Early approaches to second

language acquisition
:The early approaches to SLA are

Contrastive Analysis - CA
Error Analysis - EA
Interlanguage - IL
Morpheme order studies
Monitor Model
 Contrastive analysis
CA was produced by Robert Lado in (1957), the main idea was that it is •
possible to identify the areas of difficulty a particular foreign language will
present for native speakers of another language by comparing the two
languages and cultures. If the two languages and cultures are similar, learning
difficulties will not be expected, and if they are different, then learning
difficulties are to be expected.
The ultimate goal of contrastive analysis is to predict areas that will be either •
easy or difficult for learners.
 Continue…
* Based on behaviourist and structuralist theories, the basic assumption for this •
hypothesis was that “the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the
interference of the first language system with the second language system …”
* Another assumption is the transfer in learning from L1 to L2.
Positive transfer - where features of the L1 and the L2 match, acquisition of the
L2 is facilitated. ii)
Negative transfer (L1 interference) - acquisition hindered where L1 and L2 differ.
 Continue…
Types of interference : •
-Same form and meaning, different distribution •
-Same meaning, different form •
-Same meaning different from and distribution •
-Different form, partial overlap in meaning •
-Similar form, different meaning •
 Criticism
The criticism is that Contrastive Analysis hypothesis could not be sustained by •
empirical evidence. It was soon pointed out that many errors predicted by
Contrastive Analysis were not observed in learners' language. Moreover, some
errors were made by learners irrespective of their L1. It thus became clear that
Contrastive Analysis could not predict learning difficulties. Furthermore, CA
was not suitable for the study of SLA, because it follows the behaviorist
notions which can not explain the logical problem of language leaning.
However, this approach was useful to descriptive studies and to translation,
including computer translation.
 Error Analysis
Error analysis is an approach that focus on the learner’s ability to build a •
language, it study and analyze the error committed by learners in the L2, it is
an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism,
Error analysis proved that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great
majority of errors.
It is Inspired by Chomsky’s Transformational Generative Grammar. (From •
finite number of rules to infinite number of uses.), therefore, it Perceives
language as rule-governed behavior. Focuses on an interaction between
environment and individual.
 Error Analysis
Error analysis In second language acquisition was established in 1960’s by •
Stephen pit Corder and hiscolleagues. He claimed that “Learners errors are
not bad habits but sources of insight into the learning process” it could give
us information about how much the learner had learnt, how language was
learnt, and also serve as devices by which the learner discovered the rules of
the target language process of L2 acquisition.
 Methodology of Error analysis

*Collection of a sample learner language: collecting data from speakers who •

have respond to the same test over the period of week, month, or year.
*Identification of errors : Distinguish between A systematic error and a mistake.
systematic Error- are usually made due to the lack of L2 knowledge. So, the action
was wrong because it was different from the rules, model or specific code.
Mistake -are usually accidental. You know it’s wrong. In other words, mistakes are •
performance based, and can be self-corrected.
 Methodology of Error analysis
*Description of errors: classifying error according to their level •
( phonological, morphological, syntactical...etc ) •

*Explanation of errors: why an error was made? •

Interlingual (between two languages) •
Intralingual (within language) •
 Continue…
Example:
*The man are high.

Interlingual
Intralingual

The man is tall.

*Evaluation of errors: explanation of the effect of these error (How •
serious they are).
 Criticism
* Ambiguity in classification of some error: •
(interlingual? intralingual? L1 influence?) •
Lack of positive data •
Potential for avoidance •
Influence of L2 curricula •
 Interlanguage
Selinker (1972) introduced the term the Interlanguage theory, which is a •
reaction to the CAH, basically understands second language learning as “a
creative process of constructing a system in which the learner is consciously
testing hypotheses about the target language from a number of possible
sources of knowledge …” (Brown 1980: 162); these sources include, among
other factors, both L1 and L2.
this linguistic approach has been named different terms, such as transitional •
competence, interlanguage, and approximative systems.
 Morpheme order studies

These studies argue that there is a natural order of the acquisition of English •
morphemes no matter what the one’s native language is. Thus, there is an
evidence for the lack of importance of native language influence
 Continue …
Studies and researches :
First was the research conducted by Roger Brown (Brown, 1973) who
proposed a consistent order for L1 acquisition which later on was supported by
de Villiers (de Villiers 1973).
Second, In 1974, Dulay and Burt carried out a study to see whether L2 English
students follow a consistent order when acquiring the L2. the subject of the
study were Spanish and Chinese students, They used eight of Brown’s functors:
 Continue …
( Present progressive –ing - Plural -s - Past irregular - Possessive –s - Articles the, a 4 - •
Third person singular –s - Contractible copula be - Contractible auxiliary be).

They conclude the study with the claim that there is an internal driven
acquisition which they call it the creative constructions, the L2 create a mental
grammar which enable them to produce words they have not heard before.
 Criticism
The findings from ESL/EFL-only studies are ultimately impossible to generalize to •
other languages. This severely limits the usefulness of morpheme order studies to
teachers of non-English L2s. It also limits the usefulness of morpheme order
studies as a tool for understanding the processes underlying language acquisition.
The morpheme order studies did not consider L1 transfer as a possible factor for •
the variance in L2 developmental sequences.
However, this is a very important approach for understanding SlA, the awareness of •
the order of acquisition that is natural to L2 learners may help teachers and
educational policy makers.
 Monitor Model

The last approach to second language acquisition, The Monitor Model is an •

interesting set of hypotheses that was developed by Stephen Krashen in the
late 1970s. He adopted the notion of language acquisition device (LAD). The
LAD was a feature in the brain that helped people learn languages.
 The five hypothesis:
Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis :
Krashen saw acquisition as subconscious learning that was facilitated by something
Chomsky had proposed called the language acquisition device (LAD). If acquisition
was subconscious, then the learning part of the hypothesis was what actually happens in
the classroom. Since the educator is making the students consciously aware of the
information, this was considered learning which is not as affective as acquisition.

The Monitor Hypothesis: Learning has only one function, and that is as a Monitor
or editor. Moreover, learning comes into play only to make changes in the form of our
utterance, after it has been produced by the acquired system.
Natural Order Hypothesis Krashen states that there is a natural order to •
acquiring language rules. We acquire the rules of language in a predictable order, like
the Morpheme order studies.

The Input Hypothesis : it is based on students receiving an appropriate amount of

input. However, it is not just input, but comprehensible input that is easily understood
by the learner that will deliver the grammar needed.

Affective Filter Hypothesis: Comprehensible input may not be utilized by second-

language acquirers if there is a mental block that prevents them from fully profiting
from it. The affective filter acts as a barrier to acquisition: if the filter is down, the
input reaches the LAD and becomes acquired competence; if the filter is up, the input
is blocked and does not reach the LAD.
 Criticism
Many critics feel that Krashen has delivered a model without properly •
explaining its many variations and functions, thus when empirically testing it
the result are unsatisfying . Had Krashen taken that into account, he might
have been able to propose a more testable, viable and useable Monitor.
However, Krashen’s Monitor Theory has had significant impact on EFL
teaching.
The End •
Thank you •