You are on page 1of 14

Language acquisition is the process by which

humans acquire the capacity to perceive and


comprehend language, as well as to produce and use
words and sentences to communicate. Language
acquisition is one of the quintessential human traits,[1]
because non-humans do not communicate by using
language.[2] Language acquisition usually refers to
first-language acquisition, which studies infants'
acquisition of their native language. This is
distinguished from second-language acquisition, which
deals with the acquisition (in both children and adults)
of additional languages.
The capacity to successfully use language requires one
to acquire a range of tools including phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics, and an extensive
vocabulary. Language can be vocalized as in speech, or
manual as in sign. The human language capacity is
represented in the brain. Even though the human
language capacity is finite, one can say and
understand an infinite number of sentences, which is
based on a syntactic principle called recursion.
Evidence suggests that every individual has three
recursive mechanisms that allow sentences to go
indeterminately.
These three mechanisms
are:
relativization, complementation and coordination.[3]
Furthermore, there are actually two main guiding
principles in first-language acquisition, that is, speech
perception always precedes speech production and the
gradually evolving system by which a child learns a
language is built up one step at a time, beginning with
the distinction between individual phonemes.[4]
Second-language
acquisition, second-language
learning, or L2 (language 2) acquisition, is the
process by which people learn a second language.
Second-language
acquisition
(often
abbreviated
to SLA) is also the scientific discipline devoted to
studying that process. The field of second-language
acquisition is a subdiscipline of applied linguistics, but
also receives research attention from a variety of other
disciplines, such as psychology and education.
A
central
theme
in
SLA
research
is
that
of interlanguage, the idea that the language that
learners use is not simply the result of differences
between the languages that they already know and the
language that they are learning, but that it is a
complete language system in its own right, with its
own systematic rules. This interlanguage gradually
develops as learners are exposed to the targeted
language. The order in which learners acquire features
of their new language stays remarkably constant, even
for learners with different native languages, and
regardless of whether they have had language
instruction. However, languages that learners already
know can have a significant influence on the process of
learning a new one. This influence is known
as language transfer.
The primary factor driving SLA appears to be the
language input that learners receive. Learners become
more advanced the longer they are immersed in the
language they are learning, and the more time they
spend doing free voluntary reading. Interestingly,
theMonitor Model, developed by Stephen Krashen, a
linguist, makes a distinction between language
acquisition and language learning (acquisition-learning
distinction), claiming that acquisition is a subconscious

process, where learning is a conscious one. According


to this hypothesis, the acquisition process in L2 is the
same as L1 (Language 1) acquisition. The learning
process is consciously learning and inputting the
language being learned.[1] However, this goes as far as
to state that input is all that is required for acquisition.
Subsequent
work,
such
as
the interaction
hypothesis and the comprehensible output hypothesis,
has suggested that opportunities for output and for
interaction may also be necessary for learners to reach
more advanced levels.
Research on how exactly learners acquire a new
language spans a number of different areas. Cognitive
approaches to SLA research deal with the processes in
the brain that underpin language acquisition, for
example how paying attention to language affects the
ability to learn it, or how language acquisition is related
to short-term and long-term memory. Sociocultural
approaches reject the notion that SLA is a purely
psychological phenomenon, and attempt to explain it
in a social context. Some key social factors that
influence SLA are the level of immersion, connection to
the L2 community, and gender. Linguistic approaches
consider language separately from other kinds of
knowledge, and attempt to use findings from the wider
study of linguistics to explain SLA.There is also a
considerable body of research about how SLA can be
affected by individual factors such as age, learning
strategies, and affective factors. A commonly
discussed topic regarding age in SLA is the critical
period hypothesis, which suggests that individuals lose
the ability to fully learn a language after a particular
age in childhood. Another topic of interest in SLA is the
differences between adult and child learners. Learning
strategies are commonly categorized as learning or
communicative strategies, and are developed to
improve their respective acquisition skills. Affective
factors are emotional factors that influence an
individual's ability to learn a new language. Common
affective factors that influence acquisition are anxiety,
personality, social attitudes, and motivation.
Individuals may also lose a language through a process
called second-language attrition. This is often caused
by lack of use or exposure to a language over time.
The severity of attrition depends on a variety of factors
including level of proficiency, age, social factors, and
motivation at the time of acquisition. Finally, classroom
research deals with the effect that language instruction
has on acquisition.
Second language refers to any language learned in
addition to a person's first language; although the
concept is named second-language acquisition, it can
also incorporate the learning of third, fourth, or
subsequent languages.[2] Second-language acquisition
refers to what learners do; it does not refer to practices
in language teaching, although teaching can affect
acquisition. The term acquisition was originally used to
emphasize the non-conscious nature of the learning
1]
process,[note
but
in
recent
years learning andacquisition have
become
largely
synonymous.
SLA can incorporate heritage language learning,[3] but
it does not usually incorporate bilingualism. Most SLA
researchers see bilingualism as being the end result of
learning a language, not the process itself, and see the
term as referring to native-like fluency. Writers in fields
such as education and psychology, however, often use

bilingualism
loosely
to
refer
to
all
forms
of multilingualism.[4] SLA is also not to be contrasted
with the acquisition of a foreign language; rather, the
learning of second languages and the learning of
foreign languages involve the same fundamental
processes in different situations.[5]
Stages[edit]
Haynes divided the process of second-language
acquisition into five stages: preproduction, early
production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency,
and advanced fluency.[9] The first stage, preproduction,
is also known as the silent period. Learners at this
stage have a receptive vocabulary of up to 500 words,
but they do not yet speak their second language. [9] Not
all learners go through a silent period. Some learners
start speaking straight away, although their output
may consist of imitation rather than creative language
use. Others may be required to speak from the start as
part of a language course. For learners that do go
through a silent period, it may last around three to six
months.[10]
The second of Hayne's stages of acquisition is early
production, during which learners are able to speak in
short phrases of one or two words. They can also
memorize chunks of language, although they may
make mistakes when using them. Learners typically
have both an active and receptive vocabulary of
around 1000 words. This stage normally lasts for
around six months.[9]
The third stage is speech emergence. Learners'
vocabularies increase to around 3000 words during this
stage, and they can communicate using simple
questions and phrases. They may often make
grammatical errors.
The fourth stage is intermediate fluency. At this stage,
learners have a vocabulary of around 6000 words, and
can use more complicated sentence structures. They
are also able to share their thoughts and opinions.
Learners may make frequent errors with more
complicated sentence structures.
The final stage is advanced fluency, which is typically
reached somewhere between five and ten years of
learning the language. Learners at this stage can
function at a level close to native speakers.[9]
The time taken to reach a high level of proficiency can
vary depending on the language learned. In the case of
native English speakers, some estimates were provided
by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the U.S.
Department of State, which compiled approximate
learning expectations for a number of languages for
their professional staff (native English speakers who
generally already know other languages). Of the 63
languages analyzed, the five most difficult languages
to reach proficiency in speaking and reading, requiring
88
weeks
(2200
class
hours),
are Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese,
and Korean. The Foreign Service Institute and
the National Virtual Translation Center both note that
Japanese is typically more difficult to learn than other
languages in this group.[11]
Comparisons with first-language acquisition[edit]
Adults who learn a second language differ from
children learning their first language in at least three
ways: children are still developing their brains whereas
adults have conscious minds, and adults have at least
a first language that orients their thinking and

