A Discussion of Language Acquisition Theories (2002)

In Education, School Psychology on Saturday, 15 September 2012 at 09:19

A Discussion of Language Acquisition Theories

by Vedat Kiymazarslan, 2002


A great many theories regarding language development in human beings have been proposed in the past and still being proposed in the present time. Such theories have generally arisen out of major disciplines such as psychology and linguistics. Psychological and linguistic thinking have profoundly influenced one another and the outcome of language acquisition theories alike. This article aims to discuss language acquisition theories and assess their implications for applied linguistics and for a possible theory of foreign/second language teaching.

Language acquisition theories have basically centered around “nurture” and “nature” distinction or on “empiricism” and “nativism”. The doctrine of empiricism holds that all knowledge comes from experience, ultimately from our interaction with the environment through our reasoning or senses. Empiricism, in this sense, can be contrasted to nativism, which holds that at least some knowledge is not acquired through interaction with the environment, but is genetically transmitted and innate. To put it another way, some theoreticians have based their theories on environmental factors while others believed that it is the innate factors that determine the acquisition of language. It is, however, important to note that neither nurturists (environmentalists) disagree thoroughly with the nativist ideas nor do nativists with the nurturist ideas. Only the weight they lay on the environmental and innate factors is relatively little or more. Before sifting through language acquisition theories here, therefore, making a distinction between these two types of perspectives will be beneficial for a better understanding of various language acquisition theories and their implications for the field of applied linguistics. In the following paragraphs, the two claims posed by the proponents of the two separate doctrines will be explained and the reason why such a distinction has been made in this article will be clarified.

Environmentalist theories of language acquisition hold that an organism’s nurture, or experience, are of more significance to development than its nature or inborn contributions. Yet they do not completely reject the innate factors. Behaviorist and neo-behaviorist stimulus-response learning theories (S-R for simplicity) are the best known examples. Even though such theories have lost their effect partially because of Chomsky’s intelligent review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Chomsky, 1959), their effect has not been so little when we consider the present cognitive approach as an offshoot of behaviorism.

The nativist theories, on the other hand, assert that much of the capacity for language learning in human is ‘innate’. It is part of the genetic makeup of human species and is nearly independent of any particular experience which may occur after birth. Thus, the nativists claim that language acquisition is innately determined and that we are born with a built-in device which predisposes us to acquire language. This mechanism predisposes us to a systematic perception of language around us. Eric Lenneberg (cited in Brown, 1987:19), in his attempt to explain language development in the child, assumed that language is a species – specific behavior and it is ‘biologically determined’. Another important point as regards the innatist account is that nativists do not deny the importance of environmental stimuli, but they say language acquisition cannot be accounted for on the basis of environmental factors only. There must be some innate guide to achieve this end. In Table 1 below, a classification around the nurture/nature distinction has been made.



Some of the Resulting
Foreign/Second Language Teaching Methods



(environmental factors are believed
to be more dominant in language acquisition)


– Bakhtin’s Theory of Polyphony or Dialogics

– Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

– Skinner’s Verbal Behavior

– Piaget’s View of Language Acquisition

– The Competition Model

– Cognitive Theory: Language Acquisition View

– Discourse Theory

– The Speech Act Theory

– The Acculturation Model

– Accommodation Theory

– The Variable Competence

– The Interactionist View of Language Acquisition

– The Connectionist Model





Community Language Learning


Communicative Approach





(innate factors are believed to be more dominant in language acquisition)


– A Neurofunctional Theory of Language Acquisition


– The Universal Grammar Theory


– Fodor’s Modular Approach


The Monitor Model





The Natural Approach




Table 1. Classification of Language Acquisition Theories Around
“Nurture and Nature Distinction”

The particular reason why such a distinction between environmentalist and nativist theories has been made in this study is to create a clear-cut picture of the current status of language acquisition theories, present and former studies in the field of language acquisition and language teaching methodology. In the following part, the most important ones of language acquisition theories resulting f rom the two opposing views mentioned above will be discussed.


In this part of the article, eight different views of language acquisition will be discussed. Most of the theories may be considered in both L1 (mother tongue) and L2 (second or foreign language) acquisition even though certain theories to be discussed here have been resulted from second language acquisition (SLA) studies. It is important to note once again that language acquisition theories have been influenced especially by linguistic and psychological schools of thought. Thus they have given relatively changing weights on different factors in approaching the acquisition process as can be seen in the following subsections.

