2

Preface

This module contains the theories of the origin of human language and of language
acquisition and development. It introduces the students to the field of language acquisition and
bilingualism in order to obtain essential knowledge and skills to evaluate theoretical studies in
language learning.

Through this module, you will be able to demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the main
principles and theories in the field of first language acquisition and bilingualism. In doing so, you
will be able to show a good understanding about the biological capacities that make language
acquisition possible, as well as the role that historical, cultural, and socio-economic factors play
in this process.
 3
Objectives

At the end of this course, you should be able to:

1. Determine the various concepts involved in language acquisition and its relation to the
human brain;
2. Describe the role each brain structure involved in language production;
3. Analyze the cognitive processes involved in language acquisition; and
4. Reflect on how these processes have helped the human language evolve throughout time.
 4
Table of Contents

Module 5 – Second Language Acquisition

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... 2
OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 3
CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE/TRANSFER ......................................................................... 5
CONCEPTS ABOUT CROSS-LINGUISTIC INFLUENCE/TRANSFER ..................................................... 5
THE OCCURRENCE OF TRANSFER ............................................................................................... 5
HYPOTHESES ABOUT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION................................................. 6
ERROR ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 8
 5
Cross-linguistic influence/Transfer

Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) is typically defined as the influence that knowledge of one
language has on an individual’s learning or use of another language. This influence can involve
various aspects of language. For example, for a native speaker of Spanish who is learning
English, CLI may lead to Spanish-sounding pronunciation when speaking English (e.g.,
pronouncing “zoo” like “soo”), Spanish word or sentence order when writing in English (e.g.,
writing “The car red is mine,” instead of “The red car is mine”), or comprehension of Spanish
words that look or sound similar to English words (e.g., “turista” = “tourist”).

The phrase crosslinguistic influence (CLI) is roughly synonymous with other terms, most
notably language transfer and interference, in that all refer to the influence of one language upon
another, most typically in cases of second language acquisition (SLA).

Concepts about Cross-linguistic Influence/Transfer

1. CLI/Transfer happens between two languages that are identical. This event is called
positive transfer.
2. This event can result in avoidance when a structure does not exist in L1.
Example: Chinese and Japanese language do not have relative clauses, so when
Chinese and Japanese learn English, they use these less often that those languages
that contain relative clauses.
3. In relation to item 2, the rate of development varies–it is is either delayed or accelerated
depending on the avoidance that exists during CLI/transfer.
4. In relation to item 2, this will lead to different routes of acquisition. Let’s say the Chinese
language does not have articles, so they go through the stage of using demonstrative
pronouns instead.

The Occurrence of Transfer

Transfer occurs both consciously and unconsciously. Conscious transfer is deliberate
and it fills the gap in the learner’s knowledge. On the other hand, unconscious transfer takes
place when a language is learned but the correct form is not known.

Here are the factors that show us the extent/occurrence of CLI/Transfer:

1. Setting (setting influences the input and interaction between language learners)
2. Proficiency (rate of learning manifests differently in learners that are highly proficient)
3. Style (rate of transfer is different between monitored style and unmonitored/spontaneous
speech)
4. Learner-type (meaning-oriented learners are less prone to transfer than form-focused
learners)
CLI/Transfer occurs at different levels:
6
1. Phonology (leads to foreign accent)
2. Syntax (leads to word for word translation)
3. Lexis (false cognates – learner incorrectly assumes that L2 word has the same meaning
as a similar L1 word; example > embarrassed versus embarazada, which is pregnant in
Spanish)
4. Pragmatics (leads to over or under formality)
5. Morphology (less affected than others)

Hypotheses about Second Language Acquisition

HYPOTHESES

Five Hypotheses About Second Language Acquisition

1. The acquisition-learning distinction
2. The natural order hypothesis
3. The Monitor hypothesis
4. The Input hypothesis
5. The Affective Filter hypothesis

THE ACQUISITION-LEARNING DISTINCTION: It states that adults have
two distinct and

independent ways of developing competence in a
second language.

a. The first way is language acquisition, a process similar, if not identical, to the way children
develop ability in their first language. Other ways of describing acquisition include implicit
learning, informal learning, and natural learning. In non-technical language, acquisition
is
"picking-up" a language.
b. The second way to develop competence in a second language is by language learning.
We will use the term "learning" henceforth to refer
to conscious knowledge of a second
language, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In
non-technical
terms, learning is "knowing about" a language, known to most people
as
"grammar", or "rules".


THE NATURAL ORDER HYPOTHESIS: The acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a

predictable order. Acquirers of a given language tend to acquire certain grammatical structures
early, and others later. The agreement among individual acquirers is not always 100%, but there
are clear, statistically significant, similarities.
 7

MONITOR HYPOTHESIS: The Monitor hypothesis posits that acquisition and learning are used
in very specific ways. Normally, acquisition "initiates" our utterances in a second language and is
responsible for our fluency. Learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor, or editor.
Learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our utterance, after is has been
"produced" by the acquired system. This can happen before we speak or write, or after (self-
correction).

Conscious learning is available only as a "Monitor", which can alter the output of the
acquired system before or after the utterance is actually spoken or written. It is the acquired
system which initiates normal, fluent speech utterances.

INPUT HYPOTHESIS: Given the correctness of the natural order hypothesis, how do we move
from one stage to another? If an acquirer is at "stage 4", how can he progress to "stage 5"? More
generally, how do we move from stage i, where i represents current competence, to i + 1, the next
level? The input hypothesis makes the following claim: a necessary (but not sufficient) condition
to move from stage i to stage i + 1 is that the acquirer understand input that contains i + 1, where
"understand" means that the acquirer is focused on the meaning and not the form of the
message.

