Behaviorism: theory of learning in the 1940s and 1950s

language learning:

Behaviorism: theory of learning in the 1940s and 1950s. Traditional behaviorist believed that language learning is the result of imitation, practice, feedback on success, and habit formation. Children imitate the sounds and patterns around them and receive positive feedback. Encouraged by the environment children continue to practice and imitate sounds and patterns until habits are formed. Spada and Light own (1999) posit from their research that children do not repeat word for word feedback they receive on their utterances rather they pick out patterns and then generalize them into new contexts. Spada and Light own maintain that behaviorists OFFER a reasonable way to explain how children learn some of the regular and routine aspects of language. However, the acquisition of more complex grammatical structures of language requires a different sort of explanation.

Theoretical approaches to explaining second language learning:

Behaviorism: Because language development is viewed as the formation of habits, it is assumed that a person learning a second language starts of with habits formed in the first language and these habits interfere with the new habits needed for the second language (Lado, 1964). Behaviorism was often linked with the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) which was developed by structural linguists in Europe and North America. CAH predicts that where there are similarities between first and second language, the learner will acquire second language structures with ease; and where there are differences, the learner will have difficulty. Research has shown that not all errors made by L2 learners is predicted by CAH. For second language acquisition behaviorist’s accounts run into the same problem as their first language position; it is at best an incomplete explanation of language learning.

Innatism: Chomsky made no specific claims about the implications of his theory for second language learning. However, some linguists working within this theory have argued that UG OFFERS the best perspective from which to understand second language acquisition (SLA). Others argue that UG is no longer available to guide acquisition of a second language because learners have passed through the critical period for language acquisition. Advocates of the role of UG in SLA do not agree on how UG works in second language development. Second language learners eventually know more about their second language than they could have reasonably learned if they depended entirely on input they are exposed to. Some innatist therefore infer that UG must be available to second language learners although they disagree on whether or not a second language learner has complete or partial access to UG. Some theorist argues that second language learners have no access to UG. Researchers who study language acquisition from the UG perspective tend to be interested in the language competence of advanced learners rather

...