UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON

SCHOOL OF LANGUAGE
DIPLOMA IN TESOL
ET311: 2000
SESSION 3

Language Learning theories

BEHAVIOURISM

Behaviourist theories of learning focus on behaviour, not on the knowledge

which might be underlying that behaviour.
Learning comes about when responses to stimuli from the environment are
reinforced because they are successful in some way; that is, they lead to a
desired outcome.
Learning is thus essentially habit formation.
Error is a sign of insufficiently established habits
Learning can be induced by causing learners to respond in certain ways again
and again with positive reinforcement of the desired response

BEHAVIOURISM IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Language learning was considered to be triggered by environmental stimuli:

"Suppose that Jack and Jill are walking down a lane. Jill is hungry. She sees
an apple in a tree. She makes a sound with her larynx, tongue and lips. Jack
vaults the fence, climbs the tree, takes the apple, brings it to Jill and places
it in her hand. Jill eats the apple."
(Bloomfield, L. 1933 Language)
Thus first language acquisition was thought to involve the following steps:

The child hears a phrase in a context

The child repeats the phrase in order to achieve some need or desire
If the phrase is appropriate and correct, then care-givers show approval and
thus reinforce the phrase
If the phrase is inappopriate or inaccurate, then care-givers show disapproval
and correct the phrase
Thus the child learns the correct phrase and associates it with a particular
context
Through regular repetition of this sequence, the child learns to produce
language accurately and appropriately

In behaviourist accounts of second language learning, it was assumed that the

learner started off with a set of well established L1 habits: the role of teaching was
to 're-condition', ie. 'stamp' out L1 habits by ensuring that L2 habits could become
automatic. Language learning is overlearning: anything less is of no use.
(Bloomfield, L. 1942 Outline guide for the practical study of foreign languages)
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS

The notion that language learning would involve the transfer of L1 habits led
Lado to posit the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis:

EB: 23/10/01

1/11

DTESOL: 3

Those structures that are similar will be easy to learn because they will be
transferred and many function satisfactorily in the foreign language. Those
structures which are different will be difficult because when transferred they
will not function satisfactorily in the foreign language and will therefore have to
be changed. (Lado (1957) Linguistics across Cultures).

EB: 23/10/01

2/11

DTESOL: 3

TASK 1: Evidence again behaviourist accounts of language

learning
Exercise 1
Look at the following data from a child learning English as a first language. Why
might it cast doubt over the behaviourist theory of language learning?

Child: Nobody dont like me

Mother: No, say nobody dont likes me
Child
Nobody dont like me
[8 repetitions of this exchange]
Mother No, now listen carefully; say: nobody likes me
Child
Oh! Nobody dont likes me.
[from McNeill, 1966: 69 cited in Gass & Selinker, 1994, SLA: an introductory course: 61.]

Child
them
Adult
Child
Adult
Child
Adult
Child

My teacher holded the baby rabbits and we patted

Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbits?
Yes
What did you say she did?
She holded the baby rabbits and we patted them
Did you say she held them tightly?
She holded them loosely

[from Cazden, 1972: 92 cited in Gass & Selinker, 1994: SLA: an introductory course: 61]
Exercise2

We have already reviewed (in the handout for session 2) evidence that casts doubt
over the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. What was that evidence?
MENTALISM/INNATISM

Language acquisition can only be explained by positing what goes on in the

human mind (hence mentalism).

Looking at behaviour is not enough for us to understand the process. There is

more to language learning than modelling (that is, an expert showing a novice
what to do, and the novice doing it) and repetition.

INPUT/INTERACTION

Interestingly, Chomsky has never claimed that his Innatist/Mentalist theory of

language acquisition could be extended to second language learning: in fact, he
explicitly voiced his doubts that an LAD and Universal Grammar is available to
adult learners. There is some evidence particularly from abnormal cases of child
development, such as that of Genie (see Lightbown & Spada, 1993: 11-13) to
suggest that there is a critical period for first language acquisition. Genie, for
example, was not exposed to any language input or interaction until she was 13. In
EB: 23/10/01

