SPEECH ACT THEORY

A speech act in linguistics and the philosophy of language is something expressed by an individual that not

only presents information, but performs an action as well.[1] For example, the phrase "I would like the kimchi,
could you please pass it to me?" is considered a speech act as it expresses the speaker's desire to acquire the
kimchi, as well as presenting a request that someone pass the kimchi to them. According to Kent Bach,
"almost any speech act is really the performance of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of
the speaker's intention: there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as requesting or
promising, and how one is trying to affect one's audience".[2] The contemporary use of the term goes back to J.
L. Austin's development of performative utterances and his theory of locutionary, illocutionary,
and perlocutionary acts. Speech acts serve their function once they are said or communicated. These are
commonly taken to include acts such as apologizing, promising, ordering, answering, requesting, complaining,
warning, inviting, refusing, and congratulating.[3]

History[edit]
For much of the history of the positivist philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as a way of
making factual assertions, and the other uses of language tended to be ignored, as Austin states at the
beginning of Lecture 1, "It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement'
can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact', which it must do either truly or
falsely."[4] Wittgenstein came up with the idea of "don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use," showing language
as a new vehicle for social activity.[5] Speech act theory hails from Wittgenstein's philosophical theories.
Wittgenstein believed meaning derives from pragmatic tradition, demonstrating the importance of how
language is used to accomplish objectives within specific situations. By following rules to accomplish a goal,
communication becomes a set of language games. Thus, utterances do more than reflect a meaning, they are
words designed to get things done.[6] The work of J. L. Austin, particularly his How to Do Things with Words,
led philosophers to pay more attention to the non-declarative uses of language. The terminology he introduced,
especially the notions "locutionary act", "illocutionary act", and "perlocutionary act", occupied an important role
in what was then to become the "study of speech acts". All of these three acts, but especially the "illocutionary
act", are nowadays commonly classified as "speech acts".
Austin was by no means the first one to deal with what one could call "speech acts" in a wider sense. The term
'social act' and some of the theory of this sui generis type of linguistic action are to be found in the fifth
of Thomas Reid's Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind (1788, chapter VI, Of the Nature of a
Contract).[7]
Adolf Reinach (1883–1917)[8] and Stanislav Škrabec (1844–1918)[citation needed] have been both independently
credited with a fairly comprehensive account of social acts as performative utterances dating to 1913, long
before Austin and Searle.
The term "Speech Act" had also been already used by Karl Bühler.[9][10]
The term metalocutionary act has also been used to indicate a speech act that refers to the forms and
functions of the discourse itself rather than continuing the substantive development of the discourse, or to the
configurational functions of prosody and punctuation.[citation needed]

Overview: levels of speech acts[edit]

Speech acts can be analysed on three levels:

1. A locutionary act: the performance of an utterance: the actual utterance and its apparent meaning,
comprising any and all of its verbal, social, and rhetorical meanings, all of which correspond to the
verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance;
2. an illocutionary act: the active result of the implied request or meaning presented by the locutionary act.
For example, if the locutionary act in an interaction is the question "Is there any salt?" the implied
illocutionary request is "Can someone pass the salt to me?";
 3. and in certain cases a further perlocutionary act: the actual effect of the locutionary and illocutionary
acts, such as persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise getting someone to
do or realize something, whether intended or not.[1]

Speech acts in action[edit]

Speech Acts are commonplace in everyday interactions and are important for communication, as well as
present in many different contexts. Examples of these include...

 "You're fired!" expresses both the employment status of the individual in question, as well as the action
by which said person's employment is ended.[11]
 "I hereby appoint you as chairman" expresses both the status of the individual as chairman, and is the
action which promotes the individual to this position.[12]
 "We ask that you extinguish your cigarettes at this time, and bring your tray tables and seatbacks to an
upright position." This statement describes the requirements of the current location, such as an airplane,
while also issuing the command to stop smoking and to sit up straight.
 "Would it be too much trouble for me to ask you to hand me that wrench?" functions to simultaneously
ask two questions. The first is to ask the listener if they are capable of passing the wrench, while the
second is an actual request
 "Well, would you listen to that?" acts as a question, requesting that a listener heed what is being said
by the speaker, but also as an exclamation of disbelief or shock.[13]

Illocutionary acts[edit]
The concept of an illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act. Although there are several
scholarly opinions regarding how to define 'illocutionary acts', there are some kinds of acts which are widely
accepted as illocutionary. Examples of these widely accepted acts are commands or promises.
The first of these opinions is the one held by the man who coined the term "speech act" in his book How to Do
Things with Words (published posthumously in 1962),[1] John L. Austin. According to Austin's preliminary
informal description, the idea of an "illocutionary act" can be captured by emphasizing that "by saying
something, we do something", as when someone issues an order to someone to go by saying "Go!", or when a
minister joins two people in marriage saying, "I now pronounce you husband and wife." (Austin would
eventually define the "illocutionary act" in a more exact manner.)
An alternative to Austin's explanation of the illocutionary act is that given by John R. Searle. According to
Searle, a "speech act" is often meant to refer to exactly the same thing as the term illocutionary act. Searle's
work on speech acts is understood to further refine Austin's conception. However, some philosophers have
pointed out a significant difference between the two conceptions: whereas Austin emphasized the conventional
interpretation of speech acts, Searle emphasized a psychological interpretation (based on beliefs, intentions,
etc.).[14]

Perlocutionary acts[edit]
While illocutionary acts relate more to the speaker, perlocutionary acts are centered around the listener.
Perlocutionary acts always have a 'perlocutionary effect' which is the effect a speech act has on a listener. This
could affect the listener's thoughts, emotions or even their physical actions.[15] An example of this could be if
someone uttered the sentence "I'm hungry." The perlocutionary effect on the listener could be the effect of
being persuaded by the utterance. For example, after hearing the utterance, the listener could be persuaded to
make a sandwich for the speaker.

