Sixth Edition

Reading, Writing, and

Learning in ESL
A Resource Book for Teaching
K-12 English Learners

Suzanne F. Peregoy
San Francisco State University

Owen F. Boyle
San Jose State University

with contributions by
Karen Cadiero-Kaplan
San Diego State University

PEARSON
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Vice President, Editor in Chief: Aurora Martinez Ramos Manufacturing Buyer: Megan Cochran
Editor: Erin Grelak Electronic Composition: Element LLC
Editorial Assistant: Michelle Hochberg Interior Design: Element LLC
Executive Marketing Manager: Krista Clark Photo Researcher: Annie Fuller
Senior Production Editor: Gregory Erb Cover Designer: Jennifer Hart
Editorial Production Service: Element LLC

Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this
textbook appear on the appropriate page within text.

Copyright© 2013, 2008, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Manufactured
in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be ob-
tained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmis~
sion in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain
permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc.,
Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458, or you may fax your request
to 201-236-3290.

Many of the designations by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trade-
marks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim,
the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Peregoy, Suzanne F.
Reading, writing, and learning in ESL : a resource book for teaching
K-12 English learners I Suzanne F. Peregoy, Owen F. Boyle; with
contributions by Karen Cadiero-Kaplan.- 6th ed.
p.cm.
ISBN 978-0-13-268515-3
1. English language-Study and teaching-Foreign speakers. I. Boyle,
Owen. II. Cadiero-Kaplan, Karen, 1958- III. Title.
PE1128.A2P393 2013
428.0071-dc23
2012013161

Photo Credits
p. 2: © Corbis Premium RF/Alamy; p. 3: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 38: © image100/Alamy; p. 76: Suzanne
Peregoy; p. 77: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 84: Annie Fuller; p. 104: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 116: Suzanne Peregoy;
p. 130: © kali9/iStockphoto.com; p. 139: © iofoto/Fotolia; p. 149: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 170: Monkey
Business Images/Shutterstock.com; p. 222: ©Bob Daemmrich/Alamy; p. 231: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 254:
©Sally and Richard GreenhilVAlamy; p. 271: Suzanne Pereogy; p. 294: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 314:Annie
Fuller; p. 319: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 347: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 368: ©Bob Daemmrich/Alamy; p. 388:
Suzanne Peregoy; p. 402: ©Ian Shaw/Alamy; p. 413: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 423: Suzanne Peregoy; p. 434:
Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com; p. 446: Suzanne Peregoy

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN: 10: 0-13-268515-9

PEARSON ISBN: 13: 978-0-13-268515-3
Contents

Enhancing Learning in the 21st Century Using Technology 31

A Guide to Internet Resources in Each Chapter 32
Summary 33
Additional Internet Resources 34
Suggestions for Further Reading 35
Activities 36

Language and Language Acquisition 38

Language Proficiency and Communicative Competence 40
Language Use in Social Context: A Classroom Conversation 41
Figurative Language 45
Bilingualism 46
Language Used for Academic Purposes 46
Contrasting Social and Academic Language 47
Characteristics of Academic Language 48
Language, Power, Social Standing, and Identity 51
Language as an Instrument and Symbol of Power 52
Language or Dialect? 52
Personal Identity and Ways of Speaking: The Case of Ebonies 56
Language Acquisition Theories 57
First Language Acquisition Theories 57
Second Language Acquisition Theories 61
Learner Language 66
Developmental Sequences in English Language Acquisition 68
Learning a Second Language in School 70
Social Context of the Language Learning Environment 70
Primary Language Development 73
Age and the Interplay of Sociocultural
and Psychological Factors 74
Teacher Expectations and Learner Errors 76
Summary 79
Additional Internet Resources 79
Suggestions for Further Reading 80
Activities 82
 Language Acquisition Theories

the same speaking are part and parcel of this sociocultural learning. As children, we are
ating the all socialized through language, and in the process we acquire it. Because the
her, may language we speak is so intricately interwoven with our early socialization to
help stu- family and community, it forms an important element of our personal identity,
:ll. our social identity, our racial identity, our ethnic identity, and even our ·national
identity. _
Significantly, one's first language is often referred to as th~~
People identify deeply with their mother tongue and with their family's ways
of speaking. For instance, if you denigrate my language, you attack my mother,
essayist, my father, my family, and my neighborhood. As children growing up, we be-
md lived come aware, sometimes painfully, of the social status of our ways of speaking.
broad to Yet, the home language remains an integral part of our identity and may be
lished an the only way to communicate with parents and grandparents. As a result, the
:referred home language is essential for communicating cultural values, family history,
me's Ian- and ethnic pride. Teachers can assist students by recognizing and honoring
their home languages and ways of speaking. Finally, it is essential to realize
that adding Standard English as a new language or dialect involves much more
than learning grammar, vocabulary, and syntax. It also requires the expansion
of one's personal, social, racial, and ethnic identity to make room for the new
language and all that it symbolizes and implies. Developing a bilingual, bicul-
tural identity is a dynamic, challenging, and sometimes painful process that
continues well into adulthood.

