Sprachkompetenzprüfung Lehrdiplom

Language Skills for Teachers

Issues in Second Language Teaching and Learning

The theory and practice of second language (L2) teaching and learning have inspired a lot of research and
reflection in recent decades. Many of these insights and ideas have fed into classroom practice in a variety
of ways, raising awareness about issues, provoking debate, and inspiring trends. In this session, we will
examine some of the main underlying ideas about L2 teaching and learning. These include:

 The difference between L2 learning and first language (L1) acquisition

 Ways of approaching L2 teaching
 Methods for teaching the L2
 What elements of the L2 to teach

This material forms the basis of many of the issues that we will be discussing in later sessions. For
further information on these issues, consult the set reading (Richards & Rogers 2001; cf. also Ur 2012).

Relationship between L1 and L2 acquisition

Scholarship on the relationship between L1 and L2 acquisition has focused on such aspects as:

 the different outcomes of L1 and L2 learning,

 the importance of affective factors such as motivation,
 parallels between the learning processes (e.g. order in which certain morphemes are acquired),
 the role of instruction and correction.

Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition

Many comparative studies of L1 and L2 acquisition processes (e.g. Lightbown & Spada, 2006) suggest that
learners of both the L1 and L2 often pass through similar developmental stages, and that certain rules are
generally acquired in the same order. However, it is certainly not the case that an invariant “natural order”,
such as that put forward by Krashen (1982), is always found; there can be considerable individual variation
in paths of acquisition, particularly among L2 learners. It seems more plausible that any parallels have to
do with the nature of the language being learned, rather than any “natural” acquisition process or innate
understanding of grammatical rules.
The general consensus, based on Bley-Vroman’s Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (1989), is
that there are significant, substantive differences between the ways in which L1 and L2 are acquired, to the
extent that some researchers prefer to reserve the term “acquisition” for the L1 and to use the term
“learning” for the L2, although it is of course also possible to “acquire” an L2 without formal instruction.
Although this perspective has been criticised for holding the target grammar and L1 users up as a ‘gold
standard’ (e.g. Lakshmanan and Selinker, 2001), recent studies have argued the need for the target grammar
as a “baseline” to assess L2 acquisition (Dominguez & Arche, 2021). The table below summarises some
of the main differences between L1 and L2 acquisition.

1
 Sprachkompetenzprüfung Lehrdiplom
Language Skills for Teachers

Feature L1 acquisition L2 learning

Overall Children normally achieve perfect Adult L2 learners are very unlikely to
Success mastery of their L1. achieve perfect mastery.
General
Success is guaranteed. Complete success is very rare.
Failure
There is little variation as to overall L2 learners vary in both their degree of
Variation
success or the path learners follow. success and the path they follow.
The goal is target language L2 learners may be content with less
Goals
competence. than target language competence.
Fossilis- Fossilisation is unknown in child L1 L2 learners often cease to develop (and
ation development. often backslide -> language attrition).
Children develop clear intuitions of L2 learners are often unable to form
Intuitions
what is correct and incorrect. clear grammaticality judgements.
Children do not need formal lessons There is a wide belief that instruction
Instruction
to learn their L1. helps L2 learners.
Children’s errors are not typically
Negative Correction is generally viewed as helpful
corrected; correction is not
evidence and by some as necessary.
necessary for acquisition.
Success is not influenced by
Affective Affective factors are seen to play a major
personality, motivation, attitudes,
factors role in L2 learning.
etc.

Table 1: The differences between L1 acquisition and L2 learning (Bley-Vroman 1989)

Language acquisition theories

Discussions on the nature of L2 acquisition tend to be dominated by three main ideas about how foreign
languages are acquired. They can be summarized as follows (adapted from Ur 2012: 6 and Krüger 2023:
51-93):

Habit-formation: behaviourist theories of language acquisition suggest that language is a set of habits that we acquire
through drilling and imitation (based on an interpretation of Skinner 1957)
Intuitive acquisition: theories that stress the role of intuition argue that we learn an L2 through exposure to the
language in authentic communicative situations, in other words, similar to how we learn an L1 (Krashen 1982)
Cognitive process: theories that stress the role of cognitive processes argue that we learn an L2 by mastering its
grammatical rules and practicing them, thus learning how to apply them in different contexts (see also “skill-
learning approach”, Johnson 1996)

2
 Sprachkompetenzprüfung Lehrdiplom
Language Skills for Teachers

The emergence of influential approaches to L2 teaching

The most dominant approaches in the recent history of L2 teaching have been grammar-translation
(dominant in the early twentieth century), audio-lingualism, ‘PPP’ (both dominant in the mid twentieth
century) and the communicative approach (dominant from the later decades of the twentieth century) (cf. Ur
2012: 7-99):

1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

Grammar-translation
Direct method
Audio-lingual method
PPP
Communicative approach
TBLL
Lexical approach
Influential Post-communicative
Limited use approach

Grammar-translation: involves explanation of grammatical rules by the teacher and translation to and from
the target language. Focuses on written, formal registers of the language, with little oral or communicative
work, and aims for accuracy rather than fluency.
Direct method: developed in reaction to grammar-translation, and focuses more on oral communication, with
use of systematic, question-answer exchanges. Bans the use of the L1 in the classroom. Still used by Berlitz
language schools.
Audio-lingualism: based on behaviourist / habit-formation theories of acquisition and involves a lot of
teacher-led drilling and rote learning. Classroom activities are speech based. Focuses on accuracy rather
than fluency, and on grammar rather than on vocabulary.
PPP: stands for ‘Presentation, Practice, Production’, which are the main components of its methodology.
Emphasises grammatical accuracy and is very teacher dominated. Based on a skill-learning theory of
language acquisition.
The communicative approach or communicative language teaching (CLT): based on the view that linguistic
competence is learned most effectively by using grammar and vocabulary in order to achieve
communicative goals. Instruction often involves communicative tasks (cf. task-based language learning, or
TBLL) and can be entirely meaning-focused as in CLIL (content and language integrated learning).
Prioritizes communicative competence and fluency over grammatical knowledge and accuracy.
The lexical approach: based on the assumption that the L2 is learned in set lexical phrases or ‘chunks’. Takes
the ‘word’ as the main unit of the syllabus and prizes vocabulary over grammar.
The post-communicative approach: maintains the basic assumption of the communicative approach that effective
communication is the main goal of language learning, and therefore employs communicative tasks.
However, instruction also accommodates explicit teaching of grammar, vocabulary and other aspects of
language use, including grammatical forms.

3
 Sprachkompetenzprüfung Lehrdiplom
Language Skills for Teachers

Bibliography/Further reading

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In Gass, S. &
Schachter, J. (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 41-68.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis 20, 3-49.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 31, 175-198.
Dominguez, L. & Arche, M. (2021). The ‘Comparative Logic’ and why we need to explain interlanguage
grammars. Frontiers in Psychology 12.
Edmondson W. (1999). Twelve Lectures on Second Language Acquisition. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit and Explicit
Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press, 79-114.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hummel, K. (2014). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Johnson, K. (1996). Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krüger, M. (2023). Media-Related Out-of-School Contact with English in Germany and Switzerland. Berlin:
Springer Open Access.
Lackshmanan, U., and Selinker, L. (2001). Analysing interlanguage: how do we know what learners
know? Second Language Research 17, 393–420.
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages Are Learned. (4th edition) Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. 2nd
edition.
McNeill, D. (1966). Developmental psycholinguistics. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. (eds.), The Genesis of
Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 15-84.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Richards, J.C. & Rogers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning 52 (1), 119-158.
Ur, P. (2012). A Course in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.