Jump to content

Second-language acquisition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 18 February 2011 (→Individual variation: Split section to Individual variation in second language acquisition, summarized). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Part of a series on
Linguistics
General linguistics
Applied linguistics
Theoretical frameworks
Topics
Portal

Second language acquisition (SLA) or second language learning is the process by which people learn a second language. That is, it is the process of learning an additional language by someone who has already learned a native language or multiple native languages. Second language acquisition refers to what the learner does; it does not refer to what teachers do.

Second language acquisition can also refer to the scientific study of the second-language learning process. To differentiate this sense from the learning process itself, the terms second language acquisition research and second language acquisition studies are also used. SLA research is a broad-based and relatively new academic field, and is closely related to several disciplines including linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, neuroscience, and education.

Although the concept is named second language acquisition, it can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth or subsequent languages[1] as well as heritage language learning.[2] Bilingualism, on the other hand, is not usually seen to be within the field of second language acquisition. 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.[3]

Origins

It is difficult to identify a precise date when the field of second language acquisition research began, but it does appear to have developed a great deal since the mid-1960s.[4] The term acquisition was popularized by Stephen Krashen, who made a sharp distinction between learning and acquisition in his 1982 theory of second language acquisition. He used learning to refer to the conscious aspects of the language learning process and acquisition to refer to the subconscious aspects.[5] This strict separation of learning and acquisition is widely regarded as an oversimplification by many researchers today, and some would prefer a more general term for the field such as second language studies.[6] However, Krashen's hypotheses were incredibly influential and the name has stuck.

Comparisons with first language acquistion

People who learn a second language differ from children learning their first language in a number of ways. Perhaps the most striking of these is that very few adult second language learners reach the same competence as native speakers of that language. Children learning a second language are more likely to achieve native-like fluency than adults, but in general it is very rare for someone speaking a second language to pass completely for a native speaker. When a learner's speech plateaus in this way it is known as fossilization.

In addition, 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. French speakers learning English, however, do not usually make the same mistake. This is because sentence subjects can be left out in Spanish, but not in French.[7] This influence of the first language on the second is known as 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 things she tends to notice.[8] For example, French speakers who spoke English as a second language pronounced the /t/ sound in French differently from monolingual French speakers.[9] When shown a fish tank, Chinese speakers of English tend to remember more fish and less plants than Chinese monolinguals.[10] This effect 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.[11]

Learner language

"Learner language" is the written or spoken language produced by a learner. It is also the main type of data used in second language acquisition research.[12] Much research in second language acquisition is concerned with the internal representations of a language in the mind of the learner, and in how those representations change over time. It is not yet possible to inspect these representations directly with brain scans or similar techniques, so SLA researchers are forced to make inferences about these rules from learners' speech or writing.[13]

Interlanguage

Main article: Interlanguage

Originally attempts to describe learner language were based on comparing different languages and on analyzing learners' errors. However, these approaches weren't able to predict all the errors that learners made when in the process of learning a second language. For example, Serbo-Croat speakers learning English may say "What does Pat doing now?", although this is not a valid sentence in either language.[14]

To explain these kind of systematic errors, the idea of the interlanguage was developed.[15] An interlanguage is an emerging language system in the mind of a second language learner. A learner's interlanguage is not a deficient version of the language being learned filled with random errors, nor is it a language purely based on errors introduced from the learner's first language. Rather, it is a language in its own right, with its own systematic rules.[16] It is possible to view most aspects of language from an interlanguage perspective, including grammar, phonology, lexicon, and pragmatics.

There are three different processes that influence the creation of interlanguages[14]:

  • Language transfer. Learners fall back on their mother tongue to help create their language system. This is now recognized not as a mistake, but as a process that all learners go through.
  • Overgeneralization. Learners use rules from the second language in a way that native speakers would not. For example, a learner may say "I goed home", overgeneralizing the English rule of adding -ed to create past tense verb forms.
  • Simplification. Learners use a highly simplified form of language, similar to speech by children or in pidgins. This may be related to linguistic universals.

The concept of interlanguage has become very widespread in SLA research, and is often a basic assumption made by researchers.[16]

Sequences of acquisition

A typical order of acquisition for English[17]
1. Plural -s Girls go.
2. Progressive -ing Girls going.
3. Copula forms of be Girls are here.
4. Auxiliary forms of be Girls are going.
5. Definite and indefinite
articles the and a 		The girls go.
6. Irregular past tense The girls went.
7. Third person -s The girl goes.
8. Possessive 's The girl's book.
Main article: Order of acquisition

In the 1970s there were several studies that investigated the order in which learners acquired different grammatical structures.[18] These studies showed that there was little change in this order among learners with different first languages. Furthermore, it showed that the order was the same for adults as well as children, and that it did not even change if the learner had language lessons. This proved that there were factors other than language transfer involved in learning second languages, and was a strong confirmation of the concept of interlanguage.

