Philippine Normal University

Manila
The National Center for Teacher Education
College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research
Vision: PNU shall become internationally recognized and nationally responsive teacher education
university. As the established producer of knowledge workers in the field of education, it shall be the
primarily source of high-quality teachers and education managers that can directly inspire and shape the
quality of Filipino students and graduates in the country and the world.
Mission: PNU is dedicated to nurturing innovative teachers and education leaders.

Marc Ivan J. Paleracio Saturday (7:00-10:00 am)

MA-ELE February 23, 2019
ELE 701- Second Language Acquisition

Internal Factors Affecting Second Language Acquisition:

A Synthesis Report

Introduction
The previous chapters of SLA discussion explained at length how learners learn a
second language, why learners vary in speed with which they learn, and why most
learners fail to achieve full target-language competence using the lenses of external
factors. In this part, however, the focus would be attempts at discovering the inner
workings of the black box of the learner’s mind or, more simply, the internal factors
affecting language acquisition.
Fundamental to the study of internal factors affecting SLA is the differentiation
between cognitive and mentalist explanations of L2 acquisition. Cognitive viewpoints
consider the mechanisms of L2 acquisition to be general in nature. In this light, language
learning engages the same cognitive systems—perception, memory, problem solving,
information processing, etc.—as learning other types of knowledge. Key terms explored
in this approach are process and strategy. On the other hand, a mentalist account of L2
acquisition is based on the distinction between competence and performance. Bialystok
and Sharwood Smith (1985) presents an application of the aforementioned in their
‘knowledge’ and ‘control’ model.
Ultimately, the main difference between cognitive and mentalist accounts of
language learning lies in how they view the relationship between ‘knowledge’ and
‘control’. This particular area of SLA will begin with exploring the language transfer
dimension mainly because, historically speaking, it constituted the first attempt to provide
clarity on L2 acquisition.

Language Transfer
The analysis of language transfer studies on the cognitive structures involved in
second language acquisition by considering how the learner’s existing linguistic
knowledge influences the course of L2 development. This analysis, thus, requires a good
starting point for it to yield ideal results. As Brooks (1960) puts it, “The single paramount
fact about language learning is that it concerns, not problem solving, but the formation
and performance of habits.” Language transfer, in this essence, can be manifested in
several ways, such as: negative transfer (errors); positive transfer (facilitation);
avoidance; and over-use. In this vein, several constraints on transfer were elucidated to
give further clarity.
Language level was the first of the constraints examined. In this area, it is claimed
that there are some grounds for claiming that transfer is more conspicuous at the levels
of phonology, lexis, and discourse than grammar, possibly because the learners have a
more developed metalingual awareness of grammar.
Second of the constraints is sociolinguistic factors as when learners attend to
external norms, as they are likely to in classroom settings, transfer will be impeded.
Although, learners may also make use of L1 forms in their style if they have strong social
motivation to do so. Following suit of the constraints is markedness. In linguistics and
social sciences, markedness is the state of standing out as unusual or divergent in
comparison to a more common or regular form. In a marked–unmarked relation, one term
of an opposition is the broader, dominant one. The dominant default or minimum-effort
form is known as unmarked; the other, secondary one is marked. In other words,
markedness involves the characterization of a "normal" linguistic unit against one or more
of its possible "irregular" forms. There is some evidence to suggest that learners are ready
to transfer unmarked L1 forms, but resist transferring L1 marked forms; however, not all
the research points clearly in this direction.
Moreover, prototypicality was also an identified constraint when Kellerman tapped
native speakers’ intuitions to determine which meanings of a lexical item are unmarked
or ‘prototypical’. In this reasoning, learners resist transferring non-prototypical meanings.
 The penultimate constraint examined is on language distance and psychotypology.
In here, the actual distance between languages affects positive transfer; learners find it
easier to learn an L2 that is similar to their own language. However, perceived distance
may be more important than actual distance. Lastly, developmental factors can also
impede L1 transfer. Learners may need to reach a certain stage of development before
transfer of some L1 properties becomes possible according to some researches.
With all the accounts put into play, there is now clear evidence that the L1 acts as
a major factor in L2 acquisition. An advancement in transfer research has been the
reconceptualization of the influence of the L1; whereas in behaviorist studies, it was seen
as a cause of errors, in cognitive accounts it is treated as a resource where learners
actively draw in tools to unlock interlanguage challenges.