ragraphs
:pret this
, keeping Language Acquisition The
wer. This
y. In this section, we summarize basic language acquisition theories related to first
ariety of and second language development. Our purpose is to acquaint you with basic
te United theory and research that help teachers understand processes and problems in
nar, pro- English language development.Jt is important to note that neither first nor se<;;-
h, 1999; .gn~uage acquisition is yet fully understood. As a result, many controversies
;, 1998a, and disagreements prevail among experts. Therefore continued interdisciplinary
at of the research in p~~i§!i<:_s, ~~~Jin8.J:li~E.C:~1 and education is needed to better
nenwho understand processes of language acquisition and use. The issues are complex
draw on enough to keep many researchers busy for many decades to come!
;o~e call
suggests First Language Acquisition Theories
)rmation
.acle that Our favorite first language learner is our young granddaughter, Hope. When
ly ... the Hope visits us, we enjoy playing hide-and-seek, reading books to her, and just
elements listening to her talk. Recently, while playing a board game with Hope, Grandpa
Jmmum- pronounced the r in rabbit as a w, saying, "It's a wabbit!" Hope was tickled by
arity and this. She immediately grinned with knowing amusement and giggled, "Him don't
say it right!" At age 3, Hope was confident enough about her own knowledge of
nd com- phonology to point out the phonemic impropriety of an adult's pronunciation.
sense of At the same time, she remained oblivious to her own grammatical infelicities.
·ways of We didn't correct Hope's grammar because we knew that with time she would
 Chapter 2 tlill Language and Language Acquisition

outgrow that phase to become mature in her language use, and eventually she did.
Many parents and grandparents have similar stories to tell.
How do language acquisition theories explain observations such as these?
Three basic theories of first language acquisition have been put forward over the
years: behaviorist, innatist, and interactionist (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). We
/ now discuss each briefly.

r..,-:0.~'; Behaviorist Theory You are probably familiar with behaviorism as a major
, \:sr';'-J.9 learning theory emphasizing stimulus, response, and reinforcement as the basic
,\t}\1:~::\ ele_ments of learnin~. F?r language acquisition: behaviorists hypothesi~ed that
\\J "' children learned the1r first language through st1mulus, response, and remforce-
ment as well, postulating imitation and association as essential processes. For
example, to learn the word ball, the. child would first associate. the word JzgJ.L..

~~~~~l~~~~~~-~!~~i~~~~~t~;~~:~~*;-~~~~~f~s~~r;;
-liall,thereby··.reinforcing the cf111d's correct veroal responseTeliaviorists assumed
that-the child's mind was a tabula rasa, a blank slate awaiting the scripture of
experience.
~~~g_ co~_p£~_gJjmjt_g.tj9JLeD.<LEt::inforcement cannot ac.s;9~~!J~r
Qpical -~~~-~---~!t~~~-Il:(;~_s l~~~ ::ti~Il1_A()_Il::!.Y:3:Li!_E~~-~t~:_:vhich were clearly not
im1taiions of adult speech. Moreover, behaviorist theory does not explain how
any novel utterance is produc~_even those that are grammatiCally cor~
But mos'i:"utte~c~s we prod;ce in conversation or writing are in fact original.
That is, they are not pat phrases we have learned by hearing and repeating. In
addition, child language researchers noticed that parents typically reinforce
their children for the meaning of their utterances, not for grammatical cor-
rectness. These and other concerns were boldly pointed out as Noam Chom-
sky (1957) engaged in a heated debate with behaviorist B. F. Skinner (1957),
attacking behaviorist theory as inadequate to explain observations of child
language development.

Innatist Theory Chomsky was able to garner some strong arguments against
the behaviorist explanation of language acquisition, using examples from chil-
dren's developing grammars, such as our example from Hope. Skinner and
his behaviorist colleagues were experts in psychology, applying their theories
to verbal behavior. Chomsky, on the other hand, was a linguist with a genius
for analyzing syntax. In fact, his early work on syntax and transformational
grammar revolutionized the field of linguistics (Chomsky, 1957, 1959), Chom-
sky's explanations of grammatical rules and transformations became the sub-
ject of psychological research on language use in the interdisciplinary field of
psycholinguistics.
As Chomsky pondered the complex intricacies of children's development of
grammar, he concluded that language acquisition could only be accounted for by
an innate, biological language acquisition device (LAD) or system. Infants must
come into the world "prewired for linguistic analysis." Specifically, Chomsky
claimed that infants universally possess an innate "grammar template," or univer-
sal grammar, which will allow them to select the many grammatical rules of the
language they hear spoken around them, as they gradually construct the gra~mar
of their mother tongue.
 Language Acquisition Theories

lly she did. From the innatist perspective, children construct grammar thrgg_gh.a..pJD-:-___,
~
' '--
.cess~§i.s..J..e.s.ting. For example, a-c1ii.Tdmay-liypothe~~e-th~ rule that all k. ~ V_
1 as these? prllral nouns end with an -s. Therefore, when they come to a word such as child, f'W6 r~LtQ.
1
d/\

rd over the they form the plural as childs, or when they come to the word man, they say ""'"-.l

