- 1 -

An article entitled

“The main theories in SLA (Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis, Error

Analysis and Interlanguage, the Monitor Model, Universal Grammar and

socio-linguistic theories).”

By

Abdel Rahman Mitib Altakhaineh

MA Student, Applied Linguistics

University of Salford, UK

March, 2010

- 2 -

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... - 3 -

2. What is SLA and what accounts for the language produced by learners? ................... - 3 -

3. The main theories in SLA .......................................................................................... - 4 -

3.1. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) ................................................................. - 4 -

3.2. Error Analysis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL) ............................................................ - 5 -

3.2.1 Error Analysis (EA) .......................................................................................... - 5 -

3.2.2 Interlanguage (IL) ............................................................................................. - 6 -

3.3. The Monitor Model Theory .................................................................................... - 6 -

3.4. Universal Grammar (UG) ....................................................................................... - 9 -

3.5. Socio-linguistic theories ....................................................................................... - 11 -

4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. - 12 -

5. References ............................................................................................................... - 13 -

- 3 -

1. Introduction

The language produced by learners learning a second language is extremely varied. It can

range from one learner to another in regard to many factors. These variations can be

accounted for by a number of ideas including: first language (L1) interface, age differences,

motivation, self-confidence, aptitude, anxiety, gender and social distance. In this essay I will

define SLA and then outline five of the main linguistic theories. These outlines will form the

basis for my analysis of the differences in language that are produced by learners. Finally, I

will consider what level of impact these theories have and how they can account for these

differences and, the many difficulties and successes that learners have on their way to

learning a second language.

2. What is SLA and what accounts for the language produced by

learners?

Saville-Troike (2006: 2) defines SLA as not just the learning of a subsequent language to that

learnt in childhood but also the study of the processes involved and of those who are learning

it. The language produced by learners changes as they learn the language and that language

can differ from one student to another, even if they have the same L1. The following theories

provide an insight into how and why this language may vary. Some are backed up by

empirical data, others are not, but all have their strengths and weaknesses and they all have

supporters and critics.

- 4 -

3. The main theories in SLA

3.1. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)

In terms of the principles of CAH, Gass and Selinker (1994: 59) state that it is “a way of

comparing languages in order to determine potential errors for the ultimate purpose of

isolating what needs to be learned and what does not need to be learned in a second language

learning situation”. Saville-Troike (2006: 34-35) explain that it focuses on the differences and

similarities between the L1 and the Second Language (L2). This means that the similarities

and differences between L1 and L2 play a crucial role in learners’ production.

Saville-Troike (2006: 35) also points out that there will be a transfer of elements acquired in

the L1 to the target L2. This transfer is considered positive if the same structure exists in both

languages and the transfer results in the correct production of language in the L2. However, it

can also be negative if a language structure from the L1 does not exist in the L2 but the

structure is transferred leading to the production of incorrect language. Arab students often

omit the verb to be. For example, this book mine for this book is mine since both of them

have the same meaning in Arabic / həðəlkɪtəbʊlɪ/. This kind of error might be/ لي كتاب الهذا

made since the verb to be is rarely used in the present tense in Arabic. Because of this, Arab

students may apply the Arabic rule to English. On the other hand, Arabic and English share

the same idea regarding the position of object pronouns. The object pronouns are placed after

the verb in English and Arabic. In contrast, with French, they occur before the verb.

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 30) say that the predictions of CAH, that all the errors made in

learning the L2 are due to interface from L1, were shown to be unfounded. They claim that

many studies and research explain convincingly that the majority of errors could not be

attributed to the L1. In other words, CAH might not predict learning difficulties, and was

- 5 -

only useful in the retrospective explanation of errors. This point considerably weakened its

appeal. However, the heightened interest in this area did lead to the origin of Error Analysis.

