This document discusses theories of second language acquisition and their influence on English language teaching. It examines key theories that have attempted to influence SLA over time, from behaviourism to cognitive approaches. While early theories focused on linguistic and psycholinguistic factors, more recent theories emphasize the importance of social and sociolinguistic factors in language learning. The document also discusses factors that influence the amount and type of language input learners receive, and how this impacts the development and success of second language acquisition.

1. SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
And
ENGLSIH LANGUAGE TEACHING
Magdalena Bobek
Introduction
Theories of second language acquisition have for many years tried to influence its
development and continue to do so even today. Each perspective, though many have been
based on little or insufficient evidence, has attempted to open the door to a newer and better
understanding of what language learning really entails giving rise to new approaches to
second language teaching. One of the many theorists, David Block (2003:4), has suggested
the need for 'a broader, socially informed and more sociolinguistically oriented SLA that does
not exclude the more mainstream psycholinguistic one, but instead takes on board the
complexity of context, the multi-layered nature of language and an expanded view of what
acquisition entails'.
In my assignment, by examining key theories that have attemped to influence second
language acquisition (hereafter SLA) through the years, I would like to show an
understanding of the reasons why SLA has developed the way it has and in the light of my
own teaching experience and the reading material, I will attempt to examine the validity of
some of these theories in practice and try to show that besides the linguistic and
psycholinguistic approaches in SLA, social context and sociolinguistic factors cannot be
excluded, but play an important role in language learning and development, as advocated by
Block.
The Behaviourist Theory and Contrastive Analysis
The 'wide variety' of SLA theories that have developed through the years, as pointed out by
Thornbury (2006:1), is partly due to 'the enormous diversity of contexts in which second
languages are learned', as well as the 'variety of situations and purposes for the learning of a
second language (ibid:7). He informs us that the complexity of SLA is influenced by
'linguistic factors', such as the learner's first language; the different kinds of input that learners

2. are exposed to; external factors, such as the social context and the learner's 'internal factors',
such as their personality and capabilities (ibid). This may help explain why many issues
regarding SLA 'are still inconclusive, and often controversial' (ibid), which makes researchers'
work even more difficult as they 'have not yet arrived at a unified or comprehensive view as
to how second languages are learnt' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:2), but instead have tried to
analyse language development each from their own perspective, namely from a linguistic,
psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic point of view (Thornbury, 2006:22).
Early linguists and psycholinguists were primarily concerned with the learner's 'inner mental
mechanisms […] for processing, learning and storing new language knowledge' (Mitchell
and Myles, 2004:24). As Mitchell & Myles (ibid:223) put it, they
largely concentrated on modelling the development of language within the individual
learner, in response to an environment defined fairly narrowly as a source of linguistic
information. In much of this work sociolinguistic issues were addressed only as
afterthoughts, if at all.
One of the dominant early psycholinguistic theories known as behaviourism saw language
learning 'as a formation of habits', where 'through repeated reinforcement a certain stimulus'
would 'elicit the same response time and again' until it became a habit (ibid:30). 'Learning
would take place by imitating and repeating the same structures time after time' and there was
a strong belief that 'practice makes perfect' (ibid:31). Coursebooks and teachers' manuals that
I came across in my early teaching career were full of drilling exercises, which proved to be
very tedious for pupils at times and caused them quite a few problems, because the sole aim
was to get to know the given structure at surface level without internalizing it. The drills
seemed very archaic and robot-like, as many pupils had no mental register of the meanings of
certain words or phrases that they were simply forced to repeat.
The learner's first language (L1) soon came into play, however, as it was said to 'interfere with
this process, either helping or inhibiting it' depending on how different the structures in the
second language (L2) were from those in the first (ibid). As a result teachers began
concentrating on teaching 'structures which were believed to be difficult' that is 'those that
were different in the first and second languages' (ibid:32). The emphasis on the differences
and difficulties between languages led to so-called Contrastive Analysis, where researchers
compared 'pairs of languages in order to pinpoint areas of difference' (ibid), which would in
turn help in the teaching of the second or foreign language. However, teachers at the time

