Models of Second Language Acquisition

This section gives a snapshot of the models of second language acquisition which attempt to explain how a second language is acquired or learnt. Each of these privilege particular features of the language as most imperative.

Input Hypothesis

This model, which is associated with the work of Stephen Krashen, contends that the L2 is acquired (not learned) in the same way the L1 is acquired; through comprehensible input. Krashen (1985) considers input all that is necessary for the acquisition of a second language provided it is comprehensible to the language learner and that the learner has a low affective filter (attitudinal and mental dispositions which would not interfere with the acquisition of the input). Hart and Risley’s (1995) work also lends credence to the role of input in language learning. Their study identified characteristics of parent language input in terms of linguistic diversity and feedback, rather than any other learner factors, as predictive of vocabulary

28

scores at ages 9–10. From their study, the lower the input children received, the lower their language knowledge and skills were. In a study by Gersten, Baker, Haager and Graves (2005) English language learners who reached near-native-like proficiency in English were those in classrooms where the nature of the language input was of a superior quality. This explains why according to Van Patten (2003), all the second language acquisition models have an element of input. The ‘input hypothesis’ magnifies the role of input in second language acquisition above all the others seeing it not just as necessary but also sufficient for learners to acquire a second language, provided the conditions are right. It is the sufficiency of input that Swain (2005) challenges in her output hypothesis.

Output Hypothesis

The premise of the output hypothesis is that although the role of input in second language learning is not denied, it is nevertheless inadequate to account for SLA. From a review of studies in French immersion programs in Canada, Swain (2005) noted that despite the abundance of comprehensible input L2 learners had exposure to and which positively impacted on their oral proficiency, their productive language skills of speaking and writing were limited and were nowhere near those of native speakers’. What was lacking was the motivation or compulsion on the part of learners, to produce the language. Swain (2005) identifies three functions of output namely; noticing/triggering, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic/reflective functions. By trying to produce language either through speaking or writing, learners would become aware of gaps and problems in their current L2 system (noticing) which motivates or ‘triggers’ them to pay greater attention to that which can make up for the lack. Output also compels the learner to hypothesize how the message encoded should look (for writing) or sound (for speaking). Learners go further to test the hypothesis through the actual production of the utterance which will draw feedback from the more knowledgeable others. It provides them with opportunities to experiment with new structures and forms (testing hypothesis) On the basis of this feedback they can then modify their utterance or make further hypotheses. The metalinguistic function of output is what leads the learner to use language to reflect on their or others’ language with a view to modifying it. Input then becomes the aspect that gives impetus to output. It provides learners with opportunities to reflect on, discuss and analyze these problems explicitly (reflecting). Second language production (i.e. output) compels learners to engage in complete grammatical processing and push the development of L2 syntax and morphology. Pushed learner output seems most useful in the area of vocabulary than in more other areas.

29

Related to the role of output is the concept of access. According to Antony (2008, p. 473), “[A]ccess involves searching the vocabulary store, or lexicon, in the brain to find appropriate words and forms of words necessary to express a particular meaning.” In language production or output, the communicator has to retrieve from their lexicon, the necessary terms (vocabulary) combine and order them in acceptable ways in sentences and whole discourses to encode meaning (syntax). Whereas access in the L1 is almost automatic, it requires conscious attention in the L2 (Antony, 2008). The meaning encoded constitutes the output. Both the input and output hypotheses present compelling explanations for second language acquisition, which invites a hypothesis that recognises both input and output in its explanation of second language acquisition. This, the interaction hypothesis seeks to do.

Interaction Hypothesis

The interaction hypothesis was introduced by Long in 1983 to account for the role of interaction in second language learning. It is largely seen as an extension of the input hypothesis. Although the ‘interaction’ the ‘interaction hypothesis’ promotes is that between interactants within the second language learning environment, there is a sense in which that interaction brings about the interaction between input and output. Through interaction the learners create both the input and the output from which they learn. The basis of Long’s (1983) hypothesis was his observation of sixteen native and sixteen non-native pairs of interactants’ informal oral communication in which they explained rules of a game to each other. Despite the linguistic nature of the pairing, grammatical constructions noted were similar. There was, however, greater use or even reliance on interaction patterns like repetitions, clarification requests, or confirmation checks by both pairs. Within the interaction process, interlocutors negotiate meaning and facilitate comprehension which leads to language learning. In their guest editorial comment to the International Journal of Educational Research, Mayo and Solar (2002, p. 233) note that “Research has shown that L2 learners’ participation in negotiated interaction eases the access to conditions claimed to bolster language learning, namely: comprehensible input.” The input is not just consumed, it is queried, recycled and paraphrased which increases its comprehensibility. Within the interaction pattern, there is modified input and modified interaction. The former refers to modifications to the linguistic forms whereas modified interaction refers to modifications to the interactional structures (Wei, 2012). Within the negotiation process, the output is also modified as well as the attendant feedback. Modification of the interactional structure of

