econd language acquisition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require
cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (August
2010)
This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider
splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key
points of the subject. (August 2010)
This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline
citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (September
2009)

Linguistics

Theoretical linguistics

Cognitive linguistics
Generative linguistics
Quantitative linguistics
Phonology · Morphology
Syntax · Lexis
Semantics · Pragmatics

Descriptive linguistics

Anthropological linguistics
Comparative linguistics
Historical linguistics
Etymology · Phonetics
Sociolinguistics

Applied linguistics
 Computational linguistics
Forensic linguistics
Language acquisition
Language assessment
Language development
Language education
Linguistic prescription
Linguistic anthropology
Neurolinguistics
Psycholinguistics
Stylistics

Related articles

History of linguistics
List of linguists

List of unsolved problems

in linguistics

Portal

v•d•e

Second language acquisition or second language learning is the process by which

people learn a second language in addition to their native language(s). "Second language
acquisition" refers to what the learner does; it does not refer to what the teacher does (see
"language education" for work on language teaching). "Second language acquisition
research" studies the psychology and sociology of the learning process. Sometimes the
terms "acquisition" and "learning" are not treated as synonyms and are instead used to
refer to the subconscious and conscious aspects of this process respectively (see second
language learning).

"Second language", "target language", or "L2" are used to refer to any language learned
after the native language, which is also called "mother tongue", "first language", "L1", or
"source language". Second language acquisition also includes third language
acquisition/multilingualism and heritage language acquisition. Second language
acquisition may be abbreviated as "SLA", or "L2A", for "L2 acquisition".

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Second Language Acquisition and its premises

• 2 Describing learned language
o 2.1 Error analysis
• 3 Interlanguage
o 3.1 Developmental patterns
 3.1.1 Order of acquisition
 3.1.2 Sequence of acquisition
o 3.2 Variability
• 4 Learner-external factors
o 4.1 Social effects
o 4.2 Input and intake
o 4.3 Interaction
o 4.4 Pedagogical effects
• 5 Learner-internal factors
• 6 Critical period research to date
• 7 Other directions of research
o 7.1 Cognitive approaches
o 7.2 Language transfer
o 7.3 Linguistic universals
• 8 Individual variation
o 8.1 Language aptitude
o 8.2 Age
o 8.3 Strategy use
o 8.4 Affective factors
 8.4.1 Anxiety
 8.4.2 Personality Factors
 8.4.3 Motivation
• 9 Understanding SLA
o 9.1 Concepts of ability
• 10 See also
• 11 Notes
• 12 References
• 13 Further reading

• 14 External links

[edit] Second Language Acquisition and its premises

Second language acquisition encompasses the acquisition of any language after the
acquisition of the first language by a learner. Therefore, it incorporates learning the third
or fourth languages which is closely related to bilingualism and multilingualism, and
heritage language learning. Cenoz and Genesee (1998)[vague] terms multilingual acquisition
and multilingualism as complex phenomena and add that they implicate all the factors
and processes associated with second language acquisition and bilingualism as well as
unique and potentially more complex factors and effects associated with the interactions
that are possible among the multiple languages being learned and the processes of
learning them. Valdés (2000)[vague] defines heritage language as the language someone
learns at home as a child which is a minority language in society, but because of growing
up in a dominant language, the speaker seems to be more competent in the latter and feels
more comfortable to communicate in that language. However, since heritage speakers are
commonly alienated from their heritage language for a long time, and get limited or no
exposure to that language, they seem to be in a state of language acquisition that is
greatly different from monolinguals or second language speakers of that language.

[edit] Describing learned language

Through the descriptive study of learned language, some SLA researchers seek to
understand better language learning without recourse to factors outside learned language.
Researchers may adopt an interlanguage perspective, exploring learned language as a
linguistic system, or they may study how a learned language compares to a natively
spoken language. Research is centered on the question: What are the unique
characteristics of learned language? Much of the research has focused on the English
language as the L2, because of the huge number of people around the world learning and
teaching it.

[edit] Error analysis

Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Corder and colleagues
(Corder, 1967). Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach
influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal
distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error
analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors,
although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language
transfer. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced
by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new language.

Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are
not. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to
basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be
classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out
of context, whereas covert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the
classification according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst must
examine, and extent, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix
the error. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language: phonological
errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed
according to the degree to which they interfere with communication: global errors make
an utterance difficult to understand, while local errors do not. In the above example, "I
angry" would be a local error, since the meaning is apparent.

From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. In
particular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often
impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also, error
analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not
with learner reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner
use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use a
form with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still
used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of
learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on
to a more wide-ranging approach to learner language, known as interlanguage.

Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching.
Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching
methodology.

[edit] Interlanguage
Interlanguage is a term coined by Selinker (1972). Interlanguage scholarship seeks to
understand learner language on its own terms, as a natural language with its own
systematic rules. Interlanguage scholars reject, at least for heuristic purposes, the view of
learner language as merely an imperfect version of the target language. Interlanguage
work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage
perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system
(interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and
language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics).

By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms,
interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic
universals in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".

[edit] Developmental patterns

Ellis (1994)[vague] distinguished between "order" to refer to the pattern in which different
language features are acquired and "sequence" to denote the pattern by which a specific
language feature is acquired.

[edit] Order of acquisition

Researchers have found a very consistent order in the acquisition of first language
structures by children, and this has drawn a great deal of interest from SLA scholars.
Considerable effort has been devoted to testing the "identity hypothesis", which asserts
that first-language and second-language acquisition conform to the same patterns. This
has not been confirmed, perhaps because second-language learners' cognitive and
affective states are so much more advanced, and perhaps because it is not true. Orders of
acquisition in SLA often resemble those found in first language acquisition, and may
have common neurological causes, but there is no convincing evidence for this. It is not
safe to say that the order of L1 acquisition has any easy implications for SLA.

Some research suggests that most learners begin their acquisition process with a "silent
period", in which they speak very little if at all. It is said that for some, this is a period of
language shock, in which the learner actively rejects the incomprehensible input of the
new language. However, research has shown that many "silent" learners are engaging in
private speech (sometimes called "self-talk"). While appearing silent, they are rehearsing
important survival phrases and lexical chunks. These memorized phrases are then
employed in the subsequent period of formulaic speech. Whether by choice or
compulsion, other learners have no silent period and pass directly to formulaic speech.
This speech, in which a handful of routines is used to accomplish basic purposes, often
shows few departures from L2 morphosyntax. It eventually gives way to a more
experimental phase of acquisition, in which the semantics and grammar of the target
language are simplified and the learners begin to construct a true interlanguage(Seidner,
(1982), pp. 9–10).

