There are no negative effects for children who are bilingual.

Their language development follows the

same pattern as that of monolingual children (Goodz, 1994). Children who develop proficiency in
using their native language to communicate, to gain information, to solve problems, and to think can
easily learn to use a second language in similar ways (Pérez & Torres-Guzmán, 1996, p. 96). Even
young children who are learning a second language bring all of the knowledge about language
learning they have acquired through developing their first language. For these children, then, second-
language acquisition is not a process of discovering what language is, but rather of discovering what
this language is

Two theories of language acquisition Learning theory. According to this theory, language is learned
from experience alone. Children acquire language based on general learning mechanisms that are
also involved in learning many other phenomena. These general learning mechanisms are crucially
driven by the ‘input’. Nativism. According to this theory, language cannot be learned from experience
alone. Specifically, the proponents of this approach argue that children do not receive enough
information in the input to learn the intricate rules of grammar. Children are only able to acquire
grammar because of innate grammatical knowledge.

4.3 A theory of acquisition We have been using the term ‘theory of acquisition’, as distinct from
‘theory of language’ (or ‘theory of grammar’). Chomsky, in various places (e.g. Chomsky 1965, 1981),
has described the theory of language as one which consists of a set of principles (or Universal
Grammar, UG) that underlie language: 64 EXPLANATION AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION What we
expect to find, then, is a highly structured theory of UG based on a number of fundamental principles
that sharply restrict the class of attainable grammars and narrowly constrain their form, but with
parameters that have to be fixed by experience. (Chomsky 1981: 4) A theory of language is affected
by language learning in that the grammar must be learnable, Le. be obtainable by listening to the
surrounding language. The child hears a certain pattern and ‘fixes a parameter’, i.e. it decides that
the language operates one way rather than another. This theory of language, however, does not deal
specifically with the possibility that the final grammar may result only after a series of stages of
acquisition. The above view sees acquisition as essentially ‘instantaneous’ (Chomsky 1975) in that the
child’s grammar is adult-like once the parameter is set. We use theory of acquisition as a set of
principles, distinct from those of UG, that account for the stages the child goes through to reach the
adult grammar. If there are only two stages, pre- and post-parameter setting, then the change is
virtually uninteresting. In such a case, the theory of learning is rather simple - fix the parameter. If
there is a series of stages (and data at this point suggest this to be true), then the theory of
acquisition will explain how each stage is structured and how it develops from the previous stage and
into the next one. Historically, Language Acquisition has concentrated on the theory of language,
while Child Language has concentrated on the theory of acquisition. The theory of acquisition will
have two distinct components. One will be the set of principles that lead to the construction of the
grammar, i.e. those that concern the child’s grammar or linguistic competence. These principles will
deal with how the child constructs a rule of grammar and changes it over time. The focus is on the
nature of the child’s rule system; it is concerned with competence factors. The second component
looks at the psychological processes the child uses in learning the language. These are what we shall
call performance factors. Performance factors enter into the child’s comprehension and production
of language. In comprehension, performance factors deal with how the child establishes meaning in
the language input, as well as with the cognitive restrictions that temporarily retard development. In
production, these factors describe the reasons why the child’s spoken language may not reflect its
linguistic competence. They also describe mechanisms the child may use to achieve the expression of
their comprehension. Much of the Child Language literature is on the specification of performance
factors in acquisition. Let us look at some examples of the kinds of principles that will be part of the
theory of acquisition, beginning with competence factors. I will present

