Second Language Acquisition Theories and Teaching Practice: How Do They Fit? Author(s): Renate A.

Schulz Reviewed work(s): Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 17-26 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329831 . Accessed: 21/02/2012 21:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

RENATE A. SCHULZ DepartmentGerman of University ofArizona AZ Tucson, 85721

Second Language AcquisitionTheories and TeachingPractice:How Do They Fit?

- then a college senior- was diagnosed as suffromAttention DeficitDisorder, a learnfering ing disability characterized, in her case, by shortattentionspan, easy distractability, poor motor coordination, poor handwriting, and inconsistent spelling.' Results ofthe WoodcockJohnson Psycho-Educational Batteryindicated above average verbal abilityand reading aptitude, but a severe deficitin visual perceptual speed, and below average scores in math and writtenlanguage aptitude. All other abilities tested, such as broad cognitiveability,reasoning, memory, and knowledge aptitude, were well within the average ranges. You may wonder about the relevance of my daughter'slearningdisabilityto the topic ofthis paper. Of interestis that, as a result of that learning disabilitydiagnosis, my daughter received a waiver for requirements in mathematics and foreign languages. Still more interestingis, however, that my daughter-whose psychological test profile indicates apparently little talent for learning a foreign language--is functionallytrilingual. She has native fluency English, ratesprobably a "terin minal two" on the ILR Scale in German, and about a 1 + in Spanish.2 When she was diagnosed as lackingforeign language learningaptitude, she had already fulfilledher language requirement and was enrolled in a third-year Spanish composition course - with which she did, however, have major problems. A superficial examination of the facts reported may lead one to doubt the construct and predictive validities of the psychological tests used to determine learning disabilities. How, after all, can an individual who has
TheModern 75, Language Journal, i (1991) 0026-7902/91/0001/017 $1.50/0 ?1991 TheModern LanguageJournal

AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-TWO, MY DAUGHTER

acquired a functionalproficiencyin two nonprimarylanguages be suddenly considered as lacking in foreignlanguage learning aptitude? A closer look at my daughter'ssecond language learninghistory may provide some explanation for the apparent inconsistency. My daughteracquired German as a "mother tongue." That is, the language spoken to her by her motherup to about age seven was predominantlyGerman. In addition to the input she received fromher mother in the US, she spent an average of about six weeks annually in Germany during her early childhood. Since the age of seven, English became with rare exceptionsthe exclusive language in the home. My daughter did, however, continue to spend intermittent summer vacations with German relatives. The two times she attempted to "learn" German as a foreignlanguage in high school and college she did not do particularly well. At the time I gave the fault for her mediocre performanceto the teachers whoin my opinion--were unable to deal with her withinthe consuperiorconversationalfluency straints of a grammar-orientedclassroom. My daughter's efforts to learn Spanish started in high school, but she dropped the course because she found the highlyanalytical grammatical approach boring. She then took the first two semestersat the university,completing both courses with a grade of C. After her year of elementary college Spanish she spent one summer in an intensive study program in Mexico, and the following summer holding summer employment in Costa Rica. To make a long storyshort,my daughterhas been successfulin acquiring threelanguages in a predominantlynatural acquisition environment but has considerable problems learning a language in a formalschool settingwhere the instructional goals, activities,and testsemphasize analysis and mastery of the grammatical code. Her experience has led me to reexamine

18 theoreticalassumptions and research pertainbetween naturalisticand ing to the differences classroom language learningand to an attempt betweenprevalentlanto reconcilethe conflicts theories and teachingpractice. guage acquisition Why can practically all "normal" children, adolescents, and young adults "acquire" a language when immersed in the targetlanguage culture, but so many fail to succeed in a classroom setting? Why do people who have acquired a second language in actual communicative contexts remember the language much longerthan individualswhose language experiAre there ence was limitedto a tutoredsetting? insightsfromL2 acquisition theorywhich can to be applied to instruction make the classroom resemble more closely a natural acquisition setting? Unfortunately, theoretical inquiry and empirical research into areas related to language acquisition orientthemselvesmost often to L1 (native language) acquisition or to L2 (second language) acquisition in a naturalistic (non-tutored)setting.While scholarsrecognize inherentin the acquisition envithe differences ronmentwhen language developmentdepends on classroominstruction only,withoutthe reinforcementand support of a target language and naturalcommunicativeconstraints, setting the psycholinguisticprocesses of acquiring a in language (i.e., of gaining proficiency a language) are believed to be similar,regardlessof whether the language is acquired in a classroom, in a natural setting,or through classroom instruction with access to a natural setting. Let me provide a thumbnail sketchof some currently prevalent theories which try to explain, at least in part, how second or foreign languages are learned. McLaughlin discusses five of those theories: Interlanguage Theory, Linguistic Universal Theory, Acculturation/ Pidginization Theory, Cognitive Theory, and Krashen's Monitor Model. Ellis (2) adds several more: Accommodation Theory, Discourse Theory, the Variable Competence Model, and the Neurofunctional Theory.3 Wode points out that language acquisition theoriesfallintofivegeneralcategories:1) those attempting a behavioristic explanation, emphasizing the role of conditioning; 2) those attempting an interactionist explanation, emphasizing communicative/social need, a purpose, and setting;3) thoseattempting cognitive explanation, emphasizing logical, intel-

