UNIVERSIDAD FASTA

FACULTAD DE CS. DE LA EDUCACIN

LICENCIATURA EN INGLS- CICLO DE LICENCIATURA

APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Silvia Morgavi
2013

Course objectives

Understand the field of applied linguistics and its main features.

Acknowledge the variables involved in language acquisition.

Identify and understand the nature of second language

acquisition and the variables involved in the process of learning
a second language.

Explore the challenges presented by the main components of a

SLA programme.

Examine the field of critical discourse analysis and the

relationship between language and its social context.

Survey some areas of critical discourse analysis and develop a

critical understanding of language use.

Table of contents

Part one
APPLIED LINGUISTICS
1.1 HISTORY
1.2 ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION
1.3 DICHOTOMIES RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINE

Part two
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

2.1
2.2

BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
2.2.1 Situational factors
2.2.2 Input
2.2.3 Learner differences
2.2.3.1 Personal factors
2.2.3.2 General factors
2.2.4 Learner processes
2.2.4.1 Other knowledge
2.2.4.2 Language processing
2.2.4.3 L2 knowledge
2.2.5 Output

2.3 SLA APPROACHES

2

2.3.1 Cognition-oriented theories

2.3.1.1 Innatist theories
2.3.1.2 Cognitive theories
2.3.2 Context-oriented theories
2.4 FORMS OF INSTRUCTION
2.4.1 Theoretical positions
2.4.2 Issues in formal instruction
2.5 TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ROLES

Part three
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
3.1 CDA: A DEFINITION
3.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF CDA
3.2.1 Macro vs. micro
3.2.2 Power as control
3.3 AREAS OF CDA
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4

Gender
The media
Political discourse
Ethnicity

3.4 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

PART ONE
APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Language is so pervasive that most of its users simply take it for granted.
There is little awareness of its magnitude, let alone of its nature and
workings. Even so, it is everywhere. It is almost impossible to conceive of
3

one single human act which is devoid of language. Such an entity is the
object of study of general linguistics, which traditionally concentrates on its
nature and structure, by focusing on its semantics, syntax and phonology.
However, as language exists almost everywhere, its study cannot be
restricted to just one science, thus the emergence of language-related
disciplines of varied orientation, like applied linguistics.

1.1 HISTORY
The term Applied Linguistics seems to be of quite recent coinage. It
emerged in the late 1940s and 1950s both in America and Britain to refer
to the incipient field of the study of the teaching and learning of foreign
languages. The 1980s saw a widening of the term to include topics that are
language-related beyond linguistics itself. At this point it is necessary to
distinguish linguistics from applied linguistics. Davies and Elder (2004: 11)
point to the fact that while linguistics is primarily concerned with language
itself and with language problems in so far as they provide evidence for
better language description or for a linguistic theory, applied linguistics is
interested in language problems for what they reveal about the role of
language in peoples daily lives and whether intervention is either possible
or desirable. (2004: 12) Applied linguistics has evolved as independent
from linguistics as its only source, and is often problem-oriented towards the
analysis and resolution of language-related social problems that people find
in the real world (teachers, academics, lawyers, policy developers, business
clients, to mention only a few) across a wide range of settings.
Also, in a preface to his An Introduction to Applied Linguistics: from Practice
to Theory (1999: vii), Davies explains his approach to applied linguistics as
a theorizing approach to practical experience in the language professions,
notably, but not exclusively, those concerned with language learning and
teaching. It is concerned with the problems, the processes, the mechanisms
and the purpose of language in use.

1.2 ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION

Applied linguistics may be defined, then, in a simplified sense, as a science
that mediates between theory and practice, with a view to the resolution of
language-related problems in various contexts. According to Widdowson
4

(2005: 12), in attempting a definition, two things are taken into account:
first, that it deals with problems in the real world in which language is
involved, and second, that, and as a necessary consequence of the first, it is
interdisciplinary in nature.
As to the variety of issues related to the field, Kaplan (2002) lists several
foci of study for the discipline:
1- Language teaching and learning, recently concentrating on topics
like information processing, patterns of interaction and language
awareness.

Also,

teacher

development

issues

are

being

addressed, such as how to engage teachers in action research

and give them training in evaluating their practices.
2- The role of critical studies, such as critical discourse analysis,
critical pedagogy and ethics.
3- Language use in academic and professional settings, where
language can act as a positive mechanism or as an obstacle in
achieving results.
4- Descriptive analyses of language in real settings, and their
possible applications in corpus linguistics, genre analysis and
register variation.
5- Multilingualism in schools, communities, work settings or language
policies.
6- Language testing and assessment issues.
7- The role of applied linguistics as mediator between research and
practice.
It becomes apparent from the list above that the scope of applied linguistics
is difficult to determine. Also, as the resolution of real world problems is a
complex

task,

applied

linguistics

can

be

effective

if

it

remains

interdisciplinary. However, as in most sciences, there is disagreement.

Widdowson (2005: 25) is clear about his position with regards to the danger
posited by interdisciplinarity, in that there may be a separation between the
domain experience of the real world and the theoretical discipline
knowledge: interdisciplinaritycannot actually provide such a service since
it operates on a level of abstraction remote from the actualities as
experienced by the folk. If we are to engage with real-world issues, we need
to develop a methodological approach that mediates between these two
orders of reality of discipline and domain in which none is unilaterally
imposed.
5

1.3 DICHOTOMIES RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINE

In trying to understand the environment of applied linguistics, it is necessary
to consider its source and target, the former referring to what applied
linguistics draws on, the latter to what AL is being applied to. According to
Davies (1999: vii), there is a two-way relationship: Like any other discipline,
applied linguistics draws on theories from related disciplines with which it
explores the professional experience of its practitioners and which in turn
are themselves illuminated by that experience. He considers both source
and target as dependent on the view one adheres to, either a restricted
view in which applied linguistics only applies theoretical linguistics and
therefore there is little connection with real life problems, or a wider one in
which the discipline would have to concern itself with whatever is related to
language. Neither position seems to be realistic: Linguisticsmust play an
important role in applied linguistics but by no means the only role. Applied
linguistics

must

also

draw

on

psychology,

sociology,

education,

measurement theory and so on. (Davies 1999:3)

Regarding the target and scope of the science, there are two poles and inbetween positions, as to whether applied linguistics should focus on
language teaching with a broad meaning, i.e. to inform fields like speech
therapy, translation and language planning, or, on the other hand, it should
have a much wider application. This position, however, should present
limitations so as to avoid creating a science of everything (Davies 1999).
Yet another distinction must be made, that of the Applied-Linguistics versus
the Linguistics-Applied approach to language problems. Applied linguistics
looks outward, beyond language in an attempt to explain, perhaps even
ameliorate social problems in the real world (Davies 2004:11), and uses
information sources from fields that stand outside linguistics (Ellis 1997). On
the other hand, linguistics applied makes use of language data to extend
knowledge about language concerned with theories about language.
However, this distinction is not always clear-cut, and it seems to be one not
of areas of interest but of orientation of research.
In sum, applied linguistics is too complex a field to offer easy definitions. Its
complexity in terms of components, orientations and outcomes is also a

source of various theories and hypotheses that cause considerable debate

among its practitioners. However, the dominant concern for applied
linguistics seems to be that of language teaching and learning, in that more
applied linguists devote their attention to this field than to any other (Davies
1999: 63). As Littlewood (2004: 502) states the study of second language
learning is an immensely rich and varied enterprise. Most participantsstill
see its ultimate justification in terms of the desire to improve learning and
teaching. In this respect the study of second language learning is an
important branch of the overall field of applied linguistics.

PART TWO
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Second Language Acquisition is the branch of applied linguistics that looks

into language learning once the native language, or languages, have been
acquired.
Before going deeper into the subject, some terms need to be clarified. As in
most research in the field, L2 refers to any language a learner learns after
having incorporated his/her L1, no matter how many languages he/she
speaks. Also, no distinction is made in this module between an L2 and a FL,
7

the former acting as a cover term for a language learnt while living in the
country where the target language is spoken and for a language learnt
where there is no contact with the target language community. In cases
where the distinction is necessary, it will be made. The concepts of learning
and acquisition are also taken as synonymous, unless a difference is
specified.
Finally, some words need to be said about the term language. In early SLA
work, it usually meant grammar and vocabulary, while in current work the
distinction between knowledge and use is important. Also, after the
introduction of the concept of Communicative Competence, the concept of
language includes not only linguistic knowledge, but also discourse,
pragmatic, sociolinguistic and socio-cultural knowledge.

2.1

BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

Interest in second language learning is not new. Although SLA began to gain
standing as an independent field during the 1970s, work had been done in
L2 learning via linguistics or first language acquisition research (Cook 1993:
8). From that moment, SLA research has increased dramatically, and has
branched out into many subfields, each following its own theoretical
framework. Many researchers are still pedagogically motivated, while, on
the other hand, much research has departed from practical purposes and
has become highly theoretical. Again, it is impossible and purposeless to
draw clear lines between these two extremes, because, as Littlewood (2004:
502) clearly states, such non-applied research is also likely to improve the
basis for making practical decisions. However, he warns as to the dangers
of teachers trying to apply theoretical research to their teaching practices
without due consideration.
The first approaches to the study of L2 learning were derived from general
learning principles, within the field of behaviourist psychology, which
dominated the scene between the 1940s and 1950s. The first two
approaches that will be discussed in this section (Cook 1993) are based on
phrase structure syntax, which analyses sentences by segmenting them into
smaller and smaller units, until they cannot be segmented any further.
These approaches are consistent with the behaviourist view of learning that
prevailed at that time, and which viewed learning as the building of a
system of habits acquired through stimulus-response.
8

Uriel Weinreich focused on how two language systems relate to each other
in a person who is bilingual, i.e. somebody who uses two languages
alternatively, without any further specification as to the definition of
bilingualism. Weinreich proposes two key concepts: first, interference,
instances of deviation from the norm of either language which occur in the
speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one
language (in Cook 1993:8). Interference may be present both in bilinguals
knowledge of the language and in their actual speech, and across all areas
of language. The second key concept in Weinreichs view is that of the link
between the two languages in an individuals mind, in terms of how
concepts and words are related. This second key concept has been found
flawed in that it restricts the focus to vocabulary, leaving out other aspects
of language. On the other hand, the notion of interference is recurrent in
SLA research.
While Weinreichs work concentrates on knowledge of language, Robert
Lados has a pedagogical approach. He based his research on Contrastive
Analysis, a detailed comparison of L1 and L2. The basic notion in Lados
work is that of transfer. Individuals tend to transfer the forms and
meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native
language and culture to the foreign language and culture (in Cook 1993:
11). This predicts that transfer will be negative when there is no
correspondence between the two languages, while it will be positive when
language items are the same. Language teaching should, therefore,
concentrate on those areas in which both languages differ more, which are
expected to cause most trouble.

Lados work has been criticised on the

grounds that many of the difficulties predicted by it do not actually come

true and, at the same time, many of learners problems are not predicted by
Contrastive Analysis. However, the notion of transfer, just like that of
interference, is still found in current work on SLA.
At the end of the 1950s, Noam Chomskys work on the acquisition of an L1
began to undermine the then prevailing behaviourist approach to the study
of language acquisition. Chomsky posited that stimulus-response learning
does not explain the creative aspect of language, i.e. the possibility humans
have of creating sentences they have never heard before. He also
considered that the childs L1 is a developing system in its own right, not a
9

defective version of adult speech. This concept is known as the independent

grammars assumption.
In later work, Chomsky introduced the Language Acquisition Device (LAD),
also referred to as the black box, a device in the mind which is specific to
language (thus originating the mentalist view of language learning), that
analyses the input it encounters to construct a generative grammar.
Comparing the input children receive with their speech production, it is
possible to deduce how the process of acquisition develops. In this view,
children alter their grammars by testing their hypotheses until a final one is
found, which corresponds to adult competence.
Nowadays, the notion of the LAD has been incorporated into the wider
Universal Grammar theory. On the other hand, the validity of hypothesistesting in L1 learning is disputed because of the fact that children seldom
get the necessary negative feedback that would allow them to test their
hypotheses. Nevertheless, the independent grammars assumption and the
hypothesis-testing model are central elements of SLA.
The early 1970s saw the beginnings of SLA as an independent field, as well
as its branching out into various sub-fields. One facilitating factor was the
recognition that an L2 learner at times, contrarily to what Contrastive
Analysis predicted, uses neither the L1 nor the L2. The independent
grammars assumption therefore applies also to L2 learners, who develop an
approximate system that gradually nears the target language.
The term interlanguage (IL) was introduced by Larry Selinker to refer to the
learners independent language system. It differed from the approximate
system in that the former, according to Selinker, seldom reached target
language standards. Selinker claims that IL depends on five central
processes, which are part of a general psychological structure: transfer (L1
features are projected onto the L2), overgeneralisation of L2 rules, transfer
of training (sometimes a teachers overuse of a language feature may
discourage learners from the use of other features), strategies of L2 learning
(e.g. simplification of learners structures) and communication strategies
(e.g. learners omission of redundant grammatical items).
Criticism to Selinkers IL mentions the fact that he is not clear about whether
IL refers to the learners knowledge of the L2 or to its actual use. The same
applies to the five processes held responsible for IL. Nevertheless, the
10

notion of interlanguage was a major contribution to the study of SLA, and

has been further developed by later researchers.
At the same time, Pit Corder introduced a methodology for studying SLA
known as Error Analysis. Corder claims that mistakes, both in L1 and L2, are
not really mistakes, but evidence of an internal grammar. Corder also claims
that errors are a means of testing hypotheses, in accordance with Selinkers
IL. There are two methodological problems, recognised by Corder himself.
First, it may be extremely difficult to determine whether a mistake comes
from competence (error) or performance (mistake). The second problem
concerns the nature of the error. It is not always possible to discover the
learners intended meaning from his/her speech, and as this is a subjective
process, it is prone to failure.
The following table summarises early SLA research:

Focus
L1 L2 relation
Nature

of

L2

grammar
Research methods

Theory / Hypothesis
Interference
Bilingualism
Transfer
Phrase-structure
grammar
Interlanguage
Contrastive Analysis
Error Analysis

Researcher
Weinreich
Lado
Weinreich
Lado
Selinker
Lado
Corder

By this time, early SLA theories have abandoned habit-formation and the
behaviourist school which supported it, in favour of the mentalist school
which propounded hypothesis-testing as a means of building an interim
grammar.
The 1980s saw SLA gather momentum as many researchers followed in
previous researchers footsteps, while others took different paths.

Much

work emanated from various language-related disciplines, broadening the

field as to goals, views and methodology. At present, SLA offers a vast array
of perspectives, from the most theoretical to the most practical. Such a
variety of approaches ensures debate and disagreement, reflecting the
dynamic nature of the field. Keeping up to date offers the language
professional a way to make informed decisions regarding their practice, and
to open a field of interest and enquiry.

11

The next section will offer an introduction to the main elements of SLA,
while a brief discussion of current theories will be presented later.

2.2 COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

Different current approaches to SLA seek to explain language acquisition
from different perspectives, based on different theoretical stances. So far,
no definite answers have been advanced. This section explores a variety of
elements that have been identified as crucial factors in the process of
acquisition. The following table, taken in part from Ellis (1985: 276),
provides a framework for examining the components of SLA.

Situational
factors

Learner processes
Other
knowledge

Input

Language
processing

L2 output

L2
knowledge

Learner
differences

2.2.1 Situational factors

Situational factors relate to the context of SLA, i.e. the environment in which
learning takes place, and affect both the nature of the input and the
strategies used by learners.
Contexts of SLA can be broadly characterised as either naturalistic or
instructed.

Naturalistic

learning

happens

within

non-instructional

community, in which the learner is exposed to the target language at work

or in social interaction, or at school where instruction is directed at native
speakers. This is typically the case of immigrants. On the other hand,
instructed learning normally happens in a language classroom, although
with the new technologies, new ways of learning are becoming more
accessible, allowing for autonomous learning. This polarity is mediated by
in-between possibilities, like formal L2 instruction within the target language
community and immersion courses both abroad and at home.

12

According to Ellis (1985: 16), One of the key issues in SLA research is the
extent to which the process of SLA is similar or different in the two
environments. Many people consider learning in a naturalistic context more
effective. According to Lightbown and Spada (1993), this may be so because
of the fact that most successful learners have had exposure to the target
language outside the classroom. Contrarily, other researchers, based on
studies, make a claim in favour of instruction, which they see as potentially
effective, provided it is relevant to the learners needs. (Doughty 2005)
All learning contexts are significant in that they offer different learning
opportunities.

The

following

comparison

of

natural

acquisition

and

communicative instruction is based on Lightbown and Spada (1993).

(Traditional, grammar-based instruction, in which the focus is on learning the
target language instead of its communicative use will be left out of the
comparison since it has been shown not to be effective.)

Characteristics

Error correction

available

of

structured
for

native

speakers to learners
Variety

of

instruction

Language

learning
Availability

Communicative

acquisition

Limited,

Rare

Grading of language
Time

Natural

language

and discourse types

Pressure to speak

meaning

emphasised over form

is

not

Structural grading

Ample

Limited

High ratio

Limited
Introduced

High

life

through

materials

real
and

activities.
High

Low. In early stages, there

13

is

emphasis

on

comprehension.
Available in many
one-on-one
conversations, not
Access

to

modified

input

often

in

conversations
where

there

many

are

Totally

available,

teacher,

other

from

learners,

and materials.

native

speakers.
It is evident that both input and interaction are likely to be different
according to context. Both the type of input learners receive and the kind of
interaction in which they engage affect the negotiation of meaning to a
great extent. As will be seen later, negotiation of meaning is considered to
be a crucial element in the acquisition process. As regards discourse types,
both contexts may provide the same or similar types, but in different
degrees. As Ellis (1985: 152) summarises, Considerable differences
between natural and classroom environments arise, particularly when the
focus is on form in language lessons. These differences are not absolute;
they vary in degree according to the type of classroom and the type of
teaching.
Situational factors also include social ones. From a variationist perspective,
Tarone (2010: 54) studies how social setting systematically influences both
the kind of second language (L2) input learners receive and their cognitive
processing of it; the speech production of L2 learners; and even, upon
occasion, the stages in which learner language (or interlanguage) forms are
acquired. In other words, contextual variables such as the identity and role
of interlocutors, topic, and task, as well as contextual linguistic forms, have
a

systematic

impact

on

the

learners

perception,

production,

and

acquisition of specific aspects of the second language system.