2. Imitation and positive reinforcement Children learn by imitating and repeating what they hear. 
Positive reinforcement and corrections also play a major role in Language acquisition.  Children do
imitate adults.  Repetition of new words and phrases is a basic feature of children's speech.  This is
the behaviorist view popular in the 40's and 50's, but challenged, since imitation alone cannot
possibly account for all language acquisition. Con: 1)  Children often make grammatical mistakes that
they couldn't possibly have heard:  Cookies are gooder than bread.  Bill taked the toy.  We goed to
the store, Don't giggle me.       2) This hypothesis would not account for the many instances when
adults do not coach their children in language skills.  Positive reinforcement doesn't seem to speed
up the language acquisition process.  Children do not respond to or produce metalanguage until 3 or
4, after the main portion of the grammar has been mastered.  (Children don't comprehend
discussions about language structure.)  Story about Tyler, Kornei Chukovsky:  yabloka, tibloka)  3. The
final theory we will discuss involves the belief in the innateness of certain linguistic features. This
theory is connected with the writings of Noam Chomsky, although the theory has been around for
hundreds of years.  Children are born with an innate capacity for learning human language.  Humans
are destined to speak.  Children discover the grammar of their language based on their own inborn
grammar.  Certain aspects of language structure seem to be preordained by the cognitive structure
of the human mind. This accounts for certain very basic universal features of language structure:
every language has nouns/verbs, consonants and vowels. It is assumed that children are pre-
programmed, hard-wired, to acquire such things. (The "gavagai" experiment.)       Yet no one has
been able to explain how quickly and perfectly all children acquire their native language.  Every
language is extremely complex, full of subtle distinctions that speakers are not even aware of. 
Nevertheless, children master their native language in 5 or 6 years regardless of their other talents
and general intellectual ability.  Acquisition must certainly be more than mere imitation; it also
doesn't seem to depend on levels of general intelligence, since even a severely retarded child will
acquire a native language without special training.  Some innate feature of the mind must be
responsible for the universally rapid and natural acquisition of language by any young child exposed
to speech.       No one has been able to explain just what this mysterious language acquisition device,
or LAD, is.  Some language acquisition must certainly be due to simple repetition:  greetings, swear
words; much of it is not. A three year old child generally can recall and use a new word heard once
even months afterward.       Chomsky originally believes that the LAD is a series of syntactic
universals, structural properties univerally found in all languages.  These syntactic structures are
inborn.  Only the words are learned.  Allows us infinite creativity based on a limited number of
patterns.  Children thus generate sentences based on learned words and innate syntactic patterns. 
This is why children make grammatical mistakes that they could not be repeating.         And yet, so
far, no properties have been discovered that are truly universal in all languages.  It seems that the
syntactic structures differ from language to language and couldn't be innate.  All attempts to
construct a universal grammar that would underlie all structures in all languages have come to
failure, Chomsky's theory of transformational grammar being a case in point.          Today Chomsky
believes that the universal properties are constraints, rules that dictate what cannot be in any
language rather than structures which are universal. Some of these apparently universal constraints
include the observation that forms a question by reciting words backwards; the subject of a
subordinate clause never governs the verb in the main clause, etc.  It is assumed that something
about the structure of our brain causes languages to be somewhat limited in how they can differ
syntactically. This built in limitation aids the child in acquiring the language by narrowing down the
possible patterns to a few.        The problem with the theory of innateness, then, is not in deciding
whether the theory is correct, since the ability to learn language is certainly innate, but rather in
identifying just what the mysterious language acquisition device actually is, what constraints or
structural features are hard-wired in the mind.  The LAD must be something more than general
intelligence.  And yet there doesn't seem to be any structural property or set of properties found in
all languages that would allow us to identify any purely linguistic skill that is separate from human
intelligence.       Let's take up the subject of just how structured the input is in child learning
acquisition.  Chomsky maintains that children couldn't simply figure out language structure by
repetition and analogy because the language they hear is highly irregular.  He claims that language
spoken around the child extremenly fragmentary, random simplification of adult speech.  Speech
between adults is often fragmentary or even ungrammatical.  Such run on and incomplete sentences
must serve as clues to something already in the mind.        More recent studies show that language
spoken around child is not as

Following notions in behaviorist psychology, early proponents of CA assumed that language

acquisition essentially involves habit formation in a process of Stimulus – Response – Reinforcement
(S-R-R). Learners respond to the stimulus (linguistic input), and reinforcement strengthens (i.e.
habituates) the response; they imitate and repeat the language that they hear, and when they are
reinforced for that response, learning occurs. The implication is that “practice makes perfect.”
Another assumption of this theory is that there will be transfer in learning: in the case of SLA, this
means the transfer of elements acquired (or habituated) in L1 to the target L2. The transfer is called
positive (or facilitating) when the same structure is appropriate in both languages, as in the transfer
of a Spanish plural morpheme -s on nouns to English (e.g. lenguajes to languages). The transfer is
called negative (or interference) when the L1 structure is used inappropriately in the L2, as in the
additional transfer of Spanish plural -s to a modifier in number agreement with the noun: e.g.
lenguajes modernas to Moderns Languages (a translation which was printed at the top of a letter
that I received from South America), or greens beans (for ‘green beans,’ which I saw posted as a
vegetable option in a US cafeteria near the Mexican border).

