Econd Language Acquisition

8/6/2019 Econd Language Acquisition

1/28

econd language acquisition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation,search

This article is written likea personal reflection or essayand may requirecleanup. Please help improve itby rewriting it in anencyclopedic style. (August2010)

This article may betoo long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider

splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key

points of the subject. (August 2010)

This article is missing citations or needsfootnotes. Please help add inline

citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (September2009)

Linguistics

Theoretical linguistics

Cognitive linguistics

Generative linguistics

Quantitative linguistics

Phonology Morphology

Syntax Lexis

SemanticsPragmatics

Descriptive linguistics

Anthropological linguistics

Comparative linguistics

Historical linguistics

Etymology Phonetics

Sociolinguistics

Applied linguistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#mw-headhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#mw-headhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#p-searchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PUBLISHERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PUBLISHERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PUBLISHERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanuphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanuphttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_sizehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_sizehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnoteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnoteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnoteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexis_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semanticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semanticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmaticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmaticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Language_Families_%28wikicolors%29.pnghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#mw-headhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#p-searchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PUBLISHERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanuphttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_sizehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnoteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexis_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semanticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmaticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_linguistics


2/28

Computational linguistics

Forensic linguistics

Language acquisition

Language assessment

Language development

Language education

Linguistic prescription

Linguistic anthropology

Neurolinguistics

Psycholinguistics

Stylistics

Related articles

History of linguistics

List of linguists

List of unsolved problems

in linguistics

Portal

vde

Second language acquisition orsecond language learning is the process by which

people learn a second language in addition to theirnative language(s). "Second language

acquisition" refers to what the learner does; it does not refer to what the teacher does (see"language education" for work on language teaching). "Second language acquisition

research" studies the psychology and sociology of the learning process. Sometimes the

terms "acquisition" and "learning" are not treated as synonyms and are instead used torefer to the subconscious and conscious aspects of this process respectively (seesecondlanguage learning).

"Second language", "target language", or "L2" are used to refer to any language learned

after the native language, which is also called "mother tongue", "first language", "L1", or

"source language". Second language acquisition also includes third language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_assessmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescriptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_anthropologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylistics_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Linguistics&action=edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Linguistics&action=edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_assessmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescriptionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_anthropologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurolinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylistics_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Linguistics&action=edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_language


3/28

acquisition/multilingualism andheritage languageacquisition. Second language

acquisition may be abbreviated as "SLA", or "L2A", for "L2 acquisition".

Contents

[hide]

1 Second Language Acquisition and its premises

2 Describing learned language

o 2.1 Error analysis

3 Interlanguage

o 3.1 Developmental patterns

3.1.1 Order of acquisition 3.1.2 Sequence of acquisition

o 3.2 Variability

4 Learner-external factorso 4.1 Social effectso 4.2 Input and intake

o 4.3 Interaction

o 4.4 Pedagogical effects

5 Learner-internal factors

6 Critical period research to date

7 Other directions of research

o 7.1 Cognitive approaches

o 7.2 Language transfer

o 7.3 Linguistic universals

8 Individual variation

o 8.1 Language aptitude

o 8.2 Age

o 8.3 Strategy use

o 8.4 Affective factors

8.4.1 Anxiety

8.4.2 Personality Factors

8.4.3 Motivation

9 Understanding SLA

o 9.1 Concepts of ability

10 See also

11 Notes

12 References

13 Further reading

14 External links

[edit] Second Language Acquisition and its premises
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilingualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Second_Language_Acquisition_and_its_premiseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Describing_learned_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Error_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Developmental_patternshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Order_of_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Sequence_of_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Variabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Learner-external_factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Social_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Input_and_intakehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Pedagogical_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Learner-internal_factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Critical_period_research_to_datehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Other_directions_of_researchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Cognitive_approacheshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Individual_variationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Agehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Strategy_usehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Affective_factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Anxietyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Personality_Factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Understanding_SLAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Concepts_of_abilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#See_alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Noteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Further_readinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#External_linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilingualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Second_Language_Acquisition_and_its_premiseshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Describing_learned_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Error_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Developmental_patternshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Order_of_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Sequence_of_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Variabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Learner-external_factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Social_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Input_and_intakehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Pedagogical_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Learner-internal_factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Critical_period_research_to_datehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Other_directions_of_researchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Cognitive_approacheshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Individual_variationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Agehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Strategy_usehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Affective_factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Anxietyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Personality_Factorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Understanding_SLAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Concepts_of_abilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#See_alsohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Noteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Referenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Further_readinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#External_linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=1


