1. The Recent History of Second
Language Learning Research
Second Language Learning Theories
Chaptere 2

2. Introduction
In order to understand recent developments in
second language learning research , it is helpful to
retrace its recent history. The kinds of questions
that researchers are asking today are for the most
part firmly rooted in earlier developments in the
fields of :
a. Linguistics
b. Psychology
c. Sociology
d. pedagogy

3. The 1950s and 1960s
The writings of language teaching experts in the
1950s and 1960s include consideration of
learning theory , as preliminaries to their
practical recommendations (for example , Lado
,1964; Rivers ,1964, 1968).
‘’Progressive’’ 1950s language pedagogy drew on a
version of structuralism developed by the British
linguist Palmer in the 1920s , and subsequently
by Fries and Michigan colleagues in the 1940s.

4. Key Features of Structuralism
Howatt (2004 , pp. 229-300) sums up key features
of structuralism as follows:
1.Learning the spoken language means acquiring a
set of appropriate speech habits.
2.Courses of instruction should be built round a
graded syllabus of structural patterns to ensure
systematic step by step progress…
3.Grammar should be taught inductively through
the presentation and practice of new
patterns…with visual and/or textual support…
4.Errors should be avoided through adequate
practice and rehearsal.

5. Behaviourism
In the behaviourist view , language learning is seen
like any other kind of learning ,as the formation of
habits. It stems from the work in psychology which
saw the learning of any kind of behaviour as being
based on the notions of stimulus and response.
The learning of any skill is seen as the formation of
habits, that is , the creation of stimulus-response
pairings which become stronger with reinforcement.

6. Behaviourism
From the behaviourist point of view , when learning a
first language, the process is relatively simple: all we
have to do is learn a set of new habits as we learn to
respond to stimuli in our environment. When
learning a second language ; however, we run into
problems: we already have a set of well-established
responses in our mother tongue. The second
language learning process therefore involves
replacing those habits by a set of new ones. The
complication is that the old habits interfere with this
process, either helping or inhibiting it. If structures
in the L2 are similar to those of L1 , then learning will
take place easily. If , however , structures are
different, then learning will be difficult.

7. The 1970s
nguage Acquisition
Research in the 1960s led to the investigations of
the acquisition of language in young children , by
researches such as Kilma and Bellugi (1966) ,
Slobin(1970) , or Brown(1973). They found striking
similarities in the language learning behaviour of
young children , whatever language they were
learning.
It seemed that children all over the world go
through similar stages , use similar constructions
in order to express similar meanings , and make the
same kinds of errors.

8. Stages of First Language Acquisition
(Aitchison , 2008, p. 80)
Language Stage
1.Crying
2.Cooing
3.Babbling
4.Intonation patterns
5.One-word sentences
6.Two-word-sentences
7.Word inflections
8.Questions,negatives
9.Rare or complex
constructions
10.Mature speech
Beginning Age
Birth
6 weeks
6 months
8 months
1 year
18 months
2 years
2 years 3 months
5 years
10 years

9. The 1970s
The research emphasis of the time was on the
universal nature of these stages , which were
claimed to be followed by children learning any
language . Similarly , when studying children ‘s
learning of particular languages , a consistent
order of acquisition was found for the
emergence of new structures. Roger Brown’s
(1973) so-called ‘’morpheme study’’ is probably
the best known L1 study of that time ,and was to
be very influential for second language acquisition
research.

10. Second Language Learning :The Birth of Error
Analysis and the Concept of Interlanguage
Developments in first language acquisition and
disillusionment with CA –meant that researchers
and teachers became increasingly interested in the
language produced by learners rather than the
target language or the first language. This was the
origin of Error Analysis ,the systematic investigation
of second language learners’ errors.
The language produced by learners began to be
seen as a linguistic system in its own right.