2.1 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky was a psychologist but his studies on conscious human behavior led him to investigate the role that language plays in human behavior. Vygotsky’s point of view is simply that social interaction plays an important role in the learning process. He places an emphasis on the role of “shared language” in the development of thought and language. The term “shared language” refers to social interaction and can be best elucidated through the notion of “zone of proximal development”.

According to Vygotsky (1962:10), two developmental levels determine the learning process: egocentricity and interaction. We can look at what children do on their own and what they can do while working with others. They mostly choose to remain silent or speak less on their own (less egocentric speech) when they are alone. However, they prefer to speak to other children when they play games with them (more egocentric speech). The difference between these two types of development forms has been called “Zone of Proximal Development”. This zone refers to the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in cooperation with more capable friends of the child. The first thing that children do is to develop concepts by talking to adults and then solve the problems they face on their own. In other words, children first need to be exposed to social interaction that will eventually enable them build their inner resources.

As for the drawbacks of the views proposed by Vygotsky, it is not clear what Vygotsky meant by inner resources. Also, his emphasis on the significance of egocentric speech in the development of thought and language is worth discussing. He suggests that egocentric speech is social and helps children interact with others. When a child is alone he uses less egocentric language than he uses it when playing games with other children. This implies that speech is influenced by the presence of other people. It seems that Vygotsky overemphasizes the function of egocentric speech in the development of language. It is true that society and other people are important factors helping children to acquire language. However, Vygotsky fails to account for the role of the self itself in this process, even though he stresses the importance of egocentric speech, which is not the self actually, and see the relative role of inner linguistic and psycholinguistic mechanisms that promote language acquisition.

In conclusion, Vygotsky contends that language is the key to all development and words play a central part not only in the development of thought but in the growth of cognition as a whole. Within this framework, child language development, thus acquisition, can be viewed as the result of social interaction.

2.2. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior

Behavioristic view of language acquisition simply claims that language development is the result of a set of habits. This view has normally been influenced by the general theory of learning described by the psychologist John B. Watson in 1923, and termed behaviorism. Behaviorism denies nativist accounts of innate knowledge as they are viewed as inherently irrational and thus unscientific. Knowledge is the product of interaction with the environment through stimulus-response conditioning.

Broadly speaking, stimulus (ST) – response (RE) learning works as follows. An event in the environment (the unconditioned stimulus, or UST) brings out an unconditioned response (URE) from an organism capable of learning. That response is then followed by another event appealing to the organism. That is, the organism’s response is positively reinforced (PRE). If the sequence UST –> URE –> PRE recurs a sufficient number of times, the organism will learn how to associate its response to the stimulus with the reinforcement (CST). This will consequently cause the organism to give the same response when it confronts with the same stimulus. In this way, the response becomes a conditioned response (CRE).

The most risky part of the behavioristic view is perhaps the idea that all leaning, whether verbal (language) or non-verbal (general learning) takes place by means of the same underlying process, that is via forming habits. In 1957, the psychologist B.F. Skinner produced a behaviorist account of language acquisition in which linguistic utterances served as CST and CRE.

When language acquisition is taken into consideration, the theory claims that both L1 and L2 acquirers receive linguistic input from speakers in their environment, and positive reinforcement for their correct repetitions and imitations. As mentioned above, when language learners’ responses are reinforced positively, they acquire the language relatively easily.

These claims are strictly criticized in Chomsky’s “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior”. Chomsky (1959) asserts that there is “neither empirical evidence nor any known argument to support any specific claim about the relative importance of feedback from the environment”. Therefore, it would be unwise to claim that the sequence UST –> URE –> PRE and imitation can account for the process of language acquisition. What is more, the theory overlooks the speaker (internal) factors in this process.

The behaviorists see errors as first language habits interfering with the acquisition of second language habits. If there are similarities between the two languages, the language learners will acquire the target structures easily. If there are differences, acquisition will be more difficult. This approach is known as the contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH). According to the hypothesis, the differences between languages can be used to reveal and predict all errors and the data obtained can be used in foreign/second language teaching for promoting a better acquisition environment. Lightbown and Spada (1993: 25) note that:

“… there is little doubt that a learner’s first language influences the acquisition of second language. [But] … the influence is not simply a matter of habits, but rather a systematic attempt by the learner to use knowledge already acquired in learning a new language.”