Social settings influence the input provided in two basic ways. First, learners
are likely to have more contact with the particular variety of the target
language used by their social setting. For example, learners in an immersion
programme are likely to have closer contact with academic genres. On the
14

other hand, learners in a classroom situation will lack exposure to vernacular

varieties. Second, the amount of input adjustment provided will vary
according to the setting. Tarone (2010), in accordance with Lightbown and
Spada, reports that adjusted input is less likely to be offered to learners in
naturalistic contexts, while it is more available in classroom situations.
Also, social settings influence negotiation of meaning, i.e. conversations
involving interlocutors in trying to overcome communication problems, by
selecting salient topics, topic shifting, checking of comprehension, requests
for clarification, slower pace, repetition, etc. Negotiation of meaning can be
focused on form or meaning. Tarone (2010) reports on how learners with a
lower-proficiency level tend not to negotiate meaning with higher-proficiency
learners, as the latter are not usually willing to offer explanations. On the
other hand, there is more negotiation when the lower-proficiency learners
are the senders of the message. Social relationships between learners
strongly impacted key cognitive processes involved in the negotiation of
meaning, disregard for an interlocutor who is less socially dominant or
significant to the learner may also cause a learner to ignore or discount that
interlocutors corrective feedback on their L2 form.
This point is related to the fact that error detection does not depend only on
psycholinguistic factors, such as attention, but also on the social context,
represented by the accuracy demands of the task, who the listeners are, or
whether there is an audience, to name a few. Also, error correction is always
value-laden, so noticing the mistake does not always result in uptake, since
the corrector (native speaker, teacher or peer) has to be accepted by the
learner as having the right to give the correction.
Social settings also make an impact on learners language production.
Research shows that learners adjust their interlanguage to the forms used
by their interlocutors, according to whether there is identification with the
interlocutors or not. This issue is more clearly seen in naturalistic settings,
and is explored by Accommodation Theory (which, due to space restrictions
will not be dealt with here). Nevertheless, the mentioned phenomenon does
occur in classroom settings, albeit to a lesser degree. According to Tarone
(2010), In sociocultural theory, new IL forms originate in collaborative
dialogue with supportive others and gradually get internalized. In other

15

words, new IL forms may develop in collaborative dialogue in a relaxed

setting, a process referred to as scaffolding.
For a more detailed account of contexts of SLA and their influence on
learning processes, see Ellis (1994).

2.2.2 Input
Situational factors go hand in hand with input. Also external to the learner,
input is of vital importance in SLA, as learning depends directly on it.
Lightbown and Spada (1993: 122) define input as The language which the
learner is exposed to (either written or spoken) in the environment. This
positive evidence serves as the data which the learner uses to learn the
target language. However, not all input is processed by the learner, as it
may have not been understood, or attended to. The input that is understood
and attended to, and therefore processed, is referred to as intake. This
distinction is a fundamental one, as it is intake that leads to learning.
SLA cannot ignore L1 acquisition. Lightbown and Spada (1993: 16) refer to
three different general accounts of L1 acquisition which, despite not being
contemporary with one another, offer explanations for different aspects of
childrens language development. The behaviourist position, which posits
that children learn by imitating their interlocutors and by receiving feedback
on their utterances, which in turn reinforces or corrects them, may explain
how word meanings and some language routines are learned. The innatist,
or nativist, position minimises the role of input by considering it a mere
trigger which activates the internal mechanisms that human beings are
endowed with. According to this view, children are born with some kind of
innately specified knowledge (Gass 2005: 176) that helps in grammar
formation, as the input they receive does not provide all the information that
is necessary for the extraction of abstractions (2005: 175). Finally, the
interactionist view, which claims that language acquisition is the result of
the interplay between the learners mental abilities and the linguistic
environment, may explain how children relate form and meaning, how
they interact in conversations, and how they use language appropriately
(Lightbown and Spada 1993:16). Thus, in this view, language acquisition is
the result of the interaction of input factors and innate mechanisms.

16

Early studies of L1 acquisition have focused on the input received by

children, sometimes called motherese or caretaker speech. Child-directed
speech is adapted to be made more comprehensible, and it changes
according to the developmental stages of children. It usually contains
shorter utterances, few subordinate and co-ordinate constructions, tutorial
questions (i.e. questions to which the interlocutor already knows the
answer), and a high level of redundancy. There are also adjustments in
pitch, intonation and rhythm (Ellis 1985: 130). As regards the functions of
motherese, mothers do not pay much attention to the correctness of their
childrens speech, while they do concentrate on the social appropriateness
and meaning.
Regarding the effects of simplified input, the available evidence suggests
that the route1 of acquisition is not altered by differences in the linguistic
environment. On the other hand, the way mothers talk to their children has
effects on the rate2 of learning. However, according to Ellis (1985: 131), the
key features of the input appear to be interactional rather than formal. That
is, it is the mothers choice of discourse function (e.g. commands rather
than questions) and the devices she uses to sustain the conversation (e.g.
requests for clarifications, expansions, acknowledgements) which provide
the right kind of data to foster development. Research into this type of
modified speech led to a new consideration of the role of input, as more
than simply a factor that triggered innate mechanisms, which in turn led to
an interactionist view of language development.
Modified input is not restricted to child-directed language. Within the sphere
of SLA, input is present in natural and instructed settings.

As regards

natural linguistic environments, there are two areas of special interest:

foreigner talk (simplified talk used by native speakers (NS) to address nonnative speakers (NNS)), and the discourse involving conversations between
NS and NNS. Foreigner talk is to be seen as dynamic, in that it changes
according to situational factors, such as the topic of conversation, the age
of the participants, and, in particular, the proficiency of the learners. (Ellis
1985: 133) Foreigner talk is similar to motherese in that both

contain

1 Route of acquisition: transitional states speakers/learners go through while

acquiring L1/2 rules.
2 Rate of acquisition: speed at which speakers/learners develop L1/2
proficiency.
17

simplifications within the grammar of the language. However, foreigner talk

can also contain some ungrammatical speech, if the NNS has a very low
proficiency in the L2, or if the NS considers himself/herself to be of a higher
status.
Discourse studies have shown that input is not determined only by the
native speaker. The feedback the non-native speaker provides helps to
delineate the nature of the subsequent input provided by the NS. This is
particularly noticeable in interaction between NSs and older learners, as it
is more likely to have instances of negotiation of meaning, by means of
requests for clarification, echoing, repair strategies, and recasts (a corrected
version of a NNS incorrect utterance).
In sum, although the basic function of foreigner talk is to facilitate
communication, it may indirectly provide a teaching/learning opportunity,
which is central to L2 acquisition.
Similar constructs are involved in instructed settings, as the type of
language used by the teacher and the type of interactions that take place in
the classroom are conducive to learning. Ellis (1985: 143), for example
believes in the rejection of language teaching method as the principal
determinant of successful learning. Focusing on classroom interaction as
the major factor affecting SLA in instructed settings led to research into
teacher talk and into the discourse generated in the classroom. Teacher talk
is

characterised

by

having

formal

adjustments

in

syntax

(shorter

utterances), in pronunciation (more accurate, standard pronunciation with

lower-level learners), and in lexis (using more general words). In contrast
with foreigner talk, teacher talk does not contain ungrammatical speech.
Teacher talk involves the use of interactional adjustments, some resembling
those in motherese, like repetition, prompting, and expansions. In the
classroom, tutorial questions are much more frequent than in naturalistic
settings.

Research

reported

by

Ellis

(1985:

145)

notes

that

while

comprehension checks are more frequent in the classroom, confirmation

checks and requests for clarification are not. The analysis of the discourse
produced in classrooms has shown that, in teacher-oriented teaching,
discourse typically consists of three stages, in which the teacher initiates
interaction, the learner responds, and the teacher gives feedback. Apart
from reinforcing the teachers role as the sole manager of the learning
18

process, this type of distorted input may not be conducive to language

learning in all levels, as it does not give learners experience in, for example,
how to initiate interaction.
Ellis reports on four types of language use that have been identified in the
classroom (Ellis 1985:147-148):
1. mechanical, where no exchange of meaning is involved;
2. meaningful, where language use is contextualized but still no real
information is conveyed;
3. pseudo-communicative, where information is exchanged, but in a
way that would be unlikely to occur outside the classroom; and
4. real communication, which consists of spontaneous natural
speech.
This description of discourse in the classroom is complemented by Ellis
framework (1985: 148), in which he describes three pedagogical goals:
(1) core goals, which relate to the explicit pedagogic purpose of
the lesson (e.g. to teach specific aspects of the L2, ); (2)
framework goals, which relate to the organization requirements
of the lesson (e.g. giving out materials, managing pupil
behaviour); and (3) social goals, involving the use of language
for more personal purposes (e.g. imparting private information,
quarrelling).
He also distinguishes types of address, that is, who functions as speaker,
listener and hearer. These aspects combine to produce a wide variety of
classroom interactions, with different patterns. For example, interactions
with a framework goal usually include many directives, to which the learners
may respond non-verbally. The frequency of this type of interaction, which
may be profitable for lower level learners, may vary according to the type of
classroom and level of students. Thus, attention to interaction forms
becomes of uppermost importance.
Although much of the current research into SLA shows that there may be a
natural route for acquisition, the interplay between input and interaction can
19

affect it in several ways. According to Ellis (1985), one of these is by

providing learners with formulaic speech. Ready-made chunks appear in
routinised interactions, and may serve immediate communication purposes.
Also, they are raw material for analysis into component parts, which is a
vital part of the learning process. Frequency of occurrence may also affect
the route of acquisition, as learners are likely to learn first items from the
language they are most frequently exposed to. A third issue concerning
input is the availability of comprehensible input. In Krashens view, stated in
his SLA theory, sometimes known as the Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1982),
learners need to receive input that contains samples of the language which,
according to the natural order, are due to be acquired next. This is what he
calls i + 1. In order for learners to understand the input, it is a prerequisite
that they are focused on meaning, not on form. According to Long (in Ellis
1985: 157), input is rendered comprehensible by the fact that learners use
the linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts and their general knowledge to
interpret language which they do not actually know. Also, during interaction,
some adjustments are usually made to aid comprehension.

If these

conditions are met, acquisition will proceed automatically. However, there is

disagreement as to the validity of Krashens position. Ellis (1985: 158)
explains that SLA can take place without two-way communication, as
when input is encountered when reading or watching television or films. In
this case, there are no interactional modifications. Another problem with
Krashens view is that interactional modifications do not always result in
comprehensible input (1985: 158). Finally, Krashens theory fails to
recognise the role of output. While output is considered a vital element in
language acquisition (see section on output), the only role allotted to it by
Krashen is that of generator of more input (Krashen 1982: 60). Yet another
problem is that not all input that is understood will be processed by the
learner. Intake, a necessary condition for SLA will therefore not always be
present. Little is known about how learners select from the input they
receive, but it is believed that factors that may mould intake are motivation,
the internal processing mechanisms, and features of the input.
Input may also affect the rate of acquisition. The studies reported by Ellis
(1985: 160-161) into the effects of input and interaction in classroom

20

environments have led him to suggest that the following features are likely
to aid rapid development:
1. A high quantity of input directed at the learner.
2. The learners perceived need to communicate in the L2.
3. Independent control of the propositional content by the
learner (e.g. control over topic choice).
4. Adherence to the here-and-now principle, at least initially.
5. The performance of a range of speech acts by both native
speaker/teacher and the learner (i.e. the learner needs the
opportunity to listen to and to produce language used to
perform different language functions.)
6. Exposure to a high quantity of directives.
7. Exposure to a high quantity of extending utterances (e.g.
requests for clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and
expansions.)
8. Opportunities for uninhibited practice (which may provide
opportunities to experiment using new forms).
In sum, it is clear that input is one of the vital elements in SLA. However,
what is not so clear is the amount of responsibility that it has, as opposed to
the internal mechanisms. As Hatch (in Ellis 1985: 162) states, While social
interaction may give the learner the best data to work with, the brain in
turn must work out a fitting and relevant model of that input.

2.2.3 Learner differences

In contrast with situational factors and input, which are external to the
learner, there is another construct that interacts with input and learner
processes: learner differences. This area of SLA has been motivated by the
need to explain the striking variation in learning outcomes, especially as
regards rate of learning and levels of achievement.
Individual factors have proved to be difficult to define and classify. According
to Ellis (1985), this is due to the fact that qualities like aptitude or
motivation cannot be directly observed. Also, individual factors interact with
one another affecting language learning. Those factors are in fact clusters of
21

behaviours, and there is no consensus among researchers as to their

definitions. However, Ellis proposes a distinction between personal and
general factors. The first are highly idiosyncratic features of each
individuals approach to learning a L2 (1985: 100), while the second are
characteristics of all learners. General factors are of two types: modifiable
(likely to change during the learning process) and unmodifiable.
Both personal and general factors have social, cognitive and affective
aspects. These aspects are all present in the mentioned factors, in different
degrees. Cognitive factors are related to the problem-solving strategies used
by the learner. Social aspects concern the relationship a learner has with
native speakers of the target language and with speakers of his/her own
language. Finally, affective factors are relative to the emotional responses
caused by the learning process.

2.2.3.1 Personal factors

Group dynamics
Group dynamics, important in classroom settings, relate competitiveness
and anxiety experienced by learners. Bailey (in Ellis 1985: 101-102)
presents a model of how the learners self-image is affected by comparison
with other learners, resulting in a successful or unsuccessful self-image. If
the learner has a positive self-image, then learning will be enhanced. On the
contrary, if the image is a negative one, this may result in facilitating or
debilitating anxiety. In the case of the former, the learner will try to improve
L2. In the case of the latter, learning may be impaired or even abandoned.

Attitudes to the teacher and course materials

In Ellis review of the topic (1985), learners appear to have very different
views as to what makes a good teacher. Some prefer teaching to be
structured or predictable, others dislike having to follow somebody elses
teaching plan. Something similar applies to coursebooks. In general, adult
learners prefer a variety of materials to a rigid use of the coursebook.

Individual learning techniques

22

Different learners make use of a wide variety of learning techniques. They

may be classified into techniques for studying the L2, such as preparing and
memorising vocabulary lists, learning words in context and reading to
reinforce learning, and for obtaining L2 input, as in seeking opportunities for
communication with native speakers, or for exposure to the target language
through, for example, films.
2.2.3.2 General factors
This section will refer to the factors that have received most attention in SLA
research.

Personality
Although personality is considered to be a crucial variable in success in
language learning, the available research does not provide conclusive
results. According to Ellis, there is fairly substantial support for the claim
that extroverted learners will do better in acquiring basic interpersonal
communication skills (1994: 520), mainly by obtaining more input.
However, the effects of extroversion/introversion may be situationdependent. He concludes that this may be so because personality
becomes a major factor only in the acquisition of communicative
competence. (1985: 121)

Intelligence and aptitude

There is no general consensus as to whether intelligence and language
aptitude are separate constructs or are two aspects of a single general
language faculty. Even so, both have been found to have an influence on L2
learning, especially when studied in the context of classroom learning.
For those scholars who consider intelligence separate from aptitude,
intelligence refers to a general reasoning ability, which underlies our use of
academic skills. It does not refer to the knowledge in our minds, but to our
ability to learn. According to the studies reported by Ellis (1985: 111),
intelligence does not seem to be a mayor determinant of L1 acquisition, so
it is probably not so important in SLA in naturalistic contexts. As regards
instructed SLA, intelligence may influence the acquisition of some skills
associated with formal study, like reading, grammar, vocabulary and free
writing, while its relation with the development of oral fluency skills is much
23

less certain. Also, the influence of intelligence is restricted to the rate and
success of SLA, as there is no evidence that it affects the route of
acquisition.
On the other hand, language aptitude has been found to be a better
predictor of L2 learning than intelligence. Aptitude refers to specific
cognitive qualities needed for SLA (Ellis 1985: 111), and following Carrolls
research (in Ellis 1994:496) four factors are identified:
1. Phonemic coding ability (the ability to code foreign sounds in a
way that they can be remembered later). This ability is seen as
related to the ability to spell and to handle sound-symbol
relationships.
2. Grammatical sensitivity (the ability to recognize the grammatical
functions of words in sentences).
3. Inductive language learning ability (the ability to identify patterns
of correspondence and relationships involving form and meaning).
4. Rote learning ability (the ability to form and remember
associations between stimuli). This ability is hypothesized to be
involved in vocabulary learning.
It should be noted that aptitude has been studied mostly in relation to the
linguistic aspect of language learning, as opposed to the development of
interpersonal communication. Also, aptitude is not a prerequisite for SLA,
but a capacity that enhances the rate and ease of learning. (Ellis 1994:
495) In this respect, there is no evidence that aptitude has any effect on the
route of SLA, while, on the other hand, it can be expected to influence the
rate of development and have effects on ultimate success in SLA.