The nature of the transition between formulaic and simplified speech is disputed. Some,
including Krashen, have argued that there is no cognitive relationship between the two,
and that the transition is abrupt. Thinkers influenced by recent theories of the lexicon
have preferred to view even native speaker speech as heavily formulaic, and interpret the
transition as a process of gradually developing a broader repertoire of chunks and a
deeper understanding of the rules which govern them. Some studies have supported both
views, and it is likely that the relationship depends in great part on the learning styles of
individual learners.

A flurry of studies took place in the 1970s, examining whether a consistent order of
morpheme acquisition could be shown. Most of these studies did show fairly consistent
orders of acquisition for selected morphemes. For example, among learners of English
the cluster of features including the suffix "-ing", the plural, and the copula were found to
consistently precede others such as the article, auxiliary, and third person singular.
However, these studies were widely criticized as not paying sufficient attention to
overuse of the features (idiosyncratic uses outside what are obligatory contexts in the L2),
and sporadic but inconsistent use of the features. More recent scholarship prefers to view
the acquisition of each linguistic feature as a gradual and complex process. For that
reason most scholarship since the 1980s has focused on the sequence, rather than the
order, of feature acquisition.

[edit] Sequence of acquisition

A number of studies have looked into the sequence of acquisition of pronouns by learners
of various Indo-European languages. These are reviewed by Ellis (1994), pp. 96–99.
They show that learners begin by omitting pronouns or using them indiscriminately: for
example, using "I" to refer to all agents. Learners then acquire a single pronoun feature,
often person, followed by number and eventually by gender. Little evidence of
interference from the learner's first language has been found; it appears that learners use
pronouns based entirely on their inferences about target language structure.

Studies on the acquisition of word order in German have shown that most learners begin
with a word order based on their native language. This indicates that certain aspects of
interlanguage syntax are influenced by the learners' first language, although others are
not.

Research on the sequence of acquisition of words is exhaustively reviewed by Nation

(2001). Kasper and Rose (2002) have thoroughly researched the sequence of acquisition
of pragmatic features. In both fields, consistent patterns have emerged and have been the
object of considerable theorizing.

[edit] Variability

Though the interlanguage perspective views learner language as a language in its own
right, this language systematically varies much more than native-speaker language. A
learner may produce a target-like variant (e.g. 'I don't') in one context and a non-target
like variant (e.g. 'me no') in another. Scholars from different traditions have taken
opposing views on the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring a Chomskyan
perspective to SLA typically regard variability as nothing more than "performance
errors", and not worthy of systematic inquiry. On the other hand, those who approach it
from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view variability as an inherent
feature of the learner's interlanguage, where the learner's preference for one linguistic
variant over another depends on accompanying a) social (contextual) variables such as
the status or role of the interlocutor (see Selinker & Douglas, 1985), or b) linguistic
variables such as the phonological environment or neighoring features marked for
formality or informality. Naturally, most research on variability has been done by those
who presume it to be meaningful (Fasold & Preston, 2007; Tarone, 2009; Tarone & Liu,
1995).

Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation", which

has not been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social
features, and "systematic variation", which has. Of course, the line between the two is
subject to debate.

Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not
been fully acquired. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of
alternate forms. This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning
learners, and may be entirely absent among the more advanced.

Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological, social

context. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For instance, the pronunciation of
a difficult phoneme may depend on whether it is to be found at the beginning or end of a
syllable.

Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. In

accordance with Communication Accommodation Theory, learners may adapt their
speech to either converge with, or diverge from, their interlocutor's usage. For example,
they may deliberately choose to address a non-target form like "me no" to an English
teacher in order to assert identity with a non-mainstream ethnic group (Rampton 1995).

The most important psychological factor is usually taken to be attention to form, which is
related to planning time. The more time that learners have to plan, the more target-like
their production may be. Thus, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms
in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in conversation where they
must produce language with almost no planning at all. The impact of alphabetic literacy
level on an L2 learner's ability to pay attention to form is as yet unclear (see Tarone,
Bigelow & Hansen, 2009).

Affective factors also play an important role in systematic variation. For example,
learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce fewer target-like
forms than they would in a comfortable setting. This clearly interacts with social factors,
and attitudes toward the interlocutor and topic also play important roles.

[edit] Learner-external factors

The study of learner-external factors in SLA is primarily concerned with the question:
How do learners get information about the target language? Study has focused on the
effects of different kinds of input, and on the impact of the social context.

[edit] Social effects

The process of language learning can be very stressful, and the impact of positive or
negative attitudes from the surrounding society can be critical. One aspect that has
received particular attention is the relationship of gender roles to language achievement.
Studies across numerous cultures have shown that women, on the whole, enjoy an
advantage over men. Some have proposed that this is linked to gender roles. Doman
(2006) notes in a journal devoted to issues of Cultural affects on SLA, "Questions abound
about what defines SLA, how far its borders extend, and what the attributions and
contributions of its research are. Thus, there is a great amount of heterogeneity in the
entire conceptualization of SLA. Some researchers tend to ignore certain aspects of the
field, while others scrutinize those same aspects piece by piece."

Community attitudes toward the language being learned can also have a profound impact
on SLA. Where the community has a broadly negative view of the target language and its
speakers, or a negative view of its relation to them, learning is typically much more
difficult. This finding has been confirmed by research in numerous contexts. A widely-
cited example is the difficulty faced by Navajo children in learning English as a second
language.

Other common social factors include the attitude of parents toward language study, and
the nature of group dynamics in the language classroom. Additionally, early attitudes
may strengthen motivation and facility with language in general, particularly with early
exposure to the language.

[edit] Input and intake

Learners' most direct source of information about the target language is the target
language itself. When they come into direct contact with the target language, this is
referred to as "input." When learners process that language in a way that can contribute to
learning, this is referred to as "intake."

Generally speaking, the amount of input learners take in is one of the most important
factors affecting their learning. However, it must be at a level that is comprehensible to
them. In his Monitor Theory, Krashen advanced the concept that language input should
be at the "i+1" level, just beyond what the learner can fully understand; this input is
comprehensible, but contains structures that are not yet fully understood. This has been
criticized on the basis that there is no clear definition of i+1, and that factors other than
structural difficulty (such as interest or presentation) can affect whether input is actually
turned into intake. The concept has been quantified, however, in vocabulary acquisition
research; Nation (2001) reviews various studies which indicate that about 98% of the
words in running text should be previously known in order for extensive reading to be
effective.

A great deal of research has taken place on input enhancement, the ways in which input
may be altered so as to direct learners' attention to linguistically important areas. Input
enhancement might include bold-faced vocabulary words or marginal glosses in a reading
text. Research here is closely linked to research on pedagogical effects, and comparably
diverse.

