Second Language Learning

Ruiqin Miao, School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

This article presents a general introduction to second language acquisition (SLA) as an academic discipline investigating
how a second language is learned. It first defines and distinguishes between some terminologies commonly used in the field.
It then reviews the influential theories proposed to account for SLA and examines the major factors that may affect
acquisition. In addition, it predicts the future trends of SLA research in the twenty-first century. Lastly, the chapter concludes
with a summary of the discussions presented in the previous sections.

Introduction the learning of English by many immigrants in the United

The topic of second language learning and teaching has been
intriguing scholars since ancient times, but second language
acquisition (SLA) as an independent research discipline is quite
new, having started in the 1960s. Unlike their predecessors who
focused on pedagogy, SLA researchers are interested in the
nature and process of learning. They seek answers to such
questions as how a second language (L2) is acquired, and
what makes individuals learn at different rates and achieve
different degrees of success.
Since its very beginning, SLA has been an interdisciplinary
field. To uncover and understand the mechanism of acquisi-
tion, scholars draw upon theories and findings from a variety
of fields, including linguistics, psychology, education, soci-
ology, anthropology, among others. SLA is a subject worthy
of serious and scientific exploration for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, of course, it can help us understand the
process of second language learning. It can also benefit second
language teaching, e.g., with respect to curriculum design and
teaching methodology. In addition, it may shed lights on other
related disciplines, especially disciplines which it has drawn
knowledge from.
Definitions
The term ‘second language acquisition’ in a broad sense refers
to the learning of a nonnative language after the first language
(L1) (i.e., the native language) has been learned, either in
a naturalistic setting or in a formal classroom setting. Before
we go into detail, it is necessary to clarify some terms
commonly used in the filed.
l Second language versus foreign language
The distinction between ‘second language’ and ‘foreign
language’ is related to the function of the language in concern
in the larger sociocultural setting where learning takes place.
A second language is a language that plays important social
and institutional functions in a country although it may
not be the native language (NL) of the dominant population,
for example, English in India and Singapore. In the case of
language learning, a second language is a nonnative language
to which the learner has natural exposure, as in the case of
States.
A foreign language, on the other hand, is a language that is
not the native language of the majority of the population, nor
is it widely used as a medium of communication in the
country. Instead, it is only used for speaking to foreigners or
for reading written materials. It is usually learned as a subject
in school. A typical example is the learning of English by
a Japanese speaker in Japan.
l Second versus third language acquisition
Although SLA often refers to the learning of any language
other than L1, in recent decades there has emerged an area of
research focusing on the learning of the third, or even the
fourth, language, which is known as multilingual acquisition.
One major issue studied in this field is the relationship between
the third (or fourth) language and other languages the learner
has learned previously, e.g., L1 or L2 (see Gass and Selinker,
2008, pp. 21–23).
l Acquisition versus learning
SLA researchers sometimes distinguish between ‘acquisi-
tion’ and ‘learning.’ Acquisition refers to the learning of
a nonnative language in a naturalistic environment (e.g.,
when a Russian speaker learns French in France). Learning, in
contrast, refers to the learning of a nonnative language in an
environment in which that language is not natively spoken
(e.g., when a Russian speaker learns English in Russia). This
distinction correlates with the distinction between ‘second’
versus ‘foreign’ language as discussed above, and hence the
terms ‘second language acquisition’ and ‘foreign language
learning’ are used with distinctions on a similar dimension.
Unless noted otherwise, this article follows the practice of
most SLA researchers, without making the fine distinctions
introduced above (e.g., Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991; Ellis,
1994; Gass and Selinker, 2008). The term ‘second language
acquisition’ is used to refer to the learning of any nonnative
language, regardless of the sociocultural nature of the learning
environment (second vs foreign) and the order in which the
language is learned (second vs third, or fourth). Nevertheless,
it should be pointed out that the learning environment exerts
significant influences on SLA. For this reason, SLA in the class-
room is sometimes discussed separately under various titles,
e.g., ‘instructed second language acquisition’ (Larsen-Freeman

360 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92096-8

and Long, 1991), ‘classroom second language acquisition’
(Ellis, 1994), and ‘instructed second language learning’ (Gass
and Selinker, 2008).
How Is a Second Language Acquired: Theories of SLA
A variety of theoretical frameworks have been proposed in the
field of SLA to describe and account for the L2 learning process
and “learners’ underlying knowledge” (Ellis, 1994, p. 13) of the
target language (TL). Some theories focus on the explanation of
L2 output data, and some on formulating models of the
learning process. This section will introduce the major SLA
theories.
