SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND TEACHING

After completing a twelve week course that overviewed a variety of second language
acquisition (SLA) theories, I noticed many changes to my understanding of how languages are
acquired. In the first week of undertaking the course, I responded to a questionnaire drawn
from Lightbown & Spada’s book ‘How Languages are Learned’ (2006). The seventeen questions it
included encouraged me to think carefully about my beliefs and assumptions regarding second
language acquisition. After carefully evaluating the evolution of research into SLA, I
reexamined my attitudes and beliefs by completing the same questionnaire. The responses I
provided to both questionnaires reflect the changes that have occurred in the way I think
about second language acquisition. This paper will first outline those key changes. This will be
followed by a reflection into my understanding of the many strengths and weaknesses of the
theories studied that have led me to take a more eclectic approach to Second Language
teaching . This will lastly be followed by an exploration into the way this has had an impact on
my professional practice as a teacher, and as a learner of languages other than English.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Though a few of my beliefs about SLA have remained constant throughout the duration of the
course, there are a few noticeable differences that stand out clearly by contrasting my
responses to both questionnaires. My responses to the following statements are worth
analyzing in greater detail:

(1) Languages are learned mainly through imitation. (increment -3)*1

(6) Most of the mistakes that second language learners make are due to
interference from their first language. (increment -2)*
(9) Once learners know roughly 1000 words and the basic structure of a
language, they can easily participate in conversations with native speakers.
(increment -2)*
(10) Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should
practice examples of each one before going on to another. (increment -3)*
(12) Learner’s errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to
prevent the formation of bad habits. (increment - 3)*

* Each question required a circle around an increment between two values; ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly
disagree’ Every question in the questionnaire had 6 increments between each value. The change of
increment is expressed by plus (+) and minus (-).
1 of 8
My better understanding of the many SLA theories studied this semester, and the recognition
of their many strengths and weaknesses has had an obvious impact on the way I understand
second language acquisition. Though this has not led me to adopt an ultimate theory that
answers all the questions ever asked by linguists, I do have a greater awareness and
appreciation of the complex nature of language learning. And even though I find myself asking
more questions than was previously the case, this awareness has further encouraged me to take
a more eclectic approach to the teaching of second languages. By taking this approach, I draw
upon compatible theories, and attempt to put them into practice by implementing certain
pedagogies, whilst also remaining alert of the fact that every idea has its limitation. This
approach, I believe, is the most suitable approach to take to the teaching of languages in the
twenty-first century.
THE THEORIES
2.1 Critique of Behaviourism
The most obvious changes of attitudes reflected in the survey stem from my greater
appreciation and understanding of the work of early SLA researchers who devoted much of
their time critiquing behaviourism. This approach to SLA was dominant from the 1940’s up
until the 1970’s. It explained learning in terms of “imitation, practice, reinforcement (or
feedback on success), and habit formation” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). It viewed language
learning like any other kind of learning. Behaviourists argued that the conditions of learning
would be set if there was plenty of stimuli in the environment, and learner’s responses were
constantly reinforced . The problem however, was that many L1 & L2 acquisition experiments
undermined the simplicity of the behaviourist approach (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). This
began with Naom Chomsky’s fierce critique of the type of behaviourism promoted by Skinner
in 1957. Chomsky argued that there was an innate faculty children had which guided their
learning and could not be accounted for by mere imitation.

Furthermore, a mounting body of evidence was stacked up against theories that behaviourists
relied upon to validate their approach: namely the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis and
audiolingualism. CAH was undermined by experiments that had proven it was not true that
learners had less difficulty acquiring target language patterns that were similar to those their
first language. The audiolingual method - a method of teaching that involves mimicry and
memorization of speech - was further undermined for its weaknesses - which can become
apparent when students are tested to apply their skills in a communicative context. My

2 of 8
discovery of the many weaknesses of these traditional approaches to SLA has enriched my
understanding of the complex nature of language itself and second language acquisition.