Performative speech acts[edit]

An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that performed in the utterance of what Austin calls
performatives, typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I sentence you to ten years'
imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative sentences,
the action that the sentence describes (nominating, sentencing, promising) is performed by the utterance of the
sentence itself. J.L. Austin claimed that performative sentences could be "happy or unhappy". They were only
happy if the speaker does the actions he or she talks about. They were unhappy if this did not happen.
Performative speech acts also use explicit verbs instead of implicit ones. For example, stating "I intend to go."
does convey information, but it does not really mean that you are [e.g.] promising to go; so it does not count as
"performing" an action ("such as" the action of promising to go). Therefore, it [the word "intend"] is an implicit
verb; i.e., a verb that would not be suitable for use in performative speech acts.[16]

Indirect speech acts[edit]

In the course of performing speech acts we communicate with each other. The content of communication may
be identical, or almost identical, with the content intended to be communicated, as when a stranger asks,
"What is your name?"
However, the meaning of the linguistic means used (if ever there are linguistic means, for at least some so-
called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may also be different from the content intended to be
communicated. One may, in appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the dishes by just saying,
"Peter ...!", or one can promise to do the dishes by saying, "Me!"
One common way of performing speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and
indeed performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect. One may, for instance, say,
"Peter, can you close the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he will be able to close the window, but also
requesting that he does so. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a
question, it counts as an indirect speech act.
An even more indirect way of making such a request would be to say, in Peter's presence in the room with the
open window, "I'm cold." The speaker of this request must rely upon Peter's understanding of several items of
information that is not explicit: that the window is open and is the cause of them being cold, that being cold is
an uncomfortable sensation and they wish it to be taken care of, and that Peter cares to rectify this situation by
closing the window. This, of course, depends much on the relationship between the requester and Peter—he
might understand the request differently if they were his boss at work than if they were his girlfriend or
boyfriend at home. The more presumed information pertaining to the request, the more indirect the speech act
may be considered to be.
Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example, if a speaker
asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and the other replies, "I have class." The second speaker has
used an indirect speech act to reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class"
does not entail any sort of rejection.
This poses a problem for linguists, as it is confusing (on a rather simple approach) to see how the person who
made the proposal can understand that his proposal was rejected. Following substantially an account of H. P.
Grice, Searle suggests that we are able to derive meaning out of indirect speech acts by means of a
cooperative process out of which we are able to derive multiple illocutions; however, the process he proposes
does not seem to accurately solve the problem. Sociolinguistics has studied the social dimensions of
conversations. This discipline considers the various contexts in which speech acts occur.
In other words, this means that one does not need to say the words apologize, pledge, or praise in order to
show they are doing the action. All the examples above show how the actions and indirect words make
something happen rather than coming out straightforward with specific words and saying it.

In language development[edit]
Dore (1975) proposed that children's utterances were realizations of one of nine primitive speech acts:[17]

1. labelling
2. repeating
3. answering
4. requesting (action)
5. requesting (answer)
6. calling
7. greeting
8. protesting
9. practicing
Formalization[edit]
There is no agreed formalization of Speech Act theory. A first attempt to give some grounds of an illocutionary
logic has been given by John Searle and D. Vandervecken 1985.[18] Other attempts have been proposed
by Per Martin-Löf for a treatment of the concept of assertion inside intuitionistic type theory, and by Carlo Dalla
Pozza, with a proposal of a formal pragmatics connecting propositional content (given with classical semantics)
and illocutionary force (given by intuitionistic semantics). Up to now the main basic formal application of
speech act theory are to be found in the field of human-computer interaction (in chatboxes and other tools: see
below).

In computer science[edit]
Computational speech act models of human–computer conversation have been developed.[19]
Speech act theory has been used to model conversations for automated classification and retrieval.[20]
Another highly-influential view of Speech Acts has been in the 'Conversation for Action' developed by Terry
Winograd and Fernando Flores in their 1987 text "Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation
for Design". Arguably the most important part of their analysis lies in a state-transition diagram (in Chapter 5)
that Winograd and Flores claim underlies the significant illocutionary (speech act) claims of two parties
attempting to coordinate action with one another (no matter whether the agents involved might be human–
human, human–computer, or computer–computer).
A key part of this analysis is the contention that one dimension of the social domain-tracking the illocutionary
status of the transaction (whether individual participants claim that their interests have been met, or not) is very
readily conferred to a computer process, regardless of whether the computer has the means to adequately
represent the real world issues underlying that claim. Thus a computer instantiating the 'conversation for
action' has the useful ability to model the status of the current social reality independent of any external reality
on which social claims may be based.
This transactional view of speech acts has significant applications in many areas in which (human) individuals
have had different roles—for instance, a patient and a physician might meet in an encounter in which the
patient makes a request for treatment, the physician responds with a counter-offer involving a treatment she
feels is appropriate, and the patient might respond, etc. Such a "Conversation for Action" can describe a
situation in which an external observer (such as a computer or health information system) may be able to track
the ILLOCUTIONARY (or Speech Act) STATUS of negotiations between the patient and physician participants
even in the absence of any adequate model of the illness or proposed treatments. The key insight provided by
Winograd and Flores is that the state-transition diagram representing the SOCIAL (Illocutionary) negotiation of
the two parties involved is generally much, much simpler than any model representing the world in which those
parties are making claims; in short, the system tracking the status of the 'conversation for action' need not be
concerned with modeling all of the realities of the external world. A conversation for action is critically
dependent upon certain stereotypical CLAIMS about the status of the world made by the two parties. Thus a
"Conversation for Action" can be readily tracked and facilitated by a device with little or no ability to model
circumstances in the real world other than the ability to register claims by specific agents about a domain.
Uses in technology[edit]
In making useful applications of technology to domains such as healthcare, it is helpful to discriminate between
problems which are very, very hard (such as deep understanding of pathophysiology as it relates to genetic
and various environmental influences) and problems which are relatively easier, such as following the status of
negotiations between a patient and a health care provider. Speech Act (Illocutionary) Analysis allows for a
useful understanding of the status of a negotiation between (for instance) a health care provider and a patient
INDEPENDENT of any well-accepted credible and comprehensive understanding of a disease process as it
might apply to that patient. For this reason, systems which track the status of PROMISES and REJECTED-
PROPOSALS and ACCEPTED-PROMISES can help us to understand the situations in which (human or
computer) AGENTS find themselves as they attempt to fulfill ROLES involving other agents, and such systems
can facilitate both human and human–computer systems in achieving role-associated goals.
Rules[edit]
In the past, philosophy has discussed rules for when expressions are used. The two rules
are constitutive and regulative rules.[21]
The concept of constitutive rules finds its origin in Wittgenstein and Rawls,[22] and has been elaborated
by G.C.J. Midgley,[23] Max Black,[24] G.H. von Wright,[25] David Shwayder,[26] and John Searle.[27]
Whereas regulative rules are prescriptions that regulate a pre-existing activity (whose existence is logically
independent of the rules), constitutive rules constitute an activity the existence of which is logically dependent
on the rules.
For example: traffic rules are regulative rules that prescribe certain behaviour in order to regulate the traffic.
Without these rules however, the traffic would not cease to be. In contrast: the rules of chess are constitutive
rules that constitute the game. Without these rules chess would not exist, since the game is logically
dependent on the rules.[28]
In multi agent universes[edit]
Multi-agent systems sometimes use speech act labels to express the intent of an agent when it sends a
message to another agent. For example, the intent "inform" in the message "inform(content)" may be
interpreted as a request that the receiving agent adds the item "content" to its knowledge-base; this is in
contrast to the message "query(content)" which may be interpreted (depending on the semantics employed) as
a request to see if the item content is currently in the receiving agents knowledge base. There are at least two
standardisations of speech act labelled messaging KQML and FIPA.
KQML and FIPA are based on the Searlian, that is, psychological semantics of speech acts. Munindar P.
Singh has long advocated moving away from the psychological to a social semantics of speech acts—one that
would be in tune with Austin's conception.[29] Andrew Jones[30] has also been a critic of the psychological
conception. A recent collection of manifestos by researchers in agent communication reflects a growing
recognition in the multiagent systems community of the benefits of a social semantics.[31]
Other uses in technology[edit]