The Behaviorist Approach
The earliest approach to SLA is Contrastive Analysis (CA) deve-
loping under the influence of psychological theories, especially
behaviorism prevailing in the 1950s and 1960s.
l Contrastive Analysis
During the 1940s and 1950s, researchers interested in
improving language pedagogy believed that contrastive ana-
lyses of the learners’ native language and the target language
would reveal what structures would be easy to learn and
what would be difficult. This led to the proposal of the Contras-
tive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) by Lado (1957), who argues
that L2 learners tend to transfer L1 forms to L2 use and that
L2 errors could be predicted through systematic comparisons
between L1 and L2 (cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991,
pp. 52–56; Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 89–102). Similar struc-
tures will be easy to acquire due to positive transfer, whereas
different ones will be difficult and cause negative transfer or
interference (cf Flege, 1992, 1995, cited in Major, 2001,
pp. 38–41, for a different view).
L1 transfer is especially powerful at the beginning stage of L2
acquisition, and it may occur at all levels of linguistic structure,
from phonology, morphology, lexicon, syntax, semantics, to
discourse and cultural norms. Some examples of L2 errors due
to negative L1 transfer are given in Table 1, where L1 is
Mandarin Chinese and L2 is English. For example, in the native
language (Mandarin), a same word ‘wen ti’ can be used to mean
either a question or a problem. In the target language (English),
however, ‘question’ and ‘problem’ are two words of different
meanings. In this case, one single form in L1 corresponds to
two distinct items in L2, and hence an error occurs when the
Table 1 Examples of L1 transfer errors
L1 (Mandarin) L2 (English)
Phonology Lack of stop codas Existence of stop codas
Morphology Isolating Inflectional
Syntax Wh-in-situ Overt wh-movement
Semantics One word Two words (e.g., ‘question,’
(e.g., ‘wen ti’) ‘problem’)
Paragraph Nonlinear Linear
development
Note: The asterisk ‘*’ indicates an ungrammatical structure.
Second Language Learning 361
learner uses one of the two L2 words (e.g., ‘question’) to refer
to the other (e.g., ‘problem’).
CAH developed at a time when the behaviorist school of
psychology prevailed. According to behaviorism, learning is
a process of habit formation, during which the learner applies
his previously learned skills to the learning of a new one. New
habits are developed through repeated imitation and intensive
practice. When learning a second language, one needs to over-
come L1 habits in order to acquire new habits in L2.
CAH was soon challenged by findings from empirical
studies. For instance, some errors predicted by CA do not
actually occur. In addition, some errors that actually occur are
not predicted and hence cannot be attributed to L1 transfer.
Furthermore, CA, at least in its earlier forms, cannot predict
the relative difficulty of L2 structures, that is, what areas cause
more difficulties than others (Major, 2001, p. 34). Despite
these problems, it is undeniable that L1 transfer is an important
factor influencing L2 learning. A weak version of CAH using CA
to explain (rather than to predict) some L2 errors, is still
commonly practiced today.
Cognitive Approaches
Some other approaches to examining the nature of the
L2 learning process are based on cognitive perspectives. In
such frameworks, language learning is seen as a process in
which learners constantly form hypotheses by use of their
own cognitive abilities. Three theories can be grouped under
this category, the Error Analysis Hypothesis, the Universal
Grammar (UG) Model and the Monitor Model.
l Error Analysis
In the late 1960 and 1970s, researchers started to view
L2 errors from a new perspective. Corder (1967) expounds
the importance of errors, arguing that errors are systematic
and serve as significant evidence of the learner’s language
system (see reviews in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 58;
Gass and Selinker, 2008, p. 102). Selinker (1972) introduces
the term ‘Interlanguage’ (IL) to refer to the L2 learner’s language
system or grammar during the course of learning (cited in Ellis,
1994, p. 44). In his view, the learner actively constructs
grammars based on the limited input he has received. These
grammars constitute a continuum, with L1 at one end and L2
at the other (Ellis, 1994, pp. 350–356).
Interest in learner errors triggers a series of studies on the
classification of IL errors. Major types of errors are interlin-
gual errors – errors caused by NL transfer, and intralingual
L2 output Error example
Vowel insertion */li:də/ for ‘lead’ /li:d/
Omission of inflections *He paint the house last week. (*‘Paint’ for
‘painted’)
Wh-in-situ *You go where? (For ‘where do you go?’)
One word (e.g., ‘question’) *Water pollution is a serious question.
(*‘Question’ for ‘problem’)
Nonlinear e.g., Kaplan (1966)
362 Second Language Learning
errors – errors independent of NL (e.g., overgeneralization and
simplification errors). Other types include communication-
based errors (i.e., errors resulting from a speaker’s use of
communicative strategies) and induced errors (i.e., errors due
to training) (see discussions in Larsen-Freeman and Long,
1991, pp. 58–60; Ellis, 1994, pp. 57–63).
