This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
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
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
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
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
4.2 Variability 4 Learner-external factors o 4.1. Contents [hide] • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 Second Language Acquisition and its premises 2 Describing learned language o 2.4 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 Personality Factors 8.1.2 Age o 8.3 Linguistic universals 8 Individual variation o 8.1 Concepts of ability 10 See also 11 Notes 12 References 13 Further reading 14 External links  Second Language Acquisition and its premises . for "L2 acquisition".2 Sequence of acquisition o 3.2 Language transfer o 7.1 Language aptitude o 8.2 Input and intake o 4.1 Order of acquisition 3.3 Interaction o 4.3 Motivation 9 Understanding SLA o 9.4 Affective factors 8.acquisition/multilingualism and heritage language acquisition.1 Anxiety 8.3 Strategy use o 8. or "L2A".1 Social effects o 4. Second language acquisition may be abbreviated as "SLA".1 Error analysis 3 Interlanguage o 184.108.40.206 Developmental patterns 3.
which are systematic. Therefore.  Error analysis Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Corder and colleagues (Corder. whereas covert errors are evident only in context. which are not. they seem to be in a state of language acquisition that is greatly different from monolinguals or second language speakers of that language. 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. but because of growing up in a dominant language. and heritage language learning. substitutive or related to word order. exploring learned language as a linguistic system. and get limited or no exposure to that language. the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. 1967). because of the huge number of people around the world learning and teaching it. Error analysts distinguish between errors. Closely related to this is the classification according to domain. 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. some SLA researchers seek to understand better language learning without recourse to factors outside learned language. additive. However. and extent. Valdés (2000)[vague] defines heritage language as the language someone learns at home as a child which is a minority language in society. although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer. the breadth of context which the analyst must examine. since heritage speakers are commonly alienated from their heritage language for a long time. 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. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors.  Describing learned language Through the descriptive study of learned language. the speaker seems to be more competent in the latter and feels more comfortable to communicate in that language. and mistakes. Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language: phonological . Researchers may adopt an interlanguage perspective.Second language acquisition encompasses the acquisition of any language after the acquisition of the first language by a learner. 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. it incorporates learning the third or fourth languages which is closely related to bilingualism and multilingualism. Error can be classified according to basic type: omissive. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context.
Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging approach to learner language.  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. the view of learner language as merely an imperfect version of the target language. Interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with learner reception (listening and reading). "I angry" would be a local error. grammar (morphology and syntax). it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making.errors. Furthermore. known as interlanguage. as a natural language with its own systematic rules. Interlanguage scholarship seeks to understand learner language on its own terms. although error analysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA. They may be assessed according to the degree to which they interfere with communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to understand. Also. For these reasons. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology). error analysis was beset with methodological problems. and so on. Today. From the beginning.  Interlanguage Interlanguage is a term coined by Selinker (1972).  Order of acquisition Researchers have found a very consistent order in the acquisition of first language structures by children. Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. in which learners simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable. while local errors do not. By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms. it cannot account for learner use of communicative strategies such as avoidance. interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below. In the above example. which asserts . In the mid-1970s. vocabulary or lexical errors. Considerable effort has been devoted to testing the "identity hypothesis". under "linguistic universals". Interlanguage scholars reject. at least for heuristic purposes. syntactic errors. and this has drawn a great deal of interest from SLA scholars. the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone. vocabulary (lexicon). the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has largely been abandoned. In particular. the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology. and language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics). since the meaning is apparent.
pp.  Sequence of acquisition A number of studies have looked into the sequence of acquisition of pronouns by learners of various Indo-European languages. and the copula were found to consistently precede others such as the article. Thinkers influenced by recent theories of the lexicon have preferred to view even native speaker speech as heavily formulaic. Most of these studies did show fairly consistent orders of acquisition for selected morphemes. While appearing silent. and it is likely that the relationship depends in great part on the learning styles of individual learners. Some research suggests that most learners begin their acquisition process with a "silent period". It eventually gives way to a more experimental phase of acquisition. in which a handful of routines is used to accomplish basic purposes. but there is no convincing evidence for this. However. and sporadic but inconsistent use of the features. 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). Orders of acquisition in SLA often resemble those found in first language acquisition. 96–99. other learners have no silent period and pass directly to formulaic speech. in which the semantics and grammar of the target language are simplified and the learners begin to construct a true interlanguage(Seidner. of feature acquisition. perhaps because second-language learners' cognitive and affective states are so much more advanced. However. and perhaps because it is not true. research has shown that many "silent" learners are engaging in private speech (sometimes called "self-talk"). Whether by choice or compulsion. This has not been confirmed. often shows few departures from L2 morphosyntax. . in which the learner actively rejects the incomprehensible input of the new language. Some. auxiliary. More recent scholarship prefers to view the acquisition of each linguistic feature as a gradual and complex process. including Krashen. the plural. and third person singular. It is not safe to say that the order of L1 acquisition has any easy implications for SLA. 9–10). they are rehearsing important survival phrases and lexical chunks. These are reviewed by Ellis (1994). (1982). in which they speak very little if at all. among learners of English the cluster of features including the suffix "-ing". Some studies have supported both views. It is said that for some.that first-language and second-language acquisition conform to the same patterns. this is a period of language shock. For that reason most scholarship since the 1980s has focused on the sequence. These memorized phrases are then employed in the subsequent period of formulaic speech. rather than the order. For example. pp. examining whether a consistent order of morpheme acquisition could be shown. A flurry of studies took place in the 1970s. have argued that there is no cognitive relationship between the two. 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. This speech. and that the transition is abrupt. and may have common neurological causes. The nature of the transition between formulaic and simplified speech is disputed.