In light of the mounting evidence stacked up against the behaviourist approach, I now believe
it would be foolish to accept this theory on its own. It’s greatest limitation is that it only
accounts for what can be seen, and says practically nothing about the unseen. As Rod Ellis
(1997) points out “it ignores the black box of the learner’s mind” (p.32). One of the most
valuable insights I have had is the recognition of the many complex functions that must
happen simultaneously and subconsciously within this black box. It is too simplistic a view of
language and the acquisition of language to treat language learning like any other kind of
learning. However, I also believe there are certain features of behaviourism that are still valid
today, and that such teaching practices adopted by behaviourists, like the audiolingual method,
can still be valuable methods of teaching. To some extend, we do learn by mimicry and
memorization of speech, and sometimes the best moments of learning can be through rote
learning. We would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater by completely rejecting
everything that is a part of the behaviourist approach.

I can say from my own experience of learning Korean, that this method certainly has its value.
After reading so many textbooks that flustered me with its many explanations of grammatical
structures, I found a number of audio and visual materials that offered a simple, easy to use
method of language learning that centered around the audio-lingual approach. These materials
seemed to be far more effective, particularly as an absolute beginner of a foreign language.
When it came to further practice, and going beyond the simple recitation of a list of words
however, I remember the great difficulties I experienced. If one were to base their method of
teaching solely on this approach, there would be obvious shortcomings; I would argue that
person would have to be oblivious to the complex nature of language. Likewise, a person who
nowadays bases their whole understanding of language learning on the traditional behaviourist
approach would also be oblivious to the many processes that constitute language learning.

In my response to the first statement of the second questionnaire, I showed greater

disagreement with the statement ‘Languages are learned mainly through imitation.’ Prior to
undertaking the SLA course, I did have same vague notion of behaviourism as a psychological
theory, but it was not as developed as it is now. By recognising the many weaknesses of the
behaviourist approach, and its inability to account for certain phenomena, I have come to a
better understanding of theories that do better justice to the ‘black box’ in the mind of the
3 of 8
learner. This is what has led me to a stronger inclination to disagree with the statement that
languages are learned mainly through imitation. It is also worth nothing however, that even
after reading many articles that explicitly or implicitly reject the behaviourist approach, I am
not in absolute disagreement with the first statement. To some extent, we must warrant that
behaviourists were right about imitation being an important factor of learning. Even nowadays,
some scholars are looking back to behaviourist theories and reviewing certain ideas that may
have gone unnoticed over the years (see Schingler, 2008).

2.2 Interlanguage & Error Analysis

A key concept that has had a large influence on the way I think about SLA is Selinker’s idea of
an ‘interlanguage’. This term refers to a continuum which learners move along as they progress
towards a better understanding of their target language (Larson-Freeman & Long, 1991). This
continuum is shaped by several factors such as the transfer of L1, strategies of learning L2 (like
simplifying rules) and the overgeneralisation of patterns found in the target language.
Researchers who adopted Selinker’s theory, or theories similar to it, focused more attention on
the learning processes that shaped the journey of a language learner (Dyson, 2010). The
benefits of doing so cannot be exaggerated; the shift of focus helped researchers discover
critical cognitive processes at work in learning a language. In particular, it was the recognition
of how learners continually hypothesise and test language features as they acquired the target
language.