 "SAMPO" means Speech-Act-based office Modeling approach.[32]

 Speech act profiling has been used to detect deception in synchronous computer-mediated
communication.[33]

In political science[edit]
In political science, the Copenhagen School adopts speech act as a form of felicitous speech act (or simply
'facilitating conditions'), whereby the speaker, often politicians or players, act in accordance to the truth but in
preparation for the audience to take action in the directions of the player that are driven or incited by the act.
This forms an observable framework under a specified subject matter from the player, and the audience who
are 'under-theorised [would] remain outside of the framework itself, and would benefit from being both brought
in and drawn out.'[34] It is because the audience would not be informed of the intentions of the player, except to
focus on the display of the speech act itself. Therefore, in the perspective of the player, the truth of the subject
matter is irrelevant except the result produced via the audience.[35]
The study of speech acts is prevalent in legal theory since laws themselves can be interpreted as speech acts.
Laws issue out a command to their constituents which can be realized as an action. When forming a legal
contract, speech acts can be made when people are making or accepting an offer.[36] Considering the theory of
freedom of speech, some speech acts may not be legally protected. For example, a death threat is a type of
speech act and is considered to exist outside of the protection of freedom of speech as it is treated as a
criminal act.

In finance[edit]
In finance, it is possible to understand mathematical models as speech acts: the notion of "financial Logos"[37] is
defined in Walter (2016) as the speech act of mathematical financial risk models. The action of the financial
Logos on financial practices is the following: the framing of financial decision-making by risk modelling.

Introduction
Human beings learn every now and then. According to Cambridge Advanced Dictionary (2003), learning can be
defined as an activity of obtaining knowledge. We human usually learn or gain knowledge either in a conscious
way or subconscious way. Learning is not necessary must be conducted in a formal way such as tutorial, class
or lecture; however, we also learn when we having a conversation with others or be it listening to the radio.
“Learning is a relatively permanent change in a behavioral tendency and is the result of reinforced practice”
(1963, cited in Kimble and Garmezy, 1987, p.6). There are actually a few theories been used to describe how
knowledge or language is acquired namely Behaviourism, Innatism and Interactionism.

For the first part of this assignment will explain these theories’ various approaches and principles. Then, this
paper will focus on the pedagogical implications of each theory in teaching English as a Second Language. Part
two will focus on examining the underlying learning theories which could have influenced the teaching-
learning activities from a textbook. By the end of this paper, students will be able to differentiate learning
theories and adopt the most suitable ones into his/her teaching career.

Behaviourism is the earliest language learning theory which is propounded by J.B. Watson (1878-1957) in 1913.
This theory is supported and believed by some behaviourists who are Skinner, Pavlov and Thorndike; also,
profoundly developed the theory of behaviourism on learning.

Behaviourism focuses on observable behaviours which are changed as the symptoms of learning. According to
Brown (1987: 17), the behaviouristic approach focuses on the immediately perceptible aspects of linguistic
behaviour – the publicly observable responses. Learning only occurs when there are changes in behaviour and
observable as an evidence of changing. Feeling and mental process are not accepted in Skinner’s human
behaviour’s theory; however, he still accepted the existence of mind. Behaviourists consider learning a
language as a set of mechanical habits which are formed through a process of imitation and repetition.
Humans learn a language through repeating the same form and text until it becomes a habit. Children imitate
the sounds and patterns which they hear around (Lightbown & Spada: 1999). So, it was proposed that learners
would repeat words they heard and tried to use it in their conversation until it became a regular basis in life.
Behaviourists therefore think that learning a language especially second language (L2) should be learnt
through extensive drill and practice.

