Comparative Essay

Members: Diego Garrido

Brian Huenupe

Teachers name: Roxanna Correa
Subject: Learning and Acquisition of English as a
Foreign Language



Concepcin, April 2014

Introduction

When we acquire or learn a language, we inadvertently go through some
moments, stages or situations which are not the same for all people and that help
us in the process of acquiring/learning a first or second language. This entire is
explained by two researchers, Krashen and Chomsky. They developed some
hypotheses which clarify how and when this processes happen. Chomsky defines
his hypothesis as Universal Grammar (UG) and Krashen define his hypothesis as
Monitor Model.
In the following essay our mission is to find the differences and similarities between
this both hypotheses according the point of view of three authors, Brown, Cook and
Lightbown & Spada.

Similarities and Differences

First of all we are going to start with the similarities that connect both Chomsky and
Krashen theories and hypotheses. Lightbown & Spada (2006) mention the
following, The rejection of behaviourism as an explanation for first language
acquisition was partly triggered by Chomskys critique of it (p.36). As well, the
same researchers added a similar idea about Krashens hypotheses, that he had a
rejection of behaviourism. The critique of this theory is why they became with the
ideas of their theories. They thought that there was a better explanation of
acquisition and learning of a language rather than using behaviourism to explain it.
Cook (2010) and Lightbown & Spada (2006) argued about the Chomskys theory of
Universal Grammar. They conclude that this hypothesis is cognitive, mentioning
that the knowledge of a person is very important in development of a language, as
same as Krashens hypotheses explained in detail in Brown books (2007).

We can find some difference between Chomsky's Universal Grammar and
Krashens hypotheses about the language. Lightbown and Spada (2006) mention
that Universal Grammar can be good to explain first language acquisition, but
probably not to explain a second language acquisition, especially for learners who
are not in their critical period. Therefore, we can mention Krashen hypotheses that
refer to the specific acquisition of L2 in learners. To develop better this idea we can
affirm that Krashen is better related to SLA rather than Chomsky. This is because
Chomsky theory develops his ideas on L1 learners and based the steps of
acquiring only in the critical period.
For Krashen the comprehensible input is important and the only true cause of
second language acquisition (Brown, 2007). On the other hand, Chomsky minimize
the input for the knowledge and Cook (2003) complements this argued the
nature and availability of UG are the same in first and second language
acquisition. (as cited in Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p.35).

To conclude the comparison of this two linguists, we can say that both are trying to
reach similar goals in their researches, even though there are a lot of differences in
the procedure of what they refer to. Moreover, Chomsky and Krashen have the
same purpose, explain how people acquire and learn a first or second language
depending on their abilities, but they differs in the way of how they acquire/learn a
language.












References

Brown, H. (2007). Toward a theory of second language acquisition. In Principles of
language learning and teaching (5th edition) (pp. 293 - 296). San Francisco:
State University, Pearson Longman.

Cook, V. (2010). The relationship between first and second language acquisition
revisited. In E. Macano (Ed.). The continuum companion to second
language acquisition (pp. 137-157).Continuum. 2010 web version.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). Explaining second language learning. In How
Languages are Learned (pp. 35-38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.