[edit] Interaction

Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is strongly facilitated by

the use of the target language in interaction. In particular, the negotiation of meaning has
been shown to contribute greatly to the acquisition of vocabulary (Long, 1990). In a
review of the substantial literature on this topic, Nation (2000) relates the value of
negotiation to the generative use of words: the use of words in new contexts which
stimulate a deeper understanding of their meaning.

In the 1980s, Canadian SLA researcher Merrill Swain advanced the output hypothesis,
that meaningful output is as necessary to language learning as meaningful input.
However, most studies have shown little if any correlation between learning and quantity
of output. Today, most scholars[citation needed] contend that small amounts of meaningful
output are important to language learning, but primarily because the experience of
producing language leads to more effective processing of input.

[edit] Pedagogical effects

Efforts have been made to systematically measure or evaluate the effectiveness of

language teaching practices in promoting second language acquisition. Such studies have
been undertaken for every level of language, from phonetics to pragmatics, and for
almost every current teaching methodology. It is therefore impossible to summarize their
findings here. However, some more general issues have been addressed.

Research has indicated that many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely
inefficient. (P Lightbown, 1990) One issue is the effectiveness of explicit teaching: can
language teaching have a constructive effect beyond providing learners with enhanced
input? Research on this at different levels of language has produced quite different
results. Traditional areas of explicit teaching, such as phonology, grammar and
vocabulary, have had decidedly mixed results. It is generally agreed that pedagogy
restricted to teaching grammar rules and vocabulary lists does not give students the
ability to use the L2 with accuracy and fluency. Rather, to become proficient in the L2,
the learner must be given opportunities to use the L2 for communicative purposes,
learning (as for example, through a teacher's corrective feedback) to attend to both
meaning and formal accuracy (Doughty & Williams 1998; Ellis 2002).

There is considerable promising research in the classroom on the impact of corrective

feedback on L2 learners' use and acquisition of target language forms. The effectiveness
of corrective feedback has been shown to vary depending on the technique used to make
the correction, and the overall focus of the classroom, whether on formal accuracy or on
communication of meaningful content (Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;
Lyster & Mori, 2006). However, it appears that a learner's ability to focus on corrective
feedback on grammatical features that do not affect meaning is considerably altered when
the learner has low alphabetic literacy (Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen 2009).

There is considerable interest in supplementing published research with approaches that

engage language teachers in action research on learner language in their own classrooms
(Allwright & Hanks, 2009). As teachers become aware of the features of learner language
produced by their students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize
interlanguage development (Tarone & Swierzbin 2009).

[edit] Learner-internal factors

The study of learner-internal factors in SLA is primarily concerned with the question:
How do learners gain competence in the target language? In other words, given effective
input and instruction, with what internal resources do learners process this input to
produce a rule-governed interlanguage?
[edit] Critical period research to date
Main article: Critical Period Hypothesis

How children acquire native language (L1) and the relevance of this to foreign language
(L2) learning has long been debated. Although evidence for L2 learning ability declining
with age is controversial, a common notion is that children learn L2s easily and older
learners rarely achieve fluency. This assumption stems from ‘critical period’ (CP) ideas.
A CP was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 for L1 acquisition, but considerable
interest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition (SLA). SLA theories
explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA, mainly
attempting to explain apparent differences in language aptitudes of children and adults by
distinct learning routes, and clarifying them through psychological mechanisms.
Research explores these ideas and hypotheses, but results are varied: some demonstrate
pre-pubescent children acquire language easily, and some that older learners have the
advantage, and yet others focus on existence of a CP for SLA. Recent studies (e.g.
Mayberry and Lock, 2003) have recognised that certain aspects of SLA may be affected
by age, though others remain intact. The objective of this study is to investigate whether
capacity for vocabulary acquisition decreases with age.

A review of SLA theories and their explanations for age-related differences is necessary
before considering empirical studies. The most reductionist theories are those of Penfield
and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967), which stem from L1 and brain damage
studies; children who suffer impairment before puberty typically recover and (re-)develop
normal language, whereas adults rarely recover fully, and often do not regain verbal
abilities beyond the point reached five months after impairment. Both theories agree that
children have a neurological advantage in learning languages, and that puberty correlates
with a turning point in ability. They assert that language acquisition occurs primarily,
possibly exclusively, during childhood as the brain loses plasticity after a certain age. It
then becomes rigid and fixed, and loses the ability for adaptation and reorganisation,
rendering language (re-)learning difficult.

Cases of deaf and feral children provide evidence for a biologically determined CP for
L1. Feral children are those not exposed to language in infancy/childhood due to being
brought up in the wild, in isolation and/or confinement. A classic example is 'Genie', who
was deprived of social interaction from birth until discovered aged thirteen (post-
pubescent).

Such studies are however problematic; isolation can result in general retardation and
emotional disturbances, which may confound conclusions drawn about language abilities.
Studies of deaf children learning American Sign Language (ASL) have fewer
methodological weaknesses. Newport and Supalla (1987) studied ASL acquisition in deaf
children differing in age of exposure; few were exposed to ASL from birth, most of them
first learned it at school.
Results showed a linear decline in performance with increasing age of exposure; those
exposed to ASL from birth performed best, and ‘late learners’ worst, on all production
and comprehension tests. Their study thus provides direct evidence for language learning
ability decreasing with age, but it does not add to Lennerberg’s CP hypothesis as even the
oldest children, the ‘late learners’, were exposed to ASL by age four, and had therefore
not reached puberty, the proposed end of the CP.

Other work has challenged the biological approach; Krashen (1975) reanalysed clinical
data used as evidence and concluded cerebral specialisation occurs much earlier than
Lenneberg calculated. Therefore, if a CP exists, it does not coincide with lateralisation.

Although it does not describe an optimal age for SLA, the theory implies that younger
children can learn languages more easily than older learners, as adults must reactivate
principles developed during L1 learning and forge an SLA path: children can learn
several languages simultaneously as long as the principles are still active and they are
exposed to sufficient language samples (Pinker, 1995).

There are, however, problems with the extrapolation of the UG theory to SLA: L2
learners go through several phases of types of utterance that are not similar to their L1 or
the L2 they hear. Other factors include the cognitive maturity of most L2 learners, that
they have different motivation for learning the language, and already speak one language
fluently.