g. which has not been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social features. most research on variability has been done by those who presume it to be meaningful (Fasold & Preston. Research on the sequence of acquisition of words is exhaustively reviewed by Nation (2001). and may be entirely absent among the more advanced. Naturally. For instance. Those who bring a Chomskyan perspective to SLA typically regard variability as nothing more than "performance errors". Scholars from different traditions have taken opposing views on the importance of this phenomenon. This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning learners. Of course. and "systematic variation". the line between the two is subject to debate. Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic. those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view variability as an inherent feature of the learner's interlanguage. Tarone. 'I don't') in one context and a non-target like variant (e. Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation". On the other hand. 1985). 2007. Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not been fully acquired. often person. consistent patterns have emerged and have been the object of considerable theorizing. In both fields. 1995). 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.g. it appears that learners use pronouns based entirely on their inferences about target language structure.They show that learners begin by omitting pronouns or using them indiscriminately: for example. and not worthy of systematic inquiry. the pronunciation of . this language systematically varies much more than native-speaker language. Tarone & Liu. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. or b) linguistic variables such as the phonological environment or neighoring features marked for formality or informality. Little evidence of interference from the learner's first language has been found. psychological. Kasper and Rose (2002) have thoroughly researched the sequence of acquisition of pragmatic features. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms. which has. 2009.  Variability Though the interlanguage perspective views learner language as a language in its own right. followed by number and eventually by gender. 'me no') in another. social context. Learners then acquire a single pronoun feature. Studies on the acquisition of word order in German have shown that most learners begin with a word order based on their native language. although others are not. This indicates that certain aspects of interlanguage syntax are influenced by the learners' first language. using "I" to refer to all agents. A learner may produce a target-like variant (e.
 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 what the attributions and contributions of its research are. 2009). learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce fewer target-like forms than they would in a comfortable setting. The more time that learners have to plan.  Social effects The process of language learning can be very stressful. Affective factors also play an important role in systematic variation.a difficult phoneme may depend on whether it is to be found at the beginning or end of a syllable. Studies across numerous cultures have shown that women. For example. This finding has been confirmed by research in numerous contexts. Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. while others scrutinize those same aspects piece by piece. "Questions abound about what defines SLA. Bigelow & Hansen. Thus. and attitudes toward the interlocutor and topic also play important roles. Some researchers tend to ignore certain aspects of the field. Where the community has a broadly negative view of the target language and its speakers. For example. or diverge from. which is related to planning time. 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). and the impact of positive or negative attitudes from the surrounding society can be critical. The most important psychological factor is usually taken to be attention to form. Thus. or a negative view of its relation to them. literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan. In accordance with Communication Accommodation Theory. how far its borders extend. Doman (2006) notes in a journal devoted to issues of Cultural affects on SLA. and on the impact of the social context." Community attitudes toward the language being learned can also have a profound impact on SLA. there is a great amount of heterogeneity in the entire conceptualization of SLA. The impact of alphabetic literacy level on an L2 learner's ability to pay attention to form is as yet unclear (see Tarone. enjoy an advantage over men. on the whole. Some have proposed that this is linked to gender roles. the more target-like their production may be. their interlocutor's usage. This clearly interacts with social factors. learning is typically much more difficult. One aspect that has received particular attention is the relationship of gender roles to language achievement. than in conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at all. learners may adapt their speech to either converge with. A widely- .
" Generally speaking." When learners process that language in a way that can contribute to learning. In particular.  Input and intake Learners' most direct source of information about the target language is the target language itself. Krashen advanced the concept that language input should be at the "i+1" level. this is referred to as "intake. the amount of input learners take in is one of the most important factors affecting their learning. Canadian SLA researcher Merrill Swain advanced the output hypothesis. Additionally.  Interaction Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is strongly facilitated by the use of the target language in interaction. and the nature of group dynamics in the language classroom. Research here is closely linked to research on pedagogical effects. In a review of the substantial literature on this topic. the negotiation of meaning has been shown to contribute greatly to the acquisition of vocabulary (Long. In the 1980s. this is referred to as "input. However. This has been criticized on the basis that there is no clear definition of i+1. that meaningful output is as necessary to language learning as meaningful input. most scholars contend that small amounts of meaningful . and that factors other than structural difficulty (such as interest or presentation) can affect whether input is actually turned into intake. however. just beyond what the learner can fully understand. particularly with early exposure to the language. and comparably diverse. However. the ways in which input may be altered so as to direct learners' attention to linguistically important areas. In his Monitor Theory. most studies have shown little if any correlation between learning and quantity of output. 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. early attitudes may strengthen motivation and facility with language in general. in vocabulary acquisition research. When they come into direct contact with the target language.cited example is the difficulty faced by Navajo children in learning English as a second language. The concept has been quantified. 1990). this input is comprehensible. Input enhancement might include bold-faced vocabulary words or marginal glosses in a reading text. 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. it must be at a level that is comprehensible to them. Other common social factors include the attitude of parents toward language study. but contains structures that are not yet fully understood. Today.