The ModernLanguage Journal75 (1991) lectual processes; 4) those attempting nativist a or biological explanation, emphasizing inborn, genetic abilities; and 5) those emphasizing the learner and learning strategies. Because of to space constraints,I will limitmyself reviewmodels which I believe most ing fivetheoretical relevant to FL educators: 1) Acculturation/ PidginizationTheory; 2) LinguisticUniversals as withInterTheory, particularly it interfaces language Theory; 3) Discourse Theory; 4) Cognitive Theory; and 5) the Monitor Model.
ACCULTURATION/PIDGINIZATION THEORY

The Acculturation/Pidginization Theory advanced, among others, by Schumann, holds that second language acquisition is part of an acculturation processand thatthedegreeoflanis guage proficiency determinedby the degree to whicha learneracculturates thetargetlanto guage (TL) group. This acculturationprocess is affected the by social and psychological"distance"between the home and the foreign cultures.These social and variablesdetermine effort lanthe psychological guage learners will make to come into contact withspeakersoftheTL and thedegreeto which theyare open to the input theyreceive. Some of the factorswhich, according to Schumann, are believed to be conducive to positive social distance are the perceived social equality between the L1 and L2 groups, the similarity between the native and TL cultures,low cohesiveness by the "outsiders"as a cultural group within the TL culture (i.e., easy integration and assimilation into the TL culture), positive attitudes toward each other, and an expectation by the L2 learner to stay in (or possibly travelto?) the TL area foran extendedperiod. Positive psychologicaldistance is established iflearnersencounterneitherlanguage nor culture shock nor culture stressand iftheybring high motivation and ego permeabilityto the task. Acculturation Theory suggests that when social and psychologicaldistance is great, i.e., when attitudestoward the TL and its speakers are negativelyloaded and integrativemotivation is lacking, learners will have difficulties beyond the earlystagesin language progressing development, and the language will stay pidginized (i.e., will fossilize in reduced and simplifiedforms). Acculturationaccounts mainlyfornaturalistic L2 acquisition. However, we need to keep

RenateA. Schulz in mind the importance of attitudesand motivation in the L2 acquisition process, which mightplay a similar role in classroom foreign to language learning.4 It is difficult reject the notionthataffective factors determinethe effort a student makes in and out of the classroom to obtain input and to use the language for communicative purposes.
LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALS THEORY

19 marked structureswould need to occur much in more frequently the inputofthe learnerthan the less marked ones to assure theiracquisition. If, indeed, all natural languages are constrainedby universalprinciplesinherentin our geneticmake-up, and ifthese principlescan be arranged in a certain "accessibilityhierarchy," and second language learners it follows thatfirst should make similar errorsat similar stages in the acquisition process. This assumption is indeed supported by a number of studies, languages, examininvolvingseveral different ing the interlanguages(the language output at a particular stage oflinguisticdevelopment) of various learners in naturalistic as well as in classroom learning situations. While error analyses indicate that interlanguagesare influenced by a number of factors, studies have shown a tendency for some errorsto occur at particularstagesofacquisition,regardlessofthe learner's mother tongue or age or the way the language was acquired. In other words, the types of errors made by L2 as well as FL learners are constrained by their universal grammar (14: p. 98). Here is where Universal Grammar Theory interfaces with Interlanguage Theory.
INTERLANGUAGE THEORY

By examining surface features of a wide range of human languages, linguists are continuing to discover general sets of principles that apply to all languages. The theoryof Linguistic Universals, or Universal Grammar Theory, tries to explain language acquisition a (L1 and L2) by hypothesizing shared, innate, biological, linguisticcomponent in the genetic make-up of homo sapiens which accounts for these universally shared linguistic features. Universal Grammar Theory holds "that the child startswith all the principlesof Universal Grammar available" and that "the rightenvithe ronmental input at the righttime furthers acquisition process" (14: pp. 93, 94). The positsthatUniversal Grammar becomes theory operative in L1 as well as L2 acquisition, in child language learning as well as in that for adults. While initiallyit was believed that this "mental language organ," or language acquisition device (LAD), atrophies with the onset of puberty,a number of studiesindicate no qualitative differencesbetween the adult and the child learner, except in pronunciationability.5 In fact, adults -because of increased channel capacitydue to maturationalfactors mightbe the more efficient foreignlanguage learners, particularly if exposure time and input are limitedto thatof a traditionallanguage course. In a totally naturalistic settingthe child continues to be superior, not because of a better functioning LAD, but, it is now believed, because of differences quantityand quality) (in in the available input.6 What is of interestto us is that Linguistic Universals Theory positsan inherent hierarchy of difficulty among the universal "rules"which are dependent on the "degree of markedness," or complexity, of a certain structure.' It is which fall under believed that those structures the universal core grammar are less marked and more easily acquired than the structures idiosyncratic to a particular language (peripheral grammar). The more highly