2006). We mans for the plural. Gradually, they will revise their QYl?.Qth~~is.J~Laf£:.Q.rrU!!.QQ.aj:_~
exceptions to thepl~Bl.r!!I~. Th.u8;"cflTiJ;~-u-creat~~;ntences by using rules rather
'illaii"l3y'mereTy.rep~ating messages they have heard, as assumed by behaviorists.
as a major This application of rules accounts for the generative nature of language. With
s the basic a finite set of rules, people can generate an infinite number of novel utterances.
esized that Chomsky's contribution to the study of child language was his new way of look-
. reinforce- ing at syntax. Researchers applied his methods to describing children's interim
cesses. For grammars at different ages and stages of language development. As a result, a
word ba]L. remarkable amount of information was generated about first language acquisi-
f(fp~';'d~~-e tion of English and other languages as diverse as Arabic, Cantonese, Japanese,
~ng Mohawk, and Spanish.
ts assumed (;hildren acquire grammatical rules, according to Chomsky, wi!_~}i_~!k help,
cripture of from theirparei'ils'orca"fegi'vers·~~BUT'as'Barvaro psychologist Howard Gardner
~~ view is "too dismissive of the ways that moth-
ccount for ers and others who bring up children help infants to acquire language" (p. 2 7).
cle;ar·not Gardner argues that "while the principles of grammar may indeed be acquired
cplain how with little help from parents or other caretakers, adults are needed to help
~ children build a rich vocabulary, master the rules of discourse, and distinguish
ct original. between culturally acceptable and unacceptable forms of expression." This inter-
peating. In est in the role of people in the social environment provides the focus of the next
v reinforce theoretical perspective on language acquisition-the interactionist perspective.
tatical cor- In response to Chomsky's emphasis on innate grammar mechanisms centered in
am Chom- the infant, interactionists have brought back an interest in the role of the social
ler (1957), environment and the influence of parents and caregivers on children's langu~
1s of child acquisition.

Interactionist Theory According to the interactionist positiOn, caregivers

:nts against play a critical role in adjusting language to facilitate the use of innate capacities
: from chil- for language acquisitiOn. I h1s v1ew contrasts sharply with the innatist perspective
kinner and that adapting language has little effect on a child's acquisition process. The inter-
~ir theories actionist view thus takes into consideration the importance of both nature and
th a genius nurture in the language acquisition process.
ormational Interactionists study the language mothers and other caregivers use when
59). Chom- caring for infants and young children, with special attention to modifications they
ne the sub- make during these social interactions to assist children in communication. One
ary field of strategy often observed between English-speaking, middle-class mothers and their
toddlers is conversational scaffolding (Ninio & Bruner, 1978), as illustrated in the
:lopment of following conversation:
mted for by
1fants must Child: Birthday cake Megan house.
',Chomsky Mom: We had birthday cake at Megan's house. What else did we do at
"or univer- Megan's house?
rules of the
1e grammar Child: Megan dolly.
Mom: Megan got a doll for her birthday, didn't she?
Chapter 2 1111 Language and Language Acquisition

In this conversation, the mother repeats the child's meaning using an ex-
panded form, thereby verifying her understanding of the child's words while
modeling adult usage. In addition, the mother assists or scaffolds the toddler's
participation in the conversation through prompting questions at the end of ea,ch
of her turns. In this way, scaffolding provides conversational assistance and fo-
cused linguistic input tuned to the child's own interests and language use at that
moment. By preschool age, this kind of scaffolded conversation is no longer nec-
essary. Whether scaffolding is actually necessary for language acquisition has not
been verified. In fact, ways in which infants and young children are spoken to
varies across cultures (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Eisenberg, 1984).
Nonetheless, caregivers generally facilitate children's vocabulary development,
their ability to use language appropriately in social situations, and their ability to
get things done through language.
Children's language develops over time, not within a single interaction. As
children develop language, they must construct the meanings of thousands of
words. Adult assistance in this process is illustrated in the following dialogues,
as British linguist M.A. K. Halliday and his wife (1984, 1994) interact with their
son, Nigel. This transcript captures Nigel's "ongoing construction" of the concept
of cats as it transpired over a period of eight months. In these dialogues, we wit-
ness Nigel's semantic development as he both contributes and receives informa-
tion to help him construct the concept cat.

Nigel at 2; 10; 22 (2 years; 10 months; 22 days)

Nigel: And you [that is, I] saw a cat in Chania Falls.
Mother: Yes, you saw a cat in Chania Falls.
Nigel: And you picked the cat up. Mummy, do cats like meat?
Mother: Yes, they do.
Nigel: Do cats like bones? Do cats like marrow?

Nigel at 3; 0; 26
Nigel: How do the eat's claws come out?
Father: They come out from inside its paws. Look, I'll show you.
Nigel: Does it go with its paws?
Father: Not if it's going along the ground.
Nigel: No if it's climbing a tree?
Father: Yes, if it's climbing a tree it does go with its claws.

