Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University

La Union, Philippines

THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
(ELSC 102)

1
 COURSE OUTLINE
IN
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
(ELSC 102)

 COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course provides teachers of multilingual students with a theoretical
background for the teaching and learning of languages. It introduces research into
second language acquisition from perspectives of the fields of linguistics, psychology
and education. This course also focuses on the differences and similarities in first
and second language acquisition, historical and current theories of acquisition,
common myths about language learning both in and outside of the classroom, factors
affecting SLA like age and personality factors, and other related topics concerning
language acquisition.

OBJECTIVES

After completing the course, the student is expected to be able to:

1. Derive meanings from texts based from the linguistic cues in texts;
2. Apply different schemes in linguistic expressions as a style in writing
texts;
3. Distinguish that which is literary from what is not in texts; and
4. Find various ways of expressing ideas, thoughts, and feelings by
linguistic means.

 1.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Regularly attend the class

2. Have active class participation
3. Take the oral and written quizzes
4. Take and pass the required periodical examination; and
5. Submit the required reaction papers and reports before the end of
the term

 GRADING SYSTEM

Module Assignments - 40%

Reaction Papers, Reports, Term Paper
Midterm/Final Examination - 60%
Total - 100%

2
 COURSE CONTENT

Module I INTRODUCTION

Lesson 1: Overview to Language Acquisition

Lesson 2: Social Interactionism
Lesson 3: Relational Frame Theory
Lesson 4: Emergentism
Lesson 5: Empiricism
Lesson 6: Chunking

Module II STYLISTICS: A
BACKGROUNDER

Lesson 1: Language of Literature

Lesson 2: Language of Poetry
Lesson 3: Language of Prose
Lesson 4: Language of Drama

e STYLISTICS ANALYSIS

Lesson 1: Stylistics Analysis

Lesson 2: Levels of Stylistics Analysis:
Graphological Level
Lesson 3: Levels of Stylistics Analysis:
Grammatical Levels
Lesson 4: Levels of Stylistics Analysis: Semantic
Level

Module IV TEXTUAL ANALYSES

Lesson 1: Poetry
Lesson 2: Prose
Lesson 3: Drama
Lesson 4: Expositions

3
 THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

 INTRODUCTION

This module presents different topics such as the overview to language acquisition,
and different theories under language and language acquisition. It is expected that you will
be knowledgeable in the concepts of stylistics and be able to apply it in other English
subjects and later in your language research.

Furthermore, it is with high expectation that you will learn and appreciate stylistics
which you may use as a background cognitive as you pursue your course and later in your
career.

OBJECTIVES
a. Explain the different theories on language acquisition
b. Examine the language acquisition theories through a report
c. Design a theory which includes all presented theory using a model or a figure

4
Lesson 1

 OVERVIEW TO LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION

Overview to Language Acquisition (Shukla, Suraj. Linguistics, Phonetics and English

Language Teaching. Deepak Offset Press Delhi. FOR 410 Sh562. 2014)
The behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner was the first theorist to propose a
fully-fledged theory of language acquisition in his book, Verbal Behavior (Skinner
1957). His theory of learning was closely related to his theory of linguistic behavior
itself. He argued that human linguistic behavior (that is, our own utterances and our
responses to the utterances of others) is determined by two factors:
(i) the current features of the environment impinging on the speaker, and
(ii) the speaker's history of reinforcement
(i.e., the giving or withholding of rewards and/or punishments in
response to previous linguistic behaviors).
Eschewing talk of the mental as unscientific, Skinner argued that ‘knowing’ a
language is just a matter of having a certain set of behavioral dispositions:
dispositions to say (and do) appropriate things in response to the world and the
utterances of others. Thus, knowing English is, in small part, a matter of being
disposed to utter “Please close the door!” when one is cold as a result of a draught
from an open door, and of being disposed (other things being equal) to utter “OK”
and go shut a door in response to someone else's utterance of that formula.
Given his view that knowing a language is just a matter of having a certain
set of behavioral dispositions, Skinner believed that learning a language just
amounts to acquiring that set of dispositions. He argued that this occurs through a
process that he called operant conditioning. (‘Operants’ are behaviors that have no
discernible law-like relation to particular environmental conditions or ‘eliciting
stimuli.’ They are to be contrasted with ‘respondents,’ which are reliable or reflex
responses to particular stimuli. Thus, blinking when someone pokes at your eye is a
respondent; episodes of infant babbling are operants.) Skinner held that most human
verbal behaviors are operants: they start off unconnected with any particular
stimuli. However, they can acquire connections to stimuli (or other behaviors) as a
result of conditioning. In conditioning, the behavior in question is made more (or in
some paradigms less) likely to occur in response to a given environmental cue by the
imposition of an appropriate ‘schedule of reinforcement’: rewards or punishments
are given or withheld as the subject's response to the cue varies over time.
According to Skinner, language is learned when children's verbal operants are
brought under the ‘control’ of environmental conditions as a result of training by
their caregivers. They are rewarded (by, e.g., parental approval) or punished (by,
say, a failure of comprehension) for their various linguistic productions and as a
result, their dispositions to verbal behavior gradually converge on those of the wider
language community. Likewise, Skinner held, ‘understanding’ the utterances of
others is a matter of being trained to perform appropriate behaviors in response to
them: one understands ‘Shut the door!’ to the extent that one responds
appropriately to that utterance.

5
 In his famous review of Skinner's book, Chomsky (1959) effectively demolishes
Skinner's theories of both language mastery and language learning. First, Chomsky
argued, mastery of a language is not merely a matter of having one's verbal behaviors
‘controlled’ by various elements of the environment, including others' utterances.
For language use is (i) stimulus independent and (ii) historically unbound. Language
use is stimulus independent: virtually any words can be spoken in response to any
environmental stimulus, depending on one's state of mind. Language use is
also historically unbound: what we say is not determined by our history of
reinforcement, as is clear from the fact that we can and do say things that we have
not been trained to say.
The same points apply to comprehension. We can understand sentences we
have never heard before, even when they are spoken in odd or unexpected
situations. And how we react to the utterances of others is again dependent largely
on our state of mind at the time, rather than any past history of training. There are
linguistic conventions in abundance, to be sure, but as Chomsky rightly pointed out,
human ‘verbal behavior’ is quite disanalogous to a pigeon's disk-pecking or a rat's
maze-running.. Mastery of language is not a matter of having a bunch of mere
behavioral dispositions. Instead, it involves a wealth of pragmatic, semantic and
syntactic knowledge. What we say in a given circumstance, and how we respond to
what others say, is the result of a complex interaction between our history, our
beliefs about our current situation, our desires, and our knowledge of how our
language works. Skinner's first big mistake, then, was in failing to recognize that
language mastery involves knowledge (or, as Chomsky later called it ‘cognizance’)
of linguistic rules and conventions.
His second big mistake was related to this one: he failed to recognize that
acquiring mastery of a language is not a matter of being trained what to say. It's
simply false, says Chomsky, that “a careful arrangement of contingencies of
reinforcement by the verbal community is a necessary condition of language
learning.” (1959:39) First, children learning language do not appear to be being
‘conditioned’ at all! Explicit training (such as a dog receives when learning to bark
on command) is simply not a feature of language acquisition. It's only comparatively
rarely that parents correct (or explicitly reward) their children's linguistic sorties;
children learn much of what they know about language from watching TV or passively
listening to adults; immigrant children learn a second language to native speaker
fluency in the school playground; and even very young children are capable of
linguistic innovation, saying things undreamt of by their parents. As Chomsky
concludes: “It is simply not true that children can learn language only through
‘meticulous care’ on the part of adults who shape their verbal repertoire through
careful differential reinforcement.” (1959:42)
Secondly, Chomsky argued — and here we see his first invocation of the
famous ‘poverty of the stimulus’ argument, to be discussed in more detail in §2.2
below — it is unclear that conditioning could even in principle give rise to a set of
dispositions rich enough to generate the full range of a person's linguistic behavior.
In order, for example, to acquire the appropriate set of dispositions concerning the
word car, one would have to be trained on vast numbers of sentences containing
that word: one would have to hear car in object position and car in subject
position; car modified by adjectives and car unmodified; car embedded in opaque
contexts (e.g. in propositional attitude ascriptions) and car used transparently; and

6
so on. But the ‘primary linguistic data,’ usually referred to as the ‘pld’ and
comprising the set of sentences to which a child is exposed during language learning
(plus any analysis performed by the child on those sentences; see below), simply
cannot be assumed to contain enough of these ‘minimally differing sentences’ to
fully determine a person's dispositions with respect to that word. Instead, Chomsky
argued, what determines one's dispositions to use car is one's knowledge of that
word's syntactic and semantic properties (e.g., car is a noun referring to cars),
together with one's knowledge of how elements with those properties function in
the language as a whole. So even if language mastery were (in part) a matter of
having dispositions concerning car, the mechanism of conditioning would be unable
to give rise to them. The training set to which children have access is simply too
limited: it doesn't contain enough of the right sorts of exemplars.
In sum: Skinner was mistaken on all counts. Language mastery is not merely
a matter of having a set of bare behavioral dispositions. Instead, it involves intricate
and detailed knowledge of the properties of one's language. And language learning
is not a matter of being trained what to say. Instead, children learn language just
from hearing it spoken around them, and they learn it effortlessly, rapidly, and
without much in the way of overt instruction.
These insights were to drive linguistic theorizing for the next fifty years, and
it's worth emphasizing just how radical and exciting they were at the time. First,
the idea that explaining language use involves attributing knowledge to speakers
flouted the prevailing behaviorist view that talking about mental states was
unscientific because mental states are unobservable. It also raised several pressing
empirical question that linguists are still debating. For example, what is
the content of speakers' knowledge of language?[3] What sorts of facts about
language are represented in speakers' heads? And how does this knowledge actually
function in the psychological processes of language production and comprehension:
what are the mechanisms of language use?
Secondly, the idea that children learn language essentially on their own was
a radical challenge to the prevailing behaviorist idea that all learning involves
reinforcement. In addition, it made clear our need for a more ‘cognitive’ or
‘mentalistic’ conception of how language learning occurs, and vividly raised the
question — our focus in this article — of what might be the preconditions for that
process.

 LEARNING ACTIVITY

Activity 1
Create an outline overview to Language Acquisition

7
Lesson 2

 SOCIAL INTERACTIONISM

Symbolic interactionism is a micro-level theory that focuses on the

relationships among individuals within a society. Communication—the exchange of
meaning through language and symbols—is believed to be the way in which people
make sense of their social worlds. Theorists Herman and Reynolds (1994) note that
this perspective sees people as being active in shaping the social world rather than
simply being acted upon.

George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is considered a founder of symbolic

interactionism though he never published his work on it (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
Mead’s student, Herbert Blumer, coined the term “symbolic interactionism” and
outlined these basic premises: humans interact with things based on meanings
ascribed to those things; the ascribed meaning of things comes from our interactions
with others and society; the meanings of things are interpreted by a person when
dealing with things in specific circumstances (Blumer 1969). If you love books, for
example, a symbolic interactionist might propose that you learned that books are
good or important in the interactions you had with family, friends, school, or church;
maybe your family had a special reading time each week, getting your library card
was treated as a special event, or bedtime stories were associated with warmth and
comfort.

Social scientists who apply symbolic-interactionist thinking look for patterns of

interaction between individuals. Their studies often involve observation of one-on-
one interactions. For example, while a conflict theorist studying a political protest
might focus on class difference, a symbolic interactionist would be more interested
in how individuals in the protesting group interact, as well as the signs and symbols
protesters use to communicate their message. The focus on the importance of
symbols in building a society led sociologists like Erving Goffman (1922–1982) to
develop a technique called dramaturgical analysis. Goffman used theater as an
analogy for social interaction and recognized that people’s interactions showed
patterns of cultural “scripts.” Because it can be unclear what part a person may play
in a given situation, he or she has to improvise his or her role as the situation unfolds
(Goffman 1958).

Studies that use the symbolic interactionist perspective are more likely to use
qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or participant
observation, because they seek to understand the symbolic worlds in which research
subjects live.

“The interactionist approach (sociocultural theory) combines ideas from sociology

and biology to explain how language is developed. According to this theory, children
learn language out of a desire to communicate with the world around them.
Language emerges from, and is dependent upon, social interaction. The

8
Interactionist approach claims that if our language ability develops out of a desire
to communicate, then language is dependent upon whom we want to communicate
with. This means the environment you grow up in will heavily affect how well and
how quickly you learn to talk. For example, infants being raised by only their mother
are more likely to learn the word “mama”, and less likely to develop “dada”. Among
the first words we learn are ways to demand attention or food. If you’ve ever tried
to learn a new language, you may recognize this theory’s influence. Language classes
often teach commonly used vocabulary and phrases first, and then focus on building
conversations rather than simple rote memorization. Even when we expand our
vocabularies in our native language, we remember the words we use the most.”

Constructivism is an extension of symbolic interaction theory which proposes that

reality is what humans cognitively construct it to be. We develop social constructs
based on interactions with others, and those constructs that last over time are those
that have meanings which are widely agreed-upon or generally accepted by most
within the society. This approach is often used to understand what’s defined as
deviant within a society. There is no absolute definition of deviance, and different
societies have constructed different meanings for deviance, as well as associating
different behaviors with deviance. One situation that illustrates this is what you
believe you’re to do if you find a wallet in the street. In the United States, turning
the wallet in to local authorities would be considered the appropriate action, and
to keep the wallet would be seen as deviant. In contrast, many Eastern societies
would consider it much more appropriate to keep the wallet and search for the
owner yourself; turning it over to someone else, even the authorities, would be
considered deviant behavior.

 LEARNING ACTIVITY
Activity 2
Make a mnemonic for the authors of Social Interactionism

9
Lesson 3

 RELATIONAL FRAME THEORY

The relational frame theory is a psychological approach that helps understand

the processes of language and cognition. The functional contextual theory
approaches verbal events as activities and not as products.
On a daily basis, people normally deal with a wide variety of objects and they
can relate to one another in different, abstract or formal ways. People can compare
objects based on their shape, size, colour, function, value, texture, etc. Therefore,
two stimuli can be related to each other on the basis of many such properties. For
example, when we say that a car is costlier than a cycle we are responding
relationally. According to the theory, deriving stimulus relations is a learned
behavior.

The behavior analytic approach explains language and cognition as arbitrarily

applicable relational responding and is also known as relational frames. The term
‘arbitrarily applicable’ is used when social conventions define the relationships
among stimuli. For example, a boy is more likely to be named Ben than Martha
because social conventions dictate the relationship between the person Ben and the
name Ben.

Language learning therefore is the learning of different patterns of relational

frames. Humans do not relate to objects based on their physical relation alone but
they use contextual cues or relational frames to help decide how to relate.

For example, animals can be trained to relate to objects physically and this
helps them to successfully pick the biggest object from a set placed before them.
Humans, are verbally endowed like a child who has the information that Ben is taller
than Paul then, the, questioned as to who is shorter of the two will easily pick Paul.
The child chooses the correct answer even though he has not seen the two men. For
the child, the terms ‘taller’ and ‘shorter’ are contextual cues and he relies on them
rather than on physical relations to give his answer.

In the above example, it is seen that the taught relation is arbitrarily

applicable to any stimulus, irrespective of their physical properties.

Examples of Frames
There are different types of frames that an individual gets trained in by repeated
interactions with his native language community where such patterns are used. Some
commonly used frames are:

▪ Sameness: 0.75 is the same as 3/4

10
▪ Opposition: Thin is opposite of fat
▪ Difference: A lorry is different from a car
▪ Comparison: A tree is bigger than a fruit
▪ Perspective Taking: He is there and you are here

 LEARNING ACTIVITY
Activity
Explain how the relational frame theory can be used in
language learning through an illustration.

Lesson 4

 EMERGENTISM

In philosophy, emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it

involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and as it contrasts (or not)
with reductionism. A property of a system is said to be emergent if it is a new
outcome of some other properties of the system and their interaction, while it is
itself unexpected and different from them.[1] Emergent properties are not identical
with, reducible to, or deducible from the other properties. The different ways in
which this independence requirement can be satisfied lead to variant types of
emergence.

All varieties of emergentism strive to be compatible with physicalism, the

theory that the universe is composed exclusively of physical entities, and in
particular with the evidence relating changes in the brain with changes in mental
functioning. Many forms of emergentism, including proponents of complex adaptive
systems, do not hold a material but rather a relational or processural view of the
universe. Furthermore, they view mind–body dualism as a conceptual error insofar
as mind and body are merely different types of relationships. As a theory of mind
(which it is not always), emergentism differs from idealism, eliminative
materialism, identity theories, neutral monism, panpsychism, and substance
dualism, whilst being closely associated with property dualism. It is generally not
obvious whether an emergent theory of mind embraces mental causation or must
be considered epiphenomenal.

Some varieties of emergentism are not specifically concerned with the mind-
body problem, and instead suggest a hierarchical or layered view of the whole of
nature, with the layers arranged in terms of increasing complexity with each
requiring its own special science. Typically physics (mathematical
physics, particle physics, and classical physics) is basic, with chemistry built on
top of it, then biology, psychology and social sciences. Reductionists respond that
the arrangement of the sciences is a matter of convenience, and that chemistry is

11
derivable from physics (and so forth) in principle, an argument which gained force
after the establishment of a quantum-mechanical basis for chemistry.[2]

Other varieties see mind or consciousness as specifically and anomalously

requiring emergentist explanation, and therefore constitute a family of positions in
the philosophy of mind. Douglas Hofstadter summarises this view as “the soul is
more than the sum of its parts”. A number of philosophers have offered the
argument that qualia constitute the hard problem of consciousness, and resist
reductive explanation in a way that all other phenomena do not. In contrast,
reductionists generally see the task of accounting for the possibly atypical properties
of mind and of living things as a matter of showing that, contrary to appearances,
such properties are indeed fully accountable in terms of the properties of the basic
constituents of nature and therefore in no way genuinely atypical.

Intermediate positions are possible: for instance, some emergentists hold that
emergence is neither universal nor restricted to consciousness, but applies to (for
instance) living creatures, or self organising systems, or complex systems.

Some philosophers hold that emergent properties causally interact with more
fundamental levels, an idea known as downward causation. Others maintain that
higher-order properties simply supervene over lower levels without direct causal
interaction.

All the cases so far discussed have been synchronic, i.e. the emergent
property exists simultaneously with its basis. Yet another variation operates
diachronically. Emergentists of this type believe that genuinely novel properties can
come into being, without being accountable in terms of the preceding history of the
universe. (Contrast with indeterminism where it is only the arrangement or
configuration of matter that is unaccountable). These evolution-inspired theories
often have a theological aspect, as in the process philosophy of Alfred North
Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.

The concept of emergence has been applied to the theory of literature and
art, history, linguistics, cognitive sciences, etc. by the teachings of Jean-Marie
Grassin at the University of Limoges (v. esp.: J. Fontanille, B. Westphal, J. Vion-
Dury, éds. L’Émergenceh—Poétique de l’Émergence, en réponse aux travaux de
Jean-Marie Grassin, Bern, Berlin, etc., 2011; and: the article “Emergence” in the
International Dictionary of Literary Terms (DITL).

 LEARNING ACTIVITY
Activity 2
Explain this: Some varieties of emergentism are not specifically
concerned with the mind-body problem.

12
Lesson 5

 EMPIRICISM

Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that
all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all
rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through
experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the
term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”
Concepts are said to be “a posteriori” (Latin: “from the latter”) if they can be
applied only on the basis of experience, and they are called “a priori” (“from the
former”) if they can be applied independently of experience. Beliefs or propositions
are said to be a posteriori if they are knowable only on the basis of experience and
a priori if they are knowable independently of experience (see a posteriori
knowledge). Thus, according to the second and third definitions of empiricism
above, empiricism is the view that all concepts, or all rationally acceptable beliefs
or propositions, are a posteriori rather than a priori.

The first two definitions of empiricism typically involve an implicit theory

of meaning, according to which words are meaningful only insofar as they convey
concepts. Some empiricists have held that all concepts are either mental “copies”
of items that are directly experienced or complex combinations of concepts that are
themselves copies of items that are directly experienced. This view is closely linked
to the notion that the conditions of application of a concept must always be specified
in experiential terms.

The third definition of empiricism is a theory of knowledge, or theory of

justification. It views beliefs, or at least some vital classes of belief—e.g.,
the belief that this object is red—as depending ultimately and necessarily on
experience for their justification. An equivalent way of stating this thesis is to say
that all human knowledge is derived from experience.

Empiricism regarding concepts and empiricism regarding knowledge do not strictly

imply each other. Many empiricists have admitted that there are a
priori propositions but have denied that there are a priori concepts. It is rare,
however, to find a philosopher who accepts a priori concepts but denies a priori
propositions.

Stressing experience, empiricism often opposes the claims of authority, intuition,

imaginative conjecture, and abstract, theoretical, or systematic reasoning as
sources of reliable belief. Its most fundamental antithesis is with the latter—i.e.,
with rationalism, also called intellectualism or apriorism. A rationalist theory of
concepts asserts that some concepts are a priori and that these concepts are innate,
or part of the original structure or constitution of the mind. A rationalist theory of
knowledge, on the other hand, holds that some rationally acceptable propositions—
perhaps including “every thing must have a sufficient reason for its existence”

13
(the principle of sufficient reason)—are a priori. A priori propositions, according to
rationalists, can arise from intellectual intuition, from the direct apprehension of
self-evident truths, or from purely deductive reasoning.

 LEARNING ACTIVITY
Activity
Describe the origin of empiricism.

Lesson 6

 CHUNKING

Think about the amount of information that you have to process each day. You read
reports and emails, discuss problems, hold team briefings, and watch webinars.

Some of the information that you receive is easy to understand and remember; some
of it is not. The difference is often in how the information is presented.

As an example, imagine that you're playing the memory game, "What's Missing?" You
have to memorize all the items that are presented to you on a tray – and then work
out which one has been removed.

First, imagine that the tray is presented with all the items in a jumble. Can you
figure out what's missing? Next, imagine what it's like if the items are organized
according to size, color or shape. It's so much easier to spot what's missing this time!

When the items are categorized, the "information" on the tray is much easier to
understand and retain. And there's no need to look at each item individually, as you
can skim the tray and see exactly what's being presented. This process of grouping
information to make it clearer and more memorable is known as "chunking."

Evidence that chunking works is all around us:

• Telephone numbers and credit card numbers are typically chunked in groups of
three or four digits.

• When you encounter a phone number (or other familiar grouping) that's chunked
in an unfamiliar way, it can be much harder to remember it.

14
• Rather than memorizing the initials of the Great Lakes as unrelated letters, such
as S – M – H – E – O (for Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario), most people
find them easier to remember as a single word: HOMES!

When you need to pass on written or verbal information to others, chunking can help
them to understand and remember it. A written format that is chunked and
organized logically gives readers quick access to the big picture. From there, they
can get into the details as needed. And a verbal format that uses chunking can be
particularly effective for helping people to follow and remember key ideas.

 SUMMATIVE TEST
a. Make a video to report the different language theories,
second language theories, and multi language acquisition
b. Design a theory which includes all presented theory using a
model or a figure

15
 Module 2
ELSC 102-THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

OBJECTIVES

a. Compare and contrast bilingualism and multilingualism

b. Develop a report on second language and multilingual language acquisition

c. Discuss what is bilingual development

d. Explain the different factors that affect bilingual development

e. Support the claims of bilingual development through the use of research

Lesson 1
Introduction to language acquisition: Child language acquisition
Language is a very important part of life. Communication between people not
only enables us to understand one-another, but aids in developing relationships and
allows us to communicate our problems, suggestions and plans. I’m sure you can all
agree that language is a crucial part of everyday life. But how did we learn to speak?
How do we know what to say and when to say certain things? Language Acquisition
is something that can often be misunderstood, simplified, or even forgotten. Yet
from the word GO, acquiring language and using language is an amazing ability we,
as human-beings, have.

