International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236

Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

THEORIES AND MODELS OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA) AS

SPRINGBOARD IN TEACHING LINGUISTICS RELATED SUBJECTS

*LOUIE B. VILLANUEVA, PhD-Assistant Professor III Mariano Marcos State University-

College of Teacher Education Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines

BERT A. GAMIAO, PhD-Associate Professor IIIMariano Marcos State University-College

of Teacher Education Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines

REMELYN C. BAUTISTA, PhD-Associate Professor II Cagayan State University-College of

Teacher Education Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, Philippines

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses different theories and models of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) such as the Monitor Model, Inter language Theories, Universal Grammar Theory,
Cognitive Theories, Multidimensional Model, Acculturation /Pidginization Theory and
included the topic Discourse Analysis as means to examine language use to further
supplement the arguments made and orchestrated by the researchers. The above-
mentioned theories and models are therefore strongly suggested to be utilized by
English language teachers as springboard in the teaching of content and pedagogical
linguistics related subjects in the undergraduate and even in the graduate levels
because these models and theories play a vital role in capacitating the language skills
of students.

KEYWORDS: Second Language Acquisition (SLA), Linguistics, Universal Grammar

theory, Inter language theories, Multidimensional model

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, various views on second language teaching and learning

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 178

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

have sprouted and have been the focus of discussion in academic fora and
research. Especially notable is the major shift in perspective which is focused on
the development of a more empirical approach to the teaching and learning of a
second language (L2) (Nunan, 2010). Because of this, genuine explosion in the
number of data-based studies in the field has been remarkably noted. These
studies include new ways of addressing concerns and issues by looking critically
into the nature of the second language, that is, in this context, English; by
investigating closely the learners of English as a second language (ESL); and by
exploring significantly the learning process of second language acquisition(SLA).
Further, anyone specifically those that are coming from bilingual and
multilingual communities such as the Philippines experience the diversity and
dynamism of language. Whatever modifications and/or developments therein,
the teacher as well as the students in these classroom settings become a part of
the adjustment process. Thus, the knowledge and proficiency of both are
challenged.
With the number of issues and concerns confronting the educational
landscape particularly the teaching of ESL in the Philippines, this study is geared
towards the discussion as well as dissemination of the different models and
theories and language to further enrich their existence in the linguistics world.
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories were developed along the
lines of first language acquisition and second language learning. These theories
are used in the process of learning a language. In spite of this language
phenomenon, still a number of theories on second language acquisition were
formulated .Due to the limitations of these models, not all of them are
considered in this study. The said theories and models are presented in the
succeeding section.

RESEARCH METHODS
This study made-use of descriptive- qualitative research approach in order
to process the data and other pertinent information. This approach seeks to

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 179

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

describe, decode and otherwise come to terms with the meaning of certain more
or less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world. According to Kumar
(2011) and Villanueva and Gamiao (2022), descriptive-qualitative design
describes and decodes data in order to arrive at an intended meaning and result.
Hence, in this study, the researchers discussed the different models and
theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) with hopes of benefitting English
language teachers in their teaching pedagogies and their contents.

DISCUSSION OF THE THEORIES AND MODELS

of Second Language Acquisition

The following theories and models of SLA below are thoroughly explored
with the aim of utilizing it as a springboard in the teaching of linguistics related
disciplines.

Theories/Models of Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

Monitor model. Stephen Krashen's model is one of the most influential

and well-known theories of second language acquisition. In the late 1970s,
Krashen developed the Monitor Model, an overall theory of second language
acquisition, that had important implications for language teaching. It forwards
five central hypotheses:
The acquisition versus learning hypothesis. Acquisition is a subconscious
process, much like first language acquisition, while learning is a conscious process
resulting into knowing about language. Learning does not turn into acquisition

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 180

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

and it usually takes place in formal environments, while acquisition can take place
without learning in informal environments.
The monitor hypothesis. Learning has the function of monitoring and
editing the utterances produced through the acquisition process. The use of the
Monitor is affected by the amount of time that the second language learner has
at his/her disposal to think about the utterance he/she is about to produce, the
focus on form, and his/her knowledge of second language rules.
The natural order hypothesis. There is a natural order of acquisition of
second language rules. Some of them are early-acquired and some are late-
acquired. This order does not necessarily depend on simplicity of form while it
could be influenced by classroom instruction. Evidence for the Natural Order
Hypothesis was provided by a series of research studies investigating morpheme
acquisition orders.
The input hypothesis. According to Krashen, receiving comprehensible
input is the only way that can lead to the acquisition of a second language. If a
learner’s level in a second language is i, he/she can move to an i+1 level only by
being exposed to comprehensible input containing i+1.