Selinker definesinterlanguage as a separate linguisticsystem,constructedby the learner as the resultof fivecentralcognitiveprocesses: 1) fromthe mother tongue; 2) language transfer of transfer training,resultingfromspecial featuresof instruction; second language learning 3) strategies;4) second language communication of and 5) overgeneralization therules strategies; of the targetlanguage. Through erroranalyses of speech and writing samples of learners at various stages, researchers have found that interlanguages reflect systematic patterns of errorand communication strategies.Many of these errorsare developmental and will eventuallydisappear ifthe learnerreceivessufficient appropriate input. Interlanguageformsfoundin earlylanguage acquisition can also be found in pidgin languages. The speakers of a pidgin language fossilize at a relativelyearly stage of interlanguage developmentbecause, it is believed, they receive insufficient input and lack the motivatheirlanguage skillssince tionor need to perfect theirlimitedcommunicationneeds can be satisfactorilyfulfilledwithout grammatical accu-

20

The ModernLanguage Journal75 (1991)

racy. Continued comprehensible input,however exposed most frequently]; (and, I assume, continued efforts the lanby b) the learner acquires commonly guage learner to approximate the standard of occurring formulas and then later the target language), can help learners over[stressadded] analyses these into their come that stage and continue to move toward component parts; closer approximation of the target language. c) the learner is helped to constructsenWhat are the implications of Interlanguage tences vertically [i.e., by borrowing Theory forFL teaching?Extended comprehensible parts of speech of precedingdiscourse, also known as "scaffolding"] . inputhelps learners shape their output to an increasingly closer approximation of the TL norm. Formal instruction (i.e., grammar COGNITIVE THEORY analysis and discrete-pointgrammar practice) Rather than stressinginnate, universal lincan temporarilyimprove performanceon disguistic processes, affectivefactors, input, or crete-pointtests,but apparentlyhas relatively interactionas causative factorsforsecond lanlittle influence on spontaneous language use. guage development, Cognitive Theory sees second language learning as a mental process, DISCOURSE THEORY leading throughstructuredpractice of various Discourse theorypositsthatlearnersdevelop component subskills to automatization and competence in a second language not simply integrationof linguistic patterns. While Disbut by activelyparticipatcourse Theory posits thatlanguage is available by absorbing input, for analysis after it has been acquired or ing in communicative interaction, i.e., by negotiating meaning and filling information routinized, Cognitive Theory maintains that skillsbecome automatic or routinizedonly after gaps. Ellis (2) states a main hypothesis of Discourse Theory, which applies to L1 as well analytical processes. Controlled analyticalproas L2 acquisition: "The developmentof the forcesses - including, of course, structuredpracmal linguistic devices for realizing basic lantice- are seen as "stepping stones"forautomatic use guage functiongrowsout of the interpersonal processes (14: p. 135). Rather than positinga hierarchicaldevelop[stress added] to which language is put" ment oflinguisticstructures, such as suggested (p. 259). Like other theories mentioned, Discourse by Interlanguage Theory, Cognitive Theory Theory addresses L2 acquisition in a naturalisposits a hierarchy of complexity of cognitive tic setting. We might nevertheless want to subskillswhichlead fromcontrolledpracticeto examine the principlesadvanced by Hatch and automatic processing of language. As the summarized by Ellis (2: pp. 259-60) forimplilearnerdevelops increasingdegrees of mastery, cations for foreignlanguage learning: he or she engages in a constant process of SLA follows a "natural" route in syntacto with 1) restructuring integratenew structures tical development. [Hatch believes this those previously learned. Cognitive learning thus is seen to consistof severaldifferent "natural" route is determinedby the prephases dictable discourse--which, of course, where the learning tasks become refined, includes predictable input- in which L2 restructured,and consolidated.8 learners engage.] The notionthatanalysisand structured practice foster automaticprocessingoflanguage and 2) Native speakers adjust their speech in order to negotiate meaning with nonare essential to foreignlanguage development native speakers [intuitivelythey speak in a classroom settingis not new. Increasingly, more slowly,louder, use shorter sentences however, researchers question whether L2 and less complex structures.] acquisition is a skill- similar to driving a car The conversational strategies used to or playing the piano--that can be mastered 3) negotiate meaning, and the resulting exclusively through controlled operations of subskills which lead eventually to their autoadjusted input, influence the rate and route of SLA in a number of ways: matic processing, i.e., to spontaneous communicative language use. Cognitive Theory a) the learner learns the grammar of the L2 in the same order as the frequency with a sprinkling of Discourse Theory and order of the various features in the behaviorist conditioning- seems to account input [i.e., the learner masters first most closelyforwhat foreign language teachers those structuresto which he or she is and current textbooks try to accomplish in