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. from phonetics to pragmatics. 2009). the learner must be given opportunities to use the L2 for communicative purposes. learning (as for example. given effective input and instruction. Lyster & Ranta. and the overall focus of the classroom. they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize interlanguage development (Tarone & Swierzbin 2009). However.  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. through a teacher's corrective feedback) to attend to both meaning and formal accuracy (Doughty & Williams 1998. Rather. some more general issues have been addressed. grammar and vocabulary. 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. Traditional areas of explicit teaching. to become proficient in the L2. 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. (P Lightbown. The effectiveness of corrective feedback has been shown to vary depending on the technique used to make the correction. such as phonology. 1997.  Pedagogical effects Efforts have been made to systematically measure or evaluate the effectiveness of language teaching practices in promoting second language acquisition. 1990. have had decidedly mixed results. Such studies have been undertaken for every level of language. with what internal resources do learners process this input to produce a rule-governed interlanguage? . Lyster & Mori. and for almost every current teaching methodology. It is therefore impossible to summarize their findings here. whether on formal accuracy or on communication of meaningful content (Lightbown & Spada. There is considerable promising research in the classroom on the impact of corrective feedback on L2 learners' use and acquisition of target language forms.output are important to language learning. Ellis 2002). 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. Bigelow & Hansen 2009). Research has indicated that many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient. 2006). but primarily because the experience of producing language leads to more effective processing of input. However. As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced by their students.
and loses the ability for adaptation and reorganisation. Studies of deaf children learning American Sign Language (ASL) have fewer methodological weaknesses. but results are varied: some demonstrate pre-pubescent children acquire language easily. Recent studies (e. Newport and Supalla (1987) studied ASL acquisition in deaf children differing in age of exposure.g. few were exposed to ASL from birth. whereas adults rarely recover fully. This assumption stems from ‘critical period’ (CP) ideas. most of them first learned it at school. during childhood as the brain loses plasticity after a certain age. A review of SLA theories and their explanations for age-related differences is necessary before considering empirical studies. Such studies are however problematic. . Mayberry and Lock. which may confound conclusions drawn about language abilities. which stem from L1 and brain damage studies. and yet others focus on existence of a CP for SLA. Both theories agree that children have a neurological advantage in learning languages. A classic example is 'Genie'. A CP was popularised by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 for L1 acquisition. Research explores these ideas and hypotheses. The objective of this study is to investigate whether capacity for vocabulary acquisition decreases with age. but considerable interest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition (SLA). and some that older learners have the advantage. rendering language (re-)learning difficult. mainly attempting to explain apparent differences in language aptitudes of children and adults by distinct learning routes. Feral children are those not exposed to language in infancy/childhood due to being brought up in the wild. isolation can result in general retardation and emotional disturbances. It then becomes rigid and fixed. 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. Cases of deaf and feral children provide evidence for a biologically determined CP for L1. who was deprived of social interaction from birth until discovered aged thirteen (postpubescent). SLA theories explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA. They assert that language acquisition occurs primarily. Although evidence for L2 learning ability declining with age is controversial. and clarifying them through psychological mechanisms. in isolation and/or confinement. a common notion is that children learn L2s easily and older learners rarely achieve fluency. children who suffer impairment before puberty typically recover and (re-)develop normal language. though others remain intact. and often do not regain verbal abilities beyond the point reached five months after impairment. and that puberty correlates with a turning point in ability. 2003) have recognised that certain aspects of SLA may be affected by age. possibly exclusively. The most reductionist theories are those of Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967).
1998). Although it does not describe an optimal age for SLA. Castro-Caldas et al. Their study thus provides direct evidence for language learning ability decreasing with age. the theory implies that younger children can learn languages more easily than older learners. 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. Krashen (1975) reanalysed clinical data used as evidence and concluded cerebral specialisation occurs much earlier than Lenneberg calculated. and the other investigates certain aspects of language that may be maturationally constrained. learners with lower alphabetic literacy levels are significantly less likely to notice corrective feedback on form or to perform elicited imitation tasks accurately. the proposed end of the CP. Mackay and Piske investigated whether the age at which participants learned English affected dominance in Italian-English bilinguals. Empirical research has attempted to account for variables detailed by SLA theories and provide an insight into L2 learning processes. and already speak one language fluently. There are. i. Other work has challenged the biological approach. Bigelow and Hansen (2009) find significantly different results when replicating standard SLA studies with low literate L2 learners. Flege. Specifically. that they have different motivation for learning the language. a maturationally defined CP or interlingual interference. on all production and comprehension tests. those exposed to ASL from birth performed best. Tarone. however. Recent SLA investigations have followed two main directions: one focuses on pairings of L1 and L2 that render L2 acquisition particularly difficult. if a CP exists. An important direction for SLA research must therefore involve the exploration of the impact of alphabetic literacy on cognitive processing in second language acquisition. but it does not add to Lennerberg’s CP hypothesis as even the oldest children. Therefore. Flege. Other factors include the cognitive maturity of most L2 learners. and found the early bilinguals . it does not coincide with lateralisation.e.Results showed a linear decline in performance with increasing age of exposure. Mackay and Piske (2002) looked at bilingual dominance to evaluate two explanations of L2 performance differences between bilinguals and monolingual-L2 speakers.  Other directions of research Virtually all research findings on SLA to date build on data from literate learners. 1995). which can be applied in educational environments. 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. and ‘late learners’ worst. the ‘late learners’. were exposed to ASL by age four. 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. and had therefore not reached puberty.