4/28

Second language acquisition encompasses the acquisition of any language after the

acquisition of the first language by a learner. Therefore, it incorporates learning the third

or fourth languages which is closely related tobilingualism and multilingualism, andheritage language learning. Cenoz and Genesee (1998)[vague] terms multilingual acquisition

and multilingualism as complex phenomena and add that they implicate all the factors

and processes associated with second language acquisition and bilingualism as well asunique and potentially more complex factors and effects associated with the interactions

that are possible among the multiple languages being learned and the processes of

learning them. Valds (2000)[vague] definesheritage language as the language someonelearns at home as a child which is a minority language in society, but because of growing

up in a dominant language, the speaker seems to be more competent in the latter and feels

more comfortable to communicate in that language. However, since heritage speakers are

commonly alienated from their heritage language for a long time, and get limited or noexposure to that language, they seem to be in a state of language acquisition that is

greatly different from monolinguals or second language speakers of that language.

[edit] Describing learned language

Through the descriptive study of learned language, some SLA researchers seek tounderstand better language learning without recourse to factors outside learned language.

Researchers may adopt aninterlanguage perspective, exploring learned language as a

linguistic system, or they may study how a learned language compares to a nativelyspoken language. Research is centered on the question: What are the unique

characteristics of learned language? Much of the research has focused on theEnglish

languageas the L2, because of the huge number of people around the world learning andteaching it.

[edit] Error analysis

Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Corder and colleagues

(Corder, 1967). Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach

influenced bybehaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal

distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Erroranalysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors,

although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study oflanguage

transfer. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are producedby learners making faulty inferences about therules of the new language.

Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which arenot. They often seek to develop atypologyof errors. Error can be classified according to

basic type: omissive,additive, substitutiveor related to word order. They can beclassified by how apparent they are: overterrors such as "I angry" are obvious even out

of context, whereas coverterrors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the

classification according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst mustexamine, and extent, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix

the error. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language:phonological
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilingualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_transferhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rulehttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rulehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_orderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_orderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilingualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilingualismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_language_learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrastive_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Language_transferhttp://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rulehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omissionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_orderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonology


5/28

errors, vocabularyorlexicalerrors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed

according to the degree to which they interfere withcommunication:globalerrors make

an utterance difficult to understand, while localerrors do not. In the above example, "Iangry" would be a local error, since the meaning is apparent.

From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. Inparticular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often

impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also, erroranalysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speakingandwriting) and not

with learner reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner

use ofcommunicative strategiessuch as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use aform with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still

used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarchingtheoryof

learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved onto a more wide-ranging approach to learner language, known as interlanguage.

Error analysis is closely related to the study oferror treatment in language teaching.Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant forfocus on form teaching

methodology.

[edit] Interlanguage

Interlanguage is a term coined by Selinker (1972). Interlanguage scholarship seeks to

understand learner language on its own terms, as a natural language with its own

systematic rules. Interlanguage scholars reject, at least for heuristic purposes, the view oflearner language as merely an imperfect version of the target language. Interlanguage

work is a vibrant microcosm oflinguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage

perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system(interlanguagephonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and

language-use norms found among learners (interlanguagepragmatics).

By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms,

interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding oflinguisticuniversals in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".

[edit] Developmental patterns

Ellis (1994)[vague] distinguished between "order" to refer to the pattern in which different

language features are acquired and "sequence" to denote the pattern by which a specificlanguage feature is acquired.

[edit] Order of acquisition

Researchers have found a very consistent order in the acquisition of first languagestructures by children, and this has drawn a great deal of interest from SLA scholars.

Considerable effort has been devoted to testing the "identity hypothesis", which asserts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listeninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(activity)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communicative_strategies&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communicative_strategies&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Error_treatment_in_language_teaching&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Error_treatment_in_language_teaching&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Focus_on_form&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmaticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_feature&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Identity_hypothesis&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listeninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(activity)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communicative_strategies&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Error_treatment_in_language_teaching&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Focus_on_form&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlanguagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmaticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Linguistic_universalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_feature&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=6http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Identity_hypothesis&action=edit&redlink=1


6/28

that first-language and second-language acquisition conform to the same patterns. This

has not been confirmed, perhaps because second-language learners'cognitive and

affective states are so much more advanced, and perhaps because it is not true. Orders ofacquisition in SLA often resemble those found in first language acquisition, and may

have common neurological causes, but there is no convincing evidence for this. It is not

safe to say that the order of L1 acquisition has any easy implications for SLA.