Error analysis (EA) replaced CA as a dominant approach to
SLA research in the 1970s. As the term denotes, it focuses on
the analysis of learners’ errors. Unlike CA comparing L1 and L2,
EA studies the learner’s IL by examining the differences between
the IL and L2. It was the first theory focused on serious investiga-
tions of learner language (Ellis, 1994, pp. 68–70). It broadened
the scope of error sources, taking into consideration not just L1
transfer but also others (e.g., overgeneralization or training).
EA has a number of limitations. Firstly, it is not always easy
to identify the type and source of an error. For instance,
a deviant English form such as “She arrive late yesterday”
produced by a Mandarin Chinese speaker learning English
may be considered either as a morphological error (with lack
of the past tense marker ‘-ed’) or as a pronunciation error
(with deletion of the final consonant /d/ in ‘arrived’); it can
be either a transfer error since Mandarin (L1) lacks inflectional
morphology or a developmental error that a native English-
speaking child also makes. Secondly, EA has a limited view
on L2 acquisition by only looking at errors that actually occur,
without considering the whole picture of the learner’s behavior,
e.g., the strategies to avoid using a difficult form and hence
make fewer errors (see discussions in Larsen-Freeman and
Long, 1991, pp. 61–62; Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 104–110).
l UG Model
The Universal Grammar (UG) (Chomsky, 1965, cited in
White, 2003, pp. 2–4) assumes that the mental grammar an
adult has of his or her native language consists of universal
principles and variable settings of parameters. The principles
are the same in all human languages, and parameter settings
vary across languages. In language acquisition, input triggers
the setting of parameters in the particular language being
learned.
Since the 1980s, some researchers have started to explore the
application of UG to SLA research. Major questions pursued
along this line include whether UG remains accessible in SLA
and how universals affect SLA. For instance, White (2003)
studies the extent to which L2 acquisition is constrained by
universal principles, arguing that UG constraints do function
in SLA. She outlines different possibilities for the initial state
of L2 learning, with different degrees of L1 transfer. For instance,
in the case of full transfer (Schwartz and Sprouse, 1994, 1996,
cited in White, 2003, pp. 61–68), L1 grammar constitutes the
initial state. On the contrary, a full access situation (Epstein
et al., 1996, 1998, cited in White, 2003, pp. 88–95) consists
entirely of UG in the initial state.
However, L1 acquisition and L2 learning are different in
many ways, which raises caution about the strong claims of
access to UG in SLA. For instance, L2 learning starts out with
the leaner having already formed a set of skills and strategies
in L1, but this is not the case in L1 acquisition. L2 learners
also have different motivations from children acquiring their
NL. In addition, the sociocultural setting of SLA is much
more complex than that of children’s L1 acquisition. These
differences present challenges to the arguments of UG
availability in SLA.
l The Monitor Model
The Monitor Model was formulated by Krashen in the
1970s and 1980s. It seeks to account for the natural order of
acquisition on the one hand and the disturbances observed
in the order in specific performance tasks on the other.
Krashen (1976) distinguishes between two knowledge
systems governing L2 performance (cited in Larsen-Freeman
and Long, 1991, pp. 240–241). One is the acquired system,
consisting of subconscious knowledge similar to what children
have for native language acquisition. The other is the learned
system, which results from formal instruction and serves to
monitor performance (output) consciously. The two systems
are completely separate, each accounting for a different aspect
of performance. The natural order in which TL rules are
acquired embodies the acquired system, whereas disturbances
in the order result from conscious monitoring by the learned
system.
The Monitor Model contains five hypotheses, two of which
state crucial conditions necessary for SLA. One is the Input
Hypothesis, which postulates that the learner acquires a second
language through comprehensible input and that progress in
learning is achieved when the input is one level above the
current stage of the learner’s interlanguage development (see
discussions in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 242–243;
Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 309–310). The other is the Affective
Filter Hypothesis, which posits that affective factors like motiva-
tion and self-confidence promote acquisition when the filter is
low (e.g., when the learner is highly motivated and confident
in learning) (see reviews in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991,
pp. 243–244; Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 402–403).
Various components of the Monitor Model have encountered
criticisms (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 245–249). For
instance, the model provides no measures to distinguish between
acquisition and learning. Furthermore, the Input Hypothesis and
the function of the affective filer cannot be easily tested. Never-
theless, this theory motivates new thoughts about the relation-
ship between various factors in L2 acquisition and about the
issues to consider in designing language instruction materials.