RenateA. Schulz classroom instruction. The prevalent grammatical syllabus does try to lead students through analysis and explanation (controlled processing) to automatic processingthrough albeit limited- practice. One importanttenet of Cognitive Theory, however, is not suffiin cientlyreflected teaching practice or in textbooks. Cognitive Theory posits a constantand continuing restructuring and integrating through various recurrentphases. Like most other theories which try to account for L2 acquisition, Cognitive Theory recognizesa certain spiral or cyclical development oflanguage skills, where the interimlanguage of the student permitscontinuingrefinement and closer approximation to the TL. In currentFL classroom teaching and testingpractice, we do not that cyclical sufficiently recognize and further refinement withcontinuinginput and practice. Our expectations of immediate accuracy and masteryare not supported by the tenetsof any theory.
THE MONITOR MODEL

21 The Input Hypothesis, in Krashen's words, refersto his belief that "humans acquire language in only one way --by understanding messages, or by receiving 'comprehensible input' .. ." (12: p. 2). Two corollaries of the Input Hypothesis (12: p. 2) state: 1) Speaking is a resultof acquisition and not itscause. Speech cannot be taughtdirectly but "emerges" on its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input. If input is understood,and thereis enough 2) of it, the necessary grammaris automatically provided. The language teacher need not attemptdeliberatelyto teach the next structurealong the natural orderit will be provided in just the rightquantities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input. The Monitor Hypothesis holds that formal on learninghas no effect acquisitionexceptthat it can serve as a monitor or editor for the learner'soutput, provided 1) thereis sufficient time; 2) the focus of the interactionis on form ratherthan meaning; and 3) the learnerknows the rule in question. The Affective FilterHypothesispositsa mental screen between the learnerand the environment which is activated by affectivefactors (e.g., anxiety, self-confidence, etc.) and which controls the amount of input a student is exposed to and the amount of input a student converts into intake. A high affectivefilter inhibits acquisition, a low affective filterpromotes it. In Krashen's words (12: p. 33): of ". .. comprehensibleinput and the strength the filterare the true causes [stress added] of second language acquisition." Krashen's Monitor Model has been criticized on a number of points. Of major interestto us are the criticisms levied against his acquisition/ learningdichotomyand his view ofcomprehensible input as sole explanatoryfactorforsecond language acquisition. Clearly, we can all attest from personal experience that skills which at one time were learned consciously through segmentation and analysis can eventually become automatic through practice and be available forspontaneous use. To what extent this conscious analysis is "necessary"or helpful for foreignlanguage learning when sufficient and appropriate comprehensible input is not available remains a major question.

The most ambitious and widely known- as well as presently mostcontroversial theory the whichattempts account forL2 and FL acquito sitionis Krashen's Monitor Model. This theory is also the only one fromwhichdirectpedagogical extrapolations have been made in the socalled Natural Approach (13). Since the Monitor Model has received extensive attention (laudatory and critical)in the professional literature, I provide only a brief summary of its five main tenets. Krashen's Acquisition/LearningHypothesis maintains that adult or adolescent language learners have two processes at theirdisposal to help themin developinglanguage fluency.One is acquisition, the other,learning. Acquisition is subconsciousand takes place throughnatural similarto those available language interactions, to children when they acquire their mother tongue. Learning, on the otherhand, requires conscious thoughtand analysis and takes place predominantlyin formalinstruction.According to Krashen, only language that has been acquired is available for use in spontaneous communication. The Natural Order Hypothesis, inspiredby UniversalGrammar and Interlanguage Theory, maintains that we acquire grammatical structures in a predictable order not determinedby the order in which they are taught (12: p. 1).

