Learning and Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language
Mg. Roxana Correa Prez.
Comparative Essay: Universal Grammar vs Input Hypothesis.
Section: ED110C-1 Students: Albornoz, M. Timothy. Irarrzabal, B. Nicol.
Friday the 11 th , Concepcin 2014. Second Language Acquisition and Learning has risen as the main field of linguists investigative purposes, becoming into a complex set of theories and hypotheses that attempt to explain the way human learn and acquire a second language. Primarily, Chomskys Innatist perspective and Universal Grammar (UG) Theory (1976, as cited in Cook, 2003) which arose as the main response against behaviorism in SLA (Second Language Acquisition) and also as the basis for the Monitor Model of Krashen (1981, as cited in Brown, 2000). In this essay, we will see the differences between the input implications in Second Language Teaching of Chomskys UG and Krashen Input Hypothesis, which would seem to be similar, thus under the analysis of Brown (2000), Cook (2008, 2003) and Lightbrown & Spada) there are differences in the way these theories approach to second language acquisition: the first one approaches from internal and innate processes, and the second one internal plus environmental processes. To begin with, Universal Grammar model (UG) states that human mind is prepared to acquire a language since we are born, regarding the parameters and principles (the parameters of every language are the universal syntax; on the other hand, the principles of language are the how words behave in every language and the meaning they would imply in a sentence) that all languages have in common (Cook, 2008). Besides, Chomsky argues that the development of language in children minds progresses in the same way that other biological function does, basically that they are biologically programmed to develop a language. As a result, this theory was qualified as innatist because its main objective was to explain how beginners discover and develop language by their own; it is all in human mind (Chomsky 1976, as cited in Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). Therefore, Chomskys innatist perspective was at first applied in SLA by other linguists like White (2003a, as cited in Lightbrown & Spada) and Cook (2008) whom argued that UG was a proper method to explain second language acquisition. Furthermore, Chomsky (1976, as cited in Cook, 2008) proposed the Language Acquisition Device (LAD,) which as the receiver of the linguistic input and processed the information in human mind to trigger a response regarding the universal pattern that LAD contains. Chomsky stated that no one is able to learn for repetition, thus for internal and susceptible principles and parameters, as it was mentioned before. Moreover, Cook (2008) presents the application of UG theory in language teaching as a source of lexical input for students in a second language class; consequently, the aim of the teacher is making students aware about the parameters of the language that is being taught. To sum up, Chomskys perspective of second language is all about inner processes concerning the innateness, naturalness and syntactical development of language in both first and second language acquisition. On the other hand, for Brown (2007) the theoretical perspective proposed by Stephen Krashen in SLA is one of the most controversial approaches in the last quarter of the twentieth century Krashens hypothesis has several names, but the most known are Monitor Model, Acquisition- Learning Hypothesis, thus our focus is going to be the Input Hypothesis which is part of the Natural Approach. We all acquire language by the same way, this method is called: comprehensible input. An input is simply the process of comprehending language (listening and reading). Likewise, the only method that works and counts is giving people messages that they understand, we acquire language when we understand what people tell us, what they are saying, not how they are saying. Krashen suggests and develop 5 hypothesis, where he argues; the acquisition and learning at the moment of developing the L2, We acquire as we are exposed to samples of the second language; likewise, we are exposed our mother tongue (Lightbrown & Spada, 2004); a monitor hypothesis; a natural order hypothesis, and the preceding two which are related with the significant previously mentioned input. The input hypothesis, according to Krashen (1984, p. 61), a comprehensible input is the only true cause of second language acquisition. In addition, the graphic explanation is recognized as: i + 1, the i represents the level or stage of language that the acquirer has, and the 1 is the input (word, grammatical form, pronunciation, etc.) that the person gets to go beyond that level that already has. However, the last hypothesis of this monitor model, shows the fact that some people are exposed to amounts of comprehensible inputs does not mean that they will acquire a language in a successfully way, that is way the affective filter hypothesis uses that key word affect to refers to feelings, needs, emotional states, motivations that the acquirer may feel. As Krashen (1981, as cited in Lightbrown and Spada mentioned, 2004), a learner who is tense, anxious, or bored may filter out input, making it unavailable for acquisition. People, (students and beginners) needs motivation, self- confidence and low anxiety; nonetheless, in the input hypothesis there is an emphasis on exposure on input essential component to plan which is not grammar; it is communication, which it is a plus to develop in a better way the affective filter, because students do not feel the pressure of make a mistake in a speaking situation. And finally, and advantage of the input could be that speaking ability cannot be taught directly, speaking is a skill that emerges and becomes more accurate over time, its sufficient comprehensible is provided. Both theorists give importance to SLA as a reflection of the first language acquisition development; however, it has to be considered that Chomskys theory application in L2 was not proposed by himself. On the other side, the aim of Krashens model was the better understanding of second language acquisition a propos first language. In addition, the cognitivist root of these two theories took teaching to be concerned about learners internal way to learn and how people process the information (specially beginners) avoiding the imitation and the teacher as the center of the class (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). Thus, the emphasis given to the input by Krashen and Chomsky is breakpoint of their similarities. Chomsky proposed the input as the aim for teaching lexis, vocabulary and make learners aware of targets language principles. Nonetheless, this proposal was so strict that he fixed a critical period for learning language which was not as true it states: as we can see, being exposed to other language is also a way to acquire it (Lightbrown & Spada). According to Krashen (1981, as cited in Brown 2007), the environment is also part of the acquisition process, it is part of the exposure and determines the success of the learning and acquisition process. As a conclusion, each author presented the implications of the input in the learning and acquisition process, and how important it was for the learners to be given a comprehensible one by teachers. The several processes that occur in human mind and that Krashen and Chomsky established as important to be highlighted, and also increased the importance of SLA. As we found in other authors like Cook (2008), Lightbrown & Spada (2006) and Brown (2007) that these theories were the main basis of SLA and gave us the guidance to understand the communicative process in terms of useful techniques to make it easier for learners and teachers.
References Brown, H. (20067. Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edition). San Francisco State University: Pearson Longman. Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4 th Edition). London: Hodder Education. Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). Explaining second language learning. In How Languages are Learned (pp. 35-38). : Oxford: Oxford University Press