16
Key terms
• Babbling – The experimentation of sounds by an infant, tending to include
recognisable words.
• Inflections – The modification of words grammatically to form different
tenses or number. E.g. cat (singular) + -s (inflection) = cats (plural) E.g. walk
(present tense) + -ed (inflection) = walked (past tense)
• Intonation – The rise and fall of voice when speaking. Enables differentiation
between phrases. E.g. questions, exclamations etc, all use different
intonation patterns
• Phonemes – Small segments of sound.
Subject literature provides guidelines for the average age specific language features
are acquired – but different authors cite different milestone dates, depending on
where they conducted their research. So it’s important to note that dates, in terms
of specific linguistic milestones, are not concrete and can vary slightly from child to
child (see Language Acquisition in Exceptional Circumstances for more information).

17
What’s acquired?
In order to speak a language as adults do, children need to have acquired five areas
of linguistic competence: Phonology, Lexis, Semantics, Grammar and Pragmatics.

Phonology
Phonological development is the acquisition of sounds in order to pronounce words.
Child Language Acquisition begins at birth. The inner ear has the only bones in the
whole body which are fully formed at birth, thus enabling the child to start
recognising their mother’s voice in the first day of living and also allowing the child
to differentiate one language from another at such an early stage. The vocal tract
is not fully developed at birth which, when compared to the formation of the inner
ear, helps to biologically explain why it is that perception of sounds comes before
the ability to produce sounds. Through ‘vocal playing’ (highlighted in the 5 pre-
verbal stages below) children learn to control their vocal tract to produce sounds
accurately (REMEMBER: Each child differs, so the dates provided are a guideline).
• Basic Biological Noises (approximately 0-8 weeks) – Vocalisations: coughing,
crying, a low cooing, laughing etc.
• Cooing and Laughing (approximately 8-20 weeks) – Short vowel-like sounds
produced when the baby is in a settled state: more melodic than biological noises.
At three and a half months, a baby’s voice box is in place and gradual control of
vocal muscles is gained.
• Vocal Play (approximately 20-30 weeks) – ‘Cooing’ sounds develop into sounds
which are much more definite and controlled.
• Babbling (approximately 25-50 weeks) – All babies babble! It is an innate feature
of human beings: even deaf babies babble. There are two stages of babbling:
• Reduplicated babbling, for example [mamama], emerges from around 6
months
• Variegated babbling, for example [adu] and [maba], is when there is movement
away from fixed patterns and sounds become more complex and closer to
speech. Consonants and vowels can change from one syllable to the next.
• Melodic Utterance (approximately 36-72 weeks) -Intonation, rhythm and
melody develop, resulting in babies sounding more and more as though they
are speaking the language. The occasional few words may have started to
appear. Parents start to assume different sounds resemble different
linguistical structures, such as questioning, exclaiming and greeting etc.
Babies of different nationalities sound increasingly different from each other.
64 Week Old Baby “Talk”

Lexis
Lexical development is the acquisition of words.

Katherine Nelson[2] classified children’s first 50 words as:

1. Naming things or people: ball, Daddy, juice, milk.

2. Actions or events: down, more, up.

18
3. Describing or modifying things: dirty, nice, pretty.
4. Personal or social words: hi, bye-bye.
Semantics
Semantic development is the acquisition of the meaning of words. Children tend to
use words more broadly than adults and over-extensions and under-extensions are
found to be produced.

• Over Extensions – A child uses a word in a broad sense. For example, the word
‘dog’ may be used to refer to all four-legged animals with a tail. Over-extensions
reflect a child’s learning and their growing knowledge of the world; noticing
similarities and differences between objects.
• Under Extensions -A child uses a word more narrowly than an adult would. For
example, using the word ‘shoe’ only when referring to their own shoes.
These features of semantic development are crucial in gaining meaning and
understanding of words. Eventually, children will overcome these features.

Grammar/Syntax
There are three main stages of grammatical development.

Holophrastic Stage (12-18 months) -The Holophrastic stage consists of children

learning and producing single word utterances that function as phrases or sentences.
For example:
• ‘Gone’ could mean ‘it’s all gone’
• ‘Teddy’ could mean ‘that’s my teddy’
• ‘More’ could mean ‘I want more’
Sometimes children’s productions are longer and are considered as being one unit
or a whole phrase (this is called a Holophrase). For example:

• ‘Allgone’ and ‘Gosleep’

Intonation plays a key role during this stage. Children learn the ability to distinguish
between interrogative, declarative and imperative phrases, and despite their
limited grammatical structuring, are able to aid their communication more
effectively. For example:

• ‘Dada?’ said with a rising intonation, would imply a question

• ‘Dada’ said with a falling intonation, would imply declarative statement
• ‘Dada!’ said in exclamation, would imply imperative statement
Two-word Stage (18-24 months) – The Two-word stage comprises a child using
(quite obviously, as stated in the title) two words to form a sentence. ‘Baby chair’,
‘Mummy eat’ and ‘Cat bad’ are all examples of utterances at this stage and as it
may be obvious, require interpretation. Context of an utterance can aid the
ambiguity behind such statements. For example:
• ‘Baby chair’ could mean…
1. Possession: ‘this is baby’s chair’
2. Request/command: ‘put baby in chair’
3. Statement: ‘baby is in the chair’

19
 Telegraphic Stage (2-3 years) – The Telegraphic stage, is when children have
acquired and start to use multiple-word utterances. At this stage, some of the
children’s utterances are grammatically correct…
• ‘Amy likes tea’ – (Subject + Verb + Object)
• ‘teddy looks tired’ – (Subject + Verb + Adjective)
• ‘Mummy sleeps upstairs’ – (Subject + Verb + Adverbial)
Whilst others have grammatical elements missing…

• ‘This shoe all wet’ – (the stative verb carrying meaning is missing: is)
Children are more likely to retain CONTENT words (nouns, verbs and adjectives that
refer to real things) and FUNCTION words (that have grammatical function:
pronouns, prepositions and auxiliary verbs) are often omitted.
Overgeneralisations are also found at this stage. This is when children make virtuous
errors in their allocation of inflections. For example:
The inflection -s to mark plurality is seen to be added to irregular verbs: sheep –
sheeps
The inflection -ed to mark past tense is seen to be added to irregular verbs: go –
goed
Such examples would suggest that children try to figure out grammar by themselves,
using grammatical rules productively to establish forms, not by hearing form from
the people around them in their environment. Children would not hear such
examples as ‘goed’ from the adults around them.

Pragmatics
Pragmatic development highlights children’s motivation to acquire language in the
first place, as it serves different purposes and functions. Pragmatics aren’t acquired
immediately, nor does it take a short period of time for a child to acquire them.
This process is on-going until the age of approximately 10 years.

Halliday[3] classified functions of language as being:

1. INSTRUMENTAL – to express needs

2. REGULATORY – to control behaviours of others
3. INTERACTIONAL – to relate to others
4. HEURISTIC – to gain knowledge of the environment
5. PERSONAL – to express yourself
6. IMAGINATIVE – to use language imaginatively
7. INFORMATIVE – to convey facts and information
If you are unsure of any of the terminology on this page you can revise your
knowledge in our Glossary.

Bi/multilingualism
Bilingualism, Ability to speak two languages. It may be acquired early by
children in regions where most adults speak two languages (e.g., French and
dialectal German in Alsace). Children may also become bilingual by learning

20
languages in two different social settings; for example, British children in British
India learned an Indian language from their nurses and family servants. A second
language can also be acquired in school. Bilingualism can also refer to the use of two
languages in teaching, especially to foster learning in students trying to learn a new
language. Advocates of bilingual education in the U.S. argue that it speeds learning
in all subjects for children who speak a foreign language at home and prevents them
from being marginalized in English-language schools. Detractors counter that it
hinders such children from mastering the language of the larger society and limits
their opportunities for employment and higher education.

People may become bilingual either by acquiring two languages at the same
time in childhood or by learning a second language sometime after acquiring their
first language.
Many bilingual people grow up speaking two languages. Often in America such
people are the children of immigrants; these children grow up speaking their parents'
native language in their childhood home while speaking English at school. Many
bilinguals, however, are not immigrants; it is not uncommon for people born in the
U.S. to speak English at school or work and another language at home. Children can
also become bilingual if their parents speak more than one language to them, or if
some other significant person in their life (such as a grandparent or caretaker)
speaks to them consistently in another language. Sometimes a child will grow up in
a household in which each parent speaks a different language; in that case, the child
may learn to speak to each parent in that parent's language. In short, a young child
who is regularly exposed to two languages from an early age will most likely become
a fluent native speaker of both languages. The exposure must involve interaction; a
child growing up in an English-speaking household who is exposed to Spanish only
through Spanish-language television won't become a Spanish-English bilingual, but a
child who is regularly spoken to in both English and Spanish will.
It is also possible to learn a second language sometime after early childhood,
but the older you get, the harder it is to learn to speak a new language as well as a
native speaker. Many linguists believe there is a 'critical period' (lasting roughly from
birth until puberty) during which a child can easily acquire any language that he or
she is regularly exposed to. Under this view, the structure of the brain changes at
puberty, and after that it becomes harder to learn a new language. This means that
it is much easier to learn a second language during childhood than as an adult.
In some countries, nearly everybody is bilingual or multilingual. In parts of
India, for example, a small child usually knows several languages. In many European
countries, children are encouraged to learn a second language - typically English. In
fact, the U.S. is quite unusual among the countries of the world in that many of its
citizens speak only English, and they are rarely encouraged to become fluent in any
other language.

21
Multilingualism

When people hear the term bilingual many imagine an individual who speaks
two languages perfectly. For them someone who is 'truly' bilingual is two native
speakers in one. They imagine that such a person can speak, understand, read, and
write in two languages at the highest levels. For others, the term bilingual means
something quite different. When newly arrived immigrant children entering U.S.
schools, for example, are described as 'bilingual children,' the term is often used as
a euphemism for 'poor' and 'uneducated'. In this case, newly arrived immigrant
children do not yet function in two languages. They are monolingual speakers of
their first language and not bilingual at all. The term bilingual here is used to convey
a very different set of meanings from what linguists intend.

Defining Multilingualism
The question of how to define bilingualism or multilingualism has engaged
researchers for a very long time. Some researchers have favored a narrow definition
of bilingualism and argued that only those individuals who are very close to two
monolinguals in one should be considered bilingual.
More recently, however, researchers who study bilingual and multilingual
communities around the world have argued for a broad definition that views
bilingualism as a common human condition that makes it possible for an individual
to function, at some level, in more than one language. The key to this very broad
and inclusive definition of bilingualism is 'more than one'.
From the perspective of this framework, a bilingual individual is not
necessarily an ambilingual (an individual with native competency in two languages)
but a bilingual of a specific type who, along with other bilinguals of many different
types, can be classified along a continuum. Some bilinguals possess very high levels
of proficiency in both languages in the written and the oral modes. Others display
varying proficiencies in comprehension and/or speaking skills depending on the
immediate area of experience in which they are called upon to use their two
languages.
According to this perspective, one admits into the company of bilinguals
individuals who can, to whatever degree, comprehend or produce written or spoken
utterances in more than one language. Thus, persons able to read in a second
language (e.g. French) but unable to function in the spoken language are considered
to be bilinguals of a certain type and placed at one end of the continuum. Such
persons are said to have receptive competence in a second language and to be 'more
bilingual' than monolinguals who have neither receptive nor productive abilities in a
language other than their first. The judgment here is comparative: total
monolingualism versus a minor degree of ability to comprehend a second language.

22
Types of Bi- and Multilinguals
Because there are very different kinds of bilinguals and multilinguals, much
effort in the study of bilingualism has gone into developing categories which might
make the measurement and description of these differences possible. The categories
used to describe different types of bilinguals reflect different researchers' interests
in focusing on specific aspects of bilingual ability or experience. Researchers
concerned about the age of acquisition of bilingualism, for example, classify
bilingual individuals as either early or late bilinguals and further subdivide early
bilinguals into simultaneous bilinguals (those who acquired two languages
simultaneously as a first language) or sequential bilinguals (those who acquired the
second language (L2) after the first language (L1) was acquired). Researchers, on
the other hand, concerned about the differences between persons who choose to
study a second language and those who grow up in communities where several
languages are spoken have used the terms elite, academic, and elective bilinguals
for the former and natural, folk, and circumstantial bilinguals for the latter.
The usefulness of these labels and categories clearly depends on the specific
interest a researcher has in bilingualism. Meaningful comparisons of bilingual
persons cannot generally be made unless attention is given to the differences and
similarities between these individuals in terms of a number of key dimensions such
as age of acquisition of the second language, circumstances in which the two
languages are used, patterns of use of the two languages in the surrounding
community, level of formal education received in each language, and degrees of
proficiency.

Second language acquisition/ Multilingual language acquisition

Second language acquisition, or SLA, has two meanings. In a general sense it

is a term to describe learning a second language. More specifically, it is the name of
the theory of the process by which we acquire - or pick up - a second language. This
is mainly a subconscious process which happens while we focus on communication.
It can be compared with second language learning, which describes how formal
language education helps us learn language through more conscious processes.

Example
A learner studying in an English-speaking country may have more success due to the
language they acquire in their part-time job than with the language they learn in
their class.

In the classroom
Implications for the language classroom include the ideas that the teacher can
create contexts for communication which facilitate acquisition, that there is a
natural order of acquisition of language, that there are affective filters which inhibit
acquisition, especially for adults, and that comprehensible input is very important.

23
Multilingual language acquisition
`Before we explore how language learning works in multilingual contexts, it
is important to understand how communication works in multilingual communities.
For important reasons to be discussed below, modern linguistics has posited a model
of monolingual communication as the norm for its theorization. For example,
Chomsky assumed linguistic competence as intuitive, monolingual, and developing
in a homogeneous community.
As many have noted, this is an idealization that does not exist in many communities
in the world, let alone in the West. How do people communicate in communities
which are linguistically heterogeneous? Indian linguist Khubchandani (1997) has
provided a book-length treatment of the way communication works in South Asia.
His insights are supported by other linguists from the region (Annamalai, 2001;
Bright, 1984; Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004; Mohanty, 2006). Khubchandani‘s depiction
challenges many of the assumptions we take for granted in our field. He argues that
the orientation to community is different from those in the West. Community for
South Asians is not based on a shared language or culture. The theorization of speech
community as based on shared language makes the notion of community in our field
homogeneous. For South Asians, community is based on shared space.
Therefore, it can accommodate many language groups living in the same
geographical space. Such communities assume diversity and contact. Language
diversity is the norm and not the exception in non-western communities. In such
communities, people are always open to negotiating diverse languages in their
everyday public life. Their shared space will typically feature dozens of languages
in every interaction. They do not assume that they will meet people who speak their
own language most of the time. This mind-set prepares them for negotiating
different languages as a fact of life. When they meet a person from another language
group, furthermore, they do not look for a common language that will facilitate their
interaction. In most cases, such a search will be futile so they usually start the
interaction in their own languages, but both parties retain their own preferred codes
in the conversation.
Such a practice makes us wonder how communication is possible when no
common code is shared. What enables people to communicate is not a shared
grammar, but communicative practices and strategies that are used to negotiate
their language differences. Furthermore, these strategies are not a form of
knowledge or cognitive competence, but a form of resourcefulness that speakers
employ in the unpredictable communicative situations they encounter.
Two of the strategies Khubchandani identifies are serendipity and synergy:
―Individuals in such societies acquire more synergy (i.e., putting forth one‘s own
efforts) and serendipity (i.e., accepting the other on his/her own terms, being open
to unexpectedness), and develop positive attitudes to variations in speech (to the

24
extent of even appropriating deviations as the norm in the lingua franca), in the
process of ‗coming out‘ from their own language-codes to a neutral ground‖ (p. 94).
What this means is that interlocutors are always open to codes they are not familiar
with in their conversations (serendipity). To achieve intelligibility and
communication in this context of diversity, they aim to find a common ground
between the codes and resources to achieve their interests (synergy).
When these strategies are adopted, even deviations can become norms (as
Khubchandani mentions in the quote above). The speakers negotiate their
differences to construct norms that work for them in their conversation. These are
intersubjective norms; they are co-constructed. 3 While these norms will work in
that particular context, they may not work for another set of communicators. Norms
have to be co-constructed in the local context, as befits their codes and purposes.
In this sense, preconstructed grammar will not help in multilingual contact
situations. The speakers have to co-construct the grammar that will be operational
in their interaction.
Grammar, therefore, is emergent in these contexts. The norms that are thus
operational in a multilingual interaction are hybrid, and accommodate the languages
the different persons bring to the interaction. Such hybrid codes have the possibility
of becoming forms of pidgins and creoles over time. Khubchandani mentions that
there are many such hybrid languages in South Asia, whose identities and origins are
difficult to locate as they have gone through deep mixing. While in other
communities language loyalties and ideologies will lead to these codes becoming
new and separate languages in their own right, in South Asia they are kept open for
further negotiation, appropriation, and hybridization.
To achieve communication out of such diversity, multilinguals also bring
certain attitudes that are helpful. They are always consensus-oriented and mutually
supportive to achieve their shared goals. Since there are always important social
objectives to be accomplished, multilinguals do not let language differences hinder
their objectives. They work around them with great equanimity. They also bring a
different orientation to communication from monolinguals. They do not depend only
on the verbal medium to accomplish intelligibility.
Communication involves using ecology as a resource; the objects in the
setting, the communicative context, the body, and paralinguistic cues all help in the
communication. Khubchandani argues that language in the region is ―regarded as a
non-autonomous device, communicating in symphony with other non-linguistic
devices; its full significance can be explicated only from the imperatives of context
and communicative tasks‖ (p. 40). More importantly, even intuition and extra-
sensory perception contribute to meaning-making.
Communication is not purely a cerebral or rational activity. In such
communities, language acquisition also works differently. Since the languages one
will confront in any one situation cannot be predicted, interlocutors cannot go
readily armed with the codes they need for an interaction. Therefore, in such
communities, language learning and language use work together. People learn the

25
language as they use them. They decode the other‘s grammar as they interact, make
inferences about the other‘s language system, and take them into account as they
formulate their own utterances. Based on her observations of multilinguals, House
(2003) argues that ―all these strategies seem to show that ELF [English lingua franca]
users are competent enough to be able to monitor each others‘ moves at a high level
of awareness‖ (p. 559). The objective of language learning is also different for
multilinguals. They do not aim to master a language for all purposes and functions.
They master the codes that are sufficient for the functions they want that
language to perform. There is no need to develop proficiency in all the languages
for the same purposes—or the same language for all purposes. Multilinguals adopt
different codes for different contexts and objectives. From this perspective, the
objective of their acquisition is repertoire building rather than total competence in
individual languages. Multilinguals prefer to develop a range of codes for a range of
purposes.
Bilingual development, the role of age, bilingualism and cognitive development

Factors Influencing Child Bilingual Acquisition

Compared to monolingual children, bilingual children are subject to many
more sources of variation in their language environment that may in principle
influence their pace and path of acquisition. Factors such as general cognitive
abilities and parental socio-economic status play a role for some facets of children’s
language development. Additionally two sets of factors are especially relevant in
the bilingual language acquisition context (Paradis and Jia, 2017; Chondrogianni,
2018): so-called age factors, related to the age of onset to the second language (see
Section “Age of Onset Effects in Child Bilingualism”), and so-called input factors,
related to input quantity and quality as well as to language dominance (see Section
“Effects of Language Input and Language Dominance”).

In some studies length of exposure to the second language has been classified
as an input effect as well (e.g., Unsworth, 2016; Chondrogianni, 2018). However,
length of exposure is related to age of onset as well as to the child’s chronological
age, often resulting in confounds between these factors. We return to this issue in
the discussion. Recently, Tsimpli (2014) has proposed “timing in L1 development of
the phenomena examined in bilingual children’s performance” as an additional
factor (see Section “Timing in L1 Acquisition”).

Taking up the well-known observation that results for bilingual children may
differ depending on the area of language being investigated, Tsimpli (2014) argues

26
that early and late acquired phenomena result in different outcomes for the
different types of bilinguals. According to her account, the linguistic factor “timing
in L1 acquisition” needs to be taken into account to meaningfully address the role
of age of onset and of language input.

Note that comparison of results in bilingualism studies is sometimes difficult, as

studies have investigated different aspects of the acquisition process. Some have
focused on the nature of the acquisition path, asking whether the acquisition phases
and their sequences are the same and whether the error patterns in each acquisition
phase are caused by the same underlying acquisition principles (Meisel,
2009; Schulz, 2013; Unsworth, 2013a; Rothweiler et al., 2017; Schulz and Schwarze,
2017). Others have focused on the pace of acquisition, asking how fast specific
acquisition stages are reached and at what age specific structures are mastered
(e.g., Grimm and Schulz, 2012; Paradis and Jia, 2017).

Still others have focused on the success of acquisition, asking whether

successful acquisition, often referred to as native-like attainment, is possible
(e.g., Kupisch and Rothman, 2018; see Schulz, 2012, for discussion of native-like
attainment in general). Given the standardized nature of our data, our study focuses
on questions of pace and success.

LEARNING ACTIVITY
1. Read this link:

27
 Lesson 2

Language development in children

Age of Onset Effects in Child Bilingualism

The presence of age effects in second language acquisition is uncontroversial.
A notably robust finding is that child second language learners in general outperform
adult second language learners (see the influential study by Johnson and Newport,
1989). This effect has been attributed to the existence of one or several critical
periods (Locke, 1997; Meisel, 2009, 2013; see Birdsong, 2006, for an overview) as
well as to other cognitive factors (e.g., Klein, 1996; Bialystok and Hakuta, 2010).
Recently bilingualism research has started to address the role of age of onset within
childhood bilingualism.

One line of research focuses on successive bilingual learners with different

ages of onset. Many studies on child L2 acquisition (age of onset of 6 to 7 years) have
found that child L2 learners perform much like adult learners and very differently
from eL2 children. Evidence for parallels between child L2 and adult L2 has been
reported for passive in German (Wegener, 1998) and for verb-second and subject-
verb agreement in German (Haberzettl, 2005; Rothweiler, 2006; Chilla, 2008).

However, in a study on passives in English, Rothman et al. (2016) found that

child L2 learners outperformed children with an age of onset of 4 to 5 years which
they attributed to so-called conceptual transfer from the L1 to the learners’ L2.
Many studies on eL2 acquisition (age of onset of 3 to 4 years) have found parallels
between eL2 and monolingual children. For example, eL2 children were reported to
perform in a similar fashion to monolingual children on subject-verb agreement and
verb-second in German in a number of different studies, producing the same types
of error patterns and showing a delay only regarding the age of mastery (Prévost,
2003; Tracy and Thoma, 2009; Tracy and Lemke, 2012; Grimm and Schulz,
2014b; Rothweiler et al., 2017; Schulz and Schwarze, 2017). eL2 children were also
found to acquire interpretation of German wh-questions in a similar fashion to
monolingual children, showing a delay of about 1 year (Schulz, 2013). In a study of

28
subject-verb agreement and clitic placement in L2 French, however, Meisel
(2008) found that eL2 children’s errors were similar to those found in L2 adults.