This is another way of saying that mother tongue interference cannot entirely explain the difficulties that an L2 learner may face. It is true that there might be some influences resulting from L1, but research (Ellis, 1985:29) has shown that not all errors predicted by CAH are actually made. For example, Turkish learners of English simply use utterances just as “No understand” even though the corresponding structure of Turkish (“Anlamiyorum” literally, “UNDERSTAND-NO-ME”) is thoroughly different.

In brief, Skinner’s view of language acquisition is a popular example of the nurturist ideas. Behaviorism, as known by most of us, was passively accepted by the influential Bloomfieldian structuralist school of linguistics and produced some well-know applications in the field of foreign/second language teaching – for instance, the Audiolingual Method or the Army Method. The theory sees the language learner as a tabula rasa with no built-in knowledge. The theory and the resulting teaching methods failed due to the fact that imitation and simple S-R connections only cannot explain acquisition and provide a sound basis for language teaching methodology.

2.3. Piaget’s View of Language Acquisition

Even though Piaget was a biologist and a psychologist, his ideas have been influential in the field of first and second language acquisition studies. In fact he studied the overall behavioral development in the human infant. But his theory of development in children has striking implications as regards language acquisition.

Ellidokuzoglu (1999:16) notes that “many scientists, especially the psychologists are hesitant to attribute a domain-specific built-in linguistic knowledge to the human infant.” Accordingly, they view the human brain as a homogeneous computational system that examines different types of data via general information processing principles. Piaget was one of those psychologists who view language acquisition as a case of general human learning. He has not suggested, however, that the development is not innate, but only that there is no specific language module. Piaget’s view was then that the development (i.e., language acquisition) results mainly from external factors or social interactions. Piaget (cited in Brown, 1987:47, Eyseneck, 1990:51) outlined the course of intellectual development as follows:

– The sensorimotor stage from ages 0 to 2 (understanding the environment)
– The preoperational stage from ages 2 to 7 (understanding the symbols)
– The concrete operational stage from ages 7 to 11 (mental tasks and language use)
– The formal operational stage from the age 11 onwards (dealing with abstraction)

Piaget observes, for instance, that the pre-linguistic stage (birth to one year) is a determining period in the development of sensory-motor intelligence, when children are forming a sense of their physical identity in relation to the environment. Piaget, unlike Vygotsky, believes that egocentric speech on its own serves no function in language development.
2.4. The Universal Grammar Theory

Among theories of language acquisition, Universal Grammar (UG) has recently gained wider acceptance and popularity. Though noted among L2 acquisition theories, the defenders of UG are not originally motivated to account for L2 acquisition, nor for first language (L1) acquisition. However, UG is more of an L1 acquisition theory rather than L2. It attempts to clarify the relatively quick acquisition of L1s on the basis of ‘minimum exposure’ to external input. The ‘logical problem’ of language acquisition, according to UG proponents, is that language learning would be impossible without ‘universal language-specific knowledge’ (Cook, 1991:153; Bloor & Bloor: 244). The main reason behind this argument is the input data:

“…[L]anguage input is the evidence out of which the learner constructs knowledge of language – what goes into the [brain]. Such evidence can be either positive or negative. … The positive evidence of the position of words in a few sentences [the learner] hear[s] is sufficient to show [him] the rules of [a language].” (Cook, 1991: 154)

The views supports the idea that the external input per se may not account for language acquisition (Ellidokuzoglu, 1999:20). Similarly, the Chomskyan view holds that the input is poor and deficient in two ways. First, the input is claimed to be ‘degenerate’ because it is damaged by performance features such as slips, hesitations or false starts. Accordingly, it is suggested that the input is not an adequate base for language learning. Second, the input is devoid of grammar corrections. This means that the input does not normally contain ‘negative evidence’, the knowledge from which the learner could exercise what is ‘not’possible in a given language.

As for L2 acquisition, however, the above question is not usually asked largely because of the frequent failure of L2 learners, who happen to be generally cognitively mature adults, in attaining native-like proficiency. But why can’t adults who have already acquired an L1, acquire an L2 thoroughly? Don’t they have any help from UG? Or if they do, then how much of UG is accessible in SLA? These and similar questions have divided researchers into three basic camps with respect to their approach to the problem:

Direct access -L2 acquisition is just like L1 acquisition. Language acquisition device (LAD) is involved.

No access – L2 learners use their general learning capacity.

Indirect access – Only that part of UG which has been used in L1 acquisition is used in L2 acquisition.