Cognitive and learning styles

The concept of learning styles comes from general psychology. On the
whole, cognitive and learning styles are relevant to SLA as, according to
Drnyei and Skehan, different learning styles may be equally valid and
advantageous (2005: 450), and it is possible for different styles to make
contributions to different domains. Also, as they appear to be less fixed than
other factors (like aptitude), learners may adapt their styles to meet the
needs of particular situations.
Ellis (1985: 114) defines cognitive styles as the way in which people
perceive, conceptualize, organize and recall information. Drnyei and
24

Skehan make a distinction between cognitive and learning styles: The

former can be defined as a predisposition to process information in a
characteristic manner while the latter can be defined as a typical preference
for approaching learning in general. The former, in other words, is more
restricted to information-processing preferences, while the latter embraces
all aspects of learning. (2005: 451)
As regards cognitive styles, a number of distinctions have been made in
cognitive psychology, but one that has attracted much attention in SLA is
that of the contrast between field independence (FI) and field dependence
(FD). The following table shows the main characteristics of FD and FI
cognitive styles:

Field dependence
Personal orientation
i.e. reliance on external frame of

Field independence
Impersonal orientation
i.e. reliance on internal frame of

reference in processing information

reference in processing information

Holistic
i.e perceives field as a whole; parts

Analytic
i.e perceives a field in terms of its

are fused with background

component

Dependent
i.e. the self-view is derived from

distinguished from background

Independent
i.e. sense of separate identity

others
Socially sensitive
i.e
greater

Not so socially aware

i.e less skilled in interpersonal/social

skill

interpersonal/social relationships

in

parts;

parts

are

relationships

Based on Ellis (1985: 115)

As can be hypothesised from the table above, field independents may prefer
to study alone, and benefit from analysing linguistic material, while field
dependents may work well in groups and profit more from communicative
language use.
There are, however, some points to clarify. First, the distinction should not
be taken as comprising two polarities, but poles on a cline, with individuals
varying in their predispositions.

Second, according to some research

reported by Ellis (1985: 115), the effects of cognitive style may be related to
age, in that field independence is facilitative in the case of late
25

adolescence but not before. Also, researchers disagree as to the usefulness

of the FD/FI distinction in that there have been problems both as to the
definitions and measurements of the constructs. In all, the results are not at
all conclusive, but the research area is considered to be promising.
Other approaches to the study of learning styles include sensory preference.
Reid (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005) distinguishes four perceptual learning
modalities:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Visual (e.g. reading and studying charts)

Auditory (preference towards listening)
Kinaesthetic (involving physical response)
Tactile (using their hands, as in building models)

According to this model, learners benefit from tasks that allow them to use
their preferred sensory styles.
Various other approaches are being studied in relation to their effects on
SLA. For more info, see Drnyei and Skehan (2005) .
As a general conclusion, it can be said that learners vary a great deal in
their preferred styles for L2 learning, and that there is no best style. In
Ellis words (1994: 508), it may be that learners who display flexibility are
those who are most successful, but there is no real evidence yet for such a
conclusion. Drnyei and Skehan (2005: 454) conclude that the concepts of
cognitive and learning styles have not been clearly defined in the literature,
and are sometimes conflated with other factors. However, they argue that,
while they may not deserve high research priority, they have not been
eliminated as potentially relevant second language linked measures.

Motivation
The concept of motivation, which has attracted much attention within the
field of SLA as being considered one accurate predictor of L2 learning
success, is not without difficulties. One of them is related to the
conceptualisation of the construct, another to the fact that motivation
cannot be directly observed, and therefore it has to be inferred from
peoples behaviours (Ellis 1985: 116).
Drnyei and Skehan (2005) describe motivation as concerning the direction
and magnitude of human behavior, or, more specifically (i) the choice of a
particular action, (ii) the persistence with it, and (iii) the effort expended on
it. In broad terms, motivation is responsible for why people decide to do
26

something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard
they are going to pursue it.
Given

the

array

of

potential

determinants

of

motivation,

different

approaches to it focus on different factors on which to base their studies. As

a result, none of the current positions offer a comprehensive view of all the
factors that affect motivation.
One of the central approaches to motivation is that of Gardner, oriented
towards the roles of attitudes and motivation in SLA (in Drnyei and Skehan
2005).

His

model

includes

the

distinction

between

integrative

and

instrumental orientations towards L2 learning. The first reflects a positive

disposition towards the L2 group and a desire to identify with its culture. The
second relates to functional goals, such as passing an examination, getting
a better job, facilitating the study of other subjects through the medium of
the L2, etc. Although these two concepts are widely known in the L2 field,
there is still a wider concept in Gardners theory, the integrative motive,
which is made up of three main components: (i) integrativeness,
subsuming integrative orientation, interest in foreign languages, and
attitudes toward the L2 community; (ii) attitudes toward the learning
situation, comprising attitudes toward the teacher and the course; and (iii)
motivation, which according to Gardner is made up of motivational intensity,
desire to learn the language, and attitudes toward learning the language.
(in Drnyei and Skehan 2005: 458)
Related to Gardners integrative motive is the notion of intrinsic motivation.
This is understood as an inherent interest in the learning process and tasks.
This concept is of utmost importance in SLA as it is possible to manipulate it
in the classroom, in an attempt to arouse and sustain students interest. Ellis
(1994) reports on several ways to enhance learners motivation: by
providing opportunities for communication, by learners becoming selfdirected (able to choose their learning objectives and ways of achieving this,
and to evaluate their own progress), by presenting students with tasks that
pose a reasonable challenge, by providing opportunities for group work, and
variety.
Another influential approach is that proposed by Heckhausen and Kuhl,
known as Action Control Theory (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005: 461), which
differentiates between the predecisional and the postdecisional phases of
27

motivation. The former refers to the pre-actional stage of deliberation

associated with planning, goal setting, and intention formation while the
latter is about influences that come into force when action has started and
therefore concern motivational maintenance and control, perseverance, and
overcoming various internal obstacles to action.
From a neurobiological perspective, Schumanns approach tries to link the
study of language with cognitive science (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005: 462).
The key issue is stimulus appraisal,
which occurs in the brain along five dimensions: novelty (degree of
unexpectedness/familiarity);

pleasantness

(attractiveness);

goal/need significance (whether the stimulus is instrumental in

satisfying needs or achieving goals); coping potential (whether the
individual expects to be able to cope with the event); and self- and
social image (whether the event is compatible with social norms and
the individual's self-concept). Thus, stimulus appraisal can be seen
as a key process underlying executive motivation.
From the points mentioned above there can be little doubt that motivation is
a powerful factor in SLA. According to Ellis (1985: 119), its effects can be
seen on both the rate and success of L2 learning. What is not clear is
whether it is motivation that produces successful learning, or vice versa.
Whatever the directionality, the key issue is that, as motivation is more
susceptible to change than other personal factors, teachers have a greater
role in fostering it. This can be achieved by a careful selection of activities
that are relevant to the learners interests and needs, and that are in
accordance with their level, so as to prevent anxiety (if the task is too
demanding) and boredom (if the task does not pose a challenge), and by
giving learners enough autonomy so that they can gain more control over
their own learning process.

Age
Age has been the most considered individual factor in SLA, and it is still the
most controversial.
Although age does not present any difficulties as to measuring, it can hardly
be separated from other factors that inevitably interact with it, such as

28

context of learning, length of stay (in the case of immigrants), amount of

instruction, age of onset, and ultimate attainment, to mention a few.
In SLA research, it is widely agreed that in a naturalistic context, early
starters tend to attain high levels of language competence. In contrast,
learners who start later in life, especially after the end of adolescence, show
a great variability in their levels of linguistic attainment (Ortega 2011: 176).
Strozer (1994: 130) is clear about the effects of age:
all normal children are totally successful at acquiring the language of
their communities, while most adults who try do not succeed in
developing a mastery of a single foreign language. This sharp
disparity at first may strike us as paradoxical (the greatest
success is achieved by the least developed organisms, which are in
fact less capable at most things than adult organisms).
The current, and unresolved debate, concerns the explanations for the
commonly agreed on fact expressed above. One of the most influential
biological explanations is the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), first
advanced in the late 1960s, and mostly associated with Eric Lenneberg.
The hypothesis holds that language acquisition must occur before the
onset of puberty in order for language to develop fully. (Johnson & Newport
1989:77) Lenneberg proposed a neurological mechanism which might be
responsible for the change in learning abilities: once the brain has achieved
adult values by puberty, it loses the plasticity needed for language
acquisition. This points to a sharp decline in the ability to acquire an L1.
However, Johnson and Newport (1989) mention two problems with
Lennebergs formulation of the critical period hypothesis. First, previous
studies show that the decline in the ability to learn an L1 is not in fact as
sharp as claimed. Second, L1 acquisition by postpubescent learners, albeit
lower in ultimate attainment, is not altogether impossible. In conclusion, an
extreme interpretation of the hypothesis should be ruled out.
Johnson and Newports seminal study investigated whether the CPH applies
to L2 as well. It focuses on ultimate command of the grammar of the L2 with
respect to the age of exposure to that language. Subjects on this study were
Chinese and Korean immigrants to the US, who learned English as a second
language. They varied in the age at which they moved to the US, and had
lived there for at least 3 years.
29

In order to make the distinction between L1 and L2 clear, the researchers

outline two versions of the critical period hypothesis. While the two versions
make the same predictions for L1 acquisition, they differ as regards L2
learning. The exercise hypothesis (1989: 109) states that Early in life,
humans have a superior capacity for acquiring languages. If the capacity is
not exercised during this time, it will disappear or decline with maturation.
If the capacity is exercised, however, further language learning abilities will
remain intact throughout life. This version predicts that L2 learning should
be the same in children and adults, or perhaps even superior in adult
learners, as they already possess language skills from their L1.
The maturational state hypothesis, on the other hand, claims that the
superior capacity for learning languages disappears or declines with
maturation (1989: 109), and therefore predicts that children are better at
acquiring any language, L1 or L2.
The results of the study support the maturational state hypothesis: Human
beings appear to have a special capacity for acquiring language in
childhood, regardless of whether the language is their first or second.
(1989: 109) As regards the decline in performance, the study did not find a
sudden drop in performance at the end of the critical period.

Instead, it

showed a gradual decline from about age seven on until adulthood, with a
marked drop around puberty. After puberty, performance did not continue to
decline with increasing age, but showed important individual differences.
From these findings, it can be concluded that learning an L2 after puberty is
not impossible, in spite of some deficiencies. Also, for adult learners, age is
not a predictor of performance.
The study also takes into account variables other than age, in order to
investigate whether experiential or attitudinal factors can affect the effects
obtained for age of acquisition. As regards the experiential variable, it was
found that length of exposure did not alter performance significantly beyond
the first few years of exposure (in an immersion context).

Attitudinal

factors, such as motivation, identification and self-consciousness, were also

unable to explain away the effects of age.
In sum, Johnson and Newports work seems to prove their claim that the
critical period does exist, although not in an extreme interpretation (some
30

researchers refer to it as a sensitive period), and that it applies to both first

and second languages. Also, the existence of a critical period does not rule
out the benefits of exercise, allowing for the possibility of language
acquisition after puberty, in spite of its wide variety as regards outcomes.
Thus, the two versions of the hypothesis are not mutually exclusive.
Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2005: 420) classify current explanations for
age effects into three areas. According to these authors review of the
literature on the topic,
biological explanations have addressed the brain's steady loss of
flexibility or plasticity. Even though little is known about the exact
cerebral mechanisms that are responsible for differential outcomes of
language learning at different phases of life, there is enough
independent knowledge of changes in the brain taking place during
the time when language acquisition outcomes differ systematically to
be suggestive of hypothesized relations between the two.
Cerebral plasticity is related to the ability of neurons to make new and
varied

connections

depending

on

the

stimulus,

and

also

to

the

strengthening of those connections. Other biological explanations include

metabolic changes in the brain around puberty, thickening of the corpus
callosum and the process of lateralisation, that is, the neurological capacity
for understanding and producing language, which initially involves both
hemispheres of the brain, and which is slowly concentrated in the left
hemisphere for most people. (Ellis 1985: 107)
As far as social/psychological explanations for the effects of age are
concerned, these factors are believed to have some influence on the
process of L2 acquisition. However, their impact is not as significant as that
of age itself. For instance, there is no direct evidence that children would be
inherently more motivated to learn the L2, or that they receive more input
than adults In addition, several empirical studies have shown that
motivational factors cannot account for the decrease in ultimate attainment
with increasing age of onset (Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2005:421422). In the case of adult learners, while age is still the dominant factor
affecting outcomes, the variability between highly successful learners and
other L2 learners may be considered the result of (a combination of) nonmaturational variables such as motivation, affective/attitudinal factors,
31

input, type of instruction, verbal analytical ability, metalinguistic awareness,

and language aptitude.
Finally, Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson offer cognitive explanations, which
seem to enjoy general consensus as regards the fact that cognitive factors
must have an influence on the process of L2 learning, although there is
disagreement as to how they play their part. According to their review
(2005: 423), general problem-solving mechanisms, typical of older learners,
may counteract the normal direct processing of target language input in
children. This view is similar to explanations linked to the UG (Universal
Grammar)(see below) position, which can be viewed from different
perspectives. The fundamental difference hypothesis claims that adults are
different from children in that they no longer have access to the language
acquisition device (LAD), and therefore have to rely on general problemsolving mechanisms. The competition hypothesis claims that adults have
continued access to UG, and that the LAD competes with general problemsolving processes, which eventually succeed. The less is more hypothesis
states that childrens limitations on cognitive capacity allow them to focus
on and store component pieces of the input, while adults unsuccessfully try
to analyze complex chunks of input simultaneously.
Nevertheless, these cognitive explanations are not without controversy, as
they would predict basic differences in learning processes between children
and adults as regards the order and sequence of acquisition, while the
available evidence points to the fact that age does not affect the route of
acquisition. In other words, children, adolescents and adults follow the same
stages of development, irrespective of their age. On the other hand, rate
and success appear to be strongly influenced by the maturational factor.
Ellis (1985: 106) gives the following summary of the effects of age:
1. Starting age does not affect the route of SLA. Although there may
be differences in the acquisitional order, these are not the result
of age.
2. Starting age affects the rate of learning. Where grammar and
vocabulary are concerned, adolescent learners do better than
either children or adults, when the length of exposure is held
constant.

32

3. Both number of years of exposure and starting age affect the

level of success.

The number of years exposure contributes

greatly to the overall communication fluency of the learners, but

starting

age

determines

the

levels

of

accuracy

achieved,

particularly in pronunciation.
As regards the different areas of language acquisition, they do not seem to
be affected alike. Strozer (1994: 160) reports on adult acquisition of accentfree phonology, widely accepted as the first loss brought about by age.
Research shows that the critical period relates more to the peripherals of
production and perception than to the central core of language since there
seems to be no critical period for at least one aspect of language
acquisition, namely, the growth of the vocabulary, which is a lifelong
process.
In sum, maturation seems to be a major determinant for language
acquisition, while non-maturational factors seem to account for the
variability between highly successful and non-exceptional L2 learners of the
same starting age. As regards social/psychological factors, they seem to
become more important with age, as they can compensate for the negative
effects of maturation.
Finally, it is necessary to look at instruction in relation to the influence of
age on the SLA process. In a naturalistic setting, younger learners usually
have more overall time to learn. They also have more opportunities to use
the language without the strong pressure to speak correctly and fluently
that they may experience in a classroom setting. On the other hand,
adolescent and adults may develop a sense of frustration when they find
themselves in situations in which they are expected to express complex
ideas and language.
Contrarily, in the case of instructed L2 learning, according to Lightbown and
Spada (1993: 50), it may be more efficient to begin second language
teaching later. In research on school learners receiving a few hours of
instruction per week, learners who start later (for example, at age 10, 11, or
12) catch up very quickly with those who began earlier. However, they
warn of the fact that One or two hours a week even for seven or eight
years will not produce very advanced second language speakers. In spite
of this, there may be an advantage in an early start with appropriate
33

teaching and a sufficient amount of time. Some characteristics need to be

taken into account when teaching children, such as their need to use their
bodies when learning, their need to develop a strong emotional attachment
with their teachers, and their short attention span, which calls for variety of
activities. According to a study reported in Johnstone (2002: 12), when
children are around 6, they feel positive about learning a new language
when they enjoy their classroom activities. At around 9, children notice that
they are learning, and feel pleasure from this. As regards older learners,
they benefit from the fact that they can make use of already existing
metalinguistic awareness from their L1. Also, they are more experienced in
the negotiation of meaning, and therefore will get better input.
Johnstone (2002: 13-14) provides a list of learner characteristics together
with advantages and disadvantages for different ages. Given appropriate
teaching conditions for learning, younger learners may possess the following
advantages over older beginners

they are likely to find it easier to acquire a good command of the

sound system of the language, not only the pronunciation of
individual sounds but also patterns of intonation;

they are likely to be less language anxious than many older learners
and hence be more able to absorb language rather than block it out;

they are likely to have more time available overall. If young beginners
at age 5 are compared with older beginners at age 10 then after one
year the older group are likely to be ahead. However, if both groups
are compared at (say) age 14, the younger beginners stand a better
chance of being ahead, in part because of the greater amount of time
available overall;

an earlier start enables productive links to be made between first

and additional languages, which can have important benefits for a
childs language awareness and literacy;

a range of acquisitional processes can come into play, e.g. largely

intuitive processes at an early age, complemented by more
analytical processes later. This potentially allows the additional
language to become more deeply embedded in the person;

34

there can be a positive influence on childrens general educational

development (e.g. cognitive, emotional, cultural) and on the
formation of a multilingual and intercultural identity.

On the other hand, Older learners may possess some or all of the following
advantages over younger beginners:

they may be able to plot their new language to concepts about

the world which they already possess from their first language.

they may be more experience in handling the discourse of

conversations and other language activities, and thus may be
more adept at gaining feedback from native speakers or teachers
and in negotiating meaning;

they are likely to have acquired a wider range of strategies for

learning, e.g. note-taking, use of reference materials, searching
for underlying pattern. This, allied to their established literacy in
their first language, may help them become more efficient
learners;

they may have a clearer sense of why they are learning an

additional

language

and

may

therefore

be

able

to

work

purposefully towards objectives of their own choosing.

