THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 1

Language acquisition assignment

Yury Paola Infante Tejada

The second acquisition of a language is a matter of purpose

FP003
Master in applied linguistics: teaching English as a foreign Language.
June 2017
THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 2

The second acquisition of a language is a matter of purpose

Second language acquisition concept sometimes may be understood in an ambiguous form,

owing to the fact that the evolution of its concept tends to change based on its purpose and the
ideas the speaker is trying to convey (Abdelilah-Bauer, 2006). Furthermore, as it is stated by
Garcia (2009), some aspects as age, context, the target language, language purpose –whether it
is learnt as a first language, a foreign language or as a second language- and the language –
learning approach could be taken into account when we refer to defining it. Consequently, it could
be said that the acquisition of a certain language depends on its purpose, the speakers’ context
and its functionality when it comes about communicating one’s ideas.

On the one hand, in Brown’s (2000) view, the purpose of communication is the base in which
babies urge to communicate their needs, ideas, thoughts, and feelings. The goal of
communication itself is established on conveying one’s messages in order to get the result of
being understood, so that babies’ attempts to communicate –Crying, cooing, words imitation, two
and three words sentences and so forth- can be taken as an instance of how language acquisition
works for purpose in a first language learning context.

On the other hand, Abdelilah-Bauer (2006) states an early language acquisition theory for a
second language learning. When a baby is raised in a bilingual context, where his parents use
both language to speak to him; the baby in his necessity to interact starts to use both languages
L1 and L2 in order to make others aware of what he wants and needs. There is therefore a growing
need of purpose in both situations, the purpose of conveying one’s feelings and necessities;
making language acquisition the starting point and the outcome of producing a target language.

In principle to language purpose, Brown (2000) explains three main approaches in which first
language acquisition is started. Firstly, there is the behaviorist approach, which is focused on the
context and the stimulation the child has to face in order to produce, condition and reinforce its
vocabulary. On second place, there is the nativist approach where, a systematic use of the
language can be appreciated. Thirdly, the functional approach takes some aspects from the two
previous approaches and takes the functionality of the language to a constructivist field in which
social interaction is the key of the discourse.
THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 3

Whereas the approaches may seem contrasting in each definition, the sociocultural context,
performance, comprehension, production and cognition are the main cause and consequence in
the importance of language learning. Thus, these three approaches are consequence of each
other and reinforce the theory of how a language acquisition depends on purpose, context and
functionality.

Figure 1. Theories of Language acquisition.

Source: Brown, D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents. (p. 42).

Bearing in mind this theory of how social interaction and cognitive could be combined in order to
produce a communicative result the authors Hulstijn, Young, Ortega & Bigelow (2014) discuss
the different insights of approach. Hulstijn et al. (2014) question about the gap that some linguists
have when applying cognition methods with sociocultural results.

Regarding language acquisition as a process and result of a specific context, in which the urge to
communicate involves language cognition and its function as a tool and the path to construct
social interaction when conveying one’s points of view or ideas in general; the authors address to
conciliate certain attitudes, perspectives and opinions from researchers to grasp language
acquisition as both sociocognitive and sociocultural phenomena. According to that, Hulstijn et al.
rendered five criteria to understand a second language learning and its acquisition in a more
suitable way,

(…) Given two theories that appear to address the same question and after having
answered the four questions just discussed, one might subsequently profit from the
following criteria, proposed by Kuhn (1977), who thereby demonstrated that he was not
an extreme relativist, as some of his critics have argued (see Jordan, 2004 , p. 51). I
render the criteria in my own words:
THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 4

• Coherence. How coherent are the theories? Are their constructs clearly defined, and is
their formulation consistent?
• Testability. To what extent are the theories testable? What is the empirical evidence for
the theories?
• Scope. What is the scope of the theories? That is, which and how many phenomena
can they account for (beyond the question that they both address)?
• Fruitfulness. How (potentially) fruitful are the theories? Do they open avenues for new
insights and new research?
• Simplicity. How simple are the theories? If the two theories score equally well on the
other four criteria, can we then, for reasons of economy, select the one with fewer
constructs?
I acknowledge that, for extreme relativists (including postmodernists and constructivists;
see Jordan, 2004, Chapter 3), these five criteria for the evaluation of competing theories
are unacceptable because of their intellectual origins in Popperian critical rationalism. In
their view, critical rationalism should not be applied—at least not wholesale—to applied
linguistics in general or to sociocultural issues in L2 learning and teaching and language
education in particular. (2014, p. 379)

Minding the gaps that some theories have about language learning, more specific a second
language one, both issues cognitive and social should be taken into account in order to define
the origin or the necessity in which acquisition is given (Hulstijn et al., p.388), withal, which one
are its causes a and consequence in the learning process – referring to inputs and outputs
(Krashen, 2003)-.

Despite of the fact that some theorists have of the importance of purpose and the speaker’s
context as a sociocultural and cognitive matter which stablishes the path in which the learning
process of a second language depends in both the cause and the consequence of a
communication necessity, so that a production of the target language is done (Abdelilah-Bauer,
2006; Brown, 2000; Garcia, 2009; Hulstijn et al., 2014), other authors would rather split their
insights of language acquisition into inputs and outputs along with the target language production.

Regarding the above, primarily there is Krashen (2003) statement about language
comprehensible input which could be considered essential on a second language acquisition
context. Krashen’s model basically consists in approaching the new language in a non-anxiety
situations based on topics and messages that the students are yearning for listening and using.
THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 5

In order to avoid repetitive production in the new language, hence the maximization of new
vocabulary use that emerge in the communicative situation created by the language input given;
excluding forcing and correcting production (Krashen, 1998).