late learners had better control of French verb systems and syntax. They found that.were English (L2) dominant and the late bilinguals Italian (L1) dominant. more so than semantic functioning. Harley. comparing early immersion students (average age 6. Echeverría and Bosch (2005) also studied bilinguals and highlight the importance of early language exposure. Harley (1986) compared attainment of French learners in early and late immersion programs. However. born deaf and parents did not . B. may be related to a CP. all participants began immersion programs before puberty and so were too young for a strong critical period hypothesis to be directly tested. including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. The general conclusion from these investigations is that different aged learners acquire the various aspects of language with varying difficulty.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common problem areas. though interlingual interference effects are not inevitable. 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. but early bilinguals (English dominant) had no accents in either language. possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning (B. (2005) also indicate the significance of phonology for L2 learning. Further analysis showed that dominant Italian bilinguals had detectable foreign accents when speaking English. highlighting this as a decisive period in language acquisition and showing that initial language exposure shapes linguistic processing for life. Some variation in grammatical performance is attributed to maturation (discussed in B. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later. Harley also measured eventual attainment and found the two age groups made similar mistakes in syntax and lexical selection. on L2 grammatical tasks. 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). despite the language they hear most. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours. Mayberry and Lock (2003) questioned whether age restrains both L1 and L2 acquisition. This affects how words are later represented in their lexicons. Harley. Sebastián-Gallés et al.e. These difficulties are attributed to a phase around age eight months where bilingual infants are insensitive to vowel contrasts. 1986). 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. They examined grammatical abilities of deaf and hearing adults who had their initial linguistic exposure either in early childhood or later. This suggests that. 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. often confusing French with the L1. and bilingual dominance.or Catalan-dominant. however. Sebastián-Gallés. 1986). B. their emergence. 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.
. Like Asher. Demuth. Their results showed that Chinese-English bilinguals who had been exposed to English after puberty. listening fluency is achieved in around half the usual time if the teaching is based on L1 acquisition. 2004). speaking. This corresponds to Noam Chomsky’s UG theory. . Similarly Horwitz (1986) summarises findings of SLA research. They do. regardless of the nature of the exposure (verbal or signed language).S. Some researchers have focused exclusively on practical applications of SLA research. and generates a ‘readiness’ for. He presents an L2 teaching strategy based on infants’ L1 acquisition. which states that while language acquisition principles are still active. Horwitz highlights the importance of naturalistic experience in L2.’s (2004) study. and that learners taught in this way still develop reading and writing proficiency comparable with those whose training emphasises literacy skills. which can only be constructed during certain age periods. semantic functions are easier to access during comprehension of an L2 and therefore dominate the process: if these are ambiguous. and Scherag et al. and applies to L2 teaching some principles of L2 acquisition honed from a vast body of relevant literature. but were affected to a lesser degree than were grammatical aspects of language. whereas semantic functions are relatively unaffected by age.A. Asher shows that in L2 acquisition. Rösler.. it is easy to learn a language. promoting listening and reading practice and stressing involvement in life-like conversations. whereas syntactical aspects are based on computational mechanisms.know sign-language) performed weakly. Neville and Röder (2004) also suggest learning some syntactic processing functions and lexical access may be limited by maturation. in this case German. Asher (1972) insists teenagers and adults rarely successfully learn an L2. Consequently. These suppositions would help explain the results of Scherag et al. 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. understanding of syntactic information is not facilitated. which allow life-long learning. learned vocabulary to a higher competence level than syntactic aspects of language. Mayberry and Lock concluded early L1 exposure is vital for forming life-long learning abilities. Scherag. report that the judgment accuracies in detecting semantic anomalies were altered in subjects who were exposed to English after sixteen years of age. cited in Scherag et al. 2004) that semantic aspects of language are founded on associative learning mechanisms. and attributes this to teaching strategies. it is reasoned. 2001. and the principles developed through L1 acquisition are vital for learning an L2. assumptions supported by Carroll (1960). These findings are consistent with work by Hahne (2001. which promotes listening as central in language learning: listening precedes. and American immigrants to Germany. One study that specifically mentions semantic functions acquisition is that of Weber-Fox and Neville (1996). however. They studied the effect of late SLA on speech comprehension by German immigrants to the U. She explicitly suggests teaching practices based on these principles. It has been speculated (Neville and Bavelier.
German. and stress. From this input. learners sometimes receive competing cues and must decide which cue(s) is most relevant for determining meaning. learners extract the rules of the language through cognitive processes common to other areas of cognitive skill acquisition. Frequency has been found to be a factor in various linguistic domains of language learning (Ellis. input is the source of both the units and the rules of language. Bates. 1986. p. and Italian showed varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive sentences containing more than one noun. 2002). since. 685-686). Connectionism posits that learners form mental connections between items that co-occur. listening featured heavily. and (3) restructure language knowledge as their L2 proficiencies increase. closely followed by reading and speaking practice. The ‘audio-lingual’ teaching practices used in the present study are based on principles explicated by Asher and Horwitz. and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. Specifically described are cognitive-related concepts and evidence related to how individuals (1) structure L2 knowledge. 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. Since connectionism denies both innate rules and the existence of any innate language-learning module. .  Cognitive approaches Another line of theory and research uses cognitive science to seek to understand how second language (L2) learners internally process language information. According to this theory. rather than relying on linguistic universals. In doing so. when acquiring an L2. MacWhinney et al. as these cognitive approaches have offered alternative conceptions of SLA processes. German speakers used morphological agreement. Below is an overview of the major products of cognitive speculation and research. which states that individuals use linguistic cues to get meaning from language. regardless of age. MacWhinney. formal understandings have been challenged. and ‘[t]eachers should assess student interests and supply appropriate… materials’ (Horwitz. the animacy status of noun referents. according to Pfeffer (1964). 2001). in connectionism. (2) use those structures to comprehend and produce in second languages. and Kliegl (1984) found that speakers of English. and. Connectionism attempts to model the cognitive language processing of the human brain. The vocabulary items taught were deemed relevant for all learners. based on frequency of co-occurrence in the language input (Christiansen & Chater. using exemplars found in language input.‘[m]uch class time should be devoted to the development of listening and reading abilities’. using computer architectures that make associations between elements of language. interpreted these results as supporting the Competition Model. English speakers relied heavily on word order. These findings also relate to Connectionism. L2 input is of greater importance than it is in processing models based on innate approaches. they are among the most commonly used nouns in everyday German language.
