1

PART I

I. INTRODUCTION

A great many theories regarding language development in human beings have been
proposed in the past and still being proposed in the present time. Such theories have
generally arisen out of major disciplines such as psychology and linguistics. Psychological
and linguistic thinking have profoundly influenced one another and the outcome of
language acquisition theories alike. This article aims to discuss language acquisition
theories and assess their implications for applied linguistics and for a possible theory of
foreign/second language teaching.

Language acquisition theories have basically centered around “nurture” and “nature”
distinction or on “empiricism” and “nativism”. The doctrine of empiricism holds that all
knowledge comes from experience, ultimately from our interaction with the environment
through our reasoning or senses. Empiricism, in this sense, can be contrasted to nativism,
which holds that at least some knowledge is not acquired through interaction with the
environment, but is genetically transmitted and innate. To put it another way, some
theoreticians have based their theories on environmental factors while others believed that
it is the innate factors that determine the acquisition of language. It is, however, important
to note that neither nurturists (environmentalists) disagree thoroughly with the nativist ideas
nor do nativists with the nurturist ideas. Only the weight they lay on the environmental and
innate factors is relatively little or more. Before sifting through language acquisition
theories here, therefore, making a distinction between these two types of perspectives will
be beneficial for a better understanding of various language acquisition theories and their
implications for the field of applied linguistics. In the following paragraphs, the two claims
posed by the proponents of the two separate doctrines will be explained and the reason why
such a distinction has been made in this article will be clarified.

Environmentalist theories of language acquisition hold that an organism’s nurture, or

experience, are of more significance to development than its nature or inborn contributions.
Yet they do not completely reject the innate factors. Behaviorist and neo-behaviorist
stimulus-response learning theories (S-R for simplicity) are the best known examples. Even
though such theories have lost their effect partially because of Chomsky’s intelligent
review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Chomsky, 1959), their effect has not been so little
when we consider the present cognitive approach as an offshoot of behaviorism. The
nativist theories, on the other hand, assert that much of the capacity for language learning
in human is ‘innate’. It is part of the genetic makeup of human species and is nearly
independent of any particular experience which may occur after birth. Thus, the nativists
claim that language acquisition is innately determined and that we are born with a built-in
device which predisposes us to acquire language. This mechanism predisposes us to a
systematic perception of language around us. Eric Lenneberg (cited in Brown, 1987:19), in
his attempt to explain language development in the child, assumed that language is a
species - specific behavior and it is ‘biologically determined’. Another important point as
regards the innatist account is that nativists do not deny the importance of environmental
stimuli, but they say language acquisition cannot be accounted for on the basis of
 2

environmental factors only. There must be some innate guide to achieve this end. In Table
1 below, a classification around the nurture/nature distinction has been made.

THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
Some of the Resulting
ACQUISITION
BACK TO TOP Foreign/Second Language
Teaching Methods
(BOTH L1 AND L2)
THEORIES BASED Audiolingual
ON "NURTURE" Method

- Bakhtin’s Community Language

(environmental Theory of Learning
factors are believed Polyphony or
to be more dominant Dialogics Communicative Approach
in language
acquisition) - Vygotsky’s Others
Zone of
Proximal
Development

- Skinner’s
Verbal Behavior

- Piaget’s View
of Language
Acquisition

- The
Competition
Model

- Cognitive
Theory:
Language
Acquisition
View

- Discourse
Theory

- The Speech
Act Theory
 3

- The
Acculturation
Model

-
Accommodation
Theory

- The Variable
Competence

- The
Interactionist
View of
Language
Acquisition

- The
Connectionist
Model

Winitz’s
Comprehension
THEORIES BASED -A
ON “NATURE” Neurofunctional Approach
Theory of
(innate factors are Language The Natural Approach
believed to be more Acquisition
dominant in language  
acquisition)

- The Universal
Grammar
Theory

- Fodor’s
Modular
Approach
 4

- The Monitor
Model

Table 1. Classification of Language Acquisition Theories Around

“Nurture and Nature Distinction”

The particular reason why such a distinction between environmentalist and nativist theories
has been made in this study is to create a clear-cut picture of the current status of language
acquisition theories, present and former studies in the field of language acquisition and
language teaching methodology. In the following part, the most important ones of
language acquisition theories resulting from the two opposing views mentioned above will
be discussed.
PART II

II. THEORIES OF LANGUAGE ACQUSITION

In this part of the article, eight different views of language acquisition will be discussed.
Most of the theories may be considered in both L1 (mother tongue) and L2 (second or
foreign language) acquisition even though certain theories to be discussed here have been
resulted from second language acquisition (SLA) studies. It is important to note once again
that language acquisition theories have been influenced especially by linguistic and
psychological schools of thought. Thus they have given relatively changing weights on
different factors in approaching the acquisition process as can be seen in the following
subsections.

2.1 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky was a psychologist but his studies on conscious human behavior led him to
investigate the role that language plays in human behavior. Vygotsky’s point of view is
simply that social interaction plays an important role in the learning process. He places an
emphasis on the role of “shared language” in the development of thought and language.
The term “shared language” refers to social interaction and can be best elucidated through
the notion of “zone of proximal development".

According to Vygotsky (1962:10), two developmental levels determine the learning

process: egocentricity and interaction. We can look at what children do on their own and
what they can do while working with others. They mostly choose to remain silent or speak
less on their own (less egocentric speech) when they are alone. However, they prefer to
speak to other children when they play games with them (more egocentric speech). The
difference between these two types of development forms has been called “Zone of
 5

Proximal Development”. This zone refers to the distance between the actual developmental
level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development
as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in cooperation with more
capable friends of the child. The first thing that children do is to develop concepts by
talking to adults and then solve the problems they face on their own. In other words,
children first need to be exposed to social interaction that will eventually enable them build
their inner resources.