Linguistic There have been two foci for the study of SLA from a linguistic perspective since 1960:
internal and external. The internal focus has been based primarily on the work of Noam Chomsky and
his followers. It sets the goal of study as accounting for speakers’ internalized, underlying knowledge
of language (linguistic competence), rather than the description of surface forms as in earlier
Structuralism. The external focus for the study of SLA has emphasized language use, including the
functions of language which are realized in learners’ production at different stages of development.
Internal focus The first linguistic framework with an internal focus is TransformationalGenerative
Grammar (Chomsky 1957, 1965). The appearance of this work revolutionized linguistic theory and
had a profound effect on the study of both first and second languages. Chomsky argued convincingly
that the behaviorist theory of language acquisition is wrong because it cannot explain the creative
aspects of our linguistic ability. He called attention to the “logical problem of language acquisition”
which we discussed earlier in this chapter, and claimed the necessity of assuming that children begin
with an innate capacity which is biologically endowed. These views have dominated most linguistic
perspectives on SLA to the present day. This framework was followed by the Principles and
Parameters Model and the Minimalist Program, also formulated by Chomsky. Specification of what
constitutes “innate capacity” in language acquisition has been revised to include more abstract
notions of general principles and constraints that are common to all human languages as part of
Universal Grammar. The Minimalist Program adds distinctions between lexical and Foundations of
Second Language Acquisition 25 functional category development, as well as more emphasis on the
acquisition of feature specification as a part of lexical knowledge.

Monitor Model One of the last of the early approaches to SLA which has an internal focus is the
Monitor Model, proposed by Stephen Krashen (1978). It explicitly and essentially adopts the notion
of a language acquisition device (or LAD), which is a metaphor Chomsky used for children’s innate
knowledge of language. Krashen’s approach is a collection of five hypotheses which constitute major
claims and assumptions about how the L2 code is acquired. Caution is required, however, that
Krashen’s model has frequently been criticized by researchers because many of its constructs (e.g.
what constitutes comprehensible input) and the claimed distinction between learning and acquisition
are vague and imprecise, and because several of its claims are impossible to verify (see McLaughlin
1987). The hypotheses forming the model are the following:

•Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. There is a distinction to be made between acquisition and

learning. Acquisition is subconscious, and involves the innate language acquisition device which
accounts for children’s L1. Learning is conscious and is exemplified by the L2 learning which takes
place in many classroom contexts. • Monitor Hypothesis. What is “learned” is available only as a
monitor, for purposes of editing or making changes in what has already been produced. •Natural
Order Hypothesis. We acquire the rules of language in a predictable order. •Input Hypothesis.
Language acquisition takes place because there is comprehensible input. If input is understood, and if
there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. •Affective Filter Hypothesis.
Input may not be processed if the affective filter is “up” (e.g. if conscious learning is taking place
and/or individuals are inhibited). In spite of being severelIn spite of being severely criticized by
researchers, Krashen’s model had a major influence on language teaching in the USA in the 1980s
and 1990s, including avoidance of the explicit teaching of grammar in many hundreds of classrooms.
The pendulum has since begun to swing back in the opposite direction, with formal grammar
teaching increasingly being introduced, especially with adults, who are able to benefit from (and may
even need) an explicit explanation of grammatical structure. The early period for linguistic study of
SLA which we have just reviewed ended with some issues in rather spirited debate among
proponents of different approaches, but there was widespread consensus on some important points.
These include: • What is being acquired in SLA is a “rule-governed” language system. Development of
L2 involves progression through a dynamic interlanguage system which differs from both L1 and L2 in
significant respects. The final state of L2 typically differs (more or less) from the native speakers’
system.

• How SLA takes place involves creative mental processes. Development of both L1 and L2 follows
generally predictable sequences, which suggests that L1 and L2 acquisition processes are similar in
significant ways. • Why some learners are more (or less) successful in SLA than others relates
primarily to the age of the learner. As we reach the 1980s in this survey, new proposals in
Chomskyan theoretical linguistics were about to have a major impact on the study of SLA, and
Universal Grammar was to become (and continues to be) the dominant approach with an internal
focus.

Universal Grammar (UG) continues the tradition which Chomsky introduced in his earlier work. Two
concepts in particular are still of central importance: (1) What needs to be accounted for in language
acquisition is linguistic competence, or speaker-hearers’ underlying knowledge of language. This is
distinguished from linguistic performance, or speaker-hearers’ actual use of language in specific
instances. (2) Such knowledge of language goes beyond what could be learned from the input people
receive. This is the logical problem of language learning, or the poverty-of-the stimulus argument.