Cognitive Accounts of SLA

A great deal of cognitive research is dealt with in this aspect of second language
acquisition studies. This area principally examines the cognitive aspect of SLA with a
dichotomy—one dealing with cognitive accounts of L2 learning, and the other with L2
communication. In other words, a distinction is made between theories that explain how
learners construct their mental representations of the L2 (i.e. how knowledge of the rules
and items that comprise the L2 is developed) and theories that explain how learners
employ their knowledge in actual language use (i.e. how L2 comprehension and
production is accomplished). Accordingly, the initial focus of this examination is on how
rules and items are acquired before examining aspects of L2 procedural ability.
Explicit and implicit knowledge distinction is first explored in this part. This
differentiation, at the core, has been deemed controversial as it depends on the idea of
‘consciousness’, which for some researchers remains too elusive to be objectively
categorized. Some claims made for its distinction are as follows: learners possess two
kinds of knowledge, explicit and implicit; learners can internalize L2 knowledge both
explicitly and implicitly; an alternative to the explicit/implicit distinction is to view
knowledge as more or less ‘analyzed’ and more or less ‘controlled’; neither a non-
interface nor a strong interface model satisfactorily accounts for the relationship between
the two knowledges; explicit knowledge is increasingly being viewed as a facilitator of
implicit knowledge; and lastly, different types of knowledge use usually require different
kinds of knowledge.
 The succeeding section continues to examine a number of different theories and
models of L2 acquisition that seek to explain how learners construct and organize their
L2 knowledge. The framework for investigating L2 acquisition suggest that a complete
theory will need to account for three aspects of the acquisition process as follows: the
relationship between input and knowledge; the representation of L2 knowledge; and the
relationship between L2 knowledge and output.
Additionally, the theories discussed tend to focus on just one or two of these
aspects. The Competition Model operating principles work on the relationship between
input and L2 knowledge. Functional and Skill Building theories, on the other hand, focus
on the manner of representation. The role of the L1 is examined on the Interlanguage
Theory and the Competition Model. Consequently, the relationship between implicit and
explicit knowledge is explored in the Monitor theory, Bialystok’s Model of Second
Language Learning, and Schmidt’s account of ‘consciousness’ and ‘noticing’. Meanwhile
The Monitor theory, Variability theories, Operating Principles, and the Multidimensional
Model discuss the relationship between L2 knowledge and output.
Diving further, two aspects of L2 production were considered. As far as ‘procedural
skill’ is concerned, there are clear disparities between learners and native speakers, as
exemplified in temporal variables and hesitation phenomena. In the case of
communication strategies, research has concentrated on identifying the strategies that
learners use in developing taxonomies that account for them.
As an outgrowth of these developments, the Parallel Distributed Processing Model
was made. For the PDP, knowledge is seen not as ‘patterns’ or ‘rules’, nor is there any
distinction drawn between ‘declarative’ and ‘procedural’ knowledge. What learners know
is characterized as a labyrinth of interconnections between ‘units’ that do not correspond
to any holistic concepts of the kind which are normally recognized in language use.

Linguistic Universals and SLA

More precisely, this chapter in SLA deals with typological universals which is, by
definition, are universals derived from an investigation of the commonalities of the world’s
languages. The goal is to determine similarities in types of languages, including
implicational universals (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 522). Furthermore, this also examines
implicational universals which are common hierarchies across the world’s languages in
which particular language elements are predicted by the existence of other language
elements (Gass & Selinker, 2008: 518).
The goal of SLA theory is to explain the development of linguistic competence in
L2 learners. In addition, linguistic approaches to SLA tries to explain the growth of L2
competence by showing the mental grammars (interlanguage grammars) of second
language learners are exposed to constraints on learnability.
One of the domains as a possible source of such constraints is linguistic typology
The central thesis of linguistic typology encompasses the unidirectional, implicational
generalizations formulated by typologists reflect constraints on human languages, – these
same generalizations may constrain the kinds of interlanguage grammars that L2 learners
can acquire.
One of the early questions regarding the nature of second language systems is the
extent to which interlanguage could be considered a “natural language”. In this sense,“…
ILs are linguistic systems in the same way that Natural Languages are. By “natural
language” I mean any human language shared by a community of speakers and
developed over time by a general process of evolution.” (Adjemian, 1976: 298)
To say that learner languages are natural systems does not mean that all ILs are
as complex as all natural languages. It is identified that the majority of complex syntax
does not develop until late in the process of learning. If a given linguistic phenomenon
appears to be impossible in any of the world’s languages, then it will also be an impossible
form in a second language system.
In this chapter, much emphasis was placed on the theory of Universal Grammar.
The argument underlying this constitutes the best theory of grammar currently available,
because it achieves both descriptive and explanatory adequacy. It follows that L2
research should be informed by this theory. The chapter further delves into answering
what constitutes UG, what role does UG play in L2 acquisition; and what domain of a
theory of L2 acquisition should it be.
Essentially, Language Typology, involves the crosslinguistic description of
languages with identifying universals which has afforded a number of insights into how
learners acquire an L2 but is unable to provide an adequate explanation because the
linguistic universals it is grounded to has no theoretical status. On the other hand,
Universal Grammar provides a reputable take on L2 acquisition due to its mainly
theoretical nature. However, it still lacks convincing empirical support for many of its
hypotheses while also facing methodological problems.

Questions:
1. What conditions surround negative transfer (errors)? How does it affect language
acquisition in general? What about positive transfer (facilitation)?
2. On what grounds can a distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge be made?
Why is it relevant on the cognitive studies of SLA?
3. How do language learners identify markedness? Why is this essential in SLA?
4. What are the salient differences of cognitive and mentalist theories on SLA? How do
these differences take into account the subsets of SLA it intends to answer?
5. To what extent is the study of internal factors affect the landscape of SLA research?
Support your answer.