speaking. Although some adult second-language


learners reach very high levels of proficiency,
pronunciation tends to be non-native. This lack of
native pronunciation in adult learners is explained by
the critical period hypothesis. When a learner's speech
plateaus, it is known as fossilization.
Some errors that second-language learners make in
their speech originate in their first language. For
example, Spanish speakers learning English may say
"Is raining" rather than "It is raining", leaving out
the subject of the sentence. This kind of influence of
the first language on the second is known
as negative language
transfer. French speakers
learning English, however, do not usually make the
same mistake of leaving out "it" in "It is raining." This is
because pronominal and
impersonal
sentence
subjects can be omitted (or as in this case, are not
used in the first place) in Spanish but not in French.
[12]
The French speaker knowing to use a pronominal
sentence subject when speaking English is an example
of positive language transfer.
Also, when people learn a second language, the way
they speak their first language changes in subtle ways.
These changes can be with any aspect of language,
from pronunciation and syntax to gestures the learner
makes and the language features they tend to notice.
[13]
For example, French speakers who spoke English as
a second language pronounced the /t/ sound in French
differently from monolingual French speakers. [14] This
kind of change in pronunciation has been found even
at the onset of second-language acquisition; for
example, English speakers pronounced the English /p t
k/ sounds, as well as English vowels, differently after
they began to learn Korean.[15] These effects of the
second language on the first led Vivian Cook to
propose the idea of multi-competence, which sees the
different languages a person speaks not as separate
systems, but as related systems in their mind. [16]
Language transfer[edit]
Main article: Language transfer
One important difference between first-language
acquisition and second-language acquisition is that the
process of second-language acquisition is influenced by
languages that the learner already knows. This
influence is known as language transfer.[note 3] Language
transfer is a complex phenomenon resulting from
interaction
between
learners
prior
linguistic
knowledge, the target-language input they encounter,
and their cognitive processes. [25] Language transfer is
not always from the learners native language; it can
also be from a second language, or a third. [25] Neither is
it limited to any particular domain of language;
language
transfer
can
occur
in
grammar,
pronunciation, vocabulary, discourse, and reading. [26]
One situation in which language transfer often occurs
is when learners sense a similarity between a feature
of a language that they already know and a
corresponding feature of the interlanguage they have
developed. If this happens, the acquisition of more
complicated language forms may be delayed in favor
of simpler language forms that resemble those of the
language the learner is familiar with. [25] Learners may
also decline to use some language forms at all if they
are perceived as being too distant from their first
language.[25]
Language transfer has been the subject of several
studies, and many aspects of it remain unexplained.

Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain


language transfer, but there is no single widely
accepted explanation of why it occurs.[27]
[25]

Input and interaction[edit]


The primary factor affecting language acquisition
appears to be the input that the learner
receives. Stephen Krashen took a very strong position
on
the
importance
of
input,
asserting
that comprehensible input is all that is necessary for
second-language acquisition.[28][29] Krashen pointed to
studies showing that the length of time a person stays
in a foreign country is closely linked with his level of
language acquisition. Further evidence for input comes
from studies on reading: large amounts of free
voluntary reading have a significant positive effect on
learners' vocabulary, grammar, and writing.[30][31] Input
is also the mechanism by which people learn
languages according to the universal grammar model.
[32]

The type of input may also be important. One tenet of


Krashen's theory is that input should not be
grammatically sequenced. He claims that such
sequencing, as found in language classrooms where
lessons involve practicing a "structure of the day", is
not necessary, and may even be harmful.[33]
While input is of vital importance, Krashen's assertion
that only input matters in second-language acquisition
has been contradicted by more recent research. For
example, students enrolled in French-language
immersion programs in Canada still produced nonnative-like grammar when they spoke, even though
they had years of meaning-focused lessons and their
listening skills were statistically native-level. [34] Output
appears to play an important role, and among other
things, can help provide learners with feedback, make
them concentrate on the form of what they are saying,
and help them to automatize their language
knowledge.[35] These processes have been codified in
the theory of comprehensible output.[36]
Researchers have also pointed to interaction in the
second language as being important for acquisition.
According
to
Long's interaction
hypothesis the
conditions for acquisition are especially good when
interacting in the second language; specifically,
conditions
are good when a breakdown in
communication occurs and learners must negotiate for
meaning. The modifications to speech arising from
interactions like this help make input more
comprehensible, provide feedback to the learner, and
push learners to modify their speech.[37]
Cognitive factors[edit]
Much modern research in second-language acquisition
has taken a cognitive approach. [38] Cognitive research
is concerned with the mental processes involved in
language acquisition, and how they can explain the
nature of learners' language knowledge. This area of
research is based in the more general area of cognitive
science, and uses many concepts and models used in
more general cognitive theories of learning. As such,
cognitive theories view second-language acquisition as
a special case of more general learning mechanisms in
the brain. This puts them in direct contrast with
linguistic theories, which posit that language
acquisition uses a unique process different from other
types of learning.[39][40]
The dominant model in cognitive approaches to
second-language acquisition, and indeed in all second-

language acquisition research, is the computational


model.[40] The computational model involves three
stages. In the first stage, learners retain certain
features of the language input in short-term memory.
(This retained input is known as intake.) Then, learners
convert some of this intake into second-language
knowledge, which is stored in long-term memory.
Finally, learners use this second-language knowledge
to produce spoken output.[41] Cognitive theories
attempt to codify both the nature of the mental
representations of intake and language knowledge, and
the mental processes which underlie these stages.
In the early days of second-language acquisition
research on interlanguage was seen as the basic
representation
of
second-language
knowledge;
however, more recent research has taken a number of
different approaches in characterizing the mental
representation of language knowledge. [42] There are
theories that hypothesize that learner language is
inherently variable,[43] and there is the functionalist
perspective that sees acquisition of language as
intimately tied to the function it provides.[44] Some
researchers
make
the
distinction
between implicit and explicit language knowledge, and
some
between declarative and procedural language
knowledge.[45] There have also been approaches that
argue for a dual-mode system in which some language
knowledge is stored as rules, and other language
knowledge as items.[46]
The mental processes that underlie second-language
acquisition can be broken down into micro-processes
and
macro-processes.
Micro-processes
include
attention;[47] working
memory;[48] integration
and
restructuring. Restructuring is the process by which
learners
change
their
interlanguage
systems;
[49]
and monitoring is the conscious attending of
learners to their own language output. [50] Macroprocesses include the distinction between intentional
learning and incidental learning; and also the
distinction between explicit and implicit learning.
[51]
Some of the notable cognitive theories of secondlanguage acquisition include the nativization model,
the multidimensional
model and processability theory, emergentist models,
the competition model, and skill-acquisition theories.[52]
Other cognitive approaches have looked at learners'
speech
production,
particularly
learners' speech
planning and communication
strategies.
Speech
planning can have an effect on learners' spoken
output, and research in this area has focused on how
planning affects three aspects of speech: complexity,
accuracy, and fluency. Of these three, planning effects
on fluency has had the most research attention.
[53]
Communication strategies are conscious strategies
that learners employ to get around any instances of
communication breakdown they may experience. Their
effect on second-language acquisition is unclear, with
some researchers claiming they help it, and others
claiming the opposite.[54]
Sociocultural factors[edit]
From the early days of the discipline researchers have
also acknowledged that social aspects play an
important role.[55] There have been many different
approaches to sociolinguistic study of second-language
acquisition, and indeed, according to Rod Ellis, this
plurality has meant that "sociolinguistic SLA is replete
with a bewildering set of terms referring to the social
aspects of L2 acquisition".[56] Common to each of these