A further line of childhood bilingualism research focuses on the comparison

of simultaneous bilinguals (2L1) with other populations. Studies comparing 2L1 and
eL2 children have not found age of onset effects for the phenomena under
consideration. In a study of Dutch neuter gender, Unsworth et al. (2014) found that
2L1 and eL2 children behaved alike regarding consistency of gender assignment and
agreement.

Given their selection of participants, the authors were able to consider

length of exposure and age of onset separately and found that target-like gender
marking was controlled by length of exposure rather than by age of onset. In a study
of the comprehension of German wh-questions in 2L1 children and eL2
children Roesch and Chondrogianni (2016) did not find an effect of age on onset;
differences between the groups were accounted for by length of exposure. Similarly,
in a study of case and gender marking in noun phrases in German Hopp (2011) found
strong correlations between length of exposure and eL2 children’s performance, but
no effect of age on onset.

Studies comparing 2L1 children to monolingual children have generally found

that simultaneous bilinguals were not disadvantaged, acquiring the two languages in
a similar fashion and at a similar pace as their monolinguals peers (for an overview
see Genesee and Nicoladis, 2007). Some studies reported specific acceleration
effects, whereas other studies reported delays (see Hager and Müller, 2015, for a
discussion of robust and non-robust domains in 2L1 children in comparison to
monolingual children of the same language; see Müller, 2017, for a discussion of
sources for acceleration and delay).

Acceleration has been found for the area of morpho-syntax, with functional
elements from the more developed language serving as a bootstrap for the
acquisition of the functional elements of the other language (e.g., Gawlitzek-
Maiwald and Tracy, 1996). In a similar vein, Kupisch (2006) argued for a “booster”
effect in the development of determiners, caused by the bilingual children’s ability
to use their knowledge in one language when producing determiners in the other

29
language. Delays have been mainly reported for the lexical domain, with a 2L1
child’s vocabulary in either language being smaller than that of monolingual same-
age peers and with less accurate performance on rapid lexical retrieval tasks
(Bialystok, 2009). But delays have also been found for grammatical gender
(see Gathercole and Thomas, 2009, for Welsh; Eichler et al., 2013, for German
neuter gender) and for dative case/gender in German (Hager and Müller, 2015).

In short, whereas the existence of age of onset effects in second language

acquisition is undisputed, many open questions remain, including which are the
relevant cut-off points and whether the slogan “earlier is better” always holds. Also,
effects of age of onsets do not occur in isolation; they are related to factors such as
length of exposure and the age at which the learners were studied. The latter factor
is important because it determines whether we can expect bilingual learners to have
had enough time to catch up and acquire the specific phenomenon by the tested
age. This in turn points to the factor “timing in L1 acquisition” to be considered
next.

Timing in L1 Acquisition
According to Tsimpli (2014), timing in L1 development of the phenomena
examined in bilingual children’s performance interacts with other factors such as
age of onset and input. Differentiating between early, late and very late acquired
phenomena, Tsimpli proposes that this classification reflects the differing impact of
narrow syntax. Early phenomena are core, parametric and narrowly syntactic,
whereas late and very late phenomena involving syntax-external or language-
external resources are not narrowly syntactic.

Put differently, core grammatical properties are products of narrow syntax

and exclude semantic effects. Macroparameters such as object verb directionality
(OV/VO) and verb-second and their related microparametric options hence
constitute the core component of language, which is acquired early. Phenomena
that do not belong to the core are associated with components outside of narrow
syntax. These late phenomena, acquired after age five, may involve semantics and
pragmatics as well as non-verbal cognitive resources.

30
 More specifically, they may require knowledge at the semantic-syntactic
interface and sensitivity to contextual information as with quantification and
exhaustivity in wh-questions or they may require increased computational efforts as
for instance in the comprehension of object-questions (Tsimpli, 2014: 293–294). Most
importantly for the present study, it is argued “[...] that early phenomena can
differentiate between simultaneous and (early) successive bilingualism with an
advantage for the former group, while the other two reveal similarly (high or low)
performance across bilingual groups, differentiating them from monolinguals”
(Tsimpli, 2014: 283–284).

In the following we provide a classification of selected phenomena as early, late or

very late, which have been studied in bilingual acquisition and which were tested in
the present study (see Schulz, 2007; Schulz and Grimm, 2012, for an overview of the
timing of acquisition in monolingual German). In line with Tsimpli (2014) we assume
that earliness and lateness of the phenomena depend on whether additional
resources or language submodules are involved, but we remain agnostic as to
whether early phenomena have to belong to core-syntax. It may be that formal
complexity plays a role, i.e., how much idiosyncracy and irregularity is involved in
a construction (see Culicover, 2014), which may or not may not align with the
distinction between core and non-core (see also the contributions in Newmeyer and
Preston, 2014).

Among the early phenomena, acquired before age 5, are object-verb

directionality (OV/VO), verb-second and subject-verb agreement in German
(Clahsen, 1986; Tracy, 1991) as well as acquisition of subordinate clauses (Bloom et
al., 1989). These phenomena belong to the core expressing macroparameters and
do not involve semantics. Furthermore, grammatical gender in Greek (Tsimpli, 2003)
and telicity (Penner et al., 2003; see Schulz, 2018, for an overview) are acquired
early. For gender in Greek it is argued that it shows consistent cues for gender values
on nouns making it a grammatical gender language (Tsimpli, 2014: 298). For telicity,
it could be argued that it involves mostly lexical knowledge and no resources at the
level of sentential semantics. Among the phenomena referred to as late, i.e.,
acquired around age 5, are passives (Armon-Lotem et al., 2015) and comprehension
of relative clauses and wh-questions (Friedmann et al., 2009).

31
 According to Tsimpli (2014: 295) these phenomena require additional
semantic or lexical information, with the possible exception of relativized
minimality accounts of wh-movement (see the discussion in Friedmann et al., 2009).
Finally, among the very late phenomena, acquired at age 6 and later are sentential
negation (Wojtecka et al., 2011), exhaustivity in multiple wh-questions (Roeper et
al., 2007; Schulz and Roeper, 2011; Schulz, 2015), grammatical gender in Dutch
(Blom et al., 2008), and the case marking paradigm in German (Tracy,
1986; Eisenbeiss et al., 2005).

Sentential negation and exhaustivity in wh-questions require semantic

information and language-external resources. Grammatical gender in Dutch exhibits
inconsistent cues for gender values on nouns and requires lexical knowledge
(Tsimpli, 2014: 301). Similarly, the case marking paradigm in German exhibits
intransparent cues for case marking on determiners, requiring lexical knowledge of
the gender of the nouns and of the case suffixes within the tripartite gender system
in German.

The few studies testing Tsimpli (2014) timing hypothesis confirm that timing
differences result in different patterns for 2L1 and successive bilingual learners.
Investigating the effects of age on onset and of input in grammatical gender in Greek
(early) and Dutch (very late), Unsworth et al. (2014) found that amount of input was
a predictive factor for the pattern attested in both Greek and in Dutch, whereas age
of onset could explain the differences between 2L1 and successive bilinguals in
Greek, but – as predicted by the timing hypothesis – not in Dutch. Likewise, the age
of onset effects found by Meisel (2016) for gender in French, which is acquired early,
are in line with the timing hypothesis.

Furthermore, in a study with school-aged eL2 children acquiring English with

a mean age of onset of 3 years, Chondrogianni and Marinis (2011) found effects of
length of exposure rather than of age of onset for the acquisition of the late acquired
structures wh-questions and passives. Last, 2L1 and eL2 children have been reported
to differ in their comprehension of wh-questions in German, acquired late, with
differences being accounted for by length of exposure rather than by age of onset
effects (Roesch and Chondrogianni, 2016).

32
 As mentioned at the beginning of Section “Factors Influencing Child Bilingual
Acquisition,” differences and parallels may concern acquisition process and
patterns, acquisition pace, and acquisition success. The focus of the present study
is on pace, i.e., the question of how fast progress on the acquisition of a specific
phenomenon is being made, and on success, i.e., the question of whether and at
what age a specific phenomenon is acquired. Pace is typically measured
quantitatively as the percentage correct in a given task across several time points,
and success is typically measured via mastery (e.g., 90% correct) or via emergence
of a phenomenon (e.g., first productive occurrence).

Note that no matter which measure is chosen results are likely to vary to
some degree depending on the specific task used. For example, case marking in
German has been reported to be mastered late (Tracy, 1986; Schulz and Tracy,
2011; Schwarze, 2018) but also early (Roesch and Chondrogianni, 2016). Accordingly
it is important to consider the specific task when reporting specific ages of mastery.
Finally, when considering the effects of timing in L1 acquisition, age of testing is
crucial because, as with the effects of age of onset, it necessarily determines
whether we can expect monolingual children to have acquired this phenomenon by
that age.

Effects of Language Input and Language Dominance

Children who grow up bilingually receive less input in either language than their
monolingual peers (Paradis and Genesee, 1996; Unsworth, 2013a). Nevertheless,
simultaneous bilingual children have often been reported to acquire the two
languages without delays compared to monolingual children (e.g., Paradis et al.,
2011a). Accordingly, roughly half of the monolingual child’s input seems to be
sufficient for successful acquisition (Thordardottir, 2010). However, this observation
leaves open the issue of how input quantity and quality influence acquisition
patterns, pace, and success. Questions of quantity and quality of input have
subsequently motivated much bilingualism research (Müller, 1990; De Houwer,
2009). The issue of input quantity is closely tied to questions of language dominance
and investigations into which language used with a child is dominant and in which
contexts a child receives her input. The issue of input quality is related to children’s

33
parental background, including whether parents (and siblings) are native speakers
of the language in question and which socio-economic status or educational
background parents have.

Assessment of input factors is difficult, however. They may change over time and
they may be connected to child-related factors, such as the child’s language use,
language preference, language proficiency, and language output (e.g., Bohman et
al., 2010; Schmeißer et al., 2015). Accordingly, the question of how to define
reliable measures of quantity and quality of input has recently received increased
attention (Paradis et al., 2011b; Unsworth, 2013b; Unsworth et al., 2014; Tuller,
2015; Roesch and Chondrogianni, 2016). Unsworth (2013b) argues for a calculation
of cumulative length of exposure, in addition to current amount of exposure, in
order to capture the sum of bilingual children’s language exposure over time. Her
results on the acquisition of gender in Dutch indicate that both cumulative and
current amount of exposure predicted 2L1 children’s performance. However, when
2L1 children were compared with monolinguals in terms of cumulative length of
exposure, their scores were as high as (or higher than) the monolinguals.’

Independent of the specific measures used, differences in amount of input have

often been shown to affect both bilingual children’s language abilities and the rate
at which they acquire various linguistic phenomena relative to monolinguals. For
instance, rate of acquisition of vocabulary and morpho-syntax in English/French
bilingual children seems to be affected by language input and use (Paradis et al.,
2011b). Similarly, in studies of bilingual children a connection was found between
amount of exposure and language development for vocabulary and morpho-syntax
(Thordardottir, 2010; Hoff et al., 2012). In a similar vein, a study on vocabulary
acquisition showed that, provided sufficient exposure to the majority L2 language,
children who switched dominance from the L1 to the L2 caught up to their
monolinguals peers at an even faster rate than simultaneous bilingual children
(Hammer et al., 2008). However, some studies found amount of language input at
home in the majority language to be unrelated to children’s language performance
(e.g., Chondrogianni and Marinis, 2011, for eL2 learners), one of the reasons being
parents’ low proficiency level in the majority language in which the children were
tested (Chondrogianni and Marinis, 2011; Paradis, 2011). Similarly, in a study of

34
placement of finite and non-finite verbs in 2L1 children in German, Schmeißer et al.
(2015) found that language dominance and grammatical development were not
positively related. In short, while it is undisputed that language input and language
dominance play an important role for children’s language outcomes, it is far from
settled how different language domains are affected and whether input effects are
the same in simultaneous bilinguals and in eL2 children.

Language Acquisition: Transfer and the role of the L1: A historical account
(Behaviorism/ Contrastive analysis/ Error analysis)

Cognitive and Linguistic Functions of L1 in L2 Development Behaviorist Perspective

The first and foremost role that L1 plays and for what L1 is mostly discussed in L2
development is language transfer, both positive transfer and negative transfer. Koda
(1993) explores the transferred L1 strategies in L2 sentence comprehension and finds
that “reading skills transferred from L1 interact with L2 specific linguistic features
in shaping cognitive strategies for L2 processing” (p. 497).
While similarities between L1 and L2 facilitates learning that is called positive
transfer, differences between L1 and L2 cause interference errors due to negative
transfer (Ellis, 1997, p. 51). Nonetheless, cross-linguistic research reveals that it is
not the most diverse areas between a learner's L1 and L2 which cause the greatest
learning problems but “rather those areas which share considerable similarity”
(Pica, 1984, p. 695). Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) suggests that comparing
L1 and L2 features is beneficial in examining L2 learners’ transfer errors (Lightbown
& Spada, 2013). However, “today contrastive analysis is only one of many uncertain
variables which one must re-evaluate in second language teaching. No longer does
it seem to be as important as it once was” (Wardhaugh, 1970, p. 129).
The main function of contrastive analysis in language teaching should be that of
explaining why errors occur rather than predicting error (which is best accomplished
by careful statistical analysis of actual mistakes). For example, although both
Russian and French students of English will omit the indefinite article in such
sentences as "My father was doctor," the underlying cause of their errors is different
in each case. By use of contrastive analysis we find that the Frenchman already
possesses a conceptual system very similar to English but with a superficial
difference in surface structure. In teaching English to Russians, however, "special
attention must be given to the development of the entire conceptual system
underlying the use of English articles." Instead of preparing charts comparing the
phonemes of two languages, "separate comparative charts for as many different
systems of phonematic units as the contrastive data necessitate" should be drawn
up. Contrastive analysis of grammar should begin by identifying the grammatical
systems or categories in the two languages which are relatable to more or less the

35
same semantic field, and then observing the different ways in which the two
languages partition this field. Translation/comparison in its most rigorous form can
be useful for contrastive analysis. (JD)
Contrastive Analysis (CA) is a foreign-language teaching theory that was born in the
early 1960s, which was the period when structural linguistics and behaviourist
psychology enjoyed great popularity. Proponents of this theory came to advocate
that foreign language learning is actually a process of acquiring different structures
from the source into the target language. Such an approach gave birth to the basic
concept of CA known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): “... in the
comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or difficulty in
foreign language learning.
Those elements that are similar to (the learner’s) native language will be simple for
him and those elements that are different will be difficult.” (Lado, 1957, pp. 1-2).
In other words, contrastive analysis is a way of comparing languages in order to
identify potential errors for the purpose of determining what needs to be learned
and what does not need to be learned in a situation of foreign or second language
learning (Gass & Selinker, 2008, p. 96). Numerous contrastive analyses that were
undertaken at that time resulted in different pedagogical materials. One such set of
materials was the outcome of the Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian – English Contrastive
Project (YSCECP) that was carried out under the leadership of Professor Rudolf
Filipović, then Director of the Linguistic Institute of Zagreb University and professor
in the English Department of that University. There are several volumes of studies
and separate reports that were published under the auspices of the Project, and
although contrastive analysis has long been abandoned (unjustly, in our opinion),
and these studies and reports neglected, we can see today how invaluable their
contribution is both from the perspective of theoretical linguistics and from that of
teaching English as a foreign or second language to learners whose first languages
are Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian.
Error analysis (EA) was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach
influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal
distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors.
Error analysis is a method used to document the errors that appear in learner
language, determine whether those errors are systematic, and (if possible) explain
what caused them. Native speakers of the target language (TL) who listen to learner
language probably find learners' errors very noticeable, although, as we shall see,
accuracy is just one feature of learner language.

While native speakers make unsystematic 'performance' errors (like slips of the
tongue) from time to time, second language learners make more errors, and often
ones that no native speaker ever makes. An error analysis should focus on errors that
are systematic violations of patterns in the input to which the learners have been
exposed. Such errors tell us something about the learner's interlanguage, or
underlying knowledge of the rules of the language being learned (Corder, 1981, p.
10).

36
Although some learner errors are salient to native speakers, others, even though
they’re systematic, may go unnoticed. For this reason, it is valuable for anyone
interested in learner language to do a more thorough error analysis, to try to identify
all the systematic errors. This can help researchers understand the cognitive
processes the learner is using, and help teachers decide which might be targeted for
correction. Researchers have worked out the following procedure for doing an error
analysis Corder (1975).

Language development in children

Language development is a critical part of child development.

It supports your child’s ability to communicate, and express and understand feelings.
It also supports thinking and problem-solving, and developing and maintaining
relationships. Learning to understand, use and enjoy language is the critical first
step in literacy, and the basis for learning to read and write.

The best way to encourage your child’s speech and language development is to do
lots of talking together about things that interest your child. It’s all about following
your child’s lead as they show you what they’re interested in by waving, pointing,
babbling or using words.

Talking with your child

Talk to your child and treat them as a talker, beginning in the first 12 months. When
you finish talking, give your child a turn and wait for them to respond. And when
your child starts babbling, copy your child and babble back. You’ll probably find that
your child babbles back to you again. This keeps the talking going and is great fun.

Responding to your child

As your child grows up and starts to use gestures, you can respond to your child’s
attempts to communicate. For example, if your child shakes their head, respond as
if your child is saying ‘No’. If your child points to a toy, respond as if your child is
saying, ‘Can I have that?’ or ‘I like that’.

When your child starts using words, you can repeat and build on what your child
says. For example, if your child says, ‘Apple,’ you can say, ‘You want a red apple?’

When you tune in and respond to your child, it encourages your child to
communicate. You’ll be amazed at how much your child has to say, even before
words develop.

Everyday talking
Talking about what’s happening in your daily life together is a great way to increase
the number of words your child hears. You can talk about things that make sense to
your child, like what you’re seeing or doing together – the key is to use lots of
different words and in different contexts. For example, you can talk to your child
about an orange tree and about cutting up an orange for lunch. This helps your child
learn the meaning and function of words in their world.

37
It doesn’t matter if your child doesn’t understand, because understanding will grow
as your child develops.

From the time your child starts telling stories, encourage your child to talk about
things in the past and in the future. For example, at the end of the day, you could
talk about plans for the next day, by making a shopping list together or deciding
what to take on a visit to grandma. Or when you come home from an outing together,
you could talk about it.

Reading with your baby

Read and share lots of books with your child, and read more complex books as your
child grows. Reading lets your child hear words in different contexts, which helps
with learning the meaning and function of words.

Linking what’s in the book to what’s happening in your child’s life is a good way to
get your child talking. You can also encourage talking by chatting about interesting
pictures in the books you read with your child.

When you read aloud with your child, you can point to words as you say them. This
shows your child the link between written and spoken words, and helps your child
learn that words are distinct parts of language. These are important concepts
for developing literacy.

Your local library is a great source of new books.

Language development: the first eight years

Here are just a few of the important things your child might achieve in language
development between three months and eight years.

3-12 months
In this period, your baby will most likely coo and laugh, play with sounds and begin
to communicate with gestures like waving. Babbling is an important developmental
stage during the first year.

Babbling is often followed by the ‘jargon phase’ where your child might sound like
they’re talking or having a conversation. At this stage, though, this ‘speech’ doesn’t
mean anything. First words often start by around 12 months.

You might hear babbling, jargon and new words together as your child gets closer to
saying first words.

If your baby isn’t babbling and isn’t using gestures by 12 months, talk to your GP or
child and family health nurse or another health professional.

Find out more about language development from 3-12 months.

12-18 months
At this age, children often say their first words with meaning. For example, when
your child says ‘Dada’, your child is actually calling for dad. In the next few months,
38
your child will keep adding more words to their vocabulary. Your child can
understand more than they can say and can follow simple instructions too. For
example, your child can understand you when you say ‘No’ – although they won’t
always obey!

18 months to 2 years
In your child’s second year, their vocabulary has grown and they’ll start to put two
words together into short ‘sentences’. Your child will understand much of what you
say, and you can understand what your child says to you (most of the time!).

Language development varies hugely, but if your child doesn’t have some words by
around 18 months, talk to your GP or child and family health nurse or another health
professional.

Find out more about language development from 1-2 years.

2-3 years
Your child can speak in longer, more complex sentences now, and is getting better
at saying words correctly. Your child might play and talk at the same time. Strangers
can probably understand most of what your child says by the time your child is three.

Find out more about language development from 2-3 years.

3-5 years
You can expect longer, more abstract and more complex conversations now. For
example, your child might say things like, ‘Will I grow into a watermelon because I
swallowed the watermelon seed?’

Your child will probably also want to talk about a wide range of topics, and
vocabulary will keep growing. Your child might show understanding of basic
grammar, as they experiment with more complex sentences that have words like
‘because’, ‘if’, ‘so’ or ‘when’. And you can look forward to some entertaining stories
too.

Find out more about language development from 3-4 years and language
development from 4-5 years.

5-8 years
During the early school years, your child will learn more words and start to
understand how the sounds within language work together. Your child will also
become a better storyteller, as they learn to put words together in different ways
and build different types of sentences. These skills also let your child share ideas
and opinions. By eight years, your child will be able to have adult-like conversations.

Find out more about language development from 5-8 years.

By five years, children know that sounds make up words. They can identify words
beginning with the same sound – for example, ‘Mummy made magic marshmallows’.
They can also spot words that rhyme. They might play rhyming games and sing out
words that rhyme, like ‘bat’, ‘cat’, ‘fat’, ‘hat’ and ‘mat’.
39
At 5-6 years, your child might know some or all of the sounds that go with the
different letters of the alphabet. This is important for the development of reading
skills. At this age, children also learn that single sounds combine into words. For
example, when you put the ‘t’, ‘o’ and ‘p’ sounds together, they make the word
‘top’.

By six years, children can usually read simple stories and write or copy letters of
the alphabet.

By eight years, your child understands what he’s reading. He might be reading on
his own, and reading might even be one of his favourite activities. By this age
children can also write a simple story.

Vocabulary and language development

By five years, children can use the correct form of verbs to talk about past and
future events. For example, your child can say ‘I played with Maxie’ to talk about
the past and ‘I will play with Maxie’ to talk about the future. Children also begin to
understand some concepts of time – for example, night, day and yesterday.

Your child will start to realise that there are exceptions to grammatical rules – for
example, we say ‘broke’, ‘threw’ and ‘ate’ rather than ‘breaked’, ‘throwed’ and
‘eated’. But it will take a few more years for her to learn the many exceptions in
the English language. Even at eight years of age, some children might have trouble
with the past tense of some verbs.

At 5-6 years, children understand that single words might have different meanings,
so they start to rely more on the context of a word to know what it means. For
example, ‘cool’ means something different when you say, ‘It’s a cool day’,
compared with when you say, ‘That’s a really cool robot you’ve built’. They also
begin to understand metaphors and non-literal language – for example, ‘Make up
your mind’.

Your child will understand that he can make new words by joining two other words
– for example, ‘bookshelf’. You’ll see ‘compound’ words like this more often in your
child’s speech now.

Your child will also begin using longer words as she learns that the beginnings and
endings of words change their meanings. For example, she can add ‘ness’ (as in
‘happiness’), ‘un’ (as in ‘unwrap’), and ‘er’ (as when ‘teach’ becomes ‘teacher’).

And your child will also start to understand that words don’t always need an ‘s’ to
become plurals – for example, ‘feet’ and ‘mice’ rather than ‘foots’ and ‘mouses’.

By eight years, children are learning lots of new words through reading. They also
start to understand jokes and riddles that play on sounds. For example, your child
might tell or enjoy a joke like ‘What kind of shows do cows like to watch?’ ‘Moo-
sicals’.