Chomsky and his followers have claimed since the 1950s that the nature of speaker-hearers’
competence in their native language can be accounted for only by innate knowledge that the human
species is genetically endowed with. They argue that children (at least) come to the task of acquiring
a specific language already possessing general knowledge of what all languages have in common,
including constraints on how any natural language can be structured. This innate knowledge is in
what Chomsky calls the language faculty, which is “a component of the human mind, physically
represented in the brain and part of the biological endowment of the species” (Chomsky 2002:1).
What all languages have in common is Universal Grammar. If a language faculty indeed exists, it is a
potential solution to the “logical problem” because its existence would mean that children already
have a rich system of linguistic knowledge which they bring to the task of L1 learning. They wouldn’t
need to learn this underlying system, but only build upon it “on the basis of other inner resources
activated by a limited and fragmentary linguistic experience” (Chomsky 2002:8). In other words,
while children’s acquisition of the specific language that is spoken by their parents and others in their
social setting requires input in that language, the acquisition task is possible (and almost invariably
successful) because of children’s built-in capacity. One of the most important issues in a UG approach
to the study of SLA has been whether this innate resource is still available to individuals who are
acquiring additional languages beyond the age of early childhood. Until the late 1970s, followers of
this approach assumed that the language acquisition task involves children’s induction of a system of
rules for particular languages from the input they receive, guided by UG. How this could happen
remained quite mysterious. (Linguistic input goes into a “black box” in the mind, something happens,
and the grammatical system of a particular language comes out.) A major change in thinking about
the acquisition process occurred with Chomsky’s (1981) reconceptualization of UG in a Principles and
Parameters framework (often called the Government and Binding [GB] model), and with his
subsequent introduction of the Minimalist Program (1995).

Principles and Parameters Since around 1980, the construct called Universal Grammar has been
conceptualized as a set of principles which are properties of all languages in the world. Some of these
principles contain parameters, or points where there is a limited choice of settings depending on
which specific language is involved. Because knowledge of principles and parameters is postulated to
be innate, children are assumed to be able to interpret and unconsciously analyze the input they
receive and construct the appropriate L1 grammar. This analysis and construction is considered to be
strictly constrained and channeled by UG, which explains why L1 acquisition for children is relatively
rapid and always successful; children never violate core principles nor do they select parametric
values outside of the channel imposed by UG, even though there might be other logical possibilities.

Monitor Model One of the last of the early approaches to SLA which has an internal focus is the
Monitor Model, proposed by Stephen Krashen (1978). It explicitly and essentially adopts the notion
of a language acquisition device (or LAD), which is a metaphor Chomsky used for children’s innate
knowledge of language. Krashen’s approach is a collection of five hypotheses which constitute major
claims and assumptions about how the L2 code is acquired. Caution is required, however, that
Krashen’s model has frequently been criticized by researchers because many of its constructs (e.g.
what constitutes comprehensible input) and the claimed distinction between learning and acquisition
are vague and imprecise, and because several of its claims are impossible to verify (see McLaughlin
1987). The hypotheses forming the model are the following: •Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. There
is a distinction to be made between acquisition and learning. Acquisition is subconscious, and
involves the innate language acquisition device which accounts for children’s L1. Learning is
conscious and is exemplified by the L2 learning which takes place in many classroom contexts. •
Monitor Hypothesis. What is “learned” is available only as a monitor, for purposes of editing or
making changes in what has already been produced. •Natural Order Hypothesis. We acquire the
rules of language in a predictable order. •Input Hypothesis. Language acquisition takes place because
there is comprehensible input. If input is understood, and if there is enough of it, the necessary
grammar is automatically provided. •Affective Filter Hypothesis. Input may not be processed if the
affective filter is “up” (e.g. if conscious learning is taking place and/or individuals are inhibited). In
spite of being severely criticized by researchers, Krashen’s modelhad a major influence on language
teaching in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s, including avoidance of the explicit teaching of grammar
in many hundreds of classrooms. The pendulum has since begun to swing back in the opposite
direction, with formal grammar teaching increasingly being introduced, especially with adults, who
are able to benefit from (and may even need) an explicit explanation of grammatical structure. The
early period for linguistic study of SLA which we have just reviewed ended with some issues in rather
spirited debate among proponents of different approaches, but there was widespread consensus on
some important points. These include: • What is being acquired in SLA is a “rule-governed” language
system. Development of L2 involves progression through a dynamic interlanguage system which
differs from both L1 and L2 in significant respects. The final state of L2 typically differs (more or less)
from the native speakers’ system. • How SLA takes place involves creative mental processes.
Development of both L1 and L2 follows generally predictable sequences, which suggests that L1 and
L2 acquisition processes are similar in significant ways. • Why some learners are more (or less)
successful in SLA than others relates primarily to the age of the learner. As we reach the 1980s in this
survey, new proposals in Chomskyan theoretical linguistics were about to have a major impact on the
study of SLA, and Universal Grammar was to become (and continues to be) the dominant approach
with an internal focus. Universal Grammar (UG) continues the tradition which Chomsky introduced in
his earlier work. Two concepts in particular are still of central importance: (1) What needs to be
accounted for in language acquisition is linguistic competence, or speaker-hearers’ underlying
knowledge of language. This is distinguished from linguistic performance, or speaker-hearers’ actual
use of language in specific instances. (2) Such knowledge of language goes beyond what could be
learned from the input people receive. This is the logical problem of language learning, or the
poverty-of-the stimulus argument