approaches, however, is a rejection of language as a


purely
psychological
phenomenon;
instead,
sociolinguistic research views the social context in
which language is learned as essential for a proper
understanding of the acquisition process.[57]
Ellis identifies three types of social structure which can
affect
the
acquisition
of
second
languages:
sociolinguistic setting, specific social factors, and
situational factors.[58] Sociolinguistic setting refers to
the role of the second language in society, such as
whether it is spoken by a majority or a minority of the
population, whether its use is widespread or restricted
to a few functional roles, or whether the society is
predominantly bilingual or monolingual. [59] Ellis also
includes the distinction of whether the second
language is learned in a natural or an educational
setting.[60] Specific social factors that can affect
second-language acquisition include age, gender,
social class, and ethnic identity, with ethnic identity
being the one that has received most research
attention.[61] Situational factors are those which vary
between each social interaction. For example, a learner
may use more polite language when talking to
someone of higher social status, but more informal
language when talking with friends.[62]
Immersion programs provide a sociolinguistic setting
that facilitates second-language acquisition. Immersion
programs are educational programs where children are
instructed in an L2 language.[63] Although the language
of instruction is the L2 language, the curriculum
parallels that of non-immersion programs and clear
support exists in the L1 language, as the teachers are
all bilingual. The goal of these programs is to develop a
high level of proficiency in both the L1 and L2
languages. Students in immersion programs have been
shown to have greater levels of proficiency in their
second language than students who receive second
language education only as a subject in school. [63] This
is especially true in terms of their receptive skills. Also,
students who join immersion programs earlier
generally have greater second-language proficiency
than their peers who join later. However, students who
join later have been shown to gain native-like
proficiency. Although immersion students' receptive
skills are especially strong, their productive skills may
suffer if they spend the majority of their time listening
to instruction only. Grammatical skills and the ability to
have precise vocabulary are particular areas of
struggle. It is argued that immersion is necessary, but
not sufficient for the development of native-like
proficiency in a second language. [63] Opportunities to
engage in sustained conversation, and assignments
that encourage syntactical, as well as semantic
development will help develop the productive skills
necessary for bilingual proficiency.[63]
A learner's sense of connection to their in-group, as
well as to the community of the target language
emphasize the influence of the sociolinguistic setting,
as well as social factors within the second-language
acquisition process. Social Identity Theory argues that
an important factor for second language acquisition is
the learner's perceived identity in relation to the
community of the language being learned, as well as
how the community of the target language perceives
the learner.[64] Whether or not a learner feels a sense of
connection to the community or culture of the target
language helps determine their social distance from
the target culture. A smaller social distance is likely to

encourage learners to acquire the second language, as


their investment in the learning process is greater.
Conversely, a greater social distance will discourage
attempts to acquire the target language. However,
negative views not only come from the learner, but the
community of the target language might feel greater
social distance to the learner, limiting the learner's
ability to learn the language. [64] Whether or not
bilingualism is valued by the culture or community of
the learner is an important indicator for the motivation
to learn a language.[65]
Gender, as a social factor, also influences SLA. Females
have been found to have higher motivation and more
positive attitudes than males for second-language
acquisition. However, females are also more likely to
present higher levels of anxiety, which may inhibit their
ability to efficiently learn a new language.[66]
There have been several models developed to explain
social
effects
on
language
acquisition.
Schumann's Acculturation
Model proposes
that
learners' rate of development and ultimate level of
language achievement is a function of the "social
distance" and the "psychological distance" between
learners and the second-language community. In
Schumann's model the social factors are most
important, but the degree to which learners are
comfortable with learning the second language also
plays a role.[67] Another sociolinguistic model is
Gardner's socio-educational
model,
which
was
designed to explain classroom language acquisition.
Gardner's model focuses on the emotional aspects of
SLA, arguing that positive motivation contributes to an
individuals willingness to learn L2; furthermore, the
goal of an individual to learn a L2 is based on the idea
that the individual has a desire to be part of a culture,
in other words, part of a (the targeted language) monolinguistic
community.
Factors,
such
as integrativeness and attitudes towards the learning
situation drive motivation. The outcome of positive
motivation is not only linguistic, but non-linguistic, such
that the learner has met the desired goal. Although
there are many critics of Gardner's model, nonetheless
many of these critics have been influenced by the
merits that his model holds. [68] [69] The inter-group
model proposes "ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key
construct for second-language acquisition. [70] Language
socialization is an approach with the premise that
"linguistic
and
cultural
knowledge
are constructedthrough
each
other",[71] and
saw
increased attention after the year 2000. [72] Finally,
Norton's theory of social identity is an attempt to
codify the relationship between power, identity, and
language acquisition.[73]
Sociocultural approaches[edit]
A unique approach to SLA is Sociocultural theory. It was
originally developed by Lev Vygotsky and his followers.
[74]
Sociocultural theory has a fundamentally different
set of assumptions to approaches to second-language
acquisition based on the computational model.
[75]
Furthermore, although it is closely affiliated with
other social approaches, it is a theory of mind and not
of general social explanations of language acquisition.
According to Ellis, "It is important to recognize... that
this paradigm, despite the label 'sociocultural' does not
seek to explain how learners acquire the cultural
values of the L2 but rather how knowledge of an L2 is
internalized through experiences of a sociocultural
nature."[75]

Linguistic factors[edit]
Linguistic approaches to explaining second-language
acquisition spring from the wider study of linguistics.
They differ from cognitive approaches and sociocultural
approaches in that they consider language knowledge
to be unique and distinct from any other type of
knowledge.[39][40] The linguistic research tradition in
second-language acquisition has developed in relative
isolation from the cognitive and sociocultural research
traditions, and as of 2010 the influence from the wider
field of linguistics was still strong.[38] Two main strands
of research can be identified in the linguistic tradition:
approaches informed by universal grammar, and
typological approaches.[76]
Typological universals are principles that hold for all the
world's languages. They are found empirically, by
surveying different languages and deducing which
aspects of them could be universal; these aspects are
then checked against other languages to verify the
findings.
The interlanguages of
second-language
learners have been shown to obey typological
universals, and some researchers have suggested that
typological universals may constrain interlanguage
development.[77]
The theory of universal grammar was proposed
by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s, and has enjoyed
considerable popularity in the field of linguistics. It
focuses on describing the linguistic competence of an
individual. He believed that children not only acquire
language by learning descriptive rules of grammar; he
claimed that children creatively play and form words as
they learn language, creating meaning of these words,
as opposed to the mechanism of memorizing language.
[78]
It consists of a set of principles, which are universal
and constant, and a set of parameters, which can be
set
differently
for
different
languages. [79] The
"universals" in universal grammar differ from
typological universals in that they are a mental
construct derived by researchers, whereas typological
universals are readily verifiable by data from world
languages.[77] It is widely accepted among researchers
in the universal grammar framework that all firstlanguage learners have access to universal grammar;
this is not the case for second-language learners,
however, and much research in the context of secondlanguage acquisition has focused on what level of
access learners may have.[79]
Universal grammar theory can account for some of the
observations made in SLA research. For example, L2users often display knowledge about their L2 that they
have not been exposed to.[80] L2-users will often be
aware of ambiguous or ungrammatical L2 units that
they have not learned from any external source, nor
from their pre-existing L1 knowledge. This unsourced
knowledge suggests the existence of a universal
grammar.
Individual variation[edit]
Main article: Individual variation in second-language
acquisition
There is considerable variation in the rate at which
people learn second languages, and in the language
level that they ultimately reach. Some learners learn
quickly and reach a near-native level of competence,
but others learn slowly and get stuck at relatively early
stages of acquisition, despite living in the country
where the language is spoken for several years. The
reason for this disparity was first addressed with the
study of language learning aptitude in the 1950s, and

later with the good language learner studies in the


1970s. More recently research has focused on a
number of different factors that affect individuals'
language learning, in particular strategy use, social and
societal influences, personality, motivation, and
anxiety. The relationship between age and the ability to
learn languages has also been a subject of longstanding debate.
Age[edit]
The issue of age was first addressed with the critical
period hypothesis.[note 4] The strict version of this
hypothesis states that there is a cut-off age at about
12, after which learners lose the ability to fully learn a
language. However, the exact age marking the end of
the critical period is debated, and ranges from age 6 to
13, with many arguing that it is around the onset of
puberty.[64] This strict version has since been rejected
for second-language acquisition, as some adult
learners have been observed who reach native-like
levels of pronunciation and general fluency. However,
in general, adult learners of a second-language rarely
achieve the native-like fluency that children display,
despite often progressing faster in the initial stages.
This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related
to other, more central factors that affect language
learning.
Children who acquire two languages from birth are
called simultaneous bilinguals. In these cases, both
languages are spoken to the children by their parents
or caregivers and they grow up knowing the two
languages. These children generally reach linguistic
milestones at the same time as their monolingual
peers.[81] Children who do not learn two languages from
infancy, but learn one language from birth, and
another at some point during childhood, are referred to
as sequential bilinguals. It is often assumed that a
sequential bilingual's first language will be his or her
most proficient language. However, this is not always
the case. Over time and experience, a child's second
language may become his or her strongest. [81] This is
especially likely to happen if a child's first language is a
minority language spoken at home, and the child's
second language is the majority language learned at
school or in the community before the age of five.
Proficiency for both simultaneous and sequential
bilinguals is dependent upon the child's opportunities
to engage in meaningful conversations in a variety of
contexts.[81]
Often simultaneous bilinguals are more proficient in
their languages than sequential bilinguals. One
argument for this is that simultaneous bilinguals
develop more distinct representations of their
languages,
especially
with
regards
to phonological and semantic levels
of
processing.
[82]
This would cause learners to have more
differentiation between the languages, leading them to
be able to recognize the subtle differences between
the languages that less proficient learners would
struggle to recognize. Learning a language earlier in
life would help develop these distinct representations
of language, as the learner's first language would be
less established. Conversely, learning a language later
in life would lead to more similar semantic
representations.[82]
Although child learners more often acquire native-like
proficiency, older child and adult learners often
progress faster in the initial stages of learning. [83] Older
child and adult learners are quicker at acquiring the

