Topic 2

General theories of foreign language learning and acquisition. The

concept of interlanguage. Error treatment.

Table of contents

0. INTRODUCTION
1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
1.1. From Behaviourism to Cognitivism
2. KEY ASPECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISTION
2.1. Interlanguage
2.2. Individuality of learners
3. THEORIES ON SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISTION
3.1. Acculturation Model
3.2. Accommodation Theory
3.3. The Discourse Theory
3.4. The Universal Hypothesis
3.5. The Monitor Model
3.6 The Output Hypothesis
4. TEACHING IMPLICATIONS
4.1. Innovation in teaching practices: envisaging theories
4.2. Attention to diversity: error treatment
4.3. ESA Model
5. CONCLUSION
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The topic under scrutiny is number 2 in the set, which is aim at the theoretical
analysis of second language acquisition.

Second language acquisition theories suggest that language is learned through

interaction and input, and that learners construct their own unique version of the
language, known as an interlanguage. Error treatment approaches vary, but
some propose that errors should be corrected to aid in the development of the
learner's interlanguage.

1
To carry out this dissertation, we will commence with a brief account on the
evolution of language learning theories during the 20 th century. Afterwards, we
will devote to tackle different key aspects of second language acquisition, such
as the role of the mother tongue, the notion of interlanguage or the individual
differences of each student; something which will make possible the
examination of different theories of second language acquisition. Having said
that, we will comment on the major teaching consequences of all the elements
hitherto treated in the EFL classroom, but also on how these can be
materialized in an effective teaching methodology. Finally, we will provide a
proper conclusion, as well as some references to bibliography.

The importance of this topic lies on the fact that, as stipulated in the current
legislation to regulate our educational system, students should achieve a series
of Objectives and Competences with concerns to foreign languages. Among
them, we may highlight Objective i) as well as Competence in Linguistic
Communication. On this account, it seems noteworthy that our students do not
only apprehend English grammar rules, but also to exploit them in effective
communicative extracts, observing language functions, language in use and
negotiation of meaning.

A relevant characteristic of contemporary second language acquisition is the

proliferation of a varied range of methods and approaches seeking to find the
most efficient way of learning and teaching practices. This methodological
richness would not have been possible without the theoretical advances in
Human and Social Sciences throughout the 20 th century, in which Linguistics,
Psychology, Anthropology or Sociology experienced a considerable upsurge. In
fact, their application to the domain of second language acquisition gave birth to
Applied Linguistics, which has attempted ever since to set the foundations for
an appropriate theoretical network in teaching a language other than the
learner’s mother tongue.

Certainly, according to Spada and Lightbown (2013), all breakthroughs in

Applied Linguistics regarded previous theories in learning in general and in
language learning in particular. Different scholars belonging to Human and
Social disciplines gained awareness on how language makes human

2
communication unique, and therefore began being preoccupied with how this
capability is acquired during human childhood. Hence, language learning was
the center of distinct theories and schools, starting with Behaviourism,
convinced that language was acquired by repetition and habit formation.

Behaviourism was soon questioned by Chomsky, who affirmed that this process
is subject to some cognitive patterns, leading to Cognitivism in language
learning. Chomsky justified his views by affirming that language acquisition is
innate in all human beings thanks to the Language Acquisition Device (“LAN”),
which stored the Universal Grammar and let children test hypotheses with
anything previously learnt. Consequently, he drew a distinguishing line between
competence, seen as the mere acquisition of language thanks to LAN; and
performance, the fact of producing utterances, something possible to the active
role of the learner in trying out hypotheses. Even though Chomsky’s Cognitive
affirmations were to be challenged soon, the truth is that Applied Linguistics
reckoned the importance of the active role of learners.

One of the most salient facets contemplated by Applied Linguistics with

concerns to the role of learners apiece relies on the role of the mother tongue:
even if the incidence of the first language was traditionally considered to be
crucial in second language acquisition processes, different investigations
demonstrated that its influence is minimal. In fact, these research works, such
as Dulay’s or Burt’s, embraced Chomsky’s cognitive theories and proved that
errors is second language acquisition could not be accounted from the first
language, but as a consequence of the internal development of the second
language. The fact that this interference was rather residual led Chomsky to
assert that this learning process is founded on cognitive routes which evolved
gradually by dint of exposure to input and feedback, for the creative role of the
learner was unquestionable. This phenomenon is referred to as interlanguage
(Cook, 2016), a recreative continuum whose evolution is subject to language in
use.