40
Your child might also start to compare two things using the words ‘like’ or ‘as’ – for
example, ‘She swims like a fish’.

Using sentences as part of language development

By five years, children can follow three-step directions.

Your child can understand and combine words to form active sentences – for
example, ‘The cat chased the dog’. He’s also starting to understand passive
sentences – for example, ‘The cat was chased by the dog’.

But when children are describing pictures, they might mix up who is doing what to
whom. They might also have trouble understanding pronoun references – for
example, who ‘she’ refers to if you say, ‘The woman told the last girl to arrive that
she was late’. Your child’s ability to make correct sentences will improve gradually
in the next few years.

By eight years, your child will be using complex and compound sentences – for
example, ‘Tim can be rude sometimes, but he’s a nice boy’.

Storytelling and language development

From 4-8 years, children get much better at telling stories. Your child’s stories are
probably longer and more detailed. The stories might be made up, or about things
that have actually happened. They might have a theme, character or plot and
contain actions and events in a logical sequence – for example, ‘The boat sank, so
everybody had to swim to the beach’.

As your child keeps learning and practising language, her storytelling will improve.
It’ll be easier to work out who your child is talking about when she’s telling a story,
and how the events in her stories fit together.

In these years, your child might:

• use different linking words in the right way – for example, ‘because’, ‘then’,
‘now’, ‘when’, ‘before’, ‘while’ and ‘although’
• use different sentence types to present the same information
• correctly use pronouns like ‘he’, ‘she’ and ‘they’ when he’s telling a story
• understand the difference between fact and theory – that is, the difference
between ‘What happened?’ and ‘Why do you think … ?’

LEARNING ACTIVITY
1. Read this link: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236303476.pdf

41
 Lesson 3

Language acquisition and age: critical period hypothesis

The critical period hypothesis says that there is a period of growth in which
full native competence is possible when acquiring a language. This period is from
early childhood to adolescence. The critical period hypothesis has implications for
teachers and learning programmes, but it is not universally accepted. Acquisition
theories say that adults do not acquire languages as well as children because of
external and internal factors, not because of a lack of ability.

Example
Older learners rarely achieve a near-native accent. Many people suggest this is due
to them being beyond the critical period.

In the classroom
A problem arising from the differences between younger learners and adults is that
adults believe that they cannot learn languages well. Teachers can help learners
with this belief in various ways, for example, by talking about the learning process
and learning styles, helping set realistic goals, choosing suitable methodologies, and
addressing the emotional needs of the adult learner.

The Critical Period Hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder
Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book Speech and Brain
Mechanisms, and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological
Foundations of Language.

The Critical Period Hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics

and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is
biologically linked to age.

The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in
a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes
much more difficult and effortful.The critical period hypothesis states that the first
few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language
if presented with adequate stimuli.

If language input doesn’t occur until after this time, the individual will never achieve
a full command of language—especially grammatical systems.

The evidence for such a period is limited, and support stems largely from theoretical
arguments and analogies to other critical periods in biology such as visual
development, but nonetheless is widely accepted

42
The Critical Period Hypothesis in Second Language Acquisition

The theory has often been extended to a critical period for second-language
acquisition (SLA), although this is much less widely accepted.

Certainly, older learners of a second language rarely achieve the native-like fluency
that younger learners display, despite often progressing faster than children in the
initial stages.

David Singleton states that in learning a second language, “younger = better in the
long run,” but points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent
of adult bilinguals master a second language even though they begin learning it when
they are well into adulthood—long after any critical period has presumably come to
a close.

While the window for learning a second language never completely closes, certain
linguistic aspects appear to be more affected by the age of the learner than others.

For example, adult second-language learners nearly always retain an immediately

identifiable foreign accent, including some who display perfect grammar (Oyama
1976).

Some writers have suggested a younger critical age for learning phonology than for
syntax. Singleton (1995) reports that there is no critical period for learning
vocabulary in a second language.

LEARNING ACTIVITY

1. Why is it that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can
acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli?

SUMMATIVE TEST
1. Compare and contrast bilingualism and multilingualism using venn diagram
2.Create a five (5) stanza poem about bilingual development
3.Discuss the bilingualism and cognitive development

43
 Module 3

ELSC 102-THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

OBJECTIVES
a. Define the different models on language acquisition

b. Critique the Language acquisition and the linguistic environment through a

present of report

Lesson 1

Language acquisition and the linguistic environment

Acculturation model
Acculturation is a model of social and cognitive language learning,
while Accommodation is a theory of language learning adaptation.
... Accommodation entails that language is already nearly mastered enough to add
variations to it. Acculturation presents a number of SLA scenarios to consider when
researching about ELLs.
Many have argued that the degree to which a learner is successful in second language
acquisition (SLA) is dependent, to some degree, on how much contact the learner
has with the L2 speakers (Schumann, 1986); therefore, it has been suggested that
being surrounded by the L2 culture gives one a better chance of learning an L2
(Culhane, 2004). However, the way the first culture would be affected by this
cultural change has been the subject of numerous studies. One famous longitudinal
investigation was conducted by Schumann on some syntactic aspects with six
learners (2 children, 2 adolescents, 2 adults) in which he used questionnaires,
observed spontaneous conversation during ten months, and applied a quantitative
treatment to the data (Menezes, 2013).

This tenet is quite easy to understand; individuals monitor their verbal

communication depending on variables such as a) the person with whom the person
is talking, b) the origin of the discourse and, c) the need to create distance,
proximity, or identity.
44
The model also shows that individuals are not mere recipients of verbal
communication, but interactive participants whose brains are in a consistent state
of decision-making. Decisions during discourse include convergence, which entails
changing your speech to match that of the person with whom you are speaking (rate
of speech, intonation, use of pauses) and divergence, which is the choice to
emphasize your unique way of speech so that you can create a distance from others;
sometimes when people imitate or "fake" accents to create identity is a form of
either divergence or convergence, depending on the goal.

Conversely, J. H. Schumann's Acculturation Model of SLA is mainly used show how

blending into the target culture ensures successful L2 learning. In Schumman's model
there are eight variables for student success:
1) Social dominance: L2 students may not want to learn a target language from a
culture that is considered superior to their own; it makes the learner feel inferior.
2) Assimilation, preservation, and adaptation: The choice to take in the target
culture, or preserve one's own.
3) Enclosure: The degree to which the L2's target society resembles their own will
facilitate learning.
4) Cohesiveness: If the L2 is too culturally-bound to his peers the learning will be
harder to accomplish.
5) Size: L2 learning is to be done best in smaller groups.
6) Congruence: The more similar the target culture is, the most likely that the
learning will occur.
7) Attitude: If the L2 feels resentful or negative about the target culture the
learning may not happen.
8) Intended length of residence: Also entails consistent exposure to the target
language.

The most obvious similarity between Accommodation and Acculturation is that

both, the theory and the model respectively, show that the process of verbal
communication is extremely intrinsic, three-dimensional, and complex. They also
contend that choices are made at all times during discourse, and that there are
variables in language usage that can make or break the communication process.

Their main difference is that they serve different purposes. Accommodation is a

tendency in language usage, while Acculturation is the study on how blending into
the target culture may produce more L2 learning success. As a
model, Acculturation aims to establish a correlation between individual behavior
and the phenomenology of social change. Contrastingly, Accommodation is a theory
that is generally accepted as a fact.

Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Stephen Krashen (University of Southern California) is an expert in the field of
linguistics, specializing in theories of language acquisition and development. Much

45
of his recent research has involved the study of non-English and bilingual language
acquisition. Since 1980, he has published well over 100 books and articles and has
been invited to deliver over 300 lectures at universities throughout the United States
and Canada.

This is a brief description of Krashen's widely known and well-accepted theory of

second language acquisition, which has had a large impact in all areas of second
language research and teaching.

The 5 hypotheses of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:

• the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis;

• the Monitor hypothesis;
• the Input hypothesis;
• and the Affective Filter hypothesis;
• the Natural Order hypothesis.

The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of the five hypotheses

in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and language
teachers. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of foreign
language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The 'acquired
system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very similar to the
process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It requires
meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in which
speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the
communicative act.

The "learned system" or "learning" is the product of formal instruction and it

comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the
language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. A deductive approach in a
teacher-centered setting produces "learning", while an inductive approach in a
student-centered setting leads to "acquisition".

According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'. (See here our in-
depth analysis of the Acquisition/Learning hypothesis and its implications).

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning
and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the
practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition
system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the

46
'monitor' or the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting
function when three specific conditions are met:

• The second language learner has sufficient time at their disposal.

• They focus on form or think about correctness.
• They know the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second language
performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is minor, being used
only to correct deviations from "normal" speech and to give speech a more 'polished'
appearance.

Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners with
regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the
time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use
their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor'
appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can
help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users,
while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is
frequently related to the over-use of the "monitor".

The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a
second language – how second language acquisition takes place. The Input hypothesis
is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the
learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when he/she receives
second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic
competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition takes place
when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since
not all of the learners can be at the same level of linguistic competence at the same
time, Krashen suggests that natural communicative input is the key to designing a
syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is
appropriate for his/her current stage of linguistic competence.

The Affective Filter hypothesis embodies Krashen's view that a number of 'affective
variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition.
These variables include: motivation, self-confidence, anxiety and personality traits.
Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-
image, a low level of anxiety and extroversion are better equipped for success in
second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, anxiety, introversion
and inhibition can raise the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents
comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the
filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is
necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.

47
Finally, the less important Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings
(Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which
suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order'
which is predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be
acquired early while others late. This order seemed to be independent of the
learners' age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the agreement
between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were
statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order
of language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the implication of the
natural order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on
the order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the
goal is language acquisition.

The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View

According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have general
educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to
include in their language programs. Any benefit, however, will greatly depend on
the learner being already familiar with the language. It should also be clear that
analizing the language, formulating rules, setting irregularities apart, and teaching
complex facts about the target language is not language teaching, but rather is
"language appreciation" or linguistics, which does not lead to communicative
proficiency.

The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language
acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject
and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this
occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal grammar
is essential for second language acquisition, and the teacher is skillful enough to
present explanations in the target language so that the students understand. In other
words, the teacher talk meets the requirements for comprehensible input and
perhaps, with the students' participation, the classroom becomes an environment
suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in regard to the language of
explanation, as the students' conscious efforts are usually on the subject matter,
on what is being talked about, and not the medium.

This is a subtle point. In effect, both teachers and students are deceiving
themselves. They believe that it is the subject matter itself, the study of grammar,
that is responsible for the students progress, but in reality their progress is coming
from the medium and not the message. Any subject matter that held their interest
would do just as well.

Interaction and negotiation

The focus of language acquisition theories have traditionally been on
‘nurture’ and ‘nature’ distinctions, advanced by the social-interactionist and
nativist camps respectively. Social-interactionists see language as a rule-governed
48
cultural activity learned in interaction with others, while nativists perceive language
ability as an innate capacity to generate syntactically correct sentences. In other
words, interactionists believe environmental factors are more dominant in language
acquisition, while nativists believe inborn factors are more dominant. Vygotsky laid
the foundation for the interactionists view of language acquisition. According to
Vygotsky, social interaction plays an important role in the learning process and
proposed the zone of proximal development (ZPD), where learners construct the
new language through socially mediated interaction (Brown, p. 287).
On the other hand, nativists’ such as Krashen assume that natural internal
mechanisms operate upon comprehensible input which leads to language
competence. This is evident in Krashen’s input hypothesis of SLA. Krashen’s input
hypothesis was first proposed over 30 years ago, expanding from Chomsky’s
Language Acquisition Device. Since that time, there have been many theories put
forward under influence Krashen’s input hypothesis. Although Vygotsky and Krashen
can be categorized into distinct positions, the application of their theories to second
language teaching shares a number of similarities. According to Krashen’s input
hypothesis, language acquisition takes place during human interaction in the target
language environment. The learner is then exposed to rich comprehensible input in
the target language.
However, in order for acquisition to occur, the input would need to be slightly
beyond the learner’s current level of linguistic competence. Both Vygotsky and
Krashen put great emphasis on the role of interaction in SLA, Long among other
interactionists, also believes in the importance of comprehensive input. His
interaction hypothesis also stresses the importance of comprehensible input as a
major factor in second language acquisition; however, he also believes that
interactive input is more important than non-interactive input. In addition, Long
stresses the significance of interactional modifications which occur in the
negotiating meaning when communication problems arise (Ellis, 1994 The major
distinction between interactionist and nativist theories of SLA is that scholars such
as Krashen emphasize comprehensible target language input which is one-way input
and, on the contrary, interactionists acknowledge the importance of twoway
communication in the target language (Ariza and Hancock, 2003).
Interactionists agree that Krashen’s comprehensible input is a crucial element
in the language acquisition process, but their emphasis is on how input is made
comprehensible (Lightbown and Spada, 1998, p. 29). Moreover, Krashen
distinguishes between language acquisition and language learning. This study will
focus primarily on the interaction hypothesis proposed by Long and will highlight the
main claims advanced by Long and discuss them critically in light of other competing
perspectives on SLA and consider its EFL pedagogical implications.
The Interaction Hypothesis states that interaction facilitates SLA because
conversational and linguistic modifications that occur in discourse provide learners
with necessary comprehensible linguistic input. This approach is credited to Long
(1996), who sought a way to bring together two major approaches in SLA: Hatch
(1978) recognized the importance of conversation on the development of grammar.

49
Krashen's (1985) Input Hypothesis, a cognitive theory that stresses the importance
of linguistic input in the target language (TL) that is slightly more advanced than
what the learner has mastery of. The current state of a learner's rule-based linguistic
knowledge is designated as "i", while the slightly more advanced input is "i+1".
Krashen’s sees the relevance of social contextual factors as conversational gambits
in securing more input for the learner, which eventually relate to the notion of an
affective filter that is said to determine what input gets through to the brain's
central language acquisition mechanism (Allwright, 1995).
Long believes that what makes input to be comprehensible is modified
interaction, or negotiation of meaning. In Krashen’s input hypothesis,
comprehensible input itself remains the main causal variable, while Long claims that
a crucial element in the language acquisition process is the modified input that
learners are exposed to and the way in which other speakers interact in
conversations with learners. (Lightbown and Spada, 1993).
Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers
interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates
acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly
selective attention, and output in productive ways. (cited in Gass, 2002, p. 174). In
other words, interactional adjustments make input comprehensible, and
comprehensible input promotes acquisition, thus interactional adjustments promote
acquisition (Lightbown and Spada, 1993, p.30). Long believes that when meaning is
negotiated, input comprehensibility is usually increased and learners tend to focus
on salient linguistic features (Ariza and Hancock, 2003). Caroll (2000) also
summarizes Long’s Interaction hypothesis as follows: -This feedback draws the
learner’s attention to mismatches between the input and the learner’s output
(p.291). –
Negotiation of meaning leads to modified interaction, which consists of
various modifications that native speakers or other interlocutors make in order to
render their input comprehensible to learners. For example, native speakers in a
conversation with non-native speakers often slow their speech down, speaking more
deliberately. This kind of language modification by native speakers addressing to
language learners is sometimes referred as foreigner discourse (FD). Modifications
identified in FD vary significantly depending on individual factors such as speech
style, the discourse, social and cultural contexts. In FD, for example, it is reported
that individual utterances tend to be shorter and syntactically less complex, more
frequent and concrete vocabulary is used while slang and idioms are avoided, NSs
tend to restate information using synonyms, etc. At the discourse level,
modifications include feedbacks such as recasts, comprehension checks,
clarification requests, self-repetition or paraphrase, restatement and expansion of
NNS statement and topic switches (Wesche, 1994; Brown, 2000; Lightbown and
Spada, 1998).

50
Input and output in second language acquisition

Input vs. output

The input refers to the processible language the learners are exposed to
while listening or reading (i.e. The receptive skills). The output, on the other hand,
is the language they produce, either in speaking or writing (i.e. The productive
skills).
The input is multidimensional. It comes from the teacher, the coursebook, and the
students themselves. It may also be derived from sources outside the confinement
of the classroom (e.g. TV, podcasts, social media, etc.).

There is an interaction between the input and the output – between the receptive
and the productive skills.

The Input Hypothesis

The input that the students should be exposed to has to be comprehensible and
should provide enough information to help them construct, consciously or
unconsciously, their knowledge about the system. According to
Krashen, comprehensible input is a prerequisite to language acquisition. It is more
than enough for the internalization of the target language. The condition that
Krashen attaches to his Input Hypothesis is that the input should be pitched a little
above the learner’s present state of competence. (i.e. Input + 1 or I + 1).
The output Hypothesis

On the other hand, Merrill Swain (1985) suggested that the input is not enough for
language acquisition. According to her, there is a need for an Output Hypothesis.
The learner needs to be pushed to produce language that is conveyed precisely,
coherently and appropriately. One argument in favor of pushing students to produce
comprehensible messages is that the learners by doing so will notice the ‘gaps’ in
their language knowledge, which will urge them to improve their existing
interlanguage system. Another argument for Merrill Swain’s Output hypothesis is
that, as Scott Thornbury (2010) suggests, when the learners are pushed to produce
language in real time, they are ‘forced to automate low-level operations by
incorporating them into higher-level routines’. This may contribute to the
development of fluency and automaticity.
Input, Intake, uptake

As mentioned above, the input is the processible language that the learners are
exposed to. It is the accessible data that is not necessarily understood yet. It is only
when the language data has been noticed, attended to and processed that the input
becomes intake. Sharwood Smith (1993) explains the difference between input and
intake as follows: “The input is the potentially processible language data which are
made available, by chance or by design, to the language learner. That part of input
that has actually been processed by the learner and turned into knowledge of some
kind has been called intake.

51
It is important to note here that being exposed to a new language doesn’t mean that
this input will necessarily become intake. This input will be internalized and will
become part of the learners’ knowledge only if it is noticed, attended to, processed
and used in authentic situations. When language is learned in that way, it

becomes uptake.
Input Intake Uptake

Processible language. Processed language. Learned language.

Accessible language Language noticed, attended to and Language that has become part of the
data. processed. learners’ interlanguage system.

Affordances and emergence

Traditionally, as mentioned above, the input refers to the language the leaners are
exposed to. It should be slightly above the leaners level. Without comprehensible
input, language acquisition does not take place. In the ecological approach to
language teaching, instead of input and acquisition, new metaphors have been
adopted, namely affordances and emergence.
Affordance

Affordance is a term borrowed from ecology. It refers to what the environment

offers to living things. It implies that organisms and the environment are
complementary. As Scott Thornbury (2006) says:
“A leaf, for example, affords food for some creatures, shade for others, or building
material for still others. It’s the same leaf, but its affordances differ, depending on
how it is regarded, and by whom.” In psychology, affordances are related to
perception and action. Menezes (2011) explains that: “Animals, including humans,
perceive what the niche offers them (substances, medium, objects, etc.), interpret
the affordances and act upon them. Some actions are done automatically (e.g.
drinking water) and others require complex cognitive processes (e.g. finding the
solution for a problem).” Menezes (2011, Page 2)

Emergence

According to the Dogme approach to language teaching, learning opportunities

offered by real talk in the real-world offer affordances for language to emerge rather
than being merely acquired. As Leo Van Lier (2004, p 5) suggests emergence
‘happens when relatively simple elements combine together to form a higher-order
system.’ Real interactions provide learning opportunities and it is only in this
environment that language emerges. This is a shift away from the traditional view
of acquisition as a linear process.

FEEDBACK

. Corrective feedback in SLA research Corrective feedback (CF) may be defined as

information from any source regarding the learner’s L2 performance in order to
stimulate acquisition. Arguably, what has been at the core of SLA theory and
research on (corrective) feedback is the distinction between ‘acquisition’ (the

52
gradual and implicit accumulation of L2 competence) and ‘learning’ (the conscious
and explicit learning of L2 knowledge) (Krashen, 1981). In latest years, however, a
consensus has grown (DeKeyser, 2005) that ‘acquisition’ in Krashen’s terms, whether
it be by exposing the learner to (comprehensible) input, (comprehensible) output or
interaction in the L2, is also greatly aided by the conscious processes that are
generally associated with explicit learning.
The function of CF within primarily communicative and meaning-oriented
language teaching approaches is to temporarily focus on formal aspects of the L2 so
as to promote noticing. Under the influence of first language acquisition research
and communicative foreign language teaching methods, abundant research has been
conducted on implicit CF, and particularly on ‘recasts’. Recasts are reformulations
of all or part of the learner’s utterance, minus the error (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
They are considered valuable for L2 acquisition because they disrupt the
communicative flow only to a minimal extent, and because they provide the learner
with positive evidence (examples of correct and appropriate target language use),
and potentially also with negative evidence (what is incorrect or inappropriate).
The latter benefit, however, is still subject to debate because of the
ambiguity of the term (Lyster, 1998). Recently (Long, 2007; Ellis & Sheen, 2006),
the realization has grown that it is multi-faceted, that the various strategies covered
have often not been formally described or put into operation, and that
generalization of findings is therefore premature. On the other hand, there is
tentative support for recasts that are explicit (e.g. through prosodic or typographical
enhancements), intensive (repeatedly directed at a constrained number of linguistic
errors), simple (involving only few changes in the original utterance), and directed
towards phonology and lexis, rather than morphology or syntax.
However, recasts are less effective in classroom contexts than in laboratory
settings. Finally, research suggests that learner proficiency plays a significant role
in the noticing of recasts. In recent years, a number of reviews and meta-analyses
have addressed the effectiveness of various types of CF on L2 development in
general, spanning the axes implicit vs. explicit, and reformulation (providing positive
evidence) vs. prompt (signals of error without positive evidence). These studies
suggest that CF has significant and lasting effects on L2 development, and that
explicit CF in the form of metalinguistic prompts tends to be more effective than
implicit CF in the form of recasts (Ellis et al., 2006; Russell & Spada, 2006; Mackey
& Goo, 2007; Lyster & Saito, 2010).

LEARNING ACTIVITY
1. Expalin J. H. Schumann's Acculturation Model of SLA

53
 Lesson 2

Affect and individual differences:

Development of learner language (interlanguage)

Interlanguage
Imagine you are standing on a ledge. There's a huge gap, but you want to get to the
other side. You can't jump across. You can't walk around. You can't fly over. But,
you can build a bridge plank by plank. At first, you might be able to walk across
carefully, but as you add to it, one day it might be strong enough to drive a car
across! Now imagine your ledge is your native language and you are trying to conquer
a second language: the other ledge. In this scenario, your bridge will be
called interlanguage.

Definition
Interlanguage (IL) is a linguistic system used by second language learners. Learners
create this language when they attempt to communicate in the target language.
Interlanguage is affected by the learner's native language as they use their native
language knowledge to understand and organize the second language or to
compensate for existing competency gaps.
Nonetheless, interlanguage is entirely different from both the learner's first
language (L1) and the targeted second language (L2). Interlanguage has its own rule
system but it contains ungrammatical sentences and elements. Given that IL consists
of elements of L1 and L2 as well as the speaker's perceptions, it is always unique
from speaker to speaker. Learners create rules, and they are changed through input
such as teachers, peers, etc. and by the learner.

Characteristics
Interlanguage is dynamic and permeable. It serves as a bridge between L1 and L2
when learners lack knowledge and fine mastery of rules, but over time, learners
progress. They refine certain rules and obtain new ones. Their competence changes
and their interlanguage starts to reflect those changes. First they may say: ''I no
swimming,'' which later becomes: ''I don't swimming,'' until it reaches perfection: ''I
don't swim.'' The process of constant extension and revision of rules reflects IL's
tendency to change. IL's rules are not fixed: they're altered, deleted, or added.
Interlanguage is systematic. Although different learners have different
interlanguage, they all have their own rules within their variations. They may not
align with the actual rules but they are systematic: ''I received money, I buyed a new
car, and I selled it.'' Rules are set in predictable ways.