As for the drawbacks of the views proposed by Vygotsky, it is not clear what Vygotsky
meant by inner resources. Also, his emphasis on the significance of egocentric speech in the
development of thought and language is worth discussing. He suggests that egocentric
speech is social and helps children interact with others. When a child is alone he uses less
egocentric language than he uses it when playing games with other children. This implies
that speech is influenced by the presence of other people. It seems that Vygotsky
overemphasizes the function of egocentric speech in the development of language. It is true
that society and other people are important factors helping children to acquire language.
However, Vygotsky fails to account for the role of the self itself in this process, even
though he stresses the importance of egocentric speech, which is not the self actually, and
see the relative role of inner linguistic and psycholinguistic mechanisms that promote
language acquisition.

In conclusion, Vygotsky contends that language is the key to all development and words
play a central part not only in the development of thought but in the growth of cognition as
a whole. Within this framework, child language development, thus acquisition, can be
viewed as the result of social interaction.

2.2. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior

Behavioristic view of language acquisition simply claims that language development is the
result of a set of habits. This view has normally been influenced by the general theory of
learning described by the psychologist John B. Watson in 1923, and termed behaviorism.
Behaviorism denies nativist accounts of innate knowledge as they are viewed as inherently
irrational and thus unscientific. Knowledge is the product of interaction with the
environment through stimulus-response conditioning.

Broadly speaking, stimulus (ST) – response (RE) learning works as follows. An event in
the environment (the unconditioned stimulus, or UST) brings out an unconditioned
response (URE) from an organism capable of learning. That response is then followed by
another event appealing to the organism. That is, the organism’s response is positively
reinforced (PRE). If the sequence UST --> URE --> PRE recurs a sufficient number of
times, the organism will learn how to associate its response to the stimulus with the
reinforcement (CST). This will consequently cause the organism to give the same response
when it confronts with the same stimulus. In this way, the response becomes a conditioned
response (CRE).

The most risky part of the behavioristic view is perhaps the idea that all learning, whether
verbal (language) or non-verbal (general learning) takes place by means of the same
 6

underlying process, that is via forming habits. In 1957, the psychologist B.F. Skinner
produced a behaviorist account of language acquisition in which linguistic utterances
served as CST and CRE.

When language acquisition is taken into consideration, the theory claims that both L1 and
L2 acquirers receive linguistic input from speakers in their environment, and positive
reinforcement for their correct repetitions and imitations. As mentioned above, when
language learners’ responses are reinforced positively, they acquire the language relatively
easily.

These claims are strictly criticized in Chomsky’s “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal
Behavior”. Chomsky (1959) asserts that there is “neither empirical evidence nor any known
argument to support any specific claim about the relative importance of feedback from the
environment”. Therefore, it would be unwise to claim that the sequence UST --> URE -->
PRE and imitation can account for the process of language acquisition. What is more, the
theory overlooks the speaker (internal) factors in this process.

The behaviorists see errors as first language habits interfering with the acquisition of
second language habits. If there are similarities between the two languages, the language
learners will acquire the target structures easily. If there are differences, acquisition will be
more difficult. This approach is known as the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH).
According to the hypothesis, the differences between languages can be used to reveal and
predict all errors and the data obtained can be used in foreign/second language teaching for
promoting a better acquisition environment. Lightbown and Spada (1993: 25) note that:

“… there is little doubt that a learner’s first language influences the acquisition of second
language. [But] … the influence is not simply a matter of habits, but rather a systematic
attempt by the learner to use knowledge already acquired in learning a new language.”

This is another way of saying that mother tongue interference cannot entirely explain the
difficulties that an L2 learner may face. It is true that there might be some influences
resulting from L1, but research (Ellis, 1985:29) has shown that not all errors predicted by
CAH are actually made. For example, Turkish learners of English simply use utterances
just as “No understand” even though the corresponding structure of Turkish
("Anlamiyorum" literally, “UNDERSTAND-NO-ME”) is thoroughly different.

In brief, Skinner’s view of language acquisition is a popular example of the nurturist ideas.
Behaviorism, as known by most of us, was passively accepted by the influential
Bloomfieldian structuralist school of linguistics and produced some well-know applications
in the field of foreign/second language teaching – for instance, the Audiolingual Method or
the Army Method. The theory sees the language learner as a tabula rasa with no built-in
knowledge. The theory and the resulting teaching methods failed due to the fact that
imitation and simple S-R connections only cannot explain acquisition and provide a sound
basis for language teaching methodology.

2.3. Piaget’s View of Language Acquisition

 7

Even though Piaget was a biologist and a psychologist, his ideas have been influential in
the field of first and second language acquisition studies. In fact he studied the overall
behavioral development in the human infant. But his theory of development in children has
striking implications as regards language acquisition.

Ellidokuzoglu (1999:16) notes that “many scientists, especially the psychologists are
hesitant to attribute a domain-specific built-in linguistic knowledge to the human infant.”
Accordingly, they view the human brain as a homogeneous computational system that
examines different types of data via general information processing principles. Piaget was
one of those psychologists who view language acquisition as a case of general human
learning. He has not suggested, however, that the development is not innate, but only that
there is no specific language module. Piaget’s view was then that the development (i.e.,
language acquisition) results mainly from external factors or social interactions. Piaget
(cited in Brown, 1987:47, Eyseneck, 1990:51) outlined the course of intellectual
development as follows:

- The sensorimotor stage from ages 0 to 2 (understanding the environment)

- The preoperational stage from ages 2 to 7 (understanding the symbols)
- The concrete operational stage from ages 7 to 11 (mental tasks and language use)
- The formal operational stage from the age 11 onwards (dealing with abstraction)

Piaget observes, for instance, that the pre-linguistic stage (birth to one year) is a
determining period in the development of sensory-motor intelligence, when children are
forming a sense of their physical identity in relation to the environment. Piaget, unlike
Vygotsky, believes that egocentric speech on its own serves no function in language
development.