initial grammar knowledge than child learners,


however, with enough time and exposure to the
language, children surpass their older peers. Once
surpassed, older learners often display clear language
deficiencies compared to child learners. This has been
attributed to having a solid grasp on the first language
or mother tongue they were first immersed into.
Having this cognitive ability already developed can aid
the process of learning a second language since there
is a better understanding of how language works. [84] For
this same reason interaction with family and further
development of the first language is encouraged along
with positive reinforcement. The exact language
deficiencies that occur past a certain age are not
unanimously agreed upon. Some believe that only
pronunciation is affected, while others believe other
abilities are affected as well. However, some
differences that are generally agreed upon include
older learners having a noticeable accent, a smaller
vocabulary, and making several linguistic errors.
One explanation for this difference in proficiency
between older learners and younger learners
involves Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar is a
debated theory that suggests that people have innate
knowledge of universal linguistic principles that is
present from birth.[83] These principles guide children as
they learn a language, but its parameters vary from
language to language.[85] The theory assumes that,
while Universal Grammar remains into adulthood, the
ability to reset the parameters set for each language is
lost, making it more difficult to learn a new language
proficiently.[83] Since adults have an already established
native language, the language acquisition process is
much different for them, than young learners. The rules
and principles that guide the use of the learners' native
language plays a role in the way the second language
is developed.[85]
Some nonbiological explanations for second-language
acquisition age differences include variations in social
and psychological factors, such as motivation; the
learner's linguistic environment; and the level of
exposure. Even with less advantageous nonbiological
influences, many child learners will attain a greater
level of proficiency than adult learners with more
advantageous nonbiological influences.[83]
Strategies[edit]
There has been considerable attention paid to the
strategies which learners use when learning a second
language. Strategies have been found to be of critical
importance, so much so that strategic competence has
been
suggested
as
a
major
component
ofcommunicative
competence.[86] Strategies
are
commonly
divided
into learning
strategies and communicative
strategies,
although
there are other ways of categorizing them. Learning
strategies are techniques used to improve learning,
such
as mnemonics or
using
adictionary.
Communicative strategies are strategies a learner uses
to convey meaning even when she doesn't have access
to the correct form, such as using pro-forms like thing,
or using non-verbal means such as gestures. If learning
strategies and communicative strategies are used
properly language acquisition will be successful. Some
points to keep in mind while learning and additional
language are: providing information that is of interest
to the student, offering opportunities for the student to
share their knowledge and teaching appropriate

techniques for the uses of the learning resources


available.[87]
Affective factors[edit]
The learner's attitude to the learning process has also
been identified as being critically important to secondlanguage
acquisition. Anxiety in
language-learning
situations has been almost unanimously shown to be
detrimental to successful learning. Anxiety interferes
with the mental processing of language because the
demands
of
anxiety-related
thoughts
create
competition for mental resources. This results in less
available storage and energy for tasks required for
language processing.[88] Not only this, but anxiety is
also usually accompanied by self-deprecating thoughts
and fear of failure, which can be detrimental for an
individual's ability to learn a new language. [66] Learning
a new language provides a unique situation which may
even produce a specific type of anxiety, called
language anxiety, that affects the quality of
acquisition.[89] Also, anxiety may be detrimental for SLA
because it can influence a learner's ability to attend to,
concentrate on, and encode language information. [66] It
may affect speed and accuracy of learning. Further, the
apprehension created as a result of anxiety inhibits the
learner's ability to retrieve and produce the correct
information.
A related factor, personality, has also received
attention. There has been discussion about the effects
of extravert and introvert personalities.
Extraverted
qualities may help learners seek out opportunities and
people to assist with L2 learning, whereas introverts
may find it more difficult to seek out such opportunities
for interaction.[64] However, it has also been suggested
that, while extraverts might experience greater
fluency, introverts are likely to make fewer linguistic
errors. Further, while extraversion might be beneficial
through its encouragement of learning autonomously,
it may also present challenges as learners may find
reflective and time-management skills to be difficult.
[90]
However, one study has found that there were no
significant differences between extraverts and
introverts on the way they achieve success in a second
language.[91]
Other
personality
factors,
such
as conscientiousness, agreeableness,
and openness influence self-regulation, which helps L2
learners engage, process meaning, and adapt their
thoughts, feelings, and actions to benefit the
acquisition process.[90] SLA research has shown
conscientiousness to be associated with timemanagement skills, metacognition, analytic learning,
and persistence; agreeableness to effort; and openness
to
elaborative
learning,
intelligence,
and
metacognition. Both genetics and the learner's
environment impact the personality of the learner,
either facilitating or hindering an individual's ability to
learn.
Social attitudes such as gender roles and community
views toward language learning have also proven
critical. Language learning can be severely hampered
by cultural attitudes, with a frequently cited example
being the difficulty of Navajo children in learning
English.
Also, the motivation of the individual learner is of vital
importance to the success of language learning.
Motivation is influenced by goal salience, valence,
and self-efficacy.[92] In this context, goal salience is the
importance of the L2 learner's goal, as well as how

often the goal is pursued; valence is the value the L2


learner places on SLA, determined by desire to learn
and attitudes about learning the L2; and self-efficacy is
the learner's own belief that he or she is capable of
achieving
the
linguistic
goal.[92] Studies
have
consistently shown that intrinsic motivation, or a
genuine interest in the language itself, is more
effective over the long term than extrinsic motivation,
as in learning a language for a reward such as high
grades or praise. However, motivation is dynamic and,
as a L2 learner's fluency develops, their extrinsic
motivation may evolve to become more intrinsic.
[92]
Learner motivation can develop through contact
with the L2 community and culture, as learners often
desire to communicate and identify with individuals in
the L2 community. Further, a supportive learning
environment facilitates motivation through the increase
in self-confidence and autonomy. [92] Learners in a
supportive environment are more often willing to take
on
challenging
tasks,
thus
encouraging
L2
development.
Attrition[edit]
Main article: Second-language attrition
Attrition is the loss of proficiency in a language caused
by a lack of exposure to or use of a language. [64] It is a
natural part of the language experience as it exists
within a dynamic environment. [93] As the environment
changes, the language adapts. One way in which it
does this is by using L1 as a tool to navigate the
periods of change associated with acquisition and
attrition. A learner's L2 is not suddenly lost with disuse,
but its communicative functions are slowly replaced by
those of the L1.[93]
Similar to second-language acquisition, secondlanguage attrition occurs in stages. However,
according to the regression hypothesis, the stages of
attrition occur in reverse order of acquisition. With
acquisition, receptive skills develop first, and then
productive skills, and with attrition, productive skills
are lost first, and then receptive skills.[93]
Age, proficiency level, and social factors play a role in
the way attrition occurs.[93] Most often younger children
are quicker than adults to lose their L2 when it is left
unused. However, if a child has established a high level
of proficiency, it may take him or her several years to
lose the language. Proficiency level seems to play the
largest role in the extent of attrition. For very proficient
individuals, there is a period of time where very little, if
any, attrition is observed. For some, residual learning
might even occur, which is the apparent improvement
within the L2.[93] Within the first five years of language
disuse, the total percentage of language knowledge
lost will be less for a proficient individual than for
someone less proficient. A cognitive psychological
explanation for this suggests that a higher level of
proficiency involves the use of schemas, or mental
representations for linguistic structures. Schemas
involve deeper mental processes for mental retrieval
that are resistant to attrition. As a result, information
that is tied to this system is less likely to experience
less extreme attrition than information that is not.
[93]
Finally, social factors may play an indirect role in
attrition. In particular, motivation and attitude
influence the process. Higher levels of motivation, and
a positive attitude toward the language and the
corresponding community may lessen attrition. This is
likely due to the higher level of competence achieved