The affective filter hypothesis. Comprehensible input will not be fully

utilized by the learners if there is a ‘mental block’, i.e. the affective filter that acts
as a barrier to the acquisition process.
Krashen's Monitor Theory is an example of a macro theory attempting to
cover most of the factors involved in second language acquisition: age,
personality traits, classroom instruction, innate mechanisms of language
acquisition, environmental influences, and input but not without limitations.
Despite its popularity, the Monitor Theory was criticized by theorists and
researchers mainly on the grounds of its definitionaladequacy.
Despite the various criticisms, Krashen's Monitor Theory of second
language acquisition had a great impact on the way second language learning was
viewed, especially with the occurrence of code switching as a language
phenomenon among teachers and students.
Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 181
 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

Interlanguage theories. The term inter language was first used by Selinker
and Douglas (1985) to describe the linguistic stage second language learners go
through during the process of mastering the target language. Since then, inter
language has become a major strand of SLA research and theory.
Learning a second language (L2) is a gradual process from the L1 towards
the L2. At every stage of learning learners have rules of grammar which are not
perfect yet, and they are not L1 rules (they are something between). In other
words, the learner creates a structured system of language at any stage in his
development. Each system is gradually revised and as it evolves, the rules
become more and more complex.

Whenever one acquires second or another language, one develops a

socalled inter language, which is developed by him/her as a system of rules and
applications that can either bear the properties and rules of first language and
properties of and rules of both first and second language, and can also not
possess features of neither.
According to Selinker and Douglas (1985), inter language is a temporary
grammar which is systematic and is composed of rules. These rules are the
product of five main cognitive processes. The first is overgeneralization. Some of
the rules of the inter language system may be the result of the overgeneralization
of specific rules and features of the target language. The second is transfer of
training. Some of the components of the inter language system may result from
transfer of specific elements via which the learner is taught the second language.
The third is strategies of second language learning. Some of the rules in the
learner's inter language may result from the application of language learning
strategies as a tendency on the part of the learners to reduce the TL (target
language) to a simpler system (Selinker and Douglas, 1985). The fourth is
strategies of second language communication. Inter language system rules may
also be the result of strategies employed by the learners in their attempt to
communicate with native speakers of the target language. The last is language

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 182

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

transfer. Some of the rules in the inter language system may be the result of
transfer from the learner’s first language.
Jean D’Souza (1977) thinks these five processes could be reduced to
three. According to him, there is no clear cut distinction between processes
three, four, and five. Overgeneralization could include strategies of second
language learning and

strategies of second language communication. Besides he pointed out that it is

not always possible to say with certainty whether a learner uses a particular form
because he thinks it is enough to communicate effectively or because he is using
a particular strategy. Therefore, she suggested transfer (from previous learning
experience and from errors due to interference); simplification and
overgeneralization of elements of the target language system and errors due to
learning strategies; and errors arising from teaching methods and materials
employed, and ‘teaching induced’ errors.
Selinker and Douglas (1985) in fact discusses in detail what he means by
strategy of second language learning and strategy of second language
communication. According to him learner strategies are culture bound to some
extent. He gives the example of chanting which is used as a learning device in
many traditional cultures. These strategies can be present in the conscious or
subconscious level. When a learner realizes that he has no linguistic competence
for handling a target language material he evolves some strategies to get through
the situation. Whatever strategies he uses considerably affect his surface
structure of sentences underlying his inter language utterances
(http://www.hmpenglishonline.com/interlanguage.htm).
This theory explains the reason why code switching happens in a bilingual
and multilingual classroom during the learning of a second language. It gives full
understanding of the occurrence of such language phenomenon thus, this theory
is utilized as well as discussed in this study.
Universal Grammar theory. This is based on Chomsky’s claim that there
are certain principles that form the basis on which knowledge of language
Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 183
 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