3/11

DTESOL: 3

spite of intensive exposure and teaching from this time onwards, she failed to
develop language which would be recognised as normal and in particular,
syntactic problems were manifold.
However, given the results of the morpheme acquisition studies in the 1970s,
which showed that L2 learners of different first languages and of different ages
children and adults seemed to move through a similar, although by no means
identical, sequence of acquisition of English morphemes, Stephen Krashen
developed his Monitor Model or Input Hypothesis. [For more detail on the
morpheme studies, see Gass & Selinker, 1994: p. 83]. This claims that second
language acquisition, to all intents and purposes, involves the same process as first
language acquisition, based on a Language Acquisition Device.
Krashens Input Model: 5 Hypotheses

1)
Acquisition V. Learning
There are two entirely separate processes at work in building up knowledge of a
second language: acquisition (implicit, unconscious knowledge) and learning
(explicit, conscious knowledge, built up through rule-learning, drill and error
correction):
Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious
grammatical rules, and does not require tedious drill. It does not occur
overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and
speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills even when
conditions are perfect.
"Language acquisition ... a process similar, if not identical, to the way
children develop ability in their first language. Language acquisition is a
subconscious process...We are not generally aware of the rules of the
languages we have acquired. Instead, we have a 'feel' for correctness.
Grammatical sentences "sound" right.
"Language learning refer(s) to conscious knowledge of a second
language, knowing the rules, being aware of them and being able to talk
about them..... knowing about a language .... grammar.... rules.....formal
knowledge"
(Krashen, 1982: 10)
2)
The Natural Order
The system of a second language, like that of a first, builds up in a predictable
natural order, which in principle cannot be influenced by formal teaching. This
is based on the morpheme studies, that is, research initially by Dulay & Burt
(1974), which found that the development of English grammatical morphemes (ing, plural s, copula be, auxiliary verbs, article, -ed, s on 3rd person singular
verb, possessive s) by children and adults from different language backgrounds
was a) similar and b) broadly paralleled that found for L1.
3)
Learning as a Monitor
Learned knowledge is only available as a Monitor, i.e. to help correct production.
It only works when there is time to think about rules, when the learners focus is
on form and when the rule is known.

EB: 23/10/01

4/11

DTESOL: 3

Acquisition initiates our utterances in a second language and is

responsible for our fluency. (...) Learning comes into play only to make
changes in the form of our utterance, after it has been produced by the
acquired system. (Krashen, 1982: 15)
Use of the conscious Monitor has the effect of allowing performers to
supply items that are not yet acquired.... the Monitor does a better job
with some parts of grammar than with others. (Krashen, 1982: 17)
Simple rules:
syntactically simple rules that dont involve elaborate movement or
permutation
(e.g. de + le = du, an before a vowel inversion questions in English or
French)
rules where the semantics is straightforward
(e.g. who with person, which with thing pass compos/ imparfait (Krashen,
1982: 18)
4)
Input
Acquisition takes place when we understand language that contains structure
that is a little beyond where we are now (input + 1) .... we use context, our
knowledge of the world, our extra-linguistic information to help us understand
language directed at us.
Speaking fluency ... emerges over time, on its own. The best way, and
perhaps the only way, to teach speaking, is simply to provide comprehensible
input. Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly. (Krashen, 1982:
22)
5)
The Affective Filter
If language acquisition fails to take place in spite of comprehensible input, then
this is due to affective factors (motivation, self-confidence, anxiety) blocking the
acquisition process:
Those whose attitudes are not optimal for SLA will not only tend to seek
less input, but they will also have a high Affective Filter - even if they
understand the message, the input will not reach that part of the brain
responsible for language acquisition, or the language acquisition device.
Those with attitudes more conducive to SLA will not only seek and obtain
more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter. They will be more
open to the input, and it will strike deeper. (Krashen, 1982: 31)
Implications for Teaching Methodology

The best methods are therefore those that supply "comprehensible input"
in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to
hear. ...These methods do not force early production in the L2 but allow
students to produce when they are "ready", recognising that improvement
comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not
from forcing and correcting production." (Krashen, 1982: 7)