2.4. Cognitive Theory: The Language Acquisition View

Cognitive theory is based on the work of psychologists. Piaget’s work, which dwells on the
idea that students can learn things when they are developmentally ready to do so since
learning follows development, can be regarded as a starting point of the cognitivist ideas.
Cognitive psychologists emphasized the importance of meaning, knowing and
understanding. According to them, 'meaning' plays an important role in human learning.
‘Learning’ is a meaningful process of “relating new events or items to already existing
cognitive concepts.” (Brown, H.D. 1987:47); and it is thought to involve internal
representations that guide performance. In the case of language acquisition, these
representations are based on language system and involve procedures for selecting
appropriate vocabulary, grammatical rules, and pragmatic conventions governing language
use.

David Ausubel (cited in Brown, 1987:80), who criticized the popular Audiolingual method
for its theory based on reinforcement and conditioning, stated that adults learning a second
language could profit from certain grammatical explanations. Whether adults do really
profit from such explanations depends on (1) the suitability and efficiency of the
explanation, (2) the teacher, (3) the context, and (4) other pedagogical variables. Though
 8

children do not use deductive presentations of grammar and they do not have superior
cognitive capacities, they acquire their mother tongue quite successfully.

Cognitive psychologists see second language acquisition, on the other hand, as the
“building up of knowledge systems that can eventually be called automatically for speaking
and understanding” (Lightbown and Spada, 1993:25). Language learning, in this sense, has
some Gestalt characteristics in that language learning is a wholistic process and not
analysable as stimulus-response associations. Language learners pay attention to any aspect
of the language that they are attempting to understand and produce. Then, step by step, they
become able to use certain parts of their knowledge through experience and practice.

In short, the cognitivists claim that language acquisition can be automatically attained.
However it is not clear how it will be automatized. And what L1 structures can be
automatized through practice in L2 and what structures can be transferred to L2 are not
clearly accounted for.

2.5. The Discourse Theory

The Discourse Theory has resulted from a theory of language use. The theory emphasizes
that language development should be viewed within the framework of how the learner
discover the meaning capacity of language by taking part in communication. Del Hymes’
description of communicative competence (Brown, 1987: 200, 201; Ellis, 1986:259), for
instance, reflects the principles of the Discourse Theory. Communicative competence
includes knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary, knowledge of rules of speaking,
knowledge of how to use and respond to different types of speech acts and social
conventions, and knowledge of how to use language appropriately.

It is believed, according to discourse theorists, that language acquisition will successfully

take place when language learners “know” how and when to use the language in various
settings and when they have successfully “cognized” various forms of competence such as
grammatical competence (lexis, morphology, syntax and phonology) and pragmatic
competence (e.g., speech acts). A language learner needs to “know” conversational
strategies to acquire the language. Halliday (cited in Ellis, 1985: 259), for example,
conducted a study on his own son’s first language acquisition experience and asserted that
basic language functions arise out of interpersonal uses and social interaction.

Dwelling on the ideas above, first language acquisition notion of the theory is that children
accomplish actions in the world and develop rules of language structure and use.
Accordingly, in the case of L2 acquisition, language learners are encouraged to deal with
accomplishing actions, which are thought to help them acquire the target language. The
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is the best known example of such a theory. In
the communicative classes, students are expected to learn by doing (discovery learning) and
expected to acquire the language through the PPP (presentation, practice and production)
principle. It is another issue whether or not the CLT techniques promote L2 acquisition.

The Discourse Theory has a number of drawbacks. It overemphasizes the role of external
factors in the process of language acquisition and gives little importance to internal learner
 9

strategies (i.e., innate processes). The Discourse Theory is similar to the behavioristic view
of language acquisition in that environmental factors and input (or positive stimulus) are at
the very center in attempting to explicate the acquisition process. The Discourse Theory is
of course more sophisticated than the Skinner’s views in accounting for the complex
structure of communication. Yet it overstresses the role of “knowledge of competence and
functions” in acquiring a language, and hence fails to notice universal principles that guide
language acquisition.

2.6. The Speech Act Theory

This theory holds that saying something is a way of doing something. In speech act theory,
two kinds of meaning are seen in utterances. The fist is the prepositional meaning and the
second is the illocutionary meaning. The former refers to the basic literal meaning of the
utterance conveyed by the particular words or structures. The latter refers to the “effect” the
spoken or written text has on the listener or reader. For instance the utterances including
“threatening” or “apologizing” might have “presupposition” or “implicature” effects that
listeners strive to figure out. It is, of course, normal for someone to use these utterances in
his native language. The problem is how propositions and implicatures are acquired in first
and second language. Does a formal instruction environment help the learners acquire
them? Or will it create an environment where learners know only “about” them. Can it be
labeled “acquisition”?
PART III

2.7. The Universal Grammar Theory

Among theories of language acquisition, Universal Grammar (UG) has recently gained
wider acceptance and popularity. Though noted among L2 acquisition theories, the
defenders of UG are not originally motivated to account for L2 acquisition, nor for first
language (L1) acquisition. However, UG is more of an L1 acquisition theory rather than
L2. It attempts to clarify the relatively quick acquisition of L1s on the basis of 'minimum
exposure' to external input. The 'logical problem' of language acquisition, according to UG
proponents, is that language learning would be impossible without 'universal language-
specific knowledge' (Cook, 1991:153; Bloor & Bloor: 244). The main reason behind this
argument is the input data:

"…[L]anguage input is the evidence out of which the learner constructs knowledge of
language – what goes into the [brain]. Such evidence can be either positive or negative. …
The positive evidence of the position of words in a few sentences [the learner] hear[s] is
sufficient to show [him] the rules of [a language]." (Cook, 1991: 154)

The views supports the idea that the external input per se may not account for language
acquisition (Ellidokuzoglu, 1999:20). Similarly, the Chomskyan view holds that the input is
poor and deficient in two ways. First, the input is claimed to be 'degenerate' because it is
damaged by performance features such as slips, hesitations or false starts. Accordingly, it is
suggested that the input is not an adequate base for language learning. Second, the input is
devoid of grammar corrections. This means that the input does not normally contain
'negative evidence', the knowledge from which the learner could exercise what is
 10

'not'possible in a given language.