in L2 when the learner is motivated and has a positive


attitude.[93]
Classroom second-language acquisition[edit]
Main article: Second-language acquisition classroom
research
While considerable SLA research has been devoted to
language learning in a natural setting, there have also
been efforts made to investigate second-language
acquisition in the classroom. This kind of research has
a significant overlap with language education, and it is
mainly concerned with the effect that instruction has
on the learner. It also explores what teachers do, the
classroom context, the dynamics of classroom
communication. It is both qualitative and quantitative
research.
The research has been wide-ranging. There have been
attempts made to systematically measure the
effectiveness of language teaching practices for every
level of language, from phonetics to pragmatics, and
for almost every current teaching methodology. This
research has indicated that many traditional languageteaching techniques are extremely inefficient. [94] cited
in Ellis 1994 It is generally agreed that pedagogy
restricted to teaching grammar rules and vocabulary
lists does not give students the ability to use the L2
with accuracy and fluency. Rather, to become proficient
in the second language, the learner must be given
opportunities to use it for communicative purposes. [95]
[96]

Another area of research has been on the effects of


corrective feedback in assisting learners.This has been
shown to vary depending on the technique used to
make the correction, and the overall focus of the
classroom, whether on formal accuracy or on
communication of meaningful content.[97][98][99] There is
also considerable interest in supplementing published
research with approaches that engage language
teachers in action research on learner language in their
own classrooms.[100] As teachers become aware of the
features of learner language produced by their
students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention
to maximize interlanguage development.[101]
Early Theories
One of the earliest scientific explanations of language
acquisition was provided bySkinner (1957). As one of
the pioneers of behaviorism, he accounted for
language development by means of environmental
influence.
Skinner argued that children learn language based on
behaviorist reinforcement principles by associating
words with meanings. Correct utterances are positively
reinforced when the child realizes the communicative
value of words and phrases. For example, when the
child says milk and the mother will smile and give her
some as a result, the child will find this outcome
rewarding,
enhancing
the
child's
language
development (Ambridge & Lieven, 2011).
Universal Grammar
However, Skinner's account was soon heavily criticized
by Noam Chomsky, the world's most famous linguist
to date. In the spirit of cognitive revolution in the
1950's, Chomsky argued that children will never
acquire the tools needed for processing an infinite
number of sentences if the language acquisition
mechanism was dependent on language input alone.

Consequently, he proposed the theory of Universal


Grammar: an idea of innate, biological grammatical
categories, such as a noun category and a verb
category
that
facilitate
the
entire
language
development in children and overall language
processing in adults.
Universal Grammar is considered to contain all the
grammatical information needed to combine these
categories, e.g. noun and verb, into phrases. The
childs task is just to learn the words of her language
(Ambridge & Lieven). For example, according to the
Universal Grammar account, children instinctively
know how to combine a noun (e.g. a boy) and a verb
(to eat) into a meaningful, correct phrase (A boy eats).
This Chomskian (1965) approach to language
acquisition has inspired hundreds of scholars to
investigate the nature of these assumed grammatical
categories and the research is still ongoing.
Contemporary Research
A decade or two later some psycho linguists began to
question the existence of Universal Grammar. They
argued that categories like noun and verb are
biologically,
evolutionarily
and
psychologically
implausible and that the field called for an account that
can explain for the acquisition process without innate
categories.
Researchers started to suggest that instead of having a
language-specific mechanism for language processing,
children might utilise general cognitive and learning
principles.
Whereas researchers approaching the language
acquisition problem from the perspective of Universal
Grammar argue for early full productivity, i.e. early
adult-like knowledge of language, the opposing
constructivist investigators argue for a more gradual
developmental process. It is suggested that children
are sensitive to patterns in language which enables the
acquisition process.
An example of this gradual pattern learning
is morphology acquisition. Morphemes are the
smallest grammatical markers, or units, in language
that alter words. In English, regular plurals are marked
with an s morpheme (e.g. dog+s). Similarly, English
third singular verb forms (she eat+s, a boy kick+s) are
marked with the s morpheme. Children are considered
to acquire their first instances of third singular forms as
entire phrasal chunks (Daddy kicks, a girl eats, a dog
barks) without the ability of teasing the finest
grammatical components apart.
When the child hears a sufficient number of instances
of a linguistic construction (i.e. the third singular verb
form), she will detect patterns across the utterances
she has heard. In this case, the repeated pattern is the
s marker in this particular verb form. As a result of
many repetitions and examples of the s marker in
different verbs, the child will acquire sophisticated
knowledge that, in English, verbs must be marked with
an s morpheme in the third singular form (Ambridge &
Lieven, 2011; Pine, Conti-Ramsden, Joseph, Lieven &
Serratrice, 2008; Theakson & Lieven, 2005).
Approaching language acquisition from the perspective
of general cognitive processing is an economical
account of how children can learn their first language
without an excessive biolinguistic mechanism.
Conclusion

However, finding a solid answer to the problem of


language acquisition is far from being over. Our current
understanding of the developmental process is still
immature. Investigators of Universal Grammar are still
trying to convince that language is a task too
demanding to acquire without specific innate
equipment, whereas the constructivist researchers are
fiercely arguing for the importance of linguistic input.
The biggest questions, however, are yet unanswered.
What is the exact process that transforms the childs
utterances into grammatically correct, adult-like
speech? How much does the child need to be exposed
to language to achieve the adult-like state?
What account can explain variation between languages
and the language acquisition process in children
acquiring very different languages to English? The
mystery of language acquisition is granted to keep
psychologists and linguists alike astonished a decade
after decade.
The nature vs. nurture debate extends to the topic of
language
acquisition.
Today,
most researchers
acknowledge that both nature and nurture play a role
in language acquisition. However, some researchers
emphasize the influences of learning on language
acquisition, while others emphasize the biological
influences.
Receptive Language before Expressive Language
Childrens ability to understand language develops
faster than their ability to speak it. Receptive language
is the ability to understand language, and expressive
language is the ability to use language to
communicate. If a mother tells her fifteen-month-old
child to put the toy back in the toy chest, he may
follow her instructions even though he cant repeat
them himself.
Environmental
Influences
on
Language
Acquisition
A major proponent of the idea that language depends
largely on environment was the behaviorist B. F.
Skinner (see pages 145 and 276 for more information
on Skinner). He believed that language is acquired
through
principles
of
conditioning,
including
association, imitation, and reinforcement.
According to this view, children learn words by
associating sounds with objects, actions, and events.
They also learn words and syntax by imitating others.
Adults enable children to learn words and syntax by
reinforcing correct speech.
Critics of this idea argue that a behaviorist explanation
is inadequate. They maintain several arguments:

Learning cannot account for the rapid rate at


which children acquire language.

There can be an infinite number of sentences


in a language. All these sentences cannot be
learned by imitation.

Children make errors, such as overregularizing


verbs. For example, a child may say Billy hitted
me, incorrectly adding the usual past tense
suffix -ed to hit. Errors like these cant result
from imitation, since adults generally use
correct verb forms.