[edit] Other directions of research

Virtually all research findings on SLA to date build on data from literate learners. Tarone,
Bigelow and Hansen (2009) find significantly different results when replicating standard
SLA studies with low literate L2 learners. Specifically, learners with lower alphabetic
literacy levels are significantly less likely to notice corrective feedback on form or to
perform elicited imitation tasks accurately. These findings are consistent with research in
cognitive psychology showing significant differences in phonological awareness between
literate and illiterate adults (Reis and Castro-Caldas 1997; Castro-Caldas et al. 1998). An
important direction for SLA research must therefore involve the exploration of the impact
of alphabetic literacy on cognitive processing in second language acquisition.

Empirical research has attempted to account for variables detailed by SLA theories and
provide an insight into L2 learning processes, which can be applied in educational
environments. Recent SLA investigations have followed two main directions: one
focuses on pairings of L1 and L2 that render L2 acquisition particularly difficult, and the
other investigates certain aspects of language that may be maturationally constrained.
Flege, Mackay and Piske (2002) looked at bilingual dominance to evaluate two
explanations of L2 performance differences between bilinguals and monolingual-L2
speakers, i.e. a maturationally defined CP or interlingual interference.

Flege, Mackay and Piske investigated whether the age at which participants learned
English affected dominance in Italian-English bilinguals, and found the early bilinguals
were English (L2) dominant and the late bilinguals Italian (L1) dominant. Further
analysis showed that dominant Italian bilinguals had detectable foreign accents when
speaking English, but early bilinguals (English dominant) had no accents in either
language. This suggests that, though interlingual interference effects are not inevitable,
their emergence, and bilingual dominance, may be related to a CP.

Sebastián-Gallés, Echeverría and Bosch (2005) also studied bilinguals and highlight the
importance of early language exposure. They looked at vocabulary processing and
representation in Spanish-Catalan bilinguals exposed to both languages simultaneously
from birth in comparison to those who had learned L2 later and were either Spanish- or
Catalan-dominant. Findings showed ‘from birth bilinguals’ had significantly more
difficulty distinguishing Catalan words from non-words differing in specific vowels than
Catalan-dominants did (measured by reaction time).

These difficulties are attributed to a phase around age eight months where bilingual
infants are insensitive to vowel contrasts, despite the language they hear most. This
affects how words are later represented in their lexicons, highlighting this as a decisive
period in language acquisition and showing that initial language exposure shapes
linguistic processing for life. Sebastián-Gallés et al. (2005) also indicate the significance
of phonology for L2 learning; they believe learning an L2 once the L1 phonology is
already internalised can reduce individuals’ abilities to distinguish new sounds that
appear in the L2.

Most studies into age effects on specific aspects of SLA have focused on grammar, with
the common conclusion that it is highly constrained by age, more so than semantic
functioning. B. Harley (1986) compared attainment of French learners in early and late
immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better
control of French verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersion
students (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common
problem areas, including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. This suggests
grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstract
cognition and reasoning (B. Harley, 1986).

B. Harley also measured eventual attainment and found the two age groups made similar
mistakes in syntax and lexical selection, often confusing French with the L1. The general
conclusion from these investigations is that different aged learners acquire the various
aspects of language with varying difficulty. Some variation in grammatical performance
is attributed to maturation (discussed in B. Harley, 1986), however, all participants began
immersion programs before puberty and so were too young for a strong critical period
hypothesis to be directly tested.

Mayberry and Lock (2003) questioned whether age restrains both L1 and L2 acquisition.
They examined grammatical abilities of deaf and hearing adults who had their initial
linguistic exposure either in early childhood or later. They found that, on L2 grammatical
tasks, those who had acquired the verbal or signed L1 early in life showed near-native
performance and those who had no early L1 experience (i.e. born deaf and parents did not
know sign-language) performed weakly. Mayberry and Lock concluded early L1
exposure is vital for forming life-long learning abilities, regardless of the nature of the
exposure (verbal or signed language). This corresponds to Noam Chomsky’s UG theory,
which states that while language acquisition principles are still active, it is easy to learn a
language, and the principles developed through L1 acquisition are vital for learning an
L2.

Scherag, Demuth, Rösler, Neville and Röder (2004) also suggest learning some syntactic
processing functions and lexical access may be limited by maturation, whereas semantic
functions are relatively unaffected by age. They studied the effect of late SLA on speech
comprehension by German immigrants to the U.S.A. and American immigrants to
Germany. They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were
disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical
tasks. These findings are consistent with work by Hahne (2001, cited in Scherag et al.,
2004).

One study that specifically mentions semantic functions acquisition is that of Weber-Fox
and Neville (1996). Their results showed that Chinese-English bilinguals who had been
exposed to English after puberty, learned vocabulary to a higher competence level than
syntactic aspects of language. They do, however, report that the judgment accuracies in
detecting semantic anomalies were altered in subjects who were exposed to English after
sixteen years of age, but were affected to a lesser degree than were grammatical aspects
of language. It has been speculated (Neville and Bavelier, 2001, and Scherag et al., 2004)
that semantic aspects of language are founded on associative learning mechanisms, which
allow life-long learning, whereas syntactical aspects are based on computational
mechanisms, which can only be constructed during certain age periods. Consequently, it
is reasoned, semantic functions are easier to access during comprehension of an L2 and
therefore dominate the process: if these are ambiguous, understanding of syntactic
information is not facilitated. These suppositions would help explain the results of
Scherag et al.’s (2004) study.

Some researchers have focused exclusively on practical applications of SLA research.

Asher (1972) insists teenagers and adults rarely successfully learn an L2, and attributes
this to teaching strategies. He presents an L2 teaching strategy based on infants’ L1
acquisition, which promotes listening as central in language learning: listening precedes,
and generates a ‘readiness’ for, speaking, assumptions supported by Carroll (1960).
Asher shows that in L2 acquisition, in this case German, listening fluency is achieved in
around half the usual time if the teaching is based on L1 acquisition, and that learners
taught in this way still develop reading and writing proficiency comparable with those
whose training emphasises literacy skills.

Similarly Horwitz (1986) summarises findings of SLA research, and applies to L2

teaching some principles of L2 acquisition honed from a vast body of relevant literature.
Like Asher, Horwitz highlights the importance of naturalistic experience in L2,
promoting listening and reading practice and stressing involvement in life-like
conversations. She explicitly suggests teaching practices based on these principles;
‘[m]uch class time should be devoted to the development of listening and reading
abilities’, and ‘[t]eachers should assess student interests and supply appropriate…
materials’ (Horwitz, 1986, p. 685-686). The ‘audio-lingual’ teaching practices used in the
present study are based on principles explicated by Asher and Horwitz; listening featured
heavily, closely followed by reading and speaking practice. The vocabulary items taught
were deemed relevant for all learners, regardless of age, and, according to Pfeffer (1964),
they are among the most commonly used nouns in everyday German language.