54
Interlanguage is variable. Learner's performance is variable. They may apply the
same rule differently in separate contexts or domains. Accuracy and fluency vary
across occasions as learners have alternative rules for the same function. In a
classroom setting, where the learner is focused on producing grammatically correct
sentences, they may say: ''I don't drink coffee.'' In a spontaneous conversation, the
same meaning can be expressed as: ''I no drink coffee.''

Interlanguage Formation
What affects the formation of interlanguage has been a topic of controversy and
debate for decades. Currently, there five agreed-upon factors that are believed to
shape how learners' create interlanguage: overgeneralization, learning strategies,
language transfer, transfer of training, and communication strategies.

Overgeneralization
Overgeneralization involves learners extending the application of a rule in L2. They
group similar items together and try to predict their behavior based on a rule they
already know. Using the same rule in new situations leads to errors: the plural for
''deer'' becomes ''deers''; the past tense of ''go'' becomes ''goed.''

Interlanguage (IL) refers to the linguistic system of learner language produced by

adults when they attempt meaningful communication using a language they are in
the process of learning. The construct of interlanguage was proposed by Larry
Selinker in 1972 and stimulated the first research studies in the new field of second
language acquisition (SLA). It continues, in modified form, to provide a useful
general framework for research in that field. Here we will summarize the original
formulation of the hypothesis in 1972, and then review subsequent modifications
and expansions of the hypothesis.

The most fundamental claim of the interlanguage hypothesis is that the language
produced by the adult learner when he or she attempts meaningful communication
in a foreign language is systematic at every level: phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics, and pragmatics. The interlanguage system is fundamentally autonomous
and patterned. It is not a random hodgepodge collection of unsystematic errors but,
clearly, neither is it a native language (NL) or target language (TL); it is a separate
transitional linguistic system that can be described in terms of evolving linguistic
patterns and rules, and explained in terms of specific cognitive and sociolinguistic
processes that shape it.

Another important claim is that the processes of interlanguage acquisition and use
are typically unconscious and not open to introspective analysis by the learner.
Indeed, the learner is typically not aware of the linguistic characteristics of the
language he or she is unconsciously using, often perceiving the linguistic forms being
used in IL to be “the same” as forms in both NL and TL. If learners are asked about
55
interlanguage rules that they use in their own unrehearsed, meaningful
communication, they will not be able to give an accurate account of those rules.
Rather they may describe TL rules they have consciously learned in the classroom,
but these are not the interlanguage rules they actually use when focused on
meaning.

One of Selinker's most controversial claims is that interlanguage always “fossilizes”—

it stops developing at some point before it becomes identical with the target
language system. In other words, adult second language learners never reach their
goal—they can never produce the target language as accurately as someone who
acquired it natively.

Origins of the Concept of Interlanguage

The general idea that the language of second language learners is an

autonomous linguistic system, distinct from both NL and TL, was developed at about
the same time by three scholars (see Selinker, 1992, for a detailed account).
Nemser (1971) referred to learner language as an “approximative system,” and
Corder (1967, 1981) called it “transitional competence.” Eventually, the term
“interlanguage” (Selinker, 1972) was the one that caught on.

The construct was developed in reaction to generally accepted claims by

contrastive analysts such as Lado (1957) that the second language learner's language
was shaped entirely and only by the transfer of linguistic patterns from the native
language. Lado had argued that because of learners' reliance on their NL rules, a
good contrastive analysis of the NL and the TL could accurately predict all the
difficulties that learners would encounter in trying to learn the TL.

However, there was little if any empirical evidence to support this claim. In
the late 1950s and the 1960s, there were virtually no systematic attempts to observe
learner language and document the way in which learner language developed, and
no data were reported which could independently and objectively verify the strong
claims of the contrastive analysis hypothesis that language transfer was the sole
process shaping learner language.

S. P. Corder (1967) was the first to publish the alternative hypothesis that
second language learners may not begin with their system of NL rules and gradually
modify those in the direction of the TL. Rather, he argued, second language learners
are more like first language learners, beginning with an essential, simple, probably

56
universal grammar. In Corder's view, second language learners had a “built‐in
syllabus”—different from the teacher's syllabus—which could guide them in the
systematic development of their own linguistic system, or “transitional
competence.” Calling for the empirical study of learners' errors, Corder
hypothesized that researchers would find evidence not of the wholesale transfer of
NL rules but of the idiosyncratic linguistic system that learners were building. Errors
would become a source of valuable data for research into the nature of the second
language learner's “built‐in syllabus.”

During a 1968/9 Fulbright stay at Edinburgh University where he worked with

Corder and other scholars, Larry Selinker developed the construct of “interlanguage”
to flesh out the view of learner language as an autonomous linguistic system, and
not just a collection of errors. His paper “Interlanguage” (Selinker, 1972) was
intended to stimulate research into the structure and development of the linguistic
system underlying the language spontaneously produced by adult second language
learners.

Defining Interlanguage

“Interlanguage” was defined by Selinker (1972) as the separate linguistic

system evidenced when adult second language learners spontaneously express
meaning using a language they are in the process of learning. The linguistic system
of interlanguage encompasses not just phonology, morphology, and syntax, but also
lexis, pragmatics, and discourse. Interlanguage (IL) differs systematically from both
the learner's native language (NL) and the target language (TL) being learned. The
IL is not just a relexification of the NL morphosyntactic system—NL rules with TL
vocabulary; in other words, NL transfer is not the only process that shapes IL. Just
as clearly, what the learner is producing is not the TL morphosyntactic system—the
IL has a distinctive and systematic set of rules that differs in describable ways from
the TL rule system.

Central to the notion of interlanguage is fossilization—the tendency of the

learner's interlanguage to stop developing short of the learner's goal. Fossilization
was initially claimed to occur only when adults acquire a second language after
puberty. Children acquiring second languages were thought to have the ability to
reengage their innate capacity for language‐specific acquisition (or universal
grammar, UG) and thus avoid fossilization.

57
 Selinker felt that fossilization results because adults acquiring second
languages use more general cognitive processes, which he referred to as “latent
psychological structure,” rather than an innate language‐specific UG, which he
referred to as “latent language structure” (Lenneberg, 1967). He identified five
cognitive processes that constitute the latent psychological structure and shape
interlanguage linguistic systems: (a) native language transfer, (b) overgeneralization
of target language rules, (c) transfer of training, (d) strategies of communication,
and (e) strategies of learning.

Native language transfer helps shape interlanguage rules. While it is not the
only cognitive process involved (as Lado claimed), there is ample research evidence
that it does influence the development of interlanguage rules. Selinker
(1972, 1992, following Weinreich, 1968, p. 7) suggests that the cognitive process
underlying transfer is interlingual identifications: the perception of certain units
as the same in NL, IL, and TL. So, for example, learners may perceive NL table as
exactly the same as TL mesa, and develop an interlanguage in which mesa can be
used in expressions like “table of contents” or “table the motion.” Selinker followed
Weinreich in pointing out an interesting paradox in second language acquisition: in
traditional structural linguistics, units are defined in relation to the linguistic system
in which they occur, and have no meaning outside that system. However, in making
interlingual identifications, second language learners perceive a linguistic unit as
the same in meaning across three systems.

How do they do this? And what sorts of units are used in this way: phonemes,
allophones, or syllables, for example? Selinker asks whether traditional linguistic
frameworks, based as they are on assumptions of monolingualism, can handle
interlanguage data in which interlingual identifications across three linguistic
systems play a central role.

A second cognitive process is overgeneralization of target language rules, a

process widely observed in child language acquisition and sometimes called
a developmental process. The learner shows evidence of having mastered a general
rule, but does not yet know all the exceptions to that rule. So, for example, the
learner may use the past tense marker ‐ed for all verbs, regular and irregular
alike: walked, wanted, hugged, laughed, *drinked, *hitted, *goed.

The overgeneralization error is clear evidence of progress, in that it shows

that the learner has learned the general language rule. The next step is to learn the
exceptions. To the extent that second language learners make overgeneralization
errors, one might argue that they are using the same process as that employed by

58
first language learners. Many of the early stages of development in SLA, such as in
the acquisition of English questions, can involve the cognitive process of
overgeneralization; for example, learners overgeneralize subject–verb–object
statement word order, to produce stage 3 questions.

Transfer of training occurs when the second language learner applies rules
learned from instructors or textbooks. Sometimes this rule application is successful,
but sometimes it is not. For example, a lesson plan or textbook that refers to the
English past perfect tense as the “past past” can lead the second language learner
to erroneously use the past perfect for events in the distant past (all events which
occurred long ago) without relating these to any more recent past event or time
frame, as in the isolated statement, *“My relatives had come from Italy in the
1800s.” Another example is the use of overly formal classroom expressions in
conversations with peers outside the classroom. Such errors resulting from transfer
of training have been called “induced errors.”

Strategies of communication are used by the learner to get meaning across

when the interlanguage system does not yet provide the requisite forms to do so in
a native‐like way. In the attempt to communicate meaning (for example, to refer to
an electrical cord in English) when the IL does not contain the exact lexical item
needed, learners can use a variety of strategies of communication. So, for example,
they can use an approximate term (a tube); describe its function (a kind of corder
that you use for electric thing I do not exactly the name); or describe its appearance
(a wire with eh two plugs in each side). Sometimes the linguistic forms and patterns
used in such attempts, if they prove successful in communicating with the
interlocutor, may persist for a time in the interlanguage.

Strategies of learning are the learner's conscious attempts to master the

target language. Examples of such strategies are the use of mnemonics to remember
target vocabulary, the memorizing of verb declensions or textbook dialogues, the
use of flash cards, and so on. Clearly, such strategies are often successful, but they
can also result in error. For example, the mnemonic mediator word may become
confused with the TL word. An example of the latter might be that an English‐
speaking learner of Spanish might use a mediator word pot in order to remember
that the Spanish word for duck is pato—but might end up using the English
word pot in interlanguage productions.

59
The Relevant Data for the Study of Interlanguage

What data should be used to study interlanguage rules? According to Selinker

(1972), the relevant data are utterances produced by second language learners
when they are trying to communicate meaning in the target language in unrehearsed
situations. Other data are irrelevant—learner utterances produced in response to
classroom drills and exercises, and learner introspections and intuitions about what
is grammatical in the target language. In such activities, the learner's attention is
focused on grammar rules or target language forms. Such data, according to
Selinker, do not provide information about the interlanguage system that underlies
spontaneous unrehearsed speech production. Rather, it is information about what
the learner has consciously learned about the target language system.

From the beginning, other scholars disagreed with Selinker about what data
should be used to study interlanguage. Corder argued that researchers ought to draw
upon a wide range of data sources—including learner intuitions of grammaticality—
in exploring learners' language. Others, particularly those investigating the role of
universal grammar in SLA, shared Corder's perspective. But Selinker argued that
when one uses these different data elicitation techniques, they may provide
information about different linguistic systems. If one asks a learner whether a given
sentence is grammatical, one cannot be sure whether that learner's response is
based upon the NL, the IL, or the learner's perception of the TL. All these responses
may be different from the IL norm revealed in that learner's utterances produced in
the attempt to communicate meaning. In essence, the most basic research‐design
question involved in the study of interlanguages—what data shall we use to study
interlanguage?—raises very complex issues concerning the relationship between
intuitions of grammaticality, language production, and language perception, very
similar to issues raised by Labov (1970) in sociolinguistic work. This issue is still
unresolved in SLA research.

The Revised Interlanguage Hypothesis

Since the interlanguage hypothesis was proposed in 1972, it has had

considerable impact on the field of second language acquisition, and has evolved in
certain ways (Han & Tarone, 2014). Some continuing themes of the hypothesis are
expanded upon below, and may be explored further in Tarone (2014).

The original interlanguage hypothesis was restricted to apply only to adults

acquiring second languages. However, subsequent studies in French immersion

60
programs in Canada showed that children produced interlanguages that were
apparently fossilized, and had substantial influence from NL transfer. There
appeared to be sociolinguistic reasons for this phenomenon: the children received
native‐speaker input only from their teacher and gave each other substantial non‐
native input. They had not usually been given enough opportunity and incentive to
produce what Swain (1995) called “comprehensible output”—attempts to produce
the interlanguage in meaningful communication with others.

A second theme from the IL hypothesis was seen in the influence of universal
grammar on the development of interlanguage. Universal grammar is assumed to be
central to the development of natural languages, but is interlanguage a natural
language? Selinker's initial hypothesis argued that IL is not, following this reasoning:
(a) Natural languages are produced by universal grammar (UG); (b) but
interlanguages, unlike native languages, fossilize and evidence native language
transfer; (c) interlanguages therefore must be produced by cognitive processes other
than UG; (d) therefore ILs do not have to obey language universals.

Adjemian (1976) took the opposing position, arguing that

interlanguages are natural languages (although, unlike other natural languages, IL
rule systems are “permeable” to invasion from NL and TL rules systems). In this
view, interlanguages are products of the same universal grammar that produces
native languages. As natural languages, interlanguages have to obey language
universals. Unlike other natural languages, ILs fossilize because of complex changes
in cases where parameters have already been set for the NL, and a TL with different
parameter settings must be learned. Debate on this issue has been ongoing and lively
(White, 1990).

A third theme of the interlanguage hypothesis is seen in a growing interest in

the way interlanguage forms shift and change in different social contexts
(Tarone, 1979, 1988). Increasing research evidence shows that social context is
central to interlanguage development; for example, a significantly more fluent,
grammatical, and transfer‐free interlanguage is evidenced in some social contexts
than in others. In some cases, social contexts can change developmental sequences
in SLA (Tarone & Liu, 1995).

International teaching assistants may be more fluent and grammatical in lecturing

on their academic field than when talking about an everyday topic like favorite foods
or bicycling (Selinker & Douglas, 1985). Bayley and Tarone (2012) review
variationist SLA studies and conclude that these show that the variation in learner
language is systematic. Variation in interlanguage production, documented in dozens

61
of variationist studies, has profound implications for data elicitation and analysis in
research (Preston, 1989, 2002; Tarone, 2000; Geeslin & Gudmestad, 2010).
Variationist researchers argue that because production of given interlanguage forms
varies systematically in relation to social context, task, topic, focus on form,
interlocutor, and so on, researchers need to document the contextual factors in play
in each elicitation, and use sophisticated statistical tools to model interlanguage.

Conceptually, the chameleon‐like character of ILs, and evidence (e.g.,

Rampton, 2013) that bilinguals agentively deploy all their language systems,
whether NL or IL, variably in social context for stylistic purposes, raises serious
questions about whether and how traditional linguistic notions developed to account
only for monolinguals in fact apply to the bilingual mind. Fasold and Preston (2007)
offer a psycholinguistic model showing how the bilingual brain can exert agency in
activating a wide range of linguistic features variably for sociocultural and stylistic
purposes. See Douglas Fir Group (2016) for detail.

A fourth theme is the phenomenon of fossilization. How inevitable is

fossilization and what are the forces that create it? Scovel proposed the Joseph
Conrad phenomenon, to draw attention to the very common case where an adult
learner's phonological system may fossilize, but the morphology, syntax, and lexicon
may not. Scovel (1988), like Selinker, argues that the causes of phonological
fossilization are neurolinguistic in nature, and related to the process of cerebral
lateralization, which is completed at puberty.

But there is certainly disagreement among interlanguage researchers as to

both the inevitability of fossilization, and (relatedly) the causes of fossilization
(Han, 2004). Typically, those who argue that fossilization is caused by sociolinguistic
forces (such as group pressure to conform to NL norms) also argue that fossilization
is not an inevitable process. Such researchers suggest that if learners can identify
with the TL social group, or if their need is great enough, they will be able to
continue learning the second language until their production/perception is
indistinguishable from that of native speakers. And our view of fossilization must be
tempered by the reality of IL variation; bilingual speakers with arguably fossilized IL
phonology or morphology have been shown to spontaneously shift to more target‐
like forms in language play producing “voices” in oral narratives (Moreno, 2016;
LaScotte & Tarone, in press). This issue is far from settled.

There has been some change in the way some of the psycholinguistic
processes shaping interlanguage are viewed. For example, the study of transfer has
been expanded and termed “crosslinguistic influence,” exploring how NL, IL, and TL

62
influence one another. We have learned transfer may operate selectively: for
example, some things transfer from the NL to IL, and some things do not. A crucial
question is: what gets transferred? Can we predict in advance which characteristics
will influence an IL and which ones will not? One promising notion is that of multiple
effects: when transfer combines with other influences, such as markedness factors,
learning strategies, or transfer of training, then there may be greater likelihood of
fossilization. So, for example, an early stage of verbal negation common among all
second language learners involves putting a negator (like no) before the verb.

Spanish does negate verbs this way (as in Juan no habla for John does not
talk) and Spanish speakers acquiring English L2 are more likely to fossilize at this
stage (producing John no talk). Thus, negative NL transfer has the effect of
amplifying the possibilities for fossilization when it interacts with other influences,
such as stages of L2 acquisition. In another example, the psycholinguistic process of
learning strategies first identified by Selinker (1972) has become a focus of
considerable research (Oxford, 2017).

Finally, research on interlanguage has expanded far beyond its original focus
on phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexis, to include social context. For example,
research on interlanguage pragmatics now includes comparative work on the way
learners execute speech acts across three linguistic systems (Kasper & Rose, 2003;
Taguchi & Roever, 2017). For expanded work on interlanguage, see contributions to
Han and Tarone (2014), and the Douglas Fir Group (2016).

The interlanguage hypothesis provided the initial spark that ignited a field of
research on second language acquisition/learning, and it continues to provide a
broad and productive framework for research across multiple theoretical
orientations. The research questions it originally raised continue to be among the
most central and interesting research questions in the field.

Further reading;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245231511730663X
Language acquisition and cognition: Information Processing, Skill acquisition theory,
memory and attention

Foreign language learning and aptitude

1. Introduction

63
 Foreign language (FL) aptitude generally refers to the specific talent for
learning a foreign or second language (L2) (Carroll 1981; Skehan 2002). It is a
concept deeply rooted in educational psychology and its interpretation in applied
linguistics is unavoidably affected by developments in the neighbouring fields of
education and psychology. In recent years, after decades of rapid developments
within the cognitive revolution (Carroll 1993; Miller 2003), knowledge of human
cognitive abilities has greatly expanded owing to new discoveries in the multiple
disciplines of the cognitive sciences, and in particular cognitive psychology and
cognitive neuroscience. As a result, it can be argued that a modern-day discussion
of the role of FL aptitude in applied linguistics would be seriously impoverished if
research progress from neighbouring disciplines were not taken into account (see
Biedroń 2015, for example, for a preliminary discussion of the potential contribution
of neurology to FL aptitude). Driven by these concerted efforts from educational
psychology, applied linguistics and cognitive science, the concept of FL aptitude has
undergone significant modifications since its inception, and is continually evolving
(Wen 2012a; Granena 2013; Skehan 2015a). To reflect on these advances in FL
aptitude theory construction and testing, the present paper sets out to trace these
developments in the first section, followed, in the second section, by a discussion
of more current research efforts to re-conceptualize the construct, often of a more
focused nature. Based on these findings, the final section will offer suggestions for
the future of FL aptitude research, both theoretical and methodological.

Foreign language aptitude

Experience tells us that some people learn a second or foreign language with greater
ease, more quickly, or with apparently better results than others. One perspective
on this phenomenon is the concept of Foreign Language Aptitude (FLA). Originally,
the notion of FLA presumed a relatively stable talent for learning a foreign language
that differs between individuals (Dörnyei and Skehan 2003: 590). However, whether
FLA is fixed/innate or amenable to training has become the departure point for most
research in this area.

Research into FLA first became established during the late 1950s and early 1960s
(Spolsky 1995). The most influential achievement in this period was the Modern
Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) (Carroll and Sapon 1959), with variants developed
for specifically targeted groups such as younger learners and military
personnel. Carroll’s (1962) subsequent conception of FLA comprised four
components:

• ▪ ‘phonemic coding ability’ (i.e. the ability to identify and retain sounds and link
them to phonetic symbols);

64
• ▪ sensitivity towards the grammatical functions that words fulfil in a sentence;
• ▪ the ability to learn inductively (i.e. to infer and generalize linguistic structures
from language samples); and
• ▪ the ability to rote learn vocabulary items paired with their associated
translations.

This approach served as the blueprint for most ensuing research.

From the 1970s onwards, however, enthusiasm for the concept of FLA and aptitude
testing began to fade, influenced in part by developments in mainstream
educational psychology (Williams and Burden 1997). Language teachers became
increasingly sceptical of the value of testing and subsequently labelling learners
according to an aptitude score; meanwhile, the MLAT’s focus on rote learning and
grammatical patterns favoured audio-lingual teaching methods that were perceived
as an irrelevance in the more communicative classrooms which prevailed in the
1970s and 1980s (Skehan 1998: 189). However, after experiencing a prolonged period
of ‘little theorizing’ and ‘little empirical work’ (Skehan 2002: 69), research into FLA
has recently regained momentum (Ellis 2004). Among others, Sparks and Ganschow
(2001) advocate reconsidering FLA in terms of a ‘linguistic coding differences
hypothesis’ (LCDH). The LCDH stresses the importance of analysing L1 skills
(particularly orthographic decoding skills in reading) for predicting FLA. In another
development, Grigorenko, Sternberg, and Ehrman (2000) proposed a CANAL-F theory
(i.e. Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language (Foreign)) that
highlights learners’ cognitive ability to handle fresh linguistic material in new
learning situations/contexts. Both approaches, therefore, emphasize the
importance of skills and skills development as part of FLA.

Additionally, Skehan (1998, 2002) postulates that the cognitive processes that are
central to all major developmental stages of SLA (for example noticing, linguistic
pattern identification, pattern restructuring) result from the interaction of multiple
FLA components (for example phonetic coding ability, language analytical ability,
memory ability). Similarly, Robinson’s (2005) ‘Aptitude complexes’ framework
strives to capture the dynamic interplay between a learner’s FLA profile (i.e.
different combinations of abilities) in relation to specific language tasks which they
need to complete in real-life situations. Both Skehan’s and Robinson’s proposals,

65
then, demonstrate the potential to go beyond traditional FLA research (which relied
heavily on the predictive power of aptitude scores) and offer insights into the
theoretical underpinnings of SLA from a dynamic FLA perspective.

The latest attempt to reconceptualize FLA is via the concept of working memory
(WM), i.e. the cognitive capacity to temporarily store and process linguistic
materials simultaneously (McLaughlin 1995; Miyake and Friedman 1998). Given the
robust role WM plays in L1 learning (Gathercole and Baddeley 1993) and SLA
activities (such as vocabulary learning, sentence processing, and L2 skills
development (Juffs and Harrington 2011)), the concept of WM seems a viable
addition to the current understanding of FLA (Sawyer and Ranta 2001).
Consequently, researchers are seeking to clarify further the finer-grained
associations between aspects of WM (for example its phonological short-term storage
capacity and its executive control mechanism) and their implications for specific SLA
areas, such as L2 task-based speech planning and performance (Wen 2012).