Children acquire language skills even though


adults do not consistently correct their syntax.
Neural Networks
Some cognitive neuroscientists have created neural
networks, or computer models, that can acquire some

aspects of language. These neural networks are not


preprogrammed with any rules. Instead, they are
exposed to many examples of a language. Using these
examples, the neural networks have been able to learn
the languages statistical structure and accurately
make the past tense forms of verbs. The developers of
these networks speculate that children may acquire
language in a similar way, through exposure to
multiple examples.
Biological Influences on Language Acquisition
The main proponent of the view that biological
influences bring about language development is the
well-known linguist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky argues
that human brains have a language acquisition device
(LAD), an innate mechanism or process that allows
children to develop language skills. According to this
view, all children are born with a universal grammar,
which makes them receptive to the common features
of all languages. Because of this hard-wired
background in grammar, children easily pick up a
language when they are exposed to its particular
grammar.
Evidence for an innate human capacity to acquire
language skills comes from the following observations:

The stages of language development occur at


about the same ages in most children, even
though different children experience very
different environments.

Childrens language development follows a


similar pattern across cultures.

Children generally acquire language skills


quickly and effortlessly.

Deaf children who have not been exposed to a


language may make up their own language.
These new languages resemble each other in
sentence structure, even when they are
created in different cultures.
Biology and Environment
Some researchers have proposed theories that
emphasize the importance of both nature and nurture
in language acquisition. These theorists believe that
humans do have an innate capacity for acquiring the
rules of language. However, they believe that children
develop language skills through interaction with others
rather than acquire the knowledge automatically.
Theory of Imitation
The basics of this theory are that children listen to
verbalized communication and repeat what they hear.
However, it is more complex than that. This method
has been studied by many behaviorists like Pavlov
(see Conditioning), Skinner, Tolman, and Thorndike.
Edward Thorndike stated that trial and error were very
important in the learning process. He also believed that
learning happens in increments and it does not involve
insight.
Thorndike engaged in many studies on animal behavior
[2]. His law of effect came about from watching cats
find their way out of puzzle boxes. This law stated that
a response came about from its effect as punishment
or reward. He believed that connections were made in
the brain and they got stronger with each attempt to
escape the box (Connectionism).
He also stated that the law of recency is important in
learning. It states that the latest response will
determine the next occurrence. Thorndike [3] also
believed that a law of exercise made responses

stronger by repeating them. This is similar to exercising


a muscle in the body.
Due to his many works with animals, Thorndike
believed that all mammals learned in the same basic
manner. In other words, the laws that he spoke of,
governed humans as well as other warm blooded
animals.
Criticisms
There are critics of the theory of imitation with
language learning. They cite examples of children
learning from adults. Often times, they will
mispronounce words and use grammar that they do
not hear from adults. Statements like, "My mom buyed
this toy for me is an example. The parent does not use
the term "buyed", in place of "bought".
Emergentism
Emergentism teaches that learning and using language
come from some basic principles that are not language
specific. Language seems to be a gift that is human
specific. No other creature on the planet has the
capability.
Chomsky [5] believed that there was something called
a separate cognitive module that made language
possible and strictly a human function. The "cognitive
module" theory raised some controversy in the
psychological and scientific communities.
The existence of a cognitive module cannot be proven
or disproven [6]. It is theorized to be a section of the
mind where thought process takes place. It may also
be seen as a separate and independent section of the
mind that can be utilized at certain times for other
specific reasons.
Piaget [4] studies on child development and education
have been very influential in the world, today. His
cognitive theory of language learning, states that
learning starts with adaptation. One can achieve that
adaptation through assimilation and accommodation.
Assimilation is the way that a person takes in
information and makes sense of it. This can include
changing
the
information
to
make
it
fit.
Accommodation and assimilation go hand in hand.
When one accommodates, he or she is using
assimilation to change his or her thought patterns.
Piaget also showed that classification was also
important to learning language. Certain words and
sounds needed to be grouped together to better
understand and use them in speech.
Classification needs to be taken a step further into sets
and subsets. This can lead to a better understanding
and file system for the very complex structure of
language.
Criticisms of Piaget's Theory
There are those that challenged Piaget's studies. For
example, Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky claims that
Piaget did not take cultural differences in consideration
with his theories on language learning. He also
believed that some learning tasks were too much for a
child and assistance was needed to successfully learn.
Empiricism
Empiricism states that learning is achieved by sensory
input.
Empiricism
states
that
evidence
from
experiments are very important and theory, hunches,
and intuition have little importance. This would be in

contrast to something like Chomsky's "cognitive


module".
William James used the term "radical empiricism" to
describe part of his philosophy. He was adamant that
structures or learning were not from any type of extrasensory or unknown sources.
Criticism
There are those that are critical of empiricism.
Chomsky stated that there is reason to believe that the
mind is a separate structure form the brain. This may
be due to its enormous complexities and untapped
resources.
He described the mind as a system of sensory organs
as opposed to a structure as simple as one's little
finger. He believed that is may be meaningless to study
the mind in relation to other parts of the body. He
compared it to studying the eyes and their relation to
the heart.
Evaluation

To date, there is no definite scientific evidence


to support the way that language is acquired
and learned. It is generally agreed that it is a
very complex and sophisticated process that
involves mental activity that still may not be
completely understood. There are many active
theories on the process.

Many have subscribed to the theory of


imitation. This theory states that we learn
language from imitating the actions of others.
This may often be seen when small children
imitate their parents. Thorndike developed his
law of effect after experimenting with cats in a
maze type of box. It also supported his theory
of connectionism. He believed that the cat's
mental connections became stronger, every
time they made their way out of the box.

Emergentism teaches that language comes


from faculties that are not necessarily specific
to language. Chomsky wrote about a "cognitive
module" theory. He believed that this module
existed in the human mind and it was not an
actual part of the brain, per se. As this could
not be proven, it raised a great deal of
controversy.

Piaget believed that the human mind a lot to


do with the way that information was
perceived. He believed that if the information
did not fit the mind, the mind would alter so
that it would fit.

Empiricism teaches that everything has its


base in the physical body and that the mind is
only an invention of the brain.

These theories all have counter theories and


criticisms. If we learn by imitation, why do
small kids often mispronounce words that they
hear and misuse grammar? There are those
that feel that emergentism does not allow for
the cultural differences in people. And there
are those that feel that empiricism is too "all
inclusive". The brain cannot be compared to
other body parts, as it is very complex and
different.
Theories of Language Development

The Learning Perspective


The Learning perspective argues that children imitate
what they see and hear,and that children learn from
punishment
and
reinforcement.(Shaffer,Wood,&
Willoughby,2002).
The main theorist associated with the learning
perspective is B.F. Skinner. Skinner argued that adults
shape the speech of children by reinforcing the
babbling of infants that sound most like words.
(Skinner,1957,as cited in Shaffer,et.al,2002).
The Nativist Perspective
The nativist perspective argues that humans are
biologically programmed to gain knowledge.The main
theorist associated with this perspective is Noam
Chomsky.
Chomsky proposed that all humans have a language
acqusition device (LAD). The LAD contains knowledge
of grammatical rules common to all languages
(Shaffer,et.al,2002).The LAD also allows children to
understand the rules of whatever language they are
listening to.Chomsky also developed the concepts of
transformational grammar, surface structure,and deep
structure.
Transformational grammar is grammar that transforms
a sentence. Surface structures are words that are
actually written. Deep structure is the underlying
message or meaning of a sentence. (Matlin,2005).
Interactionist Theory
Interactionists argue that language development is
both biological and social. Interactionists argue that
language learning is influenced by the desire of
children to communicate with others.
The Interactionists argue that "children are born with a
powerful brain that matures slowly and predisposes
them to acquire new understandings that they are
motivated
to
share
with
others"
( Bates,1993;Tomasello,1995, as cited in shaffer,et
al.,2002,p.362).
The main theorist associated with interactionist theory
is Lev Vygotsky.Interactionists focus on Vygotsky's
model of collaborative learning ( Shaffer,et al.,2002).
Collaborative learning is the idea that conversations
with older people can helpchildren both cognitively
and linguistically ( Shaffer,et.al,2002).
Theories of second-language acquisition
Theories of second-language acquisition are
various theories and hypotheses in the field of secondlanguage acquisition about how people learn a second
language. Research in second-language acquisition is
closely
related
to
several
disciplines
includinglinguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, neuro
science, and education, and consequently most
theories of second-language acquisition can be
identified as having roots in one of them. Each of these
theories can be thought of as shedding light on one
part of the language learning process; however, no one
overarching theory of second-language acquisition has
yet been widely accepted by researchers.
History[edit]
As second-language acquisition began as an
interdisciplinary field, it is hard to pin down a precise
starting date.[1] However, there are two publications in
particular that are seen as instrumental to the
development of the modern study of SLA: Pit Corder's