Wherefore, the input language hypothesis suggests that the learner improves when he receives
a second language input that is ahead his or her current stage of linguistic competence. For
instance, if a student is learning simple past verbs conjugation, a comprehensible input that
belongs to that topic can be added, inputs such as, time adverbs used for simple past, vocabulary
regarding past situations, past connectors and so forth. In this way, the input is the target language
that the learner will not produce yet nor be focused on, but still he would be able to understand it
throughout the process by using different learning methods. Such as: the use of visual cues,
meaning negotiations, presentation of context, explanation, and words choice in such manner
(Krashen, 2009; p. 61-66).

Nevertheless, Krashen’s theory seems insufficient to assure that learners’ final outcome will result
in a nativelike performance (Swain, 1985, p.236). Although, Swain may agree in the meaning
negotiation importance in language production, there is a lack of grammar development and is
impact is overstated. Not only is necessary a comprehensible input for a second language
acquisition, but also a comprehensible output needs to be stated and produced in order to create
contextualize and meaningful interactional exchanges in a L2.

Swain (1985) agrees with Krashen’s (1998) necessity of going beyond the topic with a
comprehensible input, anyhow, that language needs to be produced in order to out limited the
vocabulary used.

Swain (1985) states that the students are simply not receiving enough spaces to use the input
language, having a limited output in their process; saying that there is no push for them to analyze
situations and vocabulary based on grammar structures, in other words students are not learning
in a significantly way due to the fact of not using what they learnt in a real context. Such statement
does not mean forcing students to use correctly the grammatical structures when learning a
second language, but it is to remark its importance on learning spoken language and not only
vocabulary for grammar use, but in a real context in which every aspect of the language has to
be integrated in order to produce communication in a contextualized way (Swain, 1985; p.249).

Unlike Swain’s view of language acquisition as the cause of its production as part of the
communication process. Krashen stated that:
THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 6

Research done over the last three decades has shown that we acquire
language by understanding what we hear and read. The ability to
produce language is the result of language acquisition, not the cause.
Forcing students to speak English will not improve their ability to
speak English. (Korea Times, 2009).

According to that, both authors can seemingly agree in the fact that there is the necessity of a
language input in order to go beyond the vocabulary-grammar learning process, yet the output
definition for both presents some contrast in language acquisition cause and consequence.

As it was stated in the beginning of this writing, language acquisition is given throughout its
purpose, context and functionality, being a process that never stops advancing and producing for
itself. Based on Abdelilah-Bauer (2006), Brown (2000), Garcia (2009) & Hulstijn et al. (2014), both
first language and second language acquisition becomes a matter when the speakers is
interacting with the target context of the languages, and the product in communication meets
one’s necessities. Whereas, in both authors’ theories the language input is essential for language
acquisition enhancement, its cause changes according to their views of what language learning
stands for.

According to Ellis (1998) the ability to produce a language is both; the process and the
consequence of its acquisition, unlike Swain (1985) the cause would rather agree more with the
authors mentioned above, as the necessity of communication. In contemplation of language
production as an ever-changing process and consequence of communication, Ellis (1998)
identifies four macro options to encourage language acquisition in learning process; linguistic
form: processing instruction, explicit instruction, production practice and negative feedback.

Ellis (1998) concurs with Krashen (2009) when applying different language learning approaches
to practice the input language and the importance of motivation to surpass the necessity of
communication in order to interact with others on demand on the context and language function.

Figure 2. Ideal relationship between theory, applied linguistics research, ideas and intuitions and language teaching
practice. Source: S. D. Krashen (2009). Principles and practice in second language acquisition: university of
southern California. (p. 11).
THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 7

Bearing in mind these statements and the interaction on language learning approaches. It is said
that the production of language is the result of its acquisition, so that Krashen concludes:

We can teach vocabulary or grammar, and, as long as it is done in the target language,
a great deal of acquisition will take place, the medium being the message. We can teach
situationally, giving students useful, short dialogues that satisfy the craving for learning
and memorized language, but, at the same time, present comprehensible input. Finally,
the subject matter international classes will also provide comprehensible input for a
student, whether he believes in subconscious acquisition or not. I think that I have
presented a conservative view of language acquisition theory and its applications,
conservative in the sense that it attempts to be consistent with all empirical data that are
known to me. It is consistent with the way thousands of people have acquired second
language throughout history, and in many cases acquired them very well. They acquired
second language while they were focused on something else, while they were gaining
interesting or needed information, or interacting with people they liked to be with. (2009,
p.206)

As a conclusion, as it was reported by Krashen (2009) language acquisition depends on its

context and situation in which the target language will be used, in other words is a matter of
purpose. Moreover, it also would be considered as a matter of functionality due to the use of
grammar and cohesion to interact in a specific situation and to learn in an unconsciously way new
words as the production process goes along with the language interaction.
THE SECOND ACQUISITION OF A LANGUAGE IS A MATTER OF PURPOSE 8

Bibliography.

Abdelilah- Bauer (2006). El desafío del bilingüismo. Paris: Morata.

Brown, D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. N.J.:Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, D. (2004).Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York:

Pearson Education Limited

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. and Yamazaki, A. (ed1998). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and L2
vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning.

Garcia, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective.. West Sussex:
Blackwell publishing.

Hulstijn, Young, Ortega & Bigelow (2014) Bridging the gap:Cognitive and Social Approaches to
Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching (PDF Download Available).
Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269168091_Bridging_the_gap_Cognitive_and_
Social_Approaches_to_Research_in_Second_Language_Learning_and_Teaching
[accessed Jun 30, 2017].

Krashen, S. (1989) We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the
input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal 73, 440-464.

Krashen, S. (2003) Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use: The Taipei Lectures.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Krashen, S. (2009) Principles and practice in second language acquisition: university of

southern California. Available in:
http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf

Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in
Second Language Acquisition, pp. 235-256. New York: Newbury House.