Besides that, behaviourists also justified that learning a new language is learning a new set of habit. According
to Ellis (1990), learning could be effected by manipulating the environment to provide the required experience.
This lead to the theory formation of habit is related to the environment where learning process actually takes
place. These habits formation and the environment are recognized as Stimulus-Response (S-R) by Pavlov and
Skinner. In 1950s, school of psychology successfully prevailed S-R in the form of behaviourism to ensure the
connection between both elements. Behaviourists might consider effective language behaviour to be the
production of correct responses to stimuli (Brown: 1987). According to the theory, behaviour happens in casual,
associative chains; all learning is thus characterized as associative learning, or habit formation, brought about
by the repeated association of a stilmulus with a response Hadley (1993, cited in Hilgard 1962, p.45). So, its
best known proponent, B.F. Skinner used rats conclude that conditioning has a 3-state procedure: stilmulus,
response and reinforcement. From here, Skinner presumed that human learning and animal learning are
parallel; thus, L2 learning is also similar as other kind of learning can be explained by the same laws as well as
principles.

Every process of learning has to be followed by reinforcement. All learning is the establishment of habits as the
results of reinforcement and reward (Demirezen: 1988). In behaviourism, there are two different types of
reinforcement. The first one is positive reinforcement, where the response or behaviour is strengthened and
positively augmented by praise or reward. For instance, when a student answer a question correct and the
teacher award him/her a star, then the student will try to answer another question because he/she is more
confident and motivated. In contrast, the second reinforcement is negative reinforcement. If a student been
scolded by his/her teacher after got the answer wrong, he/she would tend not to give answer by the next Q &
A session because it would make him/her feel embarrassed. In short, positive reinforcement helps learners
develop correct habits.

Furthermore, Behaviourist learning theory also claimed that old habits interfere with the acquisition of new
ones. Learning of the L2 would be facilitated since all the learners had to do was to transfer L1 habits (Ellis:
1990). That means errors in first language learning (L1) are the result of interference in L2. It has to be avoided
and prevent L1 interference happened as well as corrected on the spot if they do occur.

One of the examples of extensively drilling in learning is Audio Lingual Method which is an American method.
It is function as a structural approach designed to develop oral communication fluency in L2. Audio Lingual
Method is focuses on accuracy (pronunciation and intonation), mistakes should be avoided and corrected
immediately if it happened. Ellis (1990: 23) wrote: “for learning to be effective habits had to become
automatic.” In short, language learning’s pattern has to be “over-learnt” and the content based on common
day’s dialogues as well as expression. If follow by the positive reinforcement which will help students to
develop correct habits. By then, learning the structures of the language is more emphasized if compare to the
vocabulary.

Innatism

In 1959, Noam Chomsky published ‘Review of Verbal Behaviour’ to critically criticize Skinner’s theory of
Behaviourism. Innatists claimed that linguistic knowledge is an abstract nature no solely on the set of
mechanical habits (imitation and repetition). According to Ellis (1990), new grammatical forms were not
acquired through imitation and not stamped in through practice. Language is too complex and occurs too
rapidly for it to be learned through imitation. In other words, competence could not be achieved simply to
performance due to insufficient of input to enable the child to discover the ‘hidden’ rules (Ellis: 1990). For
Chomsky, children are not necessary to be taught because they will learn in terms of walking at about same
age; meanwhile, the environments contribute the most in learning. Chomsky and other linguists argued that
children are credited with a special ability to discover the underlying rules of a language system within
themselves. This innate and special ability is called Language Acquisition Device (LAD) or ‘a little black box’ and
Universal Grammar (UG) which exist in the brain. The LAD contains a set of abstract principles common to all
languages which enables the child to produce infinite variety of sentences and construct grammatical
sentences. UG was claimed to help children to extract the rules of their language and to avoid grammatical
errors (Fromkin, Rodman, Hyams 2007). Therefore, a child has to listen and learn grammar to trigger the LAD or
UG which then enables the child to discover the rules of the language. In short, human beings acquire and
adapt language in any environment along with input of language or linguistic knowledge.

Monitor Model

In 1982, Stephen Krashen, who have had a great influence on language learning and acquisition by stimulated
the ‘Monitor Model’. The Monitor Model consists of five hypotheses which are The Input Hypothesis, The
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, The Monitor Hypothesis, The Natural Order Hypothesis and The Affective
Filter Hypothesis.

The first hypothesis is Input Hypothesis. This hypothesis claimed that language acquisition takes place through
comprehension input (CI). Comprehensible input is available when students or learners are able to understand
messages and their attention is focused on meaning. Besides that, comprehensible input will only occur if the
inputs’ forms and structures pitch one level above the level of student (CI = i + 1). Whatever it pitches one level
above learner’s current level competence, both comprehension and acquisition will occur. Learners will not
benefit anything in learning if the input has no element of challenge; however, they will not acquire the
knowledge if the input is too difficult. Acquisition leads to the result of comprehensible input and not
production or quantity. Comprehensible Input does not have to be fine-tuned and reading is crucial to
language acquisition*.

The second hypothesis is Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. This hypothesis explained that adults have two
distinct and independent ways to develop knowledge of a second language – learning and acquisition. In
Krashen’s view, a learner learns second language whereas a child picks up or acquires his/her mother tongue
(first language). Learning is a conscious process with attention to form and error correction. In contrast,
acquisition is a subconscious process when a learner is engaged in meaningful communication and focus is on
meaning. Both acquired and learned knowledge are separately; therefore, learned knowledge cannot be
converted into acquired knowledge. If learner acquires knowledge by naturally, the knowledge will be able to
use spontaneously.

The third hypothesis is Monitor Hypothesis. Krashen developed this hypothesis and urged that acquired
knowledge is responsible for fluency and intuitive judgements about correctness. On the other hand, learnt
knowledge can be put to conscious use through the Monitor. A learner will use the monitor through learnt
knowledge to correct and check what they say is grammatically. This monitor operates only under three
circumstances when there is sufficient time to self-correct, the focus is on form and knowledge of the rules
being applied (Hadley: 1993). The fourth hypothesis is Natural Order Hypothesis where grammatical structures
are acquired in a natural and predictable order. It shows the evidence whenever the focus is on communication.