He termed this level of input “i+1. For instance. In contrast. 2005). and understanding of how to carry out operations. with little or no interface between them. He does so by proposing a Language Acquisition Device that uses L2 input to define the parameters of the L2. Krashen (1982) sees input as essential to language acquisition.” However. This model is consistent with a distinction made in general cognitive science between the storage and retrieval of facts. and to increase the L2 proficiency of the learner. if the learner feels that the process of SLA is threatening. in contrast to emergentist and connectionist theories. 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. Ullman (2001) reviews several psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic studies that support the declarative/procedural model. .Other concepts have also been influential in the speculation about the processes of building internal systems of second language information. that are stored in the brain’s declarative memory. On the other hand. Language learning. Some have used a declarative/procedural model to understand how language information is stored. he follows the innate approach by applying Chomsky (1981. A distinction closely related to that made by Krashen (1982) between acquisition and learning is one between implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. consciously and intentionally. such as grammatical word order is procedural knowledge and is stored in procedural memory. on the other. since input is essential in Krashen’s model. on the one hand. 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. posits a distinction between “acquisition” and “learning. As mentioned earlier. the features of a language.” According to Krashen. is studying. knowledge about the rules of a language. Learners gain implicit knowledge by processing target-language input without consciously giving attention to acquiring the forms and structures of the language. In his Input Hypothesis. In common with connectionism. as children do when becoming proficient in their first languages. According to this concept. within the constraints of UG. Some thinkers hold that language processing handles distinct types of knowledge. a part of the mind filters out L2 input and prevents uptake by the learner. as is common in traditional classrooms. such as irregular verb forms. It states that declarative knowledge consists of arbitrary linguistic information. In addition. Krashen sees these two processes as fundamentally different. propounded by Krashen (1982). one component of the Monitor Model. on the other hand. Ellis (2005) has found empirical confirmation for the distinct constructs of implicit and explicit language knowledge. L2 acquisition is a subconscious process of incidentally “picking up” a language. 1986)’s Binding/Government theory and concept of Universal Grammar (UG) to SLA. this filtering action prevents acquisition from progressing. learners get explicit knowledge of a language when they process language input with the conscious intention of discovering the structural rules of the language. he proposes that language acquisition takes place only when learners receive input just beyond their current level of L2 competence.
Performance speed and accuracy improve as the learner implements these production rules. checking for accuracy and adjusting language production when necessary.Further. Bialystok (1994) has framed the acquisition of language in terms of the interaction between what she calls “analysis” and “control. 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. Anderson (1992) expounds a model of skill acquisition. It results from the gradated process of proceduralization. On one hand is learners’ knowledge of L2 grammatical structure and ability to analyze the target language objectively using that knowledge.” 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. according to which persons use procedures to apply their declarative knowledge about a subject in order to solve problems. which they call “control. According to Krashen (1982). Autopractan. without accessing long-term declarative memory. and tends to undermine the idea of Krashen (1982) that knowledge gained through language “learning” cannot be used to initiate speech production. One area of research is the role of memory. 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. DeKeyser (1997) tested the application of this model to L2 language automaticity. Through this process. and performed on a learning curve typical of the acquisition of non-language cognitive skills. One idea is that learners acquire proficiency in an L2 in the same way that people acquire other complex cognitive skills. Williams (1999) conducted a study in which he found some positive correlation between verbatim memory functioning and grammar learning success for his subjects. Monitoring is another important concept in some theoretical models of learner use of L2 knowledge. They argue that the concept of interlanguage should include a distinction between two specific kinds of language processing ability. He found that subjects developed increasing proficiency in performing tasks related to the morphosyntax of an artificial language. under time constraints.” and. Finally. these procedures develop into production rules that the individual can use to solve the problem. which they term “representation. This evidence conforms to Anderson’s general model of cognitive skill acquisition.” Analysis is what learners do when they attempt to understand to be the rules of the target language. This suggests that individuals with less short-term memory . on the other hand is the ability to use their L2 linguistic knowledge. On repeated practice. In the field of cognitive psychology. Perhaps certain psychological characteristics constrain language processing. supports the idea that declarative knowledge can be transformed into procedural knowledge. to accurately comprehend input and produce output in the L2. Bialystok and Smith (1985) make another distinction in explaining how learners build and use L2 and interlanguage knowledge structures. Automaticity is the performance of a skill without conscious control. they acquire these rules and can use them to gain greater control over their own production.
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 order to acquire the correct morphological and syntactic forms for English questions. For instance. I have introduced the principle ideas in the cognitive approach to second language acquisition. These data provide evidence that learners were initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words containing the present progressive morpheme. learners must transform declarative English sentences. back to correct usage. and third.” Finally. move elements within main clauses before subordinate clauses. the learner must be aware of L2 input in order to gain from it. and finally. Restructuring Second Language Knowledge Structures Finally. from accurate usage of the “-ing” present progressive morpheme. This approach has contributed to a greater understanding . when learners experience significant restructuring in their L2 systems. Lightbrown (1983) showed that a group of English language learners moved. over time. lost control of this form as their knowledge system was disrupted by expanding understandings of the tense and aspect systems of English. 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). In the preceding sections. Clahsen (1984) proposed that certain processing principles determine this order of restructuring. For instance. they sometimes show what has been termed U-shaped behavior. second. without a separate rule for the use of “-ing. he stated that learners first. In addition. consistent across learners.” Schmidt posits that learners must notice the ways in which their interlanguage structures differ from target norms. Schmidt’s understanding is consistent with the ongoing process of rule formation found in emergentism and connectionism. in the second stage their systems apparently contained the rule that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action. their systems did contain such a rule. maintain declarative word order while changing other aspects of the utterances. and third. Schmidt (1990) states that although explicit metalinguistic knowledge of a language is not always essential for acquisition. In his “noticing hypothesis. However. returned to correct usage upon gaining greater control of these linguistic characteristics and forms. This is explained by theorizing that learners first acquired the “ing” form as a chunk.capacity might have a limitation in performing cognitive processes for organization and use of linguistic knowledge. In this respect. Attention is another characteristic that some believe to have a role in determining the success or failure of language processing. second. Specifically. move words to the beginning and end of sentences. to incorrectly omitting it. They do so by a series of stages.
