KIYMAZARSLAN

A DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES

Vedat KIYMAZARSLAN, 2002

ABSTRACT

A great many theories regarding language development in

human beings have been proposed in the past and still being
proposed in the present time. Such theories have generally
arisen out of major disciplines such as psychology and
linguistics. Psychological and linguistic thinking have
profoundly influenced one another and the outcome of
language acquisition theories alike. This article aims to discuss
language acquisition theories and assess their implications for
applied linguistics and for a possible theory of foreign/second
language teaching.

I. INTRODUCTION

Language acquisition theories have basically centered around “nurture” and “nature”
distinction or on “empiricism” and “nativism”. The doctrine of empiricism holds that all knowledge
comes from experience, ultimately from our interaction with the environment through our reasoning
or senses. Empiricism, in this sense, can be contrasted to nativism, which holds that at least some
knowledge is not acquired through interaction with the environment, but is genetically transmitted
and innate. To put it another way, some theoreticians have based their theories on environmental
factors while others believed that it is the innate factors that determine the acquisition of language.
It is, however, important to note that neither nurturists (environmentalists) disagree thoroughly with
the nativist ideas nor do nativists with the nurturist ideas. Only the weight they lay on the
environmental and innate factors is relatively little or more. Before sifting through language
acquisition theories here, therefore, making a distinction between these two types of perspectives
will be beneficial for a better understanding of various language acquisition theories and their
implications for the field of applied linguistics. In the following paragraphs, the two claims posed by
the proponents of the two separate doctrines will be explained and the reason why such a distinction
has been made in this article will be clarified.

Environmentalist theories of language acquisition hold that an organism’s nurture, or

experience, are of more significance to development than its nature or inborn contributions. Yet they
do not completely reject the innate factors. Behaviorist and neo-behaviorist stimulus-response
learning theories (S-R for simplicity) are the best known examples. Even though such theories have
lost their effect partially because of Chomsky’s intelligent review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior
(Chomsky, 1959), their effect has not been so little when we consider the present cognitive approach
as an offshoot of behaviorism.
-1-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

The nativist theories, on the other hand, assert that much of the capacity for language
learning in human is ‘innate’. It is part of the genetic makeup of human species and is nearly
independent of any particular experience which may occur after birth. Thus, the nativists claim that
language acquisition is innately determined and that we are born with a built-in device which
predisposes us to acquire language. This mechanism predisposes us to a systematic perception of
language around us. Eric Lenneberg (cited in Brown, 1987:19), in his attempt to explain language
development in the child, assumed that language is a species - specific behavior and it is ‘biologically
determined’. Another important point as regards the innatist account is that nativists do not deny
the importance of environmental stimuli, but they say language acquisition cannot be accounted for
on the basis of environmental factors only. There must be some innate guide to achieve this end. In
Table 1 below, a classification around the nurture/nature distinction has been made.

The particular reason why such a distinction between environmentalist and nativist theories
has been made in this study is to create a clear-cut picture of the current status of language
acquisition theories, present and former studies in the field of language acquisition and language
teaching methodology. In the following part, the most important ones of language acquisition
theories resulting from the two opposing views mentioned above will be discussed.

II. THEORIES OF LANGUAGE ACQUSITION

In this part of the article, eight different views of language acquisition will be discussed. Most
of the theories may be considered in both L1 (mother tongue) and L2 (second or foreign language)
acquisition even though certain theories to be discussed here have been resulted from second
language acquisition (SLA) studies. It is important to note once again that language acquisition
theories have been influenced especially by linguistic and psychological schools of thought. Thus they
have given relatively changing weights on different factors in approaching the acquisition process as
can be seen in the following subsections.

2.1 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky was a psychologist but his studies on conscious human behavior led him to
investigate the role that language plays in human behavior. Vygotsky’s point of view is simply that
social interaction plays an important role in the learning process. He places an emphasis on the role
of “shared language” in the development of thought and language. The term “shared language”
refers to social interaction and can be best elucidated through the notion of “zone of proximal
development".

According to Vygotsky (1962:10), two developmental levels determine the learning process:
egocentricity and interaction. We can look at what children do on their own and what they can do
while working with others. They mostly choose to remain silent or speak less on their own (less
egocentric speech) when they are alone. However, they prefer to speak to other children when they
play games with them (more egocentric speech). The difference between these two types of
development forms has been called “Zone of Proximal Development”. This zone refers to the
distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and
the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or
-2-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

in cooperation with more capable friends of the child. The first thing that children do is to develop
concepts by talking to adults and then solve the problems they face on their own. In other words,
children first need to be exposed to social interaction that will eventually enable them build their
inner resources.

As for the drawbacks of the views proposed by Vygotsky, it is not clear what Vygotsky meant
by inner resources. Also, his emphasis on the significance of egocentric speech in the development of
thought and language is worth discussing. He suggests that egocentric speech is social and helps
children interact with others. When a child is alone he uses less egocentric language than he uses it
when playing games with other children. This implies that speech is influenced by the presence of
other people. It seems that Vygotsky overemphasizes the function of egocentric speech in the
development of language. It is true that society and other people are important factors helping
children to acquire language. However, Vygotsky fails to account for the role of the self itself in this
process, even though he stresses the importance of egocentric speech, which is not the self actually,
and see the relative role of inner linguistic and psycholinguistic mechanisms that promote language
acquisition.