Nigel at 3; 6; 14
Nigel: I wish I was a puppet so that I could go out into the snow in the
night. Do puppets like going out in the snow?
Father: I don't know. I don't think they mind.
Nigel: Do cats like going out in the snow?
Father: Cats don't like snow.
Nigel: Do they die? [He knows that some plants do.]
Father: No, they don't die; they just don't like it.
 Language Acquisition Theories
····································
ng an ex- Nigel: Why don't puppets mind snow?
,rds while Father: Well [hesitating] ... puppets aren't people.
: toddler's Nigel: Yes, but ... cats also aren't people.
1d of each
:e and fo- Father: No, but cats are alive; they go. Puppets don't go.
lSe at that Nigel: Puppets do go.
mger nec- Father: Yes, but you have to make them go, like trains.''
m has not
spoken to Halliday (1994) says, "Interpersonally, it [the dialogue] evolves into a dy-
rg, 1984). namic modeling of question, answer, challenge, contradiction, and the like that
elopment, is the essential component of the resources out of which all conversation is con-
·ability to structed" (p. 79). Most important, this is not talk for talk's sake but a serious
effort over time to build a concept through interaction between parent and child.
action. As As we saw with Nigel, interactions do not necessarily lead to immediate un-
usands of derstanding. Rudimentary understandings must be developed and refined over
dialogues, time, often through misunderstandings. For example, during salary negotiations
with their between hockey players and club owners, there was a lot of talk about "salary
1e concept caps." When a sportswriter's young son heard that the strike had been settled, he
:s, we wit- asked his father, "Will the players have to wear their salary caps now?" An expla-
; informa- nation followed. Children are constantly constructing meaning as they interact
with people and the world around them, and through these interactions, they
gradually sort out the nuances and multiple meanings of words and phrases. The
interactionist perspective acknowledges the important roles of both the child and
the social environment in the language acquisition process.

Summary of First Language Acquisition Theories Table 2.1 summarizes

the behaviorist, innatist, and interactionist perspectives on language acquisition
by comparing (1) the focus of linguistic analysis, (2) how each theory accounts for
the process of acquisition, (3) the role of the child, and (4) the role of the people in
the social environment. Of the three approaches, the behaviorist approach, which
places primary weight on children imitating what they have heard, has proven
least adequate for explaining observed facts in child language development. The
innatist view, in contrast, places primary weight on the child, and particularly on
innate, biological mechanisms to account for language acquisition. The interac-
tionist perspective, acknowledging both the child's role and that of caregivers in
the social environment, emphasizes the importance of social interactions aimed at
communication as the essential ingredient in language acquisition.

Second Language Acquisition Theories

Theories about how people learn to speak a second (or third or fourth) language
win the made use of information about first language acquisition. This information pro-
vided a natural resource for second language acquisition researchers, not only in
terms of theory, data collection, and data analysis, but also in terms of framing the
research questions themselves. One of the first questions was simply: Is a second

*Source: "Listening to Nigel: Conversations of a very small child," by M.A. K. Halliday, 1984,
Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney, Linguistics Department. Reprinted with permission of
author.
 Chapter 2 II Language and Language Acquisition

TABLE 2.1 Comparison of Behaviorist, lnnatist, and lnteractionist Theories

of Language Acquisition

Linguistic focus Verbal behaviors (not Child's syntax Conversations between

analyzed per se): words, child and caregiver; focus
utterances of child on caregiver speech
and people in social
environment

Process of Modeling, imitation, Hypothesis testing and Acquisition emerges from

acquisition practice, and selective creative construction communication; acts
reinforcement of of syntactic rules scaffolded by caregivers
correct form using LAD

Role of child Secondary role: imitator Primary role: equipped Important role in
and responder to with biological LAD, interaction, taking more
environmental shaping child plays major role control as language
in acquisition acquisition advances

Role of social Primary role: parental Minor role: language Important role in
environment modeling and used by others merely interaction, especially
reinforcement are triggers LAD in early years when
major factors promoting caregivers modify input
language acquisition and carry much of
conversational load

language acquired in the same way as the first? If so, what are the implications
for classroom instruction? Because first language acquisition is so successfully ac-
complished, should teachers replicate its conditions to promote second language
acquisition? If so, how? These questions are not fully answered yet but remain
pertinent today.
The study of second language acquisition has now emerged as a necessar-
ily interdisciplinary field involving anthropology, sociology, psychology, educa-
tion, and linguistics. As you can imagine, careful attention to social and cultural
conventions is essential in investigating how a second language is learned, given
the intimate connections between language and culture. In the following section,
we introduce you to second language acquisition theories explained from the
three perspectives examined for first language acquisition: behaviorist, innatist,
and interactionist. We will also discuss their implications for teaching.

