Assignment – FP003 SLA

Second Language Acquisition

Heydi Patricia Ahumada Fernandez

Fabricio Alberto Maradiaga Durón

Ony Yanira Portillo Ayala

Group: fp_tefl_2021-06_uneatlantico

Date: October 31st, 2021.

1
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

According to Swain:

...producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay
attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or her
own intended meaning.
(Swain 1985: 249)

In Swain's view, learners need not only input, but output: they need to use language in
order to learn it. Krashen, however, as recently as 2009, stated that:

Research done over the last three decades has shown that we acquire language
by understanding what we hear and read. The ability to produce language is the
result of language acquisition, not the cause.

Forcing students to speak English will not improve their ability to speak English.
(Korea Times, 2009).

“Is it possible to reconcile these two seemingly opposite views as to what

constitutes second language acquisition or ‘learning’, as Swain puts it? Or do the
two views represent two extremes of both theory and practice?”

2
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

If you’ve ever tried to learn a second language, you know it’s not so easy. There
are rules of grammar which come with exceptions, some sounds that are hard to make,
endless lists of words to commit to memory and so on. And yet, you managed to learn the
basics of your very first language around the time you were two years old; no textbooks in
sight (Reilly, 1998). Not only are children able to assimilate the complex rules of grammar
without formal teaching, they do so from a limited vocabulary. Regardless of how much a
child is spoken to, they will not hear every possible word and sentence by the time they
begin speaking. Yet when they do start to talk, children begin to follow grammatical rules
and apply them to form new phrases (Khan, 2005). Learning a second language connects
you with a whole new group of people and their culture (See appendix 1). Theories
regarding this topic continue to be constantly revised. This paper will focus on a brief
analysis of the main theories of second language acquisition from the point of view of
Dr.Stephen Krashen and Dr.Merrill Swain. Krashen's Input Hypothesis and Swain's
Output Hypothesis have many differences but they could complement each other.
Understanding and being understood is the main objective that guarantees the success of
communication (Pavihtra, 2015). Consequently, we will also consider other theories about
SLA by some schools and researchers who have dedicated themselves to studying the
complex process of acquiring a second language and complement the theories in
mention.
Firstly, Language learning as conceived by Krashen consists in the internalization
of explicit rules under conscious control. The crucial point of the theory is that learning in
this sense is always effected through a monitor or an effort on the part of the learner to
control his languages output and to self-correct it whenever necessary (Krashen,
1998). According to Stephen Krashen’s theory, acquiring a language involves
comprehending meaningful messages and analyzing messages in the innate language
acquisition faculty. The theory, underlines the distinction between guided an of
spontaneous language acquisition but the crucial point of the theory is that learning in this
sense is always effected through a monitor or an effort on the part of the learner to control
his languages output and to self-correct it whenever necessary (Zascerinska, 2010).

3
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

According to Stephen Krashen’s theory, acquiring a language involves

comprehending meaningful messages and analyzing messages in the innate language
acquisition faculty. The theory, underlines the distinction between guided and spontaneous
language acquisition (Krashen, 1998). This theory presents five main hypotheses: The
Acquisition Learning Hypothesis, The Natural Order, The Monitor Hypothesis, The Input
Hypothesis, and The affective Filter (See Appendix 2). There are aspects such
as Acquisition (unconscious, spontaneous, natural) and learning (conscious, explicit,
intentional) which are two different ways of knowing and cannot interact with each other
(Gascoigne, 2018). Non-interface between acquisition and learning is used to strengthen
the argument: large doses of acquisition activity in classroom minor role assigned to
learning. That is to say, positions reject the existence of a facilitative and transformational
relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge (Krashen, 1982). Input and
meaningful interaction are necessary for acquisition. However, the acquisition and learning
process may be affected by the learning environment (See appendix 3). For instance, if
learners are criticized due to the errors they make, their affective filter will be raised and
they may feel more nervous, which may hinder the language learning and acquisition
process (Khan, 2005).
Last, according to the Input Hypothesis, individuals must receive comprehensible
input that is slightly beyond the current level of the learner’s already internalized language
knowledge (Krashen, 1998). However, output activities are not as important within this
hypothesis, as they may even hinder the acquisition process by forcing learners to
produce language when they are not ready (Krashen, 1998). On the other hand, within the
framework of the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), learners receive comprehensible
input and positive or negative feedback for their (in)correct language usages. Hence,
interaction provides learners with the opportunities to connect input and output (Long,
1996). Output forces learners to move from semantic comprehension to syntactic use,
and it makes them test the accuracy of their knowledge and promotes automaticity (routine
use of language). The Input Hypothesis Krashen asserts that one acquires language in
only one way-by exposure to comprehensible input. If the input contains forms and
structures just beyond the learner’s current level of competence in the language, then both
comprehension and acquisition will occur.