This new understanding is responsible for shifting my response to question six in the second
questionnaire (‘Most of the mistakes that second language learners make are due to
interference from their first language’.) Though I do not reject the statement outright, I have
come to a greater awareness of the importance for errors in the acquisition process. Corder
(1967) was one of the first to draw attention to learner errors, as he discovered a great deal of
errors do not originate in a learner’s first language. Dulay & Burt (1973) took this approach
further in a major study by showing that with their research participants, only 3% of errors
could be accounted for as being the result of L1 interference. Though their arguments seem
convincing, they also argued more contentiously that if teachers provided rich input, syntax
could take care of itself. This is an argument I feel less inclined to support, as I do believe the
teaching of syntax can play just as much an important role in second language acquisition. But
regardless of my rejection of this second point, their work on error analysis is logical and
convincing.
4 of 8
Another key concept formed around the idea of an interlanguage, is the sense of
developmental sequences that take place within learning. This concept has had an important
part to play towards my understanding of SLA. Though it may not appear to be the case by
looking at the results of the second survey - particularly my response to statement 10 (my
response to this statement was influenced by another idea discussed later) it has nevertheless
given me greater insight into the natural way learners hypothesise by using a language.
Pienneman’s research into developmental sequences, and the research of others who followed
his footsteps, offer convincing arguments that demonstrate patterns that develop in the
acquisition process. Interrogatives and negation are two language features demonstrated to
have clearly identifiable language sequences (Lightbown & Spada, 2006) The greatest insight I
have had into SLA is in fact the way I view errors. Rather than always seeing errors as
hindrances to target language, I rather see them more positively as indicators of progress when
they demonstrate learners are hypothesising and testing a language. This accounts for my
stronger disagreement towards statement 12. However, a good reason why I am not in total
disagreement with statement 10 is more to do with the convincing arguments made by
Pienneman’s ‘processability theory’ which states that it is only when a certain stage has been
acquired that learners are able to learn the following step (Pienemann, 2005).

2.3 Universal Grammar

Like Selinker’s concept of an interlanguage, Chomsky’s understanding of a Universal Grammar

has also proven to be an important concept that has had a large impact on the way I think
about SLA. Though Chomsky only applied this concept to first language acquisition in
children, the sense of an innate linguistic knowledge is convincing when also applied to second
language acquisition. Our very ability to hypothesize and test language features as we acquire
them is evidence of this. Prior to commencing the SLA course, I had very little understanding
of Universal Grammar, but after analysing the concept further, I found it made sense to think
of a universal property of the human mind that makes language learning possible.
It has been a worthwhile endeavor taking into account the factors in the learning environment
that may prevent learners from accessing universal grammar. Felix & Weigl (1991) explored this
idea by testing 77 German high school students who were taught English exclusively within a
classroom setting. Their findings suggested that the environment they were taught in was in
fact obstructive towards UG. They described the learning environment as being very

5 of 8
traditional and most typical of German schools. They elaborate upon this typical teaching
method by saying:

“The teaching method used in German high schools is a fairly traditional

variety of the audiolingual method strongly inspired by behaviouristic
learning theories. Rules of grammar - to the extent that they are known to
the teacher - are explicitly taught and subsequently practiced through more
or less stereotyped sentences an expressions. Particularly in the early
classes, explanations are given in German, while new vocabulary is usually
introduced through English sentences. A fundamental belief underlying this
teaching method is that errors should be avoided at all costs.” (p.166)

This description of a school’s teaching method clearly sums up the wide range of factors that
limit or hinder a learner’s potential to acquire a second language. Though I was consciously
aware of the limitations of these approaches when filling out the first questionnaire, my belief
in giving students greater opportunities to utilize their innate learning abilities led me to
disagree more strongly with statement 12 (‘Learner’s errors should be corrected as soon as they
are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits’). Putting aside the issue of the
Critical Period Hypothesis, which has not had any serious impact on my beliefs, I do believe it
makes sense to argue for the existence of a Universal Grammar within both first language and
second language acquisition.

2.4 Immersion

As indicated earlier, one of the most interesting responses I gave in the questionnaire was to
statement 10 (‘Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should
practice examples of each one before going on to another.’) I recall this being the statement I
thought about the longest - both at the beginning of the course, and towards the end. Why
this question was so difficult to fill out was obviously due to two competing ideas I had about
SLA. The first idea was based around the argument that the acquisition of certain language
features occurred within stages, and so the manner in which one is taught a second language
should also reflect these developmental stages. The second idea is based around the proven
effectiveness of language immersion programs - in particular the French immersion programs
in Canada. Lightbown and Spada (2006) have shown that through numerous studies ‘French
immersion students develop fluency, high levels of listening comprehension, and confidence in
6 of 8
using their second language’ (p.156) In such programs, language features are not taught in the
type of sequential manner found in other types of classrooms. Rather, students are immersed
into the language. Though this method has been criticized for learners failures to acquire high
levels of performance in certain aspects of the second language, the areas of success that are
identified should be persuasive enough.