To conclude, the concept of FLA has developed considerably over the last 15 years,
from being seen as a stable and unitary fixed trait to being considered as more
dynamic and multiple sets of malleable abilities that interact with other internal
‘learner attributes and attitudes’ (Larsen-Freeman 2001) such as motivation and
learning styles (Dörnyei 2010) and with external contextual affordances (Ranta 2008:
151). In terms of ELT pedagogy, FLA research suggests that FLA profiles, when used
appropriately (for example by matching learners with specific instruction methods),
may enable students to learn more effectively and more satisfactorily (Wesche
1981; Erlam 2005) and allow teachers to identify and manage L2 learning problems
more successfully (Ehrman 1996; Sparks and Ganschow op.cit.)

Motivation and SLA

The desire to learn is often related to the concept of
'motivation'. Motivation is the most used concept for explaining the failure or
success of a language learner. Second language (L2) refers to a language an
individual learns that is not his/her mother tongue, but is of use in the area of the
individual.
All of the conditions that we know contribute to successful second language
acquisition are lacking in most EFL contexts: there just isn’t enough English input in
the environment, there probably aren’t enough opportunities for interaction with
English speakers, there usually aren’t enough strong role models promoting the
66
learning of English, and there may not be widespread enough social acceptance for
the idea of becoming proficient in English.
Because of these adverse conditions, a learner has to have extraordinary
motivation in order to succeed at learning English. Apart from the role that
intellectual capacity and language aptitude play in a second or foreign language
learning (Gardner & Lambert, 1972 cited in Xu 2008), motivation is a major factor
in the successful study of language acquisition.
It is considered goal directed and defined as “the combination of effort plus
desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes toward
learning the language” (Gardner, 1985, p. 10 cited in Xu 2008). Motivation is also an
important contributor to language achievement in terms of linguistic outcomes,
which traditionally embrace the knowledge structure of the language, i.e.
vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation and the four basic skills of the language,
including listening, understanding, reading and writing (Gardner, 1985 cited in Xu
2008).
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation refers to
whether the motivation is more inside a person or outside of him/her. Intrinsic
motivation refers to the motivation which is originated inside a person. There is no
reward except the activity itself. It means that the essence of motivated action that
is, sense of autonomy and the desire is self-initiating and self-regulating while in
extrinsic motivation there is an anticipation of reward from outside and a person is
motivated from an outside source rather than the self. Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
is related to the term locus of control which was first introduced by Rotter (1966,
cited in chalak & Kassaian 2010). If a person places responsibility for her/his life
within self, s/he has internal locus of control and is self-motivated character and if
s/he places the responsibility on others and on circumstances outside self, s/he has
external locus of control. In order to achieve internal locus and self-motivation, one
should be eager to give up the security of making excuses and to take responsibility
of all her/his decisions and actions.
Extrinsically motivated behaviours are carried out to get a reward from
outside and beyond the self. Maslow (1970) believed that intrinsic motivation is
noticeably superior to extrinsic because we are motivated to achieve "self-
actualization". Bruner (1966, cited in chalak & Kassaian 2010) claimed that one of
the most effective ways to help students is to free them from the control of rewards.
In some cases, the two kinds of motivation may overlap to some degree because one
may be motivated from both an inside source and an outside one at the same time.
Generally speaking, both kinds of motivation play important roles in learning and
lack of motivation can cause procrastination because motivation is the driving force
that makes people act. In other words, presence of motivation can increase learning
behaviour. Teachers need to know the type of motivation and its sources to meet
the students’ particular needs.
Instrumental and Integrative Motivation Within the field of language learning,
the typical model is the division made between integrative and instrumental

67
motivation (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, cited in Chalak & Kassaian 2010). If a person
learns a language primarily for a purpose like getting a job or fulfilling an academic
requirement, s/he is affected by instrumental motivation. In other words,
instrumental motivation refers to the motivation to acquire a language as means of
achieving goals such as promoting a career or job or reading technical texts while
integrative motivation has to do with wanting to be accepted by another community.
Integrative motivation means integrating oneself within a culture to become a part
of that society. Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) have referred to these two types of
motivation as motivation orientations and mentioned that depending on learner's
orientation (either career/academic-related 'instrumental" or socially/culturally-
related "integrative") different needs must be fulfilled in Foreign Language Teaching
(FLT). Some researchers believe that integrative motivation is essential for
successful second language learning. Graham (1984, cited in Chalak & Kassaian 2010)
made a distinction between integrative and assimilative motivation. Integrative
motivation is defined as the desire to learn L2 to communicate with the members of
the second language society and find out about its culture. It does not necessarily
refer to the direct contact with L2 group while in assimilative motivation learners
wish to lose themselves in the target language and become an indistinguishable
member of that speech community. What is important is that the two orientations
are not mutually exclusive.
Some learners learn better if they are integratively oriented while others are
more successful if they are instrumentally motivated and some learn better if they
take the advantage of both orientations. In other words, one may have both kinds
of motivations: s/he may be instrumentally motivated to pass a test or meet a
requirement, but at the same time, s/he may love the culture of a community and
want to learn and participate in its culture. Extrinsic and instrumental motivations
are similar but not exactly alike. Extrinsic focuses on the fact that the reason is
outside of a person, while instrumental is about the purpose of her/his learning.
Intrinsic and integrative motivations are also different because intrinsic motivation
has to do with what makes someone feel good while integrative motivation is about
membership in a language community.
The point worthy of mention is that during the lengthy process of learning,
motivation does not remain constant. It becomes associated with mental processes
and internal, external influences that the learner is exposed to. In other words, time
is considered an important aspect in the nature of learner's motivation.
MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES
Motivation can be defined as a need or desire that energizes and directs
behaviour (Myers, 2001, as cited in Shirkey, 2003). The study of motivation has been
influenced by various psychological theories. Each of these theories state different
sources of motivational needs, and each have certain drawbacks. Let us examine
some of these theories that have developed over the years.
Behavioral Views Behavioral views of motivation concentrate on extrinsic
factors (external rewards or punishments) and reinforcement of desired behaviors

68
(based on John Watsons’ mechanistic concept that behaviors could be totally
described in terms of observable responses to certain stimuli). An extrinsically
motivated student performs "in order to obtain some reward (good grades, teacher
approval, etc.) or avoid some punishment external to the activity itself," as opposed
to a student who is intrinsically motivated and undertakes an activity "for its own
sake, for the enjoyment it provides, the learning it permits, or the feelings of
accomplishment it evokes” (Lepper, 1988 as cited in Shirkey,2003).
B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning theory proposes that the voluntary
responses of people are strengthened when reinforced by rewards and weakened
when they are ignored or punished. Related to students, Skinner developed
programmed instruction, in which students were given positive reinforcement for
correct responses, motivating the student to proceed with desired consequences.
The behavioral approach is limited, however, in that it stresses external motivating
factors (praise, good grades, rewards, etc.), which may lead to certain drawbacks.
For example, students motivated in such a manner may be less likely to learn if no
tangible reward is given. In certain instances, extrinsic rewards actually decrease
intrinsic motivation factors that may have been present (Cameron & Pierce, 1994;
Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 1996 as cited in Shirkey,2003).
Following Skinner's lead, many behavioral learning theorists devised
techniques of behavior modification on the assumption that students are motivated
to complete a task by being promised a reward of some kind. Many times the reward
takes the form of praise or a grade. Sometimes it is a token that can be traded in
for some desired object; and at other times the reward may be the privilege of
engaging in a self-selected activity. Operant conditioning interpretations of learning
may help reveal why some students react favorably to particular subjects and dislike
others. For instance, some students may enter a required math class with a feeling
of delight, while others may feel that they have been sentenced to prison.
Skinner suggests that such differences can be traced to past experiences. He
would argue that the student who loves math has been shaped to respond that way
by a series of positive experiences with math. The math hater, in contrast, may have
suffered a series of negative experiences. The Power of Persuasive Models Social
learning theorists, such as Albert Bandura, call attention to the importance of
observation, imitation, and vicarious reinforcement (expecting to receive the same
reinforcer that we see someone else get for exhibiting a particular behavior). A
student who identifies with and admires a teacher of a particular subject may work
hard partly to please the admired individual and partly to try becoming like that
individual. A student who observes an older brother or sister reaping benefits from
earning high grades may strive to do the same with the expectation of experiencing
the same or similar benefits. A student who notices that a classmate receives praise
from the teacher after acting in a certain way may decide to imitate such behavior
to win similar rewards.
Cognitive Views Cognitive views on motivation propose that behavior is
influenced by the environment and self-perception. Compared to the behavioral
view of external stimulus/response, cognitive views tend to be more internal and

69
information processing based. Based on Jean Piaget’s equilibration, assimilation,
accommodation, and schema formation, cognitive views stress an innate desire on
the part of people to keep balance and organization in their perceptions of the world
around them.
When imbalance occurs, schema are modified to regain desired balance and
organization. In terms of motivation, students may become motivated to learn in
order to achieve desired equilibrium, and obtain a feeling of mastery over their
environment. Cognitive dissonance theory, developed by Leon Festinger, and based
on Piaget’s views on disequilibrium, states that people will act in such a way as to
resolve discrepancies between different beliefs or actions.
Cognitive views have certain limitations. These include difficulty in achieving
the lack of balance (or disequilibrium) needed to motivate students to modify
schema, and the difficulty in measuring the need for achievement in individuals.
Cognitive views stress that human behavior is influenced by the way people think
about themselves and their environment.
The direction that behavior takes can be explained by four influences: the
inherent need to construct an organized and logically consistent knowledge base,
one's expectations for successfully completing a task, the factors that one believes
account for success and failure, and one's beliefs about the nature of cognitive
ability. 3.3.Humanistic Views Humanistic views of motivation can be attributed to
Abraham Maslow. Maslow described (1970) a hierarchy of needs that drove
motivations. Maslow was a very influential person in regards to the study of
motivation, and his writings have led to many subsequent studies and attempts to
develop grand theories of motivation.
First, at the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy, are physiological needs (need
to satisfy hunger and thirst), second are safety needs (need for safety, security,
organization and predictability), third comes belongingness and love needs, fourth
comes esteem needs (self-esteem, achievement, competence, recognition,
respect), and fifth, at the highest level, are self-actualization needs (living up to
one’s fullest potential).
To adhere to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it becomes the teachers’ duty to
ensure that all lower hierarchical needs are met before achievement, competence,
and fulfilling potential are accomplished. This is one of the drawbacks of Maslow’s
theory that arises in practical application, due in part to limited resources including
money and time.
Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory, developed by Edward
Deci and Richard Ryan, focuses on the importance of intrinsic motivation in driving
human behavior. Like Maslow's hierarchical theory and others that built on it, SDT
posits a natural tendency toward growth and development. Unlike these other
theories, however, SDT does not include any sort of "autopilot" for achievement, but
instead requires active encouragement from the environment. The primary factors
that encourage motivation and development are autonomy, competence feedback,
and relatedness.

70
 Social Cognitive Theory More recent developments include Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT), proposed by Albert Bandura, and arising out of previous notions
espoused in Social Learning Theory, which has been in existence for some time (since
the 1890’s, in one form or another). SCT emphasizes social origins of behavior, and
proposes that cognitive factors play a central role. SCT also takes the stance that
learning can occur from observation of people and the world around us, as well as
from reading books and other materials.
Central to SCT is the concept of self-efficacy, and the major contribution it
makes towards cognitive development. The latest approach in developing a broad,
integrative theory of motivation is Temporal Motivation Theory. Integrating theories
of motivation. Introduced in their 2007 Academy of Management Review article, it
synthesizes into a single formulation the primary aspects of all other major
motivational theories, including Incentive Theory, Drive Theory, Need Theory, Self-
Efficacy and Goal Setting. Notably, it simplifies the field of motivation considerably
and allows findings from one theory to be translated into terms of another. 4. THE
IMPORTANCE OF
MOTIVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
Motivation is an issue worthy of investigation because it seems implicated in
how successful language learners are. And motivation is the answer that researchers
and teachers provide when regarding to efficient language learning. For decades,
studies in this area have been principally concerned with describing, measuring and
classifying its role in theoretical models of the language learning process (Ushioda,
1996). Most teachers and researchers have widely accepted motivation as one of the
key factors which influence the rate and success of second/foreign language
learning. Moreover, motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the
L2 and later the driving force to sustain the long and tedious learning process;
indeed, all the other factors involved in L2 acquisition presuppose motivation to
some extent (Dörnyei, 1998, as cited in Huang 2007).
Motivation determines the extent of active, personal involvement in L2
learning; research shows that motivation directly influences how often students use
L2 learning strategies, how much students interact with native speakers and how
long they persevere and maintain L2 skills after language study is over (Oxford &
Shearin, 1994, as cited in Huang 2007).
Conversely, without sufficient motivation, even individuals with the most
remarkable abilities cannot accomplish long-term goals, and neither are appropriate
curricula and good teaching enough on their own to ensure students achievement
(Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998, as cited in Huang 2007). 4.1.Motivation in L2 Field
Motivation to learn is an intricate, multifaceted construct.
When the target of the learning process is the mastery of an L2, the picture
becomes even more complex. In view of this inherent complexity, it is no wonder
that there had been a considerable diversity of theories and approaches in the study
of motivation in the L2 field. Depending on their research priorities, scholars

71
highlighted different aspects of L2 motivation, and few attempts had been made to
synthesize the various lines of enquiry (Dörnyei, 2001b).
The following overview of the L2 motivation studies will start with a summary
of Gardner’s influential motivation theory. Following, a number of alternative
constructs and expending model will be presented. 4.1.1. Gardner’s Motivation
Theory While an L2 is a learnable school subject in that discrete elements of the
communication code can be taught explicitly, it is also socially and culturally bound,
which makes language a deeply social event that requires the incorporation of a
wide range of elements of the L2 culture (Dörnyei, 2001b, as cited in Huang 2007).
This view had been broadly endorsed by L2 researchers, resulting in the
inclusion of a prominent social dimension in most comprehensive constructs of L2
motivation. The significance of this social dimension also explained why the study
of L2 motivation was originally initiated in Canada and that it was dominated by a
social psychological emphasis there (Dörnyei, 2003, as cited in Huang 2007).
Gardner’s studies about socio-psychological motivation had great influence in L2
field (Gardner& Tremblay, 1994a; Gardner& Tremblay, 1995 as cited in Huang 2007);
his studies were reviewed in the following. 4.1.2. The socio-Educational Model The
socio-educational model proposed by Gardner (1985b. as cited in Huang 2007)
incorporated various individual variables such as cognitive and affective variables in
order to provide a comprehensive interpretation of language learning.
This model’s main importance lies in its clear separation of four distinct
aspects of the second language acquisition process: antecedent factors, individual
difference variables, language acquisition contexts and outcomes (Dörnyei, 2001).
Gardner and MacIntyre (1993 as cited in Huang 2007) stated that all these four
aspects are influenced by social-cultural milieu, and they provide a schematic
representation of the socio-education model.
The models posited that biological and experiential are two main antecedent
factors which must be considered when attempting to study the role of individual
difference variables in the process of learning a second language (p. 8). For example,
the prior language experience (experiential factors) could affect level of language
attitudes, motivation and language anxiety (p. 8).Six individual difference variables
include both cognitive and affect variables also played significant roles in this model.
Intelligence, language aptitude, and language-learning strategies are cognitive
variables; on the other hand, language attitudes, motivation and language anxiety
are affective variables. This model shows that language attitudes have a causal
influence on motivation which has reciprocal relationship with language anxiety.
Then all this individual difference variables with the exception of language
attitudes will have a direct effect on formal learning environment, but only
motivation is shown to have a direct role in the informal context because an
individual who is not motivated will not take part in this context (p. Tremblay and
Gardner (1995 as cited in Huang 2007) later extended this model by incorporating
into it new elements from expectancy-value and goal theories and this new model
also was empirically tested (Figure 2.2).

72
 Tremblay and Gardner suggested that there are a number of variables
mediating the relationship between language attitudes and motivational behavior
(p. 515).These mediators are goal salience, valence, and self-efficacy. This
extended model indicated that goal salience was influenced by language attitudes
because positive language attitudes will orient students to develop specific learning
goals.
A second mediator valence is influenced by attitudes, and there is a causal
path between valence and motivational behavior, which suggests that higher levels
of motivational behavior resulted when learning is valued. The self-efficacy is shown
to be influenced by language attitudes and in turn to influence motivation behavior
(p. 515) In response to these expansions, Gardner and Tremblay (1994a as cited in
Huang 2007) recognized the exploration of other motivational theories as a way of
expanding the motivation construct but advocated that such endeavour was of no
value in the absence of pertinent empirical research (p. 366).
In addition, they also emphasized that the socio-educational model of second
language acquisition was not a static formulation; it was continually undergoing
change and development, as new relevant information was uncovered (1994b, p. 524
as cited in Huang 2007). Finally, Williams and Burden (1997 as cited in Huang 2007)
offered a detailed framework of L2 motivation, as part of a larger overview of
psychology for language teachers. They also considered L2 motivation to be a
complex and multi-dimensional construct; the main grouping category in their
construct is whether the motivational influence is internal or external (Dörnyei,
2001a as cited in Huang 2007).
Moreover, within these two categories they distinguished a number of
subcomponents, following some current themes in educational psychology (p. 19).
Tremblay and Gardner (1995 as cited in Huang 2007) later extended this model by
incorporating into it new elements from expectancy-value and goal theories and this
new model also was empirically tested. Tremblay and Gardner suggested that there
are a number of variables mediating the relationship between language attitudes
and motivational behavior (p. 515).
These mediators are goal salience, valence, and self-efficacy. This extended
model indicated that goal salience was influenced by attitudes, and there is a causal
path between valence and motivational behavior, which suggests that higher levels
of motivational behavior resulted when learning is valued. The self-efficacy is shown
to be influenced by language attitudes and in turn to influence motivation behavior
(p. 515). 4.1.3. The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)
The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (Gardner, 1985a.) attempted to
measure various individual difference variables proposed in Gardner’s socio-
educational model of second language acquisition (Masgoret, Bernaus, & Gardner,
2001, as cited in Huang 2007). The composition of the AMTB can be grouped into
five categories: motivation, integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation,
language anxiety, and other attributes (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993, as cited in Huang
2007). First, motivation is assessed by three scales, motivational intensity, desire to

73
learn L2 and attitudes toward learning L2. Next, integrativeness is the total on three
scales too, attitudes toward the target language group, interest in foreign languages,
and integrative orientation. Then, attitudes toward the learning situation refer to
affective reactions toward the language teacher and the language course. Moreover,
Language anxiety is measured by L2 class anxiety and L2 use anxiety. Finally, other
attributes include instrumental orientation, parental encouragement and
orientation index.

LEARNING ACTIVITY
1. Read this link :http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-23-en.pdf

SUMMATIVE TEST
1. Define the following:
a. acculturation
b. input by Krashen
c. Interaction and negotiation
d. out and feedback
2. Critique the Language Acquisition and the linguistic environment through a simple
report.

74
 Module 4

ELSC 102-THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

OBJECTIVES
b. List the emphasized concepts of social dimension theory

c. Organize the concepts affect and individual differences in language

acquisition through a creative presentation like folio

d. Create a model that would present the social dimension theory

Lesson 1

Affect and individual differences: personality and L2 learning, foreign language

anxiety and willingness to communicate
Why do some people almost achieve the native speaker‟s levels of
competence in a foreign language while others never seem to progress much beyond
a beginner‟s level? Some second language learners make rapid and apparently
effortless progress while others progress only very slowly and with great difficulty.
The reason probably is that people are not homogenous! They have different
personalities and styles. Thus, each individual is different from the other. These
individual differences, according to Dörnyei, (2005) are, “enduring personal
characteristics that are assumed to apply to everybody and on which people differ
by degree.” Humans differ from each other due to many biological or conditioned
factors (affected by nature) or unconscious forces (affected by past experiences).
The many ways in which one learns about these differences are usually
similar, through introspection and interaction with other people, or by reading books
and watching television or cinema. However, in order to conduct research in
individual differences, it is necessary to have rigorous instruments, and a scientific
way of providing reliable and valid. The differences that one can explore are: A. Age
B. Sex C. Aptitude D. Motivation E. Learning Styles F. Learning Strategies G.

75
Personality The above mentioned differences are intricately interlocked with each
other and in totality play important roles in language learning. Language teachers
should be aware of their effects. In compared to the linguistics factors, these
nonlinguistic factors are not given much importance in SLA research. Still many
researchers over the years have made significant efforts at exploring the role of
these factors. In a sequence, we will take a look at their role in second language
learning.
A. Age
Are children more successful second language learners than adults? Many
would say yes, if we commonly observe the ease with which children, especially
young children slip into the role of second language speakers. But Saville-Troike
(2006) warns us against such easy assumptions and argues that that one must define
the term „success‟ (89). According to her, “Some define “success” as initial rate of
learning while other studies define it as ultimate achievement.
Also, some studies define “success” in terms of how close the learner‟s
pronunciation is to a native speaker‟s, others in terms of how closely a learner
approximates native grammaticality judgments and still others in terms of fluency
or functional competence (89)”. She further warns that the evaluative criteria
clearly must be kept clearly in mind while judging conflicting claims about success.
It is believed that there is a critical period for first language acquisition. Children
are believed to have only a limited number of years during which normal acquisition
is possible.
Beyond that, physiological changes cause the brain to lose its plasticity, or
capacity to assume the new functions that learning language demands. Individuals
who for some reason are deprived of the linguistic input which is needed to trigger
first language acquisition during the critical period will never learn any language
normally. One famous case that provides rare evidence for this point is that of Genie,
an abused girl who was kept isolated from all language input and interaction until
she was thirteen years old. In spite of years of intensive efforts at remediation,
Genie never developed linguistic knowledge and skills for her L1 (English) that were
comparable to those of speakers who began acquisition in early childhood.
For a long time, a debate on the existence or absence of a critical period of
language learning has been going on in the field of SLA. A critical period means that
beyond a particular age successful acquisition of a second language is not possible
due to physiological changes in the brain (Kim et al., 1997). Moreover, as one gets
older, one becomes more self-conscious which hinders him/her from making full use
of his/her language skills, especially speaking skills. A more sophisticated version of
the critical period hypothesis is the concept of „sensitive‟ period for language
learning by Slobin (1982). The sensitive period implies that there is a period in one‟s
life (during childhood) when second language acquisition is optimized.
Slobin (1982) argues that of the sensitive period of language learning is proven
by the fact that the universal age of onset of production, rate of acquisition and age
of completion of language learning is the same and it is relatively unaffected by the

76
environmental variations and individual cognitive ability. It is hypnotized that once
this critical/ sensitive period is over, a child deprived of input and chances to
communicate is never able to regain his/her ability to acquire language as happened
in the case of „Genie‟ who after her release from solitary captivation since early
childhood was not able to learn even the basic language skills after she was rescued
at the age of thirteen. So how much difference does age make? Long (1990) argues
that for language learners of more than 15 years of age, it is difficult to acquire
native like fluency and an absence of an „accent‟. Saville-Troike (2006) agrees with
Long (1990) that, “some older learners can achieve native-like proficiency, although
they definitely constitute a minority of second language learners (89).” The critical/
sensitive period hypothesis is yet to be tested at the scientific level and SLA theorists
have a long way to before the find a clear and final answer to the fascinating
question of why and how children seem to be better (second) language learners.
B. Sex
Many studies (e.g., Oxford, 1993; Young & Oxford 1997) have found that
gender can have a significant impact on how students learn a language. Although
the study of gender as a variable in language learning is still at an early stage (Bacon
& Finneman, 1992; Oxford, 1993; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995), studies of individual
language learner differences related to sex (biological) or gender (socially
constructed) have shown that females tend to show greater integrative motivation
and more positive attitudes to L2, and use a wider range of learning strategies,
particularly social strategies (Oxford, Nyikos & Ehrman, 1988).
As a matter of fact, as for the problem whether difference exists between
male and female in terms of learning a language, Larsen-Freeman & Long (2000)
believed that in the process of first language acquisition female excel male, at least
at the early stage. Zhuanglin (1989) highlighted that, it was generally believed that
male and female are born with different linguistic advantages, such as, female learn
to speak earlier than male, and female learn a foreign language faster and better
than male, etc. Studies of actual results suggest females are typically superior to
males in nearly all aspects of language learning, except listening vocabulary (Boyle,
1987). Kimura (1992, as cited in Saville-Troike, 2006)), reports that higher levels of
articulatory and motor ability have been associated in women with higher levels of
estrogen level during the menstrual cycle.
C. Aptitude
Skehan, (1989) believes that aptitude has consistently been linked with L2
success, but remains one of the under investigated areas of SLA. Saville-Troike
(2006) suggests that assumption that there is a talent which is specific to language
learning has been widely held for many years. Many language aptitude tests like
TOEFL, IELTS have been used for a long period to test the aptitude of a second
language learner of English. Carroll (1963), who along with Sapon created the
Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) which was designed to predict success
foreign language learning, provides us with the following four types of abilities that

77
constitute aptitude: i. Phonemic coding ability (discriminates and encodes foreign
sounds) ii.
Grammatical sensitivity (recognizes functions of words in sentences) iii.
Inductive language learning ability (infers or induces rules from samples) iv. Memory
and learning (makes and recalls associations between words and phrases in L1 and
L2) Many scholars believe that aptitude alone does not determine the language
learning ability of an individual. Skehan (1989) suggests that individual ability may
vary by other factors. Other factors like personality, language learning style and
motivation must be considered before taking into account. Skehan (1989) further
concludes that language-learning aptitude “is not completely distinct from general
cognitive abilities, as represented by intelligence tests, but it is far from the same
thing”. Moreover, aptitude can only predict success in second language acquisition;
it cannot explain the reasons behind it.