Some research suggests that most learners begin their acquisition process with a "silentperiod", in which they speak very little if at all. It is said that for some, this is a period of

language shock, in which the learner actively rejects the incomprehensible input of the

new language. However, research has shown that many "silent" learners are engaging inprivate speech (sometimes called "self-talk"). While appearing silent, they are rehearsing

important survival phrases and lexical chunks. These memorized phrases are then

employed in the subsequent period offormulaic speech. Whether by choice orcompulsion, other learners have no silent period and pass directly to formulaic speech.

This speech, in which a handful ofroutinesis used to accomplish basic purposes, often

shows few departures from L2 morphosyntax. It eventually gives way to a moreexperimental phase of acquisition, in which the semanticsand grammar of the targetlanguage are simplified and the learners begin to construct a true interlanguage(Seidner,

(1982), pp. 910).

The nature of the transition between formulaic and simplified speech is disputed. Some,including Krashen, have argued that there is no cognitive relationship between the two,

and that the transition is abrupt. Thinkers influenced by recent theories of the lexicon

have preferred to view even native speakerspeech as heavily formulaic, and interpret the

transition as a process of gradually developing a broader repertoire of chunks and adeeper understanding of the rules which govern them. Some studies have supported both

views, and it is likely that the relationship depends in great part on thelearning stylesofindividual learners.

A flurry of studies took place in the 1970s, examining whether a consistent order ofmorphemeacquisition could be shown. Most of these studies did show fairly consistent

orders of acquisition for selected morphemes. For example, among learners of English

the cluster of features including thesuffix "-ing", theplural, and thecopula were found toconsistently precede others such as thearticle,auxiliary, and third person singular.

However, these studies were widely criticized as not paying sufficient attention to

overuse of the features (idiosyncratic uses outside what are obligatory contexts in the L2),and sporadic but inconsistent use of the features. More recent scholarship prefers to view

the acquisition of each linguistic feature as a gradual and complex process. For that

reason most scholarship since the 1980s has focused on the sequence, rather than theorder, of feature acquisition.

[edit] Sequence of acquisition

A number of studies have looked into the sequence of acquisition ofpronouns by learners

of various Indo-European languages. These are reviewed by Ellis (1994), pp. 9699.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_shock&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_shock&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_speechhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_chunkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semanticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semanticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexiconhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_speakerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphemehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphemehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_an_additional_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verbhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verbhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verbhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronounhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languageshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languageshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisitionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_shock&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_speechhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_chunkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semanticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexiconhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_speakerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_stylehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphemehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_an_additional_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_verbhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronounhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages


7/28

They show that learners begin by omitting pronouns or using them indiscriminately: for

example, using "I" to refer to all agents. Learners then acquire a single pronoun feature,

often person, followed by number and eventually by gender. Little evidence ofinterference from the learner's first language has been found; it appears that learners use

pronouns based entirely on theirinferences about target language structure.

Studies on the acquisition ofword orderin German have shown that most learners begin

with a word order based on their native language. This indicates that certain aspects ofinterlanguage syntax are influenced by the learners' first language, although others are

not.

Research on the sequence of acquisition of words is exhaustively reviewed by Nation

(2001). Kasper and Rose (2002) have thoroughly researched the sequence of acquisitionof pragmatic features. In both fields, consistent patterns have emerged and have been the

object of considerable theorizing.

[edit] Variability

Though the interlanguage perspective views learner language as a language in its own

right, this language systematically varies much more than native-speaker language. Alearner may produce a target-like variant (e.g. 'I don't') in one context and a non-target

like variant (e.g. 'me no') in another. Scholars from different traditions have taken

opposing views on the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring aChomskyanperspective to SLA typically regard variability as nothing more than "performance

errors", and not worthy of systematic inquiry. On the other hand, those who approach it

from a sociolinguistic orpsycholinguisticorientation view variability as an inherentfeature of the learner's interlanguage, where the learner's preference for one linguistic

variant over another depends on accompanying a) social (contextual) variables such asthe status or role of the interlocutor (see Selinker & Douglas, 1985), or b) linguistic

variables such as the phonological environment or neighoring features marked forformality or informality. Naturally, most research on variability has been done by those

who presume it to be meaningful (Fasold & Preston, 2007; Tarone, 2009; Tarone & Liu,

1995).

Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation", whichhas not been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social

features, and "systematic variation", which has. Of course, the line between the two is

subject to debate.

Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not

been fully acquired. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of

alternate forms. This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning

learners, and may be entirely absent among the more advanced.

Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological, social

context. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For instance, the pronunciation of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_orderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance_error&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance_error&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_orderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance_error&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performance_error&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociolinguisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycholinguistics


8/28


9/28

cited example is the difficulty faced byNavajo children in learning English as a second

language.