To conclude, and taking into account the teaching practice, knowledge about
the effects of age should provide a basis for the design of teaching materials
and methodologies,as well as language policies. Teachers can be better
equipped for evaluating materials, techniques and practices in relation to
their students and their needs. In Johnstones words (2002: 21), given
suitable teaching, motivation and support, it is possible to make a success
of language learning at any age and stage, though older learners are less
likely to approximate to the levels of a native speaker.

2.2.4 Learner processes

Another complex element in second language acquisition is learner
processes. What goes on inside the black box has been a topic of longstanding

debate,

and

has

triggered

several

sometimes

conflicting

approaches. The main disagreement seems to be about the nature of

35

language learning, that is, whether it is biologically determined and

language specific, or whether language is developed within general
cognitive abilities.
The construct of learner processes comprises three elements that are in
constant

interplay:

L2

knowledge,

language

processing

and

other

knowledge. It is necessary to keep in mind that learner processes are

affected by situational factors, input and individual differences, and that,
these, in turn are affected by learner processes.
2.2.4.1 Other knowledge

Schemata
The first component to be discussed in this section will be knowledge of the
world. In order to understand language, humans rely not only on their
knowledge of language, either L1 or L2, but also on their knowledge of the
world. This is mostly automatic and unaware. Relevant to this area is the
concept of knowledge schemata. According to Cook (1989: 69), these are
mental representations of typical situations,used in discourse processing
to predict the contents of the particular situation which the discourse
describes. The idea is that the mind, stimulated by key words or phrases in
the text, or by the context, activates a knowledge schema, and uses it to
make sense of the discourse. Schemata involve the use of pre-existing
knowledge of the world (that is, stereotypical situations, sequences of
events, roles, relationships, etc) in the comprehension of interaction. Apart
from

aiding

comprehension,

schemata

allow

communication

to

be

economical, in that information that is shared by the interlocutors will be

taken for granted and, therefore, will not need to be fully explicit. Schemata
are complex data structures, many of which may be activated at the same
time. Also, the mind is capable of building new ones as well as of discarding
old ones. Communication may fail if people make false assumptions as to
shared schemata, and in the case of people from different cultures and
languages, there may be misjudgements and mismatches. As can be seen,
language learning is not alone in the process, and it can be aided by
knowledge which does not belong in the realm of language.

L1

36

The other fundamental component of this section on other knowledge is the

L1, and its influence on SLA, mainly as regards transfer. Not surprisingly, the
problems related to cross-linguistic influence are various and complex. In
consequence, there is no conclusive theory of transfer. The role of L1 was
first studied within the behaviourist position, and was linked to the errors
produced by learners. According to this view, errors were the result of
interference from the habits of the L1.
Weinreich studied patterns of negative transfer, or what he called
interference, as well as positive transfer, that is, the facilitating influences
that may arise from cross-linguistic similarities. (Odlin 2005: 334)
Contrastive Analysis was developed as an attempt to predict areas in which
learners

would

encounter

difficulty.

However,

the

claims

made

by

Contrastive Analysis were not supported by evidence, since many of the

errors predicted by it did not occur, while others, not predicted, did actually
arise. The role of the L1 was reconsidered, and the L1 is now viewed as a
resource of knowledge which learners will use both consciously and
subconsciously to help them sift the L2 data in the input and to perform as
best as they can in the L2. (Ellis 1985: 40)The use of this resource depends
on linguistic factors, such as the formal and pragmatic features of both L1
and L2, and on psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic factors, such as the
learners stage of development and type of language use. Although Ellis
(1985: 40) claims that the influence of the L1 is most evident in the
phonological aspect of the target language, studies reported by Odlin (2005)
show that there are problems with this view, in that frequency of occurrence
and individual perceptions of the similarities between the native and target
language may affect predictions of interference.
One factor which Weinreich and Lado already considered important, and
which is still considered so, is that of language distance, that is, what
learners think the difference between their native language and the target
language is. Learners have the possibility of relying on their L1 for help.
Having such opportunities, however, does not guarantee that any particular
learner will do the necessary looking or come to the right conclusion about
just how congruent a cross-linguistic correspondence is. (Odlin 2005: 337)
In other words, language distance depends on individual perceptions of
interlingual similarities, and judgements may not always be accurate.

37

Moreover, there may be other constraints, such as general cognitive

capacities, like perception and memory.
Language acquisition is not independent of social factors, thus the notion of
cultural

transfer. This includes a variety of factors, from literacy and

discourse conventions, to conceptualisations and pragmatics. Transfer, both

positive and negative, are intuitively obvious as regards writing conventions.
On the other hand, conceptual and pragmatic processes of transfer are not
so evident. Odlin (2005: 351) defines conceptual transfer as the mapping of
concepts underlying the L1 words onto L2 linguistic labels, regardless of the
possible differences in the semantic boundaries between the corresponding
words. Conceptual transfer entails more than just the mapping of concepts
onto new words, as is evident in the coding of concepts in, for example,
idioms,

as

correspondence

is

not

always

absolute.

Sometimes,

conceptualisations are different, as in the mass-count distinction. Pragmatic

transfer can also be at work, as, for example, in how affect is coded in
language. In Odlins words (2005: 352) Learning to speak a second
language normally requires learning a repertoire at least somewhat different
in how affect is coded, and difficulties may arise either from being at a loss
for words or from using a pragmatic routine acceptable in the native
language but not in the target language. Learning new pragmatic routines
may cause an identity problem, and therefore, an affective constraint.
In sum, schemata and the L1 exert considerable influence on learner
processes, which, in turn, influence the process of SLA. Formal language
instruction can help by raising learners awareness of these facts, which are
usually not obvious to students. Instruction can help by guiding learners as
to the process of transfer, so that their L1 becomes more of a facilitating
element.

2.2.4.2 Language processing

This section will explore some of the internal processes that allow for
language acquisition. Different researchers describe what goes on inside the
black box differently, focusing on various aspects according to the
theoretical

point

of

view

they

subscribe

to.

However,

this

is

an

oversimplification as, even within similar backgrounds, there are different

foci of attention. The concepts introduced in this section are key concepts in
38

language processing, and will provide the basis for the description of SLA
models below.
Ellis (1994: 415) proposes a classification of the available explanations for
the internal mechanisms that are responsible for SLA into two strands: those
that focus on the linguistic nature of acquisition, and those that focus on its
cognitive nature. The former discuss L2 acquisition in terms of linguistic
rules, principles and universals, and lies within the field of linguistics. The
latter concentrates on processes, strategies and operations, and is therefore
within the scope of psychology.

Linguistic description
UG
The theory of Universal Grammar (UG), both a description of grammar and a
model of language acquisition, derives from Chomskys view that language
learning is best explained in terms of an independent language faculty,
sometimes called Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which is independent
of

the

general

cognitive

mechanisms

responsible

for

intellectual

development. The LAD is genetically endowed with principles about

grammar, which allow the child to build his/her L1 by means of hypothesis
testing. This position minimises the role of input, in that the role ascribed to
it is simply that of the trigger that activates the process of acquisition. The
fact that the data available from the input is not sufficient to enable the
child to acquire certain rules, together with the fact that children seldom
receive negative feedback are two of the main reasons for the explanation
of the innateness of UG. This claim is referred to as the Poverty of the
Stimulus argument.
UG is a system of linguistic universals that are present in all human
languages. In Elliss discussion, (1994: 430) these universals consist of
universal principles and language-specific parameters, which constrain the
hypotheses learners will make. The first are highly abstract properties of
grammar which underlie the grammatical rules of all languages. The second
are principles that vary from language to language. Another key concept
within UG is markedness, and is related to core and peripheral features.
Core features are governed by UG, and are unmarked, and therefore require
minimal evidence to be acquired. Peripheral features are marked, and will
require much more evidence to be acquired.
39

A number of researchers have argued that the logical problem of language

acquisition also applies to SLA, that is, L2 learners possess knowledge of
the L2 that they could not have acquired from the input and which must,
therefore, have existed within their own minds. (Ellis 1994: 432) Thus, the
poverty of the stimulus argument applies to L2 learning too, although SLA
may be more dependent on the nature of the evidence.
In conclusion, although the theory of UG is a quite well developed one, it
does not yet offer a conclusive explanation of language processing. (UG will
be taken up below, in the section on theories of acquisition, and will be
developed a little further.)

Cognitive descriptions
On the cognitive side, research has concentrated on constructs like
processes, strategies and operations. This subsection will explore some of
the internal processes that account for what learners do with input data.

Declarative/procedural memory
Work within the neurosciences has produced a model that claims that the
distinction between the mental lexicon and the mental grammar in language
is tied to the distinction between declarative and procedural memory.That
is, lexical memory depends largely on the declarative memory system,
whereas aspects of grammar depend on the procedural memory system.
(Ullman 2004: 233) These two memory systems depend on different parts of
the

brain.

Declarative

memory

is

associated

with

the

learning,

representation and use of facts and events, and at least part of this
knowledge can be consciously retrieved. It is knowing what. Procedural
memory, on the other hand, is an implicit memory system, as it is not
usually available to conscious access. It is instrumental in the learning of
new, and the control of established habits and skills; it is knowing how.
Learning in this system is gradual and slow, as compared to the fast learning
produced by declarative memory. The relevance of this model to SLA lies on
the fact that, according to its supporters, the brain system underlying
declarative memory also underlies the mental lexicon, that is, it stores word
meanings,

sounds

and

categories;

it

stores

both

free

and

bound

morphemes, irregular forms, idioms, etc. On the other hand, procedural

40

knowledge is assumed to play a crucial role in the combination of stored

forms and abstract representations into complex structures.
These two systems are hypothesised to interact, in that the rapid
lexical/declarative storage of sequences of lexical forms should provide a
database from which grammatical rules can gradually and implicitly be
abstracted by the procedural memory system. (Ullman 2004) Also, Access
to a stored representation which has similar mappings to one which could be
composed compositionally by the procedural system (e.g. an irregular
versus a regular past-tense form of the same verb) would block completion
of the latter computation.
The declarative/procedural model can provide an insight into the acquisition
of the different elements of language, as well as give the process a
biological underpinning.

Explicit/implicit learning
These two concepts are relevant to the study of SLA as regards their
effectiveness in the learning process. There is disagreement, though, as to
the definitions of the concepts, especially as regards the conceptualisations
of terms used in definitions. Basically, implicit learning takes place without
consciousness or awareness, while explicit learning involves intentionality.
However, DeKeyser (2005: 241) explains that subjects in experiments on
implicit learning usually have the intention of learning something, even
though they may learn something different from what they intended to
learn. Also, there are different positions as to the existence of an interface
between explicit and explicit knowledge. In DeKeysers words, (2005: 242)
Even though implicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain implicit, and
explicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain explicit, explicitly learned
knowledge can become implicit in the sense that learners can lose
awareness of its structure over time, and learners can become aware of the
structure of implicit knowledge when attempting to access it. This is not
without debate, as there are different opinions as to the existence of an
interface between explicit knowledge and language use, and the current
empirical evidence is not conclusive. DeKeyser (2005: 250-251) summarises
the positions as follows:

41

1. a non-interface position, usually associated with Krashen, which

states

that

explicit

learning

can

never

become

implicit

(acquired) knowledge.
2. an opposite view, which claims that the gap between explicit
learning and use can be bridged by means of practice, at least for
some rules.
3. two intermediate positions, favoured by supporters of focus on
form (i.e. learners direct their conscious attention to a language
feature while trying to carry out a communicative activity. This is
in contrast with focus on forms, i.e. focus on the formal elements
of the language, without attention to meaning.) Within this
intermediate position, one is for making learners explicitly aware
of a structure, but the focus on form technique used is not
necessarily explicit, as with input enhancement (input which is
manipulated by a teacher to make some features more salient, so
as to facilitate acquisition). Another intermediate position is that
advocated by Ellis (1997: 123), who claims that explicit learning
can help the learner to notice features in the input that would
otherwise be ignored. Also, explicit knowledge may lead the
learner to notice the gap between his/her performance and input.
As regards SLA, the review of current research supplied by DeKeyser
(2005:251) suggests that there may be a positive role for attention to form,
either through the explicit teaching of grammar and explicit error correction,
or through more indirect means such as input enhancement.

Moreover,

research suggests that it is possible that learners lose their awareness of

rules after large amounts of communicative use and automatisation of the
rules. At that point they not only have procedural knowledge that is
functionally equivalent to implicitly acquired knowledge, but even implicit
knowledge in the narrow sense of knowledge without awareness.
As can be seen from the preceding section, the notions of explicit/implicit,
declarative/procedural are not totally independent of one another. The same
applies to the following pair.

Automatic /controlled processes

These concepts come from an approach to SLA that views language learning
as a special case of complex skill acquisition. According to Segalowitz
(2005:292) automaticity involves fast processing, and is related to the need
42

for attention and effort in the acquisition of skills. As ones skill gradually
increases, and moves from non-automatic to automatic, performance seems
to be more efficient, that is, faster, more accurate and more stable, and the
amount of attention and effort needed seems to decrease. As regards
language learning, increased performance efficiency contributes to fluency.
Automaticity involves fast processing and effortless production; it is
independent of the amount of information being processed, and is unaware
of the process. In contrast, non-automatic or controlled processes are slow,
likely to be inhibited by interfering events, they depend on the information
load and involve awareness.
Segalowitz (2005:304) explains some of the reasons why automaticity can
benefit SLA:
because automatic processing consumes fewer attentional resources
than does controlled processing, the more automatic performance
becomes the more attentional resources there are left over for other
purposes. Thus, for example, if one can handle the phonology and
syntax of a second language automatically, then more attention can
be paid to processing semantic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic levels
of communication. A second reason to favor automaticity is that
once a mechanism becomes automatic it will process information
very quickly and accurately, being immune to interference from
other sources of information. This in itself improves the quality of
performance. Third, there are strong reasons for associating
automaticity with important aspects of fluency. To the extent
that fluency represents the ability to speak or read quickly,
accurately, and without undue hesitation, then automatic execution
of certain aspects of L2 performance such as pronunciation,
grammatical processing, and word recognition would, by definition,
promote fluency.
The pedagogical implications relate to the way in which automaticity can be
developed. Massive practice is one of the suggestions, though in instructed
settings it is no so easily available. Nevertheless, properly organised
practice, especially in the areas of vocabulary and in the learning of chunks,
may facilitate the acquisition of syntactic patterns, and result in more fluent
language use.
43

Attention and memory

Some approaches to SLA place more emphasis on attention than others.
Innatist views minimise the role of attention to a mere trigger of innate
knowledge (Schmidt 2001: 6).

However, in cognitive accounts, attention

and memory are essential, as language acquisition is largely determined by

what learners pay attention to and notice in the input.

Robinson (2005:

472) describes attention as the process that encodes language input,

keeps it active in working and short-term memory, and retrieves it from
long-term memory.
In

Schmidts

account,

(Schmidt

2001)

attention

refers

to

several

mechanisms, which include alertness, orientation, detection within selective

attention, facilitation and inhibition. Orienting refers to allotting attentional
resources to sensory stimuli, which can be modulated by the alertness or
executive

attentional

system.

These

two

subsystems

enhance

the

possibility of detection, the cognitive registration of stimuli, necessary for

processing. Detection may be without awareness, or with awareness, i.e.
noticing. Finally, the attention system may inhibit the processing of
irrelevant

information,

thus

facilitating

the

processing

of

relevant

information without interference.

According to Schmidt (2001), attention is limited, and is related to two
general

information

processing

mechanisms,

namely,

controlled

and

automatic processes. He also advances a variant, which involves specific

resource pools for processing, as required by the tasks (perceptual vs.
response), codes of processing (spatial vs. verbal), and modality (auditory
vs. visual). Within this view, activities that demand attention can be carried
out simultaneously more easily if they call upon different resource pools.
Another characteristic of attention is that it is selective. Since attention is
limited, it must be strategically directed. It is argued that in SLA, attention is
first directed towards meaning, and only then to the formal aspects of
language.
A third feature of attention is that it is subject to voluntary control. This is
particularly relevant to teaching, since one of its functions is to help learners
focus their attention. However, there is also a type of involuntary attention,
which may interfere with what is being attended to, which is data-driven,
while voluntary attention is directed to outside events by inner intentions
44

(Schmidt 2001:14). Moreover, attention is necessary for the control of

action. This is relative to controlled/automatic processes, in that the more
automatic a process is, the less attention it requires. Finally, it is argued that
there is very little learning without attention, as unattended stimuli remains
in short-term memory for only a few seconds. As Schmidt states, (2001: 23)
Because we know that attention can be involuntarily attracted to
stimuli, it cannot be claimed that learners must intentionally focus
their attention on each particular aspect of the L2 input in order to
learn it. Even if it is true that in order to learn anything one must
attend to it, that does not entail that it is necessary to have either
the intention to attend or the intention to learn. On the other hand,
we know that preparatory attention and voluntary orienting vastly
improve encodingand since many features of L2 input are likely to
be

infrequent,

non-salient

and

communicatively

redundant,

intentionally focused attention may be a practical (though not

theoretical) necessity for successful language learning.
The role of memory in language acquisition is mainly connected to topics
such as implicit learning, the effect of short-term memory on SLA, and the
accessibility of information in stored in long-term memory. Short-term
memory (STM) has a limited capacity, decays fast, and is more easily
changed. On the other hand, long-term memory (LTM) has unlimited
capacity, stored information persists over time, and is not easily modified.
Robinson (2005: 487) reports that most memory researchers claim that
short-term memory is that part of long-term memory in a currently
heightened state of activation, and further, that awareness and working
memory are isomorphic, and correspond to the contents of short-term
memory which are within the focus of attention. Whether STM is or is not a
part of LTM, information that has been detected can enter STM and access
information already stored in LTM without awareness. For new information to
enter LTM, and be learned, it has to first enter STM and be rehearsed there.
Rehearsal can be of two types, maintenance rehearsal, which requires data
driven, instance-based processing, and elaborative rehearsal, requiring
conceptually driven, schema-based processing. Noticing is then, the result
of rehearsal, which may send information from STM to LTM.