22 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE second, or Language acquisition- be it first, - is an extremely foreign complex process, parto ticularlydifficult penetrate since it cannot be directly observed. None of the theories a discussed offers completeand coherentexplanation. Most attemptto explain how a second language is learned by examining only oneof the many contributingfactors. Eventually, a more complete theory of L2 acquisition will have to account for the biological/innate,the social/interactive, the cognitive, and the behavioristaspects of language learning. And a sound pedagogy will, in addition, have to keep in mind the many possible individual whichfacilitate inhibitsecond or learnerfactors language development in a classroom setting. venture Probably wisely,fewpsycholinguists into the pedagogical implications of current theories. I am, however, firstand foremosta who sees the prime value oftheory practitioner and research in their potential for leading us to possible practical implicationsand applicationsto improveteachingand learning. Unfortunately, those of us who are FL teachers do not have the luxury of waiting around forthe and itsverification research definitive by theory beforedeciding on what to do in the classroom. Let me, therefore,be foolhardy enough to attemptto findsome pedagogical implications in the theories discussed. Extrapolating from naturalistic child language acquisition to adult or adolescentforeign language learning in a classroom is difficult because, clearly, major differences exist in between these modes: differences the physical, psychological, and intellectual maturity between both groups of learners, in situations and settingsin which interaction occurs, in the and amount ofinputavailable, in thetypes type of communicative acts that occur and their purposes, in available language-use underlying opportunities,in personal motivation to avail oneself of such opportunities,etc. As a practical example, inputand interaction opportunifromthose ties available in the classroom differ encountered on the playground or in a local bar. And the Chinese studenthoping to study findin the US is likelyto make a greatereffort ing target language texts and speakers to interactwith than the American student who is taking Chinese to fulfill a language requirement. Obviously, naturalistic language learning takesplace one-on-one;classroomlearning,one

The ModernLanguage Journal75 (1991) on many. And because of the nature of learning, in general, which proceeds on a highly at individualisticbasis, studentsare frequently levels oflanguage development, even different thoughtheyare in the same class. What, then, are some common tenets,sharedby the theories discussed, which do have implications for teaching? ratherinconEven consideringthe currently clusive state of L2 acquisition theory and research, input and interactionclearly play a major role in language learning, in- or outside the classroom. Motivation also clearly affects both the amount of input studentsseek and the number of communicative interactions in which they are willing to engage.
THE INPUT FACTOR

According to Ellis (2: p. 276):

Input comprises (1) the inherent properties of the target language system, and (2) the formally and interactionallyadjusted features found in foreigner and teacher talk. Input constitutes the data upon which the learner strategieswork, but also the input is itself in part determined by the learner's use of communication strategies.Thus the relationshipbetween input and learner processes is an interactive one.

The implicationsof the input factorare considerable forforeignlanguage teaching. First, theypoint to the need forlanguage proficiency the on the part of the teacherwho is frequently "live"source of input (other than thatproonly vided by otherlearners) available to students. This does not mean thatall teachersmust have native speaker competence. But it does mean thatteachers must be able to speak a language and accuratelyenough to feelcomfortfluently able in using it as exclusivemeans of communication, whether for instructional purposes, classroom management, or social interaction. A rating of "advanced" on the ACTFL/ETS scale would indicate the minioral proficiency mally required competence.9 The importanceof inputhas implicationsfor instructionaltime. Regardless of the quantity and qualityof inputprovided in the classroom, lanthe timeavailable in a conventionalforeign guage program- for the majority of students limited to one or two years- is simply inadequate, if we hope to have them develop any proficiency. lastingcommunicative meaningful, The importance of input has further implications fordevelopersof instructional software, including textbooks. I invite you to count the

RenateA. Schulz pages in your textbook,the byteson your comor puter software, the minuteson instructional audiotape programs to see how much interesting, linguistically, situationally,and culturally authentic and appropriate comprehensible "input" is provided to augment input outside the classroom.We need to question whether the prevalent "frontal approach" to classroom instruction (i.e., wherethe teacheris the source of most input and the initiatorof all interaction) is most appropriateforaccomplishingour goals. Language learning- regardlessof theoretical orientation necessitatesfrequentrecyclingof lexical and grammatical structures different in contexts.While we pay lip service to the cyclical nature of language learning, indicating at least an awareness that thefrequency which in vocabulary and grammatical patterns are encountered in the input contributesto their eventual retentionand use, a large percentage of the words and structureswe expect in the students'active command appear only once or twice in the textbook. (Recycling should, of course, not just be limited to receptive skill modalities. But appropriate written,oral, and visual input- that showing target-culture and situations can providefor specificsettings much of the needed recycling.)
THE INTERACTION FACTOR