Other common social factors include the attitude of parents toward language study, andthe nature ofgroup dynamics in the language classroom. Additionally, early attitudes

may strengthen motivation and facility with language in general, particularly with earlyexposure to the language.

[edit] Input and intake

Learners' most direct source ofinformation about the target language is the target

language itself. When they come into direct contact with the target language, this isreferred 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 tothem. 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 beencriticized 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 acquisitionresearch; Nation (2001) reviews various studies which indicate that about 98% of the

words in running text should be previously known in order forextensive reading to be

effective.

A great deal of research has taken place on input enhancement, the ways in which inputmay be altered so as to direct learners' attention to linguistically important areas. Input

enhancement might include bold-faced vocabulary words or marginal glosses in areading

text. Research here is closely linked to research onpedagogical effects, and comparablydiverse.

[edit] Interaction

Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is strongly facilitated bythe use of the target language in interaction. In particular, the negotiationof meaning has

been shown to contribute greatly to the acquisition ofvocabulary(Long, 1990). In a

review of the substantial literature on this topic, Nation (2000) relates the value ofnegotiation to thegenerative use of words: the use of words in new contexts which

stimulate a deeper understanding of theirmeaning.

In the 1980s, Canadian SLA researcherMerrill 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensive_readinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_enhancementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(activity)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(activity)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Pedagogical_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interaction_hypothesis&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistic)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merrill_Swain&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merrill_Swain&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teachinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_Theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensive_readinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_enhancementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_(activity)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Pedagogical_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=12http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interaction_hypothesis&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generativityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_(linguistic)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merrill_Swain&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed


10/28

output are important to language learning, but primarily because the experience of

producing language leads to more effective processing of input.

[edit] Pedagogical effects

Efforts have been made to systematically measure or evaluate the effectiveness oflanguage teaching practices in promoting second language acquisition. Such studies havebeen 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 extremelyinefficient. (P Lightbown, 1990) One issue is the effectiveness of explicit teaching: can

language teaching have a constructive effect beyondproviding learners with enhanced

input? Research on this at different levels of language has produced quite differentresults. Traditional areas of explicit teaching, such asphonology, grammar and

vocabulary, have had decidedly mixed results. It is generally agreed that pedagogyrestricted to teaching grammar rules and vocabulary lists does not give students theability 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 (Doughty & Williams 1998; Ellis 2002).

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 makethe correction, and the overall focus of the classroom, whether on formal accuracy or on

communication of meaningful content (Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Lyster & Ranta, 1997;Lyster & Mori, 2006). However, it appears that a learner's ability to focus on corrective

feedback on grammatical features that do not affect meaning is considerably altered whenthe learner has low alphabetic literacy (Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen 2009).

There is considerable interest in supplementing published research with approaches that

engage language teachers in action research on learner language in their own classrooms

(Allwright & Hanks, 2009). As teachers become aware of the features of learner languageproduced by their students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize

interlanguage development (Tarone & Swierzbin 2009).

[edit] Learner-internal factors

The study of learner-internal factors in SLA is primarily concerned with the question:

How do learners gain competence in the target language? In other words, given effective

input and instruction, with what internal resources do learners process this input to

produce a rule-governed interlanguage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_competencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicative_competence


11/28

[edit] Critical period research to date

Main article: Critical Period Hypothesis

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 decliningwith 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 Lennebergin 1967 for L1 acquisition, but considerableinterest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition (SLA). 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 bydistinct 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 theadvantage, and yet others focus on existence of a CP for SLA. Recent studies (e.g.

Mayberry and Lock, 2003) have recognised that certain aspects of SLA may be affectedby age, though others remain intact. The objective of this study is to investigate whether

capacity for vocabulary acquisition decreases with age.

A review of SLA theories and their explanations for age-related differences is necessary

before considering empirical studies. The most reductionist theories are those of Penfield

and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967), which stem from L1 and brain damage

studies; children who suffer impairment before puberty typically recover and (re-)developnormal language, whereas adults rarely recover fully, and often do not regain verbal

abilities beyond the point reached five months after impairment. Both theories agree that

children have a neurological advantage in learning languages, and that puberty correlates

with a turning point in ability. They assert that language acquisition occurs primarily,possibly exclusively, during childhood as the brain loses plasticity after a certain age. It

then becomes rigid and fixed, and loses the ability for adaptation and reorganisation,rendering language (re-)learning difficult.

Cases of deaf and feral children provide evidence for a biologically determined CP for

L1. Feral children are those not exposed to language in infancy/childhood due to being

brought up in the wild, in isolation and/or confinement. A classic example is 'Genie', whowas deprived of social interaction from birth until discovered aged thirteen (post-

pubescent).