[edit] Cognitive approaches

Another line of theory and research uses cognitive science to seek to understand how
second language (L2) learners internally process language information. In doing so,
formal understandings have been challenged, as these cognitive approaches have offered
alternative conceptions of SLA processes. Below is an overview of the major products of
cognitive speculation and research. Specifically described are cognitive-related concepts
and evidence related to how individuals (1) structure L2 knowledge, (2) use those
structures to comprehend and produce in second languages, and (3) restructure language
knowledge as their L2 proficiencies increase.

Structuring Second Language Knowledge

Some of the major cognitive theories of how learners organize language knowledge are
based on analyses of how speakers of various languages analyze sentences for meaning.
MacWhinney, Bates, and Kliegl (1984) found that speakers of English, German, and
Italian showed varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive sentences
containing more than one noun. English speakers relied heavily on word order; German
speakers used morphological agreement, the animacy status of noun referents, and stress;
and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al. interpreted
these results as supporting the Competition Model, which states that individuals use
linguistic cues to get meaning from language, rather than relying on linguistic universals.
According to this theory, when acquiring an L2, learners sometimes receive competing
cues and must decide which cue(s) is most relevant for determining meaning.

These findings also relate to Connectionism. Connectionism attempts to model the

cognitive language processing of the human brain, using computer architectures that
make associations between elements of language, based on frequency of co-occurrence in
the language input (Christiansen & Chater, 2001). Frequency has been found to be a
factor in various linguistic domains of language learning (Ellis, 2002). Connectionism
posits that learners form mental connections between items that co-occur, using
exemplars found in language input. From this input, learners extract the rules of the
language through cognitive processes common to other areas of cognitive skill
acquisition. Since connectionism denies both innate rules and the existence of any innate
language-learning module, L2 input is of greater importance than it is in processing
models based on innate approaches, since, in connectionism, input is the source of both
the units and the rules of language.
Other concepts have also been influential in the speculation about the processes of
building internal systems of second language information. Some thinkers hold that
language processing handles distinct types of knowledge. For instance, one component of
the Monitor Model, propounded by Krashen (1982), posits a distinction between
“acquisition” and “learning.” According to Krashen, L2 acquisition is a subconscious
process of incidentally “picking up” a language, as children do when becoming proficient
in their first languages. Language learning, on the other hand, is studying, consciously
and intentionally, the features of a language, as is common in traditional classrooms.
Krashen sees these two processes as fundamentally different, with little or no interface
between them. In common with connectionism, Krashen (1982) sees input as essential to
language acquisition. In his Input Hypothesis, he proposes that language acquisition takes
place only when learners receive input just beyond their current level of L2 competence.
He termed this level of input “i+1.” However, in contrast to emergentist and
connectionist theories, he follows the innate approach by applying Chomsky (1981,
1986)’s Binding/Government theory and concept of Universal Grammar (UG) to SLA.
He does so by proposing a Language Acquisition Device that uses L2 input to define the
parameters of the L2, within the constraints of UG, and to increase the L2 proficiency of
the learner. In addition, Krashen (1982)’s Affective Filter Hypothesis holds that the
acquisition of a second language is halted if the leaner has a high degree of anxiety when
receiving input. According to this concept, a part of the mind filters out L2 input and
prevents uptake by the learner, if the learner feels that the process of SLA is threatening.
As mentioned earlier, since input is essential in Krashen’s model, this filtering action
prevents acquisition from progressing.

A distinction closely related to that made by Krashen (1982) between acquisition and
learning is one between implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Learners gain implicit
knowledge by processing target-language input without consciously giving attention to
acquiring the forms and structures of the language. On the other hand, learners get
explicit knowledge of a language when they process language input with the conscious
intention of discovering the structural rules of the language. A distinction between the
implicit learning involved in acquiring a first language (L1) and the mix of implicit and
explicit learning that takes place in L2 acquisition has been one analytic route for
understanding the virtually universal success of L1 acquisition versus the more limited
success of L2 acquisition among adult learners (Hulstijn, 2005). Ellis (2005) has found
empirical confirmation for the distinct constructs of implicit and explicit language
knowledge. Some have used a declarative/procedural model to understand how language
information is stored. This model is consistent with a distinction made in general
cognitive science between the storage and retrieval of facts, on the one hand, and
understanding of how to carry out operations, on the other. It states that declarative
knowledge consists of arbitrary linguistic information, such as irregular verb forms, that
are stored in the brain’s declarative memory. In contrast, knowledge about the rules of a
language, such as grammatical word order is procedural knowledge and is stored in
procedural memory. Ullman (2001) reviews several psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic
studies that support the declarative/procedural model.
Further, Bialystok and Smith (1985) make another distinction in explaining how learners
build and use L2 and interlanguage knowledge structures. They argue that the concept of
interlanguage should include a distinction between two specific kinds of language
processing ability. On one hand is learners’ knowledge of L2 grammatical structure and
ability to analyze the target language objectively using that knowledge, which they term
“representation,” and, on the other hand is the ability to use their L2 linguistic
knowledge, under time constraints, to accurately comprehend input and produce output in
the L2, which they call “control.” They point out that often non-native speakers of a
language have higher levels of representation than their native-speaking counterparts
have, yet have a lower level of control. Finally, Bialystok (1994) has framed the
acquisition of language in terms of the interaction between what she calls “analysis” and
“control.” Analysis is what learners do when they attempt to understand to be the rules of
the target language. Through this process, they acquire these rules and can use them to
gain greater control over their own production.

Using Second Language Knowledge Structures

Thinkers have produced several theories concerning how learners use their internal L2
knowledge structures to comprehend L2 input and produce L2 output. One idea is that
learners acquire proficiency in an L2 in the same way that people acquire other complex
cognitive skills. Automaticity is the performance of a skill without conscious control. It
results from the gradated process of proceduralization. In the field of cognitive
psychology, Anderson (1992) expounds a model of skill acquisition, according to which
persons use procedures to apply their declarative knowledge about a subject in order to
solve problems. On repeated practice, these procedures develop into production rules that
the individual can use to solve the problem, without accessing long-term declarative
memory. Performance speed and accuracy improve as the learner implements these
production rules. DeKeyser (1997) tested the application of this model to L2 language
automaticity. He found that subjects developed increasing proficiency in performing
tasks related to the morphosyntax of an artificial language, Autopractan, and performed
on a learning curve typical of the acquisition of non-language cognitive skills. This
evidence conforms to Anderson’s general model of cognitive skill acquisition, supports
the idea that declarative knowledge can be transformed into procedural knowledge, and
tends to undermine the idea of Krashen (1982) that knowledge gained through language
“learning” cannot be used to initiate speech production.

