Learning and Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language

Mg. Roxana Correa Prez.

Comparative Essay: Universal Grammar vs Input
Hypothesis.







Section: ED110C-1
Students: Albornoz, M. Timothy.
Irarrzabal, B. Nicol.





Friday the 11
th
, Concepcin 2014.
Second Language Acquisition and Learning has risen as the main field of linguists investigative
purposes, becoming into a complex set of theories and hypotheses that attempt to explain the
way human learn and acquire a second language. Primarily, Chomskys Innatist perspective and
Universal Grammar (UG) Theory (1976, as cited in Cook, 2003) which arose as the main response
against behaviorism in SLA (Second Language Acquisition) and also as the basis for the Monitor
Model of Krashen (1981, as cited in Brown, 2000). In this essay, we will see the differences
between the input implications in Second Language Teaching of Chomskys UG and Krashen Input
Hypothesis, which would seem to be similar, thus under the analysis of Brown (2000), Cook (2008,
2003) and Lightbrown & Spada) there are differences in the way these theories approach to
second language acquisition: the first one approaches from internal and innate processes, and the
second one internal plus environmental processes.
To begin with, Universal Grammar model (UG) states that human mind is prepared to acquire a
language since we are born, regarding the parameters and principles (the parameters of every
language are the universal syntax; on the other hand, the principles of language are the how
words behave in every language and the meaning they would imply in a sentence) that all
languages have in common (Cook, 2008). Besides, Chomsky argues that the development of
language in children minds progresses in the same way that other biological function does,
basically that they are biologically programmed to develop a language. As a result, this theory was
qualified as innatist because its main objective was to explain how beginners discover and develop
language by their own; it is all in human mind (Chomsky 1976, as cited in Lightbrown & Spada,
2006). Therefore, Chomskys innatist perspective was at first applied in SLA by other linguists like
White (2003a, as cited in Lightbrown & Spada) and Cook (2008) whom argued that UG was a
proper method to explain second language acquisition. Furthermore, Chomsky (1976, as cited in
Cook, 2008) proposed the Language Acquisition Device (LAD,) which as the receiver of the
linguistic input and processed the information in human mind to trigger a response regarding the
universal pattern that LAD contains. Chomsky stated that no one is able to learn for repetition,
thus for internal and susceptible principles and parameters, as it was mentioned before.
Moreover, Cook (2008) presents the application of UG theory in language teaching as a source of
lexical input for students in a second language class; consequently, the aim of the teacher is
making students aware about the parameters of the language that is being taught. To sum up,
Chomskys perspective of second language is all about inner processes concerning the innateness,
naturalness and syntactical development of language in both first and second language
acquisition.
On the other hand, for Brown (2007) the theoretical perspective proposed by Stephen Krashen in
SLA is one of the most controversial approaches in the last quarter of the twentieth century
Krashens hypothesis has several names, but the most known are Monitor Model, Acquisition-
Learning Hypothesis, thus our focus is going to be the Input Hypothesis which is part of the
Natural Approach. We all acquire language by the same way, this method is called:
comprehensible input. An input is simply the process of comprehending language (listening and
reading). Likewise, the only method that works and counts is giving people messages that they
understand, we acquire language when we understand what people tell us, what they are saying,
not how they are saying. Krashen suggests and develop 5 hypothesis, where he argues; the
acquisition and learning at the moment of developing the L2, We acquire as we are exposed to
samples of the second language; likewise, we are exposed our mother tongue (Lightbrown &
Spada, 2004); a monitor hypothesis; a natural order hypothesis, and the preceding two which are
related with the significant previously mentioned input. The input hypothesis, according to
Krashen (1984, p. 61), a comprehensible input is the only true cause of second language
acquisition. In addition, the graphic explanation is recognized as: i + 1, the i represents the level
or stage of language that the acquirer has, and the 1 is the input (word, grammatical form,
pronunciation, etc.) that the person gets to go beyond that level that already has. However, the
last hypothesis of this monitor model, shows the fact that some people are exposed to amounts of
comprehensible inputs does not mean that they will acquire a language in a successfully way, that
is way the affective filter hypothesis uses that key word affect to refers to feelings, needs,
emotional states, motivations that the acquirer may feel. As Krashen (1981, as cited in Lightbrown
and Spada mentioned, 2004), a learner who is tense, anxious, or bored may filter out input,
making it unavailable for acquisition. People, (students and beginners) needs motivation, self-
confidence and low anxiety; nonetheless, in the input hypothesis there is an emphasis on
exposure on input essential component to plan which is not grammar; it is communication, which
it is a plus to develop in a better way the affective filter, because students do not feel the pressure
of make a mistake in a speaking situation. And finally, and advantage of the input could be that
speaking ability cannot be taught directly, speaking is a skill that emerges and becomes more
accurate over time, its sufficient comprehensible is provided.
Both theorists give importance to SLA as a reflection of the first language acquisition
development; however, it has to be considered that Chomskys theory application in L2 was not
proposed by himself. On the other side, the aim of Krashens model was the better understanding
of second language acquisition a propos first language. In addition, the cognitivist root of these
two theories took teaching to be concerned about learners internal way to learn and how people
process the information (specially beginners) avoiding the imitation and the teacher as the center
of the class (Lightbrown & Spada, 2006). Thus, the emphasis given to the input by Krashen and
Chomsky is breakpoint of their similarities. Chomsky proposed the input as the aim for teaching
lexis, vocabulary and make learners aware of targets language principles. Nonetheless, this
proposal was so strict that he fixed a critical period for learning language which was not as true it
states: as we can see, being exposed to other language is also a way to acquire it (Lightbrown &
Spada). According to Krashen (1981, as cited in Brown 2007), the environment is also part of the
acquisition process, it is part of the exposure and determines the success of the learning and
acquisition process.
As a conclusion, each author presented the implications of the input in the learning and
acquisition process, and how important it was for the learners to be given a comprehensible one
by teachers. The several processes that occur in human mind and that Krashen and Chomsky
established as important to be highlighted, and also increased the importance of SLA. As we found
in other authors like Cook (2008), Lightbrown & Spada (2006) and Brown (2007) that these
theories were the main basis of SLA and gave us the guidance to understand the communicative
process in terms of useful techniques to make it easier for learners and teachers.







References
Brown, H. (20067. Principles of language learning and teaching (5th edition). San Francisco State
University: Pearson Longman.
Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4
th
Edition). London: Hodder
Education.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2006). Explaining second language learning. In How Languages are
Learned (pp. 35-38). : Oxford: Oxford University Press