Such studies are however problematic; isolation can result in general retardation andemotional disturbances, which may confound conclusions drawn about language abilities.Studies of deaf children learning American Sign Language (ASL) have fewer

methodological weaknesses. Newport and Supalla (1987) studied ASL acquisition in deaf

children differing in age of exposure; few were exposed to ASL from birth, most of themfirst learned it at school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_periodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lenneberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lenneberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_periodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lenneberghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)


12/28

Results showed a linear decline in performance with increasing age of exposure; those

exposed to ASL from birth performed best, and late learners worst, on all production

and comprehension tests. Their study thus provides direct evidence for language learningability decreasing with age, but it does not add to Lennerbergs CP hypothesis as even the

oldest children, the late learners, were exposed to ASL by age four, and had therefore

not reached puberty, the proposed end of the CP.

Other work has challenged the biological approach; Krashen (1975) reanalysed clinicaldata used as evidence and concluded cerebral specialisation occurs much earlier than

Lenneberg calculated. Therefore, if a CP exists, it does not coincide with lateralisation.

Although it does not describe an optimal age for SLA, the theory implies that younger

children can learn languages more easily than older learners, as adults must reactivateprinciples developed during L1 learning and forge an SLA path: children can learn

several languages simultaneously as long as the principles are still active and they are

exposed to sufficient language samples (Pinker, 1995).

There are, however, problems with the extrapolation of the UG theory to SLA: L2

learners go through several phases of types of utterance that are not similar to their L1 or

the L2 they hear. Other factors include the cognitive maturity of most L2 learners, that

they have different motivation for learning the language, and already speak one languagefluently.

[edit] Other directions of research

Virtually all research findings on SLA to date build on data from literate learners. Tarone,

Bigelow and Hansen (2009) find significantly different results when replicating standard

SLA studies with low literate L2 learners. Specifically, learners with lower alphabeticliteracy levels are significantly less likely to notice corrective feedback on form or to

perform elicited imitation tasks accurately. These findings are consistent with research incognitive psychology showing significant differences in phonological awareness between

literate and illiterate adults (Reis and Castro-Caldas 1997; Castro-Caldas et al. 1998). An

important direction for SLA research must therefore involve the exploration of the impactof alphabetic literacy on cognitive processing in second language acquisition.

Empirical research has attempted to account for variables detailed by SLA theories and

provide an insight into L2 learning processes, which can be applied in educational

environments. Recent SLA investigations have followed two main directions: one

focuses on pairings of L1 and L2 that render L2 acquisition particularly difficult, and theother investigates certain aspects of language that may be maturationally constrained.

Flege, Mackay and Piske (2002) looked at bilingual dominance to evaluate twoexplanations of L2 performance differences between bilinguals and monolingual-L2

speakers, i.e. a maturationally defined CP or interlingual interference.

Flege, Mackay and Piske investigated whether the age at which participants learned

English affected dominance in Italian-English bilinguals, and found the early bilinguals
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language


13/28

were English (L2) dominant and the late bilinguals Italian (L1) dominant. Further

analysis showed that dominant Italian bilinguals had detectable foreign accents when

speaking English, but early bilinguals (English dominant) had no accents in eitherlanguage. This suggests that, though interlingual interference effects are not inevitable,

their emergence, and bilingual dominance, may be related to a CP.

Sebastin-Galls, Echeverra and Bosch (2005) also studied bilinguals and highlight the

importance of early language exposure. They looked at vocabulary processing andrepresentation in Spanish-Catalan bilinguals exposed to both languages simultaneously

from birth in comparison to those who had learned L2 later and were either Spanish- or

Catalan-dominant. Findings showed from birth bilinguals had significantly moredifficulty distinguishing Catalan words from non-words differing in specific vowels than

Catalan-dominants did (measured by reaction time).

These difficulties are attributed to a phase around age eight months where bilingual

infants are insensitive to vowel contrasts, despite the language they hear most. This

affects how words are later represented in theirlexicons, highlighting this as a decisiveperiod in language acquisition and showing that initial language exposure shapes

linguistic processing for life. Sebastin-Galls et al. (2005) also indicate the significanceof phonology for L2 learning; they believe learning an L2 once the L1 phonology is

already internalised can reduce individuals abilities to distinguish new sounds that

appear in the L2.

Most studies into age effects on specific aspects of SLA have focused on grammar, withthe common conclusion that it is highly constrained by age, more so than semantic

functioning. B. Harley (1986) compared attainment of French learners in early and late

immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better

control ofFrench verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersionstudents (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common

problem areas, including third person plurals and polite vous forms. This suggests

grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstractcognition and reasoning (B. Harley, 1986).

