Core Theories of Language Acquisition: UG, Krashen, and SLA Concepts

The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition

The logical problem of language acquisition refers to how children learn complex grammar despite limited and often imperfect input. Universal Grammar (UG) addresses this by proposing an innate set of grammatical principles that inherently guide language learning, suggesting that children are born with a blueprint for language structure.

The Wug Test and Rule-Based Learning

The Wug Test is a classic experiment designed to assess children's morphological knowledge. The findings show that children can apply grammatical rules (like pluralization or past tense) to novel, made-up words (e.g., 'wug' becomes 'wugs'). This indicates that language learning is a rule-based, creative process, not just imitation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Wug Test

The Wug Test offers significant advantages over studies that observe children’s language in natural settings:

• Controlled Testing: It allows researchers to test specific grammatical rules systematically.
• Evidence of Rule Application: It provides clear evidence that children are generating rules, rather than simply repeating memorized forms.

However, there are disadvantages:

• Lack of Real-World Context: The test uses artificial words, which may lack the meaningful context of real communication.
• Engagement Issues: It may not fully capture the complexity of language use in natural, engaging settings.

Comparing L1 Acquisition and Adult L2 Learning

Differences in Learning Environments

Language learning conditions for children acquiring an L1 (first language) at home differ significantly from those experienced by adults learning an L2 (second language) in a formal program:

• L1 Learners: Experience immersive, constant, and meaningful communication from birth, often with high emotional stakes and immediate feedback.
• Adult L2 Learners: Often face limited input, structured classroom time, and explicit instruction, usually starting after the critical period.

Prior language knowledge (of their L1 and perhaps other L2s) can both facilitate and hinder the learning of the target language:

• Facilitation: Prior knowledge can help by recognizing shared linguistic patterns (positive transfer).
• Hindrance: Interference from L1 structures (negative transfer) can lead to errors.

Other factors that play a crucial role include motivation, the quantity and quality of exposure, and the social context of learning.

Leveraging L1 Exposure in the Classroom

L1 learners are exposed to richer and more varied input than L2 learners who rely exclusively on classroom input. Aspects of L1 exposure that might be helpful for classroom learners include:

• Rich Interaction: Encouraging authentic, spontaneous communication.
• Contextualized Language: Using language tied directly to real-world tasks and situations.
• Immediate Feedback: Providing timely and meaningful correction or clarification.

Elements that would not be feasible or appropriate in a classroom setting due to time and resource limits include:

• Constant, 24/7 immersion.
• Exclusive one-on-one interaction for every student.
• Accepting the high frequency of ungrammatical input typical in early L1 exposure.

Theoretical Frameworks: Behaviorism and Chomsky

Behaviorism's Role and Limitations

Behaviorism contributed the idea that language learning involves habit formation through imitation, practice, and reinforcement (stimulus-response). This framework highlights the importance of input and repetition.

However, behaviorism is unable to explain several key phenomena:

• Creative Rule Use: Children produce novel sentences they have never heard before.
• Rapid Acquisition: The speed at which children acquire complex grammar, especially given the limited and often flawed input they receive.

Chomsky's View on Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

Chomsky’s theory primarily focuses on L1 acquisition, emphasizing the role of UG and innate mechanisms. Applying this framework to SLA is complex and debated. While L1 acquisition is seen as driven by UG, the extent to which adult L2 learners retain access to these innate mechanisms is a central question in SLA research.

The Universal Grammar (UG) Debate in SLA

The debate surrounding the nature and availability of UG in SLA centers on whether adult L2 learners still have full, partial, or no access to the innate principles that guided their L1 acquisition.

• Full Access Position: Claims UG remains fully operational, but performance factors (like memory or processing) mask its effects.
• Partial Access Position: Suggests that some UG principles persist, but others are lost or filtered through the L1 structure.
• No Access Position: Argues that UG is unavailable after the critical period, and L2 learning relies on general cognitive learning mechanisms.

The consensus is often leaning toward partial access: some UG principles likely persist, but the learning conditions, age, and prior linguistic knowledge significantly influence the outcome.

Krashen's Monitor Model

Defining Acquisition vs. Learning

Krashen’s Monitor Model is based on five core hypotheses. Central to the model is the distinction between L2 “learning” and “acquisition.”

• Acquisition: A subconscious process, similar to L1 development, resulting in fluent, spontaneous language use (the “Acquirer”).
• Learning: A conscious process of knowing rules and grammar (the “Monitor”).

According to this model, acquisition and learning are not the same thing. Only acquired language is used for fluent communication; conscious learning serves mainly as an editor or “Monitor” to check and polish output.

Compatibility with Innatist Theory

Krashen’s Monitor Model aligns with the innatist view (like Chomsky's) because it emphasizes the importance of subconscious acquisition over conscious learning. By positing an internal mechanism responsible for fluency and grammar development, it suggests an innate capacity for language processing that is activated by comprehensible input.

Limitations and Influence

A major limitation of Krashen’s theory is the lack of clear empirical support and the difficulty in operationally defining and separating acquisition from learning. Critics also point out that the Monitor Model is often vague regarding how the brain processes language.

Despite these limitations, Krashen’s ideas have been highly influential in second- and foreign-language education due to their practical, teacher-friendly concepts, such as the importance of comprehensible input (i+1) and promoting a natural, low-anxiety environment for acquisition.