In conclusion, Vygotsky contends that language is the key to all development and words play
a central part not only in the development of thought but in the growth of cognition as a whole.
Within this framework, child language development, thus acquisition, can be viewed as the result of
social interaction.

2.2. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior

Behavioristic view of language acquisition simply claims that language development is the
result of a set of habits. This view has normally been influenced by the general theory of learning
described by the psychologist John B. Watson in 1923, and termed behaviorism. Behaviorism denies
nativist accounts of innate knowledge as they are viewed as inherently irrational and thus
unscientific. Knowledge is the product of interaction with the environment through stimulus-
response conditioning.

Broadly speaking, stimulus (ST) – response (RE) learning works as follows. An event in the
environment (the unconditioned stimulus, or UST) brings out an unconditioned response (URE) from
an organism capable of learning. That response is then followed by another event appealing to the
organism. That is, the organism’s response is positively reinforced (PRE). If the sequence UST --> URE
--> PRE recurs a sufficient number of times, the organism will learn how to associate its response to
the stimulus with the reinforcement (CST). This will consequently cause the organism to give the
same response when it confronts with the same stimulus. In this way, the response becomes a
conditioned response (CRE).

The most risky part of the behavioristic view is perhaps the idea that all leaning, whether
verbal (language) or non-verbal (general learning) takes place by means of the same underlying
process, that is via forming habits. In 1957, the psychologist B.F. Skinner produced a behaviorist
account of language acquisition in which linguistic utterances served as CST and CRE.

-3-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

When language acquisition is taken into consideration, the theory claims that both L1 and L2
acquirers receive linguistic input from speakers in their environment, and positive reinforcement for
their correct repetitions and imitations. As mentioned above, when language learners’ responses are
reinforced positively, they acquire the language relatively easily.

These claims are strictly criticized in Chomsky’s “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior”.
Chomsky (1959) asserts that there is “neither empirical evidence nor any known argument to support
any specific claim about the relative importance of feedback from the environment”.
Therefore, it would be unwise to claim that the sequence UST --> URE --> PRE and imitation can
account for the process of language acquisition. What is more, the theory overlooks the speaker
(internal) factors in this process.

The behaviorists see errors as first language habits interfering with the acquisition of second
language habits. If there are similarities between the two languages, the language learners will
acquire the target structures easily. If there are differences, acquisition will be more difficult. This
approach is known as the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH). According to the hypothesis, the
differences between languages can be used to reveal and predict all errors and the data obtained can
be used in foreign/second language teaching for promoting a better acquisition environment.
Lightbown and Spada (1993: 25) note that:

“… there is little doubt that a learner’s first language influences the acquisition of second
language. [But] … the influence is not simply a matter of habits, but rather a systematic
attempt by the learner to use knowledge already acquired in learning a new language.”

This is another way of saying that mother tongue interference cannot entirely explain the
difficulties that an L2 learner may face. It is true that there might be some influences resulting from
L1, but research (Ellis, 1985:29) has shown that not all errors predicted by CAH are actually made. For
example, Turkish learners of English simply use utterances just as “No understand” even though the
corresponding structure of Turkish ("Anlamiyorum" literally, “UNDERSTAND-NO-ME”) is thoroughly
different.

In brief, Skinner’s view of language acquisition is a popular example of the nurturist ideas.
Behaviorism, as known by most of us, was passively accepted by the influential Bloomfieldian
structuralist school of linguistics and produced some well-know applications in the field of
foreign/second language teaching – for instance, the Audiolingual Method or the Army Method. The
theory sees the language learner as a tabula rasa with no built-in knowledge. The theory and the
resulting teaching methods failed due to the fact that imitation and simple S-R connections only
cannot explain acquisition and provide a sound basis for language teaching methodology.

2.3. Piaget’s View of Language Acquisition

Even though Piaget was a biologist and a psychologist, his ideas have been influential in the
field of first and second language acquisition studies. In fact he studied the overall behavioral
development in the human infant. But his theory of development in children has striking implications
as regards language acquisition.

-4-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

Ellidokuzoglu (1999:16) notes that “many scientists, especially the psychologists are hesitant
to attribute a domain-specific built-in linguistic knowledge to the human infant.” Accordingly, they
view the human brain as a homogeneous computational system that examines different types of
data via general information processing principles. Piaget was one of those psychologists who view
language acquisition as a case of general human learning. He has not suggested, however, that the
development is not innate, but only that there is no specific language module. Piaget’s view was then
that the development (i.e., language acquisition) results mainly from external factors or social
interactions. Piaget (cited in Brown, 1987:47, Eyseneck, 1990:51) outlined the course of intellectual
development as follows:

- The sensorimotor stage from ages 0 to 2 (understanding the environment)

- The preoperational stage from ages 2 to 7 (understanding the symbols)
- The concrete operational stage from ages 7 to 11 (mental tasks and language use)
- The formal operational stage from the age 11 onwards (dealing with abstraction)

Piaget observes, for instance, that the pre-linguistic stage (birth to one year) is a determining
period in the development of sensory-motor intelligence, when children are forming a sense of their
physical identity in relation to the environment. Piaget, unlike Vygotsky, believes that egocentric
speech on its own serves no function in language development.