B. Harley also measured eventual attainment and found the two age groups made similar

mistakes in syntax and lexical selection, often confusing French with the L1. The generalconclusion from these investigations is that different aged learners acquire the various

aspects of language with varying difficulty. Some variation in grammatical performance

is attributed to maturation (discussed in B. Harley, 1986), however, all participants began

immersion programs before puberty and so were too young for a strong critical periodhypothesis to be directly tested.

Mayberry and Lock (2003) questioned whether age restrains both L1 and L2 acquisition.

They examined grammatical abilities of deaf and hearing adults who had their initial

linguistic exposure either in early childhood or later. They found that, on L2 grammaticaltasks, those who had acquired the verbal or signed L1 early in life showed near-native

performance and those who had no early L1 experience (i.e. born deaf and parents did not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexiconhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexiconhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-V_distinctionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexiconhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-V_distinction


14/28

know sign-language) performed weakly. Mayberry and Lock concluded early L1

exposure is vital for forming life-long learning abilities, regardless of the nature of the

exposure (verbal or signed language). This corresponds toNoam Chomskys UG theory,which states that while language acquisition principles are still active, it is easy to learn a

language, and the principles developed through L1 acquisition are vital for learning an

L2.

Scherag, Demuth, Rsler, Neville and Rder (2004) also suggest learning some syntacticprocessing functions and lexical access may be limited by maturation, whereas semantic

functions are relatively unaffected by age. They studied the effect of late SLA on speech

comprehension by German immigrants to the U.S.A. and American immigrants toGermany. They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were

disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical

tasks. These findings are consistent with work by Hahne (2001, cited in Scherag et al.,2004).

One study that specifically mentions semantic functions acquisition is that of Weber-Foxand Neville (1996). Their results showed thatChinese-English bilinguals who had been

exposed to English after puberty, learned vocabulary to a higher competence level thansyntactic aspects of language. They do, however, report that the judgment accuracies in

detecting semantic anomalies were altered in subjects who were exposed to English after

sixteen years of age, but were affected to a lesser degree than were grammatical aspectsof language. It has been speculated (Neville and Bavelier, 2001, and Scherag et al., 2004)

that semantic aspects of language are founded on associative learning mechanisms, which

allow life-long learning, whereas syntactical aspects are based on computational

mechanisms, which can only be constructed during certain age periods. Consequently, itis reasoned, semantic functions are easier to access during comprehension of an L2 and

therefore dominate the process: if these are ambiguous, understanding of syntacticinformation is not facilitated. These suppositions would help explain the results ofScherag et al.s (2004) study.

Some researchers have focused exclusively on practical applications of SLA research.

Asher (1972) insists teenagers and adults rarely successfully learn an L2, and attributes

this to teaching strategies. He presents an L2 teaching strategy based on infants L1acquisition, which promotes listening as central in language learning: listening precedes,

and generates a readiness for, speaking, assumptions supported by Carroll (1960).

Asher shows that in L2 acquisition, in this case German, listening fluency is achieved inaround half the usual time if the teaching is based on L1 acquisition, and that learners

taught in this way still develop reading and writing proficiency comparable with those

whose training emphasises literacy skills.

Similarly Horwitz (1986) summarises findings of SLA research, and applies to L2teaching some principles of L2 acquisition honed from a vast body of relevant literature.

Like Asher, Horwitz highlights the importance of naturalistic experience in L2,

promoting listening and reading practice and stressing involvement in life-likeconversations. She explicitly suggests teaching practices based on these principles;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomskyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language


15/28

[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 (Horwitz, 1986, p. 685-686). The audio-lingual teaching practices used in thepresent 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 (1964),they are among the most commonly used nouns in everyday German language.

[edit] Cognitive approaches

Another line of theory and research uses cognitive science to seek to understand how

second language (L2) learners internally process language information. In doing so,

formal understandings have been challenged, as these cognitive approaches have offeredalternative conceptions of SLA processes. Below is an overview of the major products of

cognitive speculation and research. Specifically described are cognitive-related concepts

and evidence related to how individuals (1) structure L2 knowledge, (2) use those

structures to comprehend and produce in second languages, and (3) restructure languageknowledge as their L2 proficiencies increase.

Structuring Second Language Knowledge

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 (1984) found that speakers of English, German, and

Italian showed varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive sentences

containing more than one noun. English speakers relied heavily on word order; Germanspeakers used morphological agreement, the animacy status of noun referents, and stress;

and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al. interpretedthese results as supporting the Competition Model, which states that individuals use

linguistic cues to get meaning from language, rather than relying on linguistic universals.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.