3. experienced that the predictions made by Contrastive Analysis did not always hold true in the
classroom and were not always reliable (ibid:37). Even today, according to Pica (1994:52),
both teachers and researchers acknowledge that there is no guarantee that the 'differences' or
similarities' between a learner's L1 and L2 will bring about difficulty or ease in SLA. What
has been proven, however, is that
learners' L1 can be a powerful influence on language development, but it can be
suppressed, enhanced, or otherwise modified by the contributions of a broad range of
linguistic, psychosocial, and cultural factors. (ibid).
Zobl, for example, found that 'L1 plays a different role at specific stages of L2 development',
such as in mastering 'article rules' (ibid:53), which I have found is something that many young
Slovenian learners of English as their L2 have difficutly with. Slovenian does not have as
developed an article system as English, and nouns can stand alone in almost any situation.
When speaking or writing English, pupils tend to use the more 'explicit one' (ibid) where 'a' or
'an' are required or use no article at all. Another observation I have made is that the
pronunciation and structures learners use, change to suit the situation they find themselves in.
Like Dickerson (ibid), I have found that pupils will transfer sounds from their L1 more often
in casual conversation than when involved in more formal tasks such as reading or writing.
This seems to be a sign of the need to satisfy their sociolinguistic need which is to be
understood and accepted by their peers. It is also a fact, at least in my experience that 'certain
L2 linguistic contexts are especially sensitive to influence from learners' L1', such as L2 final
consonant clusters '/kt/ or /ks/' (Sato, 1984 in Pica, 1994:53), which are simply not
pronounced by some learners even if they do write them correctly, often causing problems in
the complete understanding of the utterance. Even the final /v/ sound as in the words believe,
five, drive is pronounced as /w/ by many young Slovenian learners probably due to the fact
that in Slovenian such an ending sound is not common and so cannot be automatically
transfered to L2. The extent of L1 transfer, however, is only one of the many factors involved
in understanding the language learning process.
Systemiticity and Variability in SLA
Key developments in the 1970s regarding first language acquisition in young children shed
new light on SLA and led to fundamental changes in language research. Researchers became
interested in 'the language produced by learners or their 'interlanguage', and focused on 'the
systematic investigation of second language learners' errors', better known as 'Error Analysis'

4. (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:38-39), which involved 'charting and classifying learner language,
including developmental patterns' (Thornbury, 2006:30). It was soon evident 'that the
majority of errors made by second language learners do not come from their first language',
but are rather 'learner-internal in origin'(Mitchell and Myles, 2004:38). The shift from
Contrastive Analysis to that of Error Analysis 'represents a shift from the behaviourist view
of language-learning-as-habit-formation to the more mentalist view of language-learning-as
hardwired' (Thornbury, 2006:30). Researchers found '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' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004::34). The theory of Universal
Grammar, developed by Noel Chomsky, states that in learning their L1 children have an
'innate language faculty to guide them' regardless of the 'messy input' they are exposed to,
which may include 'false starts, slips of the tongue, etc.' (ibid:55), even though it could be
argued that L1 input especially from parents and caretakers is not necessarily 'messy' (ibid) or
'noisy', but is ''simpler' than the full adult version' because it is 'designed for easy learning'
(Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991:115) as its main goal is 'to understand and be understood'
(Brown, 1977:12). Chomsky claimed 'that children follow some kind of pre-programmed,
internal route in acquiring language' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:37). Another development at
the time was Brown's famous 'morpheme study' on first language learning, which proved that
there exists an 'order of acquisition' of grammatical morphemes(ibid:34). When applied to
second language learners, it proved that a 'set order' of acquisition holds true for SLA as well,
where the learners are 'guided by internal principles […] largely independent of their first
language' (ibid:43). All this helps explain why SLA is considered both 'highly systematic' and
'highly variable' (Myles, 2002 in Thornbury, 2006:12-13), two of the main focuses of
language research. It is systematic in the sense of 'the route of development, (the nature of the
stages all learners go through when acquiring the second language', which, according to
Myles, 'remains largely independent of both the learner's mother tongue (L1) and the context
of learning (e.g. whether instructed in a classroom or acquired naturally by exposure)' (ibid).
It is considered variable with reference to 'either the rate of the learning process […] or the
outcome of the learning process (how proficient learners become), or both', which Myles
informs us 'are highly variable from learner to learner' (ibid). However, researchers, whose
'prime goal' is 'to document and explain the developmental route' taken in SLA and 'the
universal mental processes available to all normal human beings', 'are less concerned with the
speed or rate of development' and 'tend to minimize or disregard social and contextual
differences among learners' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:24).