develops. These

principles are biologically determined and specialized for language learning

(Chomsky,1986).
Originally, the UG theory did not concern itself with second language
learning. It referred to the first language learner. Its principles though were
adopted by second language researchers and were applied in the field of second
language acquisition. UG was used in order to provide explanations for the
existence of developmental sequences in inter language and to support the view
of inter language as a natural language which is subject to the constraints of the
Universal Grammar. The use of UG for language transfer, fossilization and L2
pedagogy was also suggested. Evidence was provided that adults have some sort
of access to knowledge of UG, and this knowledge is used in the development of
foreign language competence (Bley-Vroman, Felix, &Ioup,1988).
A model very similar to Chomsky's Universal Grammar was proposed by
Felix (1985). The Competition Model consists of two subsystems: the Language-
Specific Cognitive System (LSC-system) and the Problem-Solving system (PSC-
system) and it is responsible for the differences in the learning processes
employed by children and adults. It is argued that the children’s learning process
is guided by the LSC-system, while adults employ the problem-solving module
which then enters into competition with the language-specific system. Even
though the LSC-system is governed by principles similar to the principles of the
Universal Grammar, the principles of the PSC-system are largely unknown.
Another UG based theory, the Creative Construction theory, was
suggested by Dulay and Burt (1974). According to this theory, children engaged in
second language

learning progressively reconstruct rules for the target language speech they hear
guided by universal innate mechanisms which lead them to construct certain
types of hypotheses about the system of the language they are acquiring until the
mismatch between what they are exposed to and what they actually produce is

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 184

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

resolved. Empirical evidence from comparing the errors produced by Spanish

children learning English with those produced by children learning English as their
mother-tongue shows that most of the syntax errors in English produced by the
Spanish children are of the same type of errors made by children learning English
natively. Also, finding Spanish and Chinese children acquiring English morphemes
in similar orders, Dulay and Burt conclude that it is the L2 system rather than the
L1 system that guides the acquisition process.
The effect of the mother-tongue in determining the magnitude of the
second language learning task is reflected in the model of the learning process
that Corder (1978) suggested. According to this model the learner begins his/her
learning task from a basic Universal Grammar (or built-in syllabus) which
gradually becomes more complex in response to the learner’s exposure to target
language data and the communicative needs he/she is faced with. This
elaboration or complexi fication process follows a constant sequence for all
learners of a particular second language, but the progress of any particular
learner is affected by the degree to which his/her knowledge of the target
language in the form of mother-tongue-like features facilitates his/her learning
process.
The Universal Grammar theories of second language acquisition were
generated in order to provide explanations for empirical evidence and they were
primarily

concerned with the internal mechanisms that lead to the acquisition of the
formal aspects of the target language and the similarities and differences
between acquiring a particular language as a first or a second language.
This theory elaborates the peculiar grammar of each language under
study. The three languages of the code switch utterances find justification in this
model.
Cognitive theories. These provide significant insights into language
research. Psychologists and psycholinguists view second language learning as the
acquisition of a complex cognitive skill. Some of the sub-skills involved in the
Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 185
 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

language learning process are applying grammatical rules, choosing the

appropriate vocabulary, following the pragmatic conventions governing the use
of a specific language. The language acquisition theories based on a cognitive
view of language development regard language acquisition as the gradual
automatization of skills through stages of restructuring and linking new
information to old knowledge. In other words, cognitivists maintain that language
sub-skills become automatic with practice. During this process of automatization,
the learner organizes and restructures new information that is acquired. Through
this process of restructuring the learner links new information to old information
and achieves increasing degrees of mastery in the second language. This gradual
mastering may follow a U-shaped curve sometimes indicating a decline in
performance as more complex internal representations replace less complex
ones followed by an increase again as skill becomes an expertise
(McLaughlin,1990).

From the cognitivist’s point of view language acquisition is dependent in

both content and developmental sequencing on prior cognitive abilities and
language is viewed as a function of more general nonlinguistic abilities (Berman,
1987).
However, the differences between the various cognitive models make it
impossible to construct a comprehensive cognitive theory of second language
acquisition. Furthermore, Schimdt (1992) disclosed that there is little theoretical
support from psychology on the common belief that the development of fluency
in a second language is almost exclusively a matter of the increasingly skillful
application of rules.
Moreover, evidence against the cognitivist theory is provided by Felix
(1981) who describes the general cognitive skills as useless for language
development. The only area in which cognitive development is related to
language development is vocabulary and meaning, since lexical items and
meaning relations are most readily related to a conceptual base.
An offshoot of the cognitive theory is the inter activist approach to second

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 186

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

language learning. The language processing model proposed by the inter activist
approach assumes an autonomous linguistic level of processing and contains a
general problem solver mechanism (GPS) that allows direct mappings between
underlying structure and surface forms, thus short-circuiting the grammatical
processor (Clahsen,1987).
The last two theories, the Multidimensional Model and the Acculturation/
Pidginization Theory, refer mainly to the acquisition of a second language by
adults in naturalistic environments.