30

discourse through negotiated interaction between interlocutors is one way by which input is rendered comprehensible. Linked to the social constructivist model, classrooms therefore, need to be optimal learning environments where contexts for interaction are carefully designed to enable learners to create their own language knowledge within a socially constructed process of discovery.

From the three major hypotheses, it is apparent that second language learning proceeds on the basis of an interplay between input and output within a context of interaction. The acculturation model, automaticity model (Bialystok, 1978/1982), conditions outcomes model (Van Lier, 1996), and the associative model hypotheses have been used to explain second language acquisition but their application in classroom teaching is limited. A snapshot description of each of these models will suffice to give a general picture of the scope of alternative explanations that have been given to account for second language acquisition. The importance of interaction, which the interaction hypothesis emphasizes, is extended in Schumann’s (1986) acculturation model which explains L2 acquisition in terms of the amount and quality of interaction L2 learners have with the L1 language users.

The acculturation model

Schumann’s acculturation model is perceived by Barjesteh and Vaseghi (2012, p. 579) as possibly “… the earliest model toward centrality to learner factors…” in SLA. This model posits that the extent of second language learning is influenced by the social and psychological distance between the L1 and L2. The culture of the L2 systems and how the learner views and is viewed by the new target language group impacts on their acquisition of the language. According to the model,

…any leaner can be placed along a continuum ranging from social-psychological distance to social-psychological proximity with the speakers of the target language. The degree of language acquisition, then, would correlate with the degree of the learner’s proximity to the target group (Barjesteh & Vaseghi, 2012, p. 579).

The model accounts for natural rather than tutored SLA but its usefulness to the present study is in its underscoring the importance of SLA occurring incidentally through exposure to much input. Proximity of a second language acquirer to the native speakers exposes the acquirer to much input which ultimately leads to acquisition. The model is more useful in teacher preparation as a model that examines the impact of external factors on L2 learning. Equally limited in application is the automaticity model.

31 Automaticity model

The model distinguishes between explicit and implicit language knowledge and the degree to which the individual analyzes, monitors, and uses two languages with ease (to use language with automaticity or control) (Bialystok, 1978/1982). The model has limited application to L2 instruction but provides a framework for cognitive learning in the L2.

Conditions outcomes model

The conditions outcomes model (Van Lier, 1996) merges both input and output factors in SLA. It identifies the critical conditions required for language acquisition such as learner receptivity, attention and practiced intake. These are accessed in authentic forms rather than formal artificial forms. A creative way for their use is devised. In this way, the learner’s L2 proficiency is developed. The model places emphasis on optimal learner output or production within authentic and meaningful interaction. Awareness, autonomy and authenticity are identified by Van Lier as key principles in SLA. Classroom interaction and learner output are also considered in this study.

The Associative-Cognitive model

Ellis (2006, p. 100) posits that “SLA is governed by the same principles of associative and cognitive learning that underpin the rest of human knowledge.” This perspective is based on the fact that high-frequency constructions are more readily processed than low-frequency ones. Such associative learning of a language from frequency of usage applies to words, letters, morphemes, syntactic patterns, and so forth. Frequency of both the use and exposure to language aspects result in their acquisition. Again here the elements of input, interaction and output are implied with the frequency of use being the general ingredient leading to associations and ultimately cognitive learning. The most significant contribution of the model to the present study is the key role it assigns to frequency, recency, and context of constructions in SLA; concepts which are also key in this study. Acquisition is perceived as progressing through repeated exposure to input.

A fuller picture of L2 learning can only emerge from viewing all the models as providing vital insights from different perspectives which enrich the understanding of L2 acquisition, rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive. Although there is much diversity in terms of the principles and imperatives of L2 learning, there is greater convergence of opinion with

32

regard to stages through which learners acquire a language. Although there is much diversity in the SLA models, there is a relatively high degree of consensus on the stages learners pass through in their acquisition of a second language.