Thus. and age below). often labelled the . Contrastive analysis.  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. older learners might have great difficulty in gaining access to the target language's underlying rules from positive input alone.of how learners form internal language systems of information. sought to predict all learner errors based on language transfer. In other words.  Linguistic universals Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. The term can also include the transfer of features from one additional language to another (such as from a second to a third language). In the UGbased framework (see Linguistic universals below). As subsequent research in error analysis and interlanguage structure showed. the role of transfer typically diminishes. 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. although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm conclusions difficult. as well as various rules including word order and pragmatics. this project was flawed: most errors are not due to transfer. discussed above. Typically learners begin by transferring sounds (phonetic transfer) and meanings (semantic transfer). although this is less common. although all of language may be governed by UG. and restructure those systems as they gain greater L2 proficiency. use those systems in L2 processing. and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching (see pedagogical effects above. 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). A number of studies have supported this claim. but to faulty inferences about the rules of the target language. "language transfer" is defined as the initial state of second language acquisition rather than its developmental stage. "language transfer" specifically refers to the linguistic parameter settings defined by the language universal. scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development. Transfer is an important factor in language learning at all levels. In particular. As learners progress and gain more experience with the target language.  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.
Cultivating their home language. and is itself fairly consistently measurable by different tests..  Language aptitude Tests of language aptitude have proven extremely effective in predicting which learners will be successful in learning. It is better to dispose young children to maintain both. considerable controversy remains about whether language aptitude is properly regarded as a unitary concept. According to Linda M. especially a greater awareness of linguistic structures. and its learning environment. However. rather than the sort used in conversation. However. This claim is reinforced by research findings that aptitude is largely unchangeable. their home language and their second language. However. Communication should be facilitated rather than a child should be forced to learn a language with strict rules. This fact leads to the question whether having the ability to speak two languages helps or harms young children. Research has generally shown that language aptitude is quite distinct from general aptitude or intelligence. Furthermore it is advantageous for young children to grow up bilingually because they do not need to be taught systematically but learn languages intuitively. Therefore these children have to learn the English language before kindergarten as a second language. Although those studies are now widely regarded as simplistic. Language aptitude research is often criticized for being irrelevant to the problems of language learners. Espinosa. the child creates their own cultural identity and becomes aware of their roots. general second language research has failed to support the critical period hypothesis in its strong form (i. operators of selective language programs such as the United States Defense Language Institute continue to use language aptitude testing as part of applicant screening. they did serve to identify a number of factors affecting language acquisition. For this reason little research is carried out on aptitude today.  Age Main article: critical period hypothesis It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learn a second language than are adults. as measured by various tests. sought to identify the distinctive factors of successful learners. More detailed research on many of these specific factors continues today. such as interest and motivation. the claim that full language acquisition is impossible beyond a certain age). or as a complex of factors including motivation and short-term memory. How fast a child can learn a language depends on several personal factors. In addition."good language learner studies". especially in the United States the number of children growing up with a home language that is not English but Spanish is constantly increasing. traditional language aptitude measures such as the Modern Language Aptitude Test strongly favor decontextualized knowledge of the sort used in taking tests. Research shows that the acquisition of a second language in early childhood confers several advantages. who must attempt to learn a language regardless of whether they are gifted for the task or not. . an organic property of the brain.e.
so much so that Canale and Swain (1980) included "strategic competence" among the four components of communicative competence.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. this may be related to the statistical advantage which female learners enjoy in language learning. by using pro-forms like "thing"." Strategies are commonly divided into learning strategies and communicative strategies. This has given rise to "strategies-based instruction. It is possible that one language can dominate. valuing. Learners from different cultures use strategies in different ways (Hadzibeganovic & Cannas. Affective Filter Furthermore. Related to this are differences in strategy use between male and female learners. and some strategies such as avoidance (not using a form with which one is uncomfortable) may actually hinder learning. Numerous studies have shown that female learners typically use strategies more widely and intensively than males. although there are other ways of categorizing them. Learning strategies are techniques used to improve learning. which describes the affective levels of receiving.  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. or non-spoken means such as mime. organization. The reason for code switching is the child's lack of vocabulary in a certain situation. researchers believe that language learners all possess an affective filter which affects language acquisition. as a research tradition led by Rebecca Oxford has demonstrated. If a student possesses a high filter they . responding. Research here has also shown significant pedagogical effects. and self-characterization through one's value system. 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 has also been informed in recent years by research in neurobiology and neurolinguistics. Learners (and native speakers) use communicative strategies to get meaning across even when they lack access to the correct language: for example. Communicative strategies may not have any direct bearing on learning. This depends on how much time is spent on learning each language.  Strategy use The effective use of strategies has been shown to be critical to successful language learning. such as mnemonics or using a dictionary. 2009).