5. The Cognitive Approach versus Communicative Competence
A good example of this type of approach is the cognitive perspective, which does 'not view
the learner as a social being', but is moreover 'interested in the learner's mind, as a processor
of information' (ibid:129). Cognivists are interested in how human memory works and how it
stores second language information (ibid:99). They believe that 'achieving mastery in a
second language is essentially the same process as achieving mastery in a skill' (Thornbury,
2006:61), and that 'cognitive skills drive language development forward' (ibid:83). There may
be some similarities between learning a skill and learning a language. Skills involve both
theory and practice, and second language learners also have to have some sort of knowledge
of language and its properties before they can produce it. There is also a certain amount of
automaticity involved in language learning, especially where the acquisition of new
grammartical structures and vocabulary is concerned. However, I do not find that 'the
movement from controlled to automatic processing via practice (repeated activation)', as
suggested by McLaughlin (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:101) or Anderson's 'declarative
knowledge' becoming 'proceduralised', by activating 'the same routine' successfully 'a large
number of times' (ibid:104), is enough for a learner's interlanguage to develop. Like Pica
(1994:60) I find that today language skills are not dealt with in isolation, but are practised 'in
conjunction with distinctively different activities involving student group work and classroom
discussion'. I cannot fully agree with the view that just by ''chunking' the more mechanical
elements of a task and moving them into long term memory' and then drawing on them
whenever needed, (Thornbury, 2006:62) is enough for interlanguage development. 'Some
language learning' does involve 'the memorisation of vocabulary, including multi-word units
(chunks) as a means of achieving fluency' (ibid:79), but language is more complex than that,
as each learning situation is a challenge in itself because it requires different levels of ability
of which the learner must always be conscious. 'Routinized operations (automatic strategies)',
as advocated by Donato and McCormick (1994:455), 'can become conscious goal-directed
actions if the conditions under which they are carried out change', and learners then have to
use different strategies to achieve their goal. It is, therefore, not only a matter of retrieving
knowledge from long term memory, but knowing how to rearrange it and put it to use to suit a
given situation. Communicative competence' or the ability to be able to 'participate
appropriately' in 'speech events with their own distinctive structures and routines in current
urban society', such as 'telephone conversations, service encounters (in shops, banks, etc.),

6. classroom lessons or job interviews […] has been seen […] as the broad eventual target of
SLL' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:240). 'Knowing how to make a complaint', as Thornbury
(2006:86) writes, involves not just knowing how to formulate the appropriate utterance, but
also knowing under what conditions a complaint will be recognised as such'. 'Real-world
situations', where there may not be a 'one-to-one match between form and function' (ibid:85-
86), but where the meaning can be deciphered from the context with very little use of
grammar (ibid:89), need to be understood. Learners should be given as many opportunies as
possible to participate in class activities involving conversations and dialogues, so that they
can gradually learn to respond appropriately to the situations they will encounter in real life. It
is, therefore, very important for learners to consider the effect of context on language and to
be able to distinguish between the pragmatic and syntactic modes of expression.
Factors Influencing Input and Intake in SLA
Even though the route of language development may be the same, learners may 'differ greatly
in the degree of success that they achieve' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:25), possibly, as
summarized by Thornbury (2006:14-15), due to the 'extent of L1 transfer', their attitudes,
motivation and learning style; the kind of opportunities that are available for language use; as
well as the amount and type of input they are exposed to. Stephen Krashen's input hypotheses,
encouraged researchers 'to examine more closely the characteristics of the language input
being made available to second language learners' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:166). Krashen
considered acquistion as a 'subconscious process' […] 'identical […] to the process children
utilize in acquiring their first language', and learning as a 'conscious process', which occurs
when the learner focuses on 'form' and learns about 'the linguistic rules of the target language'
(ibid:45). Learning, according to Krashen, only helps monitor language output, which is
otherwise entirely acquired (McLaughlin, 1987:24). In practice, however, it is very difficult or
even impossible to assess when a learner's production is the result of a conscious or
subconscious process. Perhaps at the very beginning of SLA one can say that learning has
more of a monitoring or editing role, but as the learner becomes more fluent in the language,
both acquisition and what has been learned merge into one. Successful L2 learning does not
only involve knowing language grammar rules as such, but among other things also language
structures, vocabulary, style and appropriateness. When a second language is being acquired
in a country, where learners have very little or no opportunity to practise their L2 outside the
classroom, they cannot acquire it subconsciously through their environment as they would