The last hypothesis is Affective Filter Hypothesis. Affect refers to things as motives, needs, attitures, and
emotional states (Lightbown & Spada 1999).This hypothesis is connected to the motivation factor. Cook (1993,
cited in Krashen 1985, p.3) claims that in order for a learner to success in acquiring knowledge, CI is a necessary
but not sufficient due to a ‘mental block’ that prevents acquirers from utilizing the CI input they receive for
language acquisition This mental block is called affective filter. The affective filter is low when the learner’s
motivation and self-confidence is high as well as low anxiety; therefore, more input is available for acquisition.
On the other hand, the affective filter is high when learner’s motivation and self-confidence are low. In short,
the success of acquisition is controlled by the affective filter.

Interactionism

Krashen claimed that every human has a natural innate mechanism to learn a language along with
comprehensible input (CI). However, Krashen’s CI came under challenge by few Applied Linguists namely
Evelyn Hatch, Teresa Pica and Michael Long. Michael Long agrees with Krashen that CI is important for
language acquisition but how input is made comprehensible (Lightbown & Spada: 1999). Language develops
as a result when interaction occurs between children and other speakers. Every learner has to converse and
communicate with others in order to adapt what they have learnt which shows their competence and
understanding. Therefore, a learner will develop his/her language ability when they take part in spontaneous
interactions rather than straight drills (Nunen 1991).

Correspondingly, Language acquisition is an outcome of interaction between the learner’s mental abilities and
the linguistic environment (Rozzana: n.d.). Native speaker provides language input to language learner;
meanwhile, language learner produces the language as the product of output through communication. In fact,
interactional modifications usually take place when native speaker modify their speech in order to make their
speech comprehensible. It is supported by Long (p.342) that modification is the vital and widely used method
of making input comprehensible. Learners will be promoted and engaged into this modification and
negotiation of meaning when there is a communication breakdown. There are few examples of interactional
modifications which are comprehension checks, clarification requests, confirmation checks, self
repetition/paraphrase and use of extralinguistic features.

In addition, learners usually engage in learning when information is to be exchanged with each other. During
the process of exchanging information or feedback after the conversation, output will be a route to language
learning along with interactional modification. Besides that, two-way communication promotes more
interactional modification than one-way communication. According to Rozzana (n.d.), for the learner to
communicate, he must learn the language and in order to learn it he must communicate. This point often
overlooked on how Bangladeshi workers in Malaysia can master simple ‘Bahasa Malaysia’ although without
attending formal tutorial. They acquire the language through social interaction in daily conversation; also,
interact with the environment. Henceforth, Long’s ideas are identical with Vygotsky’s theory of Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) where learners acquire knowledge through interaction with the physical world
(Lightbown & Spada: 1999).

Comprehension Output

Both Michael Long and Stephen Krashen agree that CI as a source of acquisition. On the contrary, some
interactionists argue that CI is not sufficient for language acquisition depends on some factors which cannot
account for the whole of acquisition (cf. Long, 1989:10). Learners need to be instilled language development
especially grammatical development. Besides that, learners must be ‘pushed’ or ‘forced’ to produce
comprehensible target language in order for language development to occur. With this in mind, one of the
activities which is called ‘read and respond’ in Myline whereby students are assigned an article to read and
given their opinion critically. So, students are not only received input from teachers whereas trigger their LAD
while producing language, either spoken or written. Fours ways (reading, listening, writing and speaking) in
which output might play a role in the process of second language learning have been proposed (Swain, 1985).
Listening and reading could be the comprehensible inputs different from speaking and writing which are
comprehensible outputs.

Learners are given the opportunities to test his/her hypothesis about the language through comprehensible
output. This is especially so when learner notices a ‘gap’ in his/her interlanguage system if there is a
communication breakdown. Once the learner realize the gap in interlanguage system, he/she is likely to search
their own linguistic knowledge for information which might help to close the gap; also, pay attention to
relevant input (Swain, 1993). Hence, learner will focus on form and mismatches between input and output
which may also provide some of the information a learner needs about what is not permissible in a language
(Long, 1996). Last but not least, CI encourages semantic processing but CO encourages syntactic processing.

Audio Lingual Method is a wise method to be used to learn a language; however, it is not enough to suit the
advancement of language learning nowadays. Since this theory deduced that learning is a mechanical process
but it does not account for the creativity evident in ones’ ability to produce novel utterances and children’s
imitation of structures show evidence of almost no innovation (Brown 1987, Demirezen 1988). Students will
find it hardly to converse in the target language when they step into the true sense of the world; also, unable to
write or create new sentences.

What is contrastive analysis hypothesis in SLA? What are its major limitations?
Contrastive analysis is a systematic study of comparison between two languages: the native
language (L1) and the target language (L2). Researchers from the 1940s to the 1960s
conducted contrastive analyses, systematically comparing two languages. They were motivated
by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and difference between L1 and L2. In
this connection, the researchers made some assumptions. In accordance with their assumptions,
the researchers came into a decision that the main difficulties in learning a new language/ target
language (TL) are caused by the interference of the native language(NL). This interference is
called the L1 interference. Contrastive analysis(CA) can predict these difficulties which a learner
faces in learning the TL. In his classic work Linguistics Across Cultures, Robert Lado attributes
our difficulties and errors in learning TL or a foreign language to the interference of our native
language(NL) or mother language (L1).

Whereever the structure of the target language(TL) differs from that of the native language
(NL), the learner faces both difficulty in learning and error in performance. Successful learning
and appreciable command over the target language is absolutely dependent on learning to
overcome these difficulties. Where the structures of the two languages are identical, the learner
does not face any substantial difficulty. Difficulty arises where there are structural differences
between TL and NL. Teaching needs to be directed at the points of structural dissimilarities.
Speaking in mathematical term, difficulty is proportionate to difference between languages. But
this difficulty can be lessened to a substantial extent by carrying out a comparative study
between the target language (TL) and the native (NL) or L1 and L2. This comparative study
between TL and NL is dubbed as Contrast Analysis(C.A) C.A is of immense worth in predicting
the difficulties of the learner. This determines what the learners have to learn and what the
teacher has to teach. The teaching materials of L2 can also make use of CA to reduce the effects
of interference. The results of CA are therefore, built into the fabric of language teaching
materials, syllabuses, tests and research. Different text books will have to be produced for each
language group. So, it is obviously evident that especially from the pedagogic point of view,
Contrastive Analysis bears concrete weight in language learning and teaching.

