Hard Wired:
Models of Second Language Acquisition

SPE 3740
Fall 2003

In a world with more than six billion people and thousands of different languages, global communication is more important than ever. Research in the field of communication has and still attempts to provide understanding into the physiological, cognitive, and cultural aspects of these many different languages. Perhaps the most amazing piece of the global jigsaw puzzle is how these billions of people from numerous countries and cultures can communicate with one another cross-linguistically. In current research, there appears to be one burning question: how do people learn second (and third, and fourth…) languages? Learning a first language is difficult enough - think of those early years between ages 1 and 5 when the initial linguistic explosion occurs, and the subsequent years of schooling and instruction in the use and manipulation of that language for communicative purposes. Many adults - college students, for example - are still learning the intricacies of their first languages. How, then, is that marvelous feat that Epstein, Flynn, and Martohodjono describe as "both a major and a commonplace achievement" (1996) learned? How is it that people all over the world learn their second languages in essentially the same way? Is there a standard method, process, or rule to explain this cross-linguistic phenomenon? The field of second language acquisition, or SLA, is full of theories as to how a second language, or L2, is learned; unfortunately, not one of these theories is accepted by all SLA researchers - as a result, the debate is a hot one, and the field a mix of emotions, hypotheses, and debates. Among the most common theories in SLA research are the no-access theory, the partial-access theory, and the full-access theory. Each presents its own interesting, yet mutually exclusive viewpoint on the acquisition of an L2.

As defined by Wakabayashi (2003), SLA research is divided into two categories: the first is Broad SLA Research, which "deals with learners' behaviours." In Broad SLA Research, researchers study the determining factors behind how a second language is received, processed, and produced - more specifically, how thought processes "influence the development of L2 knowledge," resulting in comprehensible L2 output by the learner. According to Wakabayashi, the second category is Core SLA Research. This area of research examines causative factors behind L2 production - how is it even possible for someone to learn a second language? These very definitions indicate that second language acquisition is comprised of two similar components: the cognitive thought processes that develop an L2, and the mechanical and biological determinants that allow humans to learn an L2.

From the early days of language acquisition research, nativists and behaviorists have been locked in heated battle. While nativists believe children are biologically "pre wired" with the grammatical rules available to all languages, behaviorists attribute language acquisition in children strictly to environmental factors (Blomberg, Curran, & Johnson 2002). Interestingly enough, the main theories of SLA research tend to assume that the nativist position is the correct one. Each of the three theories - no-access, partial-access, full-access - acknowledges the mechanism of Universal Grammar (UG), which Epstein, Flynn, and Martohodjono (1996) define as "the biological endowment for language," as the deciding factor in L1 acquisition. The theories differ, however, on the matter of UG involvement in the L2. As defined by Noam Chomsky, a major proponent of Universal Grammar, in Epstein et al's article, UG is a system of principles and parameters. Within this system, the principles of UG determine the parameters of a language learner's grammar. Principles are the cross-cultural, cross-linguistic, i.e. universal, syntactic properties found in all human languages. These properties cultivate "learners' grammars … by reducing the learner's hypothesis space from an infinite number of logical possibilities" (1996). Instead of having to choose from among all of humanity's grammatical possibilities, which the UG principles encompass, a language learner's options are drastically narrowed to provide the learner with easier selection and production of language-specific features.

According to Epstein et al (1996), the no-access theory "claims that child L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition are fundamentally different cognitive processes … the latter determined by nonlinguistic processes," such as brain chemistry, age, and general learning processes. Inagaki and Long in Kanno (1999) lend support to the argument that L2 acquisition does not utilize UG. They cite examples of adults with plenty of opportunity and motivation to learn an L2, but who fail to accomplish native-like fluency. If these adults had had the same Universal Grammar parameters available to them that were available during L1 acquisition, they should logically have attained fluency equal to their L1. Instead, Inagaki and Long's research reveals that exposure to a language is not enough to initiate or even to facilitate learning. Their study investigates the role of negative feedback in SLA. According to the authors, negative feedback, which may be subtly or explicitly conveyed to the L2 learner, is efficiently delivered via recasts. An instructor, native speaker, or communication partner provides negative feedback via recasts by parroting what the learner has said, allowing the learner to notice any grammatical mistakes contained in his utterance. This "focus on form" (Inagaki & Long in Kanno 1999) clearly portrays a more "general learning process … with which L2 learners construct grammars" (Epstein, Flynn, & Martohardjono 1996).