TASK 3
EB: 23/10/01

5/11

DTESOL: 3

The instructor uses context and the items themselves to make the meanings
of the key words clear: hair, brown, long, short, etc. Then a student is
described: What is your name? (selecting a student). Class, look at Barbara.
She has long brown hair. Her hair is long and brown. Her hair is not short,
it is long. (Using mime, point and context to ensure comprehension). What
is the name of the student with long brown hair? (Barbara). Questions such
as What is the name of the womean with short blond hair? or What is the
name of the student sitting next to the man with short brown hair and
glasses? are very simple to understand by attending to key words, gestures
and context. And they require the students only to remember and produce
the name of a fellow student. In fact, in such activities the students may
only be consciously focused on remembering names, and often soon
forget they are understanding another language.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach: 76).
Exercise 1

The following is an extract from The Natural Approach, where Stephen Krashen
and Tracy Terrell present teaching ideas based on Krashens model. Explain how
the activity described, illustrates a practical realisation of Krashens theoretical
model.
Exercise 2

Can you think of any objections to Krashens hypothesis that acquisition and
learning are entirely separate and that learning never turns into acquisition? Do
you believe that you only use what you have learned consciously to monitor your
production? Further, do you believe that it is enough to understand input in
order to acquire new language?
Exercise 3

Read through the following extracts from an American (L1 English) learner, who
was developing Portuguese during a 5 month stay in Rio de Janeiro. In what way
could the extracts be seen as a challenge to Krashens model of language learning?

EB: 23/10/01

6/11

DTESOL: 3

Journal entry, week 6

this week we were introduced to and drilled on the imperfect. Very useful!
The basic contrast seems straightforward enough ontem eu fui ao clube
(yesterday, I went to the club) vs. antigamente eu ia ao clube (formerly, I
used to go to the club). L (the teacher0 gave us a third model: ontem eu ia
ao clube, (yesterday, I was going to the club ....... but I didnt), which L
says is a common way of making excuses. The paradigm is also
straightforward ... though maybe not as easy as I first thought......
Wednesday night A came over to play cards, and the first things he said
was: eu ia telefonar para voc (I was going to call you), exactly the kind of
excuse L had said we could expect. I noticed that his speech was full of the
imperfect, which I never heard (or understood) before, and during the
evening I managed to produce quite a few myself, without hesitating
much. Very satisfying!
Journal entry, week 21
Ive reached a new take-off point and I wish I werent leaving in 10 days.
The main thing thats happened is that Im suddenly hearing things I never
heard before, including things mentioned in class. Way back in the
beginning, when we learned question words, we were told that there are
alternate short and long forms like o que and o que que, quem or quem
que. I have never heard the long forms, ever, and concluded that they
were just another classroom fiction. But today, just before we left Cabo
Frio, M said something to me that I didnt catch right away. It sounded like
French quest-ce que cest, only much abbreviated, approximately
{kekse}, which must be (o) que () que (vo)c . The other thing I just
started hearing is reflexives. Maybe I just didnt pay attention to them
before, but I really never noticed any. In print, Ive seen signs like aluga-se
(for rent) and vende-se (for sale) which look like they have reflexive
pronouns but also seem similar to passives. Suddenly Im hearing those
forms. E was just jere and while she was talking to M, she said me lembra
no. Or possibly she said, me lembro no. Im not sure of the verb, but Im sure
the negative was after the verb, and Im sure she used me, which I think is a
reflexive. Ive heard other examples too in the past few days. Last night on a
FM98 tape I heard voc perdeu acuele adorado sentimeto, e agora se foi, foi foi

Youve lost that lovin feeling, now its gone (reflexive) gone, gone.
Journal entry, week 22
Ive just said to N o que que voc quer, but quickly {kekseker}.
Previously I would have just said que. N didnt blink, so I guess I got it
right, except now I wonder if it should have been quiser. I cant believe
that what I notice isnt crucial for what I do.
Extracts from Schmidt, R. & Frota, S.M. (1986) Developing basic conversational
ability in a second language: a case study of an adult learner of Portuguese in Day,
R. (ed.) Talking to Learn. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Exercise 4