3.2. Error Analysis (EA) and Interlanguage (IL)

3.2.1 Error Analysis (EA)

Mitchell and Myles (2004: 29-30) consider this approach to be influenced by behaviorism

through the use of fundamental distinctions between the learners' first and second languages

to predict errors, adding that EA showed that CA was not able to predict most errors. They

claim that the differences between L1 and L2 are not necessarily difficult, citing as an

example the difference between English and French in terms of unstressed object pronouns.

These cause a problem for English speakers learning French, but not for French speakers

learning English. Saville-Troike (2006: 39-40) observes that EA distinguishes between

systematic errors, which are due to a lack of L2 knowledge and mistakes, which are made

when the knowledge has been processed. She highlights some of EAs shortcomings

including:

1. Some people do not make errors because of L1 interface.

2. Focusing only on errors does not provide information regarding what the learner has

acquired.

3. Learners may not produce errors because they avoid difficult structures. For example,

Arab students avoid using models auxiliaries since they have difficulties in

understanding their role in each sentence. They may use I want…, I need …., instead

of could I have, I would like ……..?

Overall, EA is not good at accounting for variability in SLA data.

- 6 -

3.2.2 Interlanguage (IL)

Saville-Troike (2006: 40-41) states that the term IL was introduced by Selinker in 1972, “to

refer to the intermediate states (or interim grammars) of a learner’s language as it moves

toward the target L2”.

Ellis (1997: 19) hypothesises that the nature of variability changes during the process of L2

development in the stages below:

1. One form for multi-functions e.g., I live in Manchester, last year I live in London, next

year I live in Amman.

2. Some forms have been acquired e.g. I live in Manchester, last year I lived in London,

next year I lived in Amman.

3. The various forms start to be used systematically. Here the student may write the forms

correctly but still use the incorrect forms when speaking.

4. The student uses the forms correctly and consistently.

3.3. The Monitor Model Theory

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 35) point out Krashen’s theory was based on five hypotheses

which are:

1. Acquisition - Learning hypothesis

Gass and Selinker (1994:144) refer to Krashen’s assertion that 'acquisition' and 'learning' are

separate knowledge, and that language acquisition is a subconscious process. The acquirers of

language are not consciously aware of the grammatical rules of the language, but they rather

develop a kind of correctness. This is certainly the case for young children learning their L1.

On the other hand, language learning refers to the conscious knowledge of L2. The learners

know the rules, they are aware of them, and are able to talk about them.

- 7 -

Gass and Selinker (1994: 148) criticise this hypothesis. They claim that it does not show

evidence of the distinction between acquisition and learning as two separate systems.

However, Krashen said that many can produce language fluently without having been taught

any rules and there are many that know the rules but are unable to apply them whilst speaking

(Lightbown and Spader 1999: 38).

2. Monitor Hypothesis

Krashen’s hypothesis states that what learners learn is available as a monitor (Saville-Troike

(2006: 45). Learners will make changes and edit what they are going to produce. The

language that learners have consciously learnt works as an editor in situations where they

have sufficient time to edit, are focused on form and know the rule (Gass and Selinker 1994:

145-146). This conscious editor is called the Monitor.

There are variations in use of the monitor that affect the language that learners produce.

Acquired language skills can lead to improved fluency but overuse of the monitor can lead to

a reduction in fluency (Krashen 1988: 30-31). Moreover, Krashen (1988: 30-31) believes that

there is individual variation among language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He claims

that the learners who use the 'monitor' all the time are ‘over-users’, often producing stilted

language whereas, ‘under-users’ will often speak quickly but with a lot of errors. Learners

who use the monitor appropriately are considered ‘optimal-users’. These find a good balance

between speed and accuracy, continuing to refer to want they have learnt but acknowledging

the importance of communication. He emphasise that lack of self-confidence is the major

cause for the over-use of the 'monitor'.

Gass and Selinker (1994: 149) criticise this hypothesis as they believe that the monitor is only

useful in production but it is useless in comprehension since it consists of learned knowledge

that is used to edit utterances.