Behaviorist Perspective in Second Language Acquisition Behaviorist theo-

ries of language acquisition have influenced second language teaching in a num-
ber of ways that persist today in many classrooms. One behaviorist language
teaching method popularized in the 1960s is the audiolingual method, in which
tape-recorded dialogues are presented for students to memorize, followed by
 Language Acquisition Theories
··································
pattern drills for practicing verb forms and sentence structures. Students are first
taught to listen and speak and then to read and write based on the assumption
that this is the natural sequence in first language acquisition. (This sequence has
been disputed, as you will see in Chapter 5.) For behaviorists, the processes in-
volved in second or foreign language learning consisted of imitation, repetition,
~d reinforcement of gram~i~~L~tru£.1:.!!!..~-~- Errors were t; be corrected irp.~
•een
diately to avoid forming bad h_a,.pi!§_!h~U:Y.Q_gJ.Q.Q~...<:!!!fis:g!tJ()_o.verc.omeJater. If
focus
youweretaught-witfi''diTsmethod, you may remember the drill-and-skill practice,
often carried out via audiotapes in a language laboratory. How well did this in-
struction work for you? When we ask our students this question in classes of 40
or so, only 1 or 2 report successful foreign language competence acquired through
the audiolingual approach.
s from
ts
ivers lnnatist Perspective in Second Language Acquisition Just as Chomsky's
theories inspired psycholinguists to record and describe the developing grammars
of young first language learners, they also influenced research on second language
acquisition. One such theory put forth to account for second language develop-
more ment was the creative construction theory (Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982). In
a large-scale study of Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking children learning
~s
English in school (Dulay & Burt, 1974), English language samples were collected
using a structured interview based on colorful cartoon pictures. Children were
asked questions about the pictures in ways that elicited the use of certain gram-
lily matical structures. Children's grammatical errors were then examined to deter-
I mine whether they could be attributed to influence from the first language or
nput whether they were similar to the types of errors young, native English-speaking
children make. Data analysis showed that some learner errors could be traced to
influence from the first language, Chinese or Spanish. ~e majority of
~rrors were similar to those 111ade by native English-sQea'kjQg xo~n~~
, acHuire~ t<;>!];~l:.· Based on" tlleSe results, ,!h.e authors proposed that
£DgU§.blai_!guage learn<:!~eatively construct the rules of the second language in
>lications .<1.!!!eEner similar to that observeamftrst language acquisition. Dulay and Burt
sfully ac- therefore concluded ~.£2!14-la~~--acqui~j~j.milar, though not identi-
language cal, to first language acquisition.
Lt remain Dulay and Burt (1974) also used their findings to refute the hypothesis that
learner errors will generally be predictable from a contrastive analysis of the learn-
necessar- er's mother tongue and the developing second language. Contrastive analysis is a
y, educa- procedure for comparing phonological, morphological, and syntactic rules of two
l cultural languages (the learner's mother tongue and his or her second language) to predict
.ed, given areas of difficulty in second language development. For example, Spanish creates
g section, the plural by adding an -sor-es ending to a noun (e.g., casa, casas; sociedad, socie-
from the dades). This rule is similar to English pluralization. Thus, by contrastive analysis,
, innatist, it would be predicted that plurals in English will not be difficult for native Spanish
speakers to learn. When the rules of two languages are quite different, contrastive
analysis predicts learner difficulty. For example, Cantonese has no plural marker;
1rist theo- instead plurality is conveyed by context. Thus, it would be predicted that Canton-
n anum- ese speakers would have difficulty forming plurals in English. Although predictions
language based on contrastive analysis sometimes held true in their data analysis, Dulay and
in which Burt found that most English language learner errors were best described as similar
lowed by to errors made by children acquiring English as a first language.
Chapter 2 IIIII Language and Language Acquisition

Krashen's Five Hypotheses Continuing in the innatist tradition, Stephen

Krashen (1982) developed a series of hypotheses about second language acquisi-
tion that have taken root in the field of second language teaching due to their
relevance to language education. Krashen's five hypotheses are (1) the acquisition!
learning hypothesis, (2) the monitor hypothesis, '(3) the natural order hypothesis,
(4) the input hypothesis, and (5) the affective filter hypothesis. Each of these is
discussed here.

The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis One of Krashen's first assertions was that

there is a distinct difference between acquiring and learning a second language.
Acquisition, Krashen asserts, is a natural language development process that
occurs when the target language is used in meaningful interactions with native
speakers, in a manner similar to first language acquisition-with no particular at-
tention to form. Language learning, in contrast, refers to the formal and conscious
study of language forms and functions as explicitly taught in foreign language
classrooms. Krashen claims (1) that learning cannot turn into acquisition and (2)
that it is only acquired language that is available for natural, fluent communica-
tion. Krashen's critics have pointed out that it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to detect which system-acquisition or learning-is at work in any
instance of language use (McLaughlin, 1987). Furthermore, the two terms require
much finer definition to be subjected to experimental study.

The Monitor Hypothesis Krashen proposes that the formal study of language
leads to the development of an internal grammar editor or monitor. As the student
produces sentences, the monitor "watches" the output to ensure correct usage.
For a student to use the monitor, three conditions are necessary: sufficient time,
focus on grammatical form, and explicit knowledge of the rules. Thus, it is easier
to use the monitor for writing than for speaking. Krashen maintains that knowing
the rules only helps learners polish their language. The true base of their language
knowledge is only that which has been acquired. From this assumption, he recom-
mends that the focus of language teaching should be communication, not rote rule
learning, placing him in agreement with many second language acquisition and
foreign language teaching experts (Celce-Murcia, 2001; Oller, 1993).