These findings also relate to Connectionism. Connectionism attempts to model the

cognitive language processing of the human brain, using computer architectures thatmake associations between elements of language, based on frequency of co-occurrence in

the language input (Christiansen & Chater, 2001). Frequency has been found to be a

factor in various linguistic domains of language learning (Ellis, 2002). Connectionism

posits that learners form mental connections between items that co-occur, usingexemplars found in language input. From this input, learners extract the rules of the

language through cognitive processes common to other areas of cognitive skillacquisition. 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 boththe units and the rules of language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=17http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=17


16/28

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 ofthe Monitor Model, propounded by Krashen (1982), posits a distinction between

acquisition and learning. According to Krashen, L2 acquisition is a subconscious

process of incidentally picking up a language, as children do when becoming proficientin 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 interfacebetween them. In common with connectionism, Krashen (1982) sees input as essential to

language acquisition. In his Input Hypothesis, he 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 andconnectionist theories, he follows the innate approach by applying Chomsky (1981,

1986)s Binding/Government theory and concept of Universal Grammar (UG) to SLA.

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 ofthe learner. In addition, Krashen (1982)s Affective Filter Hypothesis holds that the

acquisition of a second language is halted if the leaner has a high degree of anxiety whenreceiving 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 distinction closely related to that made by Krashen (1982) between acquisition and

learning is one between implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Learners gain implicit

knowledge by processing target-language input without consciously giving attention to

acquiring the forms and structures of the language. On the other hand, learners getexplicit knowledge of a language when they process language input with the conscious

intention of discovering the structural rules of the language. A distinction between the

implicit learning involved in acquiring a first language (L1) and the mix of implicit andexplicit learning that takes place in L2 acquisition has been one analytic route for

understanding the virtually universal success of L1 acquisition versus the more limited

success of L2 acquisition among adult learners (Hulstijn, 2005). Ellis (2005) has foundempirical confirmation for the distinct constructs of implicit and explicit language

knowledge. Some have used a declarative/procedural model to understand how language

information is stored. This model is consistent with a distinction made in generalcognitive 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 alanguage, such as grammatical word order is procedural knowledge and is stored in

procedural memory. Ullman (2001) reviews several psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic

studies that support the declarative/procedural model.


17/28

Further, Bialystok and Smith (1985) make another distinction in explaining how learners

build and use L2 and interlanguage knowledge structures. They argue that the concept of

interlanguage should include a distinction between two specific kinds of languageprocessing 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 linguisticknowledge, 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 counterpartshave, yet have a lower level of control. Finally, Bialystok (1994) has framed the

acquisition of language in terms of the interaction between what she calls analysis and

control. Analysis is what learners do when they attempt to understand to be the rules of

the target language. Through this process, they acquire these rules and can use them togain greater control over their own production.

Using Second Language Knowledge Structures

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 thatlearners 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 cognitivepsychology, Anderson (1992) 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. On repeated practice, these procedures develop into production rules that

the individual can use to solve the problem, without accessing long-term declarativememory. Performance speed and accuracy improve as the learner implements these

production rules. DeKeyser (1997) tested the application of this model to L2 languageautomaticity. He found that subjects developed increasing proficiency in performingtasks related to the morphosyntax of an artificial language, Autopractan, and performed

on a learning curve typical of the acquisition of non-language cognitive skills. This

evidence conforms to Andersons general model of cognitive skill acquisition, supportsthe idea that declarative knowledge can be transformed into procedural knowledge, and

tends to undermine the idea of Krashen (1982) that knowledge gained through language

learning cannot be used to initiate speech production.

Monitoring is another important concept in some theoretical models of learner use of L2knowledge. According to Krashen (1982), 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 andadjusting language production when necessary.

Perhaps certain psychological characteristics constrain language processing. One area of

research is the role of memory. Williams (1999) conducted a study in which he found

some positive correlation between verbatim memory functioning and grammar learningsuccess for his subjects. This suggests that individuals with less short-term memory


18/28


19/28

of how learners form internal language systems of information, use those systems in L2

processing, and restructure those systems as they gain greater L2 proficiency.

[edit] Language transfer

Main article: Language transfer

Language transfer typically refers to the learner's trying to apply rules and forms of thefirst language into the second language. The term can also include the transfer of features

from one additional language to another (such as from a second to a third language),

although this is less common. Contrastive analysis, discussed above, sought to predict all

learner errors based on language transfer. As subsequent research in error analysis andinterlanguage structure showed, this project was flawed: most errors are not due to

transfer, but to faulty inferences about the rules of the target language. Transfer is an

important factor in language learning at all levels. Typically learners begin bytransferring sounds (phonetic transfer) and meanings (semantic transfer), as well as

various rules including word order and pragmatics. As learners progress and gain moreexperience with the target language, the role of transfer typically diminishes. In the UG-based framework (see Linguistic universals below), "language transfer" specifically

refers to the linguistic parameter settings defined by the language universal. Thus,

"language transfer" is defined as the initial state of second language acquisition rather

than its developmental stage.