However, the studies did not find that the orders were exactly the same. Although there were remarkable similarities in the order in which all learners learned second language grammar, there were still some differences among individuals and among learners with different first languages. It is also difficult to tell when exactly a grammatical structure has been learned, as learners may use structures correctly in some situations but not in others. Thus it is more accurate to speak of sequences of acquisition, where particular grammatical features in a language have a fixed sequence of development, but the overall order of acquisition is less rigid.

Second language acquisition theories

Main article: Second language acquisition theories

There is no overarching theory of second language acquisition yet proposed which has been widely accepted by SLA researchers. Instead, there are a variety of different theories and hypotheses with their basis in different academic disciplines, each shedding light on a different aspect of the language learning process.

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, and the phenomenon of language transfer is an effect of using the parameter settings from the first language on the second. In fact, Universal Grammar provides a framework for how learners can build up a complex second language system deduced purely from language input. However, it does not explain the language acquisition process. As Chomsky acknowledges, UG scholarship is concerned with providing a description of linguistic knowledge, not with the process by which that knowledge is gained.

Another influential theory came from Stephen Krashen. Krashen outlined five hypotheses: the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the input hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the affective filter hypothesis, and the natural order hypothesis. In his theory, only language learned subconsciously (acquisition) could be used to generate spontaneous language. Language learned consciously (learning) could only be used to correct sentences that had already been generated. Furthermore, this subconscious acquisition could only be gained by understanding messages in the second language, and only when the learner is sufficiently relaxed. Many aspects of this theory have been criticized as unfalsifiable, and many of the falsifiable claims have been refuted. However, it provides many useful insights into the language learning process, and has been a starting point for other research.

One theory from cognitive science that contradicts Krashen's claim of strict separation between conscious and subconscious aspects of learning is Anderson's Automaticity theory.[19] This theory follows the model of skill acquisition. Like learning any other cognitive skill, for example learning to drive a car, language learners may start out with conscious knowledge that can become subconscious through practice. Another approach that draws on skill acquisition theory is that of connectionism. Connectionism attempts to model language processing in the brain using neural networks that extract language rules based on the frequency of features in language input.

There are a number of theories that place an emphasis on how learners process sentences in the second language. Processability theory states that learners restructure their language systems based on how much they can process in their stage of language development. The competition model posits that the way in which target language sentences are processed in the brain activates the learner's representation of the target language. The noticing hypothesis states that learners must notice the structure of their own interlanguage and how it differs from second-language norms.

More theories emphasize the social aspects of second language learning. Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is strongly facilitated by the use of the target language in interaction. Swaine's comprehensible output hypothesis stressed the importance of output in language learning.

There are many other areas which are being investigated with relation to second language acquisition. These range from how language knowledge is stored in the brain, to the effect of memory on the learning process.

Individual variation

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 long-standing debate.

The issue of age was first addressed with the critical period hypothesis, which was formulated for first language acquisition by Penfield and Roberts in 1959 and popularized by Lenneberg in 1967. The strict version of this hypothesis states that there is a cut-off age at about 12 years old, after which learners lose the ability to fully learn a language. This strict version has since been rejected for second language acquisition, as 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 than them in the initial stages. This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect language learning.

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 of communicative competence. 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 a dictionary. 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.

Affective factors

The learner's attitude to the learning process has also been identified as being critically important to second language acquisition. Anxiety in language-learning situations has been almost unanimously shown to be detrimental to successful learning. A related factor, personality, has also received attention, with studies showing that extroverts are better language learners than introverts.

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. Studies have consistently shown that intrinsic motivation, or a genuine interest in the language itself, is more effective over the long-term than external motivation, as in learning a language for a reward such as high grades or praise.

Pedagogical effects

Efforts have been made to systematically measure or evaluate the effectiveness of language teaching practices in promoting second language acquisition. Such studies have been undertaken for every level of language, from phonetics to pragmatics, and for almost every current teaching methodology. It is therefore impossible to summarize their findings here. However, some more general issues have been addressed.