Consider the following findings. In what ways do they support/challenge Krashens

model?
EB: 23/10/01

7/11

DTESOL: 3

After many years of French immersion schooling (10 years) during which time
most of their classes were in French (history, geography, mathematics etc. so
they must have had lots of comprehensible input!), Canadian anglophone learners
were tested on their communicative competence in French in three different areas:
Grammar (oral interview, multiple choice, written letter and narrative)
Discourse (film retelling, multiple choice, written letter and narrative)
Sociolinguistic competence (cued oral production on requests, suggestions,
complaints; multiple choice, written note)
Their results were compared with those of their native francophone peers. The
research (Swain, 1985) found
similar levels of discourse competence and sociolinguistic competence and
certainly levels of comprehension were similar, but grammatical accuracy was
significantly different in particular in the areas of syntax, use of prepositions
and verb morphology.
Exercise 5

Pica et al. (1987) compared the comprehensibility of two types of Native

Speaker input (ie. what the NS said to the NNS) in helping Non-Native Speakers
solve a task involving physical placement of objects (e.g. put the umbrella drawing
next to the toy dog at the back of the picture):
input A was modified to try to ensure that it was meaningful for the level of
learners involved
input B was not modified deliberately by the NS, but the NNS could ask
questions and clarification.
The NNSs receiving input B were able to complete the task more quickly and more
successfully than those receiving input A. Why? What conclusions do you draw
from this result?

A (Very) Brief History Of Language Teaching Methods

H.H. Stern (1983) in Fundadmental Concepts of Language Teaching suggests that
there are three key issues that are central to all language teaching methods:
1. The L1-L2 connection:
a) does the learner use his/her L1 as a basis for learning L2?
b) should the learner be encouraged to use his/her L1 in learning L2?
2. The explicit-implicit option
a) Should the learner treat the task intellectually and systematically or should
he/she aim to absorb language 'intuitively'
b) what is the role of grammar and correction?
3. The code-communication dilemma
Linked to question 2 ...
To what extent should teaching focus on the language system and to what
extent on communication?

EB: 23/10/01

8/11

DTESOL: 3

Ancient Greek and Roman Civilisations

L2 kept separate from L1
Implicit learning through immersion and communication
End of Middle Ages - Renaissance
Learning of Latin
Explicit learning
Focus on the grammar
Language learning debate: Luther (Germany, 1532), Montaigne (France, 1580),
Comenius (Bohemia, 1630-60), Locke (England, 1690) all argued for an implicit
language learning approach focussed on using the TL (modern languages, not
just Latin) for communication.
1700 - 1870 Grammar-Translation
Latin seen as the embodiment of a logical language system
Emphasis on written language, grammar rules and translation
Presentation of rules/paradigms
Practice sentences for translation
Meidinger (Germany, 1783) and Ploetz (Germany, 1848
1850 - 1930s Reform Movement
L2 to be kept separate from L1
Natural and Direct methods based on implicit learning
Controlled input, but emphasis on spoken situational language
Phonetics seen as useful tool
Vietor (Germany, 1882), Francke (Germany, 1884), Gouin (France, 1880),
Jespersen (Denmark, 1904), Sweet (Britain, 1899), Palmer (Britain, 1917, 1921,
1922).
1940 - 1970s Audiolingualism, Structural syllabus
Developed initially as a training programme for United States Army.
Based on behaviourist learning theory
Learning by analogy not analysis: by habit formation (repetition reinforcement)
Controlled input of structural patterns
Pattern and substitution drills - language laboratory
Bloomfield (USA, 1942), Fries (USA, 1945), Lado (USA, 1957)
Based on structuralist linguists, which emphasised the primacy of the spoken
language and the discrete structures of a language, that is, the basic units
from which the language is assembled. Language learning was assumed to
involve the gradual mastery of these discrete structures in linear fashion.
1970s - 1980s Functions & Notions: Beginnings of Communicative
Syllabus
Disillusion with the effectiveness of audiolingualism and structure-based
syllabuses led to reconsideration of both what language teaching should focus
on and how learning should be organised.
The primary aim was to find ways of language teaching that enabled learners to
communicate as early as possible
The Council of Europe proposed a new approach to language teaching
programmes based around functions (e.g. apologising) and notions (e.g. time,
personal identity, etc.) rather than traditional grammatical structures. Basic
functions and notions for European languages are identified in a document
referred to as The Theshold Level (Un niveau seuil). Syllabuses were to be
specified from an analysis of learners communicative needs. (Van Ek, J.A. 1975;
EB: 23/10/01