[edit] Linguistic universals

Research on universal grammar(UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. Inparticular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner

languages conform to UG at all stages of development. A number of studies havesupported this claim, although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm

conclusions difficult.

A key question about the relationship of UG and SLA is: is the language acquisition

deviceposited by Chomsky and his followers still accessible to learners of a second

language? Research suggests that it becomes inaccessible at a certain age (seeCritical

Period Hypothesis), and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching (seepedagogical effects above, and age below). In other words, although all of language may

be governed by UG, older learners might have great difficulty in gaining access to the

target language's underlying rules from positive input alone.

Another key question is the degree to which findings on the conformity of learner

language to UG can be replicated with learners who are not alphabetically literate.

[edit] Individual variation

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
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition_devicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition_devicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition_devicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Pedagogical_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Agehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=20http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition_devicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition_devicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Period_Hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Pedagogical_effectshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#Agehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=20


20/28

"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 onmany of these specific factors continues today.

[edit] Language aptitude

Tests oflanguage aptitudehave 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 thebrain, 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, as measured by various tests, and is itself fairly consistently measurable bydifferent tests.

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 aregifted for the task or not. This claim is reinforced by research findings that aptitude islargely 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 languageprograms such as the United States Defense Language Institutecontinue to use language

aptitude testing as part of applicant screening.

[edit] Age

Main article: critical period hypothesis

It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learn a second language than are

adults. However, general second language research has failed to support the criticalperiod hypothesis in its strong form (i.e., the claim that full language acquisition is

impossible beyond a certain age). According to Linda M. Espinosa, especially in the

United States the number of children growing up with a home language that is not

English but Spanish is constantly increasing.[1] Therefore these children have to learn theEnglish language before kindergarten as a second language. It is better to dispose young

children to maintain both, their home language and their second language. Cultivating

their home language, the child creates their own cultural identity and becomes aware of

their roots. This fact leads to the question whether having the ability to speak twolanguages helps or harms young children. Research shows that the acquisition of a second

language in early childhood confers several advantages, especially a greater awareness oflinguistic structures. Furthermore it is advantageous for young children to grow up

bilingually because they do not need to be taught systematically but learn languages

intuitively. How fast a child can learn a language depends on several personal factors,such as interest and motivation, and its learning environment. Communication should be

facilitated rather than a child should be forced to learn a language with strict rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_(trait)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Language_Aptitude_Testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Language_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Language_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#cite_note-espinosa-0http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_aptitudehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_(trait)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Language_Aptitude_Testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Language_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_language_acquisition&action=edit&section=22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language_acquisition#cite_note-espinosa-0


21/28

Education in early childhood can lead to an effective educational achievement for

children from various cultural environments.

Another aspect that is worth considering is that bilingual children are often doing codeswitching which does not mean that the child is not able to separate the languages. The

reason for code switching is the child's lack of vocabulary in a certain situation. Theacquisition of a second language in early childhood broadens the children's minds and

enriches them more that it harms them. Thus they are not only able to speak twolanguages in spite of being very young but they also acquire knowledge about the

different cultures and environments. It is possible that one language can dominate. This

depends on how much time is spent on learning each language.[1]

[edit] Strategy use

The effective use of strategies has been shown to be critical to successful languagelearning, so much so that Canale and Swain (1980) included "strategic competence"

among the four components ofcommunicative competence. Research here has alsoshown significantpedagogical effects. This has given rise to "strategies-basedinstruction."

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 asmnemonics or using a dictionary. Learners (and nativespeakers) use communicative strategies to get meaning across even when they lack access

to the correct language: for example, by usingpro-forms like "thing", or non-spoken

means such as mime. Communicative strategies may not have any direct bearing onlearning, and some strategies such as avoidance (not using a form with which one is

uncomfortable) may actually hinder learning.

Learners from different cultures use strategies in different ways (Hadzibeganovic &

Cannas, 2009), as a research tradition led by Rebecca Oxfordhas demonstrated. Relatedto 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.

[edit] Affective factors

Affective factors relate to the learner's emotional state and attitude toward the targetlanguage. Research on affect in language learning is still strongly influenced byBloom's

taxonomy, which describes the affective levels of receiving, responding, valuing,

organization, and

Econd Language Acquisition

Documents

Transcript of Econd Language Acquisition