11. Error Analysis
Richards & Schmidt (2010) define error analysis as
the study and analysis of the errors made by
second language learners. Error analysis can be
carried out in order to :
1.identify strategies which learners use in
language learning
2.Try to identify the causes of errors
3.Obtain information on common difficulties in
language learning , as an aid to teaching or in the
preparation of teaching materials

12. Interlanguage
Richards & Schmidt (2010) define interlanguage as
the type of language produced by second and
foreign language learners who are in the process
of learning a language.
In language learning ,learner language is
influenced by several different processes including:
1.Borrowing patterns from the mother tongue
2.Extending patterns from the target language
3.Expressing meanings using the words and
grammar which are already known

13. Cont.
The term interlanguage was coined in 1972 , by
Selinker, to refer to the language produced by the
learners, both as a system which can be described
at any one point in time as resulting from systematic
rules , and as the series of interlocking system that
characterize learner progression. In other words ,
the interlanguage concept relies on two
fundamental notions: the language produced by
the learner is a system on its own right, obeying its
own rules , and it is a dynamic system , evovling
over time. Interlanguage studies thus moved a
major step beyond Error Analysis , by focusing on
the learner system as a whole , rather than only on
its non-target-like features.

14. Krashen’s Monitor Model
Krashen based his general theory around a set
of five hypotheses:
1.The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
2.The Monitor Hypothesis
3.The Natural Order Hypothesis
4.The Input Hypothesis
5.The Affective Filter Hypothesis

15. 1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis
The basic premise of this hypothesis is that language
acquisition and learning are separate processes. For
Krashen, acquisition refers to ‘subconscious process
identical in all important ways to the process children
utilize in acquiring their first language’ , and learning
refers to the ‘conscious process that result in ‘’knowing
about ‘’ language’(1985,p1).In other words ,acquisition
is the result of natural interaction with the language via
meaningful communication ,which sets in motion
developmental processes akin to those in first language
acquisition , and learning is typically the result of
classroom experience in which the learner is made to
focus on form and to learn about the linguistic rules of
the target language.

16. 2. The Monitor Hypothesis
According to Krashen, ‘learning’ and ‘acquisition’ are
used in very specific ways in second language
performance. The Monitor Hypothesis states that
‘learning has only one function , and that is as a
Monitor or editor’ and that learning comes into play
only to make changes in the form of our utterance
,after it has been ‘’produced’’ by the acquired
system’(1982 ,p 15).Acquisition ‘initiates’ the speaker’s
utterances and is responsible for fluency. Thus the
monitor is thought to alter the output of the acquired
system before or after the utterance is actually written
or spoken , but the utterance is initiated entirely by
the acquired system (McLaughlin,1987,p. 24).

17. 3.The Natural Order Hypothesis
According to Krashen, we acquire the rules of language
in a particular order , some rules tending to come early
and others late. The order does not appear to be
determined solely by formal simplicity and there is
evidence that it is independent of the order in which
rules are taught in language classes.(Krashen , 1985,
P.1)
Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis represents the
universalism of 1970s theorizing and has no place for
concepts such as language transfer and cross-linguistic
influence. In addition , it makes primarily a descriptive
claim ,which provides little help in understanding why
‘natural orders‘ should be apparent in L2 development.

18. 4. The Input Hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis is linked to the Natural Order
Hypothesis in that it claims that we move along the
developmental path by receiving and processing
comprehensible input. Comprehensible input is
defined as L2 input just beyond the learner’s current
L2 competence. If a learner’s competence is i then
comprehensible input is i plus 1, that is ,input still
understandable by the learner but containing linguistic
evidence relevant for the next step in the
developmental sequence. Input which is either too
simple or too complex will not be useful for
acquisition.

