Jump to content

Second-language acquisition: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→References: Removed references not cited in article
Line 94: Line 94:


==Individual variation==
==Individual variation==
⚫
{{main|Individual variation in second language acquisition}}
Research on variation between individual learners seeks to address the question: ''Why do some learners do better than others?'' A flurry of studies in the 1970s, often labelled the "good language learner studies", sought to identify the distinctive factors of successful learners. Although those studies are now widely regarded as simplistic, they did serve to identify a number of factors affecting language acquisition. More detailed research on many of these specific factors continues today.


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 [[Interlanguage fossilization|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.
===Language aptitude===
{{main|Language learning aptitude}}
Tests of language aptitude have proven extremely effective in predicting which learners will be successful in learning. However, considerable controversy remains about whether language aptitude is properly regarded as a unitary concept, an organic property of the brain, or as a complex of factors including motivation and short-term memory. Research has generally shown that language aptitude is quite distinct from general aptitude or [[intelligence (trait)|intelligence]], as measured by various tests, and is itself fairly consistently measurable by different tests.


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.
Language aptitude research is often criticized for being irrelevant to the problems of language learners, who must attempt to learn a language regardless of whether they are gifted for the task or not. This claim is reinforced by research findings that aptitude is largely unchangeable. In addition, traditional language aptitude measures such as the [[Modern Language Aptitude Test]] strongly favor decontextualized knowledge of the sort used in taking tests, rather than the sort used in [[conversation]]. For this reason little research is carried out on aptitude today. However, operators of selective language programs such as the United States [[Defense Language Institute]] continue to use language aptitude testing as part of applicant screening.


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 [[mnemonic]]s 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-form]]s like ''thing'', or using non-verbal means such as [[gesture]]s.
===Age===
{{Main|critical period hypothesis}}


⚫
=== Affective factors ===
How children acquire native language (L1) and the relevance of this to foreign language (L2) learning has long been debated. Although evidence for L2 learning ability declining with age is controversial, a common notion is that children learn L2s easily and older learners rarely achieve fluency. This assumption stems from ‘[[critical period]]’ (CP) ideas. A CP was popularised by [[Eric Lenneberg]] in 1967 for L1 acquisition, but considerable interest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition (SLA).<ref>{{Harvnb|Lenneberg|1967}}.</ref> SLA theories explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA, mainly attempting to explain apparent differences in language aptitudes of children and adults by distinct learning routes, and clarifying them through psychological mechanisms. Research explores these ideas and hypotheses, but results are varied: some demonstrate pre-pubescent children acquire language easily, and some that older learners have the advantage, and yet others focus on existence of a CP for SLA. Recent studies have recognised that certain aspects of SLA may be affected by age, though others remain intact.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mayberry|Lock|2003}}.</ref>
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 [[Extroversion and introversion|extroverts]] are better language learners than [[Extroversion and introversion|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 Nation|Navajo]] children in learning English. Also, the [[Motivation in second language learning|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.
===Strategy use===
The effective use of strategies has been shown to be critical to successful language learning, so much so that Canale and Swain (1980) included "strategic competence" among the four components of [[communicative competence]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Canale|Swain|1980}}.</ref> Research here has also shown significant [[#Pedagogical effects|pedagogical effects]]. This has given rise to "[[strategies-based instruction]]."

Strategies are commonly divided into [[learning strategy|learning strategies]] and [[communicative strategy|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]]. Learners (and native speakers) use communicative strategies to get meaning across even when they lack access to the correct language: for example, by using [[pro-form]]s like "thing", or non-spoken means such as [[mime artist|mime]]. Communicative strategies may not have any direct bearing on learning, and some strategies such as avoidance (not using a form with which one is uncomfortable) may actually hinder learning.

Learners from different [[culture]]s use strategies in different ways,<ref>{{Harvnb|Hadzibeganovic|Cannas|2009}}.</ref> as a research tradition led by [[Rebecca Oxford]] has demonstrated. Related to this are differences in strategy use between male and female learners. Numerous studies have shown that female learners typically use strategies more widely and intensively than males; this may be related to the statistical advantage which female learners enjoy in language learning.{{citation needed|date=November 2010}}

⚫
===Affective factors===
Affective factors relate to the learner's emotional state and attitude toward the target language. Research on affect in language learning is still strongly influenced by [[Bloom's taxonomy]], which describes the affective levels of receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and self-characterization through one's value system. It has also been informed in recent years by research in [[neurobiology]] and [[neurolinguistics]].

====Affective Filter====
{{main|Affective filter}}
Furthermore, researchers believe that language learners all possess an affective filter which affects language acquisition. If a student possesses a high filter they are less likely to engage in language learning because of shyness, concern for grammar or other factors. Students possessing a lower affective filter will be more likely to engage in learning because they are less likely to be impeded by other factors. The affective filter is an important component of second language learning.

