How Languages are Learned

5th edition
Patsy M. Lightbown & Nina Spada
Summary of Chapter 4:
Explaining Second Language Learning
The behaviourist perspective
• Views L2 acquisition as a result of:
- Imitation
- Practice
- Reinforcement (feedback on success)
- Habit formation
(e.g. Brooks, 1960)

2
Second language applications:
Mimicry and memorization
• Audiolingual instruction: a dominant approach to
foreign language teaching from the 1940s to the
1960s, especially in North America (e.g. Lado, 1964).
• Activities emphasized mimicry and memorization.
• ‘Habits’ formed in L1 were seen as interfering
with new L2 habits.
• Thus, behaviourism was linked with the
contrastive analysis hypothesis that learners’
errors are predictable on the basis of their L1.

3
Second language applications:
Mimicry and memorization (cont.)
• Researchers found that many learner errors are not
predictable on the basis of L1 alone.
• L1 influence is not simply a matter of habits but a
more complex process.
• Rejection of contrastive analysis hypothesis.
• Rejection of behaviourism.
The innatist perspective
• Chomsky’s view:
‒ Children have innate knowledge of certain
principles governing all languages: Universal
Grammar (UG).
‒ UG permits all children to acquire language
during a critical period.
‒ Chomsky made no specific claims about the
implications of his theory for L2 acquisition.
The innatist perspective
• Some linguists believe that UG is also the basis for
L2 acquisition (e.g. Cook, 2004).
• Others argue that UG is no longer ‘available’ for L2
acquisition (e.g. Schachter, 1990).
• Others hypothesize that prior knowledge of L1
changes how UG affects L2 acquisition (e.g. L. White,
1991).
Second language applications:
Krashen’s ‘Monitor Model’
Five hypotheses of the Monitor Model:
• ‘Acquisition’ is not the same as ‘learning’
• Learned knowledge is used only as a
monitor/editor
• Acquisition follows a ‘natural order’.
• Acquisition is based on access to comprehensible
input (containing i+1).
• The ‘affective filter’: stress and negative affect
interfere with acquisition.
(Krashen, 1982)
7
Krashen’s ‘Monitor Model’
• Challenged by other researchers and theorists as
not testable (e.g. McLaughlin, 1987).
• Nonetheless, a major influence on the movement
from structure-based to communicative
approaches to language teaching.
• Classroom research on L2 learning confirms that
students can make considerable progress through
exposure to comprehensible input but that it is
not sufficient: instructional intervention is also
important for L2 acquisition (e.g. R. Ellis, 2012).

8
The cognitive perspective
• The study of cognition—how humans acquire,
process, store, and retrieve information.
• In contrast to the innatist perspective, the
cognitive perspective does not assume a
mental module devoted specifically to language
acquisition. Rather, all learning and thinking are
based on the same cognitive processes.
• Learning L1 or L2 draws on the same learning
processes but the circumstances of learning
and L2 learners’ prior knowledge of L1 shapes
their perception of L2.
Information processing
• Language acquisition: gradually building up
knowledge through exposure to L2 (Robinson &
N. Ellis, 2008).
• New information must be noticed before it can
be learned (Schmidt, 2001).
• There is a limit to how much information a
learner can pay attention to at once (Segalowitz,
2010).
Information processing (cont.)
• Skill learning: New information may first be
internalized as declarative knowledge: the learner is
aware of the information and can report noticing it.
• Through practice, declarative knowledge is
proceduralized, and the learner acquires the ability to
use the information appropriately.
• With further practice, the information can be
accessed automatically—so automatically, in fact, that
the learner forgets having learned it.
(DeKeyser, 1998)
Information processing (cont.)
• Restructuring: not all knowledge seems to follow
the declarative–procedural–automatic path
(McLaughlin, 1990).
• Learners may practise something for a while and
then fail to use it when they acquire new
knowledge, e.g.
‒ after saying I saw or I went, a learner may begin to
use the regular past ending on these irregular verbs
(e.g. I seed or I goed).
• This process of ‘restructuring’ represents progress,
even though it may result in new errors in learner
language (Lightbown, 1985).
Information processing (cont.)
• Transfer-appropriate processing: when we learn
something, we also internalize the conditions under
which it was learned and the cognitive processes
involved in the learning.
• Thus, we recall something more easily when the
context and processes for recall are similar to those
in which we originally learned it.
(Lightbown, 2008)
Usage-based learning
• Learning is the gradual establishment and
strengthening of links between bits of information
(e.g. word and object, words that occur together,
words and grammatical markers).
• All learning is based on the same cognitive processes
—no special ‘module’ for language learning.
• The frequency with which information is
encountered is a strong predictor of how easily it will
be learned.
(N. Ellis & Wulff, 2020)
The competition model
• Proposed to account for both L1 and L2 learning
(Bates & MacWhinney, 1981).
• Through exposure, learners understand how to use
the cues (e.g. word order, animacy) that languages
use to signal specific functions.
• To interpret ‘odd’ sentences, English speakers tend
to use word order and Italian speakers use animacy
with a sentence like:
Il giocattolo sta guardando il bambino. (The toy – is
looking at – the child or, to an Italian speaker, The
child is looking at the toy) (MacWhinney, 1997).
Language and the brain
• Current research challenges the assumption that
language functions are located only in the left
hemisphere: multiple regions of the brain are
activated when language is processed.
• Differences have been observed between L1 and L2
processing (Beretta, 2011).
• Research shows activation of different brain regions
in relation to explicit and implicit instruction (e.g.
Ullman, 2020).
• Although it is premature to base L2 teaching on
brain research, new technologies are providing
more information about brain and language.
(e.g. Morgan-Short, 2014).
Second language applications:
Interaction, noticing, processing,
and practising
• The interaction hypothesis
• The noticing hypothesis
• Input processing
• Processability theory
• The role of practice
The interaction hypothesis