2.4. Cognitive Theory: The Language Acquisition View

Cognitive theory is based on the work of psychologists. Piaget’s work, which dwells on the
idea that students can learn things when they are developmentally ready to do so since learning
follows development, can be regarded as a starting point of the cognitivist ideas. Cognitive
psychologists emphasized the importance of meaning, knowing and understanding. According to
them, 'meaning' plays an important role in human learning. ‘Learning’ is a meaningful process of
“relating new events or items to already existing cognitive concepts.” (Brown, H.D. 1987:47); and it is
thought to involve internal representations that guide performance. In the case of language
acquisition, these representations are based on language system and involve procedures for
selecting appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules, and pragmatic conventions governing language
use.

David Ausubel (cited in Brown, 1987:80), who criticized the popular Audiolingual method for
its theory based on reinforcement and conditioning, stated that adults learning a second language
could profit from certain grammatical explanations. Whether adults do really profit from such
explanations depends on (1) the suitability and efficiency of the explanation, (2) the teacher, (3) the
context, and (4) other pedagogical variables. Though children do not use deductive presentations of
grammar and they do not have superior cognitive capacities, they acquire their mother tongue quite
successfully.

Cognitive psychologists see second language acquisition, on the other hand, as the “building
up of knowledge systems that can eventually be called automatically for speaking and
understanding” (Lightbown and Spada, 1993:25). Language learning, in this sense, has some Gestalt
characteristics in that language learning is a wholistic process and not analysable as stimulus-
-5-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

response associations. Language learners pay attention to any aspect of the language that they are
attempting to understand and produce. Then, step by step, they become able to use certain parts of
their knowledge through experience and practice.

In short, the cognitivists claim that language acquisition can be automatically attained.
However it is not clear how it will be automatized. And what L1 structures can be automatized
through practice in L2 and what structures can be transferred to L2 are not clearly accounted for.

2.5. The Discourse Theory

The Discourse Theory has resulted from a theory of language use. The theory emphasizes
that language development should be viewed within the framework of how the learner discover the
meaning capacity of language by taking part in communication. Del Hymes’ description of
communicative competence (Brown, 1987: 200, 201; Ellis, 1986:259), for instance, reflects the
principles of the Discourse Theory. Communicative competence includes knowledge of the grammar
and vocabulary, knowledge of rules of speaking, knowledge of how to use and respond to different
types of speech acts and social conventions, and knowledge of how to use language appropriately.

It is believed, according to discourse theorists, that language acquisition will successfully take
place when language learners “know” how and when to use the language in various settings and
when they have successfully “cognized” various forms of competence such as grammatical
competence (lexis, morphology, syntax and phonology) and pragmatic competence (e.g., speech
acts). A language learner needs to “know” conversational strategies to acquire the language. Halliday
(cited in Ellis, 1985: 259), for example, conducted a study on his own son’s first language acquisition
experience and asserted that basic language functions arise out of interpersonal uses and social
interaction.

Dwelling on the ideas above, first language acquisition notion of the theory is that children
accomplish actions in the world and develop rules of language structure and use. Accordingly, in the
case of L2 acquisition, language learners are encouraged to deal with accomplishing actions, which
are thought to help them acquire the target language. The Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
is the best known example of such a theory. In the communicative classes, students are expected to
learn by doing (discovery learning) and expected to acquire the language through the PPP
(presentation, practice and production) principle. It is another issue whether or not the CLT
techniques promote L2 acquisition.

The Discourse Theory has a number of drawbacks. It overemphasizes the role of external
factors in the process of language acquisition and gives little importance to internal learner strategies
(i.e., innate processes). The Discourse Theory is similar to the behavioristic view of language
acquisition in that environmental factors and input (or positive stimulus) are at the very center in
attempting to explicate the acquisition process. The Discourse Theory is of course more sophisticated
than the Skinner’s views in accounting for the complex structure of communication. Yet it
overstresses the role of “knowledge of competence and functions” in acquiring a language, and
hence fails to notice universal principles that guide language acquisition.

-6-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

2.6. The Speech Act Theory

This theory holds that saying something is a way of doing something. In speech act theory,
two kinds of meaning are seen in utterances. The fist is the prepositional meaning and the second is
the illocutionary meaning. The former refers to the basic literal meaning of the utterance conveyed
by the particular words or structures. The latter refers to the “effect” the spoken or written text has
on the listener or reader. For instance the utterances including “threatening” or “apologizing” might
have “presupposition” or “implicature” effects that listeners strive to figure out. It is, of course,
normal for someone to use these utterances in his native language. The problem is how propositions
and implicatures are acquired in first and second language. Does a formal instruction environment
help the learners acquire them? Or will it create an environment where learners know only “about”
them. Can it be labeled “acquisition”?