23 tice, i.e., that the learners' general knowledge of the language governs the quantity of practice in which they take part. Practically speaking, this means that we should not plan to teach comparative adjectives, but ratherto compare the world's cities and countries as to theirsize, population density, living standard, and use of natural resources. We should not focus on teaching the subjunctive- but provide situationswhere studentshave to make politerequestsor conjecture about the futureofhumanityifwe continueon the present course of polluting and exploiting our environment. And yes, incidentally, a grammaticalpatternexiststhatcan be used for many polite requests. ... In other words, I advocate a content problem-solving and to approach FL instruction. ESL instructors have knownfor a long time that even those studentslacking in academic language learning aptitude and who are unsuccessful in analyzing and reciting grammatical paradigms can benefit greatly from content-based language instruction. Again, the importance of interactionholds implications forour instructionalmaterials as well as classroom activities. I invite you to count textbookactivities which requirestudents to interactwith other living beings in or outside the classroom in a communicativecontext where meaning actually has to be negotiated and information has to be obtained. From the table of contentsof textbooksand the number ofpages devoted to it, can one doubt thatgrammar remains the real content of present FL instruction? Yet generalagreementexistsamong theoreticians and researchers thatthe textbookdoes not determine the order of grammatical mastery, and that grammatical grading and sequencing - such as we encounter in most instructional texts- are not necessary forlanguage acquisition in or outside the classroom. I mentioned earlierthatseveralstudiesindicatethat,regardless of how students have acquired their language fluency, they develop predictable sequences in the second language. This "natural sequence of development"may in partbe based on an innate"universalgrammar"whichmakes some rules easier to learn than others and requires that certain structuresbe acquired before others can be integrated. Or it may be based on the frequencyof certain structures in the input to which the students are exposed (Hatch); or on the frequencyof need for certain structuresin basic human interaction;or in part on all of these and yet additional

As forthe importanceof interaction, need we to examine the amount and typeof practicewe provide in and outside the classroom. While folkwisdom tellsus thatpracticemakes perfect, it may not be the quantity of practice but the kindof practice that enhances acquisition. Not all practice may be equally effective learnfor ing a foreign language. Ellis (3: p. 32), for instance, conjectures that "controlled" or "focused" practice (i.e., practice that focuses learnerattention a discretelinguistic on feature) not be as effective "freepractice" or as might "unfocusedperformance" (i.e., communicative practice that focuses learner attention on an exchange of information). Based on a review of available research on the practice variable, he questions whether any grammar learning takes place in controlledpracticeand concludes that"correctresponses merelyindicate thatthe learner has accessed the appropriate cognitive strategiesforreproducingthe targetstructure; theydo not show thatlearning is takingplace." Ellis suggestsnot so much that practice causes acquisition, but that acquisition causes prac-

24 unknown factors. It is certainly notbased on the sequence chosen by well-intentionedtextbook authors. What are possible implicationsforFL teaching? Grammatical analysis and extended patternpracticemay well enable some students to pass a discrete-pointgrammar test,but it is unlikelythatstudentswill use specificconstructions correctlyin real communicative interactions immediatelyafterhaving been "covered." Our teaching and testing practices have to reflectthe fact that "covering" and "teaching" are not synonymouswith learning, acquiring, or mastering. Research in the near future will probablynot yield a dependable acquisition order of grammatical structures guide our anticipation of to and placementefforts mastery.Our articulation will doubtless continue to be plagued by individual variability in language proficiency acquired as a resultof one, two, or more years of classroom study. As McLaughlin (p. 149) pointsout, "thereseems to be considerableindividual variationin how learnersacquire second languages due to different learning, performance, and communication strategies." Individual learners will continue to acquire specific structures, lexical items, or communicative functionsat different rates in spite of common instruction.Particularly,our testing procedures need to reflectthat while we hope to raise an awareness of morphological and syntactical patterns,we do not expect their immediate mastery. I am notarguingforthe eliminationof grammar instruction.What I am arguing foris that grammar should not play the main role, but a supportive role only, clearly limited in the amount of time we devote to it and in the weight we allot to it in formal teaching and testing.
THE MOTIVATION FACTOR

The ModernLanguage Journal75 (1991) proficiency mainly throughreal-lifeinput and interaction. Her motivation to avail herselfof that input and engage in language interaction has been particularlygreatwith Spanish, since everytime she visiteda Spanish-speakingcounof tryI was facedwiththe possibility a Spanishson-in-law. speaking That my daughter's German proficiency appears to have become arrestedsome distance fromgrammaticalaccuracy I blame mainly on insufficient input. Also, her anxietyto be mistaken for German may have played a role. Already as a small child, resisting the less permissive, highly structuredenvironmentof her grandmother'shousehold, she would protestloudly when she was mistakenforGerman and would thrive on the attention which her statusbroughther. Since by name and "foreign" physicalappearance she can be easily mistaken for German, she might have subconsciously resistederrorcorrection,lest it would threaten her identityas American.
CONCLUSIONS

If we succeed in providing sufficient high interest whichfocus inputand practiceactivities on content and human interaction, the third prerequisite to foreign language learning-motivation mighttake care of itself. am conI vinced thatstudents will be more willingto seek and use opportunities for foreign language "practice"ifthispracticeis not limitedto grammatical manipulation. Before I conclude, you may be interestedin how all of this applies to my daughter. Obviously, she acquired her foreign language