As for L2 acquisition, however, the above question is not usually asked largely because of
the frequent failure of L2 learners, who happen to be generally cognitively mature adults, in
attaining native-like proficiency. But why can't adults who have already acquired an L1,
acquire an L2 thoroughly? Don't they have any help from UG? Or if they do, then how
much of UG is accessible in SLA? These and similar questions have divided researchers
into three basic camps with respect to their approach to the problem:

Direct access -L2 acquisition is just like L1 acquisition. Language acquisition device
(LAD) is involved.

No access - L2 learners use their general learning capacity.

Indirect access - Only that part of UG which has been used in L1 acquisition is used in L2
acquisition.

Proponents of UG, for example, believe that both children and adults utilize similar
universal principles when acquiring a language; and LAD is still involved in the acquisition
process. This view can be better understood in the following quote.

[A]dvocates of [UG] approach working on second-language learning... argue that there is

no reason to assume that language faculty atrophies with age. Most second-language
researchers who adopt the [UG] perspective assume that the principles and parameters of
[UG] are still accessible to the adult learner. (McLaughlin, 1987:96)

To support the view above, the acquisition of the third person “-s” can be given as an
example. According to research (1996, Cook: 21) both child L1 and adult L2 learners (e.g.
Turkish learners of English) acquire the third person “-s” morpheme at a later stage of their
overall acquisition process and have a great difficulty in acquiring it when compared to
other morphemes such as the plural morpheme “-s” or the progressive morpheme “-ing”.
This shows that such learners are somewhat affected by UG-based knowledge. However, in
the case of foreign/second language teaching it is very well known that the third person “-s”
is taught at the very beginning of a second language learning program and presented in a
great majority of textbooks as the first grammatical item.

Accordingly, Fodor’s views have some parallels with the UG Theory. Jerry Fodor studied
the relationship between language and mind and his view that language is a modular
process has important implications for a theory of language acquisition. The term modular
is used to indicate that the brain is seen, unlike older views such as behavioristic view of
learning and language learning, to be organized with many modules of cells for a particular
ability (for instance, the visual module). These modules, according to Fodor (1983:47),
operate in isolation from other modules that they are not directly connected. The language
module, if we are to follow Fodor’s ideas, is one of such modules. This modular
separateness has been termed as “informational encapsulation” by Fodor. To put it simply,
each module is open to specific type of data. In other words, modules are domain specific.
 11

This is another way of saying that conscious knowledge cannot penetrate your visual
module or language module or any other subconscious module.

Basically, Fodor’s arguments are somewhat similar to that of Chomsky or the proponents of
UG Theory in that the external input per se may not account for language acquisition and
that language acquisition is genetically predetermined. Add to this, such a modular
approach to language acquisition is totally different from the views of Piaget and Vygotsky
who have laid the primary emphasis on the role of social or environmental factors in
language development.

In the case of foreign/second language teaching, the common view is that inductive
learning (teaching a language through hidden grammar or) leads to acquisition. However,
dwelling on Fodor’s views as discussed above, it is obvious that inductive learning is
confused with acquisition and that by learning something via discovery learning, students
just improve their problem-solving skills, but not acquire a language.

As for the problems with Universal Grammar, it can be said that UG’s particular aim is to
account for how language works. Yet UG proponents had to deal with acquisition to
account for the language itself. “Acquisition part” is thus of secondary importance. A
second drawback is that Chomsky studied only the core grammar of the English language
(syntax) and investigated a number of linguistic universals seems to be the major problem.
And he neglected the peripheral grammar, that is, language specific rules (i.e., rules of
specific languages which cannot be generalized). Thirdly, the primary function of language
is communication, but it is discarded. The final and the most significant problem is a
methodological one. Due to the fact that Chomsky is concerned only with describing and
explaining 'competence', there can be little likelihood of SLA researchers carrying out
empirical research.

In summary, UG has generated valuable predictions about the course of interlanguage and
the influence of the first language. Also, it has provided invaluable information regarding
L2 teaching as to how L2 teachers (or educational linguists) should present vocabulary
items and how they should view grammar. As Cook (1991:158) puts it, UG shows us that
language teaching should deal with how vocabulary should be taught, not as tokens with
isolated meanings but as items that play a part in the sentence saying what structures and
words they may go with in the sentence. The evidence in support of UG, on the other hand,
is not conclusive. If the language module that determines the success in L1 acquisition is
proved to be accessible in L2 acquisition, L2 teaching methodologists and methods should
study and account for how to trigger this language module and redesign their
methodologies. The UG theory should, therefore, be studied in detail so as to endow us
with a more educational and pedagogical basis for mother tongue and foreign language
teaching.

2.8. The Monitor Model

Krashen’s Monitor Model is an example of the nativist theories. The model forms the basis
of the Natural Approach, which is a comprehension-based approach to foreign and second
language teaching. The model consists of five hypotheses The explanations of the
 12

hypotheses below have been taken from an article titled “A Promising Approach to Second
Language Acquisition” (Kiymazarslan, 2000:72-82).