Multidimensional model. In this model, the learner's stage of acquisition

of the target language is determined by two dimensions: the learner’s
developmental stage and the learner’s social-psychological orientation. The
developmental stage is defined by accuracy orders and developmental
sequences, but within a stage learners may differ because of their social-
psychological orientation, which is independent of developmental stage. Thus, a
segregatively oriented learner uses more restrictive simplification strategies than
an integratively oriented learner who uses elaborate simplification strategies. The
segregative learner is more likely to fossilize at that stage than is the integrative
learner who has a more positive attitude towards learning the target language
and a better chance of learning the target language well (Clahsen, Meisel,
&Pienemann,1983).
The Multidimensional Model has both explanatory and predictive power
in that it not only identifies stages of linguistic development but it also explains
why learners go through these developmental stages and it predicts when other
grammatical structures will be acquired (Ellis, 1994). Although the
Multidimensional Model has made important contributions to second language
acquisition research, there are some problems with the “falsify ability” of its
predictive framework, such as explaining how it is that learners learn whatever
they manage to produce despite the processing constraints. Furthermore, the
Multidimensional Model does not explain the process through which learners
obtain intake from input and how they use this intake to reconstruct internal

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 187

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

grammars. In this respect the Multidimensional Model is limited

Acculturation/Pidginization theory. According to Schumann (1978), SLA isjust

one aspect of acculturation and the degree to which a learner acculturates to the
target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second
language.
From this perspective, second language acquisition is greatly affected by
the degree of social and psychological distance between the learner and the
target-language culture. Social distance refers to the learner as a member of a
social group that is in contact with another social group whose members speak a
different language. Psychological distance results from a number of different
affective factors that concern the learner as an individual, such as language
shock, culture shock, culture stress, etc. If the social and/or psychological
distance is great then acculturation is impeded and the learner does not progress
beyond the early stages of language acquisition. As a result, his/her target
language will stay pidginized. Pidginization is characterized by simplifications and
reductions occurring in the learner’s inter language which lead to fossilization
when the learner’s inter language system does not progress in the direction of
the target language (McLaughlin, 1987).
Schumann’s theory received limited empirical support. One of the
criticisms that the acculturation theory received was that social factors are
assumed to have a direct impact on second language acquisition while they are
more likely to have an indirect one (Ellis, 1994). Also, pidginization is a group
phenomenon, while language acquisition is an individual phenomenon. Finally,
the acculturation model fails to explain how the social factors influence the
quality of contact the learners experience (Gitsaki,2005).

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 188

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

Discourse Analysis as aMeans to Examine

LanguageUse

Wiśniewski (2006) defined discourse analysis as a linguistic study

examining the use of language by its native population. Its major concern is
investigating language functions along with its forms, produced both orally and in
writing. Moreover, identification of linguistic qualities of various genres, vital for
their recognition and interpretation, together with cultural and social aspects
which support its comprehension, is the domain of discourse analysis. To put it in
another way, discourse analysis is the branch of applied linguistics which deals
with the examination of discourse attempts to find patterns in communicative
products as well as their correlation with the circumstances in which they occur,
which are not explainable at the grammatical level (Carter,1993).