2.7. The Universal Grammar Theory

Among theories of language acquisition, Universal Grammar (UG) has recently gained wider
acceptance and popularity. Though noted among L2 acquisition theories, the defenders of UG are
not originally motivated to account for L2 acquisition, nor for first language (L1) acquisition.
However, UG is more of an L1 acquisition theory rather than L2. It attempts to clarify the relatively
quick acquisition of L1s on the basis of 'minimum exposure' to external input. The 'logical problem' of
language acquisition, according to UG proponents, is that language learning would be impossible
without 'universal language-specific knowledge' (Cook, 1991:153; Bloor & Bloor: 244). The main
reason behind this argument is the input data:

"…[L]anguage input is the evidence out of which the learner constructs knowledge of
language – what goes into the [brain]. Such evidence can be either positive or negative. …
The positive evidence of the position of words in a few sentences [the learner] hear[s] is
sufficient to show [him] the rules of [a language]." (Cook, 1991: 154)

The views supports the idea that the external input per se may not account for language
acquisition (Ellidokuzoglu, 1999:20). Similarly, the Chomskyan view holds that the input is poor and
deficient in two ways. First, the input is claimed to be 'degenerate' because it is damaged by
performance features such as slips, hesitations or false starts. Accordingly, it is suggested that the
input is not an adequate base for language learning. Second, the input is devoid of grammar
corrections. This means that the input does not normally contain 'negative evidence', the knowledge
from which the learner could exercise what is 'not'possible in a given language.

As for L2 acquisition, however, the above question is not usually asked largely because of the
frequent failure of L2 learners, who happen to be generally cognitively mature adults, in attaining
native-like proficiency. But why can't adults who have already acquired an L1, acquire an L2
thoroughly? Don't they have any help from UG? Or if they do, then how much of UG is accessible in
SLA? These and similar questions have divided researchers into three basic camps with respect to
their approach to the problem:

-7-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

Direct access -L2 acquisition is just like L1 acquisition. Language acquisition device (LAD) is involved.
No access - L2 learners use their general learning capacity.
Indirect access - Only that part of UG which has been used in L1 acquisition is used in L2 acquisition.

Proponents of UG, for example, believe that both children and adults utilize similar universal
principles when acquiring a language; and LAD is still involved in the acquisition process. This view
can be better understood in the following quote.

[A]dvocates of [UG] approach working on second-language learning... argue that there is no

reason to assume that language faculty atrophies with age. Most second-language
researchers who adopt the [UG] perspective assume that the principles and parameters of
[UG] are still accessible to the adult learner. (McLaughlin, 1987:96)

To support the view above, the acquisition of the third person “-s” can be given as an
example. According to research (1996, Cook: 21) both child L1 and adult L2 learners (e.g. Turkish
learners of English) acquire the third person “-s” morpheme at a later stage of their overall
acquisition process and have a great difficulty in acquiring it when compared to other morphemes
such as the plural morpheme “-s” or the progressive morpheme “-ing”. This shows that such learners
are somewhat affected by UG-based knowledge. However, in the case of foreign/second language
teaching it is very well known that the third person “-s” is taught at the very beginning of a second
language learning program and presented in a great majority of textbooks as the first grammatical
item.

Accordingly, Fodor’s views have some parallels with the UG Theory. Jerry Fodor studied the
relationship between language and mind and his view that language is a modular process has
important implications for a theory of language acquisition. The term modular is used to indicate that
the brain is seen, unlike older views such as behavioristic view of learning and language learning, to
be organized with many modules of cells for a particular ability (for instance, the visual module).
These modules, according to Fodor (1983:47), operate in isolation from other modules that they are
not directly connected. The language module, if we are to follow Fodor’s ideas, is one of such
modules. This modular separateness has been termed as “informational encapsulation” by Fodor. To
put it simply, each module is open to specific type of data. In other words, modules are domain
specific. This is another way of saying that conscious knowledge cannot penetrate your visual module
or language module or any other subconscious module.

Basically, Fodor’s arguments are somewhat similar to that of Chomsky or the proponents of
UG Theory in that the external input per se may not account for language acquisition and that
language acquisition is genetically predetermined. Add to this, such a modular approach to language
acquisition is totally different from the views of Piaget and Vygotsky who have laid the primary
emphasis on the role of social or environmental factors in language development.

In the case of foreign/second language teaching, the common view is that inductive learning
(teaching a language through hidden grammar or) leads to acquisition. However, dwelling on Fodor’s
views as discussed above, it is obvious that inductive learning is confused with acquisition and that by
learning something via discovery learning, students just improve their problem-solving skills, but not
acquire a language.
-8-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

As for the problems with Universal Grammar, it can be said that UG’s particular aim is to
account for how language works. Yet UG proponents had to deal with acquisition to account for the
language itself. “Acquisition part” is thus of secondary importance. A second drawback is that
Chomsky studied only the core grammar of the English language (syntax) and investigated a number
of linguistic universals seems to be the major problem. And he neglected the peripheral grammar,
that is, language specific rules (i.e., rules of specific languages which cannot be generalized). Thirdly,
the primary function of language is communication, but it is discarded. The final and the most
significant problem is a methodological one. Due to the fact that Chomsky is concerned only with
describing and explaining 'competence', there can be little likelihood of SLA researchers carrying out
empirical research.

In summary, UG has generated valuable predictions about the course of interlanguage and
the influence of the first language. Also, it has provided invaluable information regarding L2 teaching
as to how L2 teachers (or educational linguists) should present vocabulary items and how they
should view grammar. As Cook (1991:158) puts it, UG shows us that language teaching should deal
with how vocabulary should be taught, not as tokens with isolated meanings but as items that play a
part in the sentence saying what structures and words they may go with in the sentence. The
evidence in support of UG, on the other hand, is not conclusive. If the language module that
determines the success in L1 acquisition is proved to be accessible in L2 acquisition, L2 teaching
methodologists and methods should study and account for how to trigger this language module and
redesign their methodologies. The UG theory should, therefore, be studied in detail so as to endow
us with a more educational and pedagogical basis for mother tongue and foreign language teaching.