Research has indicated that many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient.[20] One issue is the effectiveness of explicit teaching: can language teaching have a constructive effect beyond providing learners with enhanced input? Research on this at different levels of language has produced quite different results. Traditional areas of explicit teaching, such as phonology, grammar and vocabulary, have had decidedly mixed results. 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 L2, the learner must be given opportunities to use the L2 for communicative purposes, learning (as for example, through a teacher's corrective feedback) to attend to both meaning and formal accuracy.[21][22]

There is considerable promising research in the classroom on the impact of corrective feedback on L2 learners' use and acquisition of target language forms. The effectiveness of corrective feedback 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.[23][24][25] However, it appears that a learner's ability to focus on corrective feedback on grammatical features that do not affect meaning is considerably altered when the learner has low alphabetic literacy.[26]

There is considerable interest in supplementing published research with approaches that engage language teachers in action research on learner language in their own classrooms.[27] As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced by their students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize interlanguage development.[28]

Horwitz summarises findings of SLA research, and applies to L2 teaching some principles of L2 acquisition honed from a vast body of relevant literature.[29] Like Asher,[vague] Horwitz highlights the importance of naturalistic experience in L2, promoting listening and reading practice and stressing involvement in life-like conversations. She explicitly suggests teaching practices based on these principles; ‘[m]uch class time should be devoted to the development of listening and reading abilities’, and ‘[t]eachers should assess student interests and supply appropriate…materials’.[30] The ‘audio-lingual’ teaching practices used in the present study are based on principles explicated by Asher and Horwitz; listening featured heavily, closely followed by reading and speaking practice. The vocabulary items taught were deemed relevant for all learners, regardless of age, and, according to Pfeffer, they are among the most commonly used nouns in everyday German language.[31]

Understanding SLA

The systematic modelling of SLA is concerned with the question: What are the most important overall factors in language acquisition? Models of SLA have played an important role in laying out directions for future research, and also for informing practice in language teaching.

Different models of SLA have focused on different aspects of SLA and general linguistic research. For example, Schumann's Acculturation Model, which viewed second language acquisition as just one part of adapting to a new culture, emphasized findings related to language socialization. Krashen's Monitor Model prioritized research on input and affective factors. Long's Interaction Hypothesis took a social constructivist view of research on input. Caleb Gattegno based The Silent Way on the principle of the education of awareness. No single model of SLA has gained wide acceptance. Given that the field is complex and interdisciplinary, few scholars expect that any model will do so in the foreseeable future.

Concepts of ability

Numerous notions have been used to describe learners' ability in the target language. The first such influential concept was the competence-performance distinction introduced by Chomsky. This distinguishes competence, a person's idealized knowledge of language rules, from performance, the imperfect realization of these rules. Thus, a person may be interrupted and not finish a sentence, but still know how to make a complete sentence. Although this distinction has become fundamental to most work in linguistics today, it has not proven adequate by itself to describe the complex nature of learners' developing ability.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 7
  2. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 21–24
  3. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 24–25.
  4. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 1.
  5. ^ Krashen 1982.
  6. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 7.
  7. ^ Cook 2008, p. 13.
  8. ^ Cook 2008, p. 232.
  9. ^ Flege 1987.
  10. ^ Cook 2008, p. 8.
  11. ^ Cook 2008, p. 15.
  12. ^ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 4.
  13. ^ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 6.
  14. ^ a b Mason, Timothy. "Didactics - 7 : Critique of Krashen III. Natural Order Hypothesis (2) :Interlanguage". Lecture in the didactics of English, Université of Versailles St. Quentin, a course run from 1993 to 2002. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
  15. ^ Selinker 1972.
  16. ^ a b Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 14.
  17. ^ Cook 2008, pp. 26–27.
  18. ^ These studies were based on work by Brown (1973) on child first language acquisition. The first such studies on child second language acquisition were carried out by Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1975). Bailey, Madden & Krashen (1974) investigated the order of acquisition among adult second language learners. See Krashen (1977) for a review of these studies.
  19. ^ Anderson 1992.
  20. ^ Lightbown 1990 cited in Ellis 1994.
  21. ^ Doughty & Williams 1998.
  22. ^ Ellis 2002.
  23. ^ Lightbown & Spada 1990.
  24. ^ Lyster & Ranta 1997.
  25. ^ Lyster & Mori 2006.
  26. ^ Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen 2009.
  27. ^ Allwright & Hanks 2009.
  28. ^ Tarone & Swierzbin 2009.
  29. ^ Horwitz 1986.
  30. ^ Horwitz 1986, pp. 685–686.
  31. ^ Pfeffer 1964.