In the last decade, FL learning has regained increasingattention,and enrollmentsare once again on the rise. Even FL requirements are in vogue again. The ACTFL-initiated proficiency movement has done much to reinvigorate the professionwith renewed commitment to developing students' communicative proficiency. Scholarly and research activities abound; in fact, L2/FL acquisition and teaching are emerging as separate fieldsof inquiry, interdisciplinaryin nature, at a number of institutions. As we examine and revise our curricula in and tryto fulresponse to thisrenewed interest filla national mandate to develop usable language skillsin our students,we can all benefit by critically examiningthe implicitand explicit assumptions which guide our teaching in light of recent theoretical and research developments. Based on the presentstateof L2 acquisitiontheory and research,I recommendthatour curriculumplanning and teachingactivitiesbe guided by three basic questions: withthe opti1) How can we supplystudents mum amount of interesting, comprehensible input? 2) What can we do to provide studentswith opportunitiesto interactin the language in real communicative contextsand with real communicative purposes? 3) What can we do to increase students'

RenateA. Schulz motivationso thattheyare willingto seek additional input and interactive opportunitiesand continue theirefforts beyond the year or two of classroom instruction which convention considers adequate for becoming communicativein anotherlanguage?

25 I predictthat satisfactory responses to these questions will improve our success rate in teaching. In other words, studentmotivation, interaction language input,and communicative may well be the most importantfactorsin FL learning and may, in the finalanalysis, decide 10 our students' level of language proficiency.
of a language. Each language differsin certain unique aspects (peripheral grammar). level, when 7For instance, it is believed that the difficulty relativizinga particularnoun phrase, proceeds fromsubject relativization as least difficulty direct object, indirect via object, object of a preposition, and genitiveto the relativization of the object of a comparative as most difficult. error analysis is used to support both the 8Interestingly, and nativist/biological the cognitiveexplanationof language acquisition. While adherentsto Universal Grammar Theory the interpret learners'transitionalgrammarsto be evidence of the activation of innate principles, more cognitively oriented researchers interpretthem to be evidence of cognitive procedural strategies intended to restructuretheir internal representationof the TL. Such strategiesinclude, for instance, during the initial stages of language learning, simplifying,regularizing, overgeneralizing, and reducing redundancy. Inferencingand hypothesistestingstrategies are more prevalent at later stages. 9For a description of the ACTFL/ETS Oral Proficiency Scale see entry 1 in the Bibliography. That many teachers are not "advanced" speakers of the target language was brought home by a Texas study (see 10) which indicated that teachers' oral competence is oftenconsiderably below this level. This sad factis not necessarily an indictmentof the teachers, but rather of our system of teacher training, which does not provide easy and affordableaccess to study abroad opportunities. 'ODuring the 1990-91 academic year, the author'saddress is: Department of Foreign Languages, US Air Force Academy, CO 80840. 5. Gardner, Robert C. Social Psychology Second and Language and Learning: The Role ofAttitudes Motivation.Baltimore: Arnold, 1985. 6. Harley, Birgit. Age in SecondLanguageAcquisition.San Diego: College-Hill, 1986. 7. Hatch, Evelyn. "Discourse Analysis and Second LanEd. guage Acquisition." Second LanguageAcquisition. Evelyn Hatch. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1978: 401-35. 8. . "Discourse Analysis, Speech Acts and Second Language Acquisition." SecondLanguageAcquisition Research.Ed. W. Ritchie. New York: Academic,

NOTES

'A revised version of a keynote address presented at the MLJ/Ohio State Univ. Symposium on Research Perspectives in Adult Language Learning and Acquisition, Columbus, Ohio, November 1989. 2The descriptor"terminaltwo" was coined by Theodore V. Higgs and Ray Cliffordto referto the phenomenon of so-called "streetlearners" who acquire a second language in a natural setting,withoutformalinstruction.These individuals demonstrate relatively sophisticated vocabulary usage with, however, certain faulty,fossilized grammatical patterns which appear difficultif not impossible to correct. The "two" refers to the oral proficiency scale, ranging fromzero to five,originallydeveloped by the Foreign Service Instituteand now used by all members of ILR, i.e., all agencies of the federal governmentinvolved in foreign language instruction. 3For a shortoverview of currentL2 hypotheses,see entry 4 in the Bibliography. 4For a reviewof researchon the role ofattitudesand motivation in L2 learning, see entry 5 in the Bibliography. 5For a review of research dealing with the age factorin L2 learning, see entry 6 in the Bibliography. 6"Universal Grammar," or core grammar, should, however, not be expected to be a set of specific grammatical rules in the traditionalsense. Rather, it consistsof general, shared features in all natural languages. Also, we should not expect Universal Grammar to account forall features

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. "ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 1986." Defining and Developing Proficiency: Guidelines, and Implementations Concepts.Ed. Heidi Byrnes &

2. Ellis, Rod. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986. 3. . "The Role of Practice in Classroom Learning." AILA Review 5 (1988): 20-39. 4. Ferguson, Charles A. & Thom Huebner. "Foreign Language Instructionand Second Language Acquisition Research in the United States." NFLC Occasional Papers. Washington: National FL Center, Johns Hopkins Univ., 1989.