7. their L1. Pica reminds us that even if a learner 'lives in a country where the language under
study is spoken widely in the community, does not guarantee opportunities for integration
with its users. And even when there are opportunities for integration, language learning is not
always guaranteed' (1994:70), which is why interaction in the virtual environment of the
classroom is of such great importance in language acquisition even though it might be
considered a poor substitute for the natural environment.
It is difficult to ascertain just how much direct exposure to the target language outside the
classroom affects SLA, because it depends on the 'elusive connections between both the L2
culture and those cultural values that students bring to their learning experience'(ibid:72). Pica
points out that 'learners who are exposed to more than one variety of L2 may choose 'higher
prestige and teacher models as their target while others 'may select target models based on
peers, friends, or members of their own ethnic group' (ibid:71). Still others may not feel the
need for any kind of integration, or instruction for that matter, such as the example of Santo in
the European Science Foundation Project (ESF), who, as Schumann states, 'seemed not to
care a lot about integration, and was happy enough to speak a pidginised form of English, so
long as he succeeded in getting his meanings across' (Thornbury, 2006:94).
According to Schumann (ibid:163) 'success in SLA could be predicted by the extent to which
learners are willing to adapt to the target language culture, i.e. to acculturate'. One of the
obstacles for failing to acculturate is social distance, which can be seen in the examples
described by Norton (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:243) of the Polish immigrant girl, Eva, who,
despite the fact that she was attending English classes, found it difficult to integrate into the
target language community, because she had little or no opportunity to interact in the target
language. Nonetheless she soon 'gained enough confidence to find conversational openings'
and gradually 'gained acceptance as a 'legitimate speaker' (ibid). In Saliha's situation,
however, even though she is a student at Plato College, in her real-life experience she feels
very intimidated by her inability and struggle to express herself in L2 mainly due to the social
distance between herself and her employer, who 'has the power to influence when she can
speak, how much she can speak and what she can speak about' (Ternar, 1990:327-328 in
Norton, 2000:1). These learners' success or lack of it depends largely on their ability to gain
'access to the social and verbal activities of the target language community of practice,
drawing on social and intellectual resources to help overcome difficulties of subordination
and isolation, and finally on the willingness from their respective communities to 'adapt and

8. accept them as legitimate participants' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:243-244). If the classroom
is viewed in Toohey's words, as 'a community of practice'(ibid:241), and a good learning
situation is evident, one in which there is little social difference between the target language
group and the L2 group, where a positive attitude to assimilation prevails (Ellis, 2000 in
Thornbury, 2006:163), then language acquisition can have fruitful results. However, attitudes
towards language vary from learner to learner and some may be satisfied just by achieving the
basic learner variety of language 'to meet their immediate communicative needs' (Mitchell and
Myles, 2004:156), and may not have the desire to go beyond it while others may have low
self-esteem, which may hinder their understanding of the input regardless of how receptive to
it they are. Even though Norton states that '[I]t is through language that a person negotiates a
sense of self within and across different sites at different points in time, and it is through
language that a person gains access to – or is denied access to – powerful social networks that
give learners the opportunity to speak' (2000:5), a 'learner’s motivation to speak is mediated
by investments that may conflict with the desire to speak' (Pierce, 1995:19).
It may be a question of the learner's social identity […] whether defined by ethnicity, by
language, or any other means' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:246). If these learners find
themselves in 'life-threatening situations', where their interlanguage is being questioned, they
may show 'resistence' or 'a complete withdrawal from second language interaction' and look
for 're-assertion' in their first language identity and switch to using their L1 only (ibid:248), or
they may adopt 'the strategy of silence to avoid humiliation'(Thornbury, 2006:171). Learners
have to feel comfortable in the environment where SLA is taking place and be positively
motivated by their teachers as well as by their peers if they are to develop their interlanguage.
A Look at Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output
Another factor to consider is input itself. According to Krashen the only thing learners need
for language acquisition to take place is 'comprehensible input', which he defines in his input
hypothesis as 'second language input just beyond the learner's current second language
competence' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:48), the level of which is very difficult if not
impossible to determine, as each individual's current second language competence is unique.
In Krashen's view 'If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is
automatically provided' (ibid), so teachers do not have to explicitly teach it. It would seem,
therefore, that grammar instruction is a waste of time. However, in many cases in the
classroom teaching grammar has proven to be essential in getting learners acquainted with