D. Motivation
Motivation to learn a language is considered one of the most plausible reasons
of success at second language acquisition. According to Gardner (1985) Motivation =
effort + desire to achieve goal + attitudes. Saville-Troike (2006) claims that
motivation is the second strongest predictor (after aptitude) of second language
success. She further argues that motivation largely determines the level of effort
that learners expend at various stages in their L2 development, often a key to
ultimate level of proficiency. According to Gardner and Lambert (1972) the following
two types of motivation exist: i. Integrative: found in individuals who want are
interested in the second language in order to integrate with and become a part of a
target community/ culture; here the learner wants to resemble and behave like the
target community.
Instrumental: found in individuals who want to get learn a second language
with the objective of getting benefits from the second language skill. Objectives,
such as business advancement, increase in professional status, educational goals etc.
motivate an individual to learn a second language in this case. Both the types of
motivations have different roles to play. Both can lead to success. According to
Saville-Troike (2006) the relative effect of one or the other is dependent on complex
personal and social factors. L2 learning by a member of the dominant group in a
society may benefit more from integrative motivation, and L2 learning by a
subordinate group member may be more influenced by instrumental motivation. In
most of the motivation research, the relationship between motivation and second
language achievement has been shown as a strong one. But whether the achievement
drives motivation or motivation drives achievement is yet to be tested.

E. Learning Styles
Language learning styles refer to cognitive variations in learning a second
language. It is about an individuals‟ preferred way of processing, that is, of

78
perceiving, conceptualizing, organizing, and recalling information related to
language learning. According to Cornett (1983) the language learning styles are the
overall patterns that give general direction to learning behavior. Brown (2000) states
that unlike factors of age, aptitude, and motivation, its role in explaining why some
L2 learners are more successful than others has not been well established, it involves
a complex (and as yet poorly understood) interaction with specific
L2 social and learning contexts. The following cognitive styles have been
identified by Knowles (1972 as cited in Lochart & Richards, 1994): 1. Concrete
learning style Learners with a concrete learning style use active and direct means
of taking in and processing information. They are interested in information that has
immediate value. They are curious, spontaneous, and willing to take risks. They like
variety and a constant change of pace. They dislike routine learning and written
work, and prefer verbal or visual experiences.
They like to be entertained, and like to be physically involved in learning. 2.
Analytical learning style Learners with an analytical style are independent, like to
solve problems, and enjoy tracking down ideas and developing principles on their
own. Such learners prefer a logical, systematic presentation of new learning
material with opportunities for learners to follow up on their own. Analytical
learners are serious, push themselves hard, and are vulnerable to failure. 3.
Communicative learning style Learners with a communicative learning style prefer
a social approach to learning. They need personal feedback and interaction, and
learn well from discussion and group activities. They thrive in a democratically run
class. 4. Authority-oriented learning style Learners with an authority-oriented style
are said to be responsible and dependable. They like and need structure and
sequential progression. They relate well to a traditional classroom. They prefer the
teacher as an authority figure. They like to have clear instructions and to know
exactly what they are doing; they are not comfortable with consensus-building
discussion.
Another set of language learning style according to Witkin (1973), is the
cognitive learning styles. These styles are of two types: 1. Field Independent ( left
brain dominance) 2. Field Dependent style ( right brain dominance) A learner with a
field independent style is usually an independent and confident being who see parts
and details from a whole. The rational, logical and mathematical side of his/her
mind is more active during the process of learning. Such a learner thrives in a class
full of activities and exercises.
On the other hand, a field dependent learner is better at grasping the
observing ideas and observing the whole situation. He is visually and emotionally
oriented. For such a person communication and interaction help in second language
acquisition as he is usually a social being. It is important for a learner to be aware
of one‟s learning style but Oxford (2003) warns us against being too rigid about the
types as they “are not dichotomous (black or white, present or absent). Learning
styles generally operate on a continuum or on multiple, intersecting continua (p.3).”

79
 F. Learning Strategies The learning strategies are the strategies a learner
selects for language acquisition. Brown (2000) argues that the choice of learning
strategies is strongly influenced by the nature of their motivation, cognitive style,
and personality, as well as by specific contexts of use and opportunities for learning.
Many studies in SLA have ventured out to identify which strategies are used by
relatively good language learners, with the expectation that such strategies can be
taught or otherwise applied to enhance learning.
According to O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) strategies are the tools for active,
self-directed involvement needed for developing L2 communicative ability. O‟Malley
and Chamot, (1990) have identified the following strategies: 1. Cognitive strategies
Cognitive strategies “operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in
ways that enhance learning”. Some of these strategies are - Repetition: imitating
other people's speech overtly or silently; - Resourcing: making use of language
materials such as dictionaries; -
Directed Physical Response: responding physically “as with directives”; -
Translation: using the first language as a basis for understanding and/or producing
the L2; - Grouping: organizing learning on the basis of “common attributes”; - Note-
taking: writing down the gist etc of texts; - Deduction: conscious application of rules
to processing the L2; - Recombination: putting together smaller meaningful
elements into new wholes; - Imagery: visualizing information for memory storage; -
Auditory Representation: keeping a sound or sound sequence in the mind; - Key
Word: using key word memory techniques, such as identifying an L2 word with an L1
word that it sounds like; - Contextualization: placing a word or phrase in a
meaningful language sequence;
- Elaboration: relating new information to other concepts in memory; -
Transfer: using previous knowledge to help language learning; - Inferencing: guessing
meanings by using available information; - Question for Clarification: asking a
teacher or native speaker for explanation, help, etc.. 2. Metacognitive strategies
Metacognitive strategies are skills used for planning, monitoring, and evaluating the
learning activity; “they are strategies about learning rather than learning strategies
themselves”. The following are some of the metacognitive strategies - Advance
Organizers: planning the learning activity in advance; - Directed Attention: deciding
to concentrate on general aspects of a learning task; - Selective Attention: deciding
to pay attention to specific parts of the language input or the situation that will help
learning; - Self-management: trying to arrange the appropriate conditions for
learning; - Advance Preparation: planning the linguistic components for a
forthcoming language task; - Self-monitoring: checking one's performance as one
speaks; - Delayed Production: deliberately postponing speaking so that one may
learn by listening; - Self-evaluation: checking how well one is doing against one‟s
own standards; - Self- reinforcement: giving oneself rewards for success. 3. Social
and affective strategies Social and affective strategies involve interacting with
another person to assist learning or using control to assist a learning task. These
strategies are: - Questioning for Clarification: Asking for explanation, verification,
rephrasing, or examples about the material; asking for clarification or verification

80
about the task; posing questions to the self. - Cooperation: Working together with
peers to solve a problem, pool information, check a learning task, model a language
activity, or get feedback on oral or written performance. - Self-talk: Reducing
anxiety by using mental techniques that make one feel competent to do the learning
task.
Distinction between styles and strategies According to Lombaard (2006)
Language learning styles characterize the consistent and rather enduring traits,
tendencies, or preferences that may differentiate you from another person while
strategies are specific methods of approaching a problem or task, modes of
operation for achieving a particular end, or plan designed for controlling and
manipulating certain information. Strategies vary widely within an individual, while
styles are more constant and predictable (20). Oxford (2003) argues for need for
awareness amongst teachers regarding the types of strategies used by students in a
class as she believes that it foolhardy to think that a single L2 methodology could
possibly fit an entire class filled with students who have a range of stylistic and
strategic preferences.
G. Personality Human personality in all its shapes and colors brings variety to
this world. Personality studies have been the core of the study of human psychology
for more than 150 years. Eminent psychologists like Freud, Skinner and Allport
focused their studies on human personality. In SLA the study of the relation of
personality and language learning has been the subject of scholars like Krashen
(1985), Skehan (1989), Gass & Selinker, (1994) etc. one tends to agree with Ehrman
(1996) when he suggests that there is a clear relationship between personality and
SLA as personality determines what people feel comfortable with.
As a result, people tend to choose and consequently do what they feel
comfortable with and get better at the given skills (p.101). Thus, a second language
learner will make choices of strategies and skills according to bent of his/her
personality. There are a number of personality characteristics that may affect L2
learning, such as: 1. Extroversion vs. introversion 2. Self esteem 3. Inhibition 4. Risk-
taking 5. Anxiety Each of the above aspects is discussed in the following sections: 1.
Extroversion vs. Introversion According to Dawaele and Furnham (1999)
eextroversion and introversion are a part of a continuum. Extroverts are considered
sociable and impulsive.
They seem to dislike solitude, take risks, impulsive. Whereas, introverts are
believed to be introspective, quiet, retiring and reserved. An extrovert is said to
receive energy from outside sources, whereas an introvert is more concerned with
the inner world of ideas and is more likely to be involved with solitary activities.
This trait does not just describe whether a person is outgoing or shy, but considers
whether a person prefers working alone or feels energized and at home working in
a team. The relationship between extroversion and learning was first studied by
Eysenck who hypothysed that extroversion was not positively correlated with
learning due to several neuro-chemical phenomena in the human brain. Thus he
concluded that an introvert and not an extrovert would be a better language learner.

81
The SLA theorists, however, tend to disagree with Eysenck‟s conclusion. It is often
argued that an extroverted person is well suited to language learning.
SLA literature suggests that the more extravert language learners would
increase the amount of input (Krashen, 1985), prefer communicative approaches
(Cook, 2001), the more they are likely to join the group activities (McDonough,
1986). Therefore, they increase their interaction in the language which maximizes
the language output (Swain, 1985), hence yield a better product i.e. language
proficiency. However, research does not always support this conclusion. Some
studies have found that learners‟ success in language learning is associated with
extroversion such as assertiveness and adventurousness, while others have found
that many successful language learners do not get high scores on measures of
extroversion. 2. Self esteem Many researchers claim that no successful learning
activity can take place without some self- esteem and self confidence.
Coopersmith (1967) defines self- esteem as a personal judgment of worthiness
that is expressed in the attitudes that the individual holds towards himself/herself.
Brodkey and Shore (1976) revealed that self-esteem appears to be an important
variable in SLA, particularly in view of cross-cultural factors of second language
learning. Brodkey and Shore (1976), and Gardner and Lambert (1972) studied self
esteem and concluded that it was an important factor in second language
acquisition. Heyde‟s Self-Esteem Study (1979) also concluded that self esteem
generated by high involvement of teachers let to better results in second language
acquisition. MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clement, & Noels (1998) studies the role of self
confidences in their model of "willingness to communicate" in a foreign language.
Their results showed that a better ability to communicate did lead to more
willingness to communicate. A number of factors appear to contribute to
predisposing one learner to seek, and another learner to avoid, second language
communication.
They suggested that not one but many factors that lead to willingness to
communicate. Of these, motivation, personality, intergroup climate, and two levels
of self-confidence are a few. Of the two levels of self-confidence the first level
resembles “state communicative self-confidence”; the second, an general level “L2
self-confidence”. Both self-confidence factors assume important roles in
determining one's willingness to communicate. But as has been the case with many
other individual factors, it is believed that high self-esteem alone cannot cause
language success or vice versa. 3. Inhibition Inhibition is the set of defenses an
individual builds to protect himself/herself.
The presence of a language ego is considered to be a major hindrance to the
process of second language acquisition. The process of making mistakes, learning
from those mistakes and a consequent improvement in the language skills get
inhibited by this ego. With an adaptive language ego, the learner lowers the
inhibitions. An overtly self critical nature perceives the mistakes committed during
language learning process as in insult and further slows down the process. According
to Brown (2000) language teaching approaches in the last three decades have been
characterized by the creation of contexts in which students are made to feel free to

82
take risks and to orally try out hypotheses. He further claims that it broke down
some of the barriers that often make learners reluctant to try out their new
language. One would clearly agree with him when he argues that If we never
ventured to speak a sentence until we were absolutely certain of its total
correctness, we would likely never communicate productively at all (Brown, 2000).
4. Risk-taking Risk-Taking is “the ability to make intelligent guesses” (Rubin &
Thompson, 1994).
Beebe (1983) described some of the reasons that create fear of risk-taking:
- In the classroom: a bad grade in the course, a fail on the exam, a reproach from
the teacher, a smirk from a classmate, punishment or embarrassment imposed by
oneself. - Outside the classroom: fear of looking ridiculous, fear of the frustration
coming from a listener's blank look, fear of the alienation of not being able to
communicate and thereby get close to other human beings & fear of losing their
identity. Dufeu (1994) suggests teachers need to establish an adequate affective
framework so that learners "feel comfortable” as they take their first public steps
in the strange world of a foreign language.
To achieve this teachers have to create a climate of acceptance that will -
stimulate self-confidence - encourage participants to experiment and to discover
the target language Though risk taking is useful to some extent, high risk-taking will
not always yield positive results in second language learning. A number of studies
have found that successful language learners make willing and accurate guesses.
Thus, it is not always good to be impulsive. 5. Anxiety Anxiety is a factor that is that
is closely related with self-esteem and inhibition and risk-taking. Anxiety can play
an important role in L2 learning if it interferes with the learning process. Even
though it is a common feeling, it is not easy to define.
It comes with the feelings of uneasiness, frustration, self-doubt,
apprehension, or worry. A learner‟s willingness to communicate has also been
related to anxiety. It is often affected by the number of people present, the topic
of conversation, and the formality of the circumstances. The two types of anxiety
have been identified are: i. Trait anxiety: it is a more permanent tendency to be
anxious ii. State anxiety: it is a type of anxiety experienced in relation to some
particular event or act which can be temporary and context-specific According to
MacIntyre and Gardner, (1991), Trait anxiety, because of its global and somewhat
ambiguously defined nature, has not proved to be useful in predicting second
language achievement.
But, According to Brown (2000), recent research on language anxiety, as it
has come to be known, focuses more specifically on the situational nature of state
anxiety. Brown (2000) further states that three components of foreign language
anxiety have been identified. They are: i. Communication apprehension, arising
from learners' inability to adequately express mature thoughts and ideas; ii. Fear of
negative social evaluation, arising from a learner's need to make a positive social
impression on others; iii. Test anxiety or apprehension over academic evaluation.
Recent research acknowledges that not all anxiety is bad and a certain amount of

83
tension can have a positive effect and facilitate learning. According to its usefulness,
two types of anxiety have been identified.
They are: i. Debilitative Anxiety (harmful anxiety) ii. Facilitative Anxiety
(helpful anxiety) Facilitative anxiety, a positive factor, is the kind of anxiety,
concern or apprehension needed to accomplish is. Brown (2000) suggests that it can
keep one poised, alert, and just slightly unbalanced to the point that one cannot
relax entirely (a symptom of just enough tension to get the job done). Bailey (1983)
studied the benefits of facilitative anxiety in learning foreign languages and found
that while competitiveness sometimes hindered her progress, at other times it
motivated her to study harder. In Bailey's study of competitiveness and anxiety in
second language learning, facilitative anxiety was one of the keys to success, closely
related to competitiveness.
Foreign language anxiety
Clement (1980) defined foreign language anxiety as a complex construct
that deals with learners' psychology in terms of their feelings, self-esteem, and self-
confidence. Emphasising the distinctive feature of FLA, Young (1992) defined it as a
complicated psychological phenomenon peculiar to language learning.
It is important to accept the existence of a type of anxiety specific to the
language learning process because it can represent an emotionally and physically
uncomfortable experience for some students. The term “Foreign Language Anxiety”
(FLA) or “Language Anxiety” (LA) was coined by E. K. Horwitz, M. Horwitz and J. A.
Cope (1986) in their article “Foreign Language Anxiety,” where they formulated a
theory of an anxiety type specific to the language learning situation. They defined
LA as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours
related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language
learning process” (p. 128).
To measure anxiety and see whether a high level of anxiety hinders language
learning, they developed the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (see
Appendix A), which served as a starting point for the development of language and
culture-specific anxiety scales (e.g. the Arabic Foreign Language Anxiety
Questionnaire), as well as scales that would measure specific linguistic skills (e.g.
the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale and the Second Language Writing
Anxiety Scale). Horwitz et al. integrated three related anxieties in their
conceptualisation of foreign language anxiety: communication apprehension (the
fear of communicating with other people), test anxiety (the fear of exams, quizzes,
and other assignments used to evaluate students’ performance), and fear of negative
evaluation (the worry about how others view the speaker), and concluded that
anxiety could take place in any setting related to language performance. Anxiety
has been studied under three main approaches, namely, an individual’s trait, a
temporary psychological state, and a situation specific anxiety. The first “may be
defined as an individual’s likelihood of becoming anxious in any situation”
(Spielberger, 1983, in MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 87).

84
 This perspective considers anxiety to be a characteristic of the individual’s
personality, affecting not only language learning but also other situations (Casado &
Dereshiwsky, 2001; Ellis, 2008; Scovel, 1978; Spielberger, 1972). The second
perspective understands anxiety as “apprehension experienced at a particular
moment in time, for example, prior to taking examinations” (Spielberger, 1983, in
MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 90), and “[it] is interested in the here-and-now
experience of anxiety as an emotional state” (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991, p. 87).
The name of the third approach, “situation specific anxiety”, was coined by
MacIntyre and Gardner (as cited in Horwitz, 2001, p. 113) and it refers to the diverse
and consistent nature of certain anxieties, e.g. public speaking or participating in
class (Ellis, 2008). Moreover, Alpert and Haber (1960) set a distinction between
“debilitative” and “facilitative” anxieties. On the one hand, the former can work as
an affective filter (Krashen, 1982), that is to say, as a psychological obstacle that
prevents language learners from absorbing available comprehensible input
completely, and it leads to a state of discomfort.
As a consequence, students avoid doing certain tasks in the foreign language,
preventing the learner from achieving a high level of proficiency in a foreign
language (FL) (Backman, 1976; Chastain, 1975; Gardner et al., 1976; Horwitz et al.,
1991; Kleinmann, 1977; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Mettler, 1987; Tucker et al.,
1976; Young, 1986). On the other hand, the latter encourages the individual to solve
specific tasks by means of mobilizing fundamentally cognitive resources (Pérez
Paredes, 1999, p. 58), and has been thought to have positive effects in language
learning (Dulay et al., 1982; Pérez Paredes, 1999). Most of the research conducted
on anxiety has focused on finding correlations between anxiety and oral performance
(Hewitt & Stephenson, 2011; Horwitz, 2001; Liu, 2007; Phillips, 1992; Young, 1986;
Zhang, 2004), probably because most researchers believe that speaking is the most
anxiety-provoking of the four linguistic skills.
According to Daly (1991) and MacIntyre and Gardner (1991), speaking
activities require risk-taking and ask students to reveal their possibly insufficient
linguistic knowledge in front of the whole class. However, an increasing number of
researchers have shown an interest in the relationship between anxiety and the
other linguistic skills as well, supporting the existence of language-skill-specific
anxieties: reading (Brantmeier, 2005; Saito, Garza, & Horwitz, 1999; Kim, 2002),
listening (Elkhafaifi, 2005; Vogely, 1998; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992; Kim, 2000), and
writing (Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert, 1999; Cheng, 2004). The majority of results
have shown that 8 anxiety plays a detrimental role in language acquisition. In
addition, FLA has been proven to have potential negative effects on academic
achievement (Horwitz, 1986; Saito & Samimy, 1996; MacIntyre, Noels & Clément,
1997), cognitive processes (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994), the social context
(Kleinmann, 1977; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Steinberg & Horwitz, 1986), and the
reactions of the language learners towards themselves and the foreign language
(MacIntyre, 1999; Cohen & Norst, 1989; Price, 1991; Phillips, 1990). Despite the fact
that most researchers agree in there being a significant negative correlation
between language anxiety and language performance (e.g. MacIntyre & Gardner,

85
1989; Horwitz et al., 1986; Aida, 1994; Cheng et al., 1999; Daly, 1978; Faigley et
al., 1981), there are other researchers who argue that the focus should be, not on
anxiety per se, but on students’ beliefs about their own capability or competence,
which is what brings about different outcomes in students’ performance (Pajares &
Johnson, 1994; MacIntyre, Noels, & Clément, 1997).
In other words, even though the role of students’ perceptions on their own
competence is a rather unexplored research area, anxiety has also been shown to
be heavily influenced by the confidence or selfefficacy that students might have
when performing a given task, eventually influencing academic outcome and
language proficiency. 3. Students’ Perspectives on Language Anxiety Since I believe
that, in order to tackle the issue of FLA it is crucial to understand the way the main
protagonists, the students, feel, I will report on the research on students’
perspective on FLA in the following paragraphs. Horwitz et al. (1986) found out that
a third or more of the 225 students in beginning language classes at the University
of Texas who were surveyed as part of a “Support Group for Foreign Language
Learning” suffered FLA to some extent in response to at least some aspects of foreign
language learning (e.g. speaking in the foreign language, speaking in front of the
class, understanding the language input, being evaluated, and so on).
Even if this anxious reaction can vary widely from learner to learner, the
effects of FLA can extend beyond the classroom and affect students’ future choices
such as selection of courses, majors and careers (Horwitz et al., 1986; Daly & 9
Miller, 1975). Moreover, according to Foss and Reitzel (1991, p. 131), self-perception
plays a crucial role in language-learning, as “learning to reflect upon experiences
and going through some introspection can help students become more in tune with
their impressions of their second language competence and provide them with a
means for modifying their approaches to language learning.” Learner characteristics
that can cause foreign language anxiety include low selfesteem, competitiveness,
self-perceived low level of ability, communication apprehension, lack of group
membership with peers, and beliefs about language learning. Along this line,
students in McCoy’s (1979) study identified 11 anxietycausing factors.
These factors included pronunciation, inability to understand and answer
questions, peer judgement, not knowing or understanding the goals and
requirements of the course, and the teacher (especially when a native-speaker).
Bailey (1983) found a relationship between anxiety and competitiveness on the part
of foreign language learners. She studied the diaries of 11 learners and descried that
they tended to become anxious when they compared themselves with other learners
in the class and felt themselves to be less proficient.
She noted that as the students perceived themselves to be more proficient
and consequently better suited to compete, their anxiety decreased. Horwitz et al.
(1986) stated that anxious students often cite speaking in the foreign language to be
their most anxiety-producing experience. This might be due to the fact that it is
hard to be one’s self in the TL, which can thus trigger anxiety. In other words,
communicating in a foreign language may lead learners to a feeling of uncertainty

86
and threat to their ego due to the unknown element of the second language (Guiora
et al., 1972).
Therefore the foreign language learner is put in the position of communicating
something that is meaningful to them without having sufficient command of the
language to do so. In addition, self-aware language learners are confronted with the
probability that people will perceive them differently from the way they perceive
themselves. Hence learners can experience anxiety as a result of the fear to “lose
oneself” in the target culture. As Oxford (1992) points out, this is closely related to
the idea of “culture shock,” which according to Adler (1987) is “a form of anxiety
that results from the loss of commonly perceived and understood signs and symbols
of social intercourse” (in Oxford, 1992, p. 35). 10 Researchers have shown an
interest in interviewing foreign language learners in order to understand what it is
like to be an anxious student, and to identify anxietyprovoking factors as well as
those factors that may reduce anxiety, in an attempt to more fully understand the
role that anxiety may play in learning a foreign language from the perspective of the
anxious language learner.
For example, Price (1991) took a qualitative perspective and interviewed
highly-anxious students to gain insight into the subjective experience of language
anxiety. One of the interviewees explained that when she finished her oral report
at the end of the semester “the room was dead quiet. [The professor] said, ‘That is
the absolute worst thing I have ever heard.’” She considered that to be the most
traumatic experience she has ever had, and stated: “I’d rather be in prison camp
than speak a foreign language” (p. 104). In general, the interviews were consistent
with the foreign language anxiety construct identified by Horwitz et al. (1986): the
participants spoke about their test anxiety, communication apprehension, and fear
of negative evaluation. All of them identified speaking in the target language to be
the greatest source of anxiety.
The interviews conducted by Price (1991) emphasized the importance of low
self-esteem, since many anxiety-provoking situations reported by highly anxious
learners (e.g. students’ fear of speaking in public, anxiety over making a mistake in
front of others and willingness to participate in activities that do not require them
to be “spot-lighting”) could be related to low self-esteem. For instance, many of
Price’s subjects compared themselves to other language learners and believed that
their language skills were weaker, that everybody was looking down on them, and
that their work was not good enough. In addition, the participants’ responses
suggested that perfectionism is another personality trait that can come into play. In
this vein, Gregersen and Horwitz (2002) found that anxious language learners and
perfectionists may have a number of characteristics in common (e.g. higher
standards for their TL performance, a greater tendency towards procrastination,
more worry over the opinions of others, and a higher level of concern over their
errors) and that these characteristics have the potential to make language learning
unpleasant and less successful for them than for other students. Students’ beliefs
about language learning can also trigger anxiety (Horwitz et al., 1986; Horwitz,
1988, 1989; Price, 1991; Young, 1991).