The Natural Order Hypothesis According to the natural order hypothesis, lan-
guage learners acquire (rather than learn) the rules of a language in a predict-
able sequence. That is, certain grammatical features, or morphemes, tend to be
acquired early, whereas others tend to be acquired late. A considerable number of
studies support the general existence of a natural order of acquisition of English
grammatical features by child and adult non-native English learners. However, in-
dividual variations exist, as do variations that may result from primary language
influence (Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Pica, 1994). We will return to this topic
subsequently when we discuss learner language and developmental sequences in
some detail.

The Input Hypothesis According to the input hypothesis, second language ac-
quisition is the direct result of learners' understanding the target language in natu-
ral communication situations. A key element of the input hypothesis is that the
input language must be (1) understandable (thus the term comprehensible input)
 Language Acquisition Theories

Stephen and (2) should contain grammatical structures that are just
acqmsl- a bit beyond the acquirer's current level of second language
to their development (abbreviated as i + 1, with i meaning input
1isition/ and + 1 indicating the challenging level that is a bit beyond
'othesis, the learner's current level of proficiency). Krashen suggests
these is that acquirers are able to understand this challenging level
of language input by using context, extralinguistic informa-
tion such as gestures and pictures, and general background
111as that knowledge. In other words, input can be made comprehen-
nguage. sible as a result of these extra cues. Moreover, acquisition is
O!SS that facilitated by a focus on communication and not grammati-
1 native cal form.
:ular at- In short, according to Krashen, language is acquired (not learned) by under-
mscious standing input that contains linguistic structures that are just beyond the acquirer's
mguage current level of competence (i + 1). Speech is not taught directly but emerges on its
and (2) own. Early speech is typically not grammatically accurate. If input is understood
mumca- and there is enough of it, i + 1 is automatically provided. According to Krashen,
lt, if not we do not have to deliberately program grammatical structures into the input.
c in any Although Krashen's theory is particularly concerned with the grammatical struc-
:require tures contained in the input, vocabulary is also an important element in i + 1.
Krashen emphasizes free-choice reading on topics of interest to students as an
excellent way to acquire both vocabulary and other aspects of language.
anguage
student The Affective Filter Hypothesis Krashen's fifth hypothesis addresses affective or
:t usage. social-emotional variables related to second language acquisition. Citing a variety
:nt time,. of studies, Krashen concludes that the most important affective variables favoring
is easier second language acquisition are a low-anxiety learning environment, student mo-
mowing tivation to learn the language, self-confidence, and self-esteem. Krashen summa-
anguage rizes the five hypotheses in a single claim: "People acquire second languages when
~ recom- they obtain comprehensible input and when their affective filters are low enough
rote rule to allow the input in [to the language acquisition device]" (1981a, p. 62). For
:ion and Krashen, then, comprehensible input is the causative variable in second language
acquisition. In other words, hearing and understanding spoken language is the es-
sential ingredient in second language acquisition. For this reason, Krashen urges
~sis,Ian- teachers not to force production, but rather to allow students a silent period
predict- during which they can acquire some language knowledge by listening and under-
1d to be standing, as opposed to learning it through meaningless rote drills.
tmber of In summary, Krashen's second language acquisition theories have been influ-
:English ential in promoting language teaching practices that (1) focus on communication,
rever, m- not grammatical form; (2) allow students a silent period, rather than forcing im-
anguage mediate speech production; and (3) create a low-anxiety environment. His notion
1is topic of comprehensible input provides a theoretical cornerstone for sheltered instruc-
tences m tion, also known as specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE),
described in Chapter 3. These practices have benefited students in many ways.
More questionable theoretically, however, are his acquisition/learning distinction
uage ac- and the notion that comprehensible input alone accounts for language acquisition.
: in natu- The importance of output-that is, speaking and writing-cannot be ignored in
that the a balanced view of language acquisition (Swain, 1985). Finally, evidence indi-
le input) cates that some grammatical forms may not develop without explicit instruction
Chapter 2 II Language and Language Acquisition

(Harley, Allen, Cummins, & Swain, 1990). See also Krashen's own writing on the
topic: www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html.

Interactionist Perspective in Second Language Acquisition The idea that

comprehensible input is necessary for second language acquisition also forms a
basic tenet of the interactionist position. However, interactionists view the com-
municative give and take of natural conversations between native and non-native
speakers as the crucial element of the language acquisition process (Long & Porter,
1985). They focus on the ways in which native speakers modify their speech to
try to make themselves understood by English-learning conversational partners.
Interactionists are also interested in how non-native speakers use their budding
knowledge of the new language to get their ideas across and to achieve their com-
municative goals. This trial-and-error process of give-and-take in communication
is referred to as th,e negotiation of meaning. As meaning is negotiated, non-native
speakers are actually able to exert some control over the communication process
during conversations, thereby causing their partners to provide input that is more
comprehensible. They do this by asking for repetitions or otherwise showing con-
fusion. The listener may then respond by paraphrasing or by using additional cues
to convey meaning, such as gesturing or drawing.
In addition to the importance placed on social interaction, some research-
ers have looked more closely at the speech produced by English language learners
(i.e., output) as an important variable in the overall language acquisition process
(Swain, 1985). A second language learner's output facilitates acquisition in at
least two ways. First, it can serve to elicit requests for clarification, thus requiring
repetition or paraphrasing that is more understandable. In addition, as learners
speak or write in the new language, they have to actively select the grammar,
vocabulary, and linguistic style that will best express their ideas. As a result, pro-
ducing output requires them to process the language more deeply than they do
for comprehension. For these reasons, learner output plays an important role in
second language acquisition alongside ~ehensii)femput.'