9. how language functions, especially if the rules governing L1 differ greatly from those
governing L2, as the differences may cause even greater difficulties in mastering more
complex L2 structures later on. I would have to agree with Pica (1994:67) that 'the
effectiveness of grammar instruction appears to depend largely on selection and sequencing of
grammar rules and careful assessment of learner readiness'. It also depends on how effective
and relevent the grammar is to the learner's needs and purpose for learning the language,
especially if these purposes are academic, such as school-leaving exams, in which case the
learner cannot afford not to master them. Put simply, mastering grammar gives the learner the
advantage over his/her knowledge of L2, and makes working with L2 easier and less stressful
with whatever task is at hand. Of course, the ideal method of instruction would be 'a balance
[…] between explicit instruction and more inductive, communicative procedures' (ibid),
which allow the learners not only the opportunity to practice the rules, but also to use
language more freely in different situations. It is also important that learners 'let […] input in'
(Mitchell and Myles, 2004:48). Bardovi-Harlig and Reynolds (1995:127) argue that 'input
enhancement which includes focused noticing as well as positive evidence provides learners
with an awareness which helps input [to] become intake'. They advocate 'using authentic text
to present positive evidence', followed by 'focused noticing exercises', as well as 'a range of
production tasks to provide contexualized practice' (ibid:124).
Michael Long argues that 'in order to understand more fully the nature and usefulness of input
for SLL, greater attention should be paid to the interactions in which learners are
engaged'(Mitchell and Myles, 2004:160), because when learners are 'engaged with their
interlocutors in negotiations around meaning, the nature of the input might be qualitatively
changed' and 'become increasingly well-targeted to the particular developmental needs of the
individual learner' (ibid). Long found that when it came to solving ongoing communication
difficulties in interactions between native speakers and non-native speakers, native speakers
would resort to conversational tactics such as 'repetition, confirmation checks, comprehension
checks or clarification requests […] not with any conscious motive to teach grammar', but to
'fine-tune the second language input so as to make it more relevant to the current state of
learner development' (ibid:167). Therefore 'negotiation work that triggers interactional
adjustments […] facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capabilities,
particularily selective attention, and output in productive ways' (Long, 1996:451-452). Long's
interaction hypothesis supports 'the need to provide classroom opportunities for interaction'
and the idea that 'interaction is a necessary condition for second language learning'

10. (Thornbury, 2006:113). Research has shown that teaching a language 'should be an interactive
process between teachers and students and among students themselves', allowing for
'negotiation' and 'simply encouraging students to ask questions about input they do not
initially understand' which 'may have positive results on their comprehension' (Pica,1994:56).
To ensure successful language learning, learners do indeed 'need opportunities to modify their
interlanguage production and thereby to produce […] comprehensible output' (ibid:56).
However, given the different attitudes that learners have towards language some may need to
be stimulated to produce any sort of output. Others may be demotivated from the very
beginning and producing output such as speech, may be a long and tedious task. Waiting for
speech to 'emerge on its own', as Krashen (1985:2) seems to think, may take forever. That is
why teacher motivation is so important here. A positive teacher-pupil, pupil-pupil relationship
can have a positive impact on the output of students lacking in motivation. Again we must not
forget those learners with low self-esteem or a feeling of not belonging, who may experience
difficulty in making input become intake and so will need more time to produce any sort of
output. Like Swain, I believe that producing output is necessary for language development,
because it 'may push learners to become aware of gaps and problems in their current second
language system […] provides them with opportunities to reflect on, discuss and analyse these
problems explicitly' as well as 'oppotunities to experiment with new structures and forms'
(Mitchell and Myles, 2004:174-175). This focus on input, interaction and output referred to
by Block as the 'Input-Interaction-Output model' (2003:9) brought about new approaches
involving communicative language teaching, which 'ever since its beginnings in the mid-
1970s […] has argued for the need to provide classroom opportunities for interaction'
(Thornbury, 2006:113), where learners can 'take part in interactive activities in which real
meanings are being communicated, where the language is not always predictable, and where
negotiation of meaning might result' (ibid:197-198). In other words, giving learners
opportunities to 'learn language through using language''(ibid).
Interactive Activities - The Task-based Approaches
There have been attempts at interactive approaches in the past such as that of Peter Skehan,
who tried to view the cognitive approach to SLA from a practical perspective and suggested a
task-based approach, which involves 'reversing the traditional order of instruction' in that
'declarative knowledge does not precede proceduralization', as suggested by Anderson above,