Therefore, distinct works in Applied Linguistics turned to judge errors as a

positive and necessary feature of second language acquisition process, to the
detriment of traditional views, which considered them as something negative

3
and to be avoide. Selinker affirms that these cognitive routes need the
commission of errors, and certainly the appropriate feedback, so that
interlanguage can progress and learners experience an improvement in their
second language skills and competences. This paved the way for many
polymaths to confirm how learner’s output was likewise noteworthy: if the
student does not practice language actively, the recurrence of such errors is
less prone to exist, therefore reducing the possibilities of feedback and the
subsequent transformation of interlanguage.

Apart from the role of interlanguage, error treatment and output in second
language acquisition, theorists did also observe some other aspects, such as
the individual differences of learners and their learning strategies (Cook, 2016).
On the one hand, the learning progress has been confirmed to be affected by
age, personality and motivation. On the other hand, language learners may
adopt deductive learning strategies, focused on internalized rules; or inductive
ones, based upon strategies and procedures. Following Mitchell (2019), all the
elements hereinabove facilitated the emergence of different theories of second
language acquisition, among which we will comment on the Acculturation
Model, the Accomodation Theory, the Discourse Theory, the Universal
Hypothesis, the Monitor Model and the Output Hypothesis.

Firstly, Ellis’ Acculturation Model emerges from the author’s affirmation that
acquisition of second languages is subject to a process of being adapted to a
new culture. A central premise of this theory is based on the learner’s control of
the language acquisition, in which exposure to cultural elements determines
motivation, and the exploitation of the code does not only regard the norm but
also cultural idiosyncrasies. In respect of English learning, Ellis’s contribution
implies not only learning grammar rules, but also the conscience of how certain
constructions may be adapted to each situation (e.g., avoiding the use of
imperative to rather utilize the structure “may…please” with unknown people).

Secondly, Giler’s Accommodation Theory derives from language in use in

multicultural communities. It operates within a socio-psychological framework
and its aim is to investigate how use of language reflects social attitudes in
interethnic communication: learners consciously accommodate or diverge with

4
standards of a dominant community. Such diversion may be depicted by
exploring English language avoiding ethnocentric attitudes: as English is
spoken in the five continents, instances of the language from all English-
speaking cultures should be approached.

Thirdly, the Discourse Theory, presented by Halliday, is hinged on Hyme’s

Communicative Competence. As language learning should be based upon real
communicative situations, not only should Grammar Competence (the code),
Sociolinguistic Competence (the effect of utterances) and Discursive
Competence (the combination of utterances) be considered, but also a series of
strategies allowing learners to conduct conversations, known as the Strategic
Competence. In view of learning and teaching of English, the Discourse Theory
highlights the significance of learners’ production of input and exposure of
output to ensure improvement in the language.

With concerns to the Universal Hypothesis, Ellis states that second language
acquisition is determined by certain linguistic universals. These are indeed
stored in interlanguage, and it is precisely the learner’s eagerness to master the
second language that motivates them to test hypotheses out. In the context of
learning English, this view is rather relevant as teachers should ensure that
students feel self-confident enough to probe into the language.

As for Krashen’s Monitor Model, this theory consists of five central hypotheses
and, related to them, a set of factors which affect second language acquisition.
These central hypotheses are the acquisition-learning hypothesis (where
learning terms are established), the natural order hypothesis (affirming that
grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order), the monitor
hypothesis (as leaners must reflect upon the code rules to monitor their learning
process), the input hypothesis (the result of input comprehension) and the
affective-filter hypothesis (controlling the input degree the learner comes into
contact with). Therefore, it confirms the noteworthiness of linguistic input and
self-monitoring in learning English.

Finally, Swain’s Output Hypothesis remarks the critical role of output in contrast
to an exclusive focus on input in other theories. According to this author, output

5
serves four primary functions in second language acquisition: fluency
enhancement, awareness of language learning gaps, opportunities to
experiment with language and feedback obtention. These notions make
possible for our students to detect any problem and, thus, we may push them to
modify the output.  