- 8 -

3. Natural Order Hypothesis

According to the natural order hypothesis the acquisition of grammatical structures (rules)

proceeds in a predictable order (Gass and Selinker 1994: 145). They add that in a given

language, some grammatical structures generally tend to be acquired early while others are

acquired late regardless of the L1. They say “the natural order was determined by a synthesis

of the results of the morphemes order studies and are a result of the acquired system, without

interference from the learned system”. Krashen cited the example that many advanced

students in English will still not be able to apply the rule for the third person singular verb,

where an –s has to be added to the verb, when speaking quickly.

4. Input Hypothesis

According to the input hypothesis, SLA cannot take place without sufficient and necessary

comprehensible input (Mitchell and Myles 2004: 165). Acquirers develop competency over

time by receiving comprehensible input to move their present level to the next. Gass and

Selinker (1994: 146) emphasise that this hypothesis is central to Krashen’s description of

acquisition and is a complement to the Natural Order Hypothesis.

5. Affective Filter Hypothesis

Krashen’s hypothesis suggests that not everyone has the same ability in learning a second

language and that self-confidence, motivation and anxiety all affect language acquisition

(Gass and Selinker 1994: 148). He proposed that an Affective filter acts as a barrier to

language input. Krashen (1988: 38) explains that a number of affective variables play a

crucial role in SLA. These variables include motivation, self-confidence and anxiety. He

claims that learners who are highly motivated, self-confident and less anxious are better

equipped for success in SLA. Low motivation, low self-esteem, and anxiety contribute to

raise the affective filter which prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition.

- 9 -

In other words, if the filter is high, the input will not pass through and subsequently there will

be no acquisition. On the other hand, if the filter is low and the input is understood, the input

will take place and acquisition will have taken place.

Gass and Selinker (1994: 148) say that the filter and filter hypotheses explain the failure of

SLA according to two parameters: insufficient input and high affective filter, or both.

Gass and Selinker (1994: 150) criticise the Filter Hypothesis because it does not explain how

it works? Or how the input filter works? However, others see that it as something that can be

seen and applied in the classroom and that it can explain why some students learn and

produce better language than others (Lightbown and Spader 1999: 40).

3.4. Universal Grammar (UG)

The definition of UG by Chomsky (1976, as cited by Cook, 2001: 181-182) is “the system of

principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages ... the

essence of human language”. According to Chomsky, there are principles, which allow or

prevent a specific structure from occurring in all human languages, and parameters, which

govern ways in which human languages differ, usually expressed as a limited choice between

two options. These principles and parameters are built in the human mind. In other words,

children have an innate faculty that instructs them while learning of language (Mitchell and

Myles, 2004: 33).

Saville-Troike (2006: 48-49) gives an example of a principle that Chomsky posited which is

that every phrase in every language has the same elements including a head. For example, a

noun phrase has to have a noun, a verb phrase has to have a verb and prepositional phrase has

to have a preposition. On the other hand, an example of parameter is the direction of the head.

For example, Arabic is a head last language and English is a head first language.

- 10 -

According to Mitchell and Myles (1998: 61-68), UG can account for variations in learner

language as follows:

1. No access hypothesis

This hypothesis suggests that UG becomes less accessible with age and therefore its

involvement will not be available to adult learners. Chomsky believes there is a critical

period for language acquisition and UGs application. Adult L2 learners have to be prepared

to apply more general problem-solving skills. Evidence by Johnson and Newport (1989, as

cited by Mitchell and Myles, 1998: 65) showed that immigrant children mostly become

native-like speakers of L2, but their parents very rarely do. I believe this supports Chomsky’s

hypothesis.

2. Full access hypothesis

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 61) state that the processes of L1 and L2 acquisition are very

similar. The differences noticed between them are due to the difference in cognitive maturity

and in the learner’s needs. It is clear that L2 learners acquire principles and parameter settings

of L2 which are not similar to L1 settings. Evidence given by Flynn (1996 as cited by

Mitchell and Myles 1998: 66) explained that Japanese L1 learners of English as L2

successfully acquire L2 head parameter settings. They use principles in English which do not

operate in Japanese.