References

  • Allwright, Dick; Hanks, Judith (2009). The Developing Language Learning: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 9781403985316. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Anderson, J. R. (1992). "Automaticity and the ACT* theory". American Journal of Psychology. 105 (2): 165–180. doi:10.2307/1423026. PMID 1621879. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00505.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00505.x instead.
  • Brown, Roger (1973). A First Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674303256. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Canale, M.; Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing". Applied Linguistics. 1 (1): 1–47. doi:10.1093/applin/1.1.1. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Cook, Vivian (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. ISBN 978-0-340-95876-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Doman, E. (2006). "Current Debates in SLA". The Asian EFL Journal. 7 (4). Retrieved 2010-12-01. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Dörnyei, Zoltan (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521793777. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica, eds. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62390-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x instead.
  • Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974a). "Natural sequences in child second language acquisition". Language Learning. 24: 37–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974b). "You can't learn without goofing". In Richards, Jack (ed.). Error Analysis. New York: Longman. pp. 95–123. ISBN 9780582550445. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1975). "Creative construction in second language learning and teaching". In Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (eds.). On TESOL '75: New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Bilingual Education: Selected Papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles, California, March 4-9, 1975. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp. 21–32. OCLC 1980255. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0194371891. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Ellis, R. (2002). "Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 24 (2): 223–236. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Flege, James Emil (1987). "The production of "new" and "similar" phones in a foreign language: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification" (PDF). Journal of Phonetics. 15: 47–65. Retrieved 2011-02-09. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-805-85497-8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Hadzibeganovic, Tarik; Cannas, Sergio A. (2009). "A Tsallis' statistics based neural network model for novel word learning". Physica A. 388 (5): 732–746. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.10.042. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Horwitz, E. K. (1986). "Some Language Acquisition Principles and their Implications for Second Language Teaching". Hispania. 69 (3): 684–689. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Krashen, Stephen (1977). "Some issues relating to the monitor model". In Brown, H; Yorio, Carlos; Crymes, Ruth (eds.). Teaching and learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice: On TESOL '77: Selected Papers from the Eleventh Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Miami, Florida, April 26-May 1, 1977. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp. 144–158. OCLC 4037133. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-028628-3. Retrieved 2010-11-25. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lenneberg, Eric (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. ISBN 0898747007. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lightbown, Patsy (1990). "Chapter 6: Process-product research on second language learning in classrooms". In Harley, Birgit (ed.). The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 82–92. ISBN 9780521384100. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lightbown, Patsy; Spada, Nina (1990). "Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 12 (4): 429–48. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lyster, R.; Ranta, L. (1997). "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19: 37–66. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Lyster, R.; Mori, H. (2006). "Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28: 269–300. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • MacIntyre, P.D.; Clément, R.; Dörnyei, Z.; Noels, K.A. (1998). "Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation". The Modern Language Journal. 82 (4): 545–562. doi:10.2307/330224. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Mayberry, R. I.; Lock, E. (2003). "Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and Epigenesis". Brain and Language. 87: 369–384. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Pfeffer, J. A. (1964). Grunddeutsch: Basic (Spoken) German Word List. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall. OCLC 475772972. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Selinker, L. (1972). "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied Linguistics. 10: 209–241. doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Tarone, Elaine; Bigelow, Martha; Hansen, Kit (2009). Literacy and Second Language Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780194423007. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Tarone, Elaine; Swierzbin, Bonnie (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780194422918. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Further reading

  • Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th ed). London: Hodder Arnold.
  • Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, Rod. (2007). Educational Settings and Second Language Learning. Volume 9 Asian EFL Journal. [1]
  • Ellis, Rod. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning. Volume 7 Asian EFL Journal.
  • Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd edition. [ISBN 0-19-442224-0]
  • Lin, G. H. C. (2008). "Lin, G. H. C. (2008). Pedagogies proving Krashen’s theory of affective filter , Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, Vol, 14, pp.113-131 ERIC Collection as ED503681 [2]
  • Ellis, Rod (1991). "The Interaction Hypothesis A critical evaluation". p. 37Template:Inconsistent citations{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link) - on Michael H. Long's Interaction Hypothesis
  • Mangubhai, F. (2006). "What do we know about learning and teaching second languages: Implications for teaching " Asian EFL Journal Vol 8. 2006 [3]
  • McKay, Sharon; Schaetzel, Kirsten, Facilitating Adult Learner Interactions to Build Listening and Speaking Skills, CAELA Network Briefs, CAELA and Center for Applied Linguistics
  • Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed). London: Hodder Arnold.
  • Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
  • Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.
  • Ortega, L. (2010). Second language acquisition. Critical concepts in linguistics. London: Routledge. [ISBN 978-0-415-45020-1]
  • Oxford, R,. & Lee, K. (2008). Understanding EFL Learners’ Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness.[4]
  • Robertson, P. & Nunn, R. (2007). The Study of Second Language Acquisition in the Asian Context [5]
  • Tarone, E. & Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second-language_acquisition&oldid=414575557"