Proponents of UG, for example, believe that both children and adults utilize similar universal principles when acquiring a language; and LAD is still involved in the acquisition process. This view can be better understood in the following quote.

[A]dvocates of [UG] approach working on second-language learning… argue that there is no reason to assume that language faculty atrophies with age. Most second-language researchers who adopt the [UG] perspective assume that the principles and parameters of [UG] are still accessible to the adult learner. (McLaughlin, 1987:96)

To support the view above, the acquisition of the third person “-s” can be given as an example. According to research (1996, Cook: 21) both child L1 and adult L2 learners (e.g. Turkish learners of English) acquire the third person “-s” morpheme at a later stage of their overall acquisition process and have a great difficulty in acquiring it when compared to other morphemes such as the plural morpheme “-s” or the progressive morpheme “-ing”. This shows that such learners are somewhat affected by UG-based knowledge. However, in the case of foreign/second language teaching it is very well known that the third person “-s” is taught at the very beginning of a second language learning program and presented in a great majority of textbooks as the first grammatical item.

Accordingly, Fodor’s views have some parallels with the UG Theory. Jerry Fodor studied the relationship between language and mind and his view that language is a modular process has important implications for a theory of language acquisition. The term modular is used to indicate that the brain is seen, unlike older views such as behavioristic view of learning and language learning, to be organized with many modules of cells for a particular ability (for instance, the visual module). These modules, according to Fodor (1983:47), operate in isolation from other modules that they are not directly connected. The language module, if we are to follow Fodor’s ideas, is one of such modules. This modular separateness has been termed as “informational encapsulation” by Fodor. To put it simply, each module is open to specific type of data. In other words, modules are domain specific. This is another way of saying that conscious knowledge cannot penetrate your visual module or language module or any other subconscious module.

Basically, Fodor’s arguments are somewhat similar to that of Chomsky or the proponents of UG Theory in that the external input per se may not account for language acquisition and that language acquisition is genetically predetermined. Add to this, such a modular approach to language acquisition is totally different from the views of Piaget and Vygotsky who have laid the primary emphasis on the role of social or environmental factors in language development.

In the case of foreign/second language teaching, the common view is that inductive learning (teaching a language through hidden grammar or) leads to acquisition. However, dwelling on Fodor’s views as discussed above, it is obvious that inductive learning is confused with acquisition and that by learning something via discovery learning, students just improve their problem-solving skills, but not acquire a language.

As for the problems with Universal Grammar, it can be said that UG’s particular aim is to account for how language works. Yet UG proponents had to deal with acquisition to account for the language itself. “Acquisition part” is thus of secondary importance. A second drawback is that Chomsky studied only the core grammar of the English language (syntax) and investigated a number of linguistic universals seems to be the major problem. And he neglected the peripheral grammar, that is, language specific rules (i.e., rules of specific languages which cannot be generalized). Thirdly, the primary function of language is communication, but it is discarded. The final and the most significant problem is a methodological one. Due to the fact that Chomsky is concerned only with describing and explaining ‘competence’, there can be little likelihood of SLA researchers carrying out empirical research.

In summary, UG has generated valuable predictions about the course of interlanguage and the influence of the first language. Also, it has provided invaluable information regarding L2 teaching as to how L2 teachers (or educational linguists) should present vocabulary items and how they should view grammar. As Cook (1991:158) puts it, UG shows us that language teaching should deal with how vocabulary should be taught, not as tokens with isolated meanings but as items that play a part in the sentence saying what structures and words they may go with in the sentence. The evidence in support of UG, on the other hand, is not conclusive. If the language module that determines the success in L1 acquisition is proved to be accessible in L2 acquisition, L2 teaching methodologists and methods should study and account for how to trigger this language module and redesign their methodologies. The UG theory should, therefore, be studied in detail so as to endow us with a more educational and pedagogical basis for mother tongue and foreign language teaching.

2.5. A Neurofunctional Theory (based on the environmentalist view):

Ellis (1985:273) notes that this theory is based on two systems: the communication hierarchy and the cognitive hierarchy. “The communication hierarchy” means language and other forms of interpersonal communication. “The cognitive hierarchy, on the other hand, refers to a number of cognitive information processing activities possibly related with “conscious” processes. The theory also makes a sharp distinction between Primary Language Acquisition (PLA) and Secondary Language Acquisition (SELA). PLA is seen in the child’s acquisition of one or more languages from the age of two to five. SELA is found in both adults and children. It is, in addition, divided into two parts (a) foreign language learning, that is formal classroom language learning, and (b) second language acquisition, that is, the natural acquisition of a second language after the age of five. This theory claims that PLA and (b) is marked through use of the communication hierarchy while (a) is marked by the use of the cognitive hierarchy only. If we are to accept the existence of some innate and subconscious linguistic properties, which is what the nativists have claimed, we then have the right to ask the question of why (a) is treated only as a cognitive process.