Interactional Approaches
Interactional approaches take into consideration the interac-
tional nature and the communicative functions of language
to account for the mechanism of second language learning.
l Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis, a subarea of discourse analysis,
examines language learning as situated in the social interaction
that the learner participates in. It recognizes that language
cannot be understood in isolation from social contexts and
argues that changes in the structure of the interaction discourse
evidence learning (see review in Gass and Selinker, 2008,
pp. 281–283). In this framework, the conversation between
the L2 learner and his or her interlocutor constitutes an impor-
tant source of language acquisition, serving a variety of func-
tions, e.g., to provide feedback and corrections, to encourage
participation and to negotiate meaning. For instance, Hatch
 Second Language Learning 363

(1978) argues that a learner can acquire syntactic structures l The Acculturation Model
through conversations or verbal interactions with another
Based on a case of SLA in a naturalistic setting, Schumann
person (cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 70–71).
(1978a) outlines a range of similarities between an unsuccess-
Conversation analysis focuses on the significant role of
ful learner’s interlanguage and a pidgin, a simplified or reduced
input and interaction in language learning. By including both
form of language used for communication between speakers of
form and function, it initiates a number of new directions to
different native languages. For instance, both language forms
investigate SLA, e.g., foreigner talk, contrastive rhetoric, class-
display such characteristics as simple morphology, lack of
room discourse, and speech act analysis (see Larsen-Freeman
certain movement rules, and reduced vocabulary (see Larsen-
and Long, 1991, pp. 71–73).
Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 254–255).
l The Multidimensional Model Schumann proposes the Acculturation Model to account for
his observations, arguing that naturalistic SLA results from
The Multidimensional Model developed from the ZISA
acculturation, i.e., adaptation to or integration into another
(Zweitsprachenwerb Italienischer und Spanischer Arbeiter)
culture. He claims that “the degree to which a learner accultur-
project conducted in Germany in the 1970s. It was first
ates to the target-language group will control the degree to
proposed by Meisel et al. (1981) (cited in Larsen-Freeman
which he acquires the second language” (Schumann, 1978b,
and Long, 1991, pp. 270–287; Ellis, 1994, pp. 382–388). Based
p. 34, cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 257; Ellis,
on the development of word order rules in German as a second
1994, p. 230). A high degree of acculturation leads to
language, ZISA researchers propose that two independent
a greater amount of contact with native speakers of the L2,
dimensions regulate the developmental sequences of the IL.
which facilitates acquisition.
One is the developmental axis, which represents an invariant
Schumann develops the concepts of social distance and
order of developmental stages. The other is the variation axis,
psychological distance to define the extent of acculturation.
which accounts for the differences among individual learners
Each involves a number of factors regulating the relationship
with respect to whether their orientation toward a learning
between the learner and the target language speaker group.
task is a ‘standard’ (integrative) one or a ‘simplifying’ (segrega-
A learner socially and psychologically integrated with the TL
tive) one. By using the concept of orientation, the model incor-
group achieves a high degree of acculturation, which further
porates the role of social and psychological factors such as
leads to successful L2 acquisition (for detailed discussions,
motivation and interest in accounting for the learning process.
see Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 251–258; Ellis,
Although a powerful tool to explain IL development, the
1994, pp. 230–233).
Multidimensional Model is not flawless (Larsen-Freeman and
While recognizing the significance of social and psycholog-
Long, 1991, pp. 283–287; Ellis, 1994, pp. 387–388). For
ical factors in SLA, the Acculturation Model faces various chal-
instance, it accounts for acquisition in view of the learner’s L2
lenges (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 258–266; Ellis,
production only, dismissing the interaction between compre-
1994, pp. 233–234). For example, it does not specify how
hension and production. In addition, it is hard to identify
those social and psychological factors may regulate the features
formulaic chunks of language and variational features a priori.
of the interlanguage. In addition, the factors underlying social
l The Competition Model distance between the two language groups involved in pidgin-
ization (i.e., the superstrate language group and the pidgin
The Competition Model (Bates and MacWhinney, 1982,
group) can be quite different from those involved in SLA
cited in Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 221–226) adopts a func-
(i.e., the individual L2 learner and the native TL speaker group).
tional approach to language development. It claims that
Moreover, the validity of positing that social factors have
language forms “are created, governed, constrained, acquired
a direct effect on L2 acquisition raises doubt since they are
and used in the service of communicative functions”
generally considered indirect forces.
(MacWhinney et al., 1984, cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 374). A
form fulfills one or more functions, and a function is realized
l Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory
in one or more forms.
According to this model, languages differ in the strengths of Since the 1990s, there has been a revival of interest in
particular form-function mappings. The input provides four Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory (cited in Gass and
types of cues to convey meaning, namely word order, Selinker, 2008, pp. 283–285), which sees learning as social in
vocabulary, morphology and intonation. Since the human nature and language acquisition as situated in social interaction.
processing system employs only a limited number of A central concept of this framework is the Zone of Proximal
information at a time, these different signals compete for Development (ZDP), which refers to the distance between
processing space. In learning a second language, one needs to a child’s actual level of development in terms of problem solving
figure out which forms are mapped to what functions and skills and the potential level of skills he is able to reach under the
what weights these mappings assume in the target language guidance of an adult or through collaboration with a peer who is
(see Ellis, 1994, pp. 373–378 for more discussions). more capable. ZDP defines a range of developmental levels where
a child can learn through accomplishing tasks under guidance.