Summary of Second Language Acquisition Theories Behaviorist, innatist,

and interactionist views of second language development have influenced teaching
methods over the span of several decades. In today's classrooms, you will see teach-
ing strategies that can be traced to each one. Currently, the most influential theories
stem from the innatist tradition, with heavy influence of Krashen theories, and the
interactionist tradition. The three theoretical perspectives on second language ac-
quisition bear certain implications for instruction, as outlined in Table 2.2. As you
read the table, you will see how the three theoretical perspectives compare in terms
of the source and nature of linguistic input to learners, ideal classroom composition
vis-a-vis native speakers and second language learners, student output, pressure to
speak or produce output, and treatment of learner errors.

Learner Language
Over the years, researchers have analyzed the speech of people in various stages
of second language acquisition across different primary and second language
combinations (e.g., Swedish speakers learning Finnish, English speakers learn-
ing French, and Japanese speakers learning English, to name just a few). Results
 Language Acquisition Theories

ing on the TABLE 2.2 Instructional Implications of Second Language Acquisition Theories

~idea that
:o forms a Language dialogues Natural language Natural language from the
Source of
r the com- linguistic input and drills from from the teacher, teacher, friends, or books
lou-native teacher or audiotape friends, or books
~ & Porter, ················ ................................................................................... .
speech to Nature of input Structured by Unstructured, but Unstructured, but focused
1 partners. grammatical made comprehensible on communication between
.r budding complexity by teacher learner and others
their com- ·········· ......................................................................................... .
mnication Ideal classroom All target language Target language Native speakers together
1on-native composition learners of similar learners of similar with target language learners
Jn process second language second language for social interaction aimed
tat is more proficiency proficiency so at communication
1wing con- i + 1 can be achieved
:ional cues
Student output Structured Output is not a Speaking occurs naturally in
: research- repetitions and concern; it will occur communication with others
~e learners grammar pattern naturally
Jn process drill responses
ition in at
; requiring Pressure to Students repeat "Silent period" No pressure to speak
ts learners speak immediately expected except natural impulse
grammar, to communicate
esult, pro-
m they do Treatment of Errors are corrected Errors are not Errors that impede
mt role in errors immediately corrected; students communication will be
will correct corrected naturally as
themselves with time meaning is negotiated; some
t, innatist, errors may require explicit
d teaching corrective instruction
l see teach-
_al theories
es, and the
1guage ac-
:.2. As you haye ~hQ~fL!!:at second language learners develop interim linguistic systems, or
rein terms (fnterla~~~~ge_;)~3.!!.!~~i~!~ th~kQ~!:?c-~Y()Jy:!gg_~l1Lt!.~fl-I!~Lp_a t~E_g_s (Selinker, 19 72).
,mposition l\:stllese ruleS and patterns evolve over time, learner systems gradually resemble
)ressure to more closely those of the target language. Interlanguages are therefore systematic
in that they exhibit identifiable rules and patterns; and dynamic, in that they
gradually grow over time to look more like the target language (Lightbown &
Spada, 2006). Interestingly, some learners may reach a final plateau in second lan-
guage development without achieving native-like fluency, a phenomenon referred
ous stages to as fossilization (Selinker, 1972). When fossilized forms become the norm
. language among a social group, and as these forms are passed on to the next generation,
~ers learn- they become part of a new language variant in-the-making. Fossilization therefore
v). Results plays a role in language evolution and change.
 Chapter 2 l!lll Language and Language Acquisition

If you were to analyze an EL's speech at the beginning, middle, and end of the
school year, for example, you would be able to identify three interlanguage systems
and examine how they developed over time toward more conventional English.
Analysis of second learners' interlanguage systems suggests influences (1) from the
learner's primary language (and other previously learned languages) and (2) from
features of English itself that pose problems in both first language and second
language development, such as function words (e.g., to, for, by, a, the) and certain
grammatical morphemes such as possessive-'s and verb endings -ing, -ed, and -s.
These influences are precisely what Dulay and Burt (1974) found in the study we
described earlier of Chinese and Spanish speakers learning English. Subsequent
research has confirmed that English language learners exhibit similar develop-
mental sequences regardless of their primary language, and that these sequences
tend to be similar to those observed among children acquiring English as a first
language. At the same time, a number of interlanguage features can indeed be
traced to primary language influence.