====Anxiety====
Although some continue to propose that a low level of anxiety may be helpful, studies have almost unanimously shown that [[anxiety]] damages students' prospects for successful learning. Anxiety is often related to a sense of threat to the learner's self-concept in the learning situation, for example if a learner fears being ridiculed for a mistake.

====Personality Factors====
Second language acquisition is defined as the learning and adopting of a language that is not your native language.
Studies{{Vague|date=August 2010}} have shown that [[extravert]]s (or unreserved and outgoing people) acquire a second language better than [[introvert]]s (or shy people).

One particular study done by Naiman{{vague|date=November 2010}} reflected this point. The subjects were 72 Canadian high school students from grades 8, 10 and 12 who were studying French as a second language.

Naiman gave them all questionnaires to establish their psychological profiles, which also included a French listening test and imitation test. He found that approximately 70% of the students with the higher grades (B or higher) would consider themselves extroverts.

Extroverts will be willing to try to communicate even if they are not sure they will succeed. Two scientists, Kinginger and Farrell, conducted interviews with U.S. students after their study abroad program in France in 2003.{{broken citation|date=November 2010}} They found that many of the students would avoid interaction with the native speakers at all costs, while others jumped at the opportunity to speak the language. Those who avoided interaction were typically quiet, reserved people, (or introverts).

Logically, [[anxiety]] will cause students not to try and advance their skills, especially when they feel they are under pressure. Just the lack of practice will make introverts less likely to fully acquire the second language.

====Social effects====
The process of language learning can be very stressful, and the impact of positive or negative [[attitude (psychology)|attitude]]s from the surrounding society can be critical. One aspect that has received particular attention is the relationship of [[gender role]]s to language achievement. Studies across numerous [[culture]]s have shown that women, on the whole, enjoy an advantage over men. Some have proposed that this is linked to gender roles. Doman notes in a journal devoted to issues of Cultural affects on SLA, "Questions abound about what defines SLA, how far its borders extend, and what the attributions and contributions of its research are. Thus, there is a great amount of heterogeneity in the entire conceptualization of SLA. Some researchers tend to ignore certain aspects of the field, while others scrutinize those same aspects piece by piece."<ref>{{Harvnb|Doman|2006}}.</ref>

[[Community]] attitudes toward the language being learned can also have a profound impact on SLA. Where the community has a broadly [[negative]] view of the target language and its speakers, or a negative view of its relation to them, learning is typically much more difficult. This finding has been confirmed by research in numerous contexts. A widely-cited example is the difficulty faced by [[Navajo Nation|Navajo]] children in learning [[English language learning and teaching|English as a second language]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}

Other common social factors include the attitude of parents toward language study, and the nature of [[group dynamics]] in the language classroom. Additionally, early attitudes may strengthen motivation and facility with language in general, particularly with early exposure to the language.

====Motivation====
⚫
{{Main|Motivation in second language learning}}
The role of [[motivation]] in SLA has been the subject of extensive scholarship, closely influenced by work in motivational [[psychology]]. Motivation is internally complex, and Dörnyei begins his work by stating that "strictly speaking, ''there is no such thing as motivation.''"<ref name="dornyei2001">{{Harvnb|Dörnyei|2001|p=1}}.</ref> There are many different kinds of motivation; these are often divided into types such as integrative or instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation refers to the desire to do something for an internal reward. Most studies have shown it to be substantially more effective in long-term language learning than extrinsic motivation, for an external reward such as high grades or praise. Integrative and instrumental orientations refer to the degree that a language is learned "for its own sake" (integratively) or for instrumental purposes. Studies have not consistently shown either form of motivation to be more effective than the other, and the role of each is probably conditioned by various personality and cultural factors.

Some research has shown that motivation correlates strongly with proficiency, indicating both that successful learners are motivated and that success improves motivation. Thus motivation is not fixed, but is strongly affected by [[feedback]] from the environment. Accordingly, the study of motivation in SLA has also examined many of the [[Second language acquisition#Learner-external factors|external factors]] discussed above, such as the effect of instructional techniques on motivation. An accessible summary of this research can be found in Dörnyei (2001a).<ref name="dornyei2001" />

In their research on [[Willingness to communicate]], MacIntyre et al. have shown that motivation is not the final construct before learners engage in communication. In fact, learners may be highly motivated yet remain unwilling to communicate.<ref>{{Harvnb|MacIntyre|Clément|Dörnyei|Noels|1998}}.</ref>

The European Union Lifelong learning programme has funded a project to research and build a set of best practices to motivate adult language learners, called [http://dontgiveup.eu/ Don't Give Up]


==Pedagogical effects==
==Pedagogical effects==

Revision as of 05:53, 18 February 2011

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"