3. Indirect access hypothesis

Mitchell and Myles, (1998: 61-62) point out that access to UG is only available to learners

indirectly via the L1. They say “there will be just one instantiation (i.e. one working example)

of UG which will be available to the L2 learner, with the parameters already fixed to the

- 11 -

settings which apply in the L1”. Evidence given by Schachter (1996 as cited in Mitchell and

Myles, 1998: 67) showed L2 learners’ failure to acquire principles absent in their L1 and/or

failure to reset parameters.

4. Partial access hypothesis

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 62) say that some aspects of UG are still available and others are

not. They give an example stating that principles may still be available but parameter settings

may not.

In addition, White (2003:1-2) represents the application of the idea of UG to the area of SLA.

She argues that SLA is constrained by principles and parameters of UG which is well

explained in his book “Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar”.

In terms of criticism, Mitchell and Myles (1998: 70) say that UG as a whole has been

exclusively concerned with syntax and the developmental linguistic route followed by

learners when learning a L2. Thus, the social and psychological variables that affect the rate

of the learning process are beyond its remit and therefore ignored.

3.5. Socio-linguistic theories

Mitchell and Myles (1998: 163) define sociolinguistics as the study of the effect of all aspects

of society on the language in use. I will focus on the sociocultural theory discussed in Lantolf

(1994).

Lantolf (1994: 418) emphasises that the origin of sociocultural theory refers to Vygotsky's

ideas.

In terms of variations in learner language, Vygotsky (1978 as cited in Mitchell and Myles,

1998: 146 ) defines the Zone of Proximal Development(ZPD) as “ the difference between the

child’s developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher

level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance

- 12 -

or in collaboration with more capable peers’. Saville-Troike (2006: 112) says that one way is

to help learners within the ZPD is through scaffolding which is defined as verbal guidance

which an expert helps a learner to solve a specific task or collaboration of peers to solve a

task that is difficult for any one of them individually. This means that little collaboration or

guidance are the main reason for variation in learner language. For example, talk between

peers could be helpful as in the following example:

Student 1: could I say I am loving you, daddy?

Student 2: I am loving ………..

Student 1: yes, I do not stop loving my daddy.

Student 2: love is a state verb

Student 1: yes, so I am love you, daddy.

Student 2: I think simple present form with state verbs?

Student 1: Ah, I love you, daddy.

4. Conclusion

To sum up, it is clear that not one individual theory on its own can account for all the

variations in learners’ language. Each one has valid points and I have shown some of the

variations in language these hypotheses may produce. However, in a lot of cases, there is a

lack of empirical evidence and further investigation into these theories may identify new

learning and teaching methods.

Teaching methods have to take into account that L2 learners are varied. Learners do not have

the same characteristics so they do not all acquire a L2 in the same way and at the same rate.

Motivation, aptitude, age, social background and self-confidence affect the learners’ abilities.

At the current time, and with the knowledge that is available to us, I think it is important for

teachers to consider the most important aspects of each theory when preparing their lessons.

- 13 -

Clearly not all theories will be addressed in every lesson, but with careful thought and

consideration, the ideas may be applied and the results will show whether or not they are

effective for that particular group of students.

Dedication

To my French tutor, Lara, for everything.

Acknowledgements

Thanks also to my tutor, Dr Siân Etherington, who has supported and helped me such

an article in Second Language Acquisition.

I am also grateful to my sister and close friend, Hanan Naef, for supporting and

motivating me.

5. References

Cook, V. (2001) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (3rd ed). London:

Edward Arnold

Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gass, S.M. and Selinker, L. (1994) Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.

Hillsdale, NJ/ London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Krashen, S. (1988) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.

HemelHempstead: Prentice Hall

Lantolf, J.P. (1994) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning: Introduction to the

Special Issue, in The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), pp. 418-420

Lightbown, P.M. and Spade, M. (1999) How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

- 14 -

Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (1998) Second Language Learning Theories London: Edward

Arnold

Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004) Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed). London:

Edward Arnold

Saville-Troike, M. (2006) Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

White, L. (2003) Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press M