In the recent decades, a number of studies have employed
Sociocultural Approaches
this approach in SLA research. For instance, it has been shown
Sociocultural approaches view language as a social phenom- that learners employ private speech to regulate their language
enon and hence language acquisition as crucially determined in learning tasks (e.g., Lantolf and Thorne, 2006, 2007, cited
by sociocultural factors. in Gass and Selinker, 2008, p. 285).
364 Second Language Learning
In short, a great variety of models and approaches have been
proposed to explain how a second language is acquired. There
are some other models that are not introduced since they are
not as extensively pursued as the approaches discussed above.
Some examples are Givon’s (1979a, 1979b) Functional-
Typological theory (see Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp.
266–270), Eckman’s (1977) Markedness Differential
Hypothesis (see Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 179–182), and
the Ontogeny Phylogeny Model (Major, 2001).
What Makes Individuals Learn Differently: Factors
Influencing SLA
One phenomenon characteristic of second language learning is
that individual learners vary greatly in the rate of learning and
the level of achievement. Some learn fast, while others progress
slowly. Some succeed in attaining a high proficiency, while
others fail despite the enormous efforts they spend.
A plethora of factors have been investigated in the literature
(e.g., Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991; Ellis, 1994; Gass and
Selinker, 2008). This section discusses a total of 12 factors,
grouped into two categories, namely environmental/setting
factors and individual learner factors.
Environmental/Setting Factors
The sociocultural environment and specific setting in which an
L2 is learned has crucial influence on the learning process and
achievement. It determines how learning is done, what
resources are available to learners, what learning objectives
are set, how fast learning progresses, and how motivated
learners are.
l Naturalistic versus foreign environment
The naturalistic versus foreign nature of the larger
sociocultural environment of L2 learning is one of the key
factors determining how learning is done and how effectively
it is done. Learners in a naturalistic environment acquire the
TL through natural exposure in daily communication. They
have access to abundant authentic input and plenty
opportunities to use the TL, which may boot their motivation
to learn, both the motivation to be integrated into the
mainstream L2 society and that for practical reasons (e.g., to
find a job). With frequent contact with native speakers of the
L2, they enjoy advantages in acquiring speaking fluency and
listening comprehension. In contrast, learners in a foreign
environment get input mainly from classroom instruction,
which is limited to interactions with teachers, peer learners
and course materials. The input is usually somewhat
modified to accommodate students’ proficiency level.
Learners have restricted opportunities to communicate with
native speakers, and hence their motivation to learn is mainly
instrumental. The skills they learn tend to focus on reading
and writing. These differences related to the nature of the
learning environment are summarized in Table 2 below.
However, it needs to be pointed out that the reality of L2
learning environment is much more complex than a mere divi-
sion between naturalistic and foreign settings. In a naturalistic
setting, a person may attend formal classes to learn an L2 in
Table 2 Differences between SLA in a naturalistic setting and
a foreign setting
Naturalistic Foreign
Means of learning Natural exposure Instruction in
classroom
Quantity of input Abundant Limited
Quality of input Authentic Modified
Learner motivation Integrative and Instrumental
instrumental
Opportunities to use L2 Plenty Restricted
Primary skills learned Speaking and listening Reading and writing
addition to learning it through daily exposure in the native
TL environment. On the other hand, a person learning an L2
in a foreign environment may sometimes create a native-like
setting for himself by reading news, watching movies or play
games in the TL.
In the long run, the naturalistic and foreign setting may each
fare better in certain ways. For instance, learning in a natural L2
environment may lead to a higher level of fluency and commu-
nicative competency although not necessarily greater accuracy.
A foreign setting, however, may benefit learners with modified
input and help them develop a greater awareness of grammar
accuracy, but it may lack resources facilitating acquisition of
oral fluency and communicative skills.
l Technology
Technology has been an important tool for language learning
ever since the mid-twentieth century. A variety of media and
devices have been widely used, from conventional ones like
radio, cassette recorders, television and video recorders to the
current ones like mobile devices, computers and the Internet
(Flowerdew and Miller, 2005, pp. 165–183; Godwin-Jones,
2008). For example, there are radio and television programs,
audio and video materials, as well as computer software specially
designed for language learning and teaching. In present days, it is
not uncommon to find language labs and self-access language
learning centers equipped with multimedia tools in schools.
Technological advances have brought about dramatic
changes to the way L2 learners acquire resources (input) and
approach learning tasks. For one thing, they expand the
resources and opportunities for learners to get authentic L2
materials. For another, technology offers L2 learners immense
freedom in planning and managing learning on their own.