45

To conclude, both attention and memory are important constructs in SLA. A

fuller account of them is out of the scope of this work, but their relevance
will be taken up later in the discussion of learning theories.

Strategies
Strategies are internal processes that account for how learners deal with
input data and how they use their resources in the production of messages.
Arriving at a definition of the concept of strategy is not a simple task, as
different researchers define them differently. Also, there is no consensus as
to their classification, as some view them as general strategies, while others
consider there are specific language learning strategies. Another source of
disagreement relates to whether language is acquired implicitly, without
conscious effort. If this is the case, there would be no place for strategies in
language acquisition. In Cooks words (Cook 1993:136), The concept of
learning strategiesgoes against the belief that language knowledge differs
from other forms of knowledge and that second language acquisition
therefore differs from the acquisition of other forms of knowledge. What is
clear is that while other learner processes may pass unnoticed, the use of
strategies springs from learners themselves, and therefore give learners
choice over their actions.
Cook (1993: 113) classifies strategies into learning and communication
strategies. The first refer to the learners attempt to learn an L2, while the
second refer to their attempts to solve communication problems.

Learning strategies
OMalley and Chamot (in Cook 1993: 113) define learning strategies as the
special

thoughts

or

bahaviours

that

individuals

use

to

help

them

comprehend, learn, or retain new information. They sub-divide learning

strategies into metacognitive, cognitive and social-mediation strategies.
(The lists of examples provided are by no means exhaustive.)
a. Metacognitive strategies
They allow for planning, monitoring or evaluating the success of a
learning activity. They are strategies about learning. Here are some
examples:
46

selective attention: deciding in advance to pay attention to

specific parts of the input;

self-management: trying to maximise the conditions for learning

(e.g. sitting near the teacher);

advance preparation: planning the language needed for an

upcoming task;

self-monitoring: checking ones performance as one speaks;

self-evaluation: checking ones performance against ones own

standards.
b. Cognitive strategies
They manipulate the input so as to enhance learning. They
operate directly on language. For example, repetition, resourcing
(using language reference materials), translation, note-taking,
elaboration

(relating

new

information

to

already

existing

concepts), summarising.
c. Social mediation strategies
Also called social/affective strategies, they involve interaction with
other people, or control over ones affective states. Some examples
are

cooperation

(working

with

fellow-students),

questions

for

clarification, and self-talk (boosting ones confidence to do a task

more successfully).

Communication strategies
The study of communication strategies has tended to focus on the
strategies used by learners to overcome communication problems. Cook
(1993) presents two camps that have studied communication strategies:
sociolinguistic researchers, who look at strategies in terms of social
interaction, and psycholinguistic researchers, who view strategies as
psychological processes.
The sociolinguistic perspective, represented by Tarone (in Cook 1993: 120122), defines communication strategies as mutual attempts of two

47

interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning

structures do not seem to be shared. These are some examples:

Avoidance: the learner avoids the communication problem by

avoiding the topic, or abandoning the message.

Paraphrase: the learner uses circumlocution, approximation or

coins a word to compensate for his/her lack of an L2 word.

Conscious

transfer:

transfer

from

L1

by

means

of

literal

translation or language switch.

Appeal for assistance: a direct appeal for help.

Mime: using the body to convey meaning.

The psycholinguistic view focuses on the individuals response to a

communication problem, rather than on a joint response. This stance
defines communication strategies as potentially conscious plans for solving
what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular
communicative goal (Faerch and Kasper, in Cook 1993: 122-124). These
researchers claim that learners have two options: achievement and
avoidance.
a. Achievement strategies
These strategies help the learner to solve his/her problem. They may
be of two types:
Non-cooperative strategies:

L1/L3 strategies: code-switching or foreignising;

Interlanguage strategies: based on the evolving IL, such as

substituting items, generalisation, description, exemplification
or word-coining;

Non-linguistic strategies: miming, imitation.

Cooperative startegies:

Direct appeal for help.

b. Avoidance strategies

48

The

learner

either

avoids

linguistic

form

(phonological,

morphological or grammatical), or avoids a language function by,

for instance, abandoning a topic.
As can be seen, the study of strategies has concentrated on different
aspects of their use, as there is disagreement as to whether they are
conscious and intentional or subconscious, or as to whether they have a
direct or indirect effect on SLA. Ellis (1994: 532) advances the following list
of characteristics as a kind of summary:
1. Strategies refer to both general approaches and specific actions
or techniques used to learn an L2.
2. Strategies are problem-orientated the learner deploys a
strategy to overcome some particular learning problem.
3. Learners are generally aware of the strategies they use and can
identify what they consist of if they are asked to pay attention to
what they are doing/thinking.
4. Strategies involve linguistic behaviour (such as requesting the
name of an object) and non-linguistic (such as pointing at an
object as to be told its name).
5. Linguistic strategies can be performed in the L1 and in the L2.
6. Some strategies are behavioural while others are mental. Thus
some strategies are observable, while others are not.
7. In the main, strategies contribute indirectly to learning by
providing learners with data about the L2 which they can process.
However, some strategies may also contribute directly (for
example, memorization strategies directed at specific lexical
items or grammatical rules).
8. Strategy use varies considerably as a result of both the kind of
tasks

the

learner

is

engaged

in

and

individual

learner

preferences.
This last point is related to studies into strategy use. Several factors seem to
affect the use of strategies. As regards age, for example, younger learners
tend to use simpler strategies than older learners. According to Ellis (1994),
language aptitude does not seem to be strongly related to strategy use, and
49

while it is likely that there is a relation between strategy use and learning
style, there is little research to testify to it. As regards motivation, Ellis
(1994) refers to studies that found that highly motivated learners use more
learning strategies, and that the learners goals are likely to determine the
choice of strategy. Personality types also affect strategy use, as it is
expected that extrovert learners will make more use of social/affective
strategies. However, these links have not been demonstrated yet.
Situational factors also affect strategy use. Studies report that social
strategies are rare in classroom settings, except for requests for
clarification. Task type can also influence the use of strategies. Ellis (1994:
544) reports on studies that showed that students tend to use more
strategies for vocabulary learning tasks and oral drills, while the lowest
frequencies were for listening comprehension, inferencing, making oral
presentations and engaging in operational communication.
In short, strategy use is influenced by a variety of factors, both internal and
external to the learner. It is also amenable to change through training,
therefore teachers can guide learners into discovering which strategies suit
their styles and task types better.
Related to the study of learning strategies are those on the good language
learner, that is, learners who achieve high levels of competence. Stevick (in
Ellis 1994: 546-550) identifies an overall pattern, in that successful
learners have a concern for language form, they search for meaning in the
L2 data they are exposed to, and try to engage in real communication. They
also engage actively in language learning, as they prefer to manage their
own learning process, of which they are aware. Finally, good language
learners are flexible in their strategy use, as they can choose them in
accordance with task requirements.
A downside of a very successful use of strategies is that it may interfere
with acquisition. It is not infrequent to find a student who is so skillful in
making up for his/her lack of linguistic knowledge that he/she will not need
to form or test hypotheses, thus making learning more difficult. Also, it is
not clear yet which aspects of SLA are benefited by learning and
50

communication strategies, namely both lexis and grammar, or just lexis.

Anyway, they can be a powerful aid in the process of language
development, and as they are sometimes conscious, and give learners
power over their leaning processes.

2.2.4.3 L2 knowledge

The concept of Interlanguage (IL) was developed in the late 1960s and
early 1970s as researchers found out that learners errors were not random,
but systematic (White 2005: 17). IL is systematic in that, at all stages of
development,

learners

operate

according

to

an

internalised

mental

grammar. IL is, then, a natural language system which is independent of

both the learners L1 and the target language (Ellis 1985: 299), and which
may show some features of the L1 and some characteristics which are very
general and tend to occur in most IL systems (Lightbown and Spada 1993:
55). It should be clear, then, that interlanguage is not an impoverished
version of the target language, but a language on its own. Learners follow
similar routes in their L2 acquisition, irrespective of factors such as their L1,
age, learning situations, or individual differences, although there are minor
differences as regards the order in which some features are learnt.
Interlanguages are very dynamic and evolve as learners receive input and
revise their hypotheses and make their L2 system more and more complex.
The analysis of learners errors has contributed to the understanding of SLA,
and has shown that L2 learners pass through certain sequences of
development which are similar to the ones that children go through when
they are learning their L1. Research has revealed the existence of
developmental errors, which reflect the learners internalised grammar of
the target language, and the existence of developmental sequences, which
are predictable. It is important to bear in mind that learners do not
necessarily leave one stage before entering another, as at any given point
learners may use language forms that are typical of various stages.
According to Lightbown and Spada (1993: 67),
It is perhaps better to think of a stage being characterised by the
emergence and increasing frequency of a particular form rather than
51

by the disappearance of an earlier one. Even when a more advanced

stage comes to dominate in a learners speech, conditions of stress
or complexity in a communicative interaction can cause the learner
to slip back to an earlier stage.
The study of developmental sequences focused on the acquisition of
grammatical features. What follows is an introduction, and is based on Ellis
(1985: 59 60)
Acquisition of negation
Stag
e
1

Characteristics
External negation

Examples
No very good.

Internal negation

No you playing here.

Mariana not coming today.

Usually not and/or dont, used

I no can swim.

variably

with

no.

unanalysed.
Negative attachment

Dont
to

is

modal

I cant play this one.

verbs, sometimes unanalysed.

Target language rule is reached,

I wont go.
He doesnt know anything.

marked for tense and number,

I didnt said it.

though not always correctly.

She didnt believe me.

Of course, the development of target-like rules is gradual, with overlaps, and

there is variability.

For example, some learners may take longer to pass

certain stages. Spanish-speaking learners, not surprisingly, tend to spend

longer on the first stage. Also, learning settings may affect the rate of
development, as language instruction may accelerate the speed with which
some learners pass through some stages.
Although research on developmental sequences has concentrated only on a
few structures, the results suggest that the sequence of acquisition may be
built-in in the learners mind. Littlewood (2004: 530) adds that the same
sequences have been found in the spontaneous speech of classroom
learners who have been taught the correct target forms. This implies that
the internal syllabus often overrides the external syllabus which the
teacher or coursebook tries to impose. Some explanations are suggested.
For example, one form is more likely to be learnt if it is supported by
52

transfer. Also, a form may be acquired more rapidly if it is more frequent or

more salient in the input.

Littlewood invokes Pienemann with his

explanation that some structures may be governed by psycholinguistic

processing constraints, so that the achievement of one stage is a
prerequisite for achieving the next (2004: 531).
Given the fact that IL contains errors, and that, as stated before, at any
stage of development, the learners IL will contain several competing rules,
another characteristic of the interlanguage system is variability. As
separating L2 knowledge from its use is highly complicated, variability will
be dealt with below, together with output.

Further reading
Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, chapter 2
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition, chapter 3
Littlewood, W. (2004) Second Language Learning
Lightbown P. and N. Spada (1993) How Languages are Learned, chapter 3

2.2.5 Output
The final component of the process of language acquisition in this approach
is output. Traditionally, output was seen as a way of practising already
existing knowledge, allowing for fluency.

Krashen (1982), in his Input

Hypothesis, claimed that the only positive role for output is to allow learners
to get more input. However, most researchers nowadays argue that output
is a requisite for L2 acquisition.
Output may be taken as the external manifestation of a learners
interlanguage. As mentioned before, output and IL are inextricably linked
and, therefore, it is difficult to consider them apart. One characteristic of IL,
and of output as well, is variability. Variability is evident when learners use
two or more linguistic forms for realising a grammatical structure. However,
this variability is not always random. There are two kinds of variation:
systematic and non-systematic, or free. In Elliss (1997) view, the choice of
53

alternate forms in systematic variation is determined by the following

factors:
1. Linguistic context: one linguistic form may trigger the use of
another form. For example, learners may use full be, sometimes
contracted, and sometimes omit it entirely, target-like variants
being more common with pronoun subjects, be being omitted
with noun subjects.
2. Situational context: learners tend to use more correct forms when
the situation requires the use of more formal language.
3. Psycholinguistic context: whether learners have the opportunity to
plan their production. Learners tend to use more accurate forms
when they can plan their output.
Non-systematic variation, on the other hand, is the use of alternate forms in
free variation. This is more common in the initial stages. According to Ellis
(1997: 29), learners begin by acquiring a single form, which they use for a
variety of functions. Later, they acquire other forms and use them
interchangeably with the initial one. Then, they start using the forms
systematically, target-like forms in planned discourse, until they become
consistent.
From a variationist point of view (see below for a description of this
approach), Tarone (in Ellis 1985: 83) presents her description of the effects
of the situational context as a continuum of IL styles.
At one end of the continuum is the vernacular style, which is called
upon when the learner is not attending to his speech. This is the style
that is both most natural and most systematic. At the other end of the
continuum is the careful style, which is most clearly evident in tasks
that require the learner to make a grammatical judgement The
careful style is called upon when the learner is attending closely to his
speech.
In between there are other styles which also vary according to the degree of
attention required by the language tasks learners are engaged in. The
54

vernacular style is the most stable and consistent, as it is not subject to the
influence of other knowledge sources. When learners are engaged in
unplanned communication, they tend to fall back on language features
learnt in the early stages of acquisition. On the other hand, the forms
present in a careful style are likely to be highly variable, according to the
degree of monitoring. This distinction is fundamental in instructed learning
settings, since students performance will vary according to the style
required by the tasks they engage in. Thus, when they are performing
communicative tasks without preparation, they will tend to use the
vernacular

style,

which

reflects

the

current

state

of

learners

interlanguage. When planning time is available, learners will tend to use a

more careful style, and monitor their speech. This will allow for correctness,
and also for attention to be paid to their speech, which, in turn, may foster
noticing and consequent language development.
According to Ellis (1985: 94), also following a variationist perspective,
variability may play a role in language development. In relation to
systematic variability, language development consists of the gradual
extension of regularities from formal to progressively informal styles on the
one hand, and from simple to increasingly complex linguistic contexts on the
other. In this sense, then, SLA involves a gradual reduction in the degree of
variability as non-target language variants are eliminated in a steadily
growing range of environments. This reduction represents a shift to the
norms of the careful style.
Another role ascribed to variation is psycholinguistic in nature, and is related
to learners capacity to attend to formal features in their speech. As the
careful forms are used, they are practised, with the result that they become
more automatic, require less attention, and so are available for use in
interlanguage styles nearer the vernacular end of the continuum. Thus
styles of communication initially associated with planned discourse are
eventually accessible in unplanned discourse, provided that sufficient
practice has taken place. (Ellis 1985: 95)
On the other hand, free variability plays a different role, which is related to
the fact that it is the major source of instability. According to the economy
55

principle of linguistic organisation, the presence of two forms in free

variation is not efficient. The economy principle makes sure that the new
forms are either integrated into the system by putting them to work to
distinguish meanings, or that they are eliminated. (Ellis 1985: 95) Following
this principle, learners will progressively sort out forms into functional slots
in order to solve free variability.
Summing up, language development, seen from this perspective, involves
two processes: first, re-arranging form-function relations to maximise
effectiveness, thus making free variation gradually become systematic.
Second, moving forms from careful styles towards the vernacular style,
which is the primary objective of most, if not of all, learners.
The output hypothesis, developed by Merrill Swain (1995: 125), in direct
opposition to Krashens view, claims that producing language serves
second language acquisition in several ways. Output makes learners
process language more deeply, and play a more active role in their learning
process as well. Learners may then move from the semantic processing
typical of comprehension to the grammar processing needed for accurate
production. This potential role of output in fostering the development of
syntax and morphology underlies the three functions ascribed to it by the
output hypothesis.
1. Noticing
Noticing is a consciousness-raising function: in producing the
target language, learners may encounter a linguistic problem
leading them to notice what they do not know, or know only
partially. (Swain 1995: 129) Thus, producing the target language
may make learners aware of a language item they need to learn
or consolidate.
2. Hypothesis testing
As mentioned before, errors in learners IL reveal hypothesis they
hold about the target language. When learners engage in
communication and need to negotiate meaning, according to a
study reported by Swain, over one-third of their utterances are
modified either semantically, syntactically or morphologically.
56

Even though there is no proof yet that the modified utterances

are retained in the learners IL, the assumption is that the process
contributes to acquisition, as this modified output may be
considered the leading-edge of a learners IL.
3. Conscious reflection
The third function of output is a metalinguistic one, that is, using
language to reflect on it, by means of tasks that, while being
communicative, focus on language form. An example of such a
task is that of collaborative work, in which learners are led to
reflect on their production as they attempt to create meaning.
Conscious reflection is also important in that it creates the
conditions that are necessary for the other two functions to take
place.
To conclude, the value of understanding the nature of output should not be
underestimated. From the teachers point of view, output is more than the
external realisation of the learners interlanguage; it is also a means for
language development. From the learners viewpoint, it is also necessary for
them to understand the nature of their production, so as to avoid the
anxiety that may be brought about by their errors, which may result in their
losing motivation. Also, it is important for learners to be able to detect
changes in their output, and to become aware of their development. Output
may serve as a starting point for further work, in that it provides teachers
with data to work on. From the learners point of view, provided they are
conscious of their linguistic production, output supplies them with a
measure

of

their

achievement,

and

with

opportunities

for

further

development.

2.3 SLA APPROACHES

The following section gives a brief account of theories that have a central
place in current SLA research. However, a caveat is needed: although SLA is
a young discipline, it is extraordinarily prolific, so keeping up with research is
a formidable task. Also, its many sub-divisions, not always clearly
differentiated, can at times blur the focus. Moreover, at present there are
no absolute answers to questions such as what knowledge of a language
means, how that knowledge is acquired, or how that knowledge is put to
57

actual use. Nevertheless, there is consensus as regards the fact that

different

approaches

contribute

different

knowledge,

and

that

this

knowledge is complementary.
Some theories or models concentrate on the inner processes, while others
pay

more

attention

to

the

social

context.