(1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen (1985), in his theory of second language acquisition (SLA) suggested that adults
have two different ways of developing competence in second languages: Acquisition and
learning. “There are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages.
‘Acquisition’ is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process
children utilize in acquiring their first language, ... [and] ‘learning’..., [which is] a
conscious process that results in 'knowing about' [the rules of] language” (Krashen 1985:1).

Krashen (1983) believes that the result of learning, learned competence (LC) functions as a
monitor or editor. That is, while AC is responsible for our fluent production of sentences,
LC makes correction on these sentences either before or after their production. This kind of
conscious grammar correction, ‘monitoring’, occurs most typically in a grammar exam
where the learner has enough time to focus on form and to make use of his conscious
knowledge of grammar rules (LC) as an aid to ‘acquired competence’. The way to develop
learned competence is fairly easy: analyzing the grammar rules consciously and practising
them through exercises. But what Acquisition / Learning Distinction Hypothesis predicts is
that learning the grammar rules of a foreign/second language does not result in
subconscious acquisition.

The implication of the acquisition-learning hypothesis is that we should balance class time
between acquisition activities and learning exercises.

(2) The Natural Order Hypothesis

According to the hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a

predicted progression. Certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before
others in first language acquisition and there is a similar natural order in SLA. The
implication of natural order is not that second or foreign language teaching materials should
be arranged in accordance with this sequence but that acquisition is subconscious and free
from conscious intervention.

(3) The Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning. Krashen (1985:3) claims that people
acquire language best by understanding input that is a little beyond their present level of
competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that ‘comprehensible input’ (that is, i + 1)
should be provided. The 'input' should be relevant and 'not grammatically sequenced'. The
foreign/second language teacher should always send meaningful messages, which are
roughly tuned, and ‘must’ create opportunities for students to access i+1 structures to
understand and express meaning. For instance, the teacher can lay more emphasis on
listening and reading comprehension activities.

(4) The Monitor Hypothesis

 13

As mentioned before, adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the
target language. The first is ‘acquisition’ which is a subconscious and intuitive process of
constructing the system of a language. The second means is a conscious learning process in
which learners attend to form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process.
The ‘monitor’ is an aspect of this second process. It edits and makes alterations or
corrections as they are consciously perceived. Krashen (1985:5) believes that ‘fluency’ in
second language performance is due to ‘what we have acquired’, not ‘what we have
learned’: Adults should do as much acquiring as possible for the purpose of achieving
communicative fluency. Therefore, the monitor should have only a minor role in the
process of gaining communicative competence. Similarly, Krashen suggests three
conditions for its use: (1) there must be enough time; (2) the focus must be on form and not
on meaning; (3) the learner must know the rule. Students may monitor during written tasks
(e.g., homework assignments) and preplanned speech, or to some extent during speech.
Learned knowledge enables students to read and listen more so they acquire more.

(5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The learner's emotional state, according to Krashen (1985:7), is just like an adjustable filter
which freely passes or hinders input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must be
achieved in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with a low affective filter receive more
input and interact with confidence. The filter is ‘affective’ because there are some factors
which regulate its strength. These factors are self-confidence, motivation and anxiety state.
The pedagogical goal in a foreign/second language class should thus not only include
comprehensible input but also create an atmosphere that fosters a low affective filter.

The Monitor Model has been criticized by some linguists and methodologists McLaughlin
(1987: 56), notes that the model fails at every juncture by claiming that none of the
hypotheses is clear in their predictions. For example, he notes that the acquisition-learning
distinction is not properly defined and that the distinction between these two processes
cannot be tested empirically. Although it is true that some parts of the theory need more
clarification, it would be harsh to suggest that the Model is a pseudo-scientific. Hasanbey
(personal communication) define acquisition as follows:

"Any systematic linguistic behavior, the rules of which cannot be verbalized by its
performer is the outcome of acquisition. So if one uses a specific language rule in proper
contexts and if the same person cannot articulate the underlying language rule which
determines its proper context, then that person is said to have acquired the rule in question.
On the other hand, if a person can verbalize a language rule, with or without its proper
implementation during performance then that person is said to have conscious knowledge
of that rule. So one might have acquired and learned the same rule in theory."
While writing these very sentences, I have displayed a curious example of committing an
error which proves the acquisition-learning distinction. In the statement “Hasanbey
(personal communication) define acquisition as follows” the verb define should have an “-
s” attached to it. I, as an EFL learner/teacher of English for about 20 years, "consciously"
know when to attach that suffix to the verbs. But when it comes to fluent writing and
speaking during which only subconsciously acquired rules have a say, I frequently miss that
 14

third person singular –s. So I and many other L2 learners who commit this error in spite of
knowing the underlying rule at a conscious level, are the irrefutable evidence proving the
distinction between acquisition and learning. The on-going interest in Krashen’s theory and
the emergence of articles supporting his theory in recent journals also proves that his theory
is far from being pseudo-scientific. Here is a typical example:

"Krashen's 'acquisition-learning' distinction has met harsh criticism but the theory he put
forward deserves a more sympathetic reappraisal. First of all, the theory is not insulated
against falsification. The results of the studies examining the effects of explicit positive
and/or negative evidence in formal learning are not inconsistent with it. Recent studies on
the acquisition of functional categories lends support to the existence of the natural order in
English L2. It is also possible to single out major dimensions on which processes and
products of the 'acquired' and 'learned' systems differ using the principles of markedness
and differences in computational complexity."(Zobl, 1995:35)

So far eight theories of language acquisition have been discussed (see Appendix I and II for
a brief account of other theories and a classification of theories based on the distinction
made here). It can be seen that none of the theories is complete and most of them need
developing. Each theory, however, is important for their implications and provides
invaluable information as to how a language is acquired. and how language teaching should
take place.
PART IV

III. CONCLUSION

The most important implication of language acquisition theories is obviously the fact that
applied linguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the acquisition of a
language not only as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. In addition, only
when we distinguish between a general theory of learning and language learning can we
ameliorate the conditions L2 education. To do so, applied linguists must be aware of the
nature of both L1 and L2 acquisition and must consider the distinction proposed in this
study.