The role of technology is especially significant for SLA in
a foreign environment, where learners have limited natural
exposure to the TL. For example, today an EFL (English as
a foreign language) learner in Korea can have easy access to
English news and movies on the Internet and use them to prac-
tice reading and listening comprehension anytime he or she
wants. If without the aid of technology, the language resources
he or she could have might come solely or mostly from the
classroom – teachers, course materials and other learners.
Individual Learner Factors
A large body of SLA research looks into the influence of various
learner-related factors. Major variables include the following

10: age, sex, affect, aptitude, attitudes, motivation, personality,
learning styles, learning strategies, and social distance.
l Age
Studies show that children learn more successfully, but at
a lower speed, than adults (see reviews in Larsen-Freeman
and Long, 1991, pp. 155–163; Ellis, 1994, pp. 484–494;
Major, 2001, pp. 6–12; Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 405–
416). Young children tend to learn better than adults in the
sense that they are more likely to achieve native-like
proficiency. This is especially evident in phonology or
pronunciation acquisition. However, the opposite tendency is
revealed about the rate of acquisition. Older learners learn
faster than young learners, especially at the early stage of
acquiring morphology and syntax.
This observation of children’s advantages over adults in
attaining native-like proficiency is supported by the Critical
Period Hypothesis (Lenneberg, 1967), which claims that
there is a critical period of time, from age 2 to puberty,
determining whether native proficiency in a second language
can be acquired. For those who start to learn a language,
either native or nonnative, after the critical period, it is very
hard, or even impossible, for them to attain native-like levels.
l Sex
Females generally enjoy advantages over males in L2
learning (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 204; Ellis,
1994, pp. 202–204). The reason for this may be that women
employ more standard and more prestige forms as well as
more new forms than do men in using language. When
learning a second language, they may be more open to the
new input and more likely to eliminate errors, which
contribute to their better L2 performance.
l Affect
Affect involves ‘feelings or emotional reactions’ about L2,
the speakers as well as the culture of that language (Gass and
Selinker, 2008, p. 398). It includes such specific factors as
language/culture shock, stress, and anxiety. Shock and stress
may cause problems to language learning. Anxiety can have
either negative or positive effects, depending on how intense
it is. Anxiety at a moderate or low level is helpful, but at
a high level it is detrimental (see Ellis, 1994, pp. 479–483;
Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 398–403).
l Aptitude
Aptitude is the capability of learning new skills. It is a cogni-
tive ability closely related to, but not identical to, intelligence.
Carroll (1981) defines four components of language learning
aptitude, namely phonetic coding ability, grammatical sensi-
tivity, rote learning ability for foreign language materials, and
inductive language learning ability (cited in Larsen-Freeman
and Long, 1991, p. 167; cf Ellis, 1994, pp. 495–496; Gass
and Selinker, 2008, p. 418). A well-known instrument to
measure aptitude is the Modern Language Aptitude Test
(Carroll and Sapon, 1959, cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long,
1991, p. 168; Gass and Selinker, 2008, p. 419).
Aptitude is found to be a strong predictor of L2 perfor-
mance. It demonstrates positive correlations to the rate of
acquisition and achievement in language tests. In addition, it
Second Language Learning 365
is linked to other factors such as motivation and social class
(see discussions in Ellis, 1994, pp. 494–499; Gass and
Selinker, 2008, pp. 417–426).
l Attitudes
Attitudes toward the target language and its speakers or
community can have an important, although indirect,
influence on L2 achievement. According to Gardner (1979),
attitudes influence motivation, which in turn influences acqui-
sition (cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, p. 175).
Generally speaking, positive attitudes toward L2 and its
speakers/community facilitate learning.
l Motivation
Motivation is another key factor related to differential
achievement in L2 learning. If a learner is motivated, he or
she will have an intense interest and be willing to be engaged
in learning (Ellis, 1994, pp. 512–514). Two kinds of motiva-
tion have been studied extensively, namely integrative and
instrumental motivation proposed by Gardner and Lambert
(1959, 1972) (cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991,
pp. 172–174). Integrative motivation refers to the learner’s
desire to be integrated into or identified with the L2 commu-
nity. Instrumental motivation is related to the usefulness of
the language for practical goals, e.g., for career advancement.
Both types of motivation serve as strong impetus to learning.
l Personality
Certain personality traits may favor L2 acquisition. Although
research results are inconclusive, studies do provide evidence
for the correlation between personality and L2 performance.