This

gap

between

the

psycholinguistic and the sociolinguistic approaches has caused some

tension. Tarone (2000: 187) summarises the issue:
Thus SLA researchers who take a sociolinguistic or co-constructionist
orientation have a good deal of evidence showing that L2 learners' IL
USE is variably affected by identifiable features of social context,
they have usually not tried to show that those social features change
the process of L2 ACQUISITION -- specifically, the acquisition of an IL
linguistic system-- in any clear way. They have assumed it, and
asserted it, but not often accumulated the evidence to prove it.
Research

on

second-language

acquisition

that

takes

psycholinguistic, or cognitive, orientation, whether it operates within

a UG framework or not is clearly focused on the goal of explaining
how an interlanguage grammar gets acquired over time

And

since, in such studies, the social context is greatly controlled or

reduced in complexity, and is usually fairly similar across university
studies, such researchers have assumed that social factors are
irrelevant for their work.
In short, different strands of SLA focus on different data and attempt to
answer different questions, thus making a unified theory of acquisition hard
to envisage. This section will therefore provide only an introduction to
current research, and will necessarily leave many areas out. It will focus
especially on the approaches that bear a closer relation to the teaching
situation in our country, that is, the teaching of English as a foreign
language in instructional settings.
The first section will look at approaches that focus on learners internal
mechanisms, within the field of cognition-oriented theories. Then it will look
at context-oriented theories, that is, those that look at the context of
learning and its relationship with the learning process, and which therefore
consider that communication plays a central role in the process of L2
learning.
58

2.3.1 Cognition-oriented theories

2.3.1.1 Innatist theories
The Input Hypothesis Model
The Input Hypothesis was advanced by Stephen Krashen in the early 1980s,
as a reformulation of a previous model. The Input Hypothesis, controversial
from the beginning, was, in Cooks words (1993: 68) the first attempt at a
wider explanation of second language acquisition, and even if it does not
relate directly to instructed settings, it is worth considering for the
prominence it enjoyed and for some of its principles. The theory consists of
five interrelated hypotheses:
1. The Input Hypothesis: Humans acquire language in only one way
by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible
input (Krashen, in Cook 1993: 51). In other words, learners
acquire language only if they listen to meaningful speech and try
to understand it. Acquisition will take place when learners
understand input that is a little beyond their current level of
competence (i + 1). If meaningful language is absent, for example
in classroom activities that focus on the forms of the language
rather than on meaning, or if there is a psychological block,
acquisition will not take place. Listening is crucial, and speaking
is seen as the result of acquisition, not as a cause, so its only role
is that of allowing learners to obtain more input.
2. The Acquisition / Learning Hypothesis: this distinction is at the
heart of Krashens theory. Acquisition and learning are two
separate

processes,

which

lead

to

different outcomes.

L2

acquisition proceeds in the same way as L1 acquisition, and it is a

subconscious process, responsible for the ability to communicate.
Learning, on the other hand, is a conscious process that results
from the study of the target language rules. Learnt knowledge
comes into play through the monitoring of speech (see below),
and can never be used to produce communicative language.
Krashens theory is a non-interface position, in that it does not
recognise any connections between acquisition and learning.

59

3. The Monitor Hypothesis: consciously learnt knowledge provides a

conscious

check

on

output,

either

before

or

after

actual

production. Ellis (1985: 262) lists three conditions for the use of
the Monitor: first, there must be sufficient time; second, the focus
must be on form, not meaning; and third, the user must know the
rule.
4. The Natural Order Hypothesis: we acquire the rules of the
language in a predictable order, some rules tending to come early
and some late (Krashen, in Cook 1993: 53). This hypothesis is
based on the sequences of acquisition discussed above.
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis attempts to explain why not all
learners

are

equally

successful,

even

when

they

receive

seemingly identical comprehensible input. There can be a mental

block that prevents learners from absorbing the relevant parts of
the input. If the filter is up, comprehensible input will not find the
way into the learners mind. This may be due to anxiety, lack of
motivation or lack of self-confidence.
Several criticisms have been advanced on the Input Hypothesis. Cook
(1993:

65-66)

states

that

Krashens

model

provides

rather

simple

explanations for which sound evidence is lacking. First, as regards an

explanation for what constitutes knowledge of language, the Input
Hypothesis does not explain the cognitive processes that are responsible for
learning or acquisition. Also, the complete separation of learning and
acquisition has been found to have no foundation, as learnt knowledge
becomes acquired knowledge with automatisation (Ellis 1985: 264).
Moreover, Krashen minimises the role of the L1 as a fall-back option when
learners have not yet acquired an L2 rule needed in performance (Krashen
1982: 27). From Cooks point of view (1993: 66), The overall problem is the
failure to recognise that the L2 user has two languages in one mind. The
Krashen theories treat L2 acquisition as an impoverished version of L1
acquisition rather than having the complexity and richness of multicompetence.

The Universal Grammar Model

(This section expands on the one on language processing above.)

60

UG is relative to linguistic competence, based on the Chomskyan model of

linguistics, which uses universal principles and language-specific parameters
that constrain the hypotheses learners formulate about language to explain
acquisition. In Cooks words, (1993: 200) acquisition within this theory is
the process through which language data goes into the LAD black box and
a grammar comes out; the LAD evaluates alternative grammars to see
which best fits the incoming data.
One aspect that differentiates UG theory from cognitive ones is the fact that
UG ascribes to the modularity of the language faculty. In Ellis words (1994:
438) The claim that grammar constitutes an autonomous body of
knowledge follows from the hypothesis that speakers possess a language
faculty that is independent of other cognitive systems such as those
responsible for perception, problem-solving or memorization.
UG describes grammar in terms of principles and parameters. Principles,
which are part of the language faculty, are highly abstract properties of
grammar that apply to all languages, and that, even if they are not manifest
in some languages, they are never contravened. Parameters, on the other
hand, vary in certain restricted ways from language to language, thus
allowing for variation between languages.
The syntax that underlies UG establishes that the structure of phrases is
constrained by the lexical items in them. According to the Projection
Principle, properties of lexical items project onto the sentence the
particular structures within which they may appear (Cook 1993: 158). Thus,
the features of the head of the phrase dictate what complements, for
instance, the phrase may have. Cook (1993: 158) provides the following
example: The verb sigh usually has an animate subject in front of it, but
no grammatical object after it; Fred sighed but not *The book sighed or
*Fred sighed Helen. Speakers know the restrictions for sigh, and when
they are broken, in this case for stylistic effect, as in The heavens sighed
a groan of thunder.
An example of a parameter is pro-drop, which determines whether a certain
language can omit subject pronouns. English, which does not normally does
so, is a non-pro-drop language, while Spanish is a pro-drop one. This
parameter has only two settings; others may have more.

61

As regards acquisition, in L1 it is the task of the child to discover how [a]

parameter should be set for the particular language he or she encounters.
Once it has been set, the child has information relevant to all parts of the
language to which the head parameter applies. These principles and
parameters thus explain how the child learns much more about the
language than he or she could have learnt from the input alone. (Littlewood
2004: 535) The input children get is usually insufficient for them to develop
a complete knowledge of grammar, as most of it is simplified, and it does
not provide evidence of constructions that are not possible. Also, children do
not usually get negative evidence (corrections). Within the UG framework,
all this suggests that grammar must be innate. This argument is known as
the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument, or the logical problem of language
acquisition.
Much of the current debate as regards UG within the field of SLA is whether
UG is actually involved in L2 learning. According to Cook (1993: 210-211),
there are three positions:
1. The no-access position claims that L2 learners acquire the L2
grammar without any reference to UG; the grammar is learnt
through other faculties of the human mind.
2. The direct-access position claims that L2 learners learn in exactly
the same way as L1 learners; they set values for parameters
according to the L2 evidence they encounter without any other
influence.
3. The indirect-access position states that L2 learners have access
to UG through what they know of the L1, but they start with the
L1 parameter settings rather than the initial or default state.
Several researchers have advanced arguments against the availability of a
full or partial access to UG for SLA, based on the following facts:
1. Knowledge of the L2 is not so complete or so good, in that the
ultimate level of attainment is rarely the same as in L1.
2. Learning an L2 is never as easy as learning an L1.
3. L2 learners get fossilised at some stage, while this never happens
in the L1.
4. L2 learners vary in level of success and in ways of learning, in
contrast with children learning their L1.

62

An influential argument is that of Bley-Vroman, (in Cook 1994: 211) who

puts forward the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis that L2 learning
differs from L1 learning because of changes in the language faculty with
age.while the child uses UG and language-specific processes to learn the
L1, the adult L2 learner uses the L1 and general problem-solving processes.
Other theorists support a dual access position, in which adults have
continued access to UG and at the same time use general problem-solving
mechanisms, which are limited in that they can only process structures at
an elementary level of complexity. (Ellis 1994: 455)
Ellis (1985: 210-212) refers, among others, to a basic problem of the
Universal Hypothesis: the innateness explanation of linguistic universals
rules out other explanations that may be equally valid. In particular, UG
theory separates competence from performance, language from use, which
for some researchers is totally unacceptable.
Further reading:
Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, chapters 3, 8
and 9
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition, chapter 8

2.3.1.2 Cognitive Theories

Cognitive theories attempt to account for language learning within the field
of general learning theory. While they focus on SLA processes that go on
inside learners minds, in contrast to the models presented above, they do
not adhere to the belief that there is a language-specific module that drives
language learning. Instead, they believe that language learning is similar to
other types of learning, and is related to how people store and acquire
knowledge in general.
Cook (1993: 265) summarises factors that are common to cognitive
approaches:
1. the mind is seen as a single overall network in which everything
is connected;
2. speech production is information-processing a process of
activating the network in all its complexity, driven top-down to
achieve particular goals;

63

3. learning is a process from declarative, controlled, well-attended,

data to procedural, automatic, non-attended processes;
4. learning is acquiring strengths for parts of this network based on
frequency of occurrence.

Information-processing Model
Barry McLaughlins model sees human beings as processors of information
who are limited by the amount of attention they can give to a task and by
how

well

they

can

process

the

information

received.

This

model

distinguishes between automatic and controlled processes. Automatic

processes are quick, and require little or no attention. They are built by
practice, and are very efficient in that they need little capacity to perform.
They are hard to alter. On the other hand, controlled processes are less
efficient in that they need a lot of attention, and are therefore limited in
capacity. They are easier to modify. Automatic and controlled processes are
not two kinds of processes, but two ends in a continuum. Within this model,
learning takes place when learners, who start from controlled processes,
move from them to automatic ones, by means of practice.
Processing at both ends of the continuum can happen with focal or
peripheral attention to task, that is, focusing attention centrally or simply on
the periphery. However, focal attention should not be equated to conscious
attention, as both focal and peripheral attention may happen while
performing one complex task. In fact, in most situations, both focal and
peripheral attention occur simultaneously. (Brown 2007)
The following table shows the practical applications of McLaughlins model
to SLA:

Controlled processes

Automatic processes
64

Focal
attention

Grammatical explanation
Word definition
Pre-fabricated patterns
Discrete-point exercises
First stages of memorising a

Keeping

an

eye

for

something
Self monitoring
Scanning
Editing

dialogue
Peripheral
attention

Simple greetings
Later stages of memorising
a dialogue

Open-ended group-work
Rapid reading
Normal
conversational
exchanges of some length

Adapted from Brown (2007: 302)

Andersons ACT * Model (Adaptive Control of Thought)

This model, developed by John Anderson, distinguishes three forms of
memory: working memory is used for the actual performance of the
production rule and draws on the other two. Declarative memory is for
storing actual information in the form of cognitive units such as propositions
or images. Procedural memory consists of processes for checking the parts
of the rule against declarative memory.(Cook 1993: 247) Andersons model
states

that

procedural

knowledge

of

language

is

not

available

to

consciousness. It contains, for example, grammatical morphemes such as

the3. Declarative knowledge of language, on the other hand, consists of
lexical morphemes such as table, whose meanings are consciously
available to speakers. Speech requires use of a production rule in working
memory with interaction between declarative and procedural memory.
Within his model, learning implies moving from declarative to procedural
knowledge in three stages:
1. The

declarative,

or

cognitive,

stage:

New

information

is

perceived as declarative facts. When the mind starts to learn a

new production rule or system, it has no pre-set procedures, so it
relies purely on declarative knowledge Such new declarative
information can be handled by following general problem solving
procedures, or by inference or analogy from already known
behaviours.
3 Andersons consideration of morphemes contrasts with Ullmans
presented above in that the latter views the as part of the lexical/declarative
system.
65

2. The knowledge compilation, or associative, stage: in order to be

more efficient, the mind tries to compile the information stored in
declarative memory into more specific procedures. Gradually, the
learner discovers how to do things.
3. The tuning productions, or autonomous, stage: this stage implies
making generalisations of productions to other conditions. This
procedural ability is no longer available to consciousness.
In the context of classroom L2 learning, the learner starts with declarative
knowledge of a rule given by the teacher. This rule gradually turns into the
ability to use the foreign language automatically.

2.3.2 Context-oriented theories

Models within this perspective pay special attention to the way in which the
learning context can affect the process of acquisition.
Interaction Hypothesis
The Interaction Hypothesis is based on the assumption that language
learning is stimulated by communicative pressure, and examines the
relationship between communication and acquisition and the mechanisms
(e.g., noticing, attention) that mediate between them Input provides
language-specific information which interacts with whatever innate structure
an individual (child or adult) brings to the language learning situation.
(Gass, 2005: 175-176)
This model claims that there are at least three basic components that are
required for successful language learning: positive evidence, negative
evidence and output. Input provides learners with positive evidence from
which they can form hypotheses. This can be both authentic or modified to
suit the learners level of competence.

Negative evidence is the type of

feedback learners receive as to the incorrectness of their utterances. It can

be both explicit, as in the case of an overt correction, and implicit, as when
there is a communication breakdown or a recast, i.e. a rephrasing of an
incorrect utterance with a correct version. A third fundamental component is
output, which moves learners from semantic use of language to a syntactic
one, since they are forced to give syntactic structure to their utterances.
Also, it is through production that learners can receive feedback, either
66

implicit or explicit, in negotiation of meaning. Furthermore, output provides

learners

with

opportunities

to

test

their

hypotheses

and

develop

automaticity.
The Interaction Hypothesis claims that negotiated interaction between
native and non-native speakers, between non-native and proficient nonnative speakers, and between non-native speakers plays an essential role in
the development of L2 proficiency, as it views conversation as not only a
medium of practice but also as the means by which learning takes place.
Michael Long, one of the developers of the Interaction Hypothesis states
that
negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that
triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent
interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal
learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in
productive ways it is proposed that environmental contributions to
acquisition are mediated by selective attention and the learners
developing L2 processing capacity, and that these resources are
brought together most usefully, although not exclusively, during
negotiation

for

meaning.

negotiation

work

or

Negative

elsewhere

feedback

may

be

obtained

facilitative

during
of

L2

development, at least for vocabulary, morphology, and languagespecific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-L2
contrasts. (Long, in Gass 2005: 183)

In other words, during focused negotiation for meaning, learners attention

may be directed to certain mismatches between target-language forms and
learner-language forms. (Gass 2005)
The Interaction Hypothesis is relevant to classroom settings in that it
focuses attention on the type of interaction that may be conductive to L2
learning. Thus, tasks such as role-play, problem-solving or discussions may
offer learners the right type of interaction to foster language development.

The Variable Competence Model

67

This model, developed by Ellis, claims that the way language is learnt is a
reflection of the way it is used. (Ellis 1985: 266), and it is based on two
distinctions: language use as process and as product.

The product of

language use consists of a continuum of discourse types that range from

entirely planned (discourse that requires conscious thought and preparation,
e.g. careful writing, or lecture), to entirely unplanned (spontaneous
communication, e.g. everyday conversation). This is directly related to the
context of language use. On the other hand, the process of language use is
understood in terms of the difference between linguistic knowledge (rules)
and the ability to use this knowledge (procedures). In this view, the product
of language use is the result of a variable competence, and/or variable
application of procedures for realising knowledge in discourse.
Variable competence refers to the access the learner has to his/her L2
knowledge, that is, whether access is automatic or non-automatic. Also,
variable competence is related to whether knowledge is analysed or not.
These two distinctions, which are not polarities, but constructs that lie on a

analysed

cline, can be represented thus:

automatic

The variable application of procedures for realising knowledge in discourse

refers to two types of processes: primary and secondary. Primary processes
are responsible for engaging in unplanned discourse, and draw on
knowledge

that

is

relatively

unanalysed

and

automatic.

Secondary

processes are evident in planned discourse, and draw on knowledge that is

more analysed and less automatic. These two types of processes account
for the variability of learner language. They also account for acquisition:
language acquisition is the result of our capacity to make sense. New rules
are created when we endeavour to use existing knowledge in relation to the
68

linguistic and situational context in order to create shared frames of

reference. (Ellis 1985: 268)
In sum, the Variable Competence Model proposes (Ellis 1985: 269) :
1. There

is

interlanguage

single
rules

knowledge
according

store

to

how

containing
automatic

variable
and

how

analysed the rules are.

2. The learner possesses a capacity for language use which consists
of primary and secondary discourse and cognitive processes.
3. L2 performance is variable as a result of whether primary
processes employing unanalysed rules are utilized in unplanned
discourse, or secondary processes employing analysed L2 rules
are utilized in planned discourse.
4. Development occurs as a result of:
a) Acquisition of new L2 rules through participation in various
types

of

discourse

(i.e.

new

rules

originate

in

the

application of procedural knowledge);

b) Activation of L2 rules which initially exist in either a nonautomatic unanalysed form or in an analysed form so they
can be used in unplanned discourse.
This model also suggests that SLA follows developmental stages, thus, early
SLA features semantic simplification (e.g. use of non-verbal devices, like
miming) because this procedure requires little L2 knowledge. Also, the
model claims that knowledge which is at first only available via secondary
processes (because it only exists in analysed form) may eventually be
accessed by means of primary processes, and therefore be used in both
planned and unplanned discourse.