 Motivation Main article: Motivation in second language learning The role of motivation in SLA has been the subject of extensive scholarship. Motivation is internally complex. Two scientists. studies have almost unanimously shown that anxiety damages students' prospects for successful learning. reserved people. The subjects were 72 Canadian high school students from grades 8. anxiety will cause students not to try and advance their skills. The affective filter is an important component of second language learning. and Dörnyei (2001a.  Personality Factors Second language acquisition is defined as the learning and adopting of a language that is not your native language. Those who avoided interaction were typically quiet. concern for grammar or other factors. p.  Anxiety Although some continue to propose that a low level of anxiety may be helpful. these are often divided into types such as integrative or instrumental. Intrinsic . Logically. there is no such thing as motivation." There are many different kinds of motivation.are less likely to engage in language learning because of shyness. 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. conducted interviews with U.S. Extroverts will be willing to try to communicate even if they are not sure they will succeed. Kinginger and Farrell. 1) begins his work by stating that "strictly speaking. He found that approximately 70% of the students with the higher grades (B or higher) would consider themselves extroverts. closely influenced by work in motivational psychology. Studies[vague] have shown that extraverts (or unreserved and outgoing people) acquire a second language better than introverts (or shy people). 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. 10 and 12 who were studying French as a second language. which also included a French listening test and imitation test. intrinsic or extrinsic. while others jumped at the opportunity to speak the language. Anxiety is often related to a sense of threat to the learner's self-concept in the learning situation. (or introverts). Just the lack of practice will make introverts less likely to fully acquire the second language. One particular study done by Naiman reflected this point. for example if a learner fears being ridiculed for a mistake. especially when they feel they are under pressure. Naiman gave them all questionnaires to establish their psychological profiles.
and also for informing practice in language teaching. Accordingly. indicating both that successful learners are motivated and that success improves motivation.motivation refers to the desire to do something for an internal reward. such as the effect of instructional techniques on motivation. (1998) have shown that motivation is not the final construct before learners engage in communication. but is strongly affected by feedback from the environment. which viewed second language acquisition as just one part of adapting to a new culture. Long's Interaction Hypothesis took a social constructivist view of research on input. Schumann's Acculturation Model. a person's idealized knowledge of language rules. learners may be highly motivated yet remain unwilling to communicate. Studies have not consistently shown either form of motivation to be more effective than the other. The European Union Lifelong learning programme has funded a project to research and build a set of best practices to motivate adult language learners. emphasized findings related to language socialization. Different models of SLA have focused on different aspects of SLA and general linguistic research. and the role of each is probably conditioned by various personality and cultural factors. the imperfect realization of these rules. Some research has shown that motivation correlates strongly with proficiency. This distinguishes competence. from performance. Thus motivation is not fixed. The first such influential concept was the competence-performance distinction introduced by Chomsky. for an external reward such as high grades or praise. In fact. the study of motivation in SLA has also examined many of the external factors discussed above. few scholars expect that any model will do so in the foreseeable future. Thus. MacIntyre et al. but still know how to make a complete sentence. . Given that the field is complex and interdisciplinary. Krashen's Monitor Model prioritized research on input and affective factors. called Don't Give Up  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. An accessible summary of this research can be found in Dörnyei (2001a). No single model of SLA has gained wide acceptance. In their research on Willingness to communicate. Caleb Gattegno based The Silent Way on the principle of the education of awareness. For example. a person may be interrupted and not finish a sentence.  Concepts of ability Numerous notions have been used to describe learners' ability in the target language. Most studies have shown it to be substantially more effective in long-term language learning than extrinsic motivation. Integrative and instrumental orientations refer to the degree that a language is learned "for its own sake" (integratively) or for instrumental purposes.
Early Childhood Education (Westport. For example. It broadens the notion of the kind of rules that competence can include. Research. eds. Proficiency is usually distinguished from competence. communicative competence embraces all of the forms of knowledge that learners must have in order to communicate effectively. is inevitably problematic. Whereas Chomsky treated competence as primarily grammatical. ^ a b L. . 720). 1994. The measurement of language ability. "Second language acquisition in early childhood. but many different forms of knowledge in complex interrelationship. A closely related concept is language proficiency. it may be argued that all measures of competence are in effect measuring some form of proficiency.  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  Notes 1. Cochran. The notion of communicative competence was first raised by Dell Hymes in 1967. which refers to knowledge: "proficiency refers to the learner's ability to use this knowledge in different tasks" (Ellis. it has not proven adequate by itself to describe the complex nature of learners' developing ability. CT: Greenwood Publishing Group). although necessary for both research and teaching. reacting against the perceived inadequacy of Chomsky's distinction between linguistic competence. New and M. Because any test of competence is a task of some sort. they do not reflect a single attribute. Kasper and Rose (2002) review numerous studies of the complex relationship between grammatical and pragmatic proficiency.Although this distinction has become fundamental to most work in linguistics today. requires some unitary concept of ability. and has proven extremely popular in SLA research." In R. such as much of that discussed here. M. but it has been clearly shown that different aspects of language ability progress at vary different rates. Both proficiency and competence are internally complex. p. Espinosa.
Christiansen. Petersson. R. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 24(2). A.. methods. Bayley & C. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 19. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. (Eds. (1994). (1984) The acquisition of German word order: a test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. M. 101-117. Dewaele. A. The Developing Language Learning: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. MA: Newbury House. L. (2005). 219–42. (1967). Bialystok. N. E. In R. 5(2). & Williams. Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition... and applications (pp. & Swain. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Canale. Clahsen. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Castro-Caldas. References • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Allwright. & Smith. H.). (1992). Ellis. (2009). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Z.Second language acquisition in early childhood. Rowley. R. The significance of learners' errors. 16(2). (1985). Westport.. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. 141-172. E. DeKeyser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2007). A. J. Automaticity and the ACT* theory. Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. (2002). R.. 223-236.). D. 21. Ellis. . (1980). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Sociolinguistic Variation: Theory.. R.In New. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing." Personality and Speech Production: A Pilot Study of Second Language Learners 28 (2000): 355-365 Dörnyei. 165–180. 121." Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 24(2). Lucas (Eds. Bialystok. 6(2). Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1-47. Reis. Frequency effects in language processing. S.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1997). Applied Linguistics. Corder. M. Ellis. J. Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data.. Doughty. and Furnham. J. N. M. 1053-1063. Stone-Elander. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 43-59. Anderson. M. M. & Cochran. The illiterate brain: Learning to read and write during childhood influences the functional organization of the adult brain. "New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. "Personality and Individual Differences. 27(2). 105. American Journal of Psychology. (1998).). Andersen (ed. The psycholinguistic unity of inherent variability: Old Occam whips out his razor. M.M. & Preston. S.CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Early Childhood Education. J. (2002). S. 143-188. C. Second Languages. (2001a). Studies in Second Language Acquisition. M. & Hanks. P. Brain. Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency. & Ingvar.6 Fasold. 5. In R. 195–222. & Chater.(Eds. R. Espinosa. D. 45–69). (1998). 160-170. 82-88. (2001). R. 157-168. H.
Lyster..R. MA: Newbury House. 23(2). MacIntyre.. (2005). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. 19. Language.D. 269-300. Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning. K. L. The Modern Language Journal. (2002). Tarone. A Tsallis' statistics based neural network model for novel word learning. (2009). Illiteracy: A case for biased cognitive development. 6. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. K. (1983). (2009). and Rose. Frohlich. G. Kasper. Clément. Literacy and Second Language Oracy. 52. H. Language Learning. (1998). 127-150. Dörnyei.. R.. P. L. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. London: Longman. R. . R.. Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. (1998) Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. E. & Noels. Bigelow. New York: Routledge. Gass. In H. Selinker. 545-562. International Review of Applied Linguistics. "The Good Language Learner: A Report. 732-746. R. D.. M. (1995). Tarik. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 27(2). Bruxelles: Centre de recherche sur le pluralinguisme. Lightbrown. Rampton. Rowley. Seidner. and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective. P. Polio (Eds. L. 444450. M. & Mori. Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M.. 209-241. P. Mackey & C. MacWhinney. 3.). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Selinker. 388(5). German. London: Pergamon. Sergio A. S. Hulstijn. A. Long (Eds. 10. 41–56).(1982). H. Seliger and M.A. (1982). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. & Ranta. 82 (4). K. 129-140. (1984). Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. J.. 190-204. (1997). & Hansen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Hadzibeganovic. S. Ethnicity. Naiman. Interlanguage. Krashen. (1997). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. N. (1972). and Stern. and Italian. Reis. B. (1990) Process-product research on second language learning in classrooms cited in 'The study of SLA' (Rod Ellis) Lyster. in A. (2006). Bates. (pp. (2009). Z.. Supplement 1.... Lightbown. Oxford: Oxford University Press. H. H. E. 28. 217–243). E. A. 37-66. A sociolinguistic perspective on interaction in SLA. & Douglas. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition." Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (1975) Pienemann. Wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory. Tarone. & Cannas. & Castro-Caldas. Physica A. & Kliegl. B. M. (1985). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English. S. Applied Linguistics.). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation.
Norris. Volume 7 Asian EFL Journal. N. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. K. E.. C. (2008). & Liu. Volume 9 Asian EFL Journal.). Understanding EFL Learners’ Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness. F.. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. "Lin. Vol. 2006  McKay. and Spada. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. M. & Ortega. 1–48. (2006). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. (2008). (1995). pp. attention and inductive learning. Kirsten. Principles of Instructed Language Learning. (2008). J. L. "What do we know about learning and teaching second languages: Implications for teaching " Asian EFL Journal Vol 8. Pedagogies proving Krashen’s theory of affective filter . In G. L. (2006). pp. & Lee. How Languages are Learned.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet? accno=ED338037 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.ed. J. Oxford: Oxford University Press. London: Hodder Arnold. (2009).eric. Sharon. London: Hodder Arnold. (2006).  Ellis.113-131 ERIC Collection as ED503681  Long. (2005). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2007).-q. (Eds.). Long's Interaction Hypothesis Mangubhai. The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.  Further reading • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cook. (2008). (2004). P.on Michael H. Ortega. Critical concepts in linguistics. Cook & B. & Swierzbin. 14. . [ISBN 978-0-415-45020-1] Oxford.G. (1980's) authored several papers on the Interaction hypothesis (Rod Ellis's overview)}} Ellis. H...). R. R. London: Hodder Arnold. Rod. C. [ISBN 0-19-442224-0] Lin. T.• • • • Tarone. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. CAELA Network Briefs. 107–124). variation and secondlanguage acquisition theory. (2008). Facilitating Adult Learner Interactions to Build Listening and Speaking Skills. (2001). H. Schaetzel. Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed). 30(1). CAELA and Center for Applied Linguistics Mitchell. L. F. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature. Ellis. 37-69. Tarone. R. The Interaction Hypothesis A critical evaluation. G. Second language acquisition. E. Ullman. 21. G. (2009).  Lightbown. Williams. 2nd edition. Michael H. B. M. Ellis. and Myles. Situational context. http://www. 37. Ortega. Oxford: Oxford University Press. London: Routledge. Seidlhofer (Eds. G. Widdowson (pp. Rod (1991). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Principles and Practice in the Study of Language and Learning: A Festschrift for H. (2010). Educational Settings and Second Language Learning. Rod. V. (1999) Memory. Exploring Learner Language.
Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. L.• • Robertson. P. & Nunn. (2007). The Study of Second Language Acquisition in the Asian Context  White.  External links . R. (2003). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.