2.8. The Monitor Model

Krashen’s Monitor Model is an example of the nativist theories. The model forms the basis of
the Natural Approach, which is a comprehension-based approach to foreign and second language
teaching. The model consists of five hypotheses The explanations of the hypotheses below have been
taken from an article titled “A Promising Approach to Second Language Acquisition” (Kiymazarslan,
2000:72-82).

(1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen (1985), in his theory of second language acquisition (SLA) suggested that adults have
two different ways of developing competence in second languages: Acquisition and learning. “There
are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages. ‘Acquisition’ is a subconscious
process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language,
... [and] ‘learning’..., [which is] a conscious process that results in 'knowing about' [the rules of]
language” (Krashen 1985:1).

Krashen (1983) believes that the result of learning, learned competence (LC) functions as a
monitor or editor. That is, while AC is responsible for our fluent production of sentences, LC makes
correction on these sentences either before or after their production. This kind of conscious
grammar correction, ‘monitoring’, occurs most typically in a grammar exam where the learner has
-9-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

enough time to focus on form and to make use of his conscious knowledge of grammar rules (LC) as
an aid to ‘acquired competence’. The way to develop learned competence is fairly easy: analyzing the
grammar rules consciously and practising them through exercises. But what Acquisition / Learning
Distinction Hypothesis predicts is that learning the grammar rules of a foreign/second language does
not result in subconscious acquisition.

The implication of the acquisition-learning hypothesis is that we should balance class time
between acquisition activities and learning exercises.

(2) The Natural Order Hypothesis

According to the hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a

predicted progression. Certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before others in
first language acquisition and there is a similar natural order in SLA. The implication of natural order
is not that second or foreign language teaching materials should be arranged in accordance with this
sequence but that acquisition is subconscious and free from conscious intervention.

(3) The Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning. Krashen (1985:3) claims that people
acquire language best by understanding input that is a little beyond their present level of
competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that ‘comprehensible input’ (that is, i + 1) should be
provided. The 'input' should be relevant and 'not grammatically sequenced'. The foreign/second
language teacher should always send meaningful messages, which are roughly tuned, and ‘must’
create opportunities for students to access i+1 structures to understand and express meaning. For
instance, the teacher can lay more emphasis on listening and reading comprehension activities.

(4) The Monitor Hypothesis

As mentioned before, adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the
target language. The first is ‘acquisition’ which is a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing
the system of a language. The second means is a conscious learning process in which learners attend
to form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process. The ‘monitor’ is an aspect of
this second process. It edits and makes alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived.
Krashen (1985:5) believes that ‘fluency’ in second language performance is due to ‘what we have
acquired’, not ‘what we have learned’: Adults should do as much acquiring as possible for the
purpose of achieving communicative fluency. Therefore, the monitor should have only a minor role
in the process of gaining communicative competence. Similarly, Krashen suggests three conditions
for its use: (1) there must be enough time; (2) the focus must be on form and not on meaning; (3) the
learner must know the rule. Students may monitor during written tasks (e.g., homework
assignments) and preplanned speech, or to some extent during speech. Learned knowledge enables
students to read and listen more so they acquire more.

-10-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

(5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The learner's emotional state, according to Krashen (1985:7), is just like an adjustable filter
which freely passes or hinders input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must be achieved
in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with a low affective filter receive more input and interact with
confidence. The filter is ‘affective’ because there are some factors which regulate its strength. These
factors are self-confidence, motivation and anxiety state. The pedagogical goal in a foreign/second
language class should thus not only include comprehensible input but also create an atmosphere that
fosters a low affective filter.

The Monitor Model has been criticized by some linguists and methodologists McLaughlin
(1987: 56), notes that the model fails at every juncture by claiming that none of the hypotheses is
clear in their predictions. For example, he notes that the acquisition-learning distinction is not
properly defined and that the distinction between these two processes cannot be tested empirically.
Although it is true that some parts of the theory need more clarification, it would be harsh to suggest
that the Model is a pseudo-scientific. Hasanbey (personal communication) define acquisition as
follows:

"Any systematic linguistic behavior, the rules of which cannot be verbalized by its performer
is the outcome of acquisition. So if one uses a specific language rule in proper contexts and if the
same person cannot articulate the underlying language rule which determines its proper context,
then that person is said to have acquired the rule in question. On the other hand, if a person can
verbalize a language rule, with or without its proper implementation during performance then that
person is said to have conscious knowledge of that rule. So one might have acquired and learned the
same rule in theory."