• Input becomes comprehensible not only through

modified (simplified) language in the input but,
more importantly, through modified interaction
(Long, 1996).
• Modified interaction includes:
‒ Comprehension checks
‒ Clarification requests
‒ Self-repetition or paraphrase
‒ Feedback to let learner know
when communication fails
The noticing hypothesis
• Nothing is learned unless it is noticed (Schmidt, 2001).
• Question of whether learners must be aware that
they are noticing something is the object of
considerable debate.
• Difficult to measure ‘noticing’ but different and
innovative methods exist, including eye-tracking.
Input processing
• Learners have difficulty focusing on form and
meaning at the same time.
• Learners pay attention mainly to meaning.
• Input processing instruction forces learners to pay
attention to form.
(VanPatten, 2004)
Processability theory
• Some language features (syntax and morphology)
are acquired in a predictable (developmental)
sequence (Pienemann, 1999).
• The teachability hypothesis: developmental
features of language can be successfully taught
only when learners are developmentally ‘ready’.
• Some language features are ‘variational’ (not
subject to a developmental sequence) and can be
taught at any time.
The role of practice
• Audiolingual instruction: practice often separated
language forms from meaningful language use
(DeKeyser, 2007).
• From a cognitive perspective, practice is not
mechanical and not restricted to production––it is
also relevant for comprehension.
• Practice should be interactive, meaningful, and
focus on task-essential forms (Ortega,2007).
• Practice should involve learners in doing what they
want to get better at understanding and producing
meaningful language.
The sociocultural perspective
• Cognitive development results from social
interaction.
• Learning occurs through interaction in the learner’s
‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD).
• In the ZPD, learners co-construct knowledge
through dialogue rather than by processing input
from the outside.
(Vygotsky, 1978)
Second language applications: Learning by talking

• Traditionally, development in the ZPD was thought

to occur through interaction between an ‘expert’
and a ‘novice’; it is now thought to occur in novice–
novice interaction as well (Swain & Lapkin, 2002).
• ZPD research investigates how learners co-construct
knowledge while engaged in collaborative dialogue
that focuses on form and meaning at the same time
(Swain, 2000).
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory
• A way of understanding systems—including
language—that are complex (include many
interactive parts) and dynamic (constantly
changing).
(De Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011)
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory
(cont.)
• Three central characteristics and how they relate to
language:
I. Interconnectedness: language and language
learning consist of several components (e.g.
vocabulary, pragmatics), and are embedded in
social, cultural, and psychological realities.
II. Non-linearity: language development does not
evolve in a linear manner.
III. Dynamic: development in one area of language
involves restructuring of the entire system.
(De Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011)
Second language applications: CDST
• New methodologies for CDST research are being
developed.
• Procedures to measure moment-to-moment changes in
learners’ motivation and willingness to communicate in
classrooms provide evidence of their dynamic nature
(Waninge, Dörnyei, & De Bot, 2014).
• Dynamic usage-based approach to L2 teaching:
‒ repeated exposure to authentic language to
promote connections between form and meaning.
‒ based on dynamic perspective that every time we
hear the same input, the input is different
(Rousse-Malpat & Verspoor, 2018).
Summary
• This chapter has presented different theories of L2
acquisition.
• Educators hoping that theories will give them
insight into practice are often frustrated by the lack
of agreement among the ‘experts’.
• Agreement on a ‘complete’ theory of L2 acquisition
and its significance for language teaching is, at
best, a long way off.
• A growing body of applied research that draws on a
wide range of theoretical orientations is likely to be
more helpful in guiding teachers’ reflections about
pedagogy.