This essay is an attempt to examine both theories and practical teaching methods of SLA. First of all， it will mainly concentrate on the behaviorism methodology and two specific teaching methods： grammar-translation and audio-lingual. Compared with each other， the advantages and weaknesses of both methods will be demonstrated separately.

1. Behaviorism Methodology

The origin of second language acquisition as a scientific field is embedded in the behavioristic tradition， which dominated the field from the 1940s to the 1960s （Gass and Selinker， 2001）. As a general theory of learning， behaviorism considers the language learning （Whether first or second） adhere to the same principles， which was defined as a stimulus-response connection （Ortega， 2009）.

From behaviorists points of view （Skinner， 1957）， the formation new habits， reinforcement and then practice of this habit lead to the advancement of language learning. Human beings are exposed to numerous stimuli in their daily environment. The response they give to these stimuli will be reinforced if some successful and desired outcomes are obtained. And then through repeated reinforcements， a certain stimulus will lead to the same response automatically， which is the foundation of the formation of habits. Applied to the language learning process， a certain question will call for a certain response and the responder will repeat this answer if he （she） once received a positive feedback， therefore a new habit for a new language has been developed in this way （Mitchell & Myles， 2004）.

In accordance with the fundamental principle of the behavioristic paradigm， second language learning process might encounter a problem： the interference of the learners first language. As Mitchell & Myles （2013） stated， the second language learning process involves replacing learners old habits by setting new ones. Therefore the basic problems arise primarily out of the interference of inherent language habits， which created by learners first language， rather than the difficulties in the features of the new language itself （Johnson， 2008）.

Within this principle， the implications for practical language teaching were twofold. Firstly， the importance of practice was emphasized by behaviorists， in other words， learning would take place by repeating the same structures time after time （Ortega， 2009）. Secondly， it is an effective teaching method that language-teaching teachers pay more attention on the differences between learners mother tongue and the target language since the old L1 habits may interfere the new language learning process. Based on this principle， the Contrastive Analysis was proposed by Fries in 1945 （Gass & Selinker， 2001）.

Another typical behaviorists position is that language mainly refers to speech rather than writing. That is also to say， speech is a precondition for writing. Although the interrelationship between speech and actions cannot provide sufficient information about how children learn to behave， it cannot be denied that children without cognitive impairment learn how to speak before they learn to write （Johnson， 2008）. In addition， behaviorists （Gass & Skinner， 2001） also claim that human beings establish a set of habits when children started to learn their mother tongue and continue our linguistic growth by analogizing from what we already know or by modifying the speech of others. So that speech rather than writing is the first step in the language learning process.

However， Chomsky （1959） stated his criticisms of Skinner （1957）， arguing that children have an innate faculty， which supports them in their learning of language. In other words， children have the competence of the creativity of language; hence they acquire language （whether L1 or L2） does not through repeated stimulus-responses. Based on these claims， he put forward the Universal Grammar， which have had a major impact on the SLA field （Mitchell & Myles， 2004）.

2. Grammar Translation Method

Whether the grammar should be taught in second language classes always attracts linguists and educators interests （Krashen， 1982;Richards & Rodgers， 1986 and Ellis， 2008）. Krashen （1982） has argued negatively that formal instruction in grammar will not contribute to the development of ‘a(chǎn)cquired knowledge， which is what learners needed to participate in daily authentic communications. He also insisted that grammar-translation only provide scrapes of comprehensible input since the model sentences are usually primarily focus on form， and not meaning， thereby triggering a very low amounts of acquired competence. Besides， Richards and Rodgers （1986） also have attempted to show that students can acquire L2 grammar naturalistically by participation in meaning-focused tasks.

However， it is noticable that grammar translation teaching method was a dominant language-teaching paradigm for most teachers because it could help the learners internalize the structures taught in such a way that they can used in everyday communication. Therefore， learners then can under more normal communicative conditions to use the structures after a large amount of previous practice （Ellis， 2008）.