Monitoring is another important concept in some theoretical models of learner use of L2

knowledge. According to Krashen (1982), the Monitor is a component of an L2 learner’s
language processing device that uses knowledge gained from language learning to
observe and regulate the learner’s own L2 production, checking for accuracy and
adjusting language production when necessary.

Perhaps certain psychological characteristics constrain language processing. One area of

research is the role of memory. Williams (1999) conducted a study in which he found
some positive correlation between verbatim memory functioning and grammar learning
success for his subjects. This suggests that individuals with less short-term memory
capacity might have a limitation in performing cognitive processes for organization and
use of linguistic knowledge.

Attention is another characteristic that some believe to have a role in determining the
success or failure of language processing. Schmidt (1990) states that although explicit
metalinguistic knowledge of a language is not always essential for acquisition, the learner
must be aware of L2 input in order to gain from it. In his “noticing hypothesis,” Schmidt
posits that learners must notice the ways in which their interlanguage structures differ
from target norms. This noticing of the gap allows the learner’s internal language
processing to restructure the learner’s internal representation of the rules of the L2 in
order to bring the learner’s production closer to the target. In this respect, Schmidt’s
understanding is consistent with the ongoing process of rule formation found in
emergentism and connectionism.

Restructuring Second Language Knowledge Structures

Finally, some theorists and researchers have contributed to the cognitive approach to
second language acquisition by increasing understanding of the ways L2 learners
restructure their interlanguage knowledge systems to be in greater conformity to L2
structures. Processability theory states that learners restructure their L2 knowledge
systems in an order of which they are capable at their stage of development (Pienemann,
1998). For instance, In order to acquire the correct morphological and syntactic forms for
English questions, learners must transform declarative English sentences. They do so by a
series of stages, consistent across learners. Clahsen (1984) proposed that certain
processing principles determine this order of restructuring. Specifically, he stated that
learners first, maintain declarative word order while changing other aspects of the
utterances, second, move words to the beginning and end of sentences, and third, move
elements within main clauses before subordinate clauses.

In addition, when learners experience significant restructuring in their L2 systems, they

sometimes show what has been termed U-shaped behavior. For instance, Lightbrown
(1983) showed that a group of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate
usage of the “-ing” present progressive morpheme, to incorrectly omitting it, and finally,
back to correct usage. This is explained by theorizing that learners first acquired the “-
ing” form as a chunk, second, lost control of this form as their knowledge system was
disrupted by expanding understandings of the tense and aspect systems of English, and
third, returned to correct usage upon gaining greater control of these linguistic
characteristics and forms. These data provide evidence that learners were initially
producing output based on rote memory of individual words containing the present
progressive morpheme. However, in the second stage their systems apparently contained
the rule that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action, without a
separate rule for the use of “-ing.” Finally, their systems did contain such a rule.

In the preceding sections, I have introduced the principle ideas in the cognitive approach
to second language acquisition. This approach has contributed to a greater understanding
of how learners form internal language systems of information, use those systems in L2
processing, and restructure those systems as they gain greater L2 proficiency.

[edit] Language transfer

Main article: Language transfer

Language transfer typically refers to the learner's trying to apply rules and forms of the
first language into the second language. The term can also include the transfer of features
from one additional language to another (such as from a second to a third language),
although this is less common. Contrastive analysis, discussed above, sought to predict all
learner errors based on language transfer. As subsequent research in error analysis and
interlanguage structure showed, this project was flawed: most errors are not due to
transfer, but to faulty inferences about the rules of the target language. Transfer is an
important factor in language learning at all levels. Typically learners begin by
transferring sounds (phonetic transfer) and meanings (semantic transfer), as well as
various rules including word order and pragmatics. As learners progress and gain more
experience with the target language, the role of transfer typically diminishes. In the UG-
based framework (see Linguistic universals below), "language transfer" specifically
refers to the linguistic parameter settings defined by the language universal. Thus,
"language transfer" is defined as the initial state of second language acquisition rather
than its developmental stage.

[edit] Linguistic universals

Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. In
particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner
languages conform to UG at all stages of development. A number of studies have
supported this claim, although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm
conclusions difficult.

A key question about the relationship of UG and SLA is: is the language acquisition
device posited by Chomsky and his followers still accessible to learners of a second
language? Research suggests that it becomes inaccessible at a certain age (see Critical
Period Hypothesis), and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching (see
pedagogical effects above, and age below). In other words, although all of language may
be governed by UG, older learners might have great difficulty in gaining access to the
target language's underlying rules from positive input alone.

Another key question is the degree to which findings on the conformity of learner
language to UG can be replicated with learners who are not alphabetically literate.

[edit] Individual variation

Research on variation between individual learners seeks to address the question: Why do
some learners do better than others? A flurry of studies in the 1970s, often labelled the
"good language learner studies", sought to identify the distinctive factors of successful
learners. Although those studies are now widely regarded as simplistic, they did serve to
identify a number of factors affecting language acquisition. More detailed research on
many of these specific factors continues today.

[edit] Language aptitude

Tests of language aptitude have proven extremely effective in predicting which learners
will be successful in learning. However, considerable controversy remains about whether
language aptitude is properly regarded as a unitary concept, an organic property of the
brain, or as a complex of factors including motivation and short-term memory. Research
has generally shown that language aptitude is quite distinct from general aptitude or
intelligence, as measured by various tests, and is itself fairly consistently measurable by
different tests.

Language aptitude research is often criticized for being irrelevant to the problems of
language learners, who must attempt to learn a language regardless of whether they are
gifted for the task or not. This claim is reinforced by research findings that aptitude is
largely unchangeable. In addition, traditional language aptitude measures such as the
Modern Language Aptitude Test strongly favor decontextualized knowledge of the sort
used in taking tests, rather than the sort used in conversation. For this reason little
research is carried out on aptitude today. However, operators of selective language
programs such as the United States Defense Language Institute continue to use language
aptitude testing as part of applicant screening.

[edit] Age

Main article: critical period hypothesis

It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learn a second language than are
adults. However, general second language research has failed to support the critical
period hypothesis in its strong form (i.e., the claim that full language acquisition is
impossible beyond a certain age). According to Linda M. Espinosa, especially in the
United States the number of children growing up with a home language that is not
English but Spanish is constantly increasing.[1] Therefore these children have to learn the
English language before kindergarten as a second language. It is better to dispose young
children to maintain both, their home language and their second language. Cultivating
their home language, the child creates their own cultural identity and becomes aware of
their roots. This fact leads to the question whether having the ability to speak two
languages helps or harms young children. Research shows that the acquisition of a second
language in early childhood confers several advantages, especially a greater awareness of
linguistic structures. Furthermore it is advantageous for young children to grow up
bilingually because they do not need to be taught systematically but learn languages
intuitively. How fast a child can learn a language depends on several personal factors,
such as interest and motivation, and its learning environment. Communication should be
facilitated rather than a child should be forced to learn a language with strict rules.
Education in early childhood can lead to an effective educational achievement for
children from various cultural environments.

