International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 50-56 Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S
EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
SLA RESEARCH NOURISHING LANGUAGE TEACHING
PRACTICE
Marzieh Mehrnoush*
Sima Sayadian
Department of English, Maybod Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maybod, Iran
*Corresponding author:
E-mail: marziehmehrnoush@yahoo.com
sima.sayadian@maybodiau.ac.ir

ABSTRACT
This paper aims at providing an overview of some researchers viewpoints about the Second
Language Acquisition (SLA) research and language teaching. Research into language learning
and teaching can provide useful input for L2 teaching. SLA research has made relevant
contributions to language pedagogy (Long 1990). Lightbown (2000) argues that SLA research is
not the only source of information teachers should draw on and offers teachers' guidance. To
this end, this review attempted to highlight the supportive link of SLA to language teaching
practice with regard to the researchers' viewpoints about its application in English as a foreign
language (EFL) pedagogy.

KEYWORDS: Second Language Acquisition; Language Teaching Profession; Researchers'

ideas.

INTRODUCTION
SLA research provides a thorough an in-depth basis for language teaching practice and
practitioners. Over the past decades a number of groundbreaking theories have been formed to
explain how language learning takes place, discover the variables which contribute to second
language acquisition and to provide assistance to second language teachers. These theories of
SLA which account for language acquisition from different standpoints, have revolutionized
our views of teaching and learning. This review introduces some of the most significant
theories of second language acquisition which have contributed to classroom pedagogy.

ROUTE AND RATE OF ACQUISITION

The basic findings of SLA research during the past few decades indicate two main results that
firstly second language acquisition is highly systematic, and secondly second language
acquisition is highly variable.

Although these two major findings might seem to be conflicting, they are more complementary.
The first one primarily refers to the route of development (the nature of the stages all learners go
through when acquiring the second language - L2). This route remains largely independent of
both the learner's mother tongue (L1) and the context of learning (e.g. whether instructed in a
50
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 50-56 Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S
EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
classroom or acquired naturally by exposure). The second statement usually refers to either
the rate of the learning process (the speed at which learners are learning the L2), or the
outcome of the learning process (how proficient learners become), or both. We all know that both
speed of learning and range of outcomes are highly variable from learner to learner: some do
much better much more quickly than others. Such findings had invaluable pedagogical
implications for language teaching profession in the sense that if we understand what makes
learners learn faster and progress ahead, then we can be better teachers or learners. However,
these two research lines are supportive and complementary to our insight of how learners learn.
In fact, understanding the route learners follow, and the rate they have, give us a clear
expectations of what learners can achieve at given points on the developmental scale; a point
which is important for both learners and teachers during the learning and teaching process. In
addition, such findings lead us, for example, to a better understanding of the significance of
errors in the learning process. Producing them need not be seen as necessarily problematic, buy
can be regarded to as indication of progress.

Many researchers in the disciple have conducted numerous exploratory and confirmatory
research studies to draw the above mentioned conclusions. These two findings have been the
basis of many teaching methodologies and teaching practices in the profession.

INTERLANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND LANGUAGE TRANSFER

The term interlanguage (IL) was introduced by Selinker (1969). It refers to the linguistic
system an adult second language learner uses to express meanings in the target language. It
refers to a dynamic linguistic system that has been made and utilized by a language learner
who is not fully proficient but is approximating the target language by maintaining some
features of their first language or overgeneralizing target language forms in their language
productions.

The interlanguage is viewed as a separate linguistic system which is different from both the
learners mother tongue and the target language. One main feature of any interlanguage is that
it stops to develop at some point. Thus, the adult second-language learner never achieves a
level of capacity in the use of the target comparable to that achievable by any child acquiring
the target as a native language.

Another basic feature of the interlanguage system is transfer. Odlin (1989, p. 27) defines
transfer as the influence of similarities and differences between the target language and the
first language. Language transfer has been a central issue in applied linguistics, second
language acquisition and language learning (Odlin, 1989). IL was the origin of a change in
second language acquisition, the theory of language transfer was challenged and reconsidered
several times. In 1950s, transfer was considered the most important factor that related to
errors. In the 1960s, the study of transfer diminished with Chomsky's criticism of behaviorist
learning theory which justified that learners errors were not indication of language transfer
but the creative construction process.

51
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 50-56 Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S
EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR THEORIES
Universal Grammar (UG) theories are based on Chomskys idea that there are certain
principles that are foundations of language development. These principles are biologically
determined and specialized for language learning (Chomsky, 1969, 1980, 1986). Originally,
UG theory did not involve itself with second language learning. It was basically a theory
concerning the first language learner. Its principles were later utilized by second language
researchers and were applied in the field of second language acquisition. UG was used in
order to justify the existence of developmental sequences in interlanguage and to support the
view of interlanguage as a natural language which is subject to the constraints of the Universal
Grammar (Hilles, 1986:45). The use of UG for language transfer, fossilization and L2
pedagogy was also discussed. Evidence was provided that adults have some sort of access to
knowledge of UG, and this knowledge is used in the development of foreign language
competence (Bley-Vroman, Felix, & Ioup, 1988).