While writing these very sentences, I have displayed a curious example of committing an
error which proves the acquisition-learning distinction. In the statement “Hasanbey (personal
communication) define acquisition as follows” the verb define should have an “-s” attached to it. I, as
an EFL learner/teacher of English for about 20 years, "consciously" know when to attach that suffix to
the verbs. But when it comes to fluent writing and speaking during which only subconsciously
acquired rules have a say, I frequently miss that third person singular –s. So I and many other L2
learners who commit this error in spite of knowing the underlying rule at a conscious level, are the
irrefutable evidence proving the distinction between acquisition and learning. The on-going interest
in Krashen’s theory and the emergence of articles supporting his theory in recent journals also proves
that his theory is far from being pseudo-scientific. Here is a typical example:

"Krashen's 'acquisition-learning' distinction has met harsh criticism but the theory he put
forward deserves a more sympathetic reappraisal. First of all, the theory is not insulated against
falsification. The results of the studies examining the effects of explicit positive and/or negative
evidence in formal learning are not inconsistent with it. Recent studies on the acquisition of
functional categories lends support to the existence of the natural order in English L2. It is also
possible to single out major dimensions on which processes and products of the 'acquired' and
'learned' systems differ using the principles of markedness and differences in computational
complexity."(Zobl, 1995:35)

-11-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

So far eight theories of language acquisition have been discussed (see Appendix I and II for a
brief account of other theories and a classification of theories based on the distinction made here). It
can be seen that none of the theories is complete and most of them need developing. Each theory,
however, is important for their implications and provides invaluable information as to how a
language is acquired. and how language teaching should take place.
III. CONCLUSION

The most important implication of language acquisition theories is obviously the fact that
applied linguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the acquisition of a language not
only as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. In addition, only when we distinguish
between a general theory of learning and language learning can we ameliorate the conditions L2
education. To do so, applied linguists must be aware of the nature of both L1 and L2 acquisition and
must consider the distinction proposed in this study.

Ridgway (2000, 13) notes that the educational linguist (not the applied linguist) is a
practitioner who applies and adapts the policies of others in the classroom creatively. If the
educational linguist is to adapt language models proposed by others (applied linguists) for classroom
practice, it becomes more important “how” he or she will adopt them. How, for instance, should s/he
utilize the findings of SLA studies conducted on syntax or natural order and use them for his or her
particular classroom settings? How should grammar points be handled? Should they be taught
inductively or deductively? Or should there be a balance between grammar lessons and acquisition
lessons just as proposed by the proponents of the Monitor Model? How should vocabulary teaching
be like and how should a syllabus be designed? How will the results of language planning proposed
by the government be implemented? Most of these “how” questions can be answered properly only
through a detailed analysis and a thorough understanding of language acquisition theories.

Here, on the shoulders of the methodologists lays quite a heavy responsibility. As we often
see, linguistics and TEFL/TESL are largely based on the nurturist facet of language acquisition,
emphasizing discourse and ethnolinguistic studies. It would, of course, be unwise to deemphasize
such studies and their role in accounting for language acquisition and reaching a possible theory of
educational linguistics. However, in this article it has been shown that language acquisition is also a
considerable matter of innate factors. What is then the role of that “nature” part of theories in the
overall sketch of language acquisition and methodology?
In addition, the author wishes to emphasize the necessity of the subfield “educational
psycholinguistics”. In Stubbs’ point of view (1986:283), a thorough description of language in use,
language variation, levels of language such as phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics and
discourse will form the bases of a complete educational theory of language. If such a theory is
expected to be beneficial to foreign and second language teaching, then it should not only include
these environmentalist components but also include the subfield “educational psycholinguistics”
which would mainly focus on “naturist” accounts as discussed in previous parts of this article. The
inclusion of educational psycholingustics in this sense will make the current position of applied
linguistics and language teaching far stronger. No longer should mind and innateness be treated as
dirty words (Pinker, 1994:22). This will most probably lead to innovative proposals for syllabus
development and the design of instructional systems, practices, techniques, procedures in the
language classroom, and finally a sound theory of L2 teaching and learning.
-12-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LOOR, T., M. BLOOR. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.
BROWN, H.D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
CHOMSKY, N. 1959. “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior.” Language. Vol. 35, Number 1. Pp.
26-58. In “Landmarks of American Language and Linguistics”. Frank Smolinski (Ed.). USIA.
Washington: 1986.
COOK, V. 1996. Second Language Learning and Teaching. London: Arnold.
ELLIDOKUZOGLU, H. 1991. “Grammar Can Make a Difference. But How?” TTR. Bogazici University.
ELLIDOKUZOGLU, H. 1999. “The Role of Innate Knowledge in Second Language Acquisition”. Science
Journal of Army Academy. Vol. 1:1, 13-30.
ELLIS, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
EYSENECK, M. 1990. The Blackwell Dictionary of Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Blackwell.
FODOR, J.A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
KIYMAZARSLAN, V. 2000. “A Promising Approach to Second Language Acquisition”. Science Journal of
Army Academy. Vol. 1:2, 72-82.
KRASHEN, S. 1983. Principle and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
KRASHEN, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.
LIGHTBOWN, P. and N. SPADA. 1993. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford Univesrity Press.
McLAUGHLIN, B. 1987. Theories of Second-Language Learning. Great Britain: Edward Arnold.
MURPHY, B. 1983. A Review of “CONVERSATIONS OF MIGUEL AND MARIA: HOW CHILDREN LEARN A
SECOND LANGUAGE” by Linda Ventriglia. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company”. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 17: 123.
RICHARDS, J. ET AL. 1991. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman Group Limited.
RIDGEWAY, C. 2000. “Applied Linguistics and Educational Linguistics”. Unpublished Paper. Submitted
to Prof.Dr. M. Demirezen. Hacettepe University.
PINKER, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
SPOLSKY, B. 1990. “Educational Linguistics: Definitions, Progress Problems.” Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 6. Thessaloniki.
STUBBS, M. 1986. Educational Linguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
VYGOTSKY, L.S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. (edited and
translated by Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar).
WOLFSON, N. 1986. “Research Methodology and the Question of Validity”. TESOL Quarterly Vol.20: 82-92.
ZOBL, H. 1995. Converging evidence for the "acquisition-learning" distinction. Applied Linguistics. 16: 35-56.