The Output Hypothesis

Swains Output Hypothesis has been described above under the heading of
output, so it will not be dealt with here. Nevertheless, it should be
mentioned as it belongs in the area of context-oriented theories.

A Variationist Perspective
Variationist SLA research focuses on how social settings influence L2 input,
its cognitive processing, speech production and occasionally, stages of
acquisition. This strand of thought will be represented by Elaine Tarones
article Social context and cognition in SLA: a variationist perspective, which
69

is part of the accompanying bibliography, or may be accessed at

https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/items/.../303587.pdf -

2.4 FORMS OF INSTRUCTION

Language instruction, which is practical in nature, seems to be detached
from SLA, although it is mediated by language pedagogy. Ellis (1997)
acknowledges the existence of a gap between SLA and language pedagogy,
the first being mainly concerned with technical knowledge, while the second
is concerned with practical knowledge. As a way of bridging the gap SLA
should not so much be used to tell practitioners what to do, as to inform
their understanding of how L2 acquisition takes place so that they will know
better what it is possible to achieve in a classroom. (1997: 12) In other
words, SLA can help teachers make informed decisions as to methodology in
general and language practices in particular, in accordance with the role of
mediator between theory and practice of applied linguistics. However,
language pedagogy is out of the scope of this module, as material on
methodology is easily available. This section will, then, focus on some
aspects of SLA that can provide a link between research and teaching.
Traditionally, L2 teaching has emphasised the teaching of language forms.
This was evident in the Grammar Translation and Audiolingual methods.
More recently, especially after Hymes introduction of the concept of
Communicative Competence, language pedagogy has recognised the need
to pay attention to communication, giving rise to the Communicative
Approach. Even within this approach, there has been disagreement as to the
role of grammar teaching. Even so, in classrooms settings, grammar has a
central role, although it tends to be taught in communicative contexts, thus
recognising the importance of language use.
The following section will look at how different theoretical positions view the
role of instruction.

2.4.1 Theoretical positions

The non-interface position
The non-interface position, related to Krashens Input Hypothesis, claims
that acquisition occurs automatically when the learner engages in natural
communication, is focused on meaning, and receives comprehensible input.
70

In contrast, learning is the result of the formal study of language, and its
only function is that of monitoring. According to Krashen, these two types of
knowledge are separate, and learnt knowledge cannot be converted into
acquired knowledge, the actual responsible for communication. (Ellis 1985:
229-230)
There is substantial disagreement as to the validity of the non-interface
position, basically as regards the lack of connection between acquisition and
learning. On the other hand, a focus on meaning has been reported as
highly beneficial, especially as regards the development of comprehension
skills. However, as Lightbown and Spada (1993: 91) state, research does
not support the argument that an exclusive focus on meaning and
comprehensible input is enough to bring learners to mastery levels of
performance in their second language.
Within this position, an effective pedagogical programme should comply
with the following (Ellis 1985: 244):
1.
2.
3.
4.

The classroom input must be comprehensible,

the programme must consist of communicative activities,
a grammatically sequenced programme should not be attempted,
the input must be of sufficient quantity.

An inference that can be made from the above discussion is that even
theoretical stances that have been discredited may have valuable issues to
take into consideration.

The interface position

This position claims that in spite of the fact that learners possess different
kinds of L2 knowledge, these are not entirely apart. It is possible to
distinguish between a weak and a strong interface position.
A weak interface position claims that the rules that are learnt do not
describe

the

internal

knowledge

that

is

called

upon

in

natural

communication, so, not surprisingly, they cannot be held responsible for

actual language behaviour. (Ellis 1985: 234) However, rules do serve a
purpose, as they facilitate acquisition by focusing the learners attention on
language items, thus fostering the hypothesis-testing process. In contrast, a
strong interface position states that there is an easy flow of knowledge from
learning and acquisition, and vice versa.

71

Concerning these two positions, there are other related concepts. The term
distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge corresponds closely to
acquisition and learning. In Bialystoks model, reported in Ellis (1985:
235), practice serves as the mechanism by which explicit knowledge turns
into implicit knowledge.
One way in which acquired and learnt knowledge may be connected is by
means of automaticity. In McLaughlins model, SLA implies going from the
controlled to the automatic modes of processing, thus presupposing that
knowledge types are in fact connected. (Ellis 1985: 235)
As regards the pedagogical implications, grammar teaching can foster
language acquisition by focusing learners attention on aspects of the input
which, with practice, may become automatised until they are finally
available for natural communication.
A more detailed account of the interface position and instruction is to be
found in Ellis A theory of instructed second language acquisition.

The variability position

This position is related to the Variable Competence Model described above.
Within this view, the learners IL comprises a number of styles, ranging from
the vernacular to the careful. The style a learner uses depends on the
amount of attention he/she can pay to speech. In Ellis words (1985: 237238),
This position emphasises the interrelationship between use and
acquisition. The kind of language use that the learner engages in
determines the kind of knowledge that he acquires. Similarly,
different kinds of knowledge are used in different types of language
performance. Thus, acquiring the necessary linguistic knowledge to
perform one kind of activity does not guarantee the ability to
perform a different kind of activity.
The role of instruction in this position is to develop analysed knowledge for
use in the careful style, and to enable unanalysed knowledge to become
72

internalised for use in the vernacular style, as classroom interaction may

serve as input to the learners vernacular style.
Ellis (1985: 244-245) refers to the pedagogical implications of the variability
position in that the type of instruction should match the learning processes
and goals:
If the goal is to participate in natural conversation, then the learner
will need to develop his vernacular style by acquiring L2 knowledge
that is automatic but unanalysed. This can be achieved directly by
means of instruction that emphasizes communication in the
classroom. It may also be achieved indirectly by teaching that
focuses

on

the

code,

if

there

are

also

sufficient

practice

opportunities to trigger the passage of knowledge from the careful

to the vernacular style. If the learners goal is to participate in
discourse that requires careful, conscious planning, he will need to
develop a careful style by acquiring L2 knowledge that is automatic
and analysed. This can be best accomplished by formal instruction
that focuses on the L2 code.
As can be seen, and not surprisingly, different perspectives emphasise
different opportunities for learning. What is becoming more apparent is that
the teaching of grammar alone cannot guarantee successful acquisition. In
the same way, input alone is not sufficient. Also, there is growing consensus
on the fact that learners develop different types of knowledge, and that,
therefore, different learning tasks should be devised so as to facilitate
different types of learning. What follows is a discussion of some
methodological options that address the issue of what type of formal
instruction works best (Ellis 1994).

2.4.2 Issues in formal instruction

Focus on forms vs. focus on form
Focus on forms refer to instruction that is based on a structural syllabus,
and teaches and tests language items one by one, as the main focus of such
a syllable is the learning of those forms. On the other hand, focus on form
occurs when learners conscious attention is directed towards a certain
language feature during input processing. This can happen by direct
73

intervention by the teacher, or because learners themselves notice a

feature.

It

can

happen

naturally

when

learners

are

engaged

in

communicative tasks while focusing on a specific formal property at the

same time, or when the teacher gives corrective feedback.
Focus on forms is argued to be counter-productive, while focus on form
results in faster learning and higher levels of proficiency. Focus on form is
related to the notion of noticing. According to Schmidt (in Harmer 2007:
54), noticing is a necessary condition for intake to take place. Unless a
learner notices a new language item, he or she is unlikely to process it, and
therefore, the chances of learning it are lessened. Harmer (2007: 54)
summarises the argument for a focus on form approach: students acquire
language best when they have focused on it either because they need it, or
have come across it in a meaning-focused communicative task, or because
in some other way they have noticed language which is relevant to them at
a particular time; this kind of acquisition is intrinsically superior to asking
students to focus on a series of pre-determined forms.

Implicit vs. explicit instruction

Formal instruction can be implicit, i.e. when learners are asked to induce
rules from the examples given, or explicit, when they are given a rule which
they then practise. The available evidence from studies is not conclusive,
but it appears to indicate that the type of instruction treatment may depend
on the type of linguistic material to be learnt, and also to the individual
characteristics of the learners.

Practice vs. consciousness-raising

In contrast to practice, consciousness-raising activities do not require the
learner to produce the target structure, only to understand it. While practice
aims at developing implicit knowledge, consciousness-raising aims at
explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge may indirectly affect implicit
knowledge

through

monitoring,

thus

improving

the

accuracy

of

communicative output. Also, learners who have explicit knowledge of

language features will be more likely to notice them in the input they
receive, which will facilitate learning. Finally, explicit knowledge will
facilitate the comparison of input with the learners IL, which may in
consequence foster acquisition.
74

Ellis (1994: 646) summarises the results offered by research thus:

1. A focus-on-form approach that encourages learners to pay
attention to the formal properties of the language in the context
of trying to communicate either by means of meaning
negotiation or by corrective feedback may facilitate acquisition.
2. If a focus-on-forms approach is adopted, this is more likely to
succeed if:
- rules are presented explicitly and supported by examples
- the instruction is aimed at developing explicit knowledge
-

through consciousness-raising activities

the instruction is directed at enabling learners to establish

form-meaning connections during comprehension

3. In contrast, there is a growing consensus that instruction directed
at promoting growth of learners interlanguage systems (i.e. their
implicit knowledge) through production-training is problematic.
To clarify this last point, it should be said that practice may be beneficial
only if it takes place under realistic operating conditions, that is, if it gives
learners

the

opportunity

to

produce

target

structure

in

similar

circumstances to those that would prevail in normal communication.

Conclusion
The approaches discussed above point to the importance of the principles
that underlie teaching programmes. Although there is still no unified theory
of SLA, and in spite of the disagreement among different theoretical
positions, what is evident is that second language learning is a major feat,
achieved by brains that may not be biologically prepared to develop new
language systems after a certain age, or that need to resort to different
mechanisms to do so. As Strozer (1994: 207) puts it, The conclusion that a
foreign language can be acquired only through persistent study, and that a
teaching program can only provide valuable but never sufficient help, is
neither negative nor pessimistic. A high level of success on the part of the
student, after a considerable amount of prolonged effort, is in a way a far
greater individual achievement than becoming a native speaker in childhood
(it is not a particular merit of children to allow this to happen to them).
Given the fact that L2 learning equals learning to communicate in the target
language, teaching programmes should be carefully designed as to provide
learners with the necessary conditions for it to happen. The emphasis on
75

communication should not be overlooked, although classroom settings are

severely restricted as regards opportunities for real communication.
Nevertheless, as Ellis (1985: 143) states, successful outcomes may depend
on the type of language used by the teacher and the type of interactions
occurring in the classroom. In the case of the language classroom, the
growth of interest in the analysis of teacher language and interaction has
been stimulated by the rejection of language teaching method as the
principal determinant of successful learning. This does not mean that all
methodological approaches are conducive to learning; rather, that SLA
research and its findings should be the basis for both successful teaching
practices and successful L2 learning.

2.5 TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ROLES

All the components of language learning come alive in a classroom. Learning
emerges from the interaction of teachers and students, the final agents of
SLA. Different perspectives set different roles for teachers and students.
Larsen-Freeman (2011: 162) offers the following account of teaching:
A traditional view of teaching has been characterized as knowledge
transmission. In this teaching-centred view, teachers are seen to be
responsible for transmitting what they know to their students. These
days it is common to be critical of a knowledge transmission view of
teaching for the passive role it ascribes to language learnersIn
contrast to knowledge transmission is a prominent alternative,
student-centred, view of teaching, namely constructivism[which
states] that learning should be socially constructed and teaching
meaningful, building on what students already know. This should be
accomplished through active engagement with fellow students, the
teacher, the world and by reflecting on these experiences. For this
reason, a constructivist approach could also be called experiential.
Practices associated with this approach are procedures in which
students are active thorough experimentation, problem-solving, and
dialoguing. Students are also encouraged to reflect upon these
experiences by talking about what they did and what understanding
they came to.

76

All approaches assign different roles to teachers and students, and in fact,
most teachers nowadays tend to follow an eclectic form of teaching, varying
their roles in accordance with the learners, the nature and objectives of the
lesson, the context, etc. This asks for a re-definition of the word teacher,
in that they have become reflective practitioners, who can detach
[themselves] from experience, examine it, and learn from it. (Larsen
Freeman in 2011: 163) Also, teachers are explorers, in that they are
encouraged to experiment, take risks, around some particular issue of
interest in their teaching practice. They are then to step back and watch
what happens. This set of procedures helps them to clarify issues around
their own teaching practice and prevents it from going stale. (2011: 163)
The new roles assigned to teachers are definitely more demanding,
especially in that they require teachers to do a lot of reflection, both before
and after each class. Nevertheless, this extra task makes teaching more
professional and rewarding, as it gives teachers a heightened sense of
development.
On the other hand, students also have new roles to play. Class time is too
limited for students to learn all they need to learn, therefore they need to
become both active and autonomous learners. When students are agents of
their own learning, motivation is more easily sustained. One way of fostering
learner autonomy is by making students reflect on their language goals,
tasks and strategies, so that they can become active agents of their
learning. The more they know about the learning process, the better they
can become engaged in it. Availing themselves of opportunities to use the
target language outside the class is a powerful means of extending learning.
Although engaging in conversations with native speakers is not easy to
achieve in an EFL situation, technology may ease the process, apart from
giving students a clearer idea of the status of English as a lingua franca.
Teachers can guide their students along the path of independent learning,
thus re-defining roles for all the participants. In Larsen-Freemans words
(2011: 163), In fact, perhaps the most important role for a language
teacher is that of mediator between the textbook/curriculum and the
students, in order to address the multifarious and diverse needs of the
present class. In other words, teachers mediate between the theoretical
and practical sides of SLA, facilitating the process of second language
acquisition with their knowledge. In short, teachers do applied linguistics.
77

PART THREE
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Apart from SLA, other linguistic disciplines offer valuable contributions to

language teaching, though at a macro-level. Few research orientations in
the field of SLA seem to isolate language from its use in its study. Most
recent work entails a certain notion of language: language as social, as
meaningful, and as always embedded in a social context and history.
Language is not an isolated phenomenon; language is deeply social,
intertwined with social processes and interaction (Wodak, in Wodak 2000).
It is clear, then, that language teaching cannot be restricted to learning to
use the target language excluded from its social context. Thus the crucial
role of discourse analysis, and its related discipline, critical discourse
analysis, hence CDA. This idea is in keeping with Widdowsons (2004: viii):
Whereas I had thought of language teaching as the main area of practical
concern which discourse analysis could be relevant to, CDA had a much
more ambitious and much more significant agenda. Its concern was to
educate people more broadly in the abuse of power by linguistic means, to
reveal how language is used for deception and distortion and the fostering
of prejudice. However, not all scholars go along with such a negative view.
Wodak (2000: 2) explains that critical means distinguishing complexity and
denying easy, dichotomous explanations. It means making contradictions
transparent.

Language teaching should be done within the frame of

language education, so as to empower learners to become aware of the

uses allowed by language, both native and second languages alike. In this
respect, language teaching becomes an enabling tool for life, thus the
relevance of CDA in this module.
78

3.1 CDA: A DEFINITION

CDAs roots lie in classical rhetoric, text linguistics, sociolinguistics, applied
linguistics and pragmatics (Wodak 2002), fields that recognise both the
value of interaction and the social creation of texts.
Wodak (2000: 186) provides a clear definition: CDA is not a homogeneous
theory with a set of clear and defined tools; rather, it is a research program
with many facets and numerous different theoretical and methodological
approaches.

CDA may be considered one of the strands of applied

linguistics in that it does not restrict itself to descriptions of problems but

may suggest solutions. CDA is mainly associated with analysis of texts
produced by the media and politics, but it also has a strong link with
organisational discourse, gender, racism, political correctness and language
awareness, to mention just a few. I assume that critical research
should be concerned with social issues that are at the core of the imminent
changes taking place in current societies. Through CDA, we are able to make
social interaction transparent and understandable to [the citizens] who have
little or no access to the elites involved in decision making. (Wodak 2000:
191)
Van Dijk agrees with the position above:
CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the
many other approaches in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer
a different mode or perspective of theorizing, analysis, and
application throughout the whole field. We may find a more or less
critical

perspective

conversation

in

analysis,

such

diverse

narrative

areas

analysis,

as

pragmatics,

rhetoric,

stylistics,

sociolinguistics, ethnography, or media analysis, among others. (van

Dijk 2007: 352)
Thus, according to the aims of research, the methodologies used by the
different scholars who apply CDA differ greatly.
As regards the use of the term critical, Rogers (2004) offers three
explanations: first, CDA is associated with the study of power relations, in a
dialectical manner between discourse and its social context. Second, it is
concerned with the description, interpretation and explanation of the

79

relationship between language form and function. Finally, CDA explicitly

addresses social problems and analyses how discourse operates in the
construction of those problems. This action-oriented stance is usually
referred to as critical language awareness.
Within the frame of CDA, discourse assumes that language is always social,
and its analysis happens above the level of sentence or clause. In Rogers
words (2004: 356), discourse both reflects and constructs the social world
and is referred to as constitutive, dialectic, and dialogic. Discourse is never
just a product, but a set of consumptive, productive, distributive, and
reproductive processes that is in relation to the social world.
Finally, as regards analysis, Rogers (2004) refers to the fact that, even
though there are central principles that unite all analysis carried out in the
field of CDA, there is also much dissent, especially as far as methodology is
concerned. For instance, some analyses are more language-oriented, while
others focus more on the context in which discourses arise.
In sum, it becomes clear that CDA implies an interdisciplinary approach, as
the social problems it deals with are complex issues that cannot be analysed
within a single field. Furthermore, critical discourse analysis is inevitably
rooted in a socio-political situation researchers can hardly isolate from,
which implies close involvement on the part of researchers with dominated
groups.