Another aspect that is worth considering is that bilingual children are often doing code
switching which does not mean that the child is not able to separate the languages. The
reason for code switching is the child's lack of vocabulary in a certain situation. The
acquisition of a second language in early childhood broadens the children's minds and
enriches them more that it harms them. Thus they are not only able to speak two
languages in spite of being very young but they also acquire knowledge about the
different cultures and environments. It is possible that one language can dominate. This
depends on how much time is spent on learning each language.[1]

[edit] Strategy use

The effective use of strategies has been shown to be critical to successful language
learning, so much so that Canale and Swain (1980) included "strategic competence"
among the four components of communicative competence. Research here has also
shown significant pedagogical effects. This has given rise to "strategies-based
instruction."

Strategies are commonly divided into learning strategies and communicative strategies,
although there are other ways of categorizing them. Learning strategies are techniques
used to improve learning, such as mnemonics or using a dictionary. Learners (and native
speakers) use communicative strategies to get meaning across even when they lack access
to the correct language: for example, by using pro-forms like "thing", or non-spoken
means such as mime. Communicative strategies may not have any direct bearing on
learning, and some strategies such as avoidance (not using a form with which one is
uncomfortable) may actually hinder learning.

Learners from different cultures use strategies in different ways (Hadzibeganovic &
Cannas, 2009), as a research tradition led by Rebecca Oxford has demonstrated. Related
to this are differences in strategy use between male and female learners. Numerous
studies have shown that female learners typically use strategies more widely and
intensively than males; this may be related to the statistical advantage which female
learners enjoy in language learning.

[edit] Affective factors

Affective factors relate to the learner's emotional state and attitude toward the target
language. Research on affect in language learning is still strongly influenced by Bloom's
taxonomy, which describes the affective levels of receiving, responding, valuing,
organization, and self-characterization through one's value system. It has also been
informed in recent years by research in neurobiology and neurolinguistics.

Affective Filter Furthermore, researchers believe that language learners all possess an
affective filter which affects language acquisition. If a student possesses a high filter they
are less likely to engage in language learning because of shyness, concern for grammar or
other factors. Students possessing a lower affective filter will be more likely to engage in
learning because they are less likely to be impeded by other factors. The affective filter is
an important component of second language learning.

[edit] Anxiety

Although some continue to propose that a low level of anxiety may be helpful, studies
have almost unanimously shown that anxiety damages students' prospects for successful
learning. Anxiety is often related to a sense of threat to the learner's self-concept in the
learning situation, for example if a learner fears being ridiculed for a mistake.

[edit] Personality Factors

Second language acquisition is defined as the learning and adopting of a language that is
not your native language. Studies[vague] have shown that extraverts (or unreserved and
outgoing people) acquire a second language better than introverts (or shy people).

One particular study done by Naiman reflected this point. The subjects were 72 Canadian
high school students from grades 8, 10 and 12 who were studying French as a second
language.

Naiman gave them all questionnaires to establish their psychological profiles, which also
included a French listening test and imitation test. He found that approximately 70% of
the students with the higher grades (B or higher) would consider themselves extroverts.

Extroverts will be willing to try to communicate even if they are not sure they will
succeed. Two scientists, Kinginger and Farrell, conducted interviews with U.S. students
after their study abroad program in France in 2003. They found that many of the students
would avoid interaction with the native speakers at all costs, while others jumped at the
opportunity to speak the language. Those who avoided interaction were typically quiet,
reserved people, (or introverts).

Logically, anxiety will cause students not to try and advance their skills, especially when
they feel they are under pressure. Just the lack of practice will make introverts less likely
to fully acquire the second language.

[edit] Motivation

Main article: Motivation in second language learning

The role of motivation in SLA has been the subject of extensive scholarship, closely
influenced by work in motivational psychology. Motivation is internally complex, and
Dörnyei (2001a, p. 1) begins his work by stating that "strictly speaking, there is no such
thing as motivation." There are many different kinds of motivation; these are often
divided into types such as integrative or instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic
motivation refers to the desire to do something for an internal reward. Most studies have
shown it to be substantially more effective in long-term language learning than extrinsic
motivation, for an external reward such as high grades or praise. Integrative and
instrumental orientations refer to the degree that a language is learned "for its own sake"
(integratively) or for instrumental purposes. Studies have not consistently shown either
form of motivation to be more effective than the other, and the role of each is probably
conditioned by various personality and cultural factors.

Some research has shown that motivation correlates strongly with proficiency, indicating
both that successful learners are motivated and that success improves motivation. Thus
motivation is not fixed, but is strongly affected by feedback from the environment.
Accordingly, the study of motivation in SLA has also examined many of the external
factors discussed above, such as the effect of instructional techniques on motivation. An
accessible summary of this research can be found in Dörnyei (2001a).

In their research on Willingness to communicate, MacIntyre et al. (1998) have shown that
motivation is not the final construct before learners engage in communication. In fact,
learners may be highly motivated yet remain unwilling to communicate.

The European Union Lifelong learning programme has funded a project to research and
build a set of best practices to motivate adult language learners, called Don't Give Up

[edit] Understanding SLA

The systematic modelling of SLA is concerned with the question: What are the most
important overall factors in language acquisition? Models of SLA have played an
important role in laying out directions for future research, and also for informing practice
in language teaching.

Different models of SLA have focused on different aspects of SLA and general linguistic
research. For example, Schumann's Acculturation Model, which viewed second language
acquisition as just one part of adapting to a new culture, emphasized findings related to
language socialization. Krashen's Monitor Model prioritized research on input and
affective factors. Long's Interaction Hypothesis took a social constructivist view of
research on input. Caleb Gattegno based The Silent Way on the principle of the education
of awareness. No single model of SLA has gained wide acceptance. Given that the field
is complex and interdisciplinary, few scholars expect that any model will do so in the
foreseeable future.

[edit] Concepts of ability

Numerous notions have been used to describe learners' ability in the target language. The
first such influential concept was the competence-performance distinction introduced by
Chomsky. This distinguishes competence, a person's idealized knowledge of language
rules, from performance, the imperfect realization of these rules. Thus, a person may be
interrupted and not finish a sentence, but still know how to make a complete sentence.
Although this distinction has become fundamental to most work in linguistics today, it
has not proven adequate by itself to describe the complex nature of learners' developing
ability.