The input hypothesis runs counter to our usual pedagogical approach in second and foreign
language teaching. As Hatch (1978) has pointed out, our assumption has been that we first learn
structures, then practice using them in communication, and this is how fluency develops. The
input hypothesis says the opposite. It says we acquire by "going for meaning" first, and as a result,
we acquire structure!
 • The input hypothesis relates to acquisition, not learning.
8
• We acquire by understanding language that contains a structure that is beyond our
current level of competence (i + This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic
information.
• When communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of
it, i + 1 will be provided automatically.
• Production ability emerges. Speaking fluency is not taught directly.

AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS: It is also important for learners to be comfortable and

receptive to the input in their learning environment. To characterize this, Krashen posits another
construct, the affective filter. Learners who are comfortable and have a positive attitude toward
language learning have their filters set low, allowing unfettered access to comprehensible input.
In contrast, a stressful environment, such as one in which learners are forced to produce before
they feel ready, raises the affective filter, blocking the learner’s processing of input. The affective
filter, according to Krashen, can help explain the variable outcome of SLA across L2 learners,
including differences in the learner’s age and in classroom conditions.

Error Analysis

Hendrickson (1987) mentioned that errors are ‘‘signals’’ that indicate an actual learning
process that takes place when the learner has not yet mastered or shown a well-
structured competence in the target language. Chomsky (1965) made a distinguishing
explanation of competence and performance on which, later on, the identification of mistakes and
errors will be possible. Moreover, Chomsky also stated that ‘’We, thus make a fundamental
distinction between competence (the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language) and
performance (the actual use of language in concrete situations).’’ In other words, errors are
thought of as indications of an incomplete learning, and that the speaker or hearer has not yet
accumulated a satisfied language knowledge which can enable them to avoid linguistics misuse.

Error analysis in SLA:

• established in the 1960s by Corder and his colleagues
• an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through
which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and
second languages to predict errors
• closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching.
• particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology
• studies the types and causes of language errors

Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are
not. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. A key finding of error analysis has been that
many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new
language.

In second language acquisition, error analysis studies the types and causes of language
errors. Errors are classified according to:
 9

• modality (i.e., level of proficiency in speaking, writing, reading, listening)

• linguistic levels (i.e., pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, style)
• form (e.g., omission, insertion, substitution)
• type (systematic errors/errors in competence vs. occasional errors/errors in performance)
• cause (e.g., interference, interlanguage)
• norm vs. system
• degree of interference (global errors make an utterance difficult to understand, while
local errors do not)
• context (overt errors are obvious even out of context, whereas covert errors are evident
only in context)

INTRALINGUAL ERROR: Intralingual error is an error that takes place due to a particular
misuse of a particular rule of the target language, it is, in fact, quite the opposite of Interlingual
error, it puts the target language into focus, the target language in this perspective is thought of
as an error cause. Furthermore, J. Richard, et al. (2002) consider it as one which results from
‘’faulty or partial’’ learning of the target language. (p.267) thus the intralingual error is classified
as follow:

Overgeneralizations: in linguistics, overgeneralizations error occur when the speaker applies a

grammatical rule in cases where it doesn’t apply. This kind of errors have been committed while
dealing with regular and irregular verbs, as well as the application of plural forms. E.g. (Tooth ==
Tooths rather than teeth) and (he goes == he goed rather than went).

Simplifications: they result from learners producing simpler linguistic forms than those found in
the target language. This kind of errors is committed through omission and addition of some
linguistic elements at the level of either the spelling or grammar.

Examples:
Spelling: omission of silent letters
no (= know) * dout (= doubt) * weit (weight)
Grammar:
1. Omission:
o We wait ^ the bus all the time.
o He was ^ clever and has ^ understanding father.
2. Addition:
o Students are do their researches every semester.
o Both the boys and the girls they can study together.
Developmental errors: this kind of errors is somehow part of the overgeneralizations, (this later
10
is subtitled into Natural and developmental learning stage errors), D.E are results of normal
pattern of development, such as (come = comed) and (break = breaked), D.E indicates that the
learner has started developing their linguistic knowledge and fail to reproduce the rules they have
lately been exposed to in target language learning.

Induced errors: as known as transfer of training, errors caused by misleading teaching

examples, teachers, sometimes, unconditionally, explain a rule without highlighting the
exceptions or the intended message they would want to convey.

Example:
In teaching prepositions and particularly ‘’ at ‘’ where the teacher may hold up a box and
say ‘’ I am looking at the box ‘’, the students may understand that ‘’ at ‘’ means ‘’ under
‘’, they may later utter ‘’ the cat is at the table ‘’ instead of the cat is under the table.

Errors of avoidance: these errors occur when the learner fail to apply certain target language
rules just because they are thought of to be too difficult.

Errors of overproduction: in the early stages of language learning, learners are supposed to
have not yet acquired and accumulated a satisfied linguistic knowledge which can enable them
to use the finite rules of the target language in order to produce infinite structures, most of the
time, beginners overproduce, in such a way, they frequently repeat a particular structure.
References:
11
Christiansen, Morton H. and Simon Kirby (eds.). 2003. Language Evolution. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Hauser, Marc; Noam Chomsky; and W. Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is
it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298.1569-79.

Hurford, James; Michael Studdert-Kennedy; and Chris Knight (eds.). 1998. Approaches to the
Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. Some possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences 3.272-79.

Pinker, Steven, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about it?
Cognition 95.210-36.