9/11

DTESOL: 3

Trim, J.L.M., 1978; Coste, D., 1976; Wilkins, D. 1976). Much of this work drew
on the thinking of British functional linguists (Firth, C. 1929; Austin, J.L. 1962;
Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, A. & Strevens, P. 1964; Halliday, 1973).
1970s - present day: the Communicative Approach

The Council of Europe revolution of syllabus design led to further reflection not
just on what should be learned in language, but how it should be learned. If
British/European applied linguists had provided analyses of language as
communication, so North American applied linguists, such as Krashen, Dulay &
Burt etc. started to look again at how second languages were learned.
These researchers took their cue from Chomskys idea that first language
acquisition was driven at least partially by an innate pre-programmed
Language Acquisition Device (or Universal Grammar) and subsequent research
by Roger Brown that children - far from merely imitating adults around them frequently appeared to 'create' their grammar (e.g. children's use of holded*,
flied*, buyed* etc.) They rejected the dominant behaviourist analysis of second
language learning and claimed that second language learning developed along
similar lines to first language learning through meaningful communication. This
gave further impetus to the Communicative Approach to language teaching.

The Communicative Approach is not so much a single method as a set of

principles. The two key principles are:
the language taught in language teaching should be communicative, i.e.
communicatively appropriate
language should be taught through communication
Communicative competence - the target which the Communicative Approach
claims to aim at - is said to involve:
grammatical competence: the knowledge to use the language system
sociolinguistic competence: the knowledge to use the language appropriate in
different settings
discourse competence: the knowledge to use the language coherently in
discourse
strategic competence: the knowledge to be able to overcome gaps in language
knowledge

KRASHENS INPUT HYPOTHESIS AND NATURAL APPROACH (KRASHEN & TERRELL, 1983)

Against a structural syllabus (Krashen, 1982: 50)

Once there is meaningful input, i + 1 will be supplied automatically.
Grammatical syllabus places constraints onwhat can be discussed... it will
prevent real communication in the classroom.
Assumes we know in which order structures are acquired.
Not all learners in the class are at the same stage
Each structure is presented only once
Role of the Language Classroom (Krashen, 1982: 37)
Supplies comprehensible input for those who cannot get it elsewhere
Supplies conscious learning for optimal Monitor use
Provides tools to help the acquirer utilise the outside environment more fully
for
EB: 23/10/01

10/11

DTESOL: 3

further acquisition.

PROBLEMS FOR KRASHENS MODEL

It assumes we can all learn through a Language Acquisition Device. Many,

including Chomsky himself, suspect that while all human beings can learn
implicitly, a specific LAD may not be available to L2 'adult' learners. The cut-off
age seems to be between 7 and 13. (See the review in Chapter 1 and the section
on age of Lightbown & Spada, 1999). If adult L2 implicit language acquisition
(which we know is possible, although adult learners rarely gain native-speaker
competence) is in fact not driven by the same innate LAD as in children, then
the argument that learning and acquisition should be separate needs to be
questioned too.
The key questions that arise from Krashen's proposals are:
So how might learning influence acquisition?
And is comprehensible input really enough?
What about output?
Late 1980s - present day: Ecleticism and rehabilitation of grammar

Disillusion with strong forms of communicative approach (e.g. Swain, 1985

suggests that immersion students do not build up implicitly a native-like
grammar). Nevertheless, there is still considerable emphasis placed on use of
the target language in meaningful communication and interaction.

Critics of Krashen argue that learning can influence acquisition and that
explicit or form-focused learning is valuable for noticing (Gregg,
McLaughlin, 1987; Sharwood-Smith, Gass & Selinker, Schmidt, Robinson,
1996, Spada, 1997).

Nevertheless, current approaches to grammar tend to be inductive rather than

deductive, stressing discovery, consciousness-raising, language awareness,
noticing, reflection, rather than learning formal rules and applying them
accurately.

The inductive approach owes much to ideas about the importance of the individual
learner constructing his/her understanding through engaging in various kinds
of learning task. In language learning, then, group/pair work is important not
simply to give learners opportunities to practise the target language, but also so
that they have opportunities to construct their knowledge with peers, rather
than simply being filled by the knowledge provided by the teacher.

EB: 23/10/01

11/11

DTESOL: 3