Under this approach， the goal of foreign language learning is to learn a language in order to read texts in the new language， in other words， the main focus of this method is reading instead of speaking. This is in correspondence with the behavioristic theory that values the significance of reading instead of speaking （Robinson & Vanpatten， 1998）. Besides， as Richards and Rodgers （1986） describe that grammar rules have been applied primarily to the task of translating sentences and texts into and out of the target language. It hence views language learning as a memorizing rule and facts process in order to understand and manipulate the morphology and syntax of the foreign language.

Although the grammar translation method often triggers frustration for students， it requests few demands on teachers. Therefore this method still is used in situations where understanding literary texts is the primary focus of foreign language study and there are fewer requirements for a teachers speaking knowledge of the language.

Applying this method also gives teachers a sense of control and authority in the classroom， which might gain effective teaching outcomes especially in large classes （Richards & Rodgers， 1986）. However， Krashen （1982） argued that the reading material which is the primary source always much too difficult for learners. Students are forced to read word by word， and consequently rarely focus completely on the message. In additional， it is obvious that this method hardly seize the students attention in the second language learning process， thereby leading to high affective filler. In a word， he insisted that grammar translation should be adopted less since it results in a very low amount of acquired competence.

3. Audio-Lingual Method

The audio-lingual method of language teaching， which developed as a reaction to both the traditional grammar-translation method and the direct method， had achieved only limited success. This method， which was put forward by American linguists in 1950s， was developed based on the notion that in terms of social communication， the development of sounds is the first of all; writing is a secondary derivative system for the recording of spoken language （Frey， 1968，p.58）.

The implication of the audio-lingual method is to use the target language communicatively. Being different from the grammar-translation method， this method regards listening and speaking as the priority in foreign language teaching. More specifically， through modifying a large number of dialogues， learners pay more attention on the phonetic correction instead of the meaning of these dialogues. According to Estarellas （1972）， communicative competence could be achieved by forming new habits in the target language. Therefore， it is likely to consider the audio-lingual as form of behavior to be learned through the formation of correct speech habits （Mart， 2013）.

Although linguistic researchers pointed out that there is evidence shows that early exposure to the written word may confuse and hinder the process of students in the mastery of pronunciation and writing， which could be regarded as a support for this method， more linguists still claimed that drawbacks of this language teaching approach cannot be ignored （Frey， 1968; Estarellas and Mart， 2013）. Lado （1964） insisted that audio-lingual pattern drills focus the students attention away from the new structure since the aim of this method is to strengthen habits， making the pattern automatically. Besides， according to Krashen （1982）， the dialogues and pattern practice of audio-lingual method do provide comprehensible input， which also are certainly understandable by most learners， while most dialogues fall to meet the requirements of interesting and reality relevance. Additionally， he continues to argue that the goal of this method is the memorization of the dialogue rather than the comprehension of the information. And this method also violates several aspects of the Input Hypothesis： anxiety might be caused since students are not allowed access to the written word in early stages; over-use of drill and repetition.

References：

[1]Al-Arishi， A. （1994）. Role-play， real-play， and surreal-play in the ESOL classroom. ELT Journal， 48（4）， pp.337-346.

[2]Botha， H. （2013）. The role of error correction in communicative second language teaching. Per Ling， 3（2）.

[3]Chomsky， N. and Skinner， B. （1959）. Verbal behavior. Language， 35（1）， p.26.

[4]Clennell， C. （1999）. Promoting pragmatic awareness and spoken discourse skills with EAP classes. ELT Journal， 53（2）， pp.83-91.

[5]Edge， J. （1989）. Mistakes and correction. London： Longman.

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】古禕玭，安康職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院，助教，碩士研究生。

【基金項(xiàng)目】院級(jí)青年課題 《3+2中高職學(xué)前教育專業(yè)英語(yǔ)高效課堂探索研究》系列論文，課題編號(hào)AZJKY2018028。