Ridgway (2000, 13) notes that the educational linguist (not the applied linguist) is a
practitioner who applies and adapts the policies of others in the classroom creatively. If the
educational linguist is to adapt language models proposed by others (applied linguists) for
classroom practice, it becomes more important “how” he or she will adopt them. How, for
instance, should s/he utilize the findings of SLA studies conducted on syntax or natural
order and use them for his or her particular classroom settings? How should grammar
points be handled? Should they be taught inductively or deductively? Or should there be a
balance between grammar lessons and acquisition lessons just as proposed by the
proponents of the Monitor Model? How should vocabulary teaching be like and how should
a syllabus be designed? How will the results of language planning proposed by the
government be implemented? Most of these “how” questions can be answered properly
only through a detailed analysis and a thorough understanding of language acquisition
theories.
 15

Here, on the shoulders of the methodologists lays quite a heavy responsibility. As we often
see, linguistics and TEFL/TESL are largely based on the nurturist facet of language
acquisition, emphasizing discourse and ethnolinguistic studies. It would, of course, be
unwise to deemphasize such studies and their role in accounting for language acquisition
and reaching a possible theory of educational linguistics. However, in this article it has
been shown that language acquisition is also a considerable matter of innate factors. What
is then the role of that “nature” part of theories in the overall sketch of language acquisition
and methodology?

In addition, the author wishes to emphasize the necessity of the subfield “educational
psycholinguistics”. In Stubbs’ point of view (1986:283), a thorough description of language
in use, language variation, levels of language such as phonology, morphology and syntax,
semantics and discourse will form the bases of a complete educational theory of language.
If such a theory is expected to be beneficial to foreign and second language teaching, then it
should not only include these environmentalist components but also include the subfield
“educational psycholinguistics” which would mainly focus on “naturist” accounts as
discussed in previous parts of this article. The inclusion of educational psycholingustics in
this sense will make the current position of applied linguistics and language teaching far
stronger. No longer should mind and innateness be treated as dirty words (Pinker, 1994:22).
This will most probably lead to innovative proposals for syllabus development and the
design of instructional systems, practices, techniques, procedures in the language
classroom, and finally a sound theory of L2 teaching and learning.

APPENDIX
Overview of Other Language Acquisition Theories

Gramsci’s Theory of Language (reflects the environmentalist view): Language is important

in establishing cultural hegemony and the prescriptivist teaching of prestigious forms of
language to workers and peasants is encouraged in order to empower them. This theory has
not resulted from any prevailing schools of psychology or linguistics.

Bakhtin’s Theory of Polyphony or Dialogics (reflects the environmentalist view):

Language cannot be usefully studied in isolation from social and political factors. The
theory stresses the value of linguistic diversity and pluralism. Language evolves
dynamically and is affected by the culture that produces it as it helps to shape that culture.
In this sense, the theory can perhaps partially be likened to Sapir-Whorf’s “relativity
theory” asserting that each language imposes on its speaker a particular world view. There
is no record showing that this theory has arisen out of any prevailing schools of psychology
or linguistics. Yet it is obviously seen that Bakhtin has been influenced from Vygotsky and
Piaget to some extent.

The Competition Model (reflects the environmentalist view): Language has four main
facets: word order, vocabulary, word forms and intonation. Whatever the speaker wants to
communicate has to be achieved by means of these four. Children learn their mother
language by attaching particular weights to particular clues. For example, the English
children lay the emphasis on word order while the Russian children on word endings. This
model is an example of discovery learning and fails to account realistic language
 16

acquisition.

The Acculturation Model (Socio-Educational Model) (reflects the environmentalist view):

Successful learning means acculturation, that is, becoming part of the target culture.
Learners should view them as neither superior nor inferior in the target language
community to acquire the language better. Sociocultural factor may be important in
acquiring a language, but is it not possible to acquire a foreign/second language without
being a part of the target society? According to the nativists, it is possible to acquire it
anywhere in case the necessary conditions for acquisition are provided.

Accommodation Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Language acquisition is

seen as a matter of nurture only. Learners adjust their speech towards that of the person
they are talking to when they want to reduce social distance, show solidarity or get
something from that person yet adjust their speech the other way when they wish to create
social distance. This theory might help us to know more about some sociolinguistic
preconditions in maintaining communication rather than help us see how a language is
really acquired.

The Variable Competence Model (based on the environmentalist view): This is an L2

theory stating that language acquisition is a two sided phenomenon: the process and the
product of language. The process refers to the distinction between the linguistic rules and
the ability to make use of these rules. The product of language refers to discourse types to
be generated from unplanned to planned.

The Identity Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that any
language which is capable of serving as a medium for inter-personal communication must
necessarily presuppose the existence of a motivationally ideal environment for a child to
acquire L2 and L1 successfully. According to Erik Erikson (cited in Murphy, 1983:123),
the self or identity is a dynamic state by which the child continually defines selfhood. A
learner (student) may act more differently at home than he acts at school. It is not a static
phenomenon. Erikson does not see identity crisis, therefore, as an evil or as a
malfunctioning of the personality. The theory implies that, in language acquisition, both
motivational and sociolinguistic factors are of crucial importance in facilitating the overall
language development.

