Language Pedagogy Assignment

One of the main issues in language pedagogy is whether instruction is of any help in second language acquisition. In this regard, three different related positions can be found in literature. By differentiating between acquisition and learning and believing that ‘picking up’ a second language becomes possible only through minimal exposure to it, Krashen (1981) has taken a non-intervention position. Moreover, there are those researchers who argue that while instruction might possibly be necessary for second language acquisition, it does assist in rapid acquisition of L2 (see Ellis, 1992). And finally, there are a number of scholars who take a middle position assuming that formal instruction is essential for at least some aspects of language

Researchers have for long demonstrated that learners pass through a series of ordered and predictable stages in their second language development. Meisel, Clahsen and Pienemann (1981), for example, have explained that learners’ progress through these stages depends on their psycholinguistic processing abilities. Pienemann (1984; 1985; 1989) formulated a ‘teachability hypothesis’ which is predicated on the psycholinguistic research in second language acquisition. On the basis of Pienemann's hypothesis, instruction should proceed in a manner to target a learner’s next developmental level so as to be more effective than the one which targets features distant from the learner’s current level. Those features which are subservient to instruction at specific times are termed ‘developmental’ and those which are considered to respond to instruction at just about any time are termed ‘variational’ (Pienemann

2) Introduction of the deviant forms is prohibited, and 3) Inclusion of structures which were not intended for production is possible in general input. (see also, Kawaguchi, 2012) UG and Teachability, Learnability Hypothesis By comparing UG with Teachability/Learnability hypothesis, Gass and Selinker (2008) state that learnability can virtually be put within the constraints of UG. Since learners construct grammars in terms of the input together with principles of UG, providing positive evidence is central in UG. However, there are some language structures, i.e., parameters, that address input as the only source of learning. When learners have accessibility to positive evidence, resetting the parameter is provided and as a result little transfer is predicted. White’s (2003) conviction is that UG, though exerting constraints on acquisition, is a theory of learning as well.