Michael Canale. Lincolnwood, NationalTextIL: book, 1987: 15-24.

1978.

9. Higgs, Theodore V. & Ray Clifford."The Push toward Communication." Curriculum, and ForCompetence, the eign Language Teacher. Ed. Theodore V. Higgs. Skokie, IL: National Textbook, 1982: 57-79. 10. Hiple, David V. &Joan H. Manley. "TestingHow Well Foreign Language Teachers Speak: A State Man-

26
date." Foreign Annals (1987): 147-53. 20 Language 11. Krashen,Stephen. and LanPrinciples PracticesSecond of Oxford:Pergamon,1982. Acquisition. guage . TheInputHypothesis: 12. Issuesand Implications. London: Longman, 1985. 13. & TracyTerrell. Natural The Approach: Language inthe Oxford: 1983. Acquisition Classroom. Pergamon, 14. McLaughlin,Barry.Theories Second-Language Learnof ing.London: Arnold,1987. 15. Schumann, Process: Model A JohnH. ThePidginization

The ModernLanguage Journal75 (1991)

forSecond Acquisition. Language Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse, 1978. 16. Selinker,Larry. "Interlanguage." IRAL 10 (1972): 210-31. 17. Wode,Henning.Psycholinguistik. Einfiihrung Eine indie Lehr- LernbarkeitSprachen. und von Munich:Hueber, 1988. 18. Woodcock,Richard W. & Mary BonnerJohnson. Allen, Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. TX: DLM TeachingResources,1978.

Information about The Modern Language Journal

Major Focus: a refereed publicationdevoted primarily to research in methods, pedagogy, and applied linguisticspertainingto modern languages including TESL; publishes articles, reports, teaching tips, and news, book reviews,professional advertisements, occasional essays on the state of the profession. Circulation: approximately 7000. fourissues per year (approxiof Frequency Publication: mately 150 pages each). Evaluation: manuscripts refereed by at least two specialist readers. Time Submission Decision:normallysixtydays; to from longer during academic vacation periods; time from acceptance to publicationusually no longer than one and tables); leave a 2" leftmargin, 1 2" elsewhere; submit original and two clear copies (only original will be returned).

Length: twenty pages preferred (excluding Manuscript bibliography, tables, notes); longer acceptable, depending on merit. Manual (1985). Manuscript Style:MLA Style manuscripts submitted simulMultipleSubmissions: taneously forpublication elsewhere not considered; author(s) must informeditor at time of submission of similar/related versions of manuscript that have appeared or are being considered elsewhere. SpecialRequirements: indicate fullname of institu1) tion where (each) author is employed; 2) include a 9 self-addressed x 12 manila envelope and US $5.00 year. Rate: ten to thirteen in loose postage or thirteen international postal Acceptance percentofmanuscripts submitted are accepted. coupons (non-US submissions$10.00 or twenty-five Articles Published international postal coupons if air mail return thirtyto forty. per Volume: Book Reviewsper Volume: approximately 200. desired); 3) prepare cover sheet containing the title The is of the manuscript, separate shorttitle(see 4 below) Ownership: Modern Language Journal owned and and the National Federation of Modern foridentification, name, address, and bothoffice copyrightedby home telephone numbers of author(s); 4) select one Language Teachers Associations and published by it at the University of Wisconsin Press. The MLJ or two key words from the title of the manuscript has no legal relationship to the Modern Language to function as identificationmarkers; type those Association of America (MLA). words at the top rightof all pages of the manuscript receivetwo complimentary followed by the appropriate page number; 5) refer authorsofarticles Payment: to your own previous publications in the third copies of the issue in which theirwork is published; receive one gratis copy. bookreviewers person-not "as I said in . . .," but "as Jane Smith whereresearch to available at cost, but must be purchased noted . . . "; 6) refer an institution Offprints.: was conducted or where the author teaches as "instidirectlyfromthe reprintservice at the time author tutionX" during the refereeing reads galley proofs. process; 7) number each entryin the"Bibliography," being consecutively Languageof Publication:English. Format: double-spaced through- sure that the second and subsequent lines of each Manuscript typewritten, out(including bibliography,notes, citations,figures, entry are indented four spaces.