-13-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

APPENDIX - I: OVERVIEW OF OTHER LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES

Gramsci’s Theory of Language (reflects the environmentalist view): Language is important in

establishing cultural hegemony and the prescriptivist teaching of prestigious forms of language to
workers and peasants is encouraged in order to empower them. This theory has not resulted from any
prevailing schools of psychology or linguistics.

Bakhtin’s Theory of Polyphony or Dialogics (reflects the environmentalist view): Language cannot be
usefully studied in isolation from social and political factors. The theory stresses the value of linguistic
diversity and pluralism. Language evolves dynamically and is affected by the culture that produces it
as it helps to shape that culture. In this sense, the theory can perhaps partially be likened to Sapir-
Whorf’s “relativity theory” asserting that each language imposes on its speaker a particular world view.
There is no record showing that this theory has arisen out of any prevailing schools of psychology or
linguistics. Yet it is obviously seen that Bakhtin has been influenced from Vygotsky and Piaget to some
extent.

The Competition Model (reflects the environmentalist view): Language has four main facets: word
order, vocabulary, word forms and intonation. Whatever the speaker wants to communicate has to be
achieved by means of these four. Children learn their mother language by attaching particular weights
to particular clues. For example, the English children lay the emphasis on word order while the
Russian children on word endings. This model is an example of discovery learning and fails to account
realistic language acquisition.

The Acculturation Model (Socio-Educational Model) (reflects the environmentalist view): Successful
learning means acculturation, that is, becoming part of the target culture. Learners should view them
as neither superior nor inferior in the target language community to acquire the language better.
Sociocultural factor may be important in acquiring a language, but is it not possible to acquire a
foreign/second language without being a part of the target society? According to the nativists, it is
possible to acquire it anywhere in case the necessary conditions for acquisition are provided.

Accommodation Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Language acquisition is seen as a

matter of nurture only. Learners adjust their speech towards that of the person they are talking to when
they want to reduce social distance, show solidarity or get something from that person yet adjust their
speech the other way when they wish to create social distance. This theory might help us to know
more about some sociolinguistic preconditions in maintaining communication rather than help us see
how a language is really acquired.

The Variable Competence Model (based on the environmentalist view): This is an L2 theory stating
that language acquisition is a two sided phenomenon: the process and the product of language. The
process refers to the distinction between the linguistic rules and the ability to make use of these rules.
The product of language refers to discourse types to be generated from unplanned to planned.

The Identity Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that any language which
is capable of serving as a medium for inter-personal communication must necessarily presuppose the
existence of a motivationally ideal environment for a child to acquire L2 and L1 successfully. According
to Erik Erikson (cited in Murphy, 1983:123), the self or identity is a dynamic state by which the child
continually defines selfhood. A learner (student) may act more differently at home than he acts at
school. It is not a static phenomenon. Erikson does not see identity crisis, therefore, as an evil or as a
malfunctioning of the personality. The theory implies that, in language acquisition, both motivational
and sociolinguistic factors are of crucial importance in facilitating the overall language development.

-14-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

The Connectionist Model (based on the environmentalist view): Language learning is seen as
establishing the potencies between the vast numbers of connections in the brain and language
acquisition does not take place in a gradual mode but simultaneously. This model fails to account how
language is acquired because it just studies how the brain makes the connections when a language is
processed. The only difference from the other nurturist models is that the black box (i.e., the brain) is
opened, yet not studied as the nativists do.

The Interactionist View of Language Acquisition (based on the environmentalist view): The acquisition
of language is viewed as the result of an interaction between the learner’ mental abilities (cognition)
and the linguistic input. This model might perhaps be regarded as the best model since it seems as if it
combines both naturist and the nurturist ideas. However, it is not for the nativists believe that the
combination of general learning capacity (cognition) and the environmental input do not lead to
language acquisition.

A Neurofunctional Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Ellis (1985:273) notes that this theory
is based on two systems: the communication hierarchy and the cognitive hierarchy. “The
communication hierarchy” means language and other forms of interpersonal communication. “The
cognitive hierarchy, on the other hand, refers to a number of cognitive information processing activities
possibly related with “conscious” processes. The theory also makes a sharp distinction between
Primary Language Acquisition (PLA) and Secondary Language Acquisition (SELA). PLA is seen in the
child’s acquisition of one or more languages from the age of two to five. SELA is found in both adults
and children. It is, in addition, divided into two parts (a) foreign language learning, that is formal
classroom language learning, and (b) second language acquisition, that is, the natural acquisition of a
second language after the age of five. This theory claims that PLA and (b) is marked through use of
the communication hierarchy while (a) is marked by the use of the cognitive hierarchy only. If we are to
accept the existence of some innate and subconscious linguistic properties, which is what the nativists
have claimed, we then have the right to ask the question of why (a) is treated only as a cognitive
process.

The Deficit Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that children from working-
class or immigrant backgrounds have insufficient command of grammar and vocabulary to express
complex ideas and thus that they are unable to succeed in school.