Whereas the no-access theory denies the availability of UG to the L2 learner, the partial-access theory hypothesizes that UG is involved in SLA to a certain extent (Epstein, Flynn, & Martohardjono 1996). According to Epstein et al, the parameters learned during L1 acquisition - as defined by the principles of Universal Grammar - are still available to the L2 learner. The types of L1 grammatical rules learned during childhood will, however, determine the types of L2 grammatical rules one can learn as an adult. The hypothesis effectively precludes the possibility of learning a language that utilizes different parameters. As Inagaki and Long's research supported the no-access theory, Iwashita's (in Kanno 1999) supports the partial-access theory. Iwashita's analysis of L2 input vs. comprehensible L2 output augments the partial-access theory. UG defines the L2 learner's parameters and subsequent comprehension of the L2 while the task of modifying his or her output via learner-instructor, or native-nonnative communication allows him to adapt his grammar to the parameters of the L2 in an attempt to achieve fluency.

Finally, Epstein et al proposes the full-access theory, of which they are strong proponents. According to this theory, L2 learners have at their disposal the same UG principles and parameters they had during the acquisition of their L1. Thus they are more ably equipped to learn a number of languages with a wide array of grammars. Epstein et al supports this theory with the comparison of Japanese child and adult L2 learners' "syntactic competence." In this study, the proficiency of both children and adults was measured by their comprehension of a variety of syntactical structures in sample L2 sentences. Surprisingly, "the percentage correct … was 59% for children and 60% for adults." These results indicate that both adult Japanese learners of an L2 and child Japanese learners of the same L2 had access to the same UG parameter for the grammatical rules presented as part of the sample sentences.

Whether or not Universal Grammar is involved in SLA is debatable; regardless of the degree to which it may be involved, not one of the above theories has all the answers. One commonly agreed upon point among researchers, however, is that input is critical for SLA (Gregg in Robinson 2001). Verbal or written, some type of stimulus is needed to either trigger the innate qualities of Universal Grammar, or initiate the generalized, nonlinguistic learning processes.

How this input is shaped and modified into L2 output is determined entirely by the individual. An L2 learner may not have UG available to them for SLA, but according to the three theories, the same learner did have UG available during L1 acquisition. The combination of the biological UG and the environment in which the learner learned his L1 affects every aspect of his communication. The development of intra- and interpersonal communication habits, personality traits, and dominant communication and listening styles all affect how he views the world as an adult, and how he approaches such tasks as learning an L2. Despite Inagaki and Long's dismissal of motivation and personality in SLA theory, these factors undoubtedly play a role in the process; they may not determine the actual acquisition of the L2, but they are certainly factors in the subsequent development of the L2. One's cultural, social, and familial relationships define personal identity, to varying extents, and self-talk is shaped by those environments. Self-talk - doubts, fears, anxieties, goals, irrational thoughts, preconceptions - is a strong determinant in the success of any task, including acquiring an L2.

In conclusion, while none of these theories is either right or wrong, all of them can be supplemented with additional learning aids. Inagaki & Long propose the negotiation of meaning as an ideal way to increase negative feedback and modified output. Additionally, visual aids and native speaker/nonnative speaker group interaction are also valuable L2 developers (Iwashita in Kanno 1999). As Gregg (in Robinson 2001) successfully states, "you learn Swahili not by reading about it, or by staring at a colour chart … but by actually hearing it or reading it." An L2 learner's task is to process the input, modify it internally, and produce coherent L2 utterances. The instructor, native speaker, or communication partner can help the L2 learner develop his or her understanding of the language by working with him, by using visual aids, and most importantly, by communicating with him. Communication is the key; it must be present for the L2 learner to have any hope of accomplishing his goal, and it is the end result of his L2 achievement. Communication, including SLA research, is a fascinating and technical field. However, whether one chooses to side with the Core-based partial-access or full-access theories, or the Broad-based no-access theory, or something entirely different, it is important not to forget one key element: the uniqueness and individuality of the L2 learner is the most crucial determining factor in his or her L2 accomplishments. Of the six billion people on the planet, perhaps we do all learn second languages the same way; or perhaps we don't. That is the mystery of human communication.

Bibliography

Blomberg, D., Curran, C., & Johnson, C. (2002) The 21st century a psychology of communication perspective. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Epstein, S.D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G. (1996) Second language acquisition: theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19 (4), 677-758.

Gregg, K. (2001) Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 152-180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inagaki, S. & Long, M. (1999) Implicit negative feedback. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 9-30). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Iwashita, N. (1999) Tasks and learners' output in nonnative-nonnative interaction. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 31-52). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Wakabayashi, S. (2003) Contributions of the study of Japanese as a second language to our general understanding of second language acquisition and the definition of second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 19 (1), 76-94.