1967 essayThe Significance of Learners' Errors, and


Larry Selinker's 1972 article Interlanguage. Corder's
essay rejected a behaviorist account of SLA and
suggested that learners made use of intrinsic internal
linguistic processes; Selinker's article argued that
second-language learners possess their own individual
linguistic systems that are independent from both the
first and second languages.[2]
In the 1970s the general trend in SLA was for research
exploring the ideas of Corder and Selinker, and
refuting behaviorist theories of language acquisition.
Examples include research into error analysis, studies
in transitional stages of second-language ability, and
the "morpheme studies" investigating the order in
which learners acquired linguistic features. The 70s
were dominated by naturalistic studies of people
learning English as a second language.[2]
By the 1980s, the theories of Stephen Krashen had
become the prominent paradigm in SLA. In his
theories, often collectively known as the Input
Hypothesis,
Krashen
suggested
that
language
acquisition is driven solely by comprehensible input,
language input that learners can understand. Krashen's
model was influential in the field of SLA and also had a
large influence on language teaching, but it left some
important processes in SLA unexplained. Research in
the 1980s was characterized by the attempt to fill in
these gaps. Some approaches included Lydia White's
descriptions of learner competence, and Manfred
Pienemann's use of speech processing models
and lexical functional grammar to explain learner
output. This period also saw the beginning of
approaches based in other disciplines, such as the
psychological approach of connectionism.[2]
The 1990s saw a host of new theories introduced to the
field,
such
as Michael
Long's interaction
hypothesis, Merrill
Swain's output
hypothesis,
and Richard Schmidt's noticing hypothesis. However,
the two main areas of research interest were linguistic
theories of SLA based upon Noam Chomsky's universal
grammar, and psychological approaches such as skill
acquisition
theory and connectionism.
The
latter
category
also
saw
the
new
theories
of processability and input processing in this time
period. The 1990s also saw the introduction
of sociocultural theory, an approach to explain secondlanguage acquisition in terms of the social environment
of the learner.[2]
In the 2000s research was focused on much the same
areas as in the 1990s, with research split into two main
camps of linguistic and psychological approaches.
VanPatten and Benati do not see this state of affairs as
changing in the near future, pointing to the support
both areas of research have in the wider fields
of linguistics and psychology, respectively.[2]
Semantic theory
For the second-language learner, the acquisition of
meaning is arguably the most important task. Meaning
it is the heart of a language, not the exotic sounds or
elegant sentence structure. There are several types of
meanings: lexical, grammatical, semantic, and
pragmatic. All the different meaning contributing to the
acquisition to the meaning of generally having the
integral second language possession. [3]
Lexical meaning meaning that is stored in our mental
lexicon;

Grammatical meaning comes into consideration when


calculating the meaning of a sentence; usually
encoded in inflectional morphology (ex. - ed for past
simple, -s for third person possessive)
Semantic meaning word meaning;
Pragmatic meaning meaning that depends on
context, requires knowledge of the world to decipher;
for example, when someone asks on the phone, Is
Mike there? he doesnt want to know if Mike is
physically there; he wants to know if he can talk to
Mike.
Sociocultural theory[edit]
Sociocultural theory was originally coined by Wertsch
in 1985 and derived from the work of Lev Vygotsky and
the Vygotsky Circle in Moscow from the 1920s onwards.
Sociocultural theory is the notion that human mental
function is from participating cultural mediation
integrated into social activities. [4]
Universal grammar[edit]
Main article: Universal grammar
From the field of linguistics, the most influential theory
by far has been Chomsky's theory of Universal
Grammar (UG). The UG model of principles, basic
properties which all languages share, and parameters,
properties which can vary between languages, has
been the basis for much second-language research.
From a UG perspective, learning the grammar of a
second language is simply a matter of setting the
correct parameters. Take the pro-drop parameter,
which dictates whether or not sentences must have
a subject in order to be grammatically correct. This
parameter can have two values: positive, in which case
sentences do not necessarily need a subject,
and negative, in which case subjects must be present.
In German the sentence "Er spricht" (he speaks) is
grammatical, but the sentence "Spricht" (speaks) is
ungrammatical. In Italian, however, the sentence
"Parla" (speaks) is perfectly normal and grammatically
correct.[5] A German speaker learning Italian would only
need to deduce that subjects are optional from the
language
he
hears,
and
then
set
his prodrop parameter for Italian accordingly. Once he has set
all the parameters in the language correctly, then from
a UG perspective he can be said to have learned
Italian, i.e. he will always produce perfectly correct
Italian sentences.
Universal
Grammar also
provides
a succinct
explanation for much of the phenomenon of language
transfer. Spanish learners of English who make the
mistake "Is raining" instead of "It is raining" have not
yet set their pro-drop parameters correctly and are still
using the same setting as in Spanish.
The main shortcoming of Universal Grammar in
describing second-language acquisition is that it does
not deal at all with the psychological processes
involved with learning a language. UG scholarship is
only concerned with whether parameters are set or
not, not with how they are set.
Input hypothesis[edit]
Main article: Comprehensible input
Learners' most direct source of information about the
target language is the target language itself. When
they come into direct contact with the target language,
this is referred to as "input." When learners process

that language in a way that can contribute to learning,


this is referred to as "intake."
Generally speaking, the amount of input learners take
in is one of the most important factors affecting their
learning. However, it must be at a level that is
comprehensible to them. In his Monitor Theory,
Krashen advanced the concept that language input
should be at the "i+1" level, just beyond what the
learner
can
fully
understand;
this
input
is
comprehensible, but contains structures that are not
yet fully understood. This has been criticized on the
basis that there is no clear definition of i+1, and that
factors other than structural difficulty (such as interest
or presentation) can affect whether input is actually
turned into intake. The concept has been quantified,
however, in vocabulary acquisition research; Nation
reviews various studies which indicate that about 98%
of the words in running text should be previously
known in order for extensive reading to be effective.[6]
In his Input Hypothesis, Krashen proposes that
language acquisition takes place only when learners
receive input just beyond their current level of L2
competence. He termed this level of input i+1.
However, in contrast to emergentist and connectionist
theories, he follows the innate approach by applying
Chomskys Government
and
binding
theory and
concept of Universal grammar (UG) to secondlanguage acquisition. He does so by proposing a
Language Acquisition Device that uses L2 input to
define the parameters of the L2, within the constraints
of UG, and to increase the L2 proficiency of the learner.
In addition, Krashen (1982)s Affective Filter Hypothesis
holds that the acquisition of a second language is
halted if the learner has a high degree of anxiety when
receiving input. According to this concept, a part of the
mind filters out L2 input and prevents uptake by the
learner, if the learner feels that the process of SLA is
threatening. As mentioned earlier, since input is
essential in Krashens model, this filtering action
prevents acquisition from progressing.
A great deal of research has taken place on input
enhancement, the ways in which input may be altered
so as to direct learners' attention to linguistically
important areas. Input enhancement might include
bold-faced vocabulary words or marginal glosses in
a readingtext. Research here is closely linked to
research on pedagogical effects, and comparably
diverse.
Monitor model[edit]
Main article: Monitor hypothesis
Other concepts have also been influential in the
speculation about the processes of building internal
systems of second-language information. Some
thinkers hold that language processing handles distinct
types of knowledge. For instance, one component of
the Monitor Model, propounded by Krashen, posits a
distinction
between
acquisition
and
learning.[7] According to Krashen, L2 acquisition is a
subconscious process of incidentally picking up a
language, as children do when becoming proficient in
their first languages. Language learning, on the other
hand, is studying, consciously and intentionally, the
features of a language, as is common in traditional
classrooms. Krashen sees these two processes as
fundamentally different, with little or no interface
between them. In common with connectionism,