11. 'but emerges out of the process of proceduralization and helps shape it' (Thornbury, 2006:65-
66). It has to do with 'basing the instructional process around a series of tasks' (ibid:65). What
makes this task-based approach different from other cognitive approaches is that its primary
goal is 'the communication of meaning' and that it 'has a real-world relationship' (Skehan,
1996:38). Skehan explains that:
[…] a task which requires personal information to be exchanged, or a problem to be
solved, or a collective judgement to be made bears a relationship to things that happen
outside the classroom in a way that separates these activities from doing, for example,
a transformation exercise (ibid).
This seems to fit into the communicative approach very nicely, but because the emphasis
among the task participants is on interaction and communicating meaning, it is feared that
interlanguage may suffer because 'processing language to extract meaning does not guarantee
automatic sensitivity to form' (ibid:41), and the goals for achieving 'native-like proficiency in
language, that of accuracy, complexity (restructuring) and fluency, may be inhibited. Even
though Skehan attempted to focus on 'contexualized language use' and 'social interaction',
which are central in communicative language teaching (Thornbury, 2006:77-78), because of
the major concern with form, 'the social dimension' […] is largely ignored' here as 'what is
happening inside the learner is seen as being more important than the social context in which
learning is taking place' (ibid). However, teachers can 'exploit tasks for their language
potential, not simply as exercises in fluency' (ibid:79) by manipulating 'the way in which
attention is directed', or being 'explicit immediately before the task is done as to whether they
want accuracy stressed, or whether they want specific structures to be used' (ibid:55).
Learning problems such as 'a lack of interest', learners not taking risks with their
interlanguage or using their L1 just to get the task done, can be avoided if tasks are
'sequenced' and if teachers 'adjust task performance factors, such as the time available, or the
urgency of the task, or they can pre-teach language that might be useful' (Thornbury,
2006:69).
In the negotiation of meaning investigated by Nakahama et al (2001:378) in interactions
between native speakers and non-native speakers involving information gap activities and
conversation, it would seem obvious that because 'repair negotiation appears to lead to better
comprehension' (ibid:380), and since there is more repair negotiation in the information gap
activities than in open-ended conversation, (ibid:386), that information gap activities are
superior to conversation. However, Thornbury notes that:

12. In the information gap the speakers are ''not pushed to produce language'' […] but only a
solution to the task; they do not need to attend to the global coherence of the talk, but
only to the immediate details' (2006:117)
Even though information gap activities do 'create opportunities for two-way interaction', like
Thornbury, I believe 'they are hardly representative of communication in the 'real world' and
therefore not, perhaps, a reliable means of measuring the amount or effect of negotiation of
meaning in live talk' (ibid:115). The purpose of negotiation in the information gap activities
is to 'achieve local cohesion', where the opportunities for language use are mininal and the
focus is on single words in order to complete an activity (Nakahama et al, 2001:401).
Knowing how 'learners' utterances influence each other in terms of form and function' is not
the only important characteristic of language use. It has to do with appropriating and
internalizing 'knowledge or skill which is collaboratively developed in the course of the
interaction' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:206-207). Although it has been argued that 'in more
open-ended conversation interlocutors can quickly drop language and topics that cause
communication difficulties or avoid them altogether' (Nakahama et al, 2001: 378),
conversation does provide learners with more opportunities to produce more complex
utterances, and learners feel more challenged because they have to understand their
interlocutors and pay close attention to and relate their utterances to the context at hand in
trying to achieve global cohesion and coherence (ibid:400-401). Information gap activities are
very useful with younger learners as they reinforce certain vocabulary items and structures
and give them an opportunity to use L2 even if only in a narrower and more controlled
atmosphere. Open-ended conversation activities, on the other hand, allow learners to
challenge and debate issues as well as give their own opinion about a given topic. Interesting
topics open up debate especially when they involve the learners' schema and I must say that in
the majority of cases learners want to be heard. Learners learn from each other and there is a
lot of negotiating taking place. By urging learners to use their L2, they gradually internalize it,
which gets them thinking in L2 as well.
Because we are dealing with non-native speakers in the classroom, some of which may not
find it necessary to improve their interlanguage at all, we should also consider that successful
interaction should not only provide an environment that 'triggers mental processes', but also
one that gives learners the opportunity for 'face-to-face interaction' where they can experience
'shared processes such as joint problem solving and discussions' (ibid:195). If we consider the
fact that interaction is 'social rather than individual in nature' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:193),