The notion of communicative competence was first raised by Dell Hymes in 1967,
reacting against the perceived inadequacy of Chomsky's distinction between linguistic
competence, and has proven extremely popular in SLA research. It broadens the notion of
the kind of rules that competence can include. Whereas Chomsky treated competence as
primarily grammatical, communicative competence embraces all of the forms of
knowledge that learners must have in order to communicate effectively.

A closely related concept is language proficiency. Proficiency is usually distinguished

from competence, which refers to knowledge: "proficiency refers to the learner's ability
to use this knowledge in different tasks" (Ellis, 1994, p. 720). Because any test of
competence is a task of some sort, it may be argued that all measures of competence are
in effect measuring some form of proficiency.

Both proficiency and competence are internally complex; they do not reflect a single
attribute, but many different forms of knowledge in complex interrelationship. Research,
such as much of that discussed here, requires some unitary concept of ability, but it has
been clearly shown that different aspects of language ability progress at vary different
rates. For example, Kasper and Rose (2002) review numerous studies of the complex
relationship between grammatical and pragmatic proficiency. The measurement of
language ability, although necessary for both research and teaching, is inevitably
problematic.

[edit] See also

• Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning (ATALL Wikibook)
• Computer-assisted language learning
• Education
• Error analysis
• Interlanguage
• Language acquisition
• Metalinguistic awareness
• Learning by teaching (LdL)
• Language exchange
• Hardest language
• Glossary of language teaching terms and ideas

[edit] Notes
1. ^ a b L. M. Espinosa, "Second language acquisition in early childhood." In R. New
and M. Cochran, eds, Early Childhood Education (Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group).
[edit] References
• Allwright, D. & Hanks, J. (2009). The Developing Language Learning: An
Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT* theory. American Journal of
Psychology, 105, 165–180.
• Bialystok, E., & Smith, M. S. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An
evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,
6(2), 101-117.
• Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and control in the development of second language
proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 157-168.
• Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1-47.
• Castro-Caldas, A., Petersson, A., Reis, S., Stone-Elander, & Ingvar, M. (1998).
The illiterate brain: Learning to read and write during childhood influences the
functional organization of the adult brain. Brain, 121, 1053-1063.
• Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics:
Capturing the empirical data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(2), 82-88.
• Clahsen, H. (1984) The acquisition of German word order: a test case for
cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In R. Andersen (ed.),
Second Languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 219–42.
• Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 5, 160-170.
• DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second
language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–222.
• Dewaele, J. and Furnham, A. "Personality and Individual Differences."
Personality and Speech Production: A Pilot Study of Second Language Learners
28 (2000): 355-365
• Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). "New themes and approaches in second language motivation
research." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.
• Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143-188.
• Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit
knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223-236.
• Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language:
A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141-172.
• Espinosa, L.M.Second language acquisition in early childhood.In New, R. &
Cochran, M.(Eds.).Early Childhood Education. Westport,CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.6
• Fasold, R., & Preston, D. (2007). The psycholinguistic unity of inherent
variability: Old Occam whips out his razor. In R. Bayley & C. Lucas (Eds.),
Sociolinguistic Variation: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 45–69).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hadzibeganovic, Tarik, & Cannas, Sergio A. (2009). A Tsallis' statistics based
neural network model for novel word learning. Physica A, 388(5), 732-746.
• Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and
explicit second-language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27(2), 129-140.
• Kasper, G. and Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second
Language. Language Learning, 52, Supplement 1.
• Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
London: Pergamon.
• Lightbrown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and
instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger and M. H. Long (Eds.),
Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 217–243).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Lightbown, P. (1990) Process-product research on second language learning in
classrooms cited in 'The study of SLA' (Rod Ellis)
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:
Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
• Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional
counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
• MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998).
Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2
confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (4), 545-562.
• MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence
interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior. 23(2), 127-150.
• Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., and Stern, H. "The Good Language Learner: A
Report." Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (1975)
• Pienemann, M. (1998) Language Processing and Second Language Development:
Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents.
London: Longman.
• Reis, A., & Castro-Caldas, A. (1997). Illiteracy: A case for biased cognitive
development. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3, 444-
450.
• Seidner, S. S.(1982). Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic
Perspective. Bruxelles: Centre de recherche sur le pluralinguisme.
• Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
10, 209-241.
• Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage
theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190-204.
• Tarone, E. (2009). A sociolinguistic perspective on interaction in SLA, in A.
Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second language
research in honor of Susan M. Gass. (pp. 41–56). New York: Routledge.
• Tarone, E., Bigelow, M. & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and Second Language
Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[1]
 • Tarone, E., & Liu, G.-q. (1995). Situational context, variation and second-
language acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and
Practice in the Study of Language and Learning: A Festschrift for H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 107–124). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tarone, E., & Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.[2]
• Ullman, M. T. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 37-69.
• Williams, J. (1999) Memory, attention and inductive learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.

[edit] Further reading

• Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th ed).
London: Hodder Arnold.
• Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
• Ellis, Rod. (2007). Educational Settings and Second Language Learning. Volume
9 Asian EFL Journal. [3]
• Ellis, Rod. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Volume 7 Asian
EFL Journal. [4]
• Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 2nd edition. [ISBN 0-19-442224-0]
• Lin, G. H. C. (2008). "Lin, G. H. C. (2008). Pedagogies proving Krashen’s theory
of affective filter , Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, Vol, 14,
pp.113-131 ERIC Collection as ED503681 [5]
• Long, Michael H. (1980's) authored several papers on the Interaction hypothesis
(Rod Ellis's overview)}}
• Ellis, Rod (1991), The Interaction Hypothesis A critical evaluation, pp. 37,
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?
accno=ED338037 - on Michael H. Long's Interaction Hypothesis
• Mangubhai, F. (2006). "What do we know about learning and teaching second
languages: Implications for teaching " Asian EFL Journal Vol 8. 2006 [6]
• McKay, Sharon; Schaetzel, Kirsten, Facilitating Adult Learner Interactions to
Build Listening and Speaking Skills, CAELA Network Briefs, CAELA and Center
for Applied Linguistics
• Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed).
London: Hodder Arnold.
• Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language
learning and teaching. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
• Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder
Arnold.
• Ortega, L. (2010). Second language acquisition. Critical concepts in linguistics.
London: Routledge. [ISBN 978-0-415-45020-1]
• Oxford, R,. & Lee, K. (2008). Understanding EFL Learners’ Strategy Use and
Strategy Awareness.[7]
 • Robertson, P. & Nunn, R. (2007). The Study of Second Language Acquisition in
the Asian Context [8]
• White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[edit] External links