3.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF CDA

In spite of the variety of types of CDA, there is a common core to all. The
overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks focus on the way discourse
reproduces social dominance; that is, CDA focuses on the ways discourse
structures enact, confirm, legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of
power and dominance in society. (van Dijk 2007: 353)

Fairclough and Wodak (in van Dijk 2007: 353) summarize the main tenets of
CDA as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

CDA addresses social problems

Power relations are discursive
Discourse constitutes society and culture
Discourse does ideological work
Discourse is historical
80

6. The link between text and society is mediated

7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action.
Item four above refers to ideology. This is a term that is recurrent in CDA,
and is closely linked with the notion of power. Fairclough (1989: 2) defines
ideology as common-sense assumptions which are implicit in the
conventions according to which people interact linguistically, and of which
people are generally not consciously aware. For example, Fairclough
describes a typical consultation between doctors and patients, in which the
doctors authority and hierarchy are treated as natural, and therefore it is
natural for him/her to make decisions and control the course of the
consultation, while the patient is expected to comply and cooperate.
Ideologies are closely linked to power, as the nature of the ideological
assumptions present in particular conventions, and therefore the nature of
those conventions, depend on the power relations that underlie the
conventions. Ideologies are
a means of legitimizing existing social relations and differences of
power, simply through the recurrence of ordinary, familiar ways of
behaving which take these relations and power differences for
granted. Ideologies are closely linked to language, because using
language is the commonest form of social behaviour, and the form
of social behaviour where we rely most on common-sense
assumptions. (Fairclough 1989: 2)
Practices which seem to be universal and based on common sense have
become naturalised, and can be traced to have an origin in dominant
groups.
As regards item six in the list above, it is necessary to clarify the distinction
between the terms text and discourse, both pervasive in CDA. Although they
are sometimes used interchangeably, some authors make a distinction.
Fairclough (1989: 24) views text as a product rather than a process, and
discourse as the whole process of social interaction of which a text is just a
part. This definition is in keeping with the one proposed by Systemic
Functional Linguistics (on which much of discourse analysis is based), which
claims that text is any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that
does form a unified whole (Halliday and Hasan in Eggins 2004: 23-24) A
81

text is unified thanks to the interaction of cohesion and coherence, the

result of which is an instance of linguistic resources in a meaningful way
within a situational and cultural context.

(Eggins 2004: 24) On the other

hand, SFL describes discourse technically as the level of meaning above the
lexico-grammar, that is, the level concerned with relations of meaning
across a text.
The following section will focus on some general basic concepts that relate
discourse, cognition and society (van Dijk 2007).

3.2.1 Macro vs. micro

Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to
the micro level of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality
between social groups are typically terms that belong to a macro level of
analysis. In everyday interaction, these two levels co-exist. Van Dijk (2007:
354) offers the following list of ways in which the gap between the macro
and the micro levels can be bridged:
1 Membersgroups: Language users engage in discourse as members
of (several)
social groups, organizations, or institutions; and conversely, groups
thus may act
"by" their members.
2 Actionsprocess: Social acts of individual actors are thus constituent
parts of group
actions and social processes, such as legislation, newsmaking, or the
reproduction
of racism.
3 Contextsocial structure: Situations of discursive interaction are
similarly part or
constitutive of social structure; for example, a press conference may be
a typical
practice of organizations and media institutions. That is, "local" and
more "global"
contexts are closely related, and both exercise constraints on
discourse.
4 Personal and social cognition: Language users as social actors have
both personal
82

and social cognition: personal memories, knowledge and opinions,

as well as those shared with members of the group or culture as a
whole. Both types of cognition influence interaction and discourse
of individual members, whereas shared "social representations"
govern the collective actions of a group.

3.2.2 Power as control

A central notion in CDA is that of power, specifically the social power of
groups and institutions. Van Dijk (2007: 354-355) defines power in terms
of control:
groups have (more or less) power if they are able to (more or less)
control the acts and minds of (members of) other groups. This
ability presupposes a power base of privileged access to scarce
social resources, such as force, money, status, fame, knowledge,
information, culture, or indeed various forms of public discourse
and communication. Power is seldom absolute, as groups may
exercise more or less control over other groups, sometimes only in
specific situations. Dominated groups may also resist, condone,
comply with or legitimate such power, even find it natural.
The power of dominant groups may be present in laws, rules, habits, or
general consensus, in everyday actions that are taken for granted. In this
respect, the exercise of power is not always obviously coercive, which may
make it more dangerous to the dominated groups.
Persuasion and manipulation are two key concepts in that action, which is
controlled by our minds, can be modified by influencing peoples minds. This
is directly related to access to specific forms of discourse (politics, the
media, science, etc.), which is, then, a resource of power. In short, groups
that control influential discourse have more chances to control the minds
and actions of others.

Control of public discourse

Ordinary people can have active control over discourse, as in everyday talk
with family and friends. They can also be passive recipients of talk or text
83

from their bosses, teachers, etc. On the other hand, more powerful social
groups and institutions, and their leaders, have access to and control over
public discourse and discourse types, such as doctors, teachers, lawyers,
journalists, etc.
Regarding communicative events, context and the structure of text and talk
should be taken into account.

Context is defined as the mentally

represented structure of those properties of the social situation that are

relevant for the production or comprehension of discourse (van Dijk 2007:
356). It involves setting (time and place), ongoing actions (discourses and
genres), participants and their mental representations (knowledge, opinions,
goals, attitudes and ideologies). Controlling context involves control over
one or more of these categories, e.g. determining the definition of the
communicative situation, deciding on time and place of the communicative
event, or on which participants may or must be present, and in which roles,
or what knowledge or opinions they should (not) have, and which social
actions may or must be accomplished by discourse. (2007: 356)
In connection with the structure of text and talk, powerful groups, or their
members, can decide on the discourse genres or speech acts of an occasion.
For example, a teacher can ask a student to read a story instead of re-telling
it. In more critical situations, control over the structure of text and talk is
evidenced when some people are excluded from producing discourse. Also
relevant is who controls the topics and topic change, as when, for example,
teachers decide what to talk about or when to stop talking about a certain
topic.
Virtually all structures of context, text and talk may be more or less
controlled by powerful speakers, who may abuse their power at the expense
of the less powerful participants.

Mind control
Controlling peoples minds is another way of reproducing dominance. This
can be achieved in a number of ways. First, people tend to accept beliefs,
knowledge and opinions from what they consider trustworthy sources.
Second, in some situations, participants are obliged to be recipients of
discourse, as in a classroom situation. Third, sometimes, there are no public
84

discourses or media that can provide alternative options. Fourth, some

recipients may not have the necessary knowledge to challenge the
discourses they are exposed to.
Discourse structure can also exert mind control. At a global level, topics may
influence what people see as the most important information. Also,
argumentation can be persuasive in that it usually involves social opinions
that are hidden and taken for granted. At a local level, presuppositions,
necessary for communication, may make discourse harder to challenge, as
they communicate beliefs implicitly. This means that dominant groups may
control public discourse and therefore the minds of the public. Public
discourse is, then involved in dominance (power abuse) and in the
production and reproduction of social inequality. (van Dijk 2007: 358)
However, control over discourse has its limits, as the complexity of beliefs
makes it difficult to predict which features of a specific text will have which
effects on the minds of recipients. (van Dijk 2007)

3.3 AREAS OF CDA

The following are some of the areas that have been researched under the
label of CDA. This section will also be based on van Dijks analysis (2007).
For each area there are two chapters attached; one looks at the
corresponding issue from a more global point of view, while the other
focuses more on language forms.

3.3.1 Gender
Studies of gender inequality are an exception in that most studies in the
field have not been done within the scope of CDA, although much of it deals
with inequality and domination.
See the attached chapters for a survey and description of the fields
evolution

(Kendall

and

Tannen

2007),

and

for

the

asymmetrical

representations of women and men, and how they can be sexist (Shn
Wareing 2004).

3.3.2 The media

85

The discourse of the media has media given rise to a vast body of research,
which has revealed an often biased presentation of information. Much of the
work on this area has focused on systemic functional grammar, as events
and actions may be described with syntactic variations that are a function of
the underlying involvement of actors by leaving agency and responsibility
implicit (van Dijk 2007: 359) Thus, linguistic elements such as transitivity
and lexical structure appear as highly powerful tools.
See Cotter (2007) and Thornborrow (2004).

3.3.3 Political discourse

In van Dijks words (2007: 360), political discourse plays a central role in the
enactment, reproduction, and legitimization of power and domination, so
work in this area has also been prolific. Political information is usually
obtained through discourse, sometimes through the media. Political action is
also carried out by means of discourse, so the relation between these areas
is inextricable.
See Jones and Peccei (2004) and Wilson (2007)

3.3.4 Ethnicity
The study of the influence of discourse in the perpetuation of ethnic
inequality traditionally focused on ethnocentric and racist representations in
the mass media, literature and films. These representations reflect the
images of the Other in the discourses of European travellers, explorers and
merchants among others, based on an exotic impression on the one hand,
and on opinions that considered the Other an inferior being. This influenced
public opinion, and led to generalised social representation. In van Dijks
words (2007: 362), racism (including antisemitism, xenophobia, and related
forms of resentment against "racially" or ethnically defined Others) is a
complex system of social and political inequality that is also reproduced by
discourse in general, and by elite discourses in particular.
See Wodak and Resgl (2007) and Singh (2004).

3.4 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

This module cannot end without a reference to the relationship between
language and educational issues, more specifically second language
86

learning. The way in which language may help perpetuate unequal relations
has already been described. The language classroom is not alien to social
relations of power, so it is the teachers task to become aware of his/her
language practices and develop students awareness of the power of
language in the reproduction or transformation of inequality. In Faircloughs
words (1989: 1), consciousness is the first step towards emancipation.
Learners should become conscious of the fact that language is not simply a
tool for expressing ideas and carrying out tasks. It also, and inevitably,
expresses, constitutes and reproduces social identities and relations,
including those of power. (1989)
Of course, the situation of learners of English as a foreign language (as
opposed to second language) is different from that of immigrants, who are
sometimes disadvantaged sections of the society, whose experiences of
domination and racism are particularly sharp. (1989: 235) Nevertheless,
critical language awareness should be part of the language curriculum in
that it may enable learners to discover how domination works in a modern
society, through consent rather than by coercion, through ideology, and
through language. (1989: 233). This kind of knowledge will hopefully be
transferred to the analysis of the mother tongue, therefore opening up new
ways of looking at language in general.
Fairclough (1992), claims that we are living in a period of intense social
change, and that language is, albeit not evidently, extremely important
within those changes. First, changes are related to the way in which power
and social control are exercised, from more explicit to more implicit ways.
This implies that language is becoming more important in sustaining and
reproducing power relations.
Second, language practices are changing. For example, in the service
sector, there are many people who have to communicate with clients, so
specific communicative skills have become of utmost importance, and
employees are specifically trained to satisfy the communicative demands of
their jobs. Also, there is a tendency towards the use of a conversational
style in interactions between, for instance, professionals and clients, and
shop assistants and customers. This suggests that changes in language
practices are reflecting changes in social relationships and social identities,
which, in turn, may reflect a democratisation of professional domains.
87

However, a conversational style may provide a strategy for exercising

power in more subtle and implicit ways. (Fairclough 1992: 5)
Third, language itself is becoming a target for change. Some institutions are
conceptualising language in terms of techniques or skills which are designed
to improve their effectiveness, in various domains, and more or less
independently of context. This leads to the redesigning of language
practices and training of personnel. (Fairclough 1992: 5)
In sum, since power relations are exercised implicitly in language, and
language practices are more consciously controlled, language education
cannot fail to provide learners with critical language awareness. Fairclough
(1989: 242-243) suggests the following cycle for language education in
schools (it will be slightly adapted here to suit the needs of our situation):

1. Reflection on experience: students are asked to reflect on their

own discourse and experience, and to share their reflections with
the class. E.g.: learners reflect on the differences between speech
and writing.
2. Systematising experience: the teacher shows students how to
express the reflections systematically. E.g.: present an account of
the functional differences between speech and writing, the social
prestige of various uses of writing, and the distribution of access
to prestigious uses.
3. Explanation: the knowledge acquired through the two previous
stages is further reflected upon and analysed by the class, and
social explanations are sought. E.g.: reflect on the social reasons
for access to prestigious uses of writing, the language they are
written in, etc.
4. Developing practice: the awareness resulting from the previous
stages is used to develop purposeful discourse. E.g.: a writing
activity that breaks the conventions for writing, for instance
writing about topics which are not usually written about, writing in
a language not normally used for those purposes, etc.

It is important to bear in mind that critical language awareness is best

applied to types of discourse that have real significance in students own
88

lives and experience. Also, people tend to be more open to critical

approaches when they are engaged in social struggle. Finally, for most
people, focusing on language may make little sense at the beginning, so its
relevance will have to be demonstrated. (Fairclough 1989: 245)
However, time invested in enabling learners to become critically language
aware is never wasted, as it may empower them to become critical thinkers
and actors in a society that is constantly changing. Being aware of the
opportunities offered by language, and of the restrictions it may impose, is a
necessity, both for language professionals and for learners. Language
teachers, first, second or foreign alike, should be committed to raising their
students consciousness. This may help them recognise the power and
freedom that lie in knowledge, and the responsibility they imply.

References

Brown, D. (2007) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 5th edition.

New York: Pearson Education.
Bruthiaux, P. et al, eds. (2005) Directions in Applied Linguistics. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd
Cook, G (1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, G and B. Seidlhofer, eds. (1995) Principle and Practice in Applied
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second language Acquisition. Hampshire and
London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Davies, A. (2007) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. 2ndedition.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
Davies, A. and C. Elder, eds. (2004) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics.
Victoria: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Dekeyser, R. (2005) Implicit and Explicit Learning in Doughty, C. and M.
Long, eds. (2005) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 241-258.
Drnyei, Z. and P. Skehan (2005) Individual Differences in Second Language
Learning in Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds. (2005) The Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell Reference Online:
Blackwell Publishing. pp 442-471.
Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds. (2005) The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing.
89

Doughty, C. (2005) Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and

Enhancement in Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds. (2005) The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell Reference
Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 201-234.
Eggins, S. (2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of SLA. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. Harlow: Addison Wesley
Longman Limited.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Introduction in Fairclough, N. ed. Critical Language
Awareness. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. pp 1-29.
Fairclough, N. ed. (1992) Critical Language Awareness. Harlow: Addison
Wesley Longman Limited.
Gass, S. (2005) Input and Interaction in Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds. The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell Reference
Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 175-194.
Harmer, J. (2007) The Practice of English Second Language Teaching.
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Hyltenstam, K. and N, Abrahamsson (2005) Maturational Constraints in
SLA in Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds. (2005) The Handbook of
Second

Language

Acquisition.

Blackwell

Reference

Online:

Blackwell Publishing. pp 406-435.

Johnstone, R. (2002) Addressing the Age Factor: some Implications for
Language Policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Kaplan, R. ed. (2002) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kendall, S. and D. Tannen (2007) Discourse and Gender in in Schiffrin, D,
D. Tannen and H. Hamilton, eds. The Handbooh of Discourse
Analysis. Blackwell Reference Online. Blackwell Publising.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Internet edition downloaded September 1st, 2011 from
dkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice.pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) Key concepts in language learning and language
education in Simpson, J. The Routledge Handbook of Applied
Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge. pp 155-170.
Lightbown, P. and N. Spada (1993) How languages are Learned. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
90

Littlewood, W. (2004) Second Language Learning in Davies, A. and C.

Elder, eds. (2004) The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Victoria:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp 501-524.
Odlin, T. (2005) Cross-Linguistic Influence in Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds.
(2005) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell
Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 333-368
Ortega, L. (2011) Second language acquisition in Simpson, J. ed. The
Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.
pp 171-184.
Robinson, P. (2005) Attention and Memory during SLA in Doughty, C. and
M. Long, eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 472-495.
Rogers, R. (2004) An introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in
Education in Rogers, R. ed. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis
in Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Rogers, R. ed. (2004) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis in Education.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schmidt, R. (2001) Attention in Robinson, P. ed. Cognition and Second
Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Segalowitz, N. (2005) Automaticity and Second Languages in Doughty, C.
and M. Long, eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 292-311.
Schiffrin, D, D. Tannen and H. Hamilton, eds. (2007)The Handbooh of
Discourse

Analysis.

Blackwell

Reference

Online.

Blackwell

Publishing.
Simpson, J. ed. (2011) The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Strozer, J. (1994) Language Acquisition After Puberty. Washington DC:
Washington University Press.
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning in
Cook, G and B. Seidlhofer, eds. (1995) Principle and Practice in
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (2000) Still wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory in
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 182-198
Tarone, E. (2010) Social context and cognition in SLA: a variationist
perspective

Downloaded

August

12 th,

2011

from

https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/items/.../303587.pdf Ullman, M. (2004) Contributions of memory circuits to language: the

declarative/procedural model Cognition 92: 231270.

91

Van Dijk, T. (2007) Critical Discourse Analysis in Schiffrin, D, D. Tannen and

H. Hamilton, eds. The Handbooh of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell
Reference Online. Blackwell Publishing.
White, L (2005) On the Nature of Interlanguage Representation: Universal
Grammar in the Second Language in Doughty, C. and M. Long,
eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell
Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 17-30.
Widdowson, H. (2005) Applied Linguistics, Interdisciplinarity, and Disparate
Realities in Bruthiaux, P. et al, eds. Directions in Applied
Linguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. pp 12-25.
Widdowson, H. (2004) Text, Context, Pretext Critical Issues in Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Wodak, R. (2000) Critical Discourse Analysis at the End of the 20th
Century in Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32:
1&2, 185193
Wodak, R. (2002) Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis ZfAL 36: 5-31.

92