Krashen sees
acquisition.[7]

input

as

essential

to

language

Further, Bialystok and Smith make another distinction


in explaining how learners build and use L2 and
interlanguage knowledge structures. [8] They argue that
the concept of interlanguage should include a
distinction between two specific kinds of language
processing ability. On one hand is learners knowledge
of L2 grammatical structure and ability to analyze the
target language objectively using that knowledge,
which they term representation, and, on the other
hand is the ability to use their L2 linguistic knowledge,
under time constraints, to accurately comprehend
input and produce output in the L2, which they call
control. They point out that often non-native
speakers of a language have higher levels of
representation than their native-speaking counterparts
have, yet have a lower level of control. Finally,
Bialystok has framed the acquisition of language in
terms of the interaction between what she calls
analysis and control.[9] Analysis is what learners do
when they attempt to understand the rules of the
target language. Through this process, they acquire
these rules and can use them to gain greater control
over their own production.
Monitoring is another important concept in some
theoretical models of learner use of L2 knowledge.
According to Krashen, the Monitor is a component of an
L2 learners language processing device that uses
knowledge gained from language learning to observe
and regulate the learners own L2 production, checking
for accuracy and adjusting language production when
necessary.[7]
Interaction Hypothesis[edit]
Main article: Interaction Hypothesis
Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language
acquisition is strongly facilitated by the use of the
target
language
in
interaction.
Similarly
to Krashen's Input
Hypothesis,
the
Interaction
Hypothesis
claims
that comprehensible
input is
important for language learning. In addition, it claims
that the effectiveness of comprehensible input is
greatly increased when learners have to negotiate
for meaning.[10]
Interactions often result in learners receiving negative
evidence.[10][11] That is, if learners say something that
their interlocutors do not understand, after negotiation
the interlocutors may model the correct language form.
In doing this, learners can receive feedbackon
their production and on grammar that they have not
yet mastered.[10] The process of interaction may also
result in learners receiving more input from their
interlocutors
than
they
would
otherwise.
[11]
Furthermore, if learners stop to clarify things that
they do not understand, they may have more time
to process the input they receive. This can lead to
better understanding and possibly the acquisition of
new language forms.[10] Finally, interactions may serve
as a way of focusing learners' attention on a difference
between their knowledge of the target language and
the reality of what they are hearing; it may also focus
their attention on a part of the target language of
which they are not yet aware.[12]
Output hypothesis[edit]
Main article: Comprehensible output

In the 1980s, Canadian SLA researcher Merrill


Swain advanced
the
output
hypothesis,
that
meaningful output is as necessary to language learning
as meaningful input. However, most studies have
shown little if any correlation between learning and
quantity of output. Today, most scholars [citation
needed]
contend that small amounts of meaningful output
are important to language learning, but primarily
because the experience of producing language leads to
more effective processing of input.
Competition model[edit]
Main article: Competition model
Some of the major cognitive theories of how learners
organize language knowledge are based on analyses of
how speakers of various languages analyze sentences
for meaning. MacWhinney, Bates, and Kliegl found that
speakers of English, German, and Italian showed
varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive
sentences containing more than one noun. [13] English
speakers relied heavily on word order; German
speakers used morphological agreement, the animacy
status of noun referents, and stress; and speakers of
Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et
al. interpreted these results as supporting the
Competition Model, which states that individuals use
linguistic cues to get meaning from language, rather
than relying on linguistic universals.[13]According to this
theory, when acquiring an L2, learners sometimes
receive competing cues and must decide which cue(s)
is most relevant for determining meaning.
Connectionism and second-language acquisition[edit]
See also: Connectionism
These findings also relate to Connectionism.
Connectionism attempts to model the cognitive
language processing of the human brain, using
computer architectures that make associations
between elements of language, based on frequency of
co-occurrence in the language input.[14] Frequency has
been found to be a factor in various linguistic domains
of language learning.[15] Connectionism posits that
learners form mental connections between items that
co-occur, using exemplars found in language input.
From this input, learners extract the rules of the
language through cognitive processes common to
other areas of cognitive skill acquisition. Since
connectionism denies both innate rules and the
existence of any innate language-learning module, L2
input is of greater importance than it is in processing
models based on innate approaches, since, in
connectionism, input is the source of both the units
and the rules of language.
Noticing hypothesis[edit]
Main article: Noticing hypothesis
Attention is another characteristic that some believe to
have a role in determining the success or failure of
language processing. Richard Schmidt states that
although explicit metalinguistic knowledge of a
language is not always essential for acquisition, the
learner must be aware of L2 input in order to gain from
it.[16][full citation needed] In his noticing hypothesis, Schmidt
posits that learners must notice the ways in which their
interlanguage structures differ from target norms. This
noticing of the gap allows the learners internal
language processing to restructure the learners
internal representation of the rules of the L2 in order to

bring the learners production closer to the target. In


this respect, Schmidts understanding is consistent
with the ongoing process of rule formation found in
emergentism and connectionism.
Processability[edit]
Main article: Processability theory
Some theorists and researchers have contributed to
the cognitive approach to second-language acquisition
by increasing understanding of the ways L2 learners
restructure their interlanguage knowledge systems to
be in greater conformity to L2 structures. Processability
theory states that learners restructure their L2
knowledge systems in an order of which they are
capable at their stage of development. [17] For instance,
In order to acquire the correct morphological and
syntactic forms for English questions, learners must
transform declarative English sentences. They do so by
a series of stages, consistent across learners. Clahsen
proposed that certain processing principles determine
this order of restructuring.[18] Specifically, he stated
that learners first, maintain declarative word order
while changing other aspects of the utterances,
second, move words to the beginning and end of
sentences, and third, move elements within main
clauses before subordinate clauses.
Automaticity[edit]
Thinkers have produced several theories concerning
how learners use their internal L2 knowledge structures
to comprehend L2 input and produce L2 output. One
idea is that learners acquire proficiency in an L2 in the
same way that people acquire other complex cognitive
skills. Automaticity is the performance of a skill without
conscious control. It results from the gradated process
of proceduralization. In the field of cognitive
psychology, Anderson expounds a model of skill
acquisition, according to which persons use procedures
to apply their declarative knowledge about a subject in
order to solve problems.[19] On repeated practice, these
procedures develop into production rules that the
individual can use to solve the problem, without
accessing long-term declarative memory. Performance
speed and accuracy improve as the learner implements
these production rules. DeKeyser tested the application
of this model to L2 language automaticity. [20] He found
that subjects developed increasing proficiency in
performing tasks related to the morphosyntax of an
artificial language, Autopractan, and performed on a
learning curve typical of the acquisition of nonlanguage cognitive skills. This evidence conforms to
Andersons general model of cognitive skill acquisition,
supports the idea that declarative knowledge can be
transformed into procedural knowledge, and tends to
undermine the idea of Krashen[7] that knowledge
gained through language learning cannot be used to
initiate speech production.
Declarative/procedural model[edit]
Michael T. Ullman has used a declarative/procedural
model to understand how language information is
stored. This model is consistent with a distinction made
in general cognitive science between the storage and
retrieval of facts, on the one hand, and understanding
of how to carry out operations, on the other. It states
that declarative knowledge consists of arbitrary
linguistic information, such as irregular verb forms, that
are stored in the brains declarative memory. In

contrast, knowledge about the rules of a language,


such as grammatical word order is procedural
knowledge and is stored in procedural memory. Ullman
reviews several psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic
studies that support the declarative/procedural model.
[21]

Memory and second-language acquisition[edit]


Perhaps certain psychological characteristics constrain
language processing. One area of research is the role

of memory. Williams conducted a study in which he


found some positive correlation between verbatim
memory functioning and grammar learning success for
his subjects.[22] This suggests that individuals with less
short-term memory capacity might have a limitation in
performing cognitive processes for organization and
use of linguistic knowledge.

You might also like