4
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

On the other hand, Merill Swain´s theory (1985), just only has three ideas. First,
the noticing/triggering function: It refers to the awareness or noticing, Students find when
they cannot say or write exactly what they need for conveying meaning. With the use of
this function, learners realize there are some linguistics problems they need to manage, so
that, it pushes the student to look for the adequate knowledge they require for completing
the new discovered gap. This means learning a new language they are some problems for
the learner to conquer, like reading and writing the word that he/she don’t know. Second
ideas from the Swain theory include The hypothesis-testing function: This function
suggests learners may use the method of trial and error for testing her /his production
expecting to receive a feedback (Swain, 1995). This feedback can be applied in two ways:
recasts and elicitations or clarification requests. This idea explains that when learning a
new language, learner often makes mistakes, which can help them to understand the
language. The last idea of Swain theory includes The metalinguistic (reflective function):
Language is seen as a tool conducive to reflection on the language used by the teacher,
their partners and the student himself/herself. The meaning behind this idea is to show
how learner can learn the new language by the influence of their relativities. Swain theory
explains the process of learning a new language and teaches who can influence the
learner to learn.
Learners need to have a setting in which their attempts at communication are
valued and shaped to make them acceptable and understandable, through communicative
rather than grammatical means of correction. In the course of producing output, learners
notice or become aware of a gap in their linguistic knowledge (Swain, 1995). With regard
to this, noticing function, which is one of the underpinnings of the Output Hypothesis
(Doqaruni, 2013), simply refers to the mechanism triggering learners’ cognitive processes
to modify their output with the help of external or internal feedback investigated immediate
task repetition in the first place, and also focused on three claims of the Output
Hypothesis; noticing function, hypothesis testing and collaborative dialogues (Forehand,
2010). At the same time, Swain suggests: Output is important because Learners are
obliged to use alternative meanings when there is an interruption in the communication. It
is also important because the use of language can force learners to pass semantic
processing (characteristic of the early stages of the second language acquisition to the
processing syntax (Selinker, 1972).