According to Charles Fries, comparing a scientific description of L2 with a parallel description of

L1 is the most efficient material in SLA. From the hypothetical point view, individuals or learners
tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their
native language and culture to the foreign language and culture- both productively and
receptively.

All difficulties or differences in SLA or in learning the target language(TL) are not equal. There is
a degree of difficulties as well as degree of easiness. Where two languages are similar positive
transfer occurs and where they are different, negative transfer, or interference is resulted.
Eminent linguists Stockwell, Bowen and Marlin developed a hierarchy of difficulties on the basis
of this hypothesis. This is known as the Hierarchy of Difficulties.

Contrastive Analysis has two aspects-psychological and linguistic. The psychological aspect is
based upon the behaviourist theory. Behaviourist theory/ behaviourism is a theory of psychology
which states that human and animal behaviour can and should be studied in psychological
process only. And the linguistic aspect is based upon structuralist linguistics. It is an approach to
linguistics which stresses the importance of language as a system and which investigates the
place those linguistic units such as sounds, words, and sentences have within this system.

The association of CAH with behaviourism gave it academic legitimacy. The behaviourists hold
that language acquisition was a product of habit formation. Habits were constructed through the
repeated association between some stimulus and some response. Second language learning was
viewed as a process of overcoming the habit of L1 in order to acquire new habits of L2. But
ironically, behaviourism led the CAH to its downfall. With Chomsky’s attack on the behaviourist
view of language acquisition in his classic review of Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour, the behaviourist
view fell into disorder.

The CAH exists in two forms: strong version and weak version. Wardaugh proposed a distinction
between a strong version and a weak version of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis(CAH). The
strong version of CAH claims that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences
between L1 and L2. The strong version of CAH is clearly based upon a priori contrastive analysis
of the L1 and L2. The predictions are, however not always borne out. On the contrary, the weak
version of the CAH is based upon on a posterior investigation. This is, by nature diagnostic. It is
utilized in identifying which errors are the results of interference. Researchers start with
learner’s errors and explain them by pointing to the similarities and differences between the two
languages. It possesses a “posteriori”, explanatory power. As the weak version of CAH can be
used to identify errors, CA needs to walk hand in hand with error analysis(EA). First actual errors
must be identified by analyzing a corpus/ discourse of L1. Then a contrastive analysis can be
used to establish which error in the corpus can be put down to find the difficulties between L1
and L2.

There are some limitations in Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. As behaviourism as a theory fails,
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis also fails. It ceases to exist. CA is not effective in all responses.
CA is directly originated from behaviourism/ stimulus response theory. Contrastive analysis
suffers from under prediction and over prediction. It cannot find out the errors which are
committed by the learners due to overgeneralization. CA is inadequate to predict the
interference problems of a language learner. No uniformity is evident in Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis. CA is unable to account for the failures or the success of the learners. CA does not
analyze the language acquisition process in all the ways. It only analyzes with linguistic
approach. Thus Contrastive Analysis is a partial approach. It is not acceptable as it cannot give a
total idea of language acquisition. It does not say anything about psychological factors.
 
Universal grammar (UG) in linguistics, is the theory of the genetic component of the language faculty, usually
credited to Noam Chomsky. The basic postulate of UG is that a certain set of structural rules are innate to
humans, independent of sensory experience. With more linguistic stimuli received in the course
of psychological development, children then adopt specific syntactic rules that conform to UG.[1] It is sometimes
known as "mental grammar", and stands contrasted with other "grammars",
e.g. prescriptive, descriptive and pedagogical.[2][3] The advocates of this theory emphasize and partially rely
on the poverty of the stimulus (POS) argument and the existence of some universal properties of
natural human languages. However, the latter has not been firmly established, as some linguists have argued
languages are so diverse that such universality is rare.[4] It is a matter of empirical investigation to determine
precisely what properties are universal and what linguistic capacities are innate.

Argument[edit]
The theory of universal grammar proposes that if human beings are brought up under normal conditions (not
those of extreme sensory deprivation), then they will always develop language with certain properties (e.g.,
distinguishing nouns from verbs, or distinguishing function words from content words). The theory proposes
that there is an innate, genetically determined language faculty that knows these rules, making it easier and
faster for children to learn to speak than it otherwise would be.[5] This faculty does not know the vocabulary of
any particular language (so words and their meanings must be learned), and there remain several parameters
which can vary freely among languages (such as whether adjectives come before or after nouns) which must
also be learned.
As Chomsky puts it, "Evidently, development of language in the individual must involve three factors: genetic
endowment, which sets limits on the attainable languages, thereby making language acquisition possible;
external data, converted to the experience that selects one or another language within a narrow range;
principles not specific to the Faculty of Language."[6]
Occasionally, aspects of universal grammar seem describable in terms of general details regarding cognition.
For example, if a predisposition to categorize events and objects as different classes of things is part of human
cognition, and directly results in nouns and verbs showing up in all languages, then it could be assumed that
rather than this aspect of universal grammar being specific to language, it is more generally a part of human
cognition. To distinguish properties of languages that can be traced to other facts regarding cognition from
properties of languages that cannot, the abbreviation UG* can be used. UG is the term often used by Chomsky
for those aspects of the human brain which cause language to be the way that it is (i.e. are universal grammar
in the sense used here) but here for discussion, it is used for those aspects which are furthermore specific to
language (thus UG, as Chomsky uses it, is just an abbreviation for universal grammar, but UG* as used here is
a subset of universal grammar).
In the same article, Chomsky casts the theme of a larger research program in terms of the following question:
"How little can be attributed to UG while still accounting for the variety of 'I-languages' attained, relying on third
factor principles?"[6] (I-languages meaning internal languages, the brain states that correspond to knowing how
to speak and understand a particular language, and third factor principles meaning (3) in the previous quote).
Chomsky has speculated that UG might be extremely simple and abstract, for example only a mechanism for
combining symbols in a particular way, which he calls "merge". The following quote shows that Chomsky does
not use the term "UG" in the narrow sense UG* suggested above:
"The conclusion that merge falls within UG holds whether such recursive generation is unique to FL (faculty of
language) or is appropriated from other systems."[6]
In other words, merge is seen as part of UG because it causes language to be the way it is, universal, and is
not part of the environment or general properties independent of genetics and environment. Merge is part of
universal grammar whether it is specific to language, or whether, as Chomsky suggests, it is also used for an
example in mathematical thinking.
The distinction is important because there is a long history of argument about UG*, whereas some people
working on language agree that there is universal grammar. Many people assume that Chomsky means UG*
when he writes UG (and in some cases he might actually mean UG* [though not in the passage quoted
above]).
Some students of universal grammar study a variety of grammars to extract generalizations called linguistic
universals, often in the form of "If X holds true, then Y occurs." These have been extended to a variety of traits,
such as the phonemes found in languages, the word orders which languages choose, and the reasons why
children exhibit certain linguistic behaviors.
Later linguists who have influenced this theory include Chomsky and Richard Montague, developing their
version of this theory as they considered issues of the argument from poverty of the stimulus to arise from the
constructivist approach to linguistic theory. The application of the idea of universal grammar to the study of
second language acquisition (SLA) is represented mainly in the work of McGill linguist Lydia White.
Syntacticians generally hold that there are parametric points of variation between languages, although heated
debate occurs over whether UG constraints are essentially universal due to being "hard-wired"
(Chomsky's principles and parameters approach), a logical consequence of a specific syntactic architecture
(the generalized phrase structure approach) or the result of functional constraints on communication
(the functionalist approach).[7]