The application of the different theories hereinabove explained bring about

unquestionable teaching implications. The legislation in force (i.e., LOMLOE
3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree 65/22 (CSE) and 64/22 (Bachillerato)  Madrid;
LOMLOE 3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree 82/22 (CSE) and 83/22 (Bachillerato)
 CLM; LOMLOE 3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree 235/22 (CSE) and 251/22
(Bachillerato)  Murcia), stipulates that the practices of English should be
contribute to our students’ active participation in communicative instances, as
set by Halliday’s Discourse Theory or Swain’s Output Hypothesis. This
regulatory body does further encourage the utilization of innovative methods,
which may promote motivation thanks to for example Cooperative Learning or
Service Learning (both advocating collaboration in learning with tangible effects
on the community), as well as Whole Brain Teaching (activating the learner’s
both hemispheres to enhance concentration). 

Additionally, our current legislation does reflect how our teaching practices
should be individualized and preserve Attention to Diversity. For this purpose,
we should comment on treatment on errors again. As mentioned above, several
advances in Applied Linguistics concluded that errors are a positive source of
learners’ progress: Corder suggested a classification of common errors in
second language acquisition and assessed their seriousness, something which
paves the way to get rid of their undesirability. Selinker went beyond and
asserted that errors are indispensable for the development of Interlanguage
and, thus, to track the evolution of our students according to the curricular
objectives. It is precisely thanks to this perspective that we may adapt our
teaching practices to our pupils apiece and employ remedial treatment when
needed.

In fact, these remedial treatments are certainly grounded on errors committed

by our students, hence the significance of promoting output productions.

6
Remedial treatments must be prompted by two premier questions: when it must
be adopted (depending on our students’ degree of mismatch) and the nature of
the treatment to be used (either bringing the student’s standard up by means of
reinforcement activities; or bringing demands down, especially when there is
room for improvement in a group level).

Our educational laws also affirm that education should be encouraged from a
homogeneous perspective, hence the necessity of the relations brought about
by interdisciplinary connections. In this regard, the nature of the content of this
topic allows us to establish associations with other subjects such as Spanish
Language and French Language.

It is noteworthy to mention that the content of this topic deals with Competence
in Linguistic Communication since it revolves around how learners acquire a
second language and with Competence in Cultural Expression and Awareness,
because learning a language is also learning a culture.

With concerns to the best teaching method which may fulfil the objectives
above, the Engage-Study-Activate Model (Harmer, 2007) appears to be a
considerable option. Harmer created this model with the objective of keeping
foreign-language students emotionally involved in their learning process in three
main phases: Engage, which awakes the student’s attention and seeks their
participation; Study, which presents a series of linguistic tools to be used; and
Activate, which evokes the exploitation of such tools in real and meaningful
communicative interactions.

In conclusion, this essay has been aimed at the thorough insight of the
theoretical framework of second language acquisition. The ultimate objective of
Applied Linguistics has been to demonstrate that language learning is subject to
real and communicative use of language. Thanks to this communicative
approach, different theories have been presented with the purpose of ensuring
an appropriate learning-teaching process. Our premier target should be to let
our students communicate in English so that they can become both personally
and professionally realized, and to take advantage of any error committed by
them to reconduct our teaching practices to make such realizations possible. To
sum up, it is highly noteworthy for teachers of English to tackle different
7
beneficial aspects of all the methods which have characterized language
teaching to turn our students into active users of the language.

This dissection is foregrounded on a series of relevant and influential figures in

the fields of Linguistics and Teaching, namely:

- Cook, V. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. (5th Ed.).

New York: Routledge, 2016.
- Harmer, J. How to Teach English. Harlow: Pearson, 2007.
- Spada, N. and Lightbown, P.M. How Languages are Learned. (4th Ed.).
Oxford: O.U.P., 2013.
- Mitchell, R et al. Second Language Learning Theories. (4th Ed.). New
York: Routledge, 2019.

Of course, we have also consulted: LOMLOE 3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree

65/22 (CSE) and 64/22 (Bachillerato)  Madrid; LOMLOE 3/2020, RD
217/2022, Decree 82/22 (CSE) and 83/22 (Bachillerato)  CLM; LOMLOE
3/2020, RD 217/2022, Decree 235/22 (CSE) and 251/22 (Bachillerato) 
Murcia.

We will wrap up with the following wise words by Benjamin Franklin: Tell me
and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learnt.