1. Second language acquisition theories

2. Popular beliefs (Lightbown & Spada,1993) 1. Languages are learnt mainly through imitation. 2. Parents usually correct young children when they make errors. 3. People with a high IQ are good language learners. 4. Early start in L2 learning brings more success. 5. Most mistakes learners make in L2 derive from interference of the L1. 6. Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they occur to prevent bad habits.

3. Criteria for a theory of SLA/SLL (Long, 1990) Account for 1.universals. 2.environmental factors. 3.age, acquisition rate and proficiency. 4.cognitive and personal variables. 5.learning as well as acquisition. 6.other varibles besides exposure and input. 7.interlanguage systemacity. 8.the varied cognitive processes involved in acquisition.

4. An Innatist model: Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (1977-1997) Aspects: 1.The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis Conscious vs. Unconscious No interface 2.The Monitor Hypothesis 3. The Natural Order Hypothesis

5. 4. The Input Hypothesis Comprehensible input „i+1” Emergence of speech 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis Low stress and anxiety

6. Criticism of Krashen’s model What is conscious or unconscious learning? (McLaughlin, 1978, 1990) Is there no interface? (Gregg, 1984) „Zero option” for grammar? (Ellis, 1997) Comprehensible input= language learning success? - intake - Seliger (1983): High and Low Input Generatiors - Lapkin (1995): Output Hypothesis How to define „i+1”? Waiting for speech to emerge?

7. A Cognitive model: McLaughlin’s Attention-Processing Model (1978-1990) Controlled Automatic Focal formal rule learnigtest situation Peripheral implicit or analogic communication learning

8. Controlled processes: - Capacity limited and temporary -Focus on new skills (driving) Automatic processes: - Relatively permanent -Automatising or restructuring info used together (cf. Krashen’s „no interface”) Both can be focal and peripheral Controlled and automatic processing can be used interchangeably

9. A Social Constructivist Model: Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996) Major claim: Comprehensible input results from modified interaction: - slow-down - comprehension checks „Go down the subway – do you know the word subway?” - clarifications/repair requests „Did you say to the right?” - paraphrase „Could you give me a hanky- you something to wipe my nose with?”

10. Relation between interaction and acquisition Awareness, autonomy and authenticity Contexts of interaction are carefully designed Individual learner language through a socially constructed process

11. A Humanistic Approach: Rogers’s Humanistic Psychology (1951) Involving the whole person in the learning process Non-threatening environment Fully functioning person Shift of focus from teaching to learning Learning to learn – autonomy and responsibility Delegating rights of decision to learners

12. Teachers as facilitators establish interpersonal relationships with learners are real and genuine (congruent) give up their role as controller appreciate learners as valuable individuals communicate openly and empathically

13. Criticism of Rogers Non-directive approach, discovering everything – too time-consuming Non-threatening enviroment eliminates facilitative tension (competition) Learner training!

14. Paolo Freire (1970) Empowerment of students in - negotiating learning outcomes - cooperating with teachers and learners - engaging in critical thinking - relating learning material to their own reality