Generally speaking, UG theories of second language acquisition were generated in order to

provide justifications for empirical evidence. UG was basically concerned with the internal
mechanisms that lead to the acquisition of the formal aspects of the target language and the
similarities and differences between acquiring a particular language as a first or a second
language. Although researchers have used UG to generate a number of interesting hypotheses
about second language acquisition, and generative theorists regard UG as the best theory of
grammar because of its descriptive and explanatory adequacy (Ellis, 1994:429), empirical
evidence has been restricted to the acquisition of a small set of syntactic phenomena. A
general theory of second language acquisition needs to cover a wider range of phenomena
(McLaughlin, 1987:108).

COGNITIVE THEORIES
Psychologists and psycholinguists considered second language learning as the acquisition of a
complex cognitive skill. Some of the sub-skills involved in the language learning process are
the application of grammatical rules, proper vocabulary selection, and the pragmatic
conventions which govern the use of a specific language (McLaughlin, 1987:134). These sub-
skills become automatic with practice (Posner & Snyder, 1975). During this process of
automatisation, the learner organizes and restructures new information that is acquired.
Through this process of restructuring the learner links new information to old information and
achieves increasing degrees of mastery in the second language (McLaughlin, 1987, 1990a).

From the cognitivists point of view language acquisition is dependent in both content and
developmental sequencing on prior cognitive abilities and language is viewed as a function of
more general nonlinguistic abilities (Berman, 1987:4).

The language acquisition theories based on a cognitive view of language development view
language acquisition as the gradual automitization of skills through stages of restructuring and
linking new information to old knowledge. However, the differences between the various

52
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 50-56 Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S
EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
cognitive models makes it impossible to construct a comprehensive cognitive theory of second
language acquisition and furthermore, as Schimdt (1992) believes:
there is little theoretical support from psychology on the common belief that the development
of fluency in a second language is almost exclusively a matter of the increasingly skillful
application of rules (Schmidt, 1992:377).

MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL
In the Multidimensional Model, the learner's stage of acquisition of the target language is
determined firstly by the learners developmental stage and secondly the learners social-
psychological direction.

The Multidimensional Model has both explanatory and predictive power in that it not only
identifies stages of linguistic development but it also explains why learners experience these
developmental stages and it predicts when other grammatical structures will be acquired (Ellis,
1994:384). Although the Multidimensional Model has made important contributions to second
language acquisition research, there are some problems with the falsifiability of its
predictive framework, such as explaining how it is that learners learn whatever they manage to
produce despite the processing constraints (see also Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991:285;
McLaughlin, 1987:114-115). Furthermore, the Multidimensional Model does not explain the
process through which learners obtain intake from imput and how they use this intake to
reconstruct internal grammars (Ellis, 1994:388). In this respect the Multidimensional Model is
limited.

ACCULTURATION THEORY
Schumann (1978) maintains that:
second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a
learner acculturates to the target-language group will control the degree to which he acquires
the second language.

Based on Schuman's standpoint, second language acquisition is greatly affected by the degree
of social and psychological distance between the learner and the target-language culture.
Social distance refers to the learner belonging to a certain social group that is in contact with
another social group with a different language. Psychological distance results from a number
of different affective factors that involve the learner as an individual, such as language shock,
culture shock, culture stress, etc. If the social and psychological distance is great then
acculturation is ceased and the learner does not progress beyond the early stages of language
acquisition. As a result his target language will stay pidginized. Pidginization is characterized
by simplifications and reductions occurring in the learners interlanguage which lead to
fossilization when the learners interlanguage system does not progress in the direction of the
target language (for a review see McLaughlin, 1987:110-112).

53
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 50-56 Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S
EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
Schumanns theory received limited empirical support. Among some of the criticisms that the
acculturation theory received was that social factors are assumed to have a direct impact on
second language acquisition while they are more likely to have an indirect one (Ellis,
1994:233). Also, pidginization is a group phenomenon, while language acquisition is an
individual phenomenon. Finally, the acculturation model fails to explain how the social factors
influence the quality of contact the learners experience (Ellis, 1994:234).

OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS
The extent to which learners learn by processing linguistic input or by actually producing (i.e.
speaking or writing) the language is an issue of debate in SLA research. Opposed to Krashens
claim that acquisition is completely based on comprehensible input, most researchers now
acknowledge that learner output also plays a role. Skehan (1998) based on Swain (1995) enlists
the contributions of output as follow:

First, the learner production serves to generate better input through the feedback that learners
efforts at production elicit. Second, it forces syntactic processing and forces learners to pay
attention to grammar. Third, it allows learners to testify hypotheses about the target language
grammar through the feedback they obtain when they make errors. Forth, it helps to automatize
existing knowledge. Fifth, it provides opportunities for learners to develop discourse skills. And
sixth, it is important for helping learners to develop a personal voice by directing conversation
on to topics they are interested in.

The importance of creating opportunities for output, including what Swain (1985) has called
pushed output (i.e. output where the learner is stretched to express messages clearly and
explicitly), constitutes one of the main reasons for incorporating tasks into a language program.
Exercises result in output that is limited in terms of length and complexity. It does not afford
students opportunities for the kind of sustained output that theorists argue is necessary for
interlanguage development. Research (e.g. Allen, Swain, Harley, & Cummins, 1990) has shown
that extended talk of a clause or more in a classroom context is more likely to occur when
students initiate interactions in the classroom and when they have to find their own words. This is
best achieved by asking learners to perform tasks that require both oral and written language.

LEARNING AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFRENCES

Although there are particular universal aspects of L2 acquisition, there is also considerable
variability in the rate of learning and in the ultimate level of achievement. Learning will be more
successful when the instruction is matched to students particular aptitude for learning, and also
when the students are motivated.

It is probably beyond the abilities of most teachers to design lessons involving the kind of
matching instruction employed in Wesches study. However, teachers can cater to variation in the
nature of their students aptitude by adopting a flexible teaching approach involving a variety of
learning activities. They can also make use of simple learner-training materials (e.g. Ellis &

54
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 50-56 Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S
EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
Sinclair, 1989) designed to make students more aware of their own approaches to learning and to
develop awareness of alternative approaches. The good language learner studies suggest that
successful language learning requires a flexible approach to learning.

Thus, increasing the range of learning strategies at learners disposal is one way in which
teachers can help them to learn. Such strategy training needs to foster an understanding that
language learning requires both an experiential and an analytical approach and to demonstrate the
kinds of strategies related to both approaches.

Teachers need to accept that is their responsibility to ensure that their students are motivated and
stay motivated and not complain about the fact that students lack motivation. While it is probably
true that teachers can do little to influence students extrinsic motivation, there is a lot they can
do to enhance their intrinsic motivation.

CONCLUSION
This paper has reviewed a number of influential second language acquisition theories with
varying emphasis on different aspects of the second language acquisition process. What all these
theories have in common is the fact that second language acquisition is an ongoing process.
Whether language learners use strategies, cognitive or innate mechanisms, they still have to
progress towards the target language going through various stages of development.

SLA theories are all concerned with providing explanations about how languages are acquired.
Yet, no single theory can offer a comprehensive explanation about the whole process of second
language acquisition. Each theory offers a different insight in the complex process of second
language acquisition. However based on these theories of second language acquisition and also
their explanations and justifications, invaluable pedagogical uses have been drawn by researchers
and applied linguists.

The findings of research studies in SLA has nourished ELT pedagogy and classroom practice in
essence. The emergence of each theory in psychology accompanied the appearance of one or
more teaching methodologies along with specific techniques which were aimed at enhancing
learning.

REFERENCES
Berman, R. (1987). Cognitive principles and language acquisition. In C. Pfaff (Ed.), First and
second language acquisition processes, pp. 3-27. Cambridge, Mass.: Newbury House.
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., & Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of universal grammar in adult
language learning. Second Language Research, 4(1), 1-32.
Chomsky, N. (1969). Linguistics and philosophy. In S. Hook, (Ed.), Language and
philosophy. New York: New York University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeg.

55
 International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 8 (3), March 2015; 50-56 Mehrnoush, M., & Sayadian, S
EISSN: 2289-2737 & ISSN: 2289-3245 www.ijllalw.org
Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs.
Language Learning, 41, 375-411.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review. Wellington, New
Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved on November 3, 2014.
Ellis, R., & Wells, G. (1980). Enabling factors in adult-child discourse. First Language, 1, 46-
82.
Krashen, S. D. (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1976). Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and
language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 157-168.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.
Lightbown, P. M. (2000). Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language
teaching. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 431-462.
Lightbown, P., Spada, N., & Wallace, R. (1980). Some effects of instruction on child and
adolescent ESL learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second
language acquisition, pp. 162-172.Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468).
San Diego: Academic Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Odlin T. (1989), Language Transfer, Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Posner, M.I., & Snyder, C.R.R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R.L. Solso,
(Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale.
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357-385.
Schumann, J. (1978). Social and psychological factors in second language acquisition. In J.
Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: issues and
approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67-92.

56