The first modern linguist who commenced the study of relation of

sentences and coined the name discourse analysis, which afterwards denoted a
branch of applied linguistics, was Zellig Harris. Originally, however, it was not to
be treated as a separate branch of study - Harris proposed an extension of
grammatical examination which reminded of syntactic investigations. In addition,
Trappes-Lomax (2004) noted that discourse analysis is a result of not only
linguistic research, but also of researchers engaged in other fields of inquiry,
particularly sociology, psychology, anthropology and psychotherapy. In the 1960s
and 1970s, other scholars who are philosophers of language or those dealing with
pragmatics enormously influenced the development of this branch of study as
well. Among other contributors to this field are the Prague School of Linguists,
whose focus was on the organization of information in communicative products,
indicated the connection of grammar and discourse, along with text grammarians
(McCarthy,1991).
Moreover, Cook (1990) said that the range of inquiry of discourse analysis

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 189

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

not only covers linguistic issues, but also with other matters, such as enabling
computers to comprehend and produce intelligible texts, thus contributing to
progress in the study of Artificial Intelligence. Out of these investigations, a very
important concept of schemata emerged. It is defined as prior knowledge of
typical situations which enables people to understand the underlying meaning of
words in a given text. This mental framework is thought of to be shared by a
language community and to be activated by key words or context in order for
people to understand the message. To implement schemata to a computer,
however, is yet impossible.
According to McCarthy (1991), the examination of oral discourse is mainly
the domain of linguists who at first concentrated on the language used during
teacher - learner communication afterwards altering their sphere of interest to
more general issues. Since the examination of written language is easier to
conduct than the scrutiny of oral texts, in that more data is available in different
genres ,produced by people from

different backgrounds as well as with disparate purposes, it is more developed

and of interest not only to linguists but also to language teachers and literary
scholars. What is worth mentioning is the fact that in the analysis, scholars do not
evaluate the content in terms of literary qualities, or grammatical
appropriateness, but how readers can infer the message that the author intends
to convey.
It is obviously possible to find various types and classes of discourse
depending on their purpose. Written texts differ from one another not only in
genre and function, but also in their structure and form, which is of primary
importance to language teachers, since the knowledge of arrangement and
variety of writing influences readers' understanding, memory of messages
included in the discourse, as well as the speed of perception. Moreover, written
texts analysis provides teachers with systematic knowledge of the ways of
describing texts (Trappes-Lomax, 2004).
One of the major concerns of discourse analysis is the relation of

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 190

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

neighboring sentences and, in particular, factors attesting to the fact that a given
text is more than only the sum of its components. It is only with written language
analysis that certain features of communicative products started to be
satisfactorily described, despite the fact that they were present also in speech,
for instance, the use of that to refer to a previous phrase, or clause
(McCarthy,1991).
Links within discourse. Discourses are divided into two groups: formal
which refers to facts that are present in the analyzed text, and contextual which
refers to the outside world, the knowledge (or schemata) which is not included in
the communicative product itself (Cook, 1990).

By and large, five types of cohesive devices in discourse analysis are

distinguished: a) substitution; b) ellipsis; c) reference; d) conjunction; and e)
lexical cohesion.
Substitution is done in order to avoid repeating the same word several
times in one paragraph it is replaced, most often by one, do or so. So and do in all
its forms might also substitute whole phrases or clauses (e.g. Tom has created the
best web directory. I told you so long time ago.) The second type of cohesive
device is ellipsis which is very similar to substitution; however, it replaces a
phrase by a gap. In other words, it is the omission of a noun, a verb, or a clause
on the assumption that it is understood from the linguistic context. Reference is
the third type, pertaining to the use of words which do not have meanings of
their own, such as pronouns and articles. To infer their meaning, the reader has
to refer them to something else that appears in the text (Tom: How do you like
my new Mercedes Vito? - Marry: It is a nice van, which I'm also thinking of
buying.) The fourth is conjunction, which specifies the relationship between
clauses, or sentences. Most frequent relations of sentences are: addition (and,
moreover e.g. Moreover, the chocolate fountains are not just regular fountains,
they are more like rivers full of chocolate and sweets.), temporality (afterwards,
next e.g. He bought her perfume at a local perfume shop and afterwards moved
toward a jewelry store.) and causality (because,since).