19. 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis
The Affective Filter Hypothesis captures the relationship
between affective variables and the process of second
language acquisition by positing that acquirers vary with
respect to the strength or level of their affective filters.
Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language
acquisition will not only tend to seek less input ,but they will
also have a high or strong affective filter-even if they
understand the message, the input will not reach the part of
the brain responsible for language acquisition ,or the
Language Acquisition Device. Those with attitudes more
conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek
and obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker
filter. They will be more open to the input and it will strike
‘deeper’.(Krashen,1982,p. 31)

20. Schumann’s Pidginization/Acculturation
Model
John Schumann first proposed his
pidginization/model in the late 1970s.On the basis
of naturalistic studies of untutored learners , he
noticed that early interlanguages resemble pidgin
languages(that is ,simplified trading languages
which lack native speakers), with characteristic
features such as fixed word order and lack of
interactions.

21. Cont.
Second language acquisition was compared to the
complexification of pidgins, and this process was
linked to the degree of acculturation of the learners.
The closer they feel to the target language speech
community ,according to Schumann, the better
learners will ‘’acculturate’’, and the more successful
their L2 learning will be .The greater the social and
psychological distance between the learner and the
majority community , the more pidgin-like their L2
will remain.

22. The 1980s: A Turning Point
Partly in response to developments in linguistics
and in first language acquisition research, partly in
reaction to the 1970s proposals of Burt , Dulay,
Selinker , Krashen and others , and partly in
response to the continuing great postwar
expansion of second/foreign language education ,
the 1980s were a period of strong development for
SLL theorizing and empirical research. Many of
the main strands of research which continue today
can trace their origins to this period.

23. The Impact of Comskyan Linguistics
In the 1980s, researches such as Flynn (1983,1987)
and White(1989) began to draw upon Chomskyan
generative linguistics and the concept of Universal
Grammar to model learners’ formal language
knowledge. In particular, Chomsky’s Government
and Binding Theory(1981,1986) specified Universal
Principles applying to all languages , and a limited
set of Parameters which accounted for variation
between languages.

24. Information Processing Models of SLL
McLaughlin (1987) viewed the mind as a limited
capacity processor , with different memory
stores; from this view , learning involved moving
from controlled processing to automatic
processing of language , and the transfer of new
knowledge from the (very limited capacity) short
memory to long term memory.

25. The Interaction Hypothesis
In response to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, a number of
1980’s researchers also proposed alternative ideas about the
role of environmental language in second language learning.
Foremost among these was Michael Long ,with his proposal
of the so-called Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1981, 1983).
In the 1980s, Long shared the underlying assumptions of
Krashen regarding the existence of some form of LAD, but
shifted attention from comprehensible input , as a means of
stimulating acquisition, toward more interactive aspects of
second language discourse. Long’s early research showed that
native speaker-non-native speaker interactions when
performing tasks such as informal conversation or game-
playing was rich in meaning negotiations, including
repetitions, confirmation checks or clarification requests.

26. The Output Hypothesis
The hypothesis that successful second language
acquisition not only requires comprehensible input
, but also comprehensible output, language
produced by the learner that can be understood by
other speakers of the language. It has been argued
that when learners have to make efforts to ensure
that their messages are communicated (pushed
out) this puts them in a better position to notice
the gap between their productions and those of
proficient speakers, fostering acquisition(Richards
&Schmidt ,2010, p. 416).

27. Cont.
A different alternative to the Input Hypothesis was
proposed by Swain, based on the experience of
studying learners of French L2 in the context of
immersion schooling. Swain argued that students
could often succeed in comprehending L2 texts
while only partly processing them; that is
concentrating on semantic processing. She took the
view that only production(that is , output)really
forces L2 learners to undertake full grammatical
processing , and thus drives forward most effectively
the development of L2 syntax and morphology.

28. Continuities in the Research Agenda
While methods and theories have become more
diverse and sophisticated , the SLA research agenda
continues to focus on a number of fundamental issues
carried forward from the 1970s , as follows:
1. The role of internal mechanisms
a. language-specific
b. cognitive
2. The role of the first language
3. The role of the psychological variables
4. The role of social and environmental factors
5. The role of the input

29. The End