5
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

In addition to this, other theories of language development fall into one of two camps:
empiricist or nativist. Empiricists believe language is a learnt behavior. Nativists, on the
other hand, believe we are born with some innate language ability (Braniden, 2011).
Empirical researchers focus on learning theories to understand how children acquire
language skills, while nativists look for biological components responsible for the universal
rules underlying all of the languages spoken by people.
Multiple approaches and theories try to explain how the SLA process is working,
but none of them represent the last word in language teaching (Johnson, 2004). For
instance, The Behaviorist Perspective sees language as a set of structures and acquisition
as a matter of habit formation. Learning is an observable behavior that is automatically
acquired by means of stimulus and response in the form of mechanical repetition; The
Innatist Perspective argues that innate knowledge of the Universal Grammar permits all
children to acquire the language of their environment during critical periods of their
development; Nativist theory believes that human beings are born with a built-in device of
some kind that predisposes them to acquire language Chomsky (1965). The Acculturation
Model describes the acquisition process of a second language (L2) by members of ethnic
minorities that typically include immigrants, migrant workers, or the children of such groups
(Schuman, 1978). The main suggestion of the theory is that the acquisition of a second
language is directly linked to the acculturation process, and learners’ success is
determined by the extent to which they can orient themselves to the target language
culture; Cognitivist suggests that logical thinking is the underlying factor for both linguistic
and non-linguistic development in which the process of association has been used to
describe the means by which the child learns to relate what is said to particular objects or
events in the environment; Cummins's Second Language Framework makes a distinction
between social language and academic language. For them, Social language refers to the
everyday conversational language which is supported by the use of illustrations, realia,
demonstrations, etc. Social language deals with the here-and-now language, therefore
second language learners tend to acquire it faster. Academic language is the language of
school tasks which is more abstract and decontextualized (Context Reduced). Some
second language learners who develop fluent spoken English have difficulties in reading

6
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

and writing because they may be at different levels of proficiency while they are moving
from social language to academic language.
In conclusion, it is not difficult to realize. Both theories are so important for us.
Although great progress has been made in the field of SLA, there is still much work to be
done to find new supporting evidence that will allow researchers to reach an agreement on
how input is processed, produced, and modified including Krashen's input hypothesis and
Swain's exit hypothesis (See appendix 4). While the input hypothesis suggests that
students should focus on meaning by limiting their production until they feel linguistically
prepared, the output hypothesis states that languages can be acquired through meaningful
interaction involving meaning processing and production (Johnson, 2004). Both views can
support each other like the rest of the theories to better understand which processes are
more assertive, effective, and pertinent to advance the acquisition of second languages in
the teaching-learning process, thus generating a quality education at the forefront of the
sustainable development objectives and the levels of educational quality as citizens of the
world.

7
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

Bibliographical References

Braniden, L. (2011). Main theories about SLA. New Amsterdam Editions.

https://www.slatheories.org/./processing/language/language-acquisition
Doqaruni, V. (2013). The relationship between communication strategies and noticing
function of output hypothesis in teacher talk. The Journal of Language and
Linguistic Studies, 9(1), 176-205. http://www.jlls.org/vol9no1/176- 205.pdf
Cummins, J. (1994) The Acquisition of English as a Second Language. Reading
Instruction for ESL Students. Delaware International Association.
https://www.montgomeryschools.org/curriculum/esl/cummins.pdf.
Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom's taxonomy. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on
learning, teaching, and technology (pp. 41- 47). Retrieved from
https://textbookequity.org/Textbooks/Orey_Emergin_Perspectives_Learning.pdf
Gascoigne, C. (2018). Interface and Non-Interface Inside Krashen´s Theory. Southern
New Hampshire Press.
Johnson, M. (2004) A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition. New York: New
Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press.
Khan,I (2005). Early Language Acquisition. Khan academy.https://www.khanacademy.org/

Krashen, S. (1998).Comprehensible output System. Second Language Acquisition times.

26 (8) 175-182. doi: 10.1016/S0346251X (98)00002-

Krashen, S (1982). Acquiring a second language. World English’s. Vol 1 (3) 97 -

101.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1982.tb00476.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
Handbook of language acquisition. Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413–
468). San Diego, CA: Academic Pres.
Pavihtra, M. (2015). Elements of effective communication. Modern Research
Editions.http://rdmodernresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20.pdf.
Reilly, J. (2005) Narrative Discourse in Children with Early Focal Brain Injury. Brain and
Language Editions.

8
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

Selinker, L. ( 1972). Interlanguage Second Language. Barcelona Editions.

Schmidt, R. 1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. Talking
to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-324). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Principle and
practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Zascerinska, J. (2010). Language acquisition and language learning. Daugavpils
University Editions.

9
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

Appendixes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

10
 Assignment – FP003 SLA

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

11
Assignment – FP003 SLA

12