2.5 Practical Application

Though the many theories discussed in this paper have proven to be limited in achieving what
they set out to achieve, the recognition of their limitations is beneficial. Consider for example,
the impracticality of structuring a language program that identifies the exact stages of
developmental sequences in acquiring a language, or an immersion program that actually did
have the time to provide a well sequenced course in grammar alongside a content integrated
pedagogy. It seems then that it is not an issue of whether or not one should put a particular
theory into practice, but rather the scale of which a theory should be applied. Its worth
recognizing the fact that the statements in Lightbown & Spada’s questionnaire do require its
respondents to scale their beliefs. Both teachers and learners of a second language should
likewise also constantly reflect on how they scale approaches to a second language. This is
particularly useful when asking whether communicative skills require developing, or when
more attention needs to be directed towards form (see Laufer & Girsai, 2008 & Dyson, 2002).

This eclectic approach to language teaching and learning that draws upon a variety of
approaches has helped me understand how best to teach myself and others a second language.
In early January 2011 I decided to teach myself Korean, and to also structure a course around
what I learnt. As I documented my many successes and failures, I discovered changing
attitudes towards language acquisition. I found for example, an audiolingual approach helped
me acquire certain words and was beneficial at the early stages of language learning. I also
found that at a later stage, focus on a particular grammatical form made more sense. It is
interesting to note the change of response to statement 9 in the questionnaire (‘once learners
know roughly 1000 words and the basic structure of a language, they can easily participate in
conversations with native speakers.’) Having come to the end of the year, and knowing close to
1,000 words, with a basic understanding of the language structure, I still fail to communicate
effectively with native Korean speakers. One belief I hold that has not changed since the
beginning of the course is that in order to maximize ones potential to learn a new language,

7 of 8
one needs to listen, speak, write, think and communicate with others as much as possible in
the target language. Affording myself opportunities to do so has been my greatest challenge.

The theories discussed in this paper were particularly influential to the development of my
own understanding of SLA. Although there were many other theories I explored during the
course of the semester - some of which were also significant innovation at some stage in the
evolution of SLA research, the scope of analysis was restricted to those theories that had the
greatest impact upon my understanding of the nature of language and language acquisition.
These theories have formed the basis of an eclectic approach I feel is best suited to learners
and teachers today.

REFERENCES

Corder, S.P., (1967) ‘The significance of learners’ errors’, International Review of Applied Linguistics 5(1)
pp.161-169.

Dulay, H & Burt, M & Krashen, S., (1982) ‘Language Two’, Oxford University Press: New York.

Dyson. B., (2002) ‘Focus on learnable form in a communicative context: A framework for second
language acquisition in the classroom’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 25(1) PP. 53-70.

Dyson, B., (2010) ‘Learner language analytic methods and pedagogical

implications’. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 33 (3), 30.1–30.21. DOI: 10.2104/aral1030

Ellis, R., (1997) ‘Second Language Acquisition’ Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Felix, W.S & Wilfriend, W., (1991) ‘Universal Grammar in the classroom: the effects of formal
instruction on second language acquisition’, Second Language Research 7(2) pp.162-181.

Laufer, B. & Girsai, N., (2008) ‘Form-focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A
Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation.’ Applied Linguistics, 29(4) pp.694-716.

Larson-Freeman, D. & Long, M.H (1991) ‘An Introduction to second language acquisition’, Harlow
Longman: London.

Lightbown, P & Spada, N., (2006) ‘How Languages are Learnt’, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Schingler, H., (2008) ‘The long good-bye: Why B.F. Skinner’s verbal behavior is alive and well on the
50th anniversary of its publication’, Psychological Record, 58(1), pp.329-337.

Pienemann, M., (2005) ‘Cross linguistic aspects of processability theory’ John Benjamins Publishing
Company: Amsterdam.

8 of 8