Developmental Sequences in English Language Acquisition

Familiarity with sequences in English language acquisition can help you estimate
your students' level of development, which in turn can help you determine realistic
goals for language instruction. Researchers have studied developmental sequences
in English language acquisition in terms of grammatical morphemes, syntax,
vocabulary, pragmatics, and phonology (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, Chapter 4).
To illustrate some of these developmental sequences, we will narrow our discus-
sion to (1) a select group of morphemes, (2) negation, and (3) question forma-
tion. Figure 2.3 shows a developmental sequence for certain English morphemes
as identified by Krashen (1977). In terms of verb forms, the -ing progressive is
generally the earliest form acquired. Thus, in the early stages of English language
acquisition, you may find students using the progressive as an all-purpose verb
form. Irregular past tense forms come next (e.g., ate, went, saw, came), followed
by the regular past tense -ed ending (e.g., work!l.d., play!l.d., lifted). Finally, they
learn to form the past tense using the regular rule (i.e., by adding -ed to the
verb). Now they can take any verb and generate its past form using the rule. At
this point learners typically overapply the rule, often, for example, saying eated
instead of ate, even though they used ate previously. Gradually they learn to sepa-
rate the irregular from the regular past tense forms. This sequence is similar to the
one you will find in first language acquisition.
Negation in English presents an interesting
FIGURE 2.3 Acquisition of English Morphemes problem to learners because it requires the addi-
tion of a negating word along with an auxiliary
verb such as do, can, and will conjugated accord-
English morphemes acquired early: ing to person, number, and tense. For example, to
-ing: Verb ending John is going to work. negate "He wants to go to school," you would say,
-/s/: Plural Two cats are fighting. "He doesn't want to go to school." It's not that
English morphemes acquired late:
easy! The developmental stages of negation in
English as a second language are summarized in
-/s/: Possessive We saw Jane's house.
Table 2.3. These stages are similar to those found
-/s/: Third person singular Roy rides Trigger.
in first language acquisition.
 Language Acquisition Theories

TABLE 2.3 Developmental Stages for Negation

nd of the
~systems

English. No, not placed before item negated, often as first word No want that.
from the utterance. Not good for play soccer.
(2) from ···································· .................................................................. .
:1 second Don't emerges, but not marked for person, number, or tense; I don't can say it right.
2
d certain don't may be used before modals such as can and should. He don't know.
i, and -s. ········································· ............................................................. .
;;tudy we
3 Negating word placed after auxiliary verbs such as can, is, are, We can not find it.
bsequent don't, but not yet fully analyzed for person, number, or tense. They was not nice.
develop- ················ ...................................................................................... .
equences
4 Do is used correctly most of the time. My teacher doesn't want that.
as a first We didn't went to the show.
Sometimes both the auxiliary and the verb are marked for
1deed be person, number, or tense.

Source: Based on Lightbown and Spada (2006).

sition
estimate
Question forms present another interesting and complex problem for English
:realistic
learners. Words such as who, what, how, when, and where often start a question
equences
(wh-fronting), but must be followed by the inversion of subject and verb, such as
, syntax,
"Where are you going?" Other question forms require the verb do at the begin-
apter 4).
ning (do-fronting). For example the statement "She wants to go with me" be-
r discus-
comes "Does she want to go with me?" as a question. In the earliest stages, learn-
1 forma-
ers rely on rising intonation with a single word or with a sentence in declarative
rphemes
word order. Next, learners use do and question words at the beginning of their
:ess1ve 1s
questions, but without subject-verb inversion. Gradually, they begin to use con-
:.anguage
ventional word order, and finally they are able to use complex questions such as
ose verb
tag questions, negative questions, and embedded questions. Table 2.4 summarizes
followed
these stages with corresponding examples. As with negation, the developmental
tlly, they
sequence is general with individual variations possible. In addition, the sequence
d to the
is similar for both first and second language learners.
:rule. At
If you are a native English speaker, you use the rules for past tense, negation,
ng eated
and question formation as well as hundreds of other linguistic rules without even
to sepa-
thinking about it. Most of us cannot even state the rules we use! As the examples
ar to the
show, however, sorting out these complexities is a gradual process with many
chaU~nges ..................... ···-«-....... _______,, ... ·-·-··-------···· ..... ---~~--·· -~ · -~·h··~·-~·-····
teresting
he addi-
·--lin summary, researchers have identified general developmental sequences
many features of English. We discussed negation, question formation, and a \
1
mxiliary
small group of morphemes to illustrate specific interlanguage patterns you might 1
. accord-
find at different stages of English language development. It's important to note \
mple, to
that learners do not necessarily exhibit the same developmental stage for different \
ould say,
grammatical features. For example, a student might be more advanced in negation '\.
not that
than in question forms. Furthermore, students will vary in the amount of time it
ation in
takes to move from one sequence to the next. Nonetheless, as you begin to look \
uized in
at "errors" as a natural£art of language development, and as you begin to discern i
se found
. which errors are typical at diffemudevefopmeniil sta£,es: Y9u-wi:In,-e-bett~r able \
-------·-----··-·--~-'"-~'~.,~ . ·-y··----~-·-~-------·-· ·- ~-~--- !"'-----.....
to plan instruction to faciht::~,!~your stuaents' English language
-.-:·:::::: ;-;>::"''_._. •• -~·-·~'"'-"''W'''M' ,_,,~•. ,,_.__,~_._. ..
' ' ..' •
development.)
'~,,v '•'•"~~. "··-·"o,~f--~ ,,,.,,,..,..,..,_~~---~--~>-.·•....-~·~- --~_- -.,..-~·~ ~-~~~-~·-·:.:.-----.l