The Connectionist Model (based on the environmentalist view): Language learning is seen
as establishing the potencies between the vast numbers of connections in the brain and
language acquisition does not take place in a gradual mode but simultaneously. This model
fails to account how language is acquired because it just studies how the brain makes the
connections when a language is processed. The only difference from the other nurturist
models is that the black box (i.e., the brain) is opened, yet not studied as the nativists do

The Interactionist View of Language Acquisition (based on the environmentalist view):

The acquisition of language is viewed as the result of an interaction between the learner’
mental abilities (cognition) and the linguistic input. This model might perhaps be regarded
as the best model since it seems as if it combines both naturist and the nurturist ideas.
However, it is not for the nativists believe that the combination of general learning capacity
 17

(cognition) and the environmental input do not lead to language acquisition.

A Neurofunctional Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Ellis (1985:273) notes

that this theory is based on two systems: the communication hierarchy and the cognitive
hierarchy. “The communication hierarchy” means language and other forms of
interpersonal communication. “The cognitive hierarchy, on the other hand, refers to a
number of cognitive information processing activities possibly related with “conscious”
processes. The theory also makes a sharp distinction between Primary Language
Acquisition (PLA) and Secondary Language Acquisition (SELA). PLA is seen in the
child’s acquisition of one or more languages from the age of two to five. SELA is found in
both adults and children. It is, in addition, divided into two parts (a) foreign language
learning, that is formal classroom language learning, and (b) second language acquisition,
that is, the natural acquisition of a second language after the age of five. This theory claims
that PLA and (b) is marked through use of the communication hierarchy while (a) is
marked by the use of the cognitive hierarchy only. If we are to accept the existence of some
innate and subconscious linguistic properties, which is what the nativists have claimed, we
then have the right to ask the question of why (a) is treated only as a cognitive process.

The Deficit Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that children
from working-class or immigrant backgrounds have insufficient command of grammar and
vocabulary to express complex ideas and thus that they are unable to succeed in school.

The Difference Theory (based on the environmentalist view): Unlike the Deficit Theory
explained above, the proponents of the theory argues that the speech of working-class
children is fully capable of expressing complex ideas, even though their speech is different
from the standard speech of middle class speakers and penalized in school.

The Information vs Communication Theory: This, in fact, is a mathematical theory of

communication. It is concerned particularly with the transmission of data in one direction
and it takes no account of the person receiving the communication. In the case of The
Communication Theory, on the other hand, a source encodes and transmits a message along
channel; then the message reaches its destination and decoded. Consequently it produces its
effect. In SLA and FLA, the latter, the communication theory, is more relevant.

The Immersion Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory claims that a
learner is expected to acquire a language and communicate in that language when he or she
is surrounded by the language and when s/he hears nothing else.

The Submersion Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory holds that a
language may be acquired when the language of instruction is not the first language but the
target language for some of the learners. This particularly happens when immigrant
children enter school.

The Cognitive Code Theory: This theory holds that language learning is a process which
involves active mental processes and not simply the forming habits. The learner’s active
part is more important particularly in the course of learning grammar rules. The CLT takes
some ideas from this view.
 18

The Mediation Theory (based on the environmentalist view): The theory is the outcome of
psychological studies. It holds that certain types of learning occur in terms of links which
are formed between a stimulus and a response. This one and such type of theories are
obviously associated with behavioristic views.

The Schema Theory: The Schema Theory is based on the term schemata. Schemata (plural
of schema) consist of structured groups of concepts that constitute the generic knowledge
about events, actions, or scenarios which has been acquired from past experience.
According to the Schema Theory, schemata influence the way that new information is
processed in a number of ways such as recalling the relevant and irrelevant information and
using them. In language acquisition it poses an important question particularly on the role
of background knowledge in attaining language proficiency. Its implication for both L1 and
L2 teaching, for instance, can be providing the students with anticipation exercises in a
reading course, or presenting new vocabulary items in a context whose subject matter
appeals to learners (i.e., familiarity) in a way such as to activate the students’ background
knowledge (i.e., schemata).

The Bulge Theory (based on the environmentalist view): This theory is a sociolinguistically
oriented theory of language development. In his article, Wolfson (1986: 82) notes that
examining the rules of speaking for a particular speech community is the initial step in
understanding what it means to be communicatively competent among that group. It is
important to have reliable descriptions of these rules and patterns in order to improve
second language instruction and assessment. For instance, there is a qualitative difference
between the speech behavior which middle-class Americans use to intimates, status-
unequals, and strangers, on the one hand, and with nonintimates, status-equal friends, co-
workers, and acquaintances, on the other. This is called the bulge theory by Wolfson
because of the way the frequencies of certain types of speech behaviors. An implication for
education linguistics is that analysing the society for varieties of speech is still important
However, in the case of L1 and L2, it fails to account how these speech behaviors are
acquired. Therefore, it needs probing further to lay on a pedagogically sound basis.

The Interlingual Theory (based on the environmentalist view): The term interlanguage
refers to a language system created by someone learning a second language and it is
regarded as a “reduced” version of the target language with many features carried over
from the learner’s mother tongue. The theory asserts that language acquisition is a matter of
transfer of linguistic items from L1 (interlingual) and L2 (intralingual). The theory
emphasized the study of spoken and written discourse to reveal errors that might pose
difficulty on acquisition (i.e., the intermediary language).

The Role of Innate Knowledge in First and Second Language Acquisition

By Hasanbey Ellidokuzoglu

I. INTRODUCTION

That some kinds of migratory birds navigate thousands of miles toward their destination by
calibrating the positions of stars against time of day and year, poses no serious problem for
 19

many scientists, who can easily attribute this amazing success to the birds' instinctive
behavior (Pinker, 1994, p.19). It is apparent, after all, that these animals cannot learn such
complicated astronomical facts through a trial and error fashion; they neither have enough
time nor necessary cognitive capacity.