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 191

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

The last type of cohesive device is lexical cohesion, which denotes links
between words which carry meaning: verbs, nouns, adjectives. Two types of
lexical cohesion are differentiated ,namely: reiteration and collocation
.Reiteration adopts various forms, particularly synonymy, repetition, hyponymy
or antony my. Collocation is the way in which certain words occur together,
which is why it is easy to make out what will follow the first item.
From this classification, it is clear that when people produce discourse
they focus not only on the correctness of a single sentence, but also on the
general outcome of their production. That is why the approach to teaching a
foreign language which concentrates on creating grammatically correct
sentences, yet does not pay sufficient attention to regularities on more global
level of discourse, might not be the best one (Cook, 1990; McCarthy, 1991;
Salkie,1995).
The aforementioned discussion explains the operations of texts. The
analysis of these texts provides an understanding of language use. Interestingly,
in considering all the surrounding texts to understand fully the utterances,
evidences of code switching in a bilingual or multilingual classroom can be
observed. These can be interpreted in many ways, and different meanings are
yielded. Hence, the subsequent part explains the intended meaning of texts
especially when there is an employment of more than one language in
anutterance.
These models and theories of SLA therefore play an imperative role in
language teaching specifically in bilingual and multilingual classes as language
teachers can utilize them and at the same time enrich their functions in honing
the language skills of learners. This is further corroborated by Bolos (2012) that
having the knowledge and familiarity of SLA theories can ensure that language
teachers are meeting the demands of their learners by engaging in professional
development and using research-based practices and strategies to help close the
achievement gap between peers.

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 192

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

CONCLUSIONS

This article discussed the different theories and models of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA)which could be utilized by English language teachers as premise
in their practices, learning strategies, and teacher strategies which will eventually
help them become more equipped and prepared to teach ESL not just in
Philippine context but in the whole world as well.

REFERENCES

Berman, R. (1987). Relating events in narrative: a cross linguistic developmental study.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bley-Vroman, R, Felix, S., &Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of universal

grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research (4),1-32.

Bolos, N. (2012). Successful strategies for teaching reading to middle grades

english language learners. Middle School Journal (3), 44(2), 14-20.
Carter, R. (1993). Psycholinguistic code switching in Iranian university classroom
context. Retrieved on November, 11, 2011 from
http://www.jltl.org/jltl/index.php/jltl/article/download/13/7.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T
Clahsen, H. (1987). The availability of universal grammar to adult and child
learners: a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second
Language Research, 2,93-119.

Clahsen, H, Meisel J., &Pienemann (1983). Developmental dynamics in L1 and L2

acquisition. Retrieved on December 11, 2011 from

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 193

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.201.7018&rep
=rep1& type=pdf.
Cook, G. (1990). Discourse. Oxford: OUP.
Cook, V. (1990). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.
Corder, S. (1978). Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues
and Approaches. Oxford: Newbury House.
Corder, S. (1978). The significance of learnersʹ errors. IRAL, 5, 161‐169.
Dulay,H.&Burt,M.(1974).Anewperspectiveonthecreativeconstructionprocessesin
child second language acquisition. Retrieved on December 5,2011from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14671770.1974.tb00507.x/ab
stract.
Ellis, R. ( 1994). The study of second language acquisision. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Felix, S. (1985). Cognition and language growth. Dordrecht: Foris.
Gitsaki, C. (2005). Second language acquisition theories: overview and evaluation.
Journal of Communication and International Studies, 4 (2), 89-98.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. New York:
Longman.
Kumar, R. (2011). “Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners.”
Sage Publications: 3rd Ed. Pp-334.Mc Carthy, M. (1991). Discourse
Analysis forLanguageTeachers. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Mc Laughlin, B. (1987). Fostering second language development in young
children: principles and practices. Retrieved on December 21, 2011 from
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/miscpubs/ncrcdsll/epr14.htm.
Nunan, D. (2010). Second language teaching and learning. Pasig City: Cengage
Learning Asia Pte Ltd.
Salkie, R. 1995. Text and Discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Schumann, J.
(1978). The pidginization process: a model for second language
acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 194

 International Journal of Advanced Research in ISSN: 2278-6236
Management and Social Sciences Impact Factor: 7.624

Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms: Underlying language fluency. New

York: CUP.
Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory.
Applied Linguistics 10, 209-241.
Trappes-Lomax, H. (2004) Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Villanueva, L. B. (2022). Biagni Lam-ang: An Ilokano Epic Analysis and Its
Implication to Ilokano Folk Literature and Philippine Educational
Development. Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology.
https://tianjindaxuexuebao.com/details.php?id=DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/RYXCN

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics, (5th ed.), Oxford:

B1ackwell.
Wisniewski, K. (2006). Discourse Analysis.
https://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/arkainc/613/Domain1/Discours
e_analysis

Vol. 11 | No. 6 |June 2022 www.garph.co.uk IJARMSS | 195