(1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen (1985), in his theory of second language acquisition (SLA) suggested that adults have two different ways of developing competence in second languages: Acquisition and learning. “There are two independent ways of developing ability in second languages. ‘Acquisition’ is a subconscious process identical in all important ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language, … [and] ‘learning’…, [which is] a conscious process that results in ‘knowing about’ [the rules of] language” (Krashen 1985:1).

Krashen (1983) believes that the result of learning, learned competence (LC) functions as a monitor or editor. That is, while AC is responsible for our fluent production of sentences, LC makes correction on these sentences either before or after their production. This kind of conscious grammar correction, ‘monitoring’, occurs most typically in a grammar exam where the learner has enough time to focus on form and to make use of his conscious knowledge of grammar rules (LC) as an aid to ‘acquired competence’. The way to develop learned competence is fairly easy: analyzing the grammar rules consciously and practising them through exercises. But what Acquisition / Learning Distinction Hypothesis predicts is that learning the grammar rules of a foreign/second language does not result in subconscious acquisition.

The implication of the acquisition-learning hypothesis is that we should balance class time between acquisition activities and learning exercises.

(2) The Natural Order Hypothesis

According to the hypothesis, the acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predicted progression. Certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language acquisition and there is a similar natural order in SLA. The implication of natural order is not that second or foreign language teaching materials should be arranged in accordance with this sequence but that acquisition is subconscious and free from conscious intervention.

(3) The Input Hypothesis

This hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning. Krashen (1985:3) claims that people acquire language best by understanding input that is a little beyond their present level of competence. Consequently, Krashen believes that ‘comprehensible input’ (that is, i + 1) should be provided. The ‘input’ should be relevant and ‘not grammatically sequenced’. The foreign/second language teacher should always send meaningful messages, which are roughly tuned, and ‘must’ create opportunities for students to access i+1 structures to understand and express meaning. For instance, the teacher can lay more emphasis on listening and reading comprehension activities.

(4) The Monitor Hypothesis

As mentioned before, adult second language learners have two means for internalizing the target language. The first is ‘acquisition’ which is a subconscious and intuitive process of constructing the system of a language. The second means is a conscious learning process in which learners attend to form, figure out rules and are generally aware of their own process. The ‘monitor’ is an aspect of this second process. It edits and makes alterations or corrections as they are consciously perceived. Krashen (1985:5) believes that ‘fluency’ in second language performance is due to ‘what we have acquired’, not ‘what we have learned’: Adults should do as much acquiring as possible for the purpose of achieving communicative fluency. Therefore, the monitor should have only a minor role in the process of gaining communicative competence. Similarly, Krashen suggests three conditions for its use: (1) there must be enough time; (2) the focus must be on form and not on meaning; (3) the learner must know the rule. Students may monitor during written tasks (e.g., homework assignments) and preplanned speech, or to some extent during speech. Learned knowledge enables students to read and listen more so they acquire more.

(5) The Affective Filter Hypothesis

The learner’s emotional state, according to Krashen (1985:7), is just like an adjustable filter which freely passes or hinders input necessary to acquisition. In other words, input must be achieved in low-anxiety contexts since acquirers with a low affective filter receive more input and interact with confidence. The filter is ‘affective’ because there are some factors which regulate its strength. These factors are self-confidence, motivation and anxiety state. The pedagogical goal in a foreign/second language class should thus not only include comprehensible input but also create an atmosphere that fosters a low affective filter.

The Monitor Model has been criticized by some linguists and methodologists McLaughlin (1987: 56), notes that the model fails at every juncture by claiming that none of the hypotheses is clear in their predictions. For example, he notes that the acquisition-learning distinction is not properly defined and that the distinction between these two processes cannot be tested empirically. Although it is true that some parts of the theory need more clarification, it would be harsh to suggest that the Model is a pseudo-scientific. Hasanbey (personal communication) define acquisition as follows:

“Any systematic linguistic behavior, the rules of which cannot be verbalized by its performer is the outcome of acquisition. So if one uses a specific language rule in proper contexts and if the same person cannot articulate the underlying language rule which determines its proper context, then that person is said to have acquired the rule in question. On the other hand, if a person can verbalize a language rule, with or without its proper implementation during performance then that person is said to have conscious knowledge of that rule. So one might have acquired and learned the same rule in theory.”