Successful learners are believed to have high self-esteem, be
extrovert and willing to take-risks, be tolerant of ambiguity,
demonstrate empathy, and have low inhibition (see reviews
in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 184–192; Ellis, 1994,
pp. 517–522).
l Learning styles
Learners differ in the styles or modes they prefer to use when
approaching learning tasks. Researchers have examined such
variables as field-independent/-dependent, reflective/impulsive,
aural/visual, and analytic/gestalt styles (Larsen-Freeman and
Long, 1991, pp. 192–197). A field–independent person, who is
good at abstracting information from the context, learns
better than does a field-dependent person, who pays great
attention to details in the context. Reflective learners, who tend
to think longer and more carefully, make fewer errors than do
impulsive learners. Learners who learn by both aural and
visual means perform better than do those who employ only
a single modality. Furthermore, analytical learners tend to
break language forms into smaller components, whereas
gestalt learners take a holistic approach, assimilating language
in big units and taking more risks in using it.
l Learning strategies
Learning strategies involve both cognitive and behavioral
actions. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) define them as “the
special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help
them comprehend, learn, or retain new information” (p. 1)
and classify them into three types, i.e., metacognitive, cognitive
366 Second Language Learning
and social/affective strategies (p. 43–47). Metacognitive ones
are higher order skills used to plan, monitor and evaluate
learning activities. Cognitive ones “operate directly on
incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance
learning” (p. 44). Examples are rehearsal, organization,
summarization and detection. Finally, social/affective strategies
are those learners use to interact with others and control affect
(e.g., cooperation and questioning for clarification) (p. 45–46).
Good L2 learners demonstrate different patterns of strategy
use from what poor learners employ. For instance, they tend to
be attentive to form, monitor the speech of their own as well as
others (Rubin, 1975, cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 547). They also
attend to meaning, engage themselves actively in learning,
and use more metacognitive strategies (see Ellis, 1994,
pp. 546–550).
l Social distance
If a learner feels socially distant from the L2 community, he
or she may not have a high motivation to integrate into that
community and to participate in contact with the native
speakers of the L2. This can lead to an inadequate amount of
exposure and input, and hence hinder L2 acquisition (see
Gass and Selinker, 2008, pp. 403–405). In consideration of
the potential significance of such sociopsychological factors,
Schumann (1978a, cited in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991,
pp. 251–258) proposes the Acculturation Model to account
for the process of SLA (see previous section).
To summarize, diverse factors related to the learning envi-
ronment/setting and individual learners themselves can affect
how well a second language is acquired. These variables do
not function in isolation. Instead, they may be linked to each
other. For instance, social distance may bear a close relation-
ship to motivation, attitudes and affect. Aptitude may be
interwoven with learning styles and learning strategies. Further-
more, learning styles may be influenced by personality, and the
use of learning strategies is affected by various factors like age,
motivation and the acquisition setting.
Besides those listed above, there are many other factors that
more or less influence L2 acquisition too, e.g., memory,
language disability, interest, birth order and prior experience
with L1 (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, pp. 203–206),
as well as social class and ethnic identity (Ellis, 1994,
pp. 204–210). But they are not as widely studied and their
effects are not as significant or obvious as the aforementioned
ones, thus they are not discussed here for the sake of brevity.
SLA in the Twenty-First Century
In the twenty-first century, SLA may develop toward an
increasing diversity of research directions, growing attention
to technology-related issues, and plurality of theoretical
approaches. First, the scope of subject topics is broadening
and research directions are expanding. In addition to the
long-established areas such as L1 transfer, language universals
and learner differences, more directions are emerging. For
instance, a growing body of research in recent decades starts
to investigate learner autonomy (e.g., in Dam, 2001), strategy
training (e.g., Carrier, 2003) and task-based learning (e.g., in
García Mayo, 2007).
Second, the development of CALL (Computer-Assisted
Language Learning) triggers an array of technology-related
topics worthy of investigation. Some questions waiting for
exploration include the following: how to design effective
CALL programs, how the mediation of technology affects the
mental processes of learning, and in what way media literacy
may influence the outcome of learning. For instance,
Dodigovic (2005) discusses how to develop an intelligent
CALL tool to assist L2 writing acquisition.
Thirdly, SLA theories are moving toward plurality. For one
thing, established psycholinguistic, cognitive and sociocultural
models will undergo new developments along with advances of
related disciplines (e.g., cognitive science and psychology). For
another, new sociocultural approaches may emerge within
existent frameworks. For instance, there has been a growing
interest in studying the negotiation and construction of
learner identity (e.g., in Mantero, 2007) and the application
of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory to SLA research.
With the increasing pace of globalization and the promo-
tion of linguistic and cultural plurality in the modern age, it
can be safely predicted that the population of second language
learners and users will experience rapid growth in the new
century. To account for the diversity of L2 sociocultural settings,
a sound and comprehensive SLA theory in the future may well
integrate the valid components from the various current
approaches.
