Second-language acquisition (SLA) is the process through which a person learns the elements of a new language, such as vocabulary, phonological components, grammatical structures, and writing systems, after having learned a first language. Rod Ellis comments on language pedagogy, teacher education, and second language acquisition (Ellis, 2010). He argues if second language acquisition researchers want to ensure that their work is relevant to language teachers, they must play a moderator role by investigating how, as teacher educators, they can facilitate the process by which technical knowledge about SLA interacts with teachers’ own practical teaching knowledge (Ellis, 2009). To that purpose, he has proposed a number of tactics, culminating in a set of eleven guiding principles for the connection. His goal is not to presume that SLA is relevant to language instruction but rather to investigate its applicability. Thus, Ellis’ scholarship examines SLA within the context of pedagogy and how it should continuously evolve alongside other areas of teaching and linguistics in this specific overlap.
Meanwhile, Michael Ullman examines the biological, rather than the social, side of the SLA process, focusing on the relevant brain processes. Despite its distinctiveness, the anatomy of the brain and the nature of evolution suggest that language is likely dependent on brain networks that serve other activities (Ullman, 2004). According to the declarative/procedural paradigm, the mental lexicon of remembered word-specific knowledge is mostly dependent on declarative memory’s temporal-lobe substrates, which underpin the storage and use of knowledge about facts and occurrences (Ullman, 2016). A separate brain system is required for mental grammar, which serves the rule-governed integration of lexical components into complex representations.
Thus, the two researchers write in parallel, observing the same topic of SLA from a different and field-related perspective. A comparative analysis would prove challenging in this case since it the metrics of pedagogy and of neuroscience are entirely different. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Ellis’ scholarship could potentially be linked to Ullman due to it attempt to enhance the teaching system and increase its practicality. This goal could benefit from a greater understanding of the scientific side of the process.
SLA and the practices and contradictions associated with it have now become more relevant then ever, with the ongoing globalization leading to the increased value of language skills. Grammar has been studied in a variety of approaches to SLA over the last decade, and some scholars now advocate for explicit grammar training. It may aid language acquisition in a variety of ways, including the construction of explicit grammar, quick learning, language accuracy improvement, interlanguage development, and the prevention of early fossilization. As an advance organizer, meaning-form focuser, and monitor, it can influence the acquisition process (Ellis, 2001). It could be useful for teaching marked and peripheral aspects, as well as learning faults. Both institutionalized pedagogical factors of influence and the anatomy of the brain processes of a learner are important for a better understanding of the SLA process and its value.
Teachers must provide opportunities for real dialogue in the classroom so that students can use the target grammar form in meaningful ways. Finally, teachers should not expect rapid and direct results from grammar instruction. Some grammar features are simple, whereas others are not. Some students find a rule acquisition simple, whereas others do not, as language proficiency varies among students. In conclusion, it is a fundamental and structurally complex tool that is integral to SLA and requires a multidisciplinary understanding if possible.
References
Ellis, R. (2001). Form-focused instruction and second language learning. Language learning, 51. Web.
Implicit and Explicit Learning, Knowledge and Instruction. In Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3-26). Multilingual Matters. Web.
Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language teaching, 43(2), 182-201.
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1-2), 231-270.
The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Neurobiology of language (pp. 953-968). Academic Press. Web.