Relation to the evolution of language[edit]

In an article titled, "The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?" [8] Hauser,
Chomsky, and Fitch present the three leading hypotheses for how language evolved and brought humans to
the point where they have a universal grammar.
The first hypothesis states that the faculty of language in the broad sense (FLb) is strictly homologous to
animal communication. This means that homologous aspects of the faculty of language exist in non-human
animals.
The second hypothesis states that the FLb is a derived, uniquely human, adaptation for language. This
hypothesis holds that individual traits were subject to natural selection and came to be specialized for humans.
The third hypothesis states that only the faculty of language in the narrow sense (FLn) is unique to humans. It
holds that while mechanisms of the FLb are present in both human and non-human animals, the computational
mechanism of recursion is recently evolved solely in humans.[8] This is the hypothesis which most closely
aligns to the typical theory of universal grammar championed by Chomsky.

History[edit]
The idea of a universal grammar can be traced back to Roger Bacon's observations in his c. 1245 Overview of
Grammar and c. 1268 Greek Grammar that all languages are built upon a common grammar, even though it
may undergo incidental variations; and the 13th century speculative grammarians who, following Bacon,
postulated universal rules underlying all grammars. The concept of a universal grammar or language was at
the core of the 17th century projects for philosophical languages. There is a Scottish school of universal
grammarians from the 18th century, as distinguished from the philosophical language project, which included
authors such as James Beattie, Hugh Blair, James Burnett, James Harris, and Adam Smith. The article on
grammar in the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1771) contains an extensive section titled "Of
Universal Grammar".
The idea rose to prominence and influence, in modern linguistics with theories from Chomsky and Montague in
the 1950s–1970s, as part of the "linguistics wars".
During the early 20th century, in contrast, language was usually understood from a behaviourist perspective,
suggesting that language acquisition, like any other kind of learning, could be explained by a succession of
trials, errors, and rewards for success.[9] In other words, children learned their mother tongue by simple
imitation, through listening and repeating what adults said. For example, when a child says "milk" and the
mother will smile and give her some as a result, the child will find this outcome rewarding, thus enhancing the
child's language development.[10]
In 2016 Chomsky and Berwick co-wrote their book titled Why Only Us where they defined both the Minimalist
Program and the Strong Minimalist Thesis and it implications to update their approach to UG theory. According
to Berwick and Chomsky, the Strong Minimalist Thesis states that "The optimal situation would be that UG
reduces to the simplest computational principles which operate in accord with conditions of computational
efficiency. This conjecture is ... called the Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT)."[11] The significance of SMT is to
significantly shift the previous emphasis on Universal Grammars to the concept which Chomsky and Berwick
now call "Merge". "Merge" is defined in their 2016 book stating, "Every computational system has embedded
within it somewhere an operation that applies to two objects X and Y already formed, and constructs from them
a new object Z. Call this operation Merge. SMT dictates that "Merge will be as simple as possible: it will not
modify X or Y or impose any arrangement on them; in particular, it will leave them unordered, an important
fact... Merge is therefore just set formation: Merge of X and Y yields the set {X, Y}.[12]

Chomsky's theory[edit]
Further information: Language acquisition device, Generative grammar, X-bar theory, Government and
binding, Principles and parameters, and Minimalist program
Chomsky argued that the human brain contains a limited set of constraints for organizing language. This
implies in turn that all languages have a common structural basis: the set of rules known as "universal
grammar".
Speakers proficient in a language know which expressions are acceptable in their language and which are
unacceptable. The key puzzle is how speakers come to know these restrictions of their language, since
expressions that violate those restrictions are not present in the input, indicated as such. Chomsky argued that
this poverty of stimulus means that Skinner's behaviourist perspective cannot explain language acquisition.
The absence of negative evidence—evidence that an expression is part of a class of ungrammatical sentences
in a given language—is the core of his argument.[13] For example, in English, an interrogative pronoun
like what cannot be related to a predicate within a relative clause:
*"What did John meet a man who sold?"
Such expressions are not available to language learners: they are, by hypothesis, ungrammatical.
Speakers of the local language do not use them, or note them as unacceptable to language learners.
Universal grammar offers an explanation for the presence of the poverty of the stimulus, by making certain
restrictions into universal characteristics of human languages. Language learners are consequently never
tempted to generalize in an illicit fashion.[citation needed]

Presence of creole languages[edit]

