, which Krashen labels ‘acquisition' and ‘learning’.
The Variable Competence Model
The Variable Competence Model The model is based on two distinctions—one of which
refers to the process of language use and the product. The process of language use is to be
understood in terms of the distinction between linguistic knowledge and the ability to make use
of this knowledge. Widowson (1984) refers to knowledge of rules as a competence and to
knowledge of the procedures involved in using rules to construct discourse as capacity. It
follows from this view of the process of language use that the product, different types of
discourse is the result of either or both of the variable competence and variable application of
procedures for actualizing knowledge in discourse. Procedures for actualizing knowledge are of
two types, which Ellis (1984a) refers to as primary and secondary processes each set of
processes referred as discourse and cognitive processes respectively. Discourse process:
simplify the semantic structures of a massage by omitting meaning element that are
communicatively redundant or that can be realized by a non-verbal devices (e.g. mime).
Cognitive process:
a). Construct an underlying conceptual structures of a massage
b). Compare this structure with the frame of reference share with and interlocutor
c). Eliminate redundant element and element for which know lexical item is available.
To summarize this model, proposes:
1. There is a single knowledge store containing variable inter language rules
according how automatic and how analyzed the rules are.
2. The learner possesses a capacity for language uses which consist of primary and
secondary discourse and cognitive processes.
3. L2 performance is variable as a result of whether primary processes employing
unanalyzed L2 Rules are utilized in unplanned discourse or secondary process
employing analyzed L2 rules are utilized in planed discourse.
4. Development occurs as a result of acquisition of new L2 rules through
participation in various types of discourse and activation of L2 rules which
initially exist in either non automatic unanalyzed form or in an analyzed form so
they can be used in unplanned discourse.
Evaluation: The variable competence model of SLA attempts to account for the availability of
languages learners and the external and internal processes responsible for SLA.
The universal hypothesis
The universal hypothesis is provides an interesting account of how the languages
properties of the target language and the learner's first language may influence the course
development. The value the universal hypothesis for SLA theory is twofold:

1. It a focuses attention on the natural of the target languages itself. Wode's

(980 b: 136/7) claims the linguistic devices used in a given languages are the
major variable determining linguistic sequences

2. It provides a subtle and persuasive reconsideration of transfer as an

important factor in SLA.

A neurofunctional theory
A neurofunctional theory Lamendella (1979:5/6) defines, A neurofunctional perspective
on language attempts to characterize the neurolinguistic information processing systems
responsible for the development and use of language. Hacth (1983a: 213) puts it, 'there is no
single “black box” for language in the brain'. Therefore, it is better to speak of'the relative
contribution of some areas more than others under certain condition'(Selinger 1982:309).
Neurofunctional accounts of SLA have considered the contribution of The left hemisphere and
The right hemisphere of the brain. Right hemisphere functioning is generally associated with
holistic processing, it has been suggested (e.g by Obler 1981; Krashen 1981a) that the right
hemisphere is responsible for the storing and processing of formulaic speech. The right
hemisphere may also involved in pattern practice in classroom SLA. Selinger (1982) suggest that
it may act as an initial staging mechanism for handling patterns which can then be re-examined
later in left hemisphere functioning.

Left hemisphere functioning, in general the left hemisphere is asscociated with the
creative language use, including syntatic and semantic processing and the motor operations
involved in speaking and writing. Walsh and Diller (1981) distinguish two board types of
functioning, lower order functioning and higher order functioning. Lamendella's
Neurofunctional theory Lamendella distinguishes two basic of types of language acquisition: (1)
Primary language acquisition and (2) Secondary language acquisition. (1) is found I the child 's
acquisition of one or more languages from 2 to 5 years. (2) is subdivided into a) foreign
language learning b) second language acquisition. Lamendella pinpoints two systems as
particularly important for language functioning; (1) the communication hierarchy: this has
responsibility for language and other form of interpersonal communication. (2) The cognitive
hierarchy: this control a variety of cognitive information processing activities that are also part
of language use. Foreign language acquisition is marked by the use of the input and also affects
the operation of learner strategies. Input comprises the inherent properties of the target
language system and the formally and interactionally adjusted features found in foreigner and
teacher talk.