The Difference Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Unlike the Deficit Theory explained
above, the proponents of the theory argues that the speech of working-class children is fully capable
of expressing complex ideas, even though their speech is different from the standard speech of middle
class speakers and penalized in school.

The Information vs Communication Theory: This, in fact, is a mathematical theory of communication. It

is concerned particularly with the transmission of data in one direction and it takes no account of the
person receiving the communication. In the case of The Communication Theory, on the other hand, a
source encodes and transmits a message along channel; then the message reaches its destination
and decoded. Consequently it produces its effect. In SLA and FLA, the latter, the communication
theory, is more relevant.

The Immersion Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory claims that a learner is
expected to acquire a language and communicate in that language when he or she is surrounded by
the language and when s/he hears nothing else.

The Submersion Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that a language may
be acquired when the language of instruction is not the first language but the target language for some
of the learners. This particularly happens when immigrant children enter school.
-15-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

The Cognitive Code Theory: This theory holds that language learning is a process which involves
active mental processes and not simply the forming habits. The learner’s active part is more important
particularly in the course of learning grammar rules. The CLT takes some ideas from this view.

The Mediation Theory (based on the environmentalist view): The theory is the outcome of
psychological studies. It holds that certain types of learning occur in terms of links which are formed
between a stimulus and a response. This one and such type of theories are obviously associated with
behavioristic views.

The Schema Theory: The Schema Theory is based on the term schemata. Schemata (plural of
schema) consist of structured groups of concepts that constitute the generic knowledge about events,
actions, or scenarios which has been acquired from past experience. According to the Schema
Theory, schemata influence the way that new information is processed in a number of ways such as
recalling the relevant and irrelevant information and using them. In language acquisition it poses an
important question particularly on the role of background knowledge in attaining language proficiency.
Its implication for both L1 and L2 teaching, for instance, can be providing the students with anticipation
exercises in a reading course, or presenting new vocabulary items in a context whose subject matter
appeals to learners (i.e., familiarity) in a way such as to activate the students’ background knowledge
(i.e., schemata).

The Bulge Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory is a sociolinguistically oriented
theory of language development. In his article, Wolfson (1986: 82) notes that examining the rules of
speaking for a particular speech community is the initial step in understanding what it means to be
communicatively competent among that group. It is important to have reliable descriptions of these
rules and patterns in order to improve second language instruction and assessment. For instance,
there is a qualitative difference between the speech behavior which middle-class Americans use to
intimates, status-unequals, and strangers, on the one hand, and with nonintimates, status-equal
friends, co-workers, and acquaintances, on the other. This is called the bulge theory by Wolfson
because of the way the frequencies of certain types of speech behaviors. An implication for education
linguistics is that analysing the society for varieties of speech is still important However, in the case of
L1 and L2, it fails to account how these speech behaviors are acquired. Therefore, it needs probing
further to lay on a pedagogically sound basis.

The Interlingual Theory (based on the environmentalist view): The term interlanguage refers to a
language system created by someone learning a second language and it is regarded as a “reduced”
version of the target language with many features carried over from the learner’s mother tongue. The
theory asserts that language acquisition is a matter of transfer of linguistic items from L1 (interlingual)
and L2 (intralingual). The theory emphasized the study of spoken and written discourse to reveal
errors that might pose difficulty on acquisition (i.e., the intermediary language).

-16-
 KIYMAZARSLAN

APPENDIX - II: A CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES AROUND “NURTURE AND

NATURE DISTINCTION”

Some of the Resulting

THEORIES OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Foreign/Second
(BOTH L1 AND L2) Language Teaching
Methods

Bakhtin’s Theory of Polyphony or

Dialogics, Vygotsky’s Zone of Audiolingual
THEORIES BASED Proximal Development, Skinner’s Method
ON "NURTURE" Verbal Behavior, Piaget’s View of
Language Acquisition, The Community Language
(environmental Competition Model, Cognitive Theory: Learning
factors are believed Language Acquisition View, Discourse
to be more dominant Theory, The Speech Act Theory, The Communicative
in language Acculturation Model, - Accommodation Approach
acquisition) Theory, The Variable Competence,
The Interactionist View of Language
Others
Acquisition, The Connectionist Model

THEORIES BASED Winitz’s

ON “NATURE” Comprehension
A Neurofunctional Theory of Language Approach
Acquisition, The Universal Grammar
(innate factors are Theory, Fodor’s Modular
believed to be more The Natural Approach
Approach,The Monitor Model
dominant in language + Other CI-Based
acquisition) Methods

* Vedat KIYMAZARSLAN (MA-TEFL), Freelance Instructor of English and ELT Specialist. (This article
[2002] by Vedat Kiymazarslan has been published in Science Journal of Army Academy and appeared
in TESL, the Internet TESL Journal. The article is also a paper sumbitted to Prof.Dr. M.Demirezen for a
PhD course titled Educational Linguistics at Hacettepe University, Dept. of English Language Teaching.)

FOR CITATION:

Kiymazarslan, V. (2002). A Discussion of Language Acquisition Theories. The

Natural Approach Web Site. A Comprehension-Based Aprroach to Language Teaching.
http://naturalway.awardspace.com/articles/article006.htm

© COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.NO PART OF THIS ARTICLE MAY BE COPIED OR TRANSFERRED
BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.

-17-