The presence of creole languages is sometimes cited as further support for this theory, especially
by Bickerton's controversial language bioprogram theory. Creoles are languages that develop and form
when disparate societies come together and are forced to devise a new system of communication. The
system used by the original speakers is typically an inconsistent mix of vocabulary items, known as
a pidgin. As these speakers' children begin to acquire their first language, they use the pidgin input to
effectively create their own original language, known as a creole. Unlike pidgins, creoles have native
speakers (those with acquisition from early childhood) and make use of a full, systematic grammar.
According to Bickerton, the idea of universal grammar is supported by creole languages because certain
features are shared by virtually all in the category. For example, their default point of reference in time
(expressed by bare verb stems) is not the present moment, but the past. Using pre-verbal auxiliaries, they
uniformly express tense, aspect, and mood. Negative concord occurs, but it affects the verbal subject (as
opposed to the object, as it does in languages like Spanish). Another similarity among creoles can be seen
in the fact that questions are created simply by changing the intonation of a declarative sentence, not its
word order or content.
However, extensive work by Carla Hudson-Kam and Elissa Newport suggests that creole languages may
not support a universal grammar at all. In a series of experiments, Hudson-Kam and Newport looked at
how children and adults learn artificial grammars. They found that children tend to ignore minor variations
in the input when those variations are infrequent, and reproduce only the most frequent forms. In doing so,
they tend to standardize the language that they hear around them. Hudson-Kam and Newport hypothesize
that in a pidgin-development situation (and in the real-life situation of a deaf child whose parents are or
were disfluent signers), children systematize the language they hear, based on the probability and
frequency of forms, and not that which has been suggested on the basis of a universal grammar.[14]
[15]
 Further, it seems to follow that creoles would share features with the languages from which they are
derived, and thus look similar in terms of grammar.
Many researchers of universal grammar argue against a concept of relexification, which says that a
language replaces its lexicon almost entirely with that of another. This goes against universalist ideas of a
universal grammar, which has an innate grammar.

Criticisms[edit]
Geoffrey Sampson maintains that universal grammar theories are not falsifiable and are
therefore pseudoscientific. He argues that the grammatical "rules" linguists posit are simply post-hoc
observations about existing languages, rather than predictions about what is possible in a language.[16]
[17]
 Similarly, Jeffrey Elman argues that the unlearnability of languages assumed by universal grammar is
based on a too-strict, "worst-case" model of grammar, that is not in keeping with any actual grammar. In
keeping with these points, James Hurford argues that the postulate of a language acquisition device (LAD)
essentially amounts to the trivial claim that languages are learnt by humans, and thus, that the LAD is less
a theory than an explanandum looking for theories.[18]
Morten H. Christiansen and Nick Chater have argued that the relatively fast-changing nature of language
would prevent the slower-changing genetic structures from ever catching up, undermining the possibility of
a genetically hard-wired universal grammar. Instead of an innate universal grammar, they claim,
"apparently arbitrary aspects of linguistic structure may result from general learning and processing biases
deriving from the structure of thought processes, perceptuo-motor factors, cognitive limitations, and
pragmatics".[19]
Hinzen summarizes the most common criticisms of universal grammar:

 Universal grammar has no coherent formulation and is indeed unnecessary.

 Universal grammar is in conflict with biology: it cannot have evolved by standardly accepted neo-
Darwinian evolutionary principles.
 There are no linguistic universals: universal grammar is refuted by abundant variation at all levels of
linguistic organization, which lies at the heart of human faculty of language.[20]
In addition, it has been suggested that people learn about probabilistic patterns of word distributions in
their language, rather than hard and fast rules (see Distributional hypothesis).[21] For example, children
overgeneralize the past tense marker "ed" and conjugate irregular verbs incorrectly, producing forms
like goed and eated and correct these errors over time.[22] It has also been proposed that the poverty of the
stimulus problem can be largely avoided, if it is assumed that children employ similarity-based
generalization strategies in language learning, generalizing about the usage of new words from similar
words that they already know how to use.[23]
Language acquisition researcher Michael Ramscar has suggested that when children erroneously expect
an ungrammatical form that then never occurs, the repeated failure of expectation serves as a form of
implicit negative feedback that allows them to correct their errors over time such as how children correct
grammar generalizations like goed to went through repetitive failure.[22][24] This implies that word learning is
a probabilistic, error-driven process, rather than a process of fast mapping, as many nativists assume.
In the domain of field research, the Pirahã language is claimed to be a counterexample to the basic tenets
of universal grammar. This research has been led by Daniel Everett. Among other things, this language is
alleged to lack all evidence for recursion, including embedded clauses, as well
as quantifiers and colour terms.[25] According to the writings of Everett, the Pirahã showed these linguistic
shortcomings not because they were simple-minded, but because their culture—which emphasized
concrete matters in the present and also lacked creation myths and traditions of art making—did not
necessitate it.[26] Some other linguists have argued, however, that some of these properties have been
misanalyzed, and that others are actually expected under current theories of universal grammar.[27] Other
linguists have attempted to reassess Pirahã to see if it did indeed use recursion. In a corpus analysis of the
Pirahã language, linguists failed to disprove Everett's arguments against universal grammar and the lack of
recursion in Pirahã. However, they also stated that there was "no strong evidence for the lack of recursion
either" and they provided "suggestive evidence that Pirahã may have sentences with recursive structures".
[28]

Daniel Everett has gone as far as claiming that universal grammar does not exist. In his words, "universal
grammar doesn't seem to work, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for [it]. And what can we put in its
place? A complex interplay of factors, of which culture, the values human beings share, plays a major role
in structuring the way that we talk and the things that we talk about."[29] Michael Tomasello, a
developmental psychologist, also supports this claim, arguing that "although many aspects of human
linguistic competence have indeed evolved biologically, specific grammatical principles and constructions
have not. And universals in the grammatical structure of different languages have come from more general
processes and constraints of human cognition, communication, and vocal-auditory processing, operating
during the conventionalization and transmission of the particular grammatical constructions of particular
linguistic communities."[30]