13. learners, who may not at first be 'capable of independent functioning', will gradually 'achieve
the desired outcome' by doing tasks 'under the guidance of other more skilled individuals' or
'in collaboration with more capable peers', (ibid:195-196) who can provide 'scaffolding
appropriate to the learner's current Zone of Proximal Development' (Mitchell and Myles,
2004:213). It is amazing to see peer interaction at work, namely 'how learners support each
other during oral second language production, how they work together during 'focus on form'
activities, and how they collaborate around second language writing activities' (Mitchell and
Myles, 2004:214) even in mixed ability groups. In the example given by Donato (1994:44),
even though the members of his group do not have the complete knowledge to do the task at
hand without some sort of help, they manage to do so 'through their successive individual
contributions' within the group, the results of which show that 'peer scaffolding results in
linguistic development within the learner' (ibid). As Wells puts it, 'whenever people
collaborate in an activity, each can assist the others, and each can learn from the contributions
of the others' (1999:333). 'Classrooms should provide opportunities to create constructive,
cohesive learning communities […] where students and teachers negotiate their identities and
subject-matter knowledge together in culturally respectful and equitable ways through social
interaction' to make the distance between the 'dominant' learners, and those 'silent, marginal'
ones who seem 'disconnected […] from peers, curriculum, activities' (Duff, 2002:289-290)
shorter. By 'creating a positive, collaborative group dynamic' with 'teacher support in
linguistic needs', learners may want to participate in 'the community of practice' which will
prevent 'a core vs periphery division' between the learners from developing (Thornbury,
2006:199).
Conclusion
It is very important for practioners like myself to understand the linguistic, psycholinguistic,
socio-cultural and sociolinguistic views of SLA, as they all influence language development
each from their own perspective. Central to SLA is the learner, who may be learning the
'target language formally in school or college or 'picking it up' in the playground or the
workplace' (Mitchell and Myles, 2004:23), and whose reasons for learning a second or foreign
language may be very diverse. That is why there is definitely the need to take each theoretical
approach into consideration in order to get the full understanding of what SLA entails
followed by intensive collaboration between educators and researchers, which would certainly
help improve language teaching and development.

14. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and Reynolds, D. (1995). The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of
tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly, 29/1:107-132.
Block, D. (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Cook, V. (1991, 1996). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (2nd edn.).
London: Arnold.
Dickerson, L. (1975). The learner's interlanguage as a set of variable rules. TESOL
Quarterly, 9(4), 401-408.
Donato, R. and McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning
strategies: the role of mediation. Modern Language Journal 78, 453-64.
Duff, P. (2002) The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: an
ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23,
289-322.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-
468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (Second Edition).
London: Arnold.
Myles, F. (2002). Second language acquisition (SLA) research: its significance for learning
and teaching issues. Available at:
http://www.lang.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=421
[Accessed on 2nd May 2008].
Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., and van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in
conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL
Quarterly, 35: 377-406.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational
Change. Harlow: Pearson.
Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the Language Classroom: Research Perspective. TESOL
Quarterly, 28/1: 49-80.
Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29:

15. 9-31.
Sato, C. (1984). Phonological processes in second language acquisition: Another look at
interlanguage syllable structure. Language Learning, 34(4): 43-57.
Skehan, P. (1996). A Framework for the Implementation of Taskbased Instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 17/1: 38-62.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52: 119-58.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and
Seidhofer, B. (eds), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.
G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 125-44.
Ternar, Y. (1990) Ajax la-bas. In Hutcheon & M. Richmond (Eds) Other Solitudes:
Canadian Multicultural Fictions. Toronto: OUP.
Thornbury, S. (2006). Second Language Acquisition and ELT. London: University of East
London
Toohey, K. (2001). Disputes in child L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly 35:257-78.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.