The same scientists, however, including some professional linguists, are quite reluctant to
attribute any form of instinct to human infant, who arrives at complex linguistic knowledge
within a remarkably short period of time (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992, p.1). The infant's is no
less a complicated task than that of the bird's as the linguists themselves have spent decades
(or even centuries) to discover the intricacies of the very same system and with no final
theory. Infants, on the other hand, not only arrives at an almost complete knowledge of
grammar in their brinds (brain+mind) but also accomplish this task within less than a
decade.

Although a human infant and a migratory bird are essentially alike in terms of the
complexity of the task to be accomplished and their inability to handle the task with their
current cognitive capacity, only the latter is believed to rely on its instincts.

There are, of course, some differences between an animal and a human baby; it would be
unwise to equate the cognitive capacities of the two. And it is also impossible to underscore
the importance of environmental factors in child language acquisition. After all, thousands
of hours of exposure is required in order for a child to acquire his mother tongue, whereas
animals like sonar-using bats or web-building spiders seem to be ready to use their
instinctive knowledge with minimum, if any, learning experience. It is equally unwise,
however, to suggest that a cognitively immature child can accomplish a task which has yet
to be accomplished by professional linguists.

[A] child may well not have grasped the property of conservation of volume nor be able to
perform but the most rudimentary arithmetic calculations, yet will have the knowledge
linguists formulate as the binding principles, none of which has been explicitly taught.
(Carston, 1988, p. 41)

The amazing success of children in picking up their mother tongue is no recent discovery.
Slobin (1979) quotes Rene Descartes commenting on human beings' disctinctive ability to
formulate a linguistic system:

...[E]ven those man born deaf and dumb, lacking the organs which others make use of in
speaking, and at least as badly off as the animals in this respect, usually invent for
themselves some signs by which they make themselves understood by those who are with
them enough to learn their language (p. 113)

In the literature of child language acquisition there are cases in which infants, deprived of
linguistic input, invent a rudimentary grammar not attributable only to the external factors.
Children are also known to build a natural language when exposed to unsystematic pidgin
data (Bickerton, 1981, 1983). The resulting creole is almost as systematic and sophisticated
as any natural human language and more interestingly contain rules that are not attributable
to the languages forming the pidgin, out of which the creole is driven.
 20

II. PLATO'S PROBLEM AND CHOMSKY'S SOLUTION

This imbalance between the external input--linguistic data-- and the output--complex
linguistic knowledge-- is called Plato's problem. Chomsky's solution to the Plato's problem
is to seek the richness in the processor--infant's brind--rather than in external stimuli.

Our knowledge of language is complex and abstract; the experience of language we receive
is limited. Our minds could not create such complex knowledge on the basis of such sparse
information.It must therefore come from somewhere other than the evidence we encounter;
Plato's solution is from memories of prior existence, Chomsky's from innate properties of
the mind. (Cook, 1988, p. 55)

Chomsky believes that child's brind is equipped with the principles and parameters of the
Universal Grammar (UG) which underlies the grammar of any human language. With the
help of this language-specific knowledge children can figure out roughly what the shape of
his or her mother tongue is like. That is, UG provides a skeleta knowledge upon which the
child is supposed to dress the flesh. To make an analogy, UG is similar to the genetic
information in the seed of a flower and the external linguistic input is similar to the water
which activates this latent information. It is vain to attribute the beauty of a flower only to
the minerals in water, and the complexity of child's grammar to the external data only. Both
water and input act as a trigger working on a rich genetic blueprint.

III. INNATE KNOWLEDGE:DOMAIN-SPECIFIC OR GENERAL?

Many scientists, especially the psychologists, however, are hesitant to attribute a domain-
specific innate linguistic knowledge to the human infant. These psychologists view the
human brind as a homogeneous computational system which analyze varying types of data
using general information processing principles. Postulating a language-specific
mechanism within such a general-purpose computational system is considered to be a
violation of Occam's principle which favors minimum amount of principles to account for
maximum amount of data rather than ad hoc explanations restricted to specific phenomena.
Piaget, being a typical representative of this reductionist paradigm, views language
acquisition as an instance of general human learning with no appeal to domain-specific
innate knowledge. He asks, 'If one wants to introduce innateness into language, why not
introduce it into the symbolic function in its totality, and finally into anything that is
general' (Piaget, 1980, p.167). It is believed that linguistic concepts are reducible to general
cognitive terms:

...Piagetians seek precursors of all aspects of language in the child's sensorimotor

interaction with the environment ....Playing with containers--embedding objects one into
another--is considered a necessary precursor to the embedding of clauses....Notions such as
noun phrase, verb phrase, subject and clause are ... said not to be available to the young
child's linguistic computations before the acquisition of elaborate cognitive structures.
(Karmiloff-Smith, 1992, p.34)
 21

IV. PARALLELISM BETWEEN PIAGET AND SKINNER

A profound analysis of Piaget's ideas will reveal the basic similarity between his
reductionist view and behaviorist paradigm. A version of "tabula rasa" can easily be
detected in this modern version of behaviorism. Here are some interesting remarks of a
former Piagetian:

At this juncture I shall risk some of my colleagues at the Geneva University by suggesting
that Piaget and behaviorism have much in common....Neither the Piagetian nor the
behaviorist theory grants the infant any innate structures or domain-specific knowledge.
Each grants only domain-general, biologically specified processes ....These domain-general
learning processes are held to apply across all areas of linguistic and nonlinguistic
cognition. Piaget and the behaviorists thus concur on a number of conceptions about the
initial state of the infant mind. The behaviorists saw the infant as a tabula rasa with no
built-in knowledge...; Piaget's view of the young infant as assailed by 'undifferentiated and
choatic' inputs is substantially the same. (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992, p.7)