87
 Students can have unrealistic expectations as to how a person should perform
in a foreign language classroom; when those expectations are not met, it can lead
to negative feelings about 11 one’s intelligence and abilities. Related to this issue,
Horwitz (1988) found that over a third of the beginning university language learners
thought that a foreign language could be learned in two years or less of typical
university study (i.e. one hour a day). In addition, many students also believed that
learning a second language primarily involved memorizing vocabulary words and
grammatical rules. Such erroneous beliefs may lead to disappointment and
frustration on the part of the students. In fact, Horwitz (1989) found a relationship
between several language learning beliefs and levels of foreign language anxiety in
university Spanish students. Specifically, when compared to less anxious students,
the more anxious learners in this study judged language learning to be difficult and
themselves to possess low levels of foreign language aptitude.
Finally, Palacios (1998) found that certain student beliefs are responsible for
FLA. In particular she noted that the feeling that mastering a language is an
overwhelming task, the feeling that one needs to go through a translation process
in order to communicate in the target language, the difficulty of keeping everything
in one’s head, and the belief that learning a language is easier at an earlier age are
detrimental for language learning and are responsible for language anxiety. In sum,
as we mentioned before, in order to understand the cause of FLA, it is important to
understand students’ perceptions and beliefs’ on language learning and their
expectations about language learning. Erroneous beliefs may cause students to have
unrealistic expectations about the language learning process, and thus cause
anxiety. Not acknowledging and checking students’ anxieties prevents interaction in
the learner group and hinders the acquisition of the second language (McCoy, 1979).
In the following section some pedagogical implications are discussed that would help
teachers better understand their students and create classroom environments
favourable to alleviating FLA.

LEARNING ACTIVITY

1. What is Foreign Language anxiety?

88
 Lesson 2

L2 learning and the social dimension: Vygotsyk’s sociocultural theory, conversation

analysis and SLA, systemic functional linguistics and SLA, identity theory

SOCIAL APPROACHES TO SLA

Many current approaches to SLA are fundamentally social. They are also
cultural, cognitive, and linguistic and are concerned with embodied, sentient human
beings engaged in language activity in various material and symbolic ways.
Sociocultural research in its many different forms is a case in point with its focus on
people's social and cognitive processes within cultural activity settings (e.g., Lantolf,
Poehner, & Swain, 2018; Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner, 2015; Storch, 2017; Swain &
Deters, 2007; Zuengler & Miller, 2006).

Ecological and sociocognitive views of learning (e.g., Atkinson, 2011, 2014;

Atkinson et al., 2018; DFG, 2016; Kramsch, 2002; Steffenson & Kramsch, 2017;
van Lier, 2004), likewise, conceptualize the social as inseparable from the
individual learner's embodied cognitive and emotional functioning.

Thus, many theoretical approaches without the word “social” in their

nomenclature are also considered social or sociocognitive by their proponents; these
include Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Larsen–
Freeman, 2019, this issue) and, increasingly, work in psychology, such as motivation
research, which now, in some studies, focuses on more holistic and situated
considerations of “persons‐in‐context” (time/space/place) (Dörnyei &
Ushioda, 2009; Ushioda, 2009, 2017).

Other research on learners’ motivation not based in psychology but reframed

as the more dynamic construct of investment has drawn heavily on sociological
theory and metaphors from economics for some time (Darvin & Norton, 2015).
Conversation analysis (CA), too, with its origins in sociology and its commitments to
understanding the organization of social interaction among interlocutors and its
affordances for learning, attends to social dimensions of language use in micro‐
interactional ways (see Hall, 2019, this issue).

89
 One CA‐inspired (or associated) approach, for example, examines how people
orient to particular social membership categories (Sacks, 1992; Schegloff, 2007) in
their own and others’ speech (e.g., as a “Chinese language learner” or “foreigner”).
Invoking such categories or categorization devices may have consequences for
learners’ identities and opportunities for practice and thus further development
(Surtees, 2018).

Usage‐based and emergentist approaches to SLA, for their part, also assume
that learners have extensive (social) exposure to language demonstrating strong
form–meaning mappings, provided initially in most cases through oral interaction
with a focus on shared meanings (DFG, 2016; Ellis, 2019, this issue; Ellis, O'Donnell,
& Römer, 2015; Ortega, 2019, this issue). Neurobiological SLA research (e.g.,
Schumann, 1997; Schumann et al., 2004), too, asserts that learning is mediated by
a variety of emotional, attentional, and other systems in the mind/brain, but arises
from social experience in concert with these mechanisms. Indeed, one of the 10
themes discussed in DFG (2016) captures this very point: that “language learning is
situated and attentionally and socially gated” (p. 27).

Social–interactionist approaches that were the hallmark of SLA, and especially

task‐based SLA, for several decades are also ‘social’ insofar as the interactions are
situated (in classrooms, in small group work, or in research labs with interlocutors)
and lead to various kinds of input, interaction, output, and corrections that are
associated with second language (L2) development (see examples in Batstone, 2010;
Mackey & Polio, 2009).

Larger‐scale sociological and sociolinguistic research that examines and

critiques social structure, hierarchy, ideologies about language, issues of
inclusion/exclusion, human agency, and different forms of capital involved in second
language learning is increasingly finding its way into SLA as well. Such concerns are
especially acute in contexts of globalization and transnational migration
(Block, 2014, 2015; Block & Corona, 2014; Blommaert, 2010; Duff, 2015;
Hornberger & McKay, 2010; Shin, 2014). Much of this work builds on Bourdieu's
(1977, 1991) Practice Theory and related theoretical foundations.

Research looking at the development of voice in another language, borrowing

from Bakhtin (1981), is also social in a sense because, it is argued, language is
inhabited by the voices of others (both through the history of the language's
development and artifacts, and in our own lives) and is therefore by its very nature
heteroglossic, dialogic, and arising from prior social experience (see Hall, Vitanova,
& Marchenkova, 2005). An important aspect of learning and using language, then,

90
is appropriating or approximating those voices for one's own purposes (see LaScotte
& Tarone, 2019, this issue).

Voice might seem to be a property of an individual, but it arises from histories

of interactions or encounters with others’ words through a variety of modalities.
(Hearing or using the phrase “fake news,” for example, and its collocates conjures
up individuals (one prominent politician, in particular), debates, and political
rhetoric associated with a particular time, place, social context, agenda, tone, and
political regime in the United States and others who have appropriated that term
for their own strategic ends; in other words, it “indexes” certain ideologies and
stances that are prominent in the current news media and bears the traces of prior
users of the term.)

Language socialization is yet another social approach (Duff & May, 2017; Duff
& Talmy, 2011) with origins in linguistic anthropology and related fields that also
engages with Bourdieu's concepts (especially habitus and field) in SLA.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of approaches to SLA that deem social contexts
and factors in learning to be integral to processes involved in the construction and
performance of language. Unfortunately, scholars often conceptualize and research
these factors (cognitive, social, emotional/affective, etc.) as independent,
separated by a “gap” or chasm or parallel non‐intersecting paths (e.g., cognitive
versus social approaches in SLA; Hulstijn et al., 2014; Zuengler & Miller, 2006). Yet
calls for “bridges” across such gaps too often go unheeded or uncrossed.

Sociocultural theory grew from the work of seminal psychologist

Lev Vygotsky, who believed that parents, caregivers, peers, and the culture at large
were responsible for developing higher-order functions. According to Vygotsky,
learning has its basis in interacting with other people.
The work of Lev Vygotsky (1934) has become the foundation of much research
and theory in cognitive development over the past several decades, particularly of
what has become known as sociocultural theory.
Vygotsky's sociocultural theory views human development as a socially
mediated process in which children acquire their cultural values, beliefs, and
problem-solving strategies through collaborative dialogues with more
knowledgeable members of society. Vygotsky's theory is comprised of concepts such
as culture-specific tools, private speech, and the Zone of Proximal Development.
Vygotsky's theories stress the fundamental role of social interaction in the
development of cognition (Vygotsky, 1978), as he believed strongly that community
plays a central role in the process of "making meaning."

91
 Unlike Piaget's notion that childrens' development must necessarily precede
their learning, Vygotsky argued, "learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the
process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological
function" (1978, p. 90). In other words, social learning tends to precede (i.e., come
before) development.
Vygotsky has developed a sociocultural approach to cognitive development.
He developed his theories at around the same time as Jean Piaget was starting to
develop his ideas (1920's and 30's), but he died at the age of 38, and so his theories
are incomplete - although some of his writings are still being translated from
Russian.
No single principle (such as Piaget's equilibration) can account for
development. Individual development cannot be understood without reference to
the social and cultural context within which it is embedded. Higher mental processes
in the individual have their origin in social processes.

1: Vygotsky places more emphasis on culture affecting cognitive development.

This contradicts Piaget's view of universal stages and content of development

(Vygotsky does not refer to stages in the way that Piaget does).
Hence Vygotsky assumes cognitive development varies across cultures, whereas
Piaget states cognitive development is mostly universal across cultures.
2: Vygotsky places considerably more emphasis on social factors contributing to
cognitive development.

(i) Vygotsky states the importance of cultural and social context for learning.
Cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided learning within
the zone of proximal development as children and their partner's co-construct
knowledge. In contrast, Piaget maintains that cognitive development stems largely
from independent explorations in which children construct knowledge of their own.
(ii) For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they
think and what they think about.
3: Vygotsky places more (and different) emphasis on the role of language in cognitive
development.

According to Piaget, language depends on thought for its development (i.e., thought
comes before language). For Vygotsky, thought and language are initially separate
systems from the beginning of life, merging at around three years of age, producing
verbal thought (inner speech).
For Vygotsky, cognitive development results from an internalization of language.
4: According to Vygotsky adults are an important source of cognitive development.

92
Adults transmit their culture's tools of intellectual adaptation that children
internalize. In contrast, Piaget emphasizes the importance of peers, as peer
interaction promotes social perspective taking.

Effects of Culture: - Tools of intellectual adaptation

Vygotsky claimed that infants are born with the basic abilities for intellectual
development called 'elementary mental functions' (Piaget focuses on motor reflexes
and sensory abilities).
Elementary mental functions include –
o Attention
o Sensation
o Perception
o Memory
Eventually, through interaction within the sociocultural environment, these are
developed into more sophisticated and effective mental processes which Vygotsky
refers to as 'higher mental functions.'
Each culture provides its children tools of intellectual adaptation that allow them
to use the basic mental functions more effectively/adaptively.
Tools of intellectual adaptation is Vygotsky’s term for methods of thinking and
problem-solving strategies that children internalize through social interactions with
the more knowledgeable members of society.
For example, memory in young children this is limited by biological factors.
However, culture determines the type of memory strategy we develop. For
example, in western culture, children learn note-taking to aid memory, but in pre-
literate societies, other strategies must be developed, such as tying knots in a string
to remember, or carrying pebbles, or repetition of the names of ancestors until large
numbers can be repeated.
Vygotsky, therefore, sees cognitive functions, even those carried out alone, as
affected by the beliefs, values, and tools of intellectual adaptation of the culture in
which a person develops and therefore socio-culturally determined. The tools of
intellectual adaptation, therefore, vary from culture to culture - as in the memory
example.

Social Influences on Cognitive Development

Like Piaget, Vygotsky believes that young children are curious and actively involved
in their own learning and the discovery and development of new
understandings/schema. However, Vygotsky placed more emphasis on social
contributions to the process of development, whereas Piaget emphasized self-
initiated discovery.

93
According to Vygotsky (1978), much important learning by the child occurs through
social interaction with a skillful tutor. The tutor may model behaviors and/or provide
verbal instructions for the child. Vygotsky refers to this as cooperative or
collaborative dialogue. The child seeks to understand the actions or instructions
provided by the tutor (often the parent or teacher) then internalizes the
information, using it to guide or regulate their own performance.

Shaffer (1996) gives the example of a young girl who is given her first jigsaw. Alone,
she performs poorly in attempting to solve the puzzle. The father then sits with her
and describes or demonstrates some basic strategies, such as finding all the
corner/edge pieces and provides a couple of pieces for the child to put together
herself and offers encouragement when she does so.
As the child becomes more competent, the father allows the child to work more
independently. According to Vygotsky, this type of social interaction involving
cooperative or collaborative dialogue promotes cognitive development.
In order to gain an understanding of Vygotsky's theories on cognitive development,
one must understand two of the main principles of Vygotsky's work: the More
Knowledgeable Other (MKO) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

More Knowledgeable Other

The more knowledgeable other (MKO) is somewhat self-explanatory; it refers to
someone who has a better understanding or a higher ability level than the learner,
with respect to a particular task, process, or concept.
Although the implication is that the MKO is a teacher or an older adult, this is not
necessarily the case. Many times, a child's peers or an adult's children may be the
individuals with more knowledge or experience.
For example, who is more likely to know more about the newest teenage music
groups, how to win at the most recent PlayStation game, or how to correctly perform
the newest dance craze - a child or their parents?
In fact, the MKO need not be a person at all. Some companies, to support employees
in their learning process, are now using electronic performance support systems.
Electronic tutors have also been used in educational settings to facilitate and guide
students through the learning process. The key to MKOs is that they must have (or
be programmed with) more knowledge about the topic being learned than the
learner does.

Zone of Proximal Development

The concept of the More Knowledgeable Other is integrally related to the second
important principle of Vygotsky's work, the Zone of Proximal Development.
This is an important concept that relates to the difference between what a child can
achieve independently and what a child can achieve with guidance and
encouragement from a skilled partner.

94
For example, the child could not solve the jigsaw puzzle (in the example above) by
itself and would have taken a long time to do so (if at all), but was able to solve it
following interaction with the father, and has developed competence at this skill
that will be applied to future jigsaws.
Vygotsky (1978) sees the Zone of Proximal Development as the area where the most
sensitive instruction or guidance should be given - allowing the child to develop skills
they will then use on their own - developing higher mental functions.
Vygotsky also views interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills
and strategies. He suggests that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where
less competent children develop with help from more skillful peers - within the zone
of proximal development.

Zone of Proximal Development

The concept of the More Knowledgeable Other is integrally related to the second
important principle of Vygotsky's work, the Zone of Proximal Development.
This is an important concept that relates to the difference between what a child can
achieve independently and what a child can achieve with guidance and
encouragement from a skilled partner.

For example, the child could not solve the jigsaw puzzle (in the example above) by
itself and would have taken a long time to do so (if at all), but was able to solve it
following interaction with the father, and has developed competence at this skill
that will be applied to future jigsaws.
Vygotsky (1978) sees the Zone of Proximal Development as the area where the most
sensitive instruction or guidance should be given - allowing the child to develop skills
they will then use on their own - developing higher mental functions.
Vygotsky also views interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills
and strategies. He suggests that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where
less competent children develop with help from more skillful peers - within the zone
of proximal development.

Evidence for Vygotsky and the ZPD

Freund (1990) conducted a study in which children had to decide which items of
furniture should be placed in particular areas of a dolls house.
Some children were allowed to play with their mother in a similar situation before
they attempted it alone (zone of proximal development) while others were allowed
to work on this by themselves (Piaget's discovery learning).
Freund found that those who had previously worked with their mother (ZPD) showed
the greatest improvement compared with their first attempt at the task. The

95
conclusion being that guided learning within the ZPD led to greater
understanding/performance than working alone (discovery learning).

Vygotsky and Language

Vygotsky believed that language develops from social interactions, for
communication purposes. Vygotsky viewed language as man’s greatest tool, a means
for communicating with the outside world.
According to Vygotsky (1962) language plays two critical roles in cognitive
development:
1: It is the main means by which adults transmit information to children.
2: Language itself becomes a very powerful tool of intellectual adaptation.
Vygotsky (1987) differentiates between three forms of language: social speech which
is external communication used to talk to others (typical from the age of two);
private speech (typical from the age of three) which is directed to the self and serves
an intellectual function; and finally private speech goes underground, diminishing in
audibility as it takes on a self-regulating function and is transformed into silent inner
speech (typical from the age of seven).
For Vygotsky, thought and language are initially separate systems from the beginning
of life, merging at around three years of age. At this point speech and thought
become interdependent: thought becomes verbal, speech becomes
representational. When this happens, children's monologues internalized to become
inner speech. The internalization of language is important as it drives cognitive
development.
'Inner speech is not the interiour aspect of external speech - it is a function in itself.
It still remains speech, i.e., thought connected with words. But while in external
speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words dies as they bring forth
thought. Inner speech is to a large extent thinking in pure meanings.'
(Vygotsky, 1962: p. 149)
Vygotsky (1987) was the first psychologist to document the importance of private
speech. He considered private speech as the transition point between social and
inner speech, the moment in development where language and thought unite to
constitute verbal thinking.
Thus private speech, in Vygotsky's view, was the earliest manifestation of inner
speech. Indeed, private speech is more similar (in its form and function) to inner
speech than social speech.
Private speech is 'typically defined, in contrast to social speech, as speech addressed
to the self (not to others) for the purpose of self-regulation (rather than
communication).' (Diaz, 1992, p.62)

96
Unlike inner speech which is covert (i.e., hidden), private speech is overt. In
contrast to Piaget’s (1959) notion of private speech representing a developmental
dead-end, Vygotsky (1934, 1987) viewed private speech as:
'A revolution in development which is triggered when preverbal thought and
preintellectual language come together to create fundamentally new forms of
mental functioning.'
(Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005: p. 1).
In addition to disagreeing on the functional significance of private speech, Vygotsky
and Piaget also offered opposing views on the developmental course of private
speech and the environmental circumstances in which it occurs most often (Berk &
Garvin, 1984).
Through private speech, children begin to collaborate with themselves in the same
way a more knowledgeable other (e.g., adults) collaborate with them in the
achievement of a given function. Vygotsky sees "private speech" as a means for
children to plan activities and strategies and therefore aid their development.
Private speech is the use of language for self-regulation of behavior. Language is,
therefore, an accelerator to thinking/understanding (Jerome Bruner also views
language in this way). Vygotsky believed that children who engaged in large amounts
of private speech are more socially competent than children who do not use it
extensively.
Vygotsky (1987) notes that private speech does not merely accompany a child’s
activity but acts as a tool used by the developing child to facilitate cognitive
processes, such as overcoming task obstacles, enhancing imagination, thinking, and
conscious awareness.
Children use private speech most often during intermediate difficulty tasks because
they are attempting to self-regulate by verbally planning and organizing their
thoughts (Winsler et al., 2007).
The frequency and content of private speech are then correlated with behavior or
performance. For example, private speech appears to be functionally related to
cognitive performance: It appears at times of difficulty with a task. For example,
tasks related to executive function (Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005), problem-solving
tasks (Behrend et al., 1992), schoolwork in both language (Berk & Landau, 1993),
and mathematics (Ostad & Sorensen, 2007).Berk (1986) provided empirical support
for the notion of private speech. She found that most private speech exhibited by
children serves to describe or guide the child's actions.
Berk also discovered than child engaged in private speech more often when working
alone on challenging tasks and also when their teacher was not immediately
available to help them. Furthermore, Berk also found that private speech develops
similarly in all children regardless of cultural background. Vygotsky (1987) proposed
that private speech is a product of an individual’s social environment. This
hypothesis is supported by the fact that there exist high positive correlations
between rates of social interaction and private speech in children.

97
Children raised in cognitively and linguistically stimulating environments (situations
more frequently observed in higher socioeconomic status families) start using and
internalizing private speech faster than children from less privileged backgrounds.
Indeed, children raised in environments characterized by low verbal and social
exchanges exhibit delays in private speech development.Childrens’ use of private
speech diminishes as they grow older and follows a curvilinear trend. This is due to
changes in ontogenetic development whereby children are able to internalize
language (through inner speech) in order to self-regulate their behavior (Vygotsky,
1987).
For example, research has shown that childrens’ private speech usually peaks at 3–
4 years of age, decreases at 6–7 years of age, and gradually fades out to be mostly
internalized by age 10 (Diaz, 1992).
Vygotsky proposed that private speech diminishes and disappears with age not
because it becomes socialized, as Piaget suggested, but rather because it goes
underground to constitute inner speech or verbal thought” (Frauenglass & Diaz,
1985).

LEARNING ACTIVITY

Research on what is
a. conversational analysis
b. systemic functional linguistics and SLA
c. identity theory

SUMMATIVE TEST
1. Create a model that would present the social dimension theory
2. Make a folio that would present the different language theories.

98