Conclusion
This article presents a general picture of SLA as an autonomous
discipline of social science. It reviews the major theoretical
approaches proposed in the field and examines a variety of
factors that influence L2 acquisition. It also predicts some
future directions of SLA research in the twenty-first century.
Acknowledgments
The writing of this article was supported by Shanghai Pujiang Program,
China (Grant No. ZXDF069) and Scientific Research Foundation for the
Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry, China
(Grant No. B1066W).
See also: Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles; Computer-
Assisted Instruction; Cross-Cultural Study of Education;
Foreign Language Teaching and Learning; Multicultural
Education; Socialization and Education: Theoretical
Perspectives; Tangible User Interfaces in Learning and
Education; Vygotsky’s Theory of Human Development and New
Approaches to Education.
Bibliography
Carroll, J.B., Sapon, S.M., 1959. Modern Language Aptitude Test “http://en.wikipe-
dia.org/wiki/Harcourt_Assessment” “Harcourt Assessment”. The Psychological
Corporation, San Antonio, TX.
Carroll, J., 1981. Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In:
Diller, K. (Ed.), Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude.
Newbury House, Rowley, MA.

Carrier, K.A., 2003. Improving high school English language learners’ second language
listening through strategy instruction. Bilingual Research Journal 27, 383–408.
Corder, S.P., 1967. The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5, 161–170.
Chomsky, N., 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press, Cambridge.
Dam, L. (Ed.), 2001. Learner Autonomy: New Insights. The AILA Review, 15.
Dodigovic, M., 2005. Artificial Intelligence in Second Language Learning: Raising Error
Awareness. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Eckman, F., 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language
Learning 27, 315–330.
Ellis, R., 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Flowerdew, J., Miller, L., 2005. Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
García Mayo, M.P. (Ed.), 2007. Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning.
Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Gardner, R., Lambert, W., 1959. Motivational variables in second language acquisition.
Canadian Journal of Psychology 13, 266–272.
Gardner, R., Lambert, W., 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second language
Learning. Newbury House, Rowley, MA.
Gardner, R., 1979. Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In:
Giles, H., St. Clair, R. (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology. Basil Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 193–220.
Gass, S.M., Selinker, L., 2008. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course,
third ed. Routledge, New York.
Givon, T., 1979a. On Understanding Grammar. Academic Press, New York.
Givon, T., 1979b. From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In: Givon, T.
(Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Discourse and Syntax, vol. 12. Academic Press, New York.
Godwin-Jones, R., 2008. Emerging technologies mobile-computing trends: lighter,
faster, smarter. Language Learning and Technology 12 (3), 3–9.
Hatch, E., 1978. Discourse analysis, speech acts and second language acquisition. In:
Ritchie, W. (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition Research. Academic Press, New
York, pp. 137–155.
Kaplan, R.B., 1966. Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language
Learning 16, 1–20.
Krashen, S., 1976. Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition
and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 10, 157–168.
Lado, R., 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor, MI.
Lantolf, J.P., Thorne, S.L., 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second
Language Development. OUP, Oxford.
Lantolf, P., Thorne, S.L., 2007. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In:
Van Patten, B., Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An
Introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 693–701.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Long, M.H., 1991. An Introduction to Second Language
Acquisition Research. Longman, London.
Second Language Learning 367
Lenneberg, E.H., 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Major, R.C., 2001. Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language
Phonology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Mantero, M. (Ed.), 2007. Identity and Second Language Learning: Culture, Inquiry,
and Dialogic Activity in Educational Contexts. Information Age Publishing,
Charlotte, NC.
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., Pienemann, M., 1981. On determining developmental stages
in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3,
109–135.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rubin, G., 1975. The traffic in women: notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of sex. In:
Reiter, R. (Ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women. Monthly Review Press, New York.
Schumann, J., 1978a. The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language
Acquisition. Newbury House, Rowley, MA.
Schumann, J., 1978b. The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In:
Gingras, R. (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching.
Center for Applied Linguistics, Arlington, VA, pp. 27–50.
Schwartz, B., Sprouse, R., 1994. Word order and nominative case in nonnative
language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In:
Hoekstra, T., Schwartz, B. (Eds.), Language Acquisition Studies in Generative
Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops.
John Benjamins, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 317–368.
Schwartz, B., Sprouse, R., 1996. L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access
model. Second Language Research 12 (1), 40–72.
Selinker, L., 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10,
209–231.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
White, L., 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Relevant Websites
http://www.aaal.org/ – American Association for Applied Linguistics.
http://www.carla.umn.edu – Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition
(CARLA), University of Minnesota.
http://www.cal.org – Center for Applied Linguistics.
http://www.aila.info – International Association of Applied Linguistics.
http://linguistlist.org – The Linguist List.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/index.htm – Second Language Acquisition
Topics by Vivian Cook.
http://www.tesol.org – TESOL International Association.