While writing these very sentences, I have displayed a curious example of committing an error which proves the acquisition-learning distinction. In the statement “Hasanbey (personal communication) define acquisition as follows” the verb define should have an “-s” attached to it. I, as an EFL learner/teacher of English for about 20 years, “consciously” know when to attach that suffix to the verbs. But when it comes to fluent writing and speaking during which only subconsciously acquired rules have a say, I frequently miss that third person singular –s. So I and many other L2 learners who commit this error in spite of knowing the underlying rule at a conscious level, are the irrefutable evidence proving the distinction between acquisition and learning. The on-going interest in Krashen’s theory and the emergence of articles supporting his theory in recent journals also proves that his theory is far from being pseudo-scientific. Here is a typical example:

“Krashen’s ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction has met harsh criticism but the theory he put forward deserves a more sympathetic reappraisal. First of all, the theory is not insulated against falsification. The results of the studies examining the effects of explicit positive and/or negative evidence in formal learning are not inconsistent with it. Recent studies on the acquisition of functional categories lends support to the existence of the natural order in English L2. It is also possible to single out major dimensions on which processes and products of the ‘acquired’ and ‘learned’ systems differ using the principles of markedness and differences in computational complexity.”(Zobl, 1995:35)

So far eight theories of language acquisition have been discussed (see Appendix for a brief account of other theories and a classification of theories based on the distinction made here). It can be seen that none of the theories is complete and most of them need developing. Each theory, however, is important for their implications and provides invaluable information as to how a language is acquired. and how language teaching should take place.


The most important implication of language acquisition theories is obviously the fact that applied linguists, methodologist and language teachers should view the acquisition of a language not only as a matter of nurture but also an instance of nature. In addition, only when we distinguish between a general theory of learning and language learning can we ameliorate the conditions L2 education. To do so, applied linguists must be aware of the nature of both L1 and L2 acquisition and must consider the distinction proposed in this study.

Ridgway (2000, 13) notes that the educational linguist (not the applied linguist) is a practitioner who applies and adapts the policies of others in the classroom creatively. If the educational linguist is to adapt language models proposed by others (applied linguists) for classroom practice, it becomes more important “how” he or she will adopt them. How, for instance, should s/he utilize the findings of SLA studies conducted on syntax or natural order and use them for his or her particular classroom settings? How should grammar points be handled? Should they be taught inductively or deductively? Or should there be a balance between grammar lessons and acquisition lessons just as proposed by the proponents of the Monitor Model? How should vocabulary teaching be like and how should a syllabus be designed? How will the results of language planning proposed by the government be implemented? Most of these “how” questions can be answered properly only through a detailed analysis and a thorough understanding of language acquisition theories.

Here, on the shoulders of the methodologists lays quite a heavy responsibility. As we often see, linguistics and TEFL/TESL are largely based on the nurturist facet of language acquisition, emphasizing discourse and ethnolinguistic studies. It would, of course, be unwise to deemphasize such studies and their role in accounting for language acquisition and reaching a possible theory of educational linguistics. However, in this article it has been shown that language acquisition is also a considerable matter of innate factors. What is then the role of that “nature” part of theories in the overall sketch of language acquisition and methodology?

In addition, the author wishes to emphasize the necessity of the subfield “educational psycholinguistics”. In Stubbs’ point of view (1986:283), a thorough description of language in use, language variation, levels of language such as phonology, morphology and syntax, semantics and discourse will form the bases of a complete educational theory of language. If such a theory is expected to be beneficial to foreign and second language teaching, then it should not only include these environmentalist components but also include the subfield “educational psycholinguistics” which would mainly focus on “naturist” accounts as discussed in previous parts of this article. The inclusion of educational psycholingustics in this sense will make the current position of applied linguistics and language teaching far stronger. No longer should mind and innateness be treated as dirty words (Pinker, 1994:22). This will most probably lead to innovative proposals for syllabus development and the design of instructional systems, practices, techniques, procedures in the language classroom, and finally a sound theory of L2 teaching and learning.

Retrieved from:



Thanks for your comments!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: