This page intentionally left blank

Introducing Second Language Acquisition

Written for students encountering the topic for the first time, this is a
clear and practical introduction to Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
It explains in nontechnical language how a second language is acquired;
what the second language learner needs to know; and why some learners
are more successful than others.
The textbook introduces in a step-by-step fashion a range of fundamental
concepts such as SLA in adults and children, in formal and informal
learning contexts, and in diverse sociocultural settings and takes an
interdisciplinary approach, encouraging students to consider SLA from
linguistic, psychological, and social perspectives. Each chapter contains a
list of key terms, a summary, and a range of graded exercises suitable for
self-testing or class discussion. Providing a solid foundation in SLA, this
book is set to become the leading introduction to the field for students of
linguistics, psychology, education, and trainee language teachers.
MURIEL SAVILLE-TROIKE is Regents Professor of English at the University of
Arizona. She has made significant contributions to the fields of
sociolinguistics and applied linguistics, and has previously held posts at
Texas A & M University, the University of Texas, Georgetown University,
and the University of Illinois. She has previously published The
Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction (Third Edition, 2003),
Foundations for Teaching English as a Second Language (1976), and A Handbook
of Bilingual Education (with Rudolph C. Troike, 1971).
Cambridge Introductions to Language and Linguistics
This new textbook series provides students and their teachers with accessible introductions to the major
subjects encountered within the study of language and linguistics. Assuming no prior knowledge of the
subject, each book is written and designed for ease of use in the classroom or seminar, and is ideal for
adoption on a modular course as the core recommended textbook. Each book offers the ideal introductory
material for each subject, presenting students with an overview of the main topics encountered in their
course, and features a glossary of useful terms, chapter previews and summaries, suggestions for further
reading, and helpful exercises. Each book is accompanied by a supporting website.
Books published in the series
Introducing Phonology David Odden
Introducing Speech and Language Processing John Coleman
Introducing Phonetic Science John Maidment and Michael Ashby
Introducing Second Language Acquisition Muriel Saville-Troike
Forthcoming:
Introducing Sociolinguistics Miriam Meyerhoff
Introducing Morphology Maggie Tallerman and S. J. Hannahs
Introducing Historical Linguistics Brian Joseph
Introducing Language Bert Vaux
Introducing
Second
Language
Acquisition
MURIEL SAVILLE-TROIKE
University of Arizona
caxniioci uxiviisir\ iiiss
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, So Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cn: :iu, UK
First published in print format
isnx-:, ,;-c-,::-;,co-
isnx-:, ,;-c-,::-;,c;-;
isnx-:, ,;-c-,::-:,o,c-c
Muriel Saville-Troike 2006
2005
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521790864
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
isnx-:c c-,::-:,o,c-c
isnx-:c c-,::-;,co-;
isnx-:c c-,::-;,c;-:
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of uiis
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
hardback
paperback
paperback
eBook (NetLibrary)
eBook (NetLibrary)
hardback
About the book vii
Acknowledgments viii
1 Introducing Second Language Acquisition 1
What is SLA? 2
What is a second language? 3
What is a first language? 4
Diversity in learning and learners 5
Summary 5
Activities 6
2 Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 7
The world of second languages 8
The nature of language learning 12
L1 versus L2 learning 16
The logical problem of language learning 21
Frameworks for SLA 24
Summary 29
Activities 29
Further reading 30
3 The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 31
The nature of language 32
Early approaches to SLA 33
Universal Grammar 46
Functional approaches 52
Summary 62
Activities 63
Further reading 64
4 The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 67
Languages and the brain 68
Learning processes 73
Differences in learners 81
The effects of multilingualism 93
Summary 94
Activities 95
Further reading 96
5 Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 99
Communicative competence 100
Microsocial factors 101
Contents
Macrosocial factors 119
Summary 130
Activities 130
Further reading 132
6 Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 133
Competence and use 134
Academic vs. interpersonal competence 135
Components of language knowledge 137
Receptive activities 153
Productive activities 162
Summary 169
Activities 170
Further reading 171
7 L2 learning and teaching 173
Integrating perspectives 174
Approaching near-native competence 179
Implications for L2 learning and teaching 180
Summary 180
Answer guide to questions for self-study 181
Glossary 185
References 197
Index 205
vi CONTENTS
This book is a brief but comprehensive intro-
duction to the field of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA). The intended audience is pri-
marily undergraduate students, but it is also
suitable for graduate students who have little
or no prior knowledge of linguistics.
My goals in writing this book are threefold:
(1) to provide a basic level of knowledge about
second language learning phenomena to stu-
dents as part of their general education in
humanities, the social sciences, and education;
(2) to stimulate interest in second language
learning and provide guidance for further read-
ing and study; and (3) to offer practical help to
second language learners and future teachers.
Scope and perspective
I have included a broader range of SLA pheno-
mena in this book than is the usual case: those
involved in both adult and child second language
learning, in both formal (instructed) and infor-
mal (natural) contexts of learning, and in diverse
sociocultural settings. Since my own professional
identity and commitment are interdisciplinary, I
emphasize the importance of integrating linguis-
tic, psychological, and social perspectives on SLA
even as I recognize the differential nature of
their assumptions and contributions. An effort
has been made to maintain balance among them
in quantity and quality of representation.
The focus of this book is on the acquisition of
second language competence, but this con-
struct is broadly considered from different
points of view: as linguistic competence (in
the sense of underlying grammatical knowl-
edge); as communicative competence (adding
notions of requisite cultural knowledge and
other knowledge which enables appropriate
usage); and as knowledge required for partici-
pation in communicative activities involving
reading, listening, writing, and speaking.
Design
Each chapter of this book considers three basic
questions: What exactly does the L2 learner
come to know? How does the learner acquire
this knowledge? Why are some learners more
successful than others? Chapter 1 introduces
the most basic terms and concepts, beginning
with What is SLA? Chapter 2 provides a foun-
dational background, ranging from the nature
and distribution of multilingualism in the
world to generally accepted notions of contrasts
between first and second language acquisition.
The chapter concludes with a preview of the dif-
ferent theoretical frameworks of SLA which
will be surveyed. Chapters 3 to 5 focus in turn
on different disciplinary perspectives: linguis-
tic, psychological, and social. Chapter 6 focuses
on the competence required for academic and
interpersonal functions, and on the interde-
pendence of content, context, and linguistic
knowledge. The final chapter briefly summa-
rizes and integrates answers to the basic what,
how, and why questions that are posed through-
out the book.
Each chapter includes a preview of its con-
tent and a summary. Chapters 1 to 6 conclude
with suggested activities for self-checking of
understanding and for class discussion or indi-
vidual exploration. Chapters 2 to 6 include
annotated suggestions for further reading on
each major topic in that chapter. Important
technical concepts are presented sequentional-
ly with key terms listed at the beginning of
chapters and highlighted with explanations
and examples in the text. A comprehensive glos-
sary is provided for student reference, and the
subject index allows for integration and rein-
forcement of concepts across topics and disci-
plinary perspectives. All terms which appear in
the glossary are highlighted in the text,
whether or not they are listed as key terms.
About the book
Any introductory survey of a field is indebted to
many sources, and this is no exception (as the
relatively long list of references suggests). I am
particularly grateful to Karen Barto in the
preparation of this work: she developed the sug-
gestions for further reading and chapter activi-
ties, and she has contributed significantly to
other aspects of conceptualization and develop-
ment. I am also grateful to colleagues who pro-
vided input on earlier drafts (especially Rudy
Troike, Peter Ecke, Renate Schulz, and Mary
Wildner-Bassett), although they do not bear
responsibility for my conclusions. My students
at the University of Arizona have been most
helpful in providing relevant examples and in
indicating where clarification in my presenta-
tion was necessary. I could not begin to make an
enumeration, but I thank them all.
Every effort has been made to secure neces-
sary permissions to reproduce copyright mate-
rial in this work, though in some cases it has
proved impossible to trace copyright holders. If
any omissions are brought to our notice, we
will be happy to include appropriate acknowl-
edgments on reprinting or in any subsequent
edition.
Acknowledgments
CHAPTER
Introducing
Second Language
Acquisition
1
When you were still a very young child, you began acquiring
at least one language what linguists call your L1
probably without thinking much about it, and with very little
conscious effort or awareness. Since that time, you may have
acquired an additional language your L2 possibly also in
the natural course of having the language used around you,
but more likely with the same conscious effort needed to
acquire other domains of knowledge in the process of
becoming an educated individual. This book is about the
phenomenon of adding languages. In this introductory
chapter, I will define a few of the key terms that we will use
and present the three basic questions that we will explore
throughout the book.
CHAPTER PREVIEW
Second
Language
Acquisition (SLA)
Second
language (L2)
Informal L2
learning
Formal L2
learning
Linguistic
competence
Linguistic
performance
First
language/native
language/mother
tongue (L1)
Simultaneous
multilingualism
Sequential
multilingualism
KEY TERMS
2 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) refers both to the study of individuals
and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first
one as young children, and to the process of learning that language. The
additional language is called a second language (L2), even though it may
actually be the third, fourth, or tenth to be acquired. It is also commonly
called a target language (TL), which refers to any language that is the aim
or goal of learning. The scope of SLA includes informal L2 learning that
takes place in naturalistic contexts, formal L2 learning that takes place in
classrooms, and L2 learning that involves a mixture of these settings and
circumstances. For example, informal learning happens when a child
from Japan is brought to the US and picks up English in the course of
playing and attending school with native English-speaking children with-
out any specialized language instruction, or when an adult Guatemalan
immigrant in Canada learns English as a result of interacting with native
English speakers or with co-workers who speak English as a second lan-
guage. Formal learning occurs when a high school student in England
takes a class in French, when an undergraduate student in Russia takes a
course in Arabic, or when an attorney in Colombia takes a night class in
English. A combination of formal and informal learning takes place when
a student from the USA takes Chinese language classes in Taipei or Beijing
while also using Chinese outside of class for social interaction and daily
living experiences, or when an adult immigrant from Ethiopia in Israel
learns Hebrew both from attending special classes and from interacting
with co-workers and other residents in Hebrew.
In trying to understand the process of second language acquisition, we
are seeking to answer three basic questions:
(1) What exactly does the L2 learner come to know?
(2) How does the learner acquire this knowledge?
(3) Why are some learners more successful than others?
There are no simple answers to these questions in fact, there are proba-
bly no answers that all second language researchers would agree on com-
pletely. In part this is because SLA is highly complex in nature, and in part
because scholars studying SLA come from academic disciplines which dif-
fer greatly in theory and research methods. The multidisciplinary
approach to studying SLA phenomena which has developed within the last
half-century has yielded important insights, but many tantalizing myster-
ies remain. New findings are appearing every day, making this an exciting
period to be studying the subject. The continuing search for answers is not
only shedding light on SLA in its own right, but is illuminating related
fields. Furthermore, exploring answers to these questions is of potentially
great practical value to anyone who learns or teaches additional languages.
SLA has emerged as a field of study primarily from within linguistics and
psychology (and their subfields of applied linguistics, psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, and social psychology), as a result of efforts to answer the
What is SLA?
what, how, and why questions posed above. There are corresponding differ-
ences in what is emphasized by researchers who come from each of these
fields:

Linguists emphasize the characteristics of the differences and

similarities in the languages that are being learned, and the linguistic
competence (underlying knowledge) and linguistic performance
(actual production) of learners at various stages of acquisition.

Psychologists and psycholinguists emphasize the mental or cognitive

processes involved in acquisition, and the representation of language(s)
in the brain.

Sociolinguists emphasize variability in learner linguistic performance,

and extend the scope of study to communicative competence
(underlying knowledge that additionally accounts for language use, or
pragmatic competence).

Social psychologists emphasize group-related phenomena, such as

identity and social motivation, and the interactional and larger social
contexts of learning.
Applied linguists who specialize in SLA may take any one or more of these
perspectives, but they are also often concerned with the implications of
theory and research for teaching second languages. Each discipline and
subdiscipline uses different methods for gathering and analyzing data in
research on SLA, employs different theoretical frameworks, and reaches its
interpretation of research findings and conclusions in different ways.
It is no surprise, then, that the understandings coming from these dif-
ferent disciplinary perspectives sometimes seem to conflict in ways that
resemble the well-known Asian fable of the three blind men describing an
elephant: one, feeling the tail, says it is like a rope; another, feeling the
side, says it is flat and rubbery; the third, feeling the trunk, describes it as
being like a long rubber hose. While each perception is correct individual-
ly, they fail to provide an accurate picture of the total animal because there
is no holistic or integrated perspective. Ultimately, a satisfactory account of
SLA must integrate these multiple perspectives; this book is a step in that
direction. As in the fable of the elephant, three different perspectives are
presented here: linguistic, psychological, and social. I make no presump-
tion that any one perspective among these is right or more privileged, but
believe that all are needed to provide a fuller understanding of the com-
plex phenomena of SLA.
I have broadly defined the scope of SLA as concerned with any phenomena
involved in learning an L2. Sometimes it is necessary for us to make further
distinctions according to the function the L2 will serve in our lives, since
this may significantly affect what we learn. These differences may deter-
mine the specific areas of vocabulary knowledge we need, the level of gram-
matical complexity we have to attain, and whether speaking or reading
What is a second language?
Introducing Second Language Acquisition 3
skills are more important. The following are distinctions commonly made
in the literature:

A second language is typically an official or societally dominant

language needed for education, employment, and other basic purposes.
It is often acquired by minority group members or immigrants who
speak another language natively. In this more restricted sense, the
term is contrasted with other terms in this list.

A foreign language is one not widely used in the learners immediate

social context which might be used for future travel or other cross-
cultural communication situations, or studied as a curricular
requirement or elective in school, but with no immediate or necessary
practical application.

A library language is one which functions primarily as a tool for

further learning through reading, especially when books or journals in
a desired field of study are not commonly published in the learners
native tongue.

An auxiliary language is one which learners need to know for some

official functions in their immediate political setting, or will need for
purposes of wider communication, although their first language serves
most other needs in their lives.
Other restricted or highly specialized functions for second languages are
designated language for specific purposes (such as French for Hotel
Management, English for Aviation Technology, Spanish for Agriculture, and a host
of others), and the learning of these typically focuses only on a narrow set
of occupation-specific uses and functions. One such prominent area is
English for Academic Purposes (EAP).
There is also sometimes a need to distinguish among the concepts first lan-
guage, native language, primary language, and mother tongue, although
these are usually treated as a roughly synonymous set of terms (general-
ized as L1 to oppose the set generalized as L2). The distinctions are not
always clear-cut. For purposes of SLA concerns, the important features that
all shades of L1s share are that they are assumed to be languages which are
acquired during early childhood normally beginning before the age of
about three years and that they are learned as part of growing up among
people who speak them. Acquisition of more than one language during
early childhood is called simultaneous multilingualism, to be distin-
guished from sequential multilingualism, or learning additional lan-
guages after L1 has already been established. (Multilingualism as used
here includes bilingualism.) Simultaneous multilingualism results in
more than one native language for an individual, though it is undoubt-
edly much less common than sequential multilingualism. It appears that
there are significant differences between the processes and/or results of
What is a first language?
4 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
language acquisition by young children and by older learners, although
this is an issue which is still open to debate, and is one of those which we
will explore in chapters to follow.
As already noted, the circumstances under which SLA takes place some-
times need to be taken into account, although they are perhaps too often
taken for granted and ignored. What is learned in acquiring a second lan-
guage, as well as how it is learned, is often influenced by whether the situ-
ation involves informal exposure to speakers of other languages, immer-
sion in a setting where one needs a new language to meet basic needs, or
formal instruction in school, and these learning conditions are often pro-
foundly influenced by powerful social, cultural, and economic factors
affecting the status of both languages and learners.
The intriguing question of why some L2 learners are more successful
than others requires us to unpack the broad label learners for some
dimensions of discussion. Linguists may distinguish categories of learners
defined by the identity and relationship of their L1 and L2; psycholinguists
may make distinctions based on individual aptitude for L2 learning, per-
sonality factors, types and strength of motivation, and different learning
strategies; sociolinguists may distinguish among learners with regard to
social, economic, and political differences and learner experiences in nego-
tiated interaction; and social psychologists may categorize learners accord-
ing to aspects of their group identity and attitudes toward target language
speakers or toward L2 learning itself. All of these factors and more will be
addressed in turn in the following chapters.
Diversity in learning and learners
Introducing Second Language Acquisition 5
Chapter summary
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) involves a wide range of language
learning settings and learner characteristics and circumstances. This
book will consider a broad scope of these, examining them from three
different disciplinary perspectives: linguistic, psychological, and social.
Different approaches to the study of SLA have developed from each of
these perspectives in attempts to answer the three basic questions:
What exactly does the L2 learner come to know? How does the learner
acquire this knowledge? Why are some learners more (or less) successful
than others?
6 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Activities
Questions for self-study
1. Match the following terms to their definitions:
1. target language a. has no immediate or necessary practical
application, might be used later for travel or be
required for school
2. second language b. the aim or goal of language learning
3. first language c. an officially or societally dominant language
(not speakers L1) needed for education,
employment or other basic purposes
4. foreign language d. acquired during childhood
2. The underlying knowledge of language is called __________.
3. Actual production of language is called __________.
Active learning
1. List all of the languages that you can use. First classify them as L1(s) and
L2(s), and then further classify the L2(s) as second, foreign, library,
auxiliary, or for special purposes. Finally, distinguish between the ways
you learned each of the languages: through informal exposure, formal
instruction, or some combination of these.
2. Do you think that you are (or would be) a good or a poor L2 learner?
Why do you think so? Consider whether you believe that your own relative
level of success as a language learner is due primarily to linguistic,
psychological, or social factors (social may include type of instruction,
contexts of learning, or attitudes toward the L1 and L2).
CHAPTER
Foundations of
Second Language
Acquisition
2
Most of us, especially in countries where English is the
majority language, are not aware of the prevalence of
multilingualism in the world today, nor the pervasiveness of
second language learning. We begin this chapter with an
overview of these points, then go on to explore the nature of
language learning, some basic similarities and differences
between L1 and L2 learning, and the logical problem of
language acquisition. An understanding of these issues is a
necessary foundation for our discussion of linguistic,
psychological, and social perspectives on SLA in the next
chapters. We follow this with a survey of the theoretical
frameworks and foci of interest which have been most
important for the study of SLA within each of the three
perspectives.
CHAPTER PREVIEW
Multilingualism/
bilingualism
Monolingualism
Multilingual
competence
Monolingual
competence
Learner
language
Positive transfer
Negative transfer
Fossilization
Poverty-of-the-
stimulus
KEY TERMS
8 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Multilingualismrefers to the ability to use two or more languages. (Some
linguists and psychologists use bilingualismfor the ability to use two lan-
guages and multilingualismfor more than two, but we will not make that
distinction here.) Monolingualismrefers to the ability to use only one. No
one can say for sure how many people are multilingual, but a reasonable
estimate is that at least half of the worlds population is in this category.
Multilingualism is thus by no means a rare phenomenon, but a normal
and common occurrence in most parts of the world. According to Franois
Grosjean, this has been the case as far back as we have any record of lan-
guage use:
[B]ilingualism is present in practically every country of the world, in all
classes of society, and in all age groups. In fact it is difficult to find a
society that is genuinely monolingual. Not only is bilingualism
worldwide, it is a phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of
language in human history. It is probably true that no language group
has ever existed in isolation from other language groups, and the history
of languages is replete with examples of language contact leading to
some form of bilingualism. (1982:1)
Reporting on the current situation, G. Richard Tucker concludes that
there are many more bilingual or multilingual individuals in the world
than there are monolingual. In addition, there are many more children
throughout the world who have been and continue to be educated
through a second or a later-acquired language, at least for some portion
of their formal education, than there are children educated exclusively
via the first language. (1999:1)
Given the size and widespread distribution of multilingual popula-
tions, it is somewhat surprising that an overwhelming proportion of the
scientific attention which has been paid to language acquisition relates
only to monolingual conditions and to first language acquisition. While
there are interesting similarities between L1 and L2 acquisition, the
processes cannot be equated, nor can multilingualism be assumed to
involve simply the same knowledge and skills as monolingualism except
in more than one language. This point is made most cogently by Vivian
Cook, who introduced the concept of multilingual competence (his term
is multicompetence) to refer to the compound state of a mind with two
[or more] grammars (1991:112). This is distinguished from monolingual
competence (or monocompetence in Cooks terminology), which refers
to knowledge of only one language.
L2 users differ from monolinguals in L1 knowledge; advanced L2 users
differ from monolinguals in L2 knowledge; L2 users have a different
metalinguistic awareness from monolinguals; L2 users have different
cognitive processes. These subtle differences consistently suggest that
people with multicompetence are not simply equivalent to two
monolinguals but are a unique combination. (Cook 1992:557)
The world of second languages
One message from world demographics is that SLA phenomena are
immensely important for social and practical reasons, as well as for aca-
demic ones. Approximately 6,000 languages are spoken in the world, with
widely varying distribution, and almost all of them have been learned as
second languages by some portion of their speakers. The four most com-
monly used languages are Chinese, English, Spanish, and Hindi, which are
acquired by over 2 billion as L1s and almost 1.7 billion as L2s, as shown in
2.1 (based on Zhu 2001 and Crystal 1997b):
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 9
Even just among these four numerically dominant languages, there is
great variance. Chinese is an L1 for many more people than any other
language, and English is by far the most common L2. In China alone, a
recent estimate of numbers of people studying English exceeds 155 mil-
lion: 10 million in elementary school, 80 million in high school, at least
5 million in universities, and 60 million adults in other instructional
contexts. Many more millions will soon be added to these estimates as
China implements mandatory English instruction at the primary level.
Demographic change is also illustrated by the fact that there are now
perhaps 15 million speakers of Chinese L2 (this number is far from cer-
tain), but the increasing involvement and influence of China in inter-
national economic and political spheres is being accompanied by an
increase in the election or need for people elsewhere to learn Mandarin
Chinese, the official national language (different varieties, such as
Cantonese and Taiwanese, are as different as German and Swedish). An
indicator of this trend in the USA is that by 1998, the Modern Language
Association reported that Chinese had become the sixth most common-
ly taught foreign language in US colleges and universities, and numbers
are steadily growing.
While multilingualism occurs in every country, for a variety of social
reasons the distribution of multiple language use is quite unequal. In
some countries, e.g. Iceland, very few people speak other than the nation-
al language on a regular basis, while in other countries, such as parts of
west Africa, close to 100 percent of the speakers of the national language
also speak another language. English L1 speakers often expect to be able
to get along in English anywhere in the world they may travel for
tourism, business, or diplomatic purposes, and may be less likely to
become fluent in other languages in part for this reason.
2.1 Estimated L1/L2 distribution of numerically dominant languages
L1 speakers (in millions) L2 speakers (in millions)
Chinese 1,200 15
English 427 950
Spanish 266 350
Hindi 182 350
Those who grow up in a multilingual environment acquire multilingual
competence in the natural course of using two or more languages from
childhood with the people around them, and tend to regard it as perfectly
normal to do so. Adding second languages at an older age often takes con-
siderable effort, however, and thus requires motivation. This motivation
may arise from a variety of conditions, including the following:

Invasion or conquest of ones country by speakers of another language;

A need or desire to contact speakers of other languages in economic

or other specific domains;

Immigration to a country where use of a language other than ones

L1 is required;

Adoption of religious beliefs and practices which involve use of

another language;

A need or desire to pursue educational experiences where access

requires proficiency in another language;

A desire for occupational or social advancement which is furthered by

knowledge of another language;

An interest in knowing more about peoples of other cultures and

having access to their technologies or literatures. (Crystal 1997b)
The numbers of L1 and L2 speakers of different languages can only be
estimated. Reasons for uncertainty in reporting language data include
some which have social and political significance, and some which mere-
ly reflect imprecise or ambiguous terminology. For example:
1. Linguistic information is often not officially collected
Census forms in many countries do not include questions on language
background, presumably because there is no particular interest in this
information, because it is impractical to gather, or because it is consid-
ered to be of a sensitive nature. In cases where responses concerning lan-
guage would essentially identify minority group members, sensitivities
can be either personal or political: personal sensitivities can arise if iden-
tification might lead to undesired consequences; political sensitivities
can be at issue if the government does not wish to recognize how many
speakers of minority languages there are in order to downplay the politi-
cal importance of a group, or in order to emphasize cultural/linguistic
homogeneity and cohesion by not according recognition to cultural/
linguistic diversity.
2. Answers to questions seeking linguistic information may not
be reliable
Respondents may not want to be identified as speakers of a minority lan-
guage. For instance, this was the case for a survey which was conducted sev-
eral years ago for a rural school district in California. The survey was of par-
ents with preschool children, asking them about the language(s) used at
home in order to anticipate future English L2 instructional program needs.
Many Hispanic parents insisted that they spoke primarily English at home
even when they could only understand and respond to the interviewers
10 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
when questions were asked in Spanish. Their linguistic misrepresenta-
tion was likely motivated by fear that lack of English would trigger fur-
ther questions about their US citizenship (a reasonable concern on their
part, although not the schools intent). In other cases, respondents may say
that they use the dominant language more than they actually do because
they reject or are ashamed of their ethnic heritage and wish to assimilate,
or because they are afraid of government oppression or social stigmatiza-
tion. Others may similarly over-report dominant language use because
they feel this is the appropriate answer to give official representatives, or
in order to qualify for civil privileges, such as being allowed to vote.
On the other hand, respondents may over-report use of minority and
ancestral languages because of pride in their heritage. There may also be
over-reporting of minority language use in order to obtain more recogni-
tion, resources, or services for the groups with which they identify.
How questions are worded also commonly contributes to the unrelia-
bility and non-comparability of language data. For example, the following
questions might all be intended to elicit the identity of speakers L1, but
the same speakers might respond differentially depending on which ques-
tion is asked:

What is your native language?

What is your mother tongue?

What language did you learn first as a child?

What language was usually spoken in your home when you were a
child?

What language are you most likely to use with family and friends?

What is your strongest language?

3. There is lack of agreement on definition of terms and on
criteria for identification
It may be difficult for someone to answer the common census question,
What is your native language? for example, if they acquired multilin-
gual competence simultaneously in two languages. In this case, both are
L1s, and either or both might be considered a native language. Such a
question is also problematic for individuals whose language dominance
(or relative fluency) has shifted from their L1 to a language learned later.
Another issue is the degree of multilingualism. What level of proficien-
cy is needed before one claims to have multilingual competence, or to
know a second language? Does reading knowledge alone count, or must
one also be able to carry on a conversation? What about languages that
have been learned only in relation to limited domains or for special pur-
poses? Do claims of multilingualism require near-balance in ability to
function in multiple languages, or does multilingual competence include
even early stages of L2 learning (the view in much SLA research)?
Perhaps the most basic definitional basis for unreliability in statistics
lies in the meaning of language itself, for what counts as a separate lan-
guage involves social and political (as well as linguistic) criteria. For
instance, religious differences and the use of different writing systems
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 11
result in Hindi and Urdu being counted as distinct languages in India,
although most varieties are mutually intelligible; on the other hand,
mutually unintelligible dialects of Chinese (such as Mandarin and
Cantonese) are counted as the same language when emphasis on nation-
al cohesion is desired. Similar examples arise when languages are reclas-
sified, a process which may accompany political change. For instance, the
demise of Yugoslavia as a political entity led to the official distinction as
separate languages of Bosnian and Montenegrin, which had been catego-
rized within former Serbo-Croatian (itself a single language divided into
national varieties distinguished by different alphabets because of reli-
gious differences). Social status or prestige may also play a role, as in
whether Haitian Creole is to be considered a separate language or a vari-
ety of French. The creole originated as a contact language between slaves
who spoke African languages and French-speaking slave traders and
colonists, evolving its own systematic grammar while incorporating
vocabulary from French. Linguists classify the creole as a separate lan-
guage because its grammar and usage are quite distinct from French. In
contrast, some people disparage the creole as not a real language, but
merely an inferior variety of French. Recognition of this and other cre-
oles as full-fledged languages goes beyond linguistic consideration
because such recognition strengthens the social identity and status of
the people who speak them. There are also potentially important educa-
tional implications. For instance, when teachers recognize that native
speakers of Haitian Creole are really learning a second language in
acquiring French, they are likely to use different instructional methods.
Thus teachers no longer view their task as correcting or cleaning up
their students bad French, and are more likely to feel that the second
language can simply be added to the first rather than having to replace
it. Regrettably, there is a common attitude among educators, some-
times pursued with almost religious fervor, that socially inferior or
uneducated varieties of a language are a moral threat and should be
completely eradicated.
Much of your own L1 acquisition was completed before you ever came to
school, and this development normally takes place without any conscious
effort. By the age of six months an infant has produced all of the vowel
sounds and most of the consonant sounds of any language in the world,
including some that do not occur in the language(s) their parents speak.
If children hear English spoken around them, they will learn to discrimi-
nate among those sounds that make a difference in the meaning of
English words (the phonemes), and they will learn to disregard those that
do not. If the children hear Spanish spoken around them, they will learn
to discriminate among some sounds the English speaker learns to ignore,
as between the flapped r in pero but and the trilled rr in perro dog, and
to disregard some differences that are not distinctive in Spanish, but vital
to English word-meaning, as the sh and ch of share and chair.
The nature of language learning
12 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
On average children have mastered most of the distinctive sounds of
their first language before they are three years old, and an awareness of
basic discourse patterns such as conversational turn-taking appear at an
even earlier age. Children control most of the basic L1 grammatical pat-
terns before they are five or six, although complex grammatical patterns
continue to develop through the school years.
The same natural and generally effortless learning processes take place
when there is significant exposure to more than one language in early
childhood. If young children hear and respond to two (or more) languages
in their environment, the result will be simultaneous multilingualism
(multiple L1s acquired by about three years of age). As noted in the first
chapter, simultaneous multilingualism is not within the usual scope of
study in SLA, which focuses on sequential multilingualism (L2s acquired
after L1).
Our understanding of (and speculation about) how children accom-
plish the early mastery of L1(s) has changed radically in the past fifty
years or so, primarily owing to developments in linguistics and psycholo-
gy. It was once suggested that first language acquisition is in large part
the result of childrens natural desire to please their doting parents, who
wait impatiently for them to utter a recognizable word. Yet the offspring
of even relatively indifferent parents successfully acquire language at
about the same rate. Others argued that childrens language acquisition
is purposive, that they develop language because of their urge to com-
municate their wants and needs to the people who take care of them.
This has not proven to be an adequate explanation, however, since with-
in childrens limited sphere of activity, communicative needs seem to be
largely satisfied by gesture and such non-speech sounds as squeals,
whines, grunts, and cries.
Perhaps the most widely held view by the middle of the twentieth
century was that children learn language by imitation (the stimulus-
response theory). While it is true that much of childrens initial language
learning can be attributed to their imitation of sounds and words around
them, many of their utterances are quite original and cannot be explained
as imitations at all, since they can never have heard them before.
The role of natural ability
Humans are born with a natural ability or innate capacity to learn lan-
guage. Such a predisposition must be assumed in order to explain sev-
eral facts:

Children begin to learn their L1 at the same age, and in much the
same way, whether it is English, Bengali, Korean, Swahili, or any
other language in the world.

Children master the basic phonological and grammatical operations

in their L1 by the age of about five or six, as noted above, regardless of
what the language is.

Children can understand and create novel utterances; they are not
limited to repeating what they have heard, and indeed the utterances
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 13
that children produce are often systematically different from those of
the adults around them.

There is a cut-off age for L1 acquisition, beyond which it can never be

complete.

Acquisition of L1 is not simply a facet of general intelligence.

In viewing the natural ability to acquire language in terms of innate
capacity, we are saying that part of language structure is genetically
given to every human child. All languages are incredibly complex sys-
tems which no children could possibly master in their early years to the
degree they succeed in doing so if they had to learn them in the usual
sense of that word. Childrens ability to create new utterances is remark-
able, and their ability to recognize when a string of common words does
not constitute a grammatical sentence in the language is even more so. For
example, children acquiring English L1 can recognize early on that Cookies
me give is ungrammatical. They have never been told, surely, that the par-
ticular group of words is not an English sentence, but they somehow
know, nevertheless. If a child had to consciously learn the set of abstract
principles that indicate which sequences of words are possible sentences
in their language as opposed to those that are not, only the smartest
would learn to talk, and it would take them many more years than it actu-
ally does. This is part of the logical problem of language acquisition,
which is discussed further below.
A hypothesis which many linguists and psychologists support is that a
great many of these abstract principles are common to all language, as
opposed to the principles that are language-specific (i.e. specific to partic-
ular languages). According to this view, those principles that are universal
are programmed into all human children just by virtue of their being
human, and this accounts for childrens ability to process the smorgas-
bord of sounds and words that they hear, and their ability to come up
with essentially the same structures as other children.
To explain why all L1 development follows essentially the same
sequence, we may view childrens language development as a gradual
process of acquiring a more and more complex set of structures and rules
for combining them. Because the stages and levels of language development
can be delineated and studied, it is possible to talk about child grammar:
that is, it is possible to systematically describe the kinds of utterances a
child can produce or understand at a given maturational level. The differ-
ences between their grammar and that used by adults are not viewed as
failures on the part of the children, but are considered the normal output
of children at that level of development. As children mature, so do their
language abilities. Since certain grammatical processes are more complex
than others, they require a higher maturational level than simpler ones. As
Jean Piaget observed several decades ago (e.g. 1926), in order to master com-
plexities in their L1 which are beyond their present linguistic grasp, what
normal children need is additional time, not additional stimuli.
The rate of progression through stages of language development can vary
radically among individual children, even as the order of development is
14 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
relatively invariant both for different children and for different lan-
guages. This is because the rate may be influenced by individual factors,
while the order is primarily determined by the relative semantic and
grammatical complexity of constructions (Brown 1973:59).
Saying that there is a cut-off point for L1 acquisition means that nor-
mal development does not occur if the process does not begin in child-
hood. Even when acquisition starts at an early age, there is evidence that
progress in language development usually begins to slow sharply at about
the age of puberty no matter what level has been reached. Severely
retarded children, who have a slower rate of development (but in the same
relative sequence), are likely never to develop a complete adult grammar
for this reason. The effects of age on both L1 and L2 acquisition are dis-
cussed in Chapter 4 as the Critical Period Hypothesis.
Given the complexity of language, it is no wonder that even adults with
their mature intellects seldom attain native fluency in a new language.
But almost all children, with their limited memories, restricted reasoning
powers, and as yet almost nonexistent analytical abilities, acquire perfect
fluency in any language to which they are adequately exposed, and in
which they interact with others. The ability to acquire language could not
be dependent upon intellectual powers alone, since children with clearly
superior intelligence do not necessarily begin to speak earlier, or with bet-
ter results, than children of ordinary intellect.
The role of social experience
Not all of L1 acquisition can be attributed to innate ability, for language-
specific learning also plays a crucial role. Even if the universal properties
of language are preprogrammed in children, they must learn all of those
features which distinguish their L1 from all other possible human lan-
guages. Children will never acquire such language-specific knowledge
unless that language is used with them and around them, and they will
learn to use only the language(s) used around them, no matter what their
linguistic heritage. American-born children of Korean or Greek ancestry
will never learn the language of their grandparents if only English sur-
rounds them, for instance, and they will find their ancestral language just
as hard to learn as any other English speakers do if they attempt to learn
it as an adult. Appropriate social experience, including L1 input and inter-
action, is thus a necessary condition for acquisition.
Intentional L1 teaching to young children is not necessary and indeed
may have little effect. Some parents correct their childrens immature
pronunciation and grammar but most do not, and there is no noticeable
change in rate of acquisition among children who receive such instruction.
Some adults simplify both grammar and word choice, adding more com-
plex structures as the child does, but adults notion of simplicity does not
correspond to the actual sequence in language acquisition. Some adults
imitate childrens language production, and in this imitation, they some-
times provide expansions of childrens structures (such as saying Yes, thats a
big, brown dog in response to the child saying That dog). The expansion may
play a role in developing childrens ability to understand new forms, but it
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 15
cannot be considered necessary since many children do not receive this type
of input and still develop language at essentially the same rate.
Sources of L1 input and interaction vary depending on cultural and
social factors. Mothers talk is often assumed to be the most important
source of early language input to children, but fathers or older siblings
have major childrearing responsibilities in many societies and may be the
dominant source of input, and wealthier social classes in many cultures
delegate most of the childrearing responsibilities to nannies or servants.
The relative importance of input from other young children also varies in
different cultures, as does the importance of social institutions such as
nursery schools.
As long as children are experiencing adequate L1 input and interaction
from people around them, the rate and sequence of their phonological
and grammatical development does not appear to vary systematically
according to its source, although childrens pronunciation is naturally
influenced by the regional and social varieties or styles of the L1 which
they hear. There is considerable variance in vocabulary knowledge
depending on social context, however, because vocabulary is typically
learned in conjunction with social experiences. There is also variation to
some extent in what functions of speaking children learn to use at an
early age depending on social experience. For example, I have found that
children who attend nursery school are often more advanced in develop-
ment of verbal skills that are needed for controlling and manipulating
other children than are children who are raised at home without the
experience of interacting and competing with peers.
When young childrens social experience includes people around them
using two or more languages, they have the same innate capacity to learn
both or all of them, along with the same ability to learn the language-
specific features of each without instruction. Acquiring other languages
after early childhood presents some significant differences, which we will
explore in the following section.
This brief comparison of L1 and L2 learning is divided into three phases.
The first is the initial state, which many linguists and psychologists
believe includes the underlying knowledge about language structures and
principles that is in learners heads at the very start of L1 or L2 acquisi-
tion. The second phase, the intermediate states, covers all stages of basic
language development. This includes the maturational changes which
take place in what I have called child grammar, and the L2 develop-
mental sequence which is known as learner language (also interlanguage
or IL). For this phase, we will compare processes of L1 and L2 development,
and then compare the conditions which are necessary or which facilitate
language learning. The third phase is the final state, which is the out-
come of L1 and L2 learning.
A simplified representation of these three phases is included in 2.2,
along with a listing of some major points of contrast between L1 and L2
learning which we will consider here.
L1 versus L2 learning
16 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 17
2.2 First vs. second language development
L1 L2
INITIAL STATE
Innate capacity Innate capacity?
L1 knowledge
World knowledge
Interaction skills
INTERMEDIATE STATES
Child grammar Learner language
Basic processes
Maturation Transfer
Necessary conditions
Input Input
Reciprocal interaction
Facilitating conditions
Feedback
Aptitude
Motivation
Instruction
. . . . . . . . .
FINAL STATE
Native competence Multilingual competence
Initial state
While the initial state in childrens minds for L1 almost surely is an innate
capacity to learn language, it is not at all certain whether or not such
natural ability is part of the initial state in older learners for L2 acquisi-
tion (hence the ? in 2.2). Some linguists and psychologists believe that
the genetic predisposition which children have from birth to learn lan-
guage remains with them throughout life, and that differences in the
final outcomes of L1 and L2 learning are attributable to other factors.
Others believe that some aspects of the innate capacity which children
have for L1 remain in force for acquisition of subsequent languages, but
that some aspects of this natural ability are lost with advancing age. Still
others believe that no innate capacity for language acquisition remains
beyond childhood, and that subsequent languages are learned by means
which are more akin to how older learners acquire other domains of
knowledge, such as mathematics or history.
Because it is impossible for us to observe mental capacity for language
learning directly, the different beliefs are based largely on theoretical
assumptions and are tested by indirect methods which individuals who
come from different disciplinary perspectives may not agree on. For exam-
ple, many linguists rely on learners ability to judge which L2 utterances
are not possible (such as the Cookies me give example mentioned above), an
aspect of childrens L1 competence which is attributed to innate capacity.
Many who take a social perspective tend to reject such judgments of
(un)grammaticality as convincing evidence because they result from arti-
ficial tasks which do not include actual circumstances of L2 interpreta-
tion and use. Many who take a psychological perspective in turn reject
socially constituted evidence (such as natural language production)
because the many variables which go along with actual social usage can-
not be controlled for experimental investigation. So, although the ques-
tion of the extent to which innate capacity for language acquisition
remains available in SLA is a very interesting and important one, it is like-
ly to remain unresolved for some years to come.
There is complete agreement, however, that since L2 acquisition follows
L1 acquisition, a major component of the initial state for L2 learning must
be prior knowledge of L1. This entails knowledge of how language (in gen-
eral) works, as well as a myriad of language-specific features which are
only partially relevant for production of the new L2. This prior knowledge
of L1 is responsible for the transfer from L1 to L2 during second language
development, which we will consider as part of the second phase of L1 ver-
sus L2 learning.
L2 learners also already possess real-world knowledge in their initial
state for language acquisition which young children lack at the point they
begin learning their L1. This has come with cognitive development and
with experience by virtue of being older. The initial state for L2 learning
also includes knowledge of means for accomplishing such interactional
functions as requesting, commanding, promising, and apologizing, which
have developed in conjunction with L1 acquisition but are not present in
the L1 initial state.
The initial state of L1 learning thus is composed solely of an innate
capacity for language acquisition which may or may not continue to be
available for L2, or may be available only in some limited ways. The initial
state for L2 learning, on the other hand, has resources of L1 competence,
world knowledge, and established skills for interaction, which can be both
an asset and an impediment.
Intermediate states
Both L1 and L2 learners go through intermediate states as they progress
from their initial to their final state linguistic systems. There is similarity
in that the development of both L1 and L2 is largely systematic, including
predictable sequencing of many phenomena within each and some simi-
larity of sequencing across languages, and in the fact that L1 and L2 learn-
ers both play a creative role in their own language development and do
not merely mimic what they have heard or been taught.
Processes
Development, as we have seen, is a spontaneous and largely unconscious
process in L1 child grammar, where it is closely correlated with cognitive
maturation. As noted above, as children mature, so do their language abil-
ities. In contrast, the development of learner language (or interlanguage)
18 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
for L2 learners occurs at an age when cognitive maturity cannot be con-
sidered a significant factor; L2 learners have already reached a level of
maturity where they can understand and produce complex utterances in
their L1, and level of maturity is not language-specific. Processes other
than maturation must be involved to explain development in SLA.
Just as we cannot directly observe mental capacity, we cannot directly
observe developmental processes, but we can infer from the utterances
which learners understand and produce at different stages what processes
are possibly taking place. This addresses the fundamental how question of
SLA, which we will explore from different perspectives in the chapters
which follow. While answers to this question vary, there is general agree-
ment that cross-linguistic influence, or transfer of prior knowledge from
L1 to L2, is one of the processes that is involved in interlanguage develop-
ment. Two major types of transfer which occur are:

positive transfer, when an L1 structure or rule is used in an L2 utter-

ance and that use is appropriate or correct in the L2; and

negative transfer (or interference), when an L1 structure or rule is

used in an L2 utterance and that use is inappropriate and considered
an error.
Cross-linguistic influence occurs in all levels of IL: vocabulary, pronunci-
ation, grammar, and all other aspects of language structure and use.
Positive transfer facilitates L2 learning because an L1 structure or rule that
also works for L2 means that a new one doesnt have to be learned. For
example, a word that has essentially the same form and meaning in both
languages can transfer appropriately from L1 to L2: e.g. exterior outside is
a word in both Spanish and English (pronounced differently, but with the
same spelling and meaning). Negative transfer of L1 features can often be
inferred from forms in the second language which are unlike any that are
likely to be produced by a native speaker of the L2, or are an integration of
elements which would not occur in monolingual speech. Inappropriate
transfer of L1 pronunciation to L2 is detectable as a foreign accent in a
nonnative speakers production, and is probably the most common and
most easily recognized aspect of L1 influence. Interference at the gram-
matical level is illustrated in the following utterances made by learners of
English L2, which a native English speaker would be unlikely to produce:
Can I assist to your class?
I have been always to class on time.
We have noted that, in addition to L1 competence, older children and
adults have access to world knowledge that has come with cognitive devel-
opment and with experience, and this is also available for L2 use during
the intermediate states. The concepts associated with advanced world
knowledge are often much too complex for adequate expression with lim-
ited L2 ability, but they may be at least partially conveyed in context, and
they are likely to stimulate L2 vocabulary learning. For example, older
children in immigrant families may enroll in US schools with prior knowl-
edge of academic subject areas (such as science and mathematics) which
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 19
are at least equal to or more advanced than US curriculum expectations,
but they may lack the English L2 competence to express what they know.
These students do not need to learn those concepts again, since the con-
cepts themselves are not dependent on any specific language; they mere-
ly require new language-specific forms to represent them in L2. Even
advanced international students in such fields as engineering and com-
puter science find it much easier to learn English L2 terms for concepts
they have already acquired than native English speakers do for acquiring
those terms and concepts to begin with.
Adults in immigrant families to the USA often know how to drive a car,
and they are likely to have vocational knowledge and skills which transfer
to the new social setting. Some English must be learned before they can
pass a test for a drivers license in the USA along with a few new rules and
regulations, but they dont need to learn how to drive all over again.
Similarly, job-related English can generally be added with relative ease to
prior vocational knowledge and skills. Transfer of knowledge and skills to
an L2 setting is clearly made easier when L1 support is available as part of
L2 learning, and when key terminology is shared across languages, but
conceptual transfer occurs in any case.
Many skills for social interaction which have been developed in L1 also
transfer to L2, as I suggested above. These often also involve positive trans-
fer and facilitate IL development, but some are inappropriate for L2 con-
texts. Examples of how communication can be achieved with limited
shared linguistic means are presented in Chapter 5.
Necessary conditions
Language input to the learner is absolutely necessary for either L1 or L2
learning to take place. Children additionally require interaction with
other people for L1 learning to occur. In contrast, while reciprocal social
interaction generally facilitates SLA, it is not a necessary condition. It is
possible for some individuals to reach a fairly high level of proficiency in
L2 even if they have input only from such generally non-reciprocal sources
as radio, television, or written text. The role of input and interaction in
SLA is also discussed in Chapter 5.
Facilitating conditions
While L1 learning by children occurs without instruction, and while the
rate of L1 development is not significantly influenced by correction of
immature forms or by degree of motivation to speak, both rate and ulti-
mate level of development in L2 can be facilitated or inhibited by many
social and individual factors. Identifying and explaining facilitating con-
ditions essentially addresses the fundamental why question of SLA: why
are some L2 learners more successful than others?
Some of the conditions which will be explored in chapters that follow are:

feedback, including correction of L2 learners errors;

aptitude, including memory capacity and analytic ability;

motivation, or need and desire to learn;

instruction, or explicit teaching in school settings.

20 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Final state
The final state is the outcome of L1 or L2 learning. The final state of L1
development by definition is native linguistic competence. While
vocabulary learning and cultivation of specialized registers (such as for-
mal academic written style) may continue into adulthood, the basic
phonological and grammatical systems of whatever language(s) children
hear around them are essentially established by the age of about five or
six years (as we have already noted), along with vocabulary knowledge
and interaction skills that are adequate for fulfilling communicative func-
tions. This is a universal human achievement, requiring no extraordinary
aptitude or effort.
On the other hand, the final state of L2 development again by defini-
tion can never be totally native linguistic competence, and the level of
proficiency which learners reach is highly variable. Some learners reach
near-native or native-like competence in L2 along with native compe-
tence in L1, but many cease at some point to make further progress toward
the learning target in response to L2 input, resulting in a final state which
still includes instances of L1 interference or creative structures different
from any that would be produced by a native speaker of the L2 (a frozen
state of progress known as fossilization in SLA). The complex of factors
which contribute to differential levels of ultimate multilingual develop-
ment is of major interest for both SLA theory and second language teach-
ing methods.
How is it possible for children to achieve the final state of L1 development
with general ease and complete success, given the complexity of the lin-
guistic system which they acquire and their immature cognitive capacity
at the age they do so? This question forms the logical problem of lan-
guage learning. The problem as it has been formulated by linguists
relates most importantly to syntactic phenomena. As noted in the preced-
ing section, most linguists and psychologists assume this achievement
must be attributed to innate and spontaneous language-learning con-
structs and/or processes. The notion that innate linguistic knowledge
must underlie language acquisition was prominently espoused by Noam
Chomsky (1957, 1965), who subsequently formulated a theory of Universal
Grammar which has been very influential in SLA theory and research (to
be discussed in Chapter 3). This view has been supported by arguments
such as the following:
1. Childrens knowledge of language goes beyond what could
be learned from the input they receive
This is essentially the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument. According to
this argument, children often hear incomplete or ungrammatical utter-
ances along with grammatical input, and yet they are somehow able to fil-
ter the language they hear so that the ungrammatical input is not incor-
porated into their L1 system. Further, children are commonly recipients of
The logical problem of language learning
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 21
simplified input from adults, which does not include data for all of the
complexities which are within their linguistic competence. In addition,
children hear only a finite subset of possible grammatical sentences, and
yet they are able to abstract general principles and constraints which
allow them to interpret and produce an infinite number of sentences
which they have never heard before. Even more remarkable, childrens lin-
guistic competence includes knowledge of which sentences are not possi-
ble, although input does not provide them with this information: i.e.
input underdetermines the grammar that develops. Almost all L1 lin-
guistic input to children is positive evidence, or actual utterances by
other speakers which the children are able to at least partially compre-
hend. Unlike many L2 learners, children almost never receive any explicit
instruction in L1 during the early years when acquisition takes place, and
they seldom receive any negative evidence, or correction (and often fail to
recognize it when they do).
2. Constraints and principles cannot be learned
Childrens access to general constraints and principles which govern lan-
guage could account for the relatively short time it takes for the L1 gram-
mar to emerge, and for the fact that it does so systematically and without
any wild divergences. This could be so because innate principles lead
children to organize the input they receive only in certain ways and not
others. In addition to the lack of negative evidence mentioned above, con-
straints and principles cannot be learned in part because children acquire
a first language at an age when such abstractions are beyond their com-
prehension; constraints and principles are thus outside the realm of
learning processes which are related to general intelligence. Jackendoff
(1997) approaches this capacity in children as a paradox of language
acquisition:
If general-purpose intelligence were sufficient to extract the principles
of mental grammar, linguists (or psychologists or computer scientists),
at least some of whom have more than adequate general intelligence,
would have discovered the principles long ago. The fact that we are all
still searching and arguing, while every normal child manages to extract
the principles unaided, suggests that the normal child is using
something other than general-purpose intelligence. (p. 5)
3. Universal patterns of development cannot be explained by
language-specific input
Linguistic input always consists of the sounds, words, phrases, sentences,
and other surface-level units of a specific human language. However, in
spite of the surface differences in input (to the point that people who are
speaking different languages cant understand one another), there are
similar patterns in child acquisition of any language in the world. The
extent of this similarity suggests that language universals are not only
constructs derived from sophisticated theories and analyses by linguists,
but also innate representations in every young childs mind.
22 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 23
The logical problem of language learning
For a long time, people thought that children learned language by
imitating those around them. More recent points of view claim that
children have an innate language ability. There are three major
arguments supporting this notion.
First of all, children often say things that adults do not. This is
especially true of children's tendency to use regular patterns to form
plurals or past tenses on words that would have irregular formation.
Children frequently say things like goed, mans, mouses, and sheeps, even
though it is highly unlikely that any adult around them ever produced
such forms in front of them.
We also know that children do not learn language simply by
imitation because they do not imitate adult language well when asked
to do so. For example (adapted from Crystal 1997b:236):
CHILD: He taked my toy!
MOTHER: No, say he took my toy.
CHILD: He taked my toy!
(Dialogue repeated seven times.)
MOTHER: No, now listen carefully: say He took my toy.
CHILD: Oh! He taked my toy!
Next, children use language in accordance with general universal
rules of language even though they have not yet developed the
cognitive ability necessary to understand these rules. Therefore, we
know that these rules are not learned from deduction or imitation.
Finally, patterns of children's language development are not
directly determined by the input they receive. The age at which
children begin to produce particular language elements does not
correspond to their frequency in input. Thus, we must assume that
something besides input triggers the developmental order in
children's language.
If we extend the logical problem from L1 acquisition to SLA, we need to
explain how it is possible for individuals to achieve multilingual competence
when that also involves knowledge which transcends what could be learned
from the input they receive. In other words, L2 learners also develop an
underlying system of knowledge about that language which they are not
taught, and which they could not infer directly from anything they hear (see
White 1996). As we have already seen, however, in several important respects
L1 and L2 acquisition are fundamentally different; the arguments put forth
for the existence of an innate, language-specific faculty in young children do
not all apply to L2 learners since they are not uniformly successful, they are
typically more cognitively advanced than young children, they may receive
and profit from instruction and negative evidence, and they are influenced
by many factors which seem irrelevant to acquisition of L1.
It is widely accepted that there is an innate capacity involved in L1
acquisition by young children (although many do not agree with
Chomskys particular formulation of its nature), but there is less cer-
tainty about the continued availability of that capacity for acquiring an
L2. Still, we do need to explain how multilingual competence transcends
input, and why there are such widely differential outcomes of SLA rang-
ing from L2 performance which may be perceived as native to far more
limited L2 proficiency. This will be an important question to keep in
mind as we review theories and findings on SLA from different perspec-
tives, since it has provided a topic of inquiry for much of the history of
this field.
Interest in second language learning and use dates back many centuries
(e.g. see McCarthy 2001), but it is only since the 1960s that scholars have
formulated systematic theories and models to address the basic questions
in the field of SLA which were listed in Chapter 1: (1) What exactly does the
L2 learner know? (2) How does the learner acquire this knowledge? (3) Why
are some learners more successful than others? As I noted earlier, differ-
ent approaches to the study of SLA can be categorized as primarily based
on linguistic, psychological, and social frameworks. Each of these perspec-
tives will be the subject of a separate chapter, although we should keep in
mind that there are extensive interrelationships among them.
Important theoretical frameworks that have influenced the SLA
approaches which we will consider are listed in 2.3, arranged by the disci-
pline with which they are primarily associated, and sequenced according
to the decade(s) in which they achieved relevant academic prominence:
Prior to the 1960s, interest in L2 learning was tied almost exclusively to for-
eign language teaching concerns. The dominant linguistic model through
the 1950s was Structuralism (e.g. Bloomfield 1933), which emphasized the
Frameworks for SLA
24 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
2.3 Frameworks for study of SLA
Linguistic Psychological Social
Timeline (Chapter 3) (Chapter 4) (Chapter 5)
1950s and Structuralism Behaviorism Sociocultural Theory
before
1960s Transformational- Neurolinguistics Ethnography of
Generative Information Communication
Grammar Processing Variation Theory
1970s Functionalism Humanistic Acculturation
models Theory
Accommodation Theory
1980s Principles and Connectionism Social Psychology
Parameters Model
1990s Minimalist Program Processability
description of different levels of production in speech: phonology (sound
systems), morphology (composition of words), syntax (grammatical rela-
tionships of words within sentences, such as ordering and agreement),
semantics (meaning), and lexicon (vocabulary). The most influential cog-
nitive model of learning that was applied to language acquisition at that
time was Behaviorism (Skinner 1957), which stressed the notion of habit
formation resulting from S-R-R: stimuli from the environment (such as
linguistic input), responses to those stimuli, and reinforcement if the
responses resulted in some desired outcome. Repeated S-R-R sequences are
learned (i.e. strong stimulus-response pairings become habits). The
intersection of these two models formed the disciplinary framework for
the Audiolingual Method, an approach to language teaching which
emphasized repetition and habit formation that was widely practiced in
much of the world at least until the 1980s. Although it had not yet been
applied to second language concerns, Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory
(1962 in English translation) was also widely accepted as a learning theo-
ry by mid-century, emphasizing interaction with other people as critical
to the learning process. This view is still influential in SLA approaches
which are concerned with the role of input and interaction.
Linguistic
There have been two foci for the study of SLA from a linguistic perspec-
tive since 1960: internal and external. The internal focus has been based
primarily on the work of Noam Chomsky and his followers. It sets the
goal of study as accounting for speakers internalized, underlying knowl-
edge of language (linguistic competence), rather than the description of
surface forms as in earlier Structuralism. The external focus for the
study of SLA has emphasized language use, including the functions of
language which are realized in learners production at different stages of
development.
Internal focus
The first linguistic framework with an internal focus is Transformational-
Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1957, 1965). The appearance of this work
revolutionized linguistic theory and had a profound effect on the study of
both first and second languages. Chomsky argued convincingly that the
behaviorist theory of language acquisition is wrong because it cannot
explain the creative aspects of our linguistic ability. He called attention to
the logical problem of language acquisition which we discussed earlier
in this chapter, and claimed the necessity of assuming that children begin
with an innate capacity which is biologically endowed. These views have
dominated most linguistic perspectives on SLA to the present day.
This framework was followed by the Principles and Parameters Model
and the Minimalist Program, also formulated by Chomsky. Specification
of what constitutes innate capacity in language acquisition has been
revised to include more abstract notions of general principles and con-
straints that are common to all human languages as part of Universal
Grammar. The Minimalist Program adds distinctions between lexical and
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 25
functional category development, as well as more emphasis on the acqui-
sition of feature specification as a part of lexical knowledge.
External focus
The most important linguistic frameworks contributing to an external
focus on SLA are categorized within Functionalism, which dates back to
the early twentieth century and has its roots in the Prague School of
Eastern Europe. They differ from the Chomskyan frameworks in empha-
sizing the information content of utterances, and in considering language
primarily as a system of communication. Some of them emphasize simi-
larities and differences among the worlds languages and relate these to
sequence and relative difficulty of learning; some emphasize acquisition
as largely a process of mapping relations between linguistic functions and
forms, motivated by communicative need; and some emphasize the
means learners have of structuring information in L2 production and how
this relates to acquisition. Approaches based on functional frameworks
have dominated European study of SLA and are widely followed elsewhere
in the world.
Psychological
There have been three foci in the study of SLA from a psychological perspec-
tive: languages and the brain, learning processes, and learner differences.
Languages and the brain
The location and representation of language in the brain has been of
interest to biologists and psychologists since the nineteenth century, and
the expanding field of Neurolinguistics was one of the first to influence
cognitive perspectives on SLA when systematic study began in the 1960s.
Lenneberg (1967) generated great interest when he argued that there is a
critical period for language acquisition which has a neurological basis,
and much age-related research on SLA is essentially grounded in this
framework. As we will see in Chapter 4, exploratory procedures associated
with brain surgery on multilingual patients, as well as the development
of modern noninvasive imaging techniques, are dramatically increasing
knowledge in this area.
Learning processes
The focus on learning processes has been heavily influenced by computer-
based Information Processing (IP) models of learning, which were estab-
lished in cognitive psychology by the 1960s. Explanations of SLA phenom-
ena based on this framework involve assumptions that L2 is a highly com-
plex skill, and that learning L2 is not essentially unlike learning other
highly complex skills. Processing itself (of language or any other domain)
is believed to cause learning. A number of approaches to SLA have been
based on IP, including several that will be discussed in Chapter 4. They
have been especially productive in addressing the question of how learners
acquire knowledge of L2, and in providing explanations for sequencing
in language development. Processability is a more recently developed
26 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
framework which extends IP concepts of learning and applies them to
teaching second languages.
Connectionism is another cognitive framework for the focus on learn-
ing processes, beginning in the 1980s and becoming increasingly influen-
tial. It differs from most other current frameworks for the study of SLA in
not considering language learning to involve either innate knowledge or
abstraction of rules and principles, but rather to result from increasing
strength of associations (connections) between stimuli and responses.
Because this framework considers frequency of input an important
causative factor in learning, it is also providing a theoretical base for
research on language teaching.
Learner differences
The focus on learner differences in SLA has been most concerned with
the question of why some learners are more successful than others. It arises
in part from the humanistic framework within psychology, which has a
long history in that discipline, but has significantly influenced second
language teaching and SLA research only since the 1970s (see Williams
and Burden 1997). This framework calls for consideration of emotional
involvement in learning, such as affective factors of attitude, motivation,
and anxiety level. This focus also considers biological differences associat-
ed with age and sex, as well as some differences associated with aspects of
processing.
Social
Some of the frameworks that I categorize within a social perspective can
also be considered linguistic, since they relate to language form and func-
tion; some can also be considered cognitive, since they explore learning
processes or attitude and motivation. We will review them in this section
because (in addition to linguistic and cognitive factors) they all emphasize
the importance of social context for language acquisition and use.
There are two foci for the study of SLA from this perspective: microso-
cial and macrosocial.
Microsocial focus
The concerns within the microsocial focus relate to language acquisition and
use in immediate social contexts of production, interpretation, and interac-
tion. The frameworks provided by Variation Theory and Accommodation
Theory include exploration of systematic differences in learner production
which depend on contexts of use, and they consider why the targets of SLA
may be different even within groups who are ostensibly learning the same
language. Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory also contributes to this focus,
viewing interaction as the essential genesis of language.
Macrosocial focus
The concerns of the macrosocial focus relate language acquisition and use
to broader ecological contexts, including cultural, political, and educa-
tional settings. The Ethnography of Communication framework extends
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 27
We will consider the foci and frameworks since 1960 in the next three
chapters (see 2.4). As we now start to explore each of these in more depth,
we should remind ourselves that no one perspective or framework among
those surveyed in this book has the final answer or is more privileged,
and that all are needed to provide an adequate understanding of SLA.
the notion of what is being acquired in SLA beyond linguistic and cultur-
al factors to include social and cultural knowledge that is required for
appropriate use, and leads us to consider second language learners as
members of groups or communities with sociopolitical as well as linguis-
tic bounds. The frameworks provided by Acculturation Theory and Social
Psychology offer broader understandings of how such factors as identity,
status, and values affect the outcomes of SLA.
28 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
2.4 Perspectives, foci, and frameworks
Perspective Focus Framework
Internal Transformational-Generative Grammar
Linguistic Principles and Parameters Model
Minimalist Program
External Functionalism
Languages and Neurolinguistics
the brain
Learning processes Information Processing
Psychological Processability
Connectionism
Individual differences Humanistic models
Microsocial Variation Theory
Accommodation Theory
Social Sociocultural Theory
Macrosocial Ethnography of Communication
Acculturation Theory
Social Psychology
Foundations of Second Language Acquisition 29
Activities
Questions for self-study
1. List at least five possible motivations for learning a second language at an
older age.
2. Sounds that make a difference in the identity of words are called_____.
3. Match the following terms to their definitions:
1. innate capacity a. when a second language is intro-
duced after the native language has
been acquired
2. sequential bilingualism b. when young children acquire more
than one language at the same time
3. simultaneous bilingualism c. natural ability
4. What is the initial state of language development for L1 and L2
respectively?
5. What is a necessary condition for language learning (L1 or L2)?
6. Give at least two reasons that many scientists believe in some innate
capacity for language.
7. Linguists have taken an internal and/or external focus to the study of
language acquisition. What is the difference between the two?
Chapter summary
For a variety of reasons, the majority of people in the world know more
than one language. The first language is almost always learned
effortlessly, and with nearly invariant success; second language
learning involves many different conditions and processes, and success
is far from certain. This may be at least partly because older learners no
longer have the same natural ability to acquire languages as do young
children, and because second language learning is influenced by prior
knowledge of the first and by many individual and contextual factors.
This chapter has identified a number of theoretical frameworks
which provide the bases for different approaches to the study of SLA
that we will consider. All of these approaches address the basic what,
how, and why questions that we posed, but they have different foci of
interest and attention. Linguistic frameworks differ in taking an
internal or external focus on language; psychological frameworks differ
in whether they focus on languages and the brain, on learning
processes, or on individual differences; and social frameworks differ in
placing their emphasis on micro or macro factors in learning. Like the
lenses with different color filters used in photographing Mars, these
complement one another and all are needed to gain a full spectrum
picture of the multidimensional processes involved in SLA. Even so,
much remains a mystery, stimulating continued research.
30 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Active learning
1. If you can use two or more languages, why is this so? What has been your
reason for learning second language(s)? If you can use only one, why
havent you learned other languages? Compare your response to this
question with those of other individuals and make a list of reasons for
multilingualism or monolingualism. Categorize these reasons as primarily
based on individual preference and need or on social and political
circumstances.
2. Think about the facilitating conditions to language learning discussed in
this chapter. Have you had any of these experiences facilitate your own
learning? If so, which ones? Have there been other factors as well that
influenced your learning? In your answer to question 2 in Chapter 1, did
you consider any of these conditions?
3. Based on your personal and educational experience, do you expect to
prefer or feel more comfortable with one of the perspectives on SLA
(linguistic, psychological, social)? Why or why not? If so, what are some
strategies you can use to keep an open mind to the perspectives you
might not privilege?
4. It is a matter of debate what level of proficiency is needed before one
claims to have multilingual competence, or to know a second language.
How did you decide what to count as L2(s) in question 1 of Chapter 1?
Do you have exposure to other languages that you did not list? If so,
explain why you did not list those languages. Now that you have read
Chapter 2, have your ideas changed about how proficient one must be
to be considered to have an L2?
Further reading
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned (Second Edition). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lightbown and Spada present a highly accessible overview of second language learning, with discussion of
theories of learning and factors that affect second language learning. Additionally, second language learning
and teaching in the school setting are treated, as are popular myths about language learning.
Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language
Acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
Chapter 1, First word, is a clear introduction to the important questions of second language acquisition
from psychological and social perspectives, such as why there are learning differences among individuals who
are different ages, are acquiring related versus unrelated languages, or have different educational experiences.
CHAPTER
The linguistics of
Second Language
Acquisition
3
In this chapter we survey several approaches to the study of
SLA that have been heavily influenced by the field of
linguistics since the middle of the twentieth century. We begin
with a characterization of the nature of language, and with a
consideration of the knowledge and skills which people must
have in order to use any language fluently. We follow this with
a survey of early linguistic approaches to SLA, beginning with
Contrastive Analysis and then several which take an
internal focus on learners creative construction of
language: Error Analysis, Interlanguage, Morpheme Order
Studies, and the Monitor Model. We bring the internal focus
up to date with discussion of Universal Grammar (UG), and
what constitutes the language faculty of the mind. Finally, to
complete the chapter, we switch to approaches which involve
an external focus on the functions of language that emerge
in the course of second language acquisition: Systemic
Linguistics, Functional Typology, Function-to-Form
Mapping, and Information Organization.
CHAPTER PREVIEW
Interference
Interlanguage
(IL)
Natural order
Universal
Grammar (UG)
Language faculty
Principles
Parameters
Initial state
Final state
Markedness
Grammaticali-
zation
KEY TERMS
What is it that we learn when we learn a language? If we look up a defi-
nition of language in a dictionary, we will probably see reference to its
verbal features (oral and written), to its function in communication, and
to its uniquely human character. Most linguists would agree that all nat-
urally occurring languages also share the following characteristics:

Languages are systematic. They consist of recurrent elements which

occur in regular patterns of relationships. All languages have an
infinite number of possible sentences, and the vast majority of all
sentences which are used have not been memorized. They are created
according to rules or principles which speakers are usually
unconscious of using or even of knowing if they acquired the
language(s) as a young child. Although we use the same stock of words
over and over, it is safe to assume that, for instance, most of the
particular combinations of words making up the sentences in a daily
newspaper have never been used before. How, then, do we understand
them? We can do so because we understand the principles by which
the words are combined to express meaning. Even the sounds we
produce in speaking, and the orders in which they occur, are
systematically organized in ways that we are totally unaware of.

Languages are symbolic. Sequences of sounds or letters do not

inherently possess meaning. The meanings of symbols in a language
come through the tacit agreement of a group of speakers. For
example, there is no resemblance between the four-legged animal that
eats hay and the spoken symbol [hors] or the written symbol horse
which we use to represent it in English. English speakers agree that
the hay-eating animal will be called a horse, Spanish speakers caballo,
German Pferd, Chinese ma, and Turkish at.

Languages are social. Each language reflects the social requirements

of the society that uses it, and there is no standard for judging
whether one language is more effective for communication than
another, other than to estimate the success its users may have in
achieving the social tasks that are demanded of them. Although the
capacity for first language acquisition is inherent in the neurological
makeup of every individual, no one can develop that potential
without interaction with others in the society he or she grows up in.
We use language to communicate, to categorize and catalogue the
objects, events, and processes of human experience. We might well
define language at least in part as the expressive dimension of
culture. It follows that people who function in more than one
cultural context will communicate more effectively if they know more
than one language.
Linguists traditionally divide a language into different levels for
description and analysis, even though in actual use all levels must inter-
act and function simultaneously. The human accomplishment of learning
The Nature of language
32 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
language(s) seems all the more remarkable when we consider even a sim-
plified list of the areas of knowledge which every L1 or L2 learner must
acquire at these different levels:

lexicon (vocabulary)

word meaning

pronunciation (and spelling for written languages)

grammatical category (part of speech)

possible occurrence in combination with other words and in

idioms

phonology (sound system)

speech sounds that make a difference in meaning (phonemes)

possible sequences of consonants and vowels (syllable structure)

intonation patterns (stress, pitch, and duration), and perhaps tone

in words

rhythmic patterns (pauses and stops)

morphology (word structure)

parts of words that have meaning (morphemes)

inflections that carry grammatical information (like number or

tense)

prefixes and suffixes that may be added to change the meaning of

words or their grammatical category

syntax (grammar)

word order

agreement between sentence elements (as number agreement

between subject and verb)

ways to form questions, to negate assertions, and to focus or

structure information within sentences

discourse

ways to connect sentences, and to organize information across

sentence boundaries

structures for telling stories, engaging in conversations, etc.

scripts for interacting and for events

All of this knowledge about language is automatically available to chil-
dren for their L1 and is somehow usually acquired with no conscious
effort. Completely comparable knowledge of L2 is seldom achieved, even
though much time and effort may be expended on learning. Still, the
widespread occurrence in the world of high levels of multilingual compe-
tence attests to the potential power and effectiveness of mechanisms for
SLA. Explaining what these mechanisms are has been a major objective in
the study of SLA from a variety of linguistic perspectives.
We begin our survey of early approaches with Contrastive Analysis (CA),
which predates the establishment in the 1960s of SLA as a field of sys-
tematic study. This is an important starting point because aspects of CA
Early approaches to SLA
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 33
procedures are still incorporated in more recent approaches, and because
CA introduced a continuing major theme of SLA research: the influence
of L1 on L2. The revolution in linguistic theory introduced by Noam
Chomsky (1957) redirected much of SLA study to an internal focus, which
is manifested in the other early (i.e. predating 1980) approaches included
in this section.
Contrastive Analysis
Contrastive Analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of SLA which
involves predicting and explaining learner problems based on a
comparison of L1 and L2 to determine similarities and differences. It was
heavily influenced by theories which were dominant in linguistics and
psychology within the USA through the 1940s and 1950s, Structuralism
and Behaviorism. The goal of CA (as that of still earlier theories of L2
learning) was primarily pedagogical in nature: to increase efficiency in
L2 teaching and testing. Robert Lado states this clearly in his
introduction to Linguistics Across Cultures (1957), a book which became a
classic guide to this approach:
The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and
describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those
that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language
and culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the
student. In our view, the preparation of up-to-date pedagogical and
experimental materials must be based on this kind of comparison. (vii)
Following notions in structuralist linguistics, the focus of CA is on the
surface forms of both L1 and L2 systems, and on describing and comparing
34 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Robert Lado (b. Tampa, Florida) 19151995
Linguistics
Robert Lados pioneering work on contrastive analysis, Linguistics
Across Cultures, was published in 1957. Lado was an exemplary
applied linguist, seeking to discover the problems that foreign
language students would encounter in the learning process. On
the faculty of Georgetown University from 196080, he was the
first dean of the School of Languages and Linguistics there from
1961 to 1973. Altogether, he wrote more than 100 articles and
60 books on language and linguistics.
Interesting note: Though born in the United States, Robert Lado was the son of Spanish immigrants and grew
up in Spain. He returned to the United States as an adult to attend college, and studied with Charles Fries
at the University of Michigan.
the languages one level at a time generally contrasting the phonology of
L1 and L2 first, then morphology, then syntax, with the lexicon receiving
relatively little attention, and discourse still less. A bottom-up priority
for analysis (generally from smaller to larger units) is also expressed as a
priority for language learning, of structures before meaning. Charles
Fries, who was a leading figure in applying structural linguistics to L2
teaching, makes this priority very clear: In learning a new language, . . .
the chief problem is not at first that of learning vocabulary items. It is,
first, the mastery of the sound system. . . . It is, second, the mastery of the
features of arrangement that constitute the structure of the language
(Fries 1945:3).
Following notions in behaviorist psychology, early proponents of CA
assumed that language acquisition essentially involves habit formation in a
process of Stimulus Response Reinforcement (S-R-R). Learners respond
to the stimulus (linguistic input), and reinforcement strengthens (i.e.
habituates) the response; they imitate and repeat the language that they
hear, and when they are reinforced for that response, learning occurs. The
implication is that practice makes perfect.
Another assumption of this theory is that there will be transfer in
learning: in the case of SLA, this means the transfer of elements acquired
(or habituated) in L1 to the target L2. The transfer is called positive (or
facilitating) when the same structure is appropriate in both languages, as
in the transfer of a Spanish plural morpheme -s on nouns to English (e.g.
lenguajes to languages). The transfer is called negative (or interference)
when the L1 structure is used inappropriately in the L2, as in the addi-
tional transfer of Spanish plural -s to a modifier in number agreement
with the noun: e.g. lenguajes modernas to Moderns Languages (a translation
which was printed at the top of a letter that I received from South
America), or greens beans (for green beans, which I saw posted as a veg-
etable option in a US cafeteria near the Mexican border).
The process of CA involves describing L1 and L2 at each level, analyzing
roughly comparable segments of the languages for elements which are
likely to cause problems for learners. This information provides a ration-
ale for constructing language lessons that focus on structures which are
predicted to most need attention and practice, and for sequencing the L2
structures in order of difficulty.
To summarize Lados (1957) position: the easiest L2 structures (and pre-
sumably first acquired) are those which exist in L1 with the same form,
meaning, and distribution and are thus available for positive transfer;
any structure in L2 which has a form not occurring in L1 needs to be
learned, but this is not likely to be very difficult if it has the same mean-
ing and distribution as an equivalent in L1; among the most difficult
are structures where there is partial overlap but not equivalence in form,
meaning, and/or distribution, and these are most likely to cause interfer-
ence. Lado gives examples in Spanish and English for some of the types of
contrasts he describes, which I include in the accompanying box. I have
ordered them from least to most probable difficulty for speakers of one of
these languages learning the other.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 35
36 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Types of Interference
Same form and meaning, different distribution
Spanish: la paloma blanca the dove white; las palomas blancas the (pl)
doves whites
English: the white dove; the white doves
The form -s and the meaning plural are the same in both
languages, but the distribution of occurrence is different. Spanish
attaches the -s to articles, modifiers, and nouns, but English
attaches it only to nouns. This is the same contrast which was
illustrated in the earlier examples of Moderns Languages and greens
beans. (The difference in word order is a contrast in form at another
level of analysis.)
Same meaning, different form
Spanish: ir (I) will go
English: I will go
The meaning future is expressed by different grammatical
elements in the two languages. In Spanish it is conveyed by the
future tense suffix - added to the infinitive form of the verb ir to
go, while it is conveyed by the auxiliary verb will in English. (The
first person subject is another contrast in form, also conveyed by the
Spanish suffix - while the overt pronoun I is required in English.)
Same meaning, different form and distribution
Spanish: agua water
English: water
The English word water may occur as a noun in a glass of water, as a
verb in water the garden, and as a modifier noun in the compound
water meter. The Spanish word agua may occur only as a noun unless
its form is changed: i.e. its distribution is more limited than that of
the equivalent in English.
Different form, partial overlap in meaning
Spanish: pierna leg of humans; pata leg of animals or furniture;
etapa leg of a race or trip
English: leg
The scope of meaning for the English word leg covers the scope of
three different words in Spanish; no single equivalent term can be
used in both languages.
Similar form, different meaning
Spanish: asistir to attend
English: assist
Similar words like these are sometimes called false friends, and
are predicted to cause great difficulty for speakers of one language
learning the other. Since the words look and sound so much alike,
L2 learners are likely to assume that they also share meaning.
While CA highlighted potential learning problems, behaviorist learn-
ing theory attributed variable success by L2 learners in part to the
nature of the relationship between L1 and L2 (and thus to the potential
for negative versus positive transfer), but most importantly to circum-
stances of learning which promote poor versus good habit formation.
Fries related L2 accuracy in English to the priorities he set for learning:
one can achieve mere fluency in a foreign language too soon . . . Such
students, with fluency in vocabulary but with no basic control of either
the sound system or the structure, are almost without exception hope-
less so far as ever achieving a satisfactory control of English is con-
cerned (1945:3).
The CA approach of the 1940s to 1960s was not adequate for the study
of SLA in part because the behaviorist learning theory to which it is tied
cannot explain the logical problem of language learning that was
addressed in Chapter 2 (how learners know more than they have heard or
have been taught). Another problem was that CA analyses were not always
validated by evidence from actual learner errors. Many of the L2 problems
which CA predicts do not emerge; CA does not account for many learner
errors; and much predicted positive transfer does not materialize. A major
limitation in application to teaching has been that instructional materi-
als produced according to this approach are language-specific and unsuit-
able for use with speakers of different native languages. Still, CA stimu-
lated the preparation of hundreds of comparative grammars (including
many unpublished masters theses and doctoral dissertations at universi-
ties around the world), and its analytic procedures have been usefully
applied to descriptive studies and to translation, including computer
translation. Further, there has been a more recent revival and revision of
CA procedures, including contrasts of languages at more abstract levels,
and extension of the scope of analysis to domains of cross-cultural com-
munication and rhetoric.
Error Analysis
Error Analysis (EA) is the first approach to the study of SLA which
includes an internal focus on learners creative ability to construct lan-
guage. It is based on the description and analysis of actual learner errors
in L2, rather than on idealized linguistic structures attributed to native
speakers of L1 and L2 (as in CA). EA largely augmented or replaced CA by
the early 1970s because of the following developments:

Predictions made by CA did not always materialize in actual learner

errors, as noted above. More importantly, perhaps, many real learner
errors could not be attributed to transfer from L1 to L2.

As linguistic theory changed, the exclusive focus on surface-level

forms and patterns by structural linguists shifted to concern for
underlying rules.

The behaviorist assumption that habit formation accounts for

language acquisition was seriously questioned by many linguists and
psychologists. There was a shift to Mentalismin explanations of
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 37
language acquisition, with emphasis on the innate capacity of the
language learner rather than on external influences.

The study of SLA was no longer motivated as strongly by teaching

concerns as it had been for CA. L2 learning came to be thought of as
independent of L2 teaching to some extent, and researchers began
to separate issues in SLA from pedagogical concerns. Learning
processes became an important focus for study in their own
right.
The shift in primary focus from surface forms and patterns to underly-
ing rules, and the parallel shift in efforts to explain acquisition from
Behaviorism to Mentalism, are attributable in large part to the revolution
in linguistics which resulted from Noam Chomskys introduction of
Transformational-Generative (TG) Grammar (1957, 1965). Chomsky
claimed that languages have only a relatively small number of essential
rules which account for their basic sentence structures, plus a limited set
of transformational rules which allow these basic sentences to be modi-
fied (by deletions, additions, substitutions, and changes in word order).
The finite number of basic rules and transformations in any language
accounts for an infinite number of possible grammatical utterances. (Note
that these rules merely describe what native speakers say, not what
someone thinks they should say.) Knowing a language was seen as a mat-
ter of knowing these rules rather than memorizing surface structures.
Since speakers of a language can understand and produce millions of sen-
tences they have never heard before, they cannot merely be imitating
what they have heard others say, but must be applying these underlying
rules to create novel constructions. Language thus came to be understood
as rule-governed behavior.
Under this influence from linguistics and related developments in psy-
chology, the study of first language acquisition adopted notions that
inner forces (interacting with the environment) drive learning, and that
the child is an active and creative participant in the process rather than a
passive recipient of language stimuli. Structures of child language pro-
duction began to be described and analyzed as grammatical systems in
their own right rather than in terms of how they are deficient in com-
parison to adult norms (Miller 1964; McNeil 1966). Similar notions began
to be applied to the study of second language learning at about the same
time, in part to address the issue of how L1 and L2 acquisition processes
might be the same or different.
The most influential publication launching Error Analysis as an
approach in SLA was S. Pit Corders (1967) article on The significance of
learners errors, which calls on applied linguists to focus on L2 learners
errors not as bad habits to be eradicated, but as sources of insight into
the learning processes. Corder claimed that errors provide evidence of the
system of language which a learner is using at any particular point in the
course of L2 development, and of the strategies or procedures the learner
is using in his discovery of the language. In a sense, errors are windows
38 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
into the language learners mind. In this approach, learner language is
viewed as a target of analysis which is potentially independent of L1 or L2,
and the state of learner knowledge is seen as transitional competence on
the path of SLA. Further, Corder claimed that the making of errors is sig-
nificant because it is part of the learning process itself: a way the learn-
er has of testing his hypothesis about the nature of the language he is
learning. This includes testing whether aspects of existing L1 knowledge
can be used in the L2. Errors are thus a sign that the learner is (perhaps
unconsciously) exploring the new system rather than just experiencing
interference from old habits.
The procedure for analyzing learner errors includes the following steps
(Ellis 1994):

Collection of a sample of learner language. Most samples of learner

language which have been used in EA include data collected from
many speakers who are responding to the same kind of task or test (as
in Morpheme Order Studies, which are discussed below). Some
studies use samples from a few learners that are collected over a
period of weeks, months, or even years in order to determine patterns
of change in error occurrence with increasing L2 exposure and
proficiency.

Identification of errors. This first step in the analysis requires

determination of elements in the sample of learner language which
deviate from the target L2 in some way. Corder (1967) distinguishes
between systematic errors (which result from learners lack of L2
knowledge) and mistakes (the results from some kind of processing
failure such as a lapse in memory), which he excludes from the
analysis.

Description of errors. For purposes of analysis, errors are usually

classified according to language level (whether an error is
phonological, morphological, syntactic, etc.), general linguistic
category (e.g. auxiliary system, passive sentences, negative
constructions), or more specific linguistic elements (e.g. articles,
prepositions, verb forms).

Explanation of errors. Accounting for why an error was made is the

most important step in trying to understand the processes of SLA. Two
of the most likely causes of L2 errors are interlingual (between
languages) factors, resulting from negative transfer or interference
from L1 and intralingual (within language) factors, not attributable
to cross-linguistic influence. Intralingual errors are also considered
developmental errors and often represent incomplete learning of L2
rules or overgeneralization of them. Distinguishing between
interlingual and intralingual errors implicitly builds upon CA
procedures, since the distinction requires comparative knowledge of
L1 and L2. For example, the following passage was in a letter written to
me by a native Korean speaker. I have underlined and numbered the
errors.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 39
The weather is been
1
very hot in the
2
Washington D.C. There climate
3
last week
warm
4
.
(1) Use of is instead of has with been (intralingual/developmental error).
This is evidence that the speaker/writer is learning the English auxiliary
verb system, but hasnt yet mastered the distinction between forms of be
and have, which doesnt exist in Korean.
(2) Use of the with a place name (intralingual/developmental error). This
is evidence that the speaker/writer is learning to use articles in front of
nouns (no articles are used in Korean) but hasnt yet learned that they
dont occur before most place names.
(3) There climate is a direct translation of the Korean phrase which would
be used in this context (interlingual/interference error).
(4) In Korean the word for warm is a verb itself, so no additional verb
corresponding to English was would be used (interlingual/interference
error).

Evaluation of errors. This step involves analysis of what effect the

error has on whoever is being addressed: e.g. how serious it is, or to
what extent it affects intelligibility, or social acceptability (such as
qualifying for a job). In the example I gave of the Korean L1 speaker
making errors in a letter to me, the errors are not serious at all. We
are friends, and the ungrammaticality of many of her sentences has
no bearing on the social relationship; furthermore, there is no
resulting misinterpretation of meaning.
EA continues as a useful procedure for the study of SLA, but a number of
shortcomings have been noted and should be kept in mind. These include:

Ambiguity in classification. It is difficult to say, for instance, if a

Chinese L1 speaker who omits number and tense inflections in
English L2 is doing so because of L1 influence (Chinese is not an
inflectional language) or because of a universal developmental
process (also present in L1 acquisition) which results in simplified or
telegraphic utterances.

Lack of positive data. Focus on errors alone does not necessarily

provide information on what the L2 learner has acquired (although I
have inferred from the examples I gave above what the Korean L1
speaker/writer has learned about English auxiliary verbs and articles);
further, correct uses may be overlooked.

Potential for avoidance. Absence of errors may result from learners

avoidance of difficult structures, and this will not be revealed by EA
(e.g. Shachter [1974] makes the point that Chinese and Japanese L1
speakers make few errors in English L2 relative clauses because they
avoid using them).
Interlanguage
Under the same influences from linguistics and psychology as Corder, and
building on his concepts and procedures for EA, Larry Selinker (1972) intro-
duced the term Interlanguage (IL) to refer to the intermediate states (or
40 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
interim grammars) of a learners language as it moves toward the target L2.
As in EA and first language studies of the 1960s and 1970s, Selinker and oth-
ers taking this approach considered the development of the IL to be a creative
process, driven by inner forces in interaction with environmental factors, and
influenced both by L1 and by input from the target language. While influ-
ence from L1 and L2 language systems in a learners IL is clearly recognized,
emphasis is on the IL itself as a third language system in its own right which
differs from both L1 and L2 during the course of its development.
An interlanguage has the following characteristics:

Systematic. At any particular point or stage of development, the IL is

governed by rules which constitute the learners internal grammar.
These rules are discoverable by analyzing the language that is used by
the learner at that time what he or she can produce and interpret
correctly as well as errors that are made.

Dynamic. The system of rules which learners have in their minds

changes frequently, or is in a state of flux, resulting in a succession of
interim grammars. Selinker views this change not as a steady
progression along a continuum, but discontinuous progression from
stable plateau to stable plateau (1992:226).

Variable. Although the IL is systematic, differences in context result

in different patterns of language use (discussed in Chapter 5).

Reduced system, both in form and function. The characteristic of

reduced formrefers to the less complex grammatical structures that
typically occur in an IL compared to the target language (e.g. omission
of inflections, such as the past tense suffix in English). The
characteristic of reduced function refers to the smaller range of
communicative needs typically served by an IL (especially if the
learner is still in contact with members of the L1 speech community).
Selinker (1972) stresses that there are differences between IL develop-
ment in SLA and L1 acquisition by children, including different cognitive
processes involved (from McLaughlin 1987:61):

Language transfer from L1 to L2.

Transfer of training, or how the L2 is taught.

Strategies of second language learning, or how learners approach

the L2 materials and the task of L2 learning.

Strategies of second language communication, or ways that learners

try to communicate with others in the L2.

Overgeneralization of the target language linguistic material, in

which L2 rules that are learned are applied too broadly.
(Overgeneralizations include some of the intralingual or
developmental errors which were illustrated in the previous section.)
Also unlike L1 acquisition is the strong likelihood of fossilization for L2
learners the probability that they will cease their IL development in some
respects before they reach target language norms, in spite of continuing L2
input and passage of time. This phenomenon relates to age of learning,
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 41
with older L2 learners more likely to fossilize than younger ones, but also
to factors of social identity and communicative need (e.g. see Selinker
1992). Such factors are at the core of discussions concerning the basic ques-
tion of why some learners are more successful than others. Relative suc-
cess can be defined in this approach as the level of IL development
reached before learning stops.
42 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
L1 ___ | .................... | ___ L2
Interlanguage
3.1
Scope of IL
The beginning and end of IL are defined respectively as whenever a
learner first attempts to convey meaning in the L2 and whenever devel-
opment permanently stops, but the boundaries are not entirely clear. A
schematization of the construct is presented in 3.1. The initial state and
very early stages of L2 development in naturalistic (i.e. unschooled or
untutored) settings often involve only isolated L2 words or memorized
routines inserted in an L1 structural frame for some period of time. For
example, we recorded the following utterances from children who were
just beginning to acquire English (Saville-Troike, Pan, and Dutkova 1995):
Chinese L1: Zheige delicious. This is delicious.
Navajo L1: Birthday cake deedaa. We ate a birthday cake.
Czech L1: Yili sme bowling. We went bowling.
IL probably cannot properly be said to begin until there is some evidence
of systematic change in grammar. The endpoint of IL is difficult to identi-
fy with complete certainty since additional time and different circum-
stances might always trigger some resumption in learning.
Identification of fossilization, or cessation of IL development before
reaching target language norms, is even more controversial (though pri-
marily for social and political rather than linguistic reasons). Should indi-
viduals be considered fossilized in L2 development because they retain a
foreign accent, for instance, in spite of productive fluency in other aspects
of the target language? (One thinks of Arnold Schwarzenegger, US motion
picture actor and politician, who retains a strong Austrian-German
accent, or of many faculty members and students who are identifiably
nonnative speakers of English although they speak and write fluently in
this language often even more fluently than many native speakers.
There may even be an advantage in retaining a nonnative accent, since
sounding native may be misinterpreted by native speakers as implying
corresponding native social and cultural knowledge.)
There is also the issue of what the concept of target language
entails as the goal of SLA, especially as it applies to English usage in
parts of the world where English has been adopted as an auxiliary or
official language but differs from any native variety in Great Britain or
the USA (see Kachru and Nelson 1996). Native-like production is nei-
ther intended nor desired by many speakers, and assuming that it is or
should be the ultimate goal for all L2 learners may be considered some-
what imperialistic.
The concept of an IL as a system of learner language which is at least
partially independent of L1 and L2 has been highly productive in the
study of SLA. It is generally taken for granted now, although controversies
remain concerning its specific nature and whether progress should be
measured against native-speaker norms (e.g. Eubank, Selinker, and
Sharwood Smith 1995; Johnson and Johnson 1998:17476).
Morpheme Order Studies
One important question in the study of SLA which the concept of IL high-
lighted during the 1970s is whether there is a natural order (or universal
sequence) in the grammatical development of L2 learners. This is inter-
esting because if we find that the same elements of an L2 are learned first
no matter what the learners L1 is, we might assume that transfer from L1
is less important than if we were to find that the order of acquisition is
different for speakers of different native languages. If the same order of
acquisition is found in L2 as in childrens L1 learning, there is the addi-
tional implication that the acquisition processes may be very much the
same for all of language development.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 43
What is inflection?
Inflection adds one or more units of meaning to the base form of a
word, to give it a more specific meaning. This is how we code for
plural nouns, past tense and progressive aspect in English.
Function of the
Unit of unit of
Basic form meaning meaning Example
Noun Cat s Plural Three cats
Verbs walk ed Past I walked yesterday.
walk ing Progressive We were walking.
Roger Brown (1973) provided the first baseline information on an L1
acquisition sequence by tracking the order in which three children mas-
tered the production of a set of grammatical morphemes in English,
including inflections which mark tense on verbs and plural number on
nouns. His work was soon validated by studies of larger numbers of English
L1 children. The claim that this sequence constituted a natural order for
English L2 as well as English L1 was first made by Heidi Dulay and Marina
Burt, based on studies of children learning English who were native speak-
ers of Spanish and Chinese. A list of morphemes that were included in the
Brown (1973) and Dulay and Burt (1974) findings is given in 3.2. These
results indicate, for example, that the progressive suffix -ing and plural -s
are the first of this set of morphemes to be mastered by both L1 and L2
learners of English; the irregular past tense form of verbs and possessive -s
are acquired next in sequence for L1, but relatively later for learners of L2
(after forms of be and a/the).
Although not identical, the order of morpheme acquisition reported
was similar in L1 and L2. Further, the order was virtually the same in
English L2 whether children were L1 speakers of Spanish or Chinese. The
existence of such a natural order strengthened claims for internally
driven acquisition processes, which Dulay and Burt (1973) labeled cre-
ative construction. They concluded that L2 learners are neither merely
imitating what they hear nor necessarily transferring L1 structures to
the new code, but (subconsciously) creating a mental grammar which
allows them to interpret and produce utterances they have not heard
before.
A claim was originally made that this evidence of similar morpheme
order supports an Identity Hypothesis (or L1 L2): that processes involved
in L1 and L2 acquisition are the same. The strong form of this hypothesis
was rejected largely because the basic question of what is being acquired
in SLA was limited here to a list of isolated English morphemes, with no
principled relation to other aspects of English or to other languages, and
also because of weaknesses in the research methodology.
The concept of natural order remains very important for understand-
ing SLA, however, both from linguistic and from cognitive approaches.
The morpheme acquisition studies were followed by research which indi-
cated that there are also regular sequences in acquisition of some syntac-
tic constructions by both children and adults (e.g. negation, questions,
and relative clauses). These findings form part of the basis for continuing
speculation that innate mechanisms for language acquisition may not be
limited to early childhood.
44 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
3.2 English L1 and L2 Morphene Acquisition Order
English L1 Morpheme Example English L2
1 Progressive -ing He is talking. 3
2 Plural -s There are two cats. 4
3 Past irregular We ate. 7
4 Possessive -s The childs toy 8
5 Articles a/the The cat/A sunny day 1
6 Past regular -ed They talked. 6
7 Third person -s He sings. 9
8 Copula be Hes tall. 2
9 Auxiliary be Shes singing. 5
Monitor Model
One of the last of the early approaches to SLA which has an internal focus
is the Monitor Model, proposed by Stephen Krashen (1978). It explicitly
and essentially adopts the notion of a language acquisition device (or
LAD), which is a metaphor Chomsky used for childrens innate knowledge
of language.
Krashens approach is a collection of five hypotheses which constitute
major claims and assumptions about how the L2 code is acquired. Caution is
required, however, that Krashens model has frequently been criticized by
researchers because many of its constructs (e.g. what constitutes
comprehensible input) and the claimed distinction between learning and
acquisition are vague and imprecise, and because several of its claims are
impossible to verify (see McLaughlin 1987). The hypotheses forming the
model are the following:

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis. There is a distinction to be made

between acquisition and learning. Acquisition is subconscious, and
involves the innate language acquisition device which accounts for
childrens L1. Learning is conscious and is exemplified by the L2
learning which takes place in many classroom contexts.

Monitor Hypothesis. What is learned is available only as a monitor,

for purposes of editing or making changes in what has already been
produced.

Natural Order Hypothesis. We acquire the rules of language in a

predictable order.

Input Hypothesis. Language acquisition takes place because there is

comprehensible input. If input is understood, and if there is enough
of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided.

Affective Filter Hypothesis. Input may not be processed if the affective

filter is up (e.g. if conscious learning is taking place and/or
individuals are inhibited).
In spite of being severely criticized by researchers, Krashens model had
a major influence on language teaching in the USA in the 1980s and
1990s, including avoidance of the explicit teaching of grammar in many
hundreds of classrooms. The pendulum has since begun to swing back in
the opposite direction, with formal grammar teaching increasingly being
introduced, especially with adults, who are able to benefit from (and may
even need) an explicit explanation of grammatical structure.
The early period for linguistic study of SLA which we have just reviewed
ended with some issues in rather spirited debate among proponents of
different approaches, but there was widespread consensus on some impor-
tant points. These include:

What is being acquired in SLA is a rule-governed language system.

Development of L2 involves progression through a dynamic
interlanguage system which differs from both L1 and L2 in significant
respects. The final state of L2 typically differs (more or less) from the
native speakers system.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 45

How SLA takes place involves creative mental processes. Development

of both L1 and L2 follows generally predictable sequences, which
suggests that L1 and L2 acquisition processes are similar in significant
ways.

Why some learners are more (or less) successful in SLA than others
relates primarily to the age of the learner.
As we reach the 1980s in this survey, new proposals in Chomskyan theo-
retical linguistics were about to have a major impact on the study of SLA,
and Universal Grammar was to become (and continues to be) the domi-
nant approach with an internal focus.
Universal Grammar (UG) continues the tradition which Chomsky intro-
duced in his earlier work. Two concepts in particular are still of central
importance:
(1) What needs to be accounted for in language acquisition is linguistic
competence, or speaker-hearers underlying knowledge of language.
This is distinguished from linguistic performance, or speaker-hear-
ers actual use of language in specific instances.
(2) Such knowledge of language goes beyond what could be learned from
the input people receive. This is the logical problem of language
learning, or the poverty-of-the stimulus argument.
Universal Grammar
46 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Noam Chomsky (b. Philadelphia), 1928present
Linguistics
A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since
1961, Noam Chomsky has had a revolutionary impact on the
field of linguistics. His Transformational-Generative Grammar
was the first linguistic framework with an internal focus. His
theories have evolved from there to the Principles and
Parameters Model and to the Minimalist Program.
Interesting note: The sentence Colorless green ideas sleep furiously was constructed by Chomsky to show that a
grammatically correct sentence can still be void of meaning. This sentence was later used in one 1985
literary competition where the goal was to make it meaningful in 100 words or less!
Chomsky and his followers have claimed since the 1950s that the nature
of speaker-hearers competence in their native language can be accounted
for only by innate knowledge that the human species is genetically
endowed with. They argue that children (at least) come to the task of
acquiring a specific language already possessing general knowledge of
what all languages have in common, including constraints on how any
natural language can be structured. This innate knowledge is in what
Chomsky calls the language faculty, which is a component of the human
mind, physically represented in the brain and part of the biological
endowment of the species (Chomsky 2002:1). What all languages have in
common is Universal Grammar.
If a language faculty indeed exists, it is a potential solution to the log-
ical problem because its existence would mean that children already
have a rich system of linguistic knowledge which they bring to the task of
L1 learning. They wouldnt need to learn this underlying system, but only
build upon it on the basis of other inner resources activated by a limited
and fragmentary linguistic experience (Chomsky 2002:8). In other words,
while childrens acquisition of the specific language that is spoken by
their parents and others in their social setting requires input in that lan-
guage, the acquisition task is possible (and almost invariably successful)
because of childrens built-in capacity. One of the most important issues
in a UG approach to the study of SLA has been whether this innate
resource is still available to individuals who are acquiring additional lan-
guages beyond the age of early childhood.
Until the late 1970s, followers of this approach assumed that the lan-
guage acquisition task involves childrens induction of a system of rules
for particular languages from the input they receive, guided by UG. How
this could happen remained quite mysterious. (Linguistic input goes into
a black box in the mind, something happens, and the grammatical sys-
tem of a particular language comes out.) A major change in thinking
about the acquisition process occurred with Chomskys (1981) reconcep-
tualization of UG in a Principles and Parameters framework (often called
the Government and Binding [GB] model), and with his subsequent intro-
duction of the Minimalist Program (1995).
Principles and Parameters
Since around 1980, the construct called Universal Grammar has been con-
ceptualized as a set of principles which are properties of all languages in
the world. Some of these principles contain parameters, or points where
there is a limited choice of settings depending on which specific language
is involved. Because knowledge of principles and parameters is postulated
to be innate, children are assumed to be able to interpret and uncon-
sciously analyze the input they receive and construct the appropriate L1
grammar. This analysis and construction is considered to be strictly con-
strained and channeled by UG, which explains why L1 acquisition for chil-
dren is relatively rapid and always successful; children never violate core
principles nor do they select parametric values outside of the channel
imposed by UG, even though there might be other logical possibilities.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 47
An example of an early principle which Chomsky posited stipulates that
every phrase in every language has the same elements including a Head: e.g.
a noun phrase (NP) must always have a noun head (N), a verb phrase (VP) must
always have a verb head (V), a prepositional or postpositional phrase (PP)
must always have a preposition or postposition head (P), and so forth. The
only choice, or parameter setting, that speakers have in different languages
is Head Direction, or the position of the head in relation to other elements
in the phrase. There are only two possible choices: head-initial or head-final.
Children who are learning English L1 receive input that lets them know
that English generally has a head-initial parameter setting. This is because
they hear sentences with the following word order:
a. John [kicked the ball]
VP
I have put brackets around the VP in this example, and underlined the
head of that phrase, which is the verb kicked. The word order of this VP
provides evidence that the English parameter setting is head-initial,
because the verb kicked comes in front of the ball.
b. John rode [in the car]
PP
Brackets are around the PP in this example, and its head is the
preposition in. This provides additional evidence that the parameter
setting for English is head-initial, because the preposition comes in
front of the car in the phrase.
In contrast, children who are learning Japanese L1 receive input that lets
them know that Japanese has a head-final parameter setting. They hear
sentences with the following word order:
a. John-wa [booru-wo ketta]
VP
(Literally: John ball kicked)
This provides evidence that the Japanese parameter setting is head-final,
because the verb ketta kicked comes after booru-wo ball in the VP.
b. John-wa [kuruma-ni]
PP
notta (Literally: John car-in rode)
This provides additional evidence that Japanese is head-final because
the postposition -ni in comes after kuruma car in the PP.
Japanese and English word orders are largely, though not entirely, a mir-
ror image of one another. Children acquiring English or Japanese as their
L1 need to hear only a limited amount of input to set the parameter for
this principle correctly. That parameter setting then presumably guides
them in producing the correct word order in an unlimited number of
utterances which they have not heard before, since the general principle
stipulates that all phrases in a language tend to have essentially the same
structure. (Not all languages are completely consistent, however. In
English and Chinese, for example, since modifiers precede the noun head,
the NP is head-final, but the object NP follows the Verb.)
Other principles and parameter settings that account for variations
between languages include those that determine whether or not agree-
ment between subject and verb must be overtly expressed, and whether or
not a subject must be overtly present (the null subject parameter). For
example, English speakers must say It is raining, with a meaningless overt
subject it, whereas subjects are omitted in Chinese Xia yu Down rain and
48 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Spanish Est lloviendo Is raining. There is no complete listing of invariant
principles and principles with parametric choices in UG, and there per-
haps will never be one, since proposals concerning their identity change
as the theory evolves. In any case, the specification of universal principles
and parameters is relevant to theoretical developments and understand-
ings, and may have practical value in L2 teaching. But children have no use
for such a list, of course, and could not understand it if one were available.
Principles and parameters per se are not, cannot, and need not be learned
in L1 acquisition, as they are assumed to be built into the Language
Acquisition Device (LAD) we are born with. This may also partially hold
true for older second language learners, though an awareness of parame-
ter settings in an L2 may help focus perception on input and thus facili-
tate learning.
What is acquired in L1 acquisition is not UG itself; UG is already present
at birth as part of the innate language faculty in every human being,
although maturation and experience are required for the manifestation
of this capacity. Child acquisition of a specific language involves a process
of selecting from among the limited parametric options in UG those that
match the settings which are encountered in linguistic input.
In a radical change from his earlier Transformational-Generative (TG)
theory, Chomsky no longer believes that acquisition involves induction of
a language-specific system of rules, based on input and guided by UG.
Rather, he argues that there are just extremely general principles of UG
and options to be selected. The acquisition of vocabulary has become
much more important in his recent theory, because lexical items are
thought to include rich specification of properties that are needed for
parameter setting and other features of grammar, as well as for interpre-
tation of semantic meaning. Knowing the noun foot in English, for
instance, means knowing how it is pronounced and what it refers to, that
it is a noun and can function as the head of an NP, and that it takes an
irregular plural form; knowing the verb chi eat in Chinese means
knowing its pronunciation and meaning, that it is a verb and the head of
a VP, and that it normally requires a direct object, often the dummy
object fan (literally rice).
The starting point (or initial state) for child L1 acquisition is thus UG,
along with innate learning principles that are also wired in in the lan-
guage faculty of the brain. What is acquired in the process of developing
a specific language is information from input (especially vocabulary) that
the learner matches with UG options. The eventual product is the final
state, or adult grammar (also called stable state). Intermediate states in
development are state L (L
1
, L
2
, L
3
, . . .). As summarized by Chomsky:
The initial state changes under the triggering and shaping effect of
experience, and internally determined processes of maturation, yielding
later states that seem to stabilize at several stages, finally at about
puberty. We can think of the initial state of [the language faculty] as a
device that maps experience into state L attained: a language
acquisition device (LAD). (2002:85)
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 49
From this perspective, how acquisition occurs for children is natural,
instinctive, and internal to the cognitive system. Unlike SLA, attitudes,
motivation, and social context (beyond provision of the minimal input
that is required) play no role. The question of why some learners are more
successful than others is not considered relevant for L1 acquisition, since
all native speakers in this view attain essentially the same final state.
(This conceptualization does not take into account further development
of different registers, such as hip-hop, sports reporting, or formal written
English.)
UG and SLA
Three questions are of particular importance in the study of SLA from a
UG perspective:

What is the initial state in SLA?

What is the nature of interlanguage, and how does it change over

time?

What is the final state in SLA?

Initial state
As discussed in the section on L1 versus L2 acquisition in the previous chap-
ter, learners already have knowledge of L1 at the point where L2 acquisi-
tion begins; they already have made all of the parametric choices that are
appropriate for that L1, guided by UG. Some L1 knowledge is clearly trans-
ferred to L2, although exactly which features may transfer and to what
degree appears to be dependent on the relationship of L1 and L2 (perhaps
involving markedness of features similar to those discussed under
Functional Typology below), the circumstances of L2 learning, and other
factors. When L1 and L2 parameter settings for the same principle are the
same, positive transfer from L1 to L2 is likely; when L1 and L2 parameter
settings are different, negative transfer or interference might occur.
For example, I once heard one Navajo girl (who was at an early stage of
English L2 acquisition) describe the location of a doll to her teacher:
Dollie is wagon in.
The childs phrase wagon in is a postpositional phrase with the head P in
placed after wagon. This does not match the English head-first parameter
setting, which requires the head in at the beginning of the phrase. The
Navajo language (like Japanese) has a head-final setting, and wagon in is a
direct translation of Navajo word order for tsinaabaas bi- wagon it-in. The
child who produced this English sentence was inappropriately transfer-
ring a parameter setting from Navajo L1 to English L2.
L2 learners may still have access to UG in the initial state of SLA as well
as knowledge of L1, but there is no agreement on this. Four possibilities
have been suggested (e.g. see Cook 1988):
(1) Learners retain full access to UG as an innate guide to language
acquisition, even when they are learning languages subsequent to
their L1.
50 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
(2) Learners retain partial access to UG, keeping some of its components
but not others.
(3) Learners retain indirect access to UG through knowledge that is
already realized in their L1 but have no remaining direct access.
(4) Learners retain no access to UG and must learn L2 via entirely
different means than they did L1.
Nature and development of interlanguage
Interlanguage (IL) is defined in the Principles and Parameters perspective
as intermediate states of L2 development (IL
1
, IL
2
, IL
3
, etc.), which is com-
patible with the notion of IL as interim grammars that was introduced
in the 1960s and 1970s. If at least some access to UG is retained by L2 learn-
ers, then the process of IL development is in large part one of resetting
parameters on the basis of input in the new language. For example, the L1
speaker of Japanese or Navajo who is learning English L2 needs to reset the
Head Direction parameter from head-final to head-initial; the L1 speaker
of English who is learning Japanese or Navajo needs to reset it from head-
initial to head-final.
Learners change the parameter setting (usually unconsciously)
because the L2 input they receive does not match the L1 settings they
have. If access to UG is still available, then that will limit their choices
(as it does in L1) and their IL grammars will never deviate from struc-
tures that are allowed by UG. If learning principles that are part of the
language faculty are also still available, then sufficient information to
make these changes is available from the positive evidence they
receive, i.e. the input that is provided from experiencing L2 in natural
use or formal instruction. Negative evidence, including explicit correc-
tion, is often also provided to L2 learners (especially if they receive for-
mal language instruction), and this probably plays a role in parameter
resetting for older learners. (Evidence for different positions on why
and how parameter resetting occurs is discussed in Gregg 1996 and
White 2003.)
Constructionism, an approach to SLA which has been formulated with-
in Chomskys Minimalist Program (e.g. Herschensohn 2000), considers IL
development as the progressive mastery of L2 vocabulary along with the
morphological features (which specify word form) that are part of lexical
knowledge. While the general principles and parameters that constitute
UG do not need to be learned, morphological paradigms must gradually
be added to the lexicon, just like words (White 2003:194). The stages and
variability which characterize IL development are accounted for because
of initially incomplete specification of these features in learners compe-
tence. While parameter setting and mastery of morphological features are
linked in L1 acquisition, this approach claims that they are not necessari-
ly linked for older learners in SLA. Failure to reach a state of full feature
specification in the lexicon is seen as the primary reason that many L2
learners fossilize at an intermediate level of development without attain-
ing near-native competence.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 51
Of particular relevance for L2 learners and teachers is the critical role
of lexical acquisition in providing information for parameter (re)setting
and other aspects of grammar in a UG approach. This is in sharp con-
trast to the structuralist and behaviorist position which was reviewed
near the beginning of this chapter, that all of the basic grammatical
structures of L2 could (indeed should) be learned in conjunction with
minimal vocabulary.
If access to UG or the learning principles of the language faculty are no
longer available for SLA, then IL development would need to be explained
as a fundamentally different learning process than that which takes place
for L1. Evidence that IL does not violate the constraints of UG, and that it
cannot be accounted for completely by either L1 transfer or L2 input, are
used to argue against the no access position.
Final state
While the question of why some learners are more successful than others
is not relevant for basic L1 acquisition (since all children achieve a native
final state), the question is highly relevant for SLA. All approaches to
this topic need to account for the great variability which is found in the
ultimate level of attainment by L2 learners. There are several possibilities
within the UG framework. These include:

All learners may not have the same degree of access to UG.

Different relationships between various L1s and L2s may result in

differential transfer or interference.

Some learners may receive qualitatively different L2 input from others.

Some learners may be more perceptive than others of mismatches

between L2 input and existing L1 parameter settings.

Different degrees of specification for lexical features may be achieved

by different learners.
However, there are other issues in SLA that are not addressed, or are not
addressed satisfactorily, by a narrow UG approach, with its strictly inter-
nal focus on the mental organization of the learner. We now turn to con-
sider some major alternative views.
While UG has been the dominant linguistic approach to SLA for many
years, many researchers have rather chosen to take an external focus on
language learning. The more influential of these approaches are based on
the framework of Functionalism.
Functional models of analysis date back to the early twentieth century,
and have their roots in the Prague School of linguistics that originated in
Eastern Europe. They differ from structuralist and early generative models by
emphasizing the information content of utterances, and in considering lan-
guage primarily as a system of communication rather than as a set of rules.
Functional approaches
52 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
The term function has several meanings in linguistics, including both
structural function (such as the role which elements of language struc-
ture play as a subject or object, or as an actor or goal) and pragmatic
function (what the use of language can accomplish, such as convey infor-
mation, control others behavior, or express emotion). Approaches to SLA
which are characterized as functional differ in emphasis and definition
but share the following characteristics in general opposition to those in
the Chomskyan tradition:

Focus is on the use of language in real situations (performance) as

well as underlying knowledge (competence). No sharp distinction is
made between the two.

Study of SLA begins with the assumption that the purpose of language
is communication, and that development of linguistic knowledge (in
L1 or L2) requires communicative use.

Scope of concern goes beyond the sentence to include discourse

structure and how language is used in interaction, and to include
aspects of communication beyond language (Tomlin 1990).
Four of the functional approaches which have been influential in SLA are
Systemic Linguistics, Functional Typology, function-to-form mapping,
and information organization.
Systemic Linguistics
Systemic Linguistics has been developed by M. A. K. Halliday, beginning in
the late 1950s. This is a model for analyzing language in terms of the inter-
related systems of choices that are available for expressing meaning. Basic
to the approach is the notion, ultimately derived from the anthropologist
Malinowski, that language structures cannot be idealized and studied
without taking into account the circumstances of their use, including the
extralinguistic social context.
From this functional view,
language acquisition . . . needs to be seen as the mastery of linguistic
functions. Learning ones mother tongue is learning the uses of lan-
guage, and the meanings, or rather the meaning potential, associated
with them. The structures, the words and the sounds are the realization
of this meaning potential. Learning language is learning how to mean.
(Halliday 1973:345)
To relate this notion to the question about what language learners essen-
tially acquire, in Hallidays view it is not a system of rules which govern lan-
guage structure, but rather meaning potential: what the speaker/hearer
can (what he can mean, if you like), not what he knows (1973:346). The
process of acquisition consists of mastering certain basic functions of lan-
guage and developing a meaning potential for each (1975:33).
Halliday (1975) describes the evolution of the following pragmatic func-
tions in early L1 acquisition (he calls them functions of language as a
whole), which are universal for children:
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 53

Instrumental language used as a means of getting things done (one of

the first to be evolved): the I want function.

Regulatory language used to regulate the behavior of others: the do

as I tell you function.

Interactional use of language in interaction between self and others:

the me and you function.

Personal awareness of language as a form of ones own identity: the

here I come function.

Heuristic language as a way of learning about things: the tell me

why function.

Imagination creation through language of a world of ones own

making: the lets pretend function.

Representational means of expressing propositions, or communicating

about something (one of the last to appear): the Ive got something to
tell you function.
Linguistic structures which are mastered in the developmental process
are direct reflections of the functions that language serves; their devel-
opment is closely related to the social and personal needs they are used to
convey.
One application of Hallidays model to the study of SLA comes with see-
ing L2 learning as a process of adding multilingual meaning potential to
what has already been achieved in L1. This is an approach that some of my
colleagues and I have taken in our research. We have concluded that
Second language acquisition is largely a matter of learning new linguis-
tic forms to fulfill the same functions [as already acquired and used in L1]
within a different social milieu (Saville-Troike, McClure, and Fritz
1984:60). In studying children who had just arrived in the USA from sev-
eral different countries, for instance, we found that all of them could
accomplish a wide range of communicative functions even while they still
had very limited English means at their disposal. What we observed and
recorded over a period of several months for every child in our study was
not the emergence of new functions (as we would expect in early L1 devel-
opment), but emergence of new language structures to augment existing
choices for expressing them. This structural emergence follows the same
general sequence for each function (not unlike early stages of L1). For
example:
1. Nonlinguistic
Regulatory: (Hitting another child who is annoying.)
Interactional: Unh? (Uttered as a greeting.)
Heuristic: (Pointing at an object [with a questioning look] to request the
English term for it.)
2. L2 formula or memorized routine
Regulatory: Dont do that!
Interactional: Hi!
Heuristic: Whats it?
54 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
3. Single L2 word
Regulatory: He! (Pointing out another childs offending behavior to a teacher.)
Interactional: Me? (An invitation to play.)
Heuristic: What? (Asking for the English term for an object.)
4. L2 phrase or clause
Regulatory: That bad!
Interactional: You me play?
Heuristic: What name this?
5. Complex L2 construction
Regulatory: The teacher say that wrong!
Interactional: I no like to play now.
Heuristic: What is name we call this?
Other applications of Hallidays model can be found in the study of SLA in
relation to social contexts of learning and use. That perspective is dis-
cussed in Chapter 5.
Functional Typology
Another approach within the functional framework is Functional
Typology, which is based on the comparative study of a wide range of the
worlds languages. This study involves the classification of languages and
their features into categories (or types; hence typology), with a major
goal being to describe patterns of similarities and differences among
them, and to determine which types and patterns occur more/less fre-
quently or are universal in distribution. The approach is called functional
because analysis integrates considerations of language structure, mean-
ing, and use.
Functional Typology has been applied to the study of SLA most fruit-
fully in accounting for developmental stages of L2 acquisition, for why
some L2 constructions are more or less difficult than others for learners
to acquire, and for the selectivity of crosslinguistic influence or transfer
(i.e. for why some elements of L1 transfer to L2 and some do not). A partic-
ularly important concept which is tied to these accounts is markedness
the notion of markedness deals with whether any specific feature of a lan-
guage is marked or unmarked. A feature is unmarked if it occurs
more frequently than a contrasting element in the same category, if it is
less complex structurally or conceptually, or if it is more normal or
expected along some other dimension. The concept applies to all levels
of linguistic analysis. For example:

In phonology, the most common syllable structure which occurs in

languages of the world is CV (consonant vowel, as in me and ba-na-
na), so this structure is unmarked. It is much less common to have a
sequence of consonants at the beginning or end of syllables; English
sequences like street [stri:t] and fence [fnts] are marked in this
respect.

In vocabulary, the preposition in denotes location while the

preposition into is more complex, denoting both location and
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 55
directionality. Into is thus marked in contrast with in because it is
both structurally and conceptually more complex.

In syntax, the basic word order in sentences of SVO (subjectverb

object) is more common in languages of the world than is SOV. SVO is
thus relatively unmarked and SOV relatively marked.

In discourse, the expected unmarked response to the English

formulaic greeting How are you? is Fine. How are you? (no matter how
the respondent is actually feeling). A response which reports
information about ones health or other personal conditions is not
expected in this routine exchange, and is marked. Similarly, the
unmarked response to a question requesting information is an
answer about the same topic. Silence or a comment on a different
topic is a marked response because it is not in accord with normal
conversational practice.
In accounting for order and relative difficulty for acquisition,
unmarked elements are likely to be acquired before marked ones in chil-
drens L1 (Jakobson 1941), and to be easier for a learner to master in L2. In
phonology, for instance, the babbling and first words of a child in L1 are
likely to have an unmarked CV syllabic structure (no matter what the
native language), and marked CC sequences appear only at a later stage of
development. It is also likely that L2 learners will find marked CC
sequences more difficult to produce, especially if they do not occur at all
in the speakers L1. A markedness account of selective transfer from L1 to
L2 (proposed as the Markedness Differential Hypothesis by Eckman 1977)
predicts that unmarked features in L1 are more likely to transfer, as well
as that marked features in L2 will be harder to learn. A simplified sum-
mary of this hypothesis is shown in 3.3.
For example, the pronunciation of the marked consonant sequence [sk]
in school should be difficult for Spanish L1 speakers, whose native phono-
logical system is simpler than English in this respect because it does not
allow two voiceless consonants to occur together. It is indeed common for
beginning Spanish L1 learners of English L2 to break this [sk] combination
apart into two syllables and pronounce the word as [s-kul], thus avoiding
the marked structure. In reverse, learners of Spanish L2 should have no
comparable problem pronouncing escuela [s-kwe-la] school, since it con-
tains no consonant cluster in any syllable.
Functional Typology resembles Contrastive Analysis in comparing ele-
ments of different languages in order to predict or explain transfer from
56 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
3.3 Markedness Differential Predictions for SLA
Feature in L1 Feature in L2 Prediction
Marked Unmarked L2 feature will be easy to learn;
L1 feature will not transfer to L2
Unmarked Marked L1 feature will transfer to L2
L1 to L2, but it goes beyond the surface-level structural contrasts of CA to
more abstract patterns, principles, and constraints. The Markedness
Differential Hypothesis is also an advance over the traditional CA approach
in that:
Eckmans work suggests that transfer is not always a bidirectional
process, as might be inferred from a strict contrastive analysis approach.
Instead, this work on linguistic universals indicates that the reason why
some first-language structures are transferred and others are not relates
to the degree of markedness of the structures in the various languages.
(McLaughlin 1987:90)
One implication that we might draw from this approach is that some
aspects of some languages are more difficult to learn than others, in spite
of the traditional claim within linguistics that all languages are equally
complex. Another issue that we might speculate about is why some types
and patterns of features are more or less frequent than others in both
native and second languages. Functional explanations tend to refer to
extralinguistic factors, or elements outside of language. Certain factors
that have been suggested are: perceptual salience, ease of cognitive pro-
cessing, physical constraints (e.g. the shape of the human vocal tract), and
communicative needs (see Ramat 2003).
Function-to-form mapping
Another functional approach which has been applied to the description
and analysis of interlanguage emphasizes function-to-form mapping in
the acquisitional sequence. A basic concept from this perspective is that
acquisition of both L1 and L2 involves a process of grammaticalization in
which a grammatical function (such as the expression of past time) is
first conveyed by shared extralinguistic knowledge and inferencing based
on the context of discourse, then by a lexical word (such as yesterday), and
only later by a grammatical marker (such as the suffix -ed). For example,
if you ask a beginning learner of English what he did the day before he
might say I play soccer, relying on context to convey the meaning of past
time; a somewhat more advanced learner might say Yesterday I play soccer,
using an adverb to convey the meaning of past; and a still more advanced
learner might say I played soccer, using the grammatical inflection -ed.
The general principle of increasing reliance on grammatical forms and
reducing reliance on context and lexical words to express functions such
as time is followed in all languages. In Chinese L2, for example, learners
tend to use the lexical adverb jiu then to express temporal sequencing of
events before they use the grammatical marker le finished in expressing
this notion. The following utterances were produced by a beginning
learner (a) and a more advanced learner (b) who were retelling the same
event in a film (The Pear Story) that they had viewed (Yang 2002):
a. Ta kan neige ne haizi de shihou, ta jiu shuai xia, ta shuiguo jiu diao xiagu.
When he looked at that girl, he then fall off (the bike), his fruit then
fall down (on the ground).
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 57
b. Suoyi tade zixingche shui dao le, suoyi suoyou de neige shuiguo dou diao
xialai le.
So his bike fell down, so all the fruit fell off.
Talmy Givn (1979) proposed the distinction between a style of expressing
meaning which relies heavily on context (which he calls a pragmatic mode)
and a style which relies more on formal grammatical elements (a syntac-
tic mode), and the notion that change from one to the other is
evolutionary in nature. He lists a number of contrasts in addition to the
evolution from no use of grammatical morphology to elaborate use of
grammatical morphology, which I illustrated above. Additional develop-
mental contrasts include:

From topic-comment to subject-predicate structure. A subject-

predicate structure involves more grammatical marking because of
the agreement it requires between sentence elements, while a topic-
comment structure requires no such marking in stating what the
topic is and then giving some information about it.

From loose conjunction (with elements merely juxtaposed or

connected with and) to tight subordination (with elements connected
by words like since or because).

From slow rate of delivery (under several intonation contours) to fast

rate of delivery (under a single intonational contour).

From word order governed mostly by the pragmatic principle of old

information first, followed by new information (as in topic-comment
structures) to word order used to signal semantic case functions (such
as subject or object).

From roughly one-to-one ratio of verbs to nouns in discourse to a

larger ratio of nouns over verbs. The increase in the ratio of nouns to
verbs indicates that more semantic case functions are being expressed:
e.g. not just subject (only one noun with one verb), but also object and
indirect object (a total of three nouns).
According to this approach, language acquisition importantly involves
developing linguistic forms to fulfill semantic or pragmatic functions.
Grammaticalization is driven by communicative need and use and is
related to the development of more efficient cognitive processing (e.g. via
automatization) as part of language learning. This aspect of language
acquisition will be considered in Chapter 4.
Information organization
Information organization refers to a functional approach which focus-
es on utterance structure, or the way in which learners put their
words together (Klein and Perdue 1993:3). The task of studying SLA
from this perspective includes describing the structures of interlan-
guage (called learner varieties by Klein and Perdue), discovering what
organizational principles guide learners production at various stages
of development, and analyzing how these principles interact with one
another.
58 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
The evidence for this description and analysis comes primarily from the
European Science Foundation (ESF) project (e.g. Klein and Perdue 1992;
Perdue 1993). Over a period of almost three years, Klein, Perdue, and other
linguists regularly recorded the L2 production of speakers of six L1s who
were learning five different L2s. All of the learners were adult immigrants
in Europe who needed to use the L2 to communicate but did not receive a
significant amount of formal instruction in that language.
The number of L1s and L2s in this study is important because it allows
the researchers to make generalizations about the nature of interlan-
guage (or learner varieties) which would not be possible if all of the par-
ticipants were speakers of the same L1, or if all were learning the same L2.
The combinations of native and target languages are shown in 3.4 (adapt-
ed from Klein and Perdue 1992:5).
This list indicates that the participants are native speakers of both
Punjabi and Italian learning English, of Italian and Turkish learning
German, of Turkish and Arabic learning Dutch, of Arabic and Spanish
learning French, and of Spanish and Finnish learning Swedish. Most of the
L2s are related Germanic languages, but the L1s represent several very dif-
ferent language families: Turkic (Turkish), Semitic (Arabic), Indo-Iranian
(Punjabi), Romance (Italian and Spanish), and Finno-Ugric (Finnish).
Developmental levels
All of the learners in this study, no matter what their L1 and L2, go through
a remarkably similar sequence of development in their interlanguage. The
examples are from narratives about a Charlie Chaplin film that were told by
learners in English L2 (as reported in Huebner, Carroll, and Perdue 1992).

Nominal Utterance Organization (NUO). Learners generally begin with the

seemingly unconnected naming of subjects and objects (i.e. with
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 59
3.4 Languages in the ESF Project
L1s (Native languages) L2s (Target languages)
Punjabi
English
Italian
German
Turkish
Dutch
Arabic
French
Spanish
Swedish
Finnish
60 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
nouns and pronouns, or nominals). They may also use adverbs and
adjectives or other elements but seldom use a verb to help organize
an utterance.
PUNJABI L1: charlie and girl accident
ITALIAN L1: this man one idea from the window

Infinite Utterance Organization (IUO). Learners increasingly add verbs to

their utterances, but they seldom use grammatical morphemes to
convey the meaning of tense, person, or number (i.e. the verb is unin-
flected, or infinite). There is also increasing use of grammatical
relators such as prepositions. At this stage, learners have constructed
an interlanguage grammar which is called the Basic Variety. They
may be able to express themselves adequately at this stage in some
contexts, and not all continue development beyond this level.
PUNJABI L1: charlie and girl and policeman put on the floor
ITALIAN L1: the blonde friend tell other woman about the son

Finite Utterance Organization (FUO). Learners who continue

interlanguage development beyond the IUO level next add
grammatical morphemes to the verb (i.e. the verb becomes inflected,
or finite). This is the process of progressive grammaticalization,
which was described in the previous section on function-to-form
mapping.
PUNJABI L1: after she said to charlie you eat dinner
ITALIAN L1: he has finished the work
The sequence of structural development shows minimal crosslinguistic
influence for the NUO and IUO levels; speakers of all languages follow the
same pattern. More L1 transfer occurs as learners increase their L2
resources and produce more complicated utterances (Perdue 2000).
Organizing principles
There is a limited set of principles which learners make use of for organ-
izing information. These interact, and the balance or weight of use among
them shifts during the process of interlanguage development. These prin-
ciples may be classified as:

Phrasal constraints, or restrictions on the phrasal patterns which may be

used. Once the verb has emerged, for example, a basic pattern is noun
phrase plus verb (NP V), with a second NP after the verb possible.
There are also restrictions on the composition and complexity of each
phrasal category. For example, at one stage of development a noun
phrase (NP) may consist only of a noun (N) or a pronoun. At the next
stage of development it may consist of a determiner (e.g. the) plus noun
(D N) or an adjective plus noun (Adj N), but not D Adj N.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 61
Possible phrasal composition increases in complexity with
developmental level.

Semantic constraints, or features of categories like NP which determine

their position in a sentence and what case role they are assigned (e.g.
agent or doer of the action, or patient or recipient of the action).
When an utterance has more than one NP, learners use such semantic
factors to decide which one should come first. The principle that
learners follow is to put the agent first, or the NP that refers to the
thing that is most likely to be in control of other referents.

Pragmatic constraints, including restrictions that relate to what has

been said previously, or to what the speaker assumes that the hearer
already knows. The general pragmatic principle is to put what is
known (the topic) first, and new information or what the speaker is
focusing on last.
While all learners follow essentially the same principles in organizing
their utterances, there is individual variation, in part attributable to
how the principles apply in their L1 and influence interlanguage use.
These constraints are therefore not seen as deterministic, but as some-
thing like guiding forces whose interplay shapes the utterance (Perdue
1993:25).
In summarizing results, Klein and Perdue (1993:26166) offer four bun-
dles of explanations for the sequence of acquisition they find, and for
why some L2 learners are more successful than others:

Communicative needs. Discourse tasks push the organization of

utterances, in part to overcome communicative inadequacies.
Linguistic means are acquired to overcome limitations of earlier levels
or stages of expression.

Cross-linguistic influence. Influence from L1 affects rate of interlanguage

development and ultimate level of success, although not order of
acquisition. L1 influence is a factor in rate and achievement because
it more or less facilitates learners analysis of L2 input and plays a
role in their selection from among possible L2 organizational devices.

Extrinsic factors. Progress beyond the basic variety is dependent both on

propensity factors such as attitudes and motivation, and on
environmental factors such as extent and nature of learners
exposure to L2. The everyday environment has more influence on
progress at this level than does classroom learning.

Limits on processing. Learners current internalized interlanguage

system must be ready to integrate new linguistic features or they
cannot be put to immediate use in communication. Learners cannot
attend to all communicative needs at the same time.
Klein and Perdue conclude:
The emerging picture is one of a creative learner who does not try, item by
item and as closely as possible, to replicate the various structural
features of the input offered by the social environment, but rather
draws on some of the material from the input and uses it to construct
his or her own language. This construction is permanently challenged
by the permanent influx of new input, on the one hand, and by various
structural inadequacies, on the other. The extent to which the learner
tackles these challenges, and the way in which it is done, depends on
the particular learner and on the particular languages involved.
(1993:3839)
All of the functional approaches discussed here basically agree on the
following:

what is being acquired in SLA is a system for conveying meaning,

how language is acquired importantly involves creative learner

involvement in communication, and

understanding of SLA processes is impossible if they are isolated from

circumstances of use.
However, for many who take a functional approach, concern with com-
municative meaning and context does not preclude belief in the existence
of an innate (and possibly language-specific) faculty as an explanatory
mechanism, nor does it rule out concern with addressing the logical
problem, that learners somehow know much more about language than
can be accounted for by the input they receive.
62 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Chapter summary
Ability to use a language requires a complex of knowledge and skills
that is automatically available to everyone when they acquire L1 as a
child. However, a comparable level is seldom achieved in L2, even if
learners expend a great deal of time and effort on the learning task.
Different linguistic approaches have explored the basic questions
about SLA with either an internal or an external focus of attention.
Views on what is being acquired range from underlying knowledge of
highly abstract linguistic principles and constraints, to ability to
structure and convey information in a second language; views on how
SLA takes place differ in their emphasis on continued innate UG
capacity for language learning or on requirements of communicative
processing; views on why some learners are more or less successful
range from factors which are largely internal to language and mind, to
explanations which involve communicative need and opportunity.
Purely linguistic approaches, though, have largely excluded
psychological and social factors. To gain an in-depth, stereoscopic
understanding of L2 acquisition, we unquestionably need to view the
process through more than one lens. The still-fuzzy nature of the
present picture reflects the need for more refined theoretical models
and additional research.
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 63
Activities
Questions for self-study
1. Briefly explain how language is (a) systematic (b) symbolic, and (c) social.
2. Match the following linguistic terms to their corresponding synonyms/def-
initions:
1. lexicon a. word structure
2. phonology b. grammar
3. morphology c. vocabulary
4. syntax d. sound system
3. Match the following theories with their central figures:
1. Contrastive Analysis a. Krashen
2. Error Analysis b. Dulay and Burt
3. Interlanguage c. Corder
4. Morpheme Order Studies d. Chomsky
5. Monitor Model e. Lado
6. Universal Grammar f. Selinker
4. When interlanguage development stops before a learner reaches target
language norms, it is called .
5. As they can be understood in Chomskys theory of Universal Grammar,
what is the difference between linguistic performance and linguistic
competence?
6. According to a Functionalist perspective, what is the primary purpose of
language?
7. Choose which developmental levels from the framework of Information
Organization the following sentences represent: (choose from Nominal
Utterance Organization, Infinite Utterance Organization, Finite Utterance
Organization)
a. my manager say I get raise
b. they have eaten
c. girl nice but she not pretty
d. later we talked
e. he call his mother, say come over
f. man wife restaurant
Active learning
1. Read the following scenarios and decide which aspect of language is
mentioned in each instance. (Choose from lexicon, morphology,
phonology, and syntax.)
a. If we see the word talks alone, outside of any context, we could
consider it to be composed of the root talk and a plural -s to make a
noun (more than one talk/discussion/address), or we could consider
it to be made up of the root talk and a third person -s to make a
conjugated verb (like he talks, she talks, or it talks).
b. The English word talk has near synonyms like speak, say,
express, shout, yell, and whisper.
c. The English word talk can be pronounced differently depending on
the geographical locations of the speakers.
64 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
d. In English, appropriate word order is SubjectVerbObject, like saying
The man was talking to the child. In Japanese, word order is
subjectobjectverb, so one would say The man the child to was
talking.
2. Reread the section on the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and make a
definition of this theory in your own words. Do you think this theory
holds true for SLA as well as for first language acquisition? Why or why
not?
3. Make a timeline to indicate when the following theories or schools of
thought were flourishing as they are discussed in this text. Think about
the progression of theories. When they change, are they building upon
old theories or rejecting them? Select one theory and explain how it
builds upon or rejects those that came before it.
a. Contrastive Analysis h. Mentalism
b. Behaviorism i. Interlanguage
c. Structuralism j. Morpheme Order Studies
d. Error Analysis k. Monitor Model
e. Universal Grammar l. Constructionism
f. Systemic Linguistics m. Functional Typology
g. Function-to-form mapping n. Information organization
4. Listen to someone who speaks your language non-natively and write
down some ungrammatical sentences they have spoken. Using principles
of Contrastive Analysis and the procedures of Error Analysis on pages
3740 of this chapter, try to classify each error. Remember that there
may not be a specific right answer available; these are just your
predictions.
5. If you have studied a second language, what are some of the linguistic
elements that have been most difficult for you to master (morphology,
phonology, syntax, etc.)? Why do you think they have been harder?
6. Proponents of Universal Grammar believe that language ability is innate,
whereas Functionalists believe that we develop language primarily because
of a need to communicate. Which theory do you believe in? Why?
Further reading
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company.
A highly readable explanation of modern linguistics, wherein chapters 4, 5, and 6 include discussion of
syntax, morphology, phonology, and the arbitrariness of language.
Yaguello, M. (1981/1998). Language through the Looking Glass: Exploring Language and Linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Language through the Looking Glass provides explanation of the classical categories of linguistic study
(phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax) in addition to treating the questions of arbitrariness and
universality of language largely based upon literary examples from Lewis Carrolls Alice in Wonderland.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. New York: Longman.
Selinker treats contrastive analysis and error analysis as the beginnings that eventually led to the concept of
interlanguage. In addition, he presents work on fossilization and how the concept of interlanguage is used
The linguistics of Second Language Acquisition 65
today, as opposed to when it was coined in 1972. This is done with the overall goal of framing modern theory
in the history of its field.
Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.
Baker explains the concepts of Chomskys Principles and Parameters theory in terms appropriate for a
general audience.
Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language
Acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
In Chapter 2, Language, Bialystok and Hakuta clearly present much of the linguistic background
(discussing Chomskyan and Functionalist perspectives) needed to understand the basic tenets of Second
Language Acquisition as a field today.
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Functional/pragmatic perspectives on second language learning. Second
Language Learning Theories (Second Edition) (pp. 10020). London: Arnold.
This chapter offers an overview of several functionalist perspectives as they relate to L1 development and
L2 learning. It also includes a brief section outlining the contributions of functionalism to the body of
knowledge in the SLA field.
CHAPTER
The psychology of
Second Language
Acquisition
4
In this chapter we survey several approaches to SLA that have been
heavily influenced by the field of psychology. They are ordered
according to their primary focus of attention: first those that focus on
languages and the brain, then those that focus on the learning
processes that are involved in SLA, and finally those that focus on
differences among learners.
Study of languages and the brain is based largely on the framework
provided by neurolinguistics, which seeks to answer questions about
how the location and organization of language might differ in the
heads of monolingual versus multilingual speakers, and of multilinguals
who acquire second languages at different ages or under differing
circumstances. It primarily addresses what is being acquired in a
physical sense: what is added or changed in the neurological wiring
of peoples brains when they add another language?
The study of learning processes draws especially on the frameworks
of Information Processing (IP) and Connectionism, and includes
questions about stages and sequences of acquisition. This focus
primarily addresses how acquisition takes place. Is there a specialized
language faculty in the brain (as we read in the last chapter), or does
all learning involve the same mechanisms?
Approaches to the study of learner differences derive largely from
humanistic traditions that take affective factors into account, but some
consider factors associated with age and sex, and some consider
possible individual differences in aptitude for language learning. This
third focus primarily addresses the question of why some second
language learners are more successful than others. Does it make a
difference if learners are ten or twenty years old when they begin a new
language, or whether they are male or female, or whether they are
gregarious or introverted?
Finally, we will explore how being multilingual might affect the ways
people think, and how multilinguals perform on tests of intelligence.
CHAPTER PREVIEW
Lateralization
Critical Period
Hypothesis
Information
Processing (IP)
Controlled
processing
Automatic
processing
Restructuring
Input
Output
U-shaped
development
Connectionism
Aptitude
Motivation
Cognitive style
Learning
strategies
KEY TERMS
68 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Notions that particular locations in the brain may be specialized for lan-
guage functions date back at least into the nineteenth century. Paul Pierre
Broca (1861, 1865) observed that an area in the left frontal lobe (Brocas
area) appeared to be responsible for the ability to speak and noted that an
injury to the left side of the brain was much more likely to result in lan-
guage loss than was an injury to the right side. Wernicke (1874) further
identified a nearby area which is adjacent to the part of the cortex that
processes audio input (Wernickes area) as also being central to language
processing. Some exceptions have been found, but for the vast majority of
individuals, language is represented primarily in the left half (or hemi-
sphere) of the brain within an area (including both Brocas area and
Wernickes area) around the Sylvian fissure (a cleavage that separates
lobes in the brain). Subsequent research has shown that many more areas
of the brain are involved in language activity than was thought earlier:
language activity is not localized, but core linguistic processes are typi-
cally housed in the left hemisphere.
Such specialization of the two halves of the brain is known as lateral-
ization, and is present to some extent even in infancy (e.g. Mills, Coffey-
Corina, and Neville 1993). There is increased specialization as the brain
matures and has less plasticity: i.e. one area of the brain becomes less able
to assume the functions of another in the event it is damaged. Lenneberg
(1967) proposed that children had only a limited number of years during
which they could acquire their L1 flawlessly if they suffered brain damage
to the language areas; brain plasticity in childhood would allow other
areas of the brain to take over the language functions of the damaged
Languages and the brain
Paul Pierre Broca (b. Sainte-Foy-la-Grande, France) 18241880
Neuroscience
After becoming a professor and researcher at the University of Paris,
Paul Pierre Broca made a most important discovery about the
anatomy of the brain: he found its speech center, now called Brocas
Area. Broca arrived at his discovery by studying the brains of
patients with aphasia (the inability to talk).
Interesting note: Broca was considered a child prodigy and earned baccalaureates in literature, mathemat-
ics, and physics. He began medical school at age seventeen, and finished at age twenty, when most med-
ical students were just beginning their studies.
areas, but beyond a certain age, normal language would not be possible.
This is the Critical period hypothesis, mentioned in Chapter 2 and to be
discussed below in relation to the influence of age on SLA.
Communicative functions for which each hemisphere of the brain is
primarily specialized are listed in 4.1, as suggested by L1 research reviewed
in Obler and Gjerlow (1999).
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 69
4.1 Principal communicative specializations of L and R hemispheres
Principal hemispheric specializations
Left hemisphere Right hemisphere
Phonology Nonverbal (as babies' cries)
Morphology Visuospatial information
Syntax Intonation
Function words and inflections Nonliteral meaning and ambiguity
Tone systems Many pragmatic abilities
Much lexical knowledge Some lexical knowledge
In discussing hemispheric specialization, Obler and Gjerlow emphasize
that, while localizing language phenomena in the brain is the eventual
goal of neurolinguistics, we no longer expect that there are language
areas that are entirely responsible for language, or even dominant for
language, to be contrasted with areas that have nothing to do with it
(1999:1112).
Hemispheric specialization for language is the same regardless of
whether the language is spoken or not; core linguistic functions for sign
languages used in deaf communities are also located in the left hemisphere.
The visuospatial information listed for the right hemisphere in 4.1 refers to
movement which may be meaningful but is nonlinguistic in nature. When
movement incorporates linguistic units of phonology, morphology, and syn-
tax (as in sign language), it is left-hemisphere based (Emmorey 2002). The
typical distribution of primary functions is probably due to the left hemi-
spheres being computationally more powerful than the right and therefore
better suited for processing the highly complex elements of language.
Interest in how the brain might be organized for multiple languages also
dates back to the nineteenth century (e.g. Freud 1891). The initial questions
arose from observing differing patterns for the interruption and recovery
of languages following brain damage in multilinguals. Most individuals
lose or recover multiple languages equally (Paradis 1987), but some recover
one before the other, and some never recover use of one (either L1 or L2).
These findings suggest that two or more languages may be represented in
somewhat different locations in the brain and/or have different networks
of activation. This possibility has stimulated observation and research on
the topic for the past century, although research procedures have changed
radically with changing technology. Methods for gathering data have
included the following:

Correlations of location of brain damage with patterns of loss/

recovery in cases where languages are affected differentially.

Presentation of stimuli from different languages to the right versus

the left visual or auditory fields to investigate which side of the brain
is most involved in processing each language. What is presented to
the right fields will be processed faster and more accurately by the
left hemisphere and vice versa.

Mapping the brain surface during surgery by using electrical

stimulation at precise points and recording which areas are involved
in which aspects of speech, and in which language. (This mapping
procedure is often used prior to or even during removal of brain tissue
because of a tumor or other abnormality, allowing the neurosurgeon
to avoid disrupting language functions as much as possible.)

Positron Emission Tomography (PET-scans) and other non-invasive

imaging techniques that allow direct observation of areas of the brain
that are activated by different language stimuli and tasks.
In spite of many years of research, some questions remain unanswered or
answers remain controversial. In part this is because study has generally
involved limited numbers of subjects and there is considerable individual
variation in how the brain is wired; in part it is because research efforts
have not used the same procedures for data collection and analysis and
therefore do not yield entirely comparable results. Still, there are a number
of findings which shed increasing light on the representation and organi-
zation of multiple languages in the brain. Specific questions which have
been explored are listed below, along with a brief summary of results from
some of the research conducted on them.
1. How independent are the languages of
multilingual speakers?
There is no single answer to this question, both because there appears to
be considerable individual variation among speakers, and because there
are very complex factors which must be taken into account. It seems rea-
sonable to conclude, however, that multiple language systems are neither
completely separate nor completely fused.
Ervin and Osgood (1954; following Weinreich 1953) suggested a three-
way possibility for how languages relate in an individuals mind, which are
called coordinate, compound, and subordinate bilingualism. Coordinate
refers to parallel linguistic systems, independent of one another; compound
to a fused or unified system; and subordinate to one linguistic system
accessed through another. Ervin and Osgood claim that these different rela-
tionships result in part because of different contexts for language learning.
An extreme case of coordinate bilingualism would be the rare individual
who has learned two or more languages in different contexts and is not able
70 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
(even with conscious effort) to translate between them. More common
would be compound bilingualism, believed by many to characterize simul-
taneous bilingualism in early childhood (before the age of three years), and
subordinate bilingualism, believed to result from learning L2 through the
medium of L1 (as in grammar-translation approaches to foreign language
instruction). There is evidence that suggests the relationship may depend
on L2 proficiency, changing from compound or subordinate to coordinate
at higher knowledge and skill levels (Kroll and Steward 1994).
Other researchers stress the interdependence of languages, although
separation can be maintained for many purposes. Obler and Gjerlow con-
clude that multiple linguistic systems . . . are only as independent as
necessary, and reliance on a single system is the rule whenever possible
(1999:140).
2. How are multiple language structures organized in relation
to one another in the brain? Are both languages stored in
the same areas?
Again, there is considerable variation among speakers. For at least some
multilinguals, it appears that L1 and L2 are stored in somewhat different
areas of the brain, but both are predominantly in (probably overlapping)
areas of the left hemisphere. However, the right hemisphere might be
more involved in L2 than in L1.
Researchers have stimulated certain segments of the brain during sur-
gery (Ojemann and Whitaker 1978) and found that disturbing some points
in the brain blocks people from being able to name things in both lan-
guages, while disturbing other points does not have this effect. The area
common to both L1 and L2 storage is near the Sylvian fissure in the left
hemisphere (already established as the primary language area for mono-
linguals, including Brocas and Wernikes areas), but only L1 or L2 (more
likely L2) is disrupted by stimulation of points further away from the
Sylvian fissure. Using PET-scan imaging on one SpanishEnglish subject in
repetition tasks, Fedio et al. (1992) also found more diffuse brain activation
for L2 than for L1, and different areas involved, which the authors inter-
preted as indicating that greater memorization of words and phrases is
involved in L2 (as opposed to direct processing of words for meaning in L1).
3. Does the organization of the brain for L2 in relation
to L1 differ with age of acquisition, how it is learned,
or level of proficiency?
The answer is probably yes to all three, with the strongest body of evi-
dence showing that age of acquisition influences brain organization for
many second language learners.
After reviewing research on lateralization in bilinguals, Vaid (1983)
concludes that individuals who acquire L2 later in life show more right-
hemisphere involvement. Supporting this conclusion, Wuillemin and
Richards (1994) report more right-hemisphere involvement for individuals
who acquire L2 between ages nine and twelve than for those who acquire
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 71
L2 before age 4. Cook suggests that how people learn languages might be
a factor: The variation in right hemisphere involvement may be due to
the lack of a single route to L2 knowledge: second languages may be
learnt by many means rather than the single means found in L1 acquisi-
tion and, consequently, may have a greater apparent hemispheric
spread (1992:572).
We know very little so far about how organization of knowledge in the
brain might be related to level of proficiency in a second language, but it
appears probable that the organization of L2 knowledge is more diffuse
for lower levels of proficiency and more compact for highly fluent L2
users. As we have just seen (Fedio et al. 1992), a PET-scan of the brain shows
that a multilingual person may use more memorization for L2 and more
direct processing of meaning for L1. Other types of research (e.g. analysis
of errors in reading) show L2 learners increasing reliance on meaning
over memory as their proficiency in L2 increases. With the availability of
non-invasive imaging techniques, we can hope that researchers might
gather data from the same individuals over time as they progress in L2
learning, so we can actually see whether there are changes in the brains
organization of knowledge in relation to interlanguage development.
4. Do two or more languages show the same sort of loss or
disruption after brain damage? When there is differential
impairment or recovery, which language recovers first?
As noted in the first part of this section, brain damage results in the same
or very similar patterns of loss and recovery for both/all of most
multilingual persons languages, but many exceptions have been report-
ed. One early hypothesis was that in cases of such brain damage, the last-
learned language would be the first lost, the next-to-the-last learned the
second to be lost, and so forth, with L1 the last to remain; recovery was
speculated to be L1 first. This in fact does not appear to occur at a level
greater than chance, at least with respect to order of recovery. Obler and
Gjerlow (1999) conclude rather that a significant factor in initial recovery
is which language was most used in the years prior to the incident which
caused the damage, whether this is L1 or L2.
Research on this question also shows that not only can different lan-
guages be affected differentially by brain damage, but different abili-
ties in the same language may be differentially impaired: e.g. syntax
versus vocabulary, production versus comprehension, or oral versus
written modality. These observations have possible implications for
claims that different elements of language are located in separate parts
of the brain.
We may conclude that what is being added in the brain when a second
language is acquired is not very different from, nor usually entirely sep-
arate from, what is already there for the first. But there are intriguing
differences: some differences may be due to level of L2 proficiency, some
to circumstances of L2 learning, and some to the fact that our brains are
not wired in exactly the same way. Research on this focus is expanding
rapidly with the help of brain-imaging technology, and it promises also
72 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
to contribute more neurological answers to questions of how second
languages are learned and why some people are more successful than
others.
Psychology provides us with two major frameworks for the focus on learn-
ing processes: Information Processing (IP) and Connectionism. IP has had
more influence on the study of SLA than any other psychological per-
spective, following an approach developed by John Anderson (e.g. 1976,
1983). It makes the claim that learning language is essentially like learn-
ing other domains of knowledge: that whether people are learning math-
ematics, or learning to drive a car, or learning Japanese, they are not
engaging in any essentially different kind of mental activity. Learning is
learning. We take a general look at the information processing framework
and then discuss three approaches based on it, the Multidimensional
Model, Processability, and the Competition Model, respectively. The
Connectionism framework also claims that learning is learning, but
considers learning processes as a matter of increasing strength of associa-
tions rather than as the abstraction of rules or principles.
Information Processing (IP)
Approaches based on IP are concerned with the mental processes involved
in language learning and use. These include perception and the input of
new information; the formation, organization, and regulation of internal
(mental) representations; and retrieval and output strategies.
The information processing approach makes a number of assumptions
(McLaughlin 1987):
(1) Second language learning is the acquisition of a complex cognitive
skill. In this respect language learning is like the acquisition of other
complex skills.
(2) Complex skills can be reduced to sets of simpler component skills,
which are hierarchically organized. Lower-order component skills are
prerequisite to learning of higher-order skills.
(3) Learning of a skill initially demands learners attention, and thus
involves controlled processing.
(4) Controlled processing requires considerable mental space, or atten-
tional effort.
(5) Humans are limited-capacity processors. They can attend to a limited
number of controlled processing demands at one time.
(6) Learners go from controlled to automatic processing with practice.
Automatic processing requires less mental space and attentional
effort.
(7) Learning essentially involves development from controlled to automat-
ic processing of component skills, freeing learners controlled process-
ing capacity for new information and higher-order skills.
Learning processes
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 73
(8) Along with development from controlled to automatic processing,
learning also essentially involves restructuring or reorganization of
mental representations.
(9) Reorganizing mental representations as part of learning makes
structures more coordinated, integrated, and efficient, including a
faster response time when they are activated.
(10) In SLA, restructuring of internal L2 representations, along with larger
stores in memory, accounts for increasing levels of L2 proficiency.
Our mental capacity requirements for controlled processing are obvi-
ous when we are beginning to learn a second language, as we need to con-
centrate our attention to comprehend or produce basic vocabulary and
syntactic structures. It is only after these have been automatized that we
can attend to more complex, higher-order features and content. We
encounter similar capacity limitations (we easily experience information
overload) in learning a new language for computerized word process-
ing: we must initially use controlled processing to select appropriate sym-
bols and apply the right rules, and it is difficult or impossible to simulta-
neously pay attention to higher-order content or creative processing. It is
only after we have automatized the lower-level skills that our processing
capacity is freed for higher-order thought. Writers usually cannot com-
pose online effectively until lower-level word-processing skills such as
typing, saving documents, and changing fonts have become automatized.
Further examples can readily be drawn from learning other complex non-
verbal skills, such as driving or skiing, where tasks that initially require
attentional control become automatized with practice; they then gener-
ally remain out of conscious awareness unless some unusual occurrence
returns them to controlled processing. Behaviors under attentional
control are permeable, i.e. they are changeable; but once automatized,
they are both more efficient and more difficult to change. In fact, one
explanation for L2 fossilization (or apparent cessation of learning) from
an IP perspective is that aspects of L2 may become automatized before
they have developed to target levels, and positive input no longer suffices
to lead to their improvement.
Information Processing has three stages, as shown in 4.2 (adapted from
Skehan 1998).
74 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
4.2 Stages of Information Processing
Input Central processing Output
Perception Controlledautomatic processing Production
Declarativeprocedural knowledge
Restructuring
Input for SLA is whatever sample of L2 that learners are exposed to, but it
is not available for processing unless learners actually notice it: i.e. pay atten-
tion to it. Then it can become intake. It is at this point of perception of input
where priorities are largely determined, and where attentional resources are
channeled. Richard Schmidt (1990) lists the following features as likely
contributors to the degree of noticing or awareness which will occur:

Frequency of encounter with items

Perceptual saliency of items

Instructional strategies that can structure learner attention

Individuals processing ability (a component of aptitude)

Readiness to notice particular items (related to hierarchies of

complexity)

Task demands, or the nature of activity the learner is engaged in

In line with this IP approach to learning, developing and testing strategies
to heighten learner awareness of input and to structure attention has
been a major thrust in foreign language instructional design and peda-
gogy, so that successful intake can occur.
Output for SLA is the language that learners produce, in speech/sign or
in writing. The importance of output for successful L2 learning has been
most fully expounded by Merrill Swain (e.g. Swain and Lapkin 1995).
Meaningful production practice helps learners by:

Enhancing fluency by furthering development of automaticity

through practice

Noticing gaps in their own knowledge as they are forced to move

from semantic to syntactic processing, which may lead learners to
give more attention to relevant information

Testing hypotheses based on developing interlanguage, allowing for

monitoring and revision

Talking about language, including eliciting relevant input and

(collaboratively) solving problems
Fluency is achieved in production both through use of automatized rule-
based systems and through memory-based chunks which serve as exem-
plars or templates and are retrieved and used as wholes (Skehan 1998:60).
Central processing is the heart of this model, where learning occurs. It
is here that learners go from controlled to automatic processing, and
where restructuring of knowledge takes place. It is possible to test for
degree of automatization because controlled processing requires more
time. Research that measures the amount of time it takes multilinguals to
recall words and grammatical structures shows that the L2 of even fluent
speakers of both languages is generally less automatized than their L1,
and less proficient L2 is less automatized than more fluent L2.
In the model of learning that was proposed by Anderson (1976), devel-
opment from declarative to procedural stages of knowledge is parallel to
development from controlled to automatic processing in many respects.
The declarative stage involves acquisition of isolated facts and rules; pro-
cessing is relatively slow and often under attentional control.
Development to the procedural stage involves processing of longer associ-
ated units and increasing automatization, which frees attentional
resources for higher-level skills. Proceduralization requires practice.
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 75
As noted in the assumptions about IP listed above, the restructuring
that takes place during central processing makes mental representations
more coordinated, integrated, and efficient. It involves qualitative
changes, meaning that L2 development cannot be characterized as a
seamless continuum along which new forms are added to old, but as a
partially discontinuous plane along which there is regular systemic reor-
ganization and reformulation. Two types of evidence from learners
speech and writing are often cited. One is the sequence of acquisition
which learners exhibit when they produce unanalyzed chunks of L2 cor-
rectly and then make errors as they restructure the elements they have
processed in accord with newly formulated patterns and rules: i.e. an
onset or increase of ungrammaticality in utterances is often an indicator
of progress in SLA. A related type of evidence is found in U-shaped devel-
opment: i.e. learners use of an initially correct form such as plural feet in
English, followed by incorrect foots, eventually again appearing as feet. In
this case, feet is first learned as an unanalyzed word, without recognition
that it is a combination of foot plus plural. The later production of foots is
evidence of systemic restructuring that takes place when the regular plu-
ral -s is added to the learners grammar. Feet reappears when the learner
begins to acquire exceptions to the plural inflection rule.
Theories regarding order of acquisition
Psychological approaches to SLA have made significant contributions to
understanding why certain elements are acquired in a fixed sequence.
One of the best known of these approaches is the Multidimensional
Model, developed by researchers who initially studied the German L2
learning of adult L1 speakers of Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese in the
ZISA project (see Clahsen, Meisel, and Pienemann 1983). This model
includes the following claims:

Learners acquire certain grammatical structures in a developmental

sequence.

Developmental sequences reflect how learners overcome processing

limitations.

Language instruction which targets developmental features will be

successful only if learners have already mastered the processing
operations which are associated with the previous stage of
acquisition.
The processing strategies which account for developmental sequences in
perception and production are explained by Clahsen (1984) in relation to
the IP constraint of limited capacity: linguistic structures which require
a high degree of processing capacity will be acquired late (p. 221). Which
syntactic structures require more processing capacity (i.e. are more com-
plex) is determined by the extent to which their underlying relations are
preserved in output, and by the perceptual salience of any reordering that
does occur. Clahsen infers the following hierarchy:
76 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
(1) Canonical Order Strategy: There is no reordering from basic word
order. Structures which can be processed with this strategy will be
acquired first.
(2) Initialization/Finalization Strategy: Reordering which moves underlying
elements into the first or last position in a grammatical string are
perceptually more salient, and thus easier to process than
permutations to internal positions.
(3) Subordinate Clause Strategy: Reordering in subordinate clauses is
not allowed. This accounts for why learners initially use certain
reorderings only in main clauses and [ . . . ] thus the order of the
elements in subordinate clauses is less varied (1984:223).
A reorientation of the Multidimensional Model is known as
Processability Theory (Pienemann 1998); it also has the aim of determin-
ing and explaining the sequences in which processing skills develop in
relation to language learning. The following acquisitional hierarchy of
processing skills is proposed (from Pienemann and Hkansson 1999):
(1) Lemma/word access: Words (or lemmas) are processed, but they do not
yet carry any grammatical information, nor are they yet associated
with any ordering rules.
(2) Category procedure: Lexical items are categorized, and grammatical
information may be added (e.g. number and gender to nouns, tense
to verbs).
(3) Phrasal procedure: Operations within the phrase level occur, such as
agreement for number or gender between adjective and noun within
the noun phrase.
(4) S-procedure: Grammatical information may be exchanged across
phrase boundaries, such as number agreement between subject and
verb.
(5) Clause boundary: Main and subordinate clause structures may be
handled differently.
This is an implicational hierarchy in the sense that processing skill at level
1 is a prerequisite for processing skill at level 2, level 2 is prerequisite for
level 3, and so forth. The sequence of strategies describes the developing
learner grammar in terms of processing prerequisites needed to acquire
grammatical (syntactic and morphological) rules at successive stages.
The universality of this sequence in SLA is being tested by researchers,
with generally supportive results. In addition to Pienemanns analysis of
German L2 (1998) and reanalysis of data from prior research on Swedish
L2 (Pienemann and Hkansson 1999), the most extensive studies thus far
have been on Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish (Glahn et al. 2001).
Claims that language instruction will be effective only if it targets the
next stage in an L2 learners developmental sequence (rather than more
advanced levels) have been tested on many languages since the 1970s
(reviewed in Spada and Lightbown 1999). Results are mixed concerning
the interaction of developmental order and instructional level, with indi-
cation that at least for some structures, and for some learners, instruction
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 77
78 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Brian MacWhinney (b. New York), 1945present
Psychology
MacWhinneys studies of language processing across languages
led to the co-development of the Competition Model with
Elizabeth Bates (MacWhinney and Bates, 1989). In this research,
many areas of processing were studied: normal adult sentence
processing, the development of child sentence processing, and
language processing of people with aphasia. MacWhinney has
also developed a set of computer programs and a database called
CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange System), which is used
by more than 800 researchers in forty-six different countries.
at a more advanced level can be more efficient. Complexities include the
type of instruction (e.g. whether explicit contrastive L1-L2 information on
the structure is presented), and the degree to which L1 knowledge may be
applicable. However, these complexities do not appear to invalidate claims
about order of acquisition; even when learners profit from more advanced
levels of instruction, they progress through the same developmental
sequence.
Competition Model
Another psychological approach that has addressed the general ques-
tion of how languages are learned is the Competition Model (Bates and
MacWhinney 1981; MacWhinney 2001). This is a functional approach
which assumes that all linguistic performance involves mapping
between external form and internal function. The form of a lexical item
is represented by its auditory properties, and its function by its seman-
tic properties; the forms of strings of lexical items are word-order pat-
terns and morphological inflections, and their functions are grammati-
cal. For example, for the word horse the form is represented by the
sounds [hors]; the function is the meaning of a four-legged, hay-eating
animal. In the sentence Horses eat hay, the word orders of horses before
and hay after the verb are forms; the functions are to convey that horses
is the subject and hay is the object. The inflection -s on horses is also a
form; its function is to convey that more than one horse is being
referred to.
This approach considers that learning the system of formfunction
mapping is basic for L1 acquisition. SLA involves adjusting the internal-
ized system of mapping that exists in the learners L1 to one that is appro-
priate for the target language. This is accomplished by detecting cues in
language input which are associated with a particular function, and by
recognizing what weight to assign each possible cue (the cue strength).
The cue in English that horses is the subject in the sentence Horses eat hay
is word order horses comes in front of the verb. If the sentence were in
Japanese, the cue would be a case marker, the inflection -ga that is
attached to the end of a word which means it is the subject (i.e. that it has
nominative case).
Multiple cues are available simultaneously in input; language process-
ing essentially involves competition among the various cues. For exam-
ple, for the grammatical function of subject, possible cues are word order,
agreement, case marking, and animacy (i.e. capacity for volitional action). All
of these possible cues are illustrated in the following sentences (some are
not grammatical or grammatically felicitous):
(a) The cow kicks the horse.
(b) The cow kick the horses.
(c) Him kicks the horse.
(d) The fence kicks the horse.
The relative strength of word order as a cue in English over the other pos-
sibilities can be tested by presenting native speakers with sentences such
as these and asking them to identify the subject or agent in each (i.e.
who/what does the kicking).
In spite of the ungrammaticality of (b-c), or in the case of (d) its anom-
alous character, native English speakers are most likely to identify the first
noun phrase in each of these sentences as subject, even though in (b) the
verb agrees with the second noun phrase rather than the first, in (c) him
is case-marked as object (the receiver of the action) rather than subject,
and in (d) fence is inanimate and cannot be interpreted literally as a doer
of the verb kick. If these sentences were translated into other languages,
different identifications of subject would likely be made depending on
whether agreement, case marking, or animacy carried more weight. In
Japanese, for instance, the case marker -ga attached to a noun phrase (if
no other -ga occurred) would generally carry more weight in identifying
that NP as the subject, no matter where in the word order it occurred. An
English L1 speaker learning Japanese as L2 might inappropriately transfer
the strong word-order cue to initial formfunction mapping (and identify
the wrong noun phrase as subject if it occurred first), whereas native
speakers of Japanese might transfer their L1 cue weights to English L2 and
also provide nonnative interpretations.
Acquisition of appropriate formfunction mappings is driven primarily
by the probability that a particular functional interpretation should be
chosen in the presence of a particular cue. If the probability is high, the
cue is reliable. The following determinants of cue strength are also dis-
cussed by MacWhinney (2001:7475; see Ellis 1994:37377):

Task frequency: how often the formfunction mapping occurs. The

vast majority of English sentences have a subject before the verb, so
the mapping of word-order form to subject function is very frequent.

Contrastive availability: when the cue is present, whether or not it

has any contrastive effect. In example (a) above, for instance (The cow
kicks the horse), the third person singular -s on the verb agrees with
both noun phrases and so the agreement cue tells nothing about
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 79
which is the subject. An available cue must occur contrastively if it is
to be useful.

Conflict reliability: how often the cue leads to a correct interpretation

when it is used in comparison to other potential cues.
Transfer of L1 cue strengths to L2 is the most likely outcome in early
stages of SLA when the systems differ, but research has shown that some
learners ultimately abandon L1 cue strengths in favor of L2, while some
compromise and merge the two systems, and some differentiate between
the languages in this aspect of processing.
Connectionist approaches
Connectionist approaches to learning have much in common with IP per-
spectives, but they focus on the increasing strength of associations between
stimuli and responses rather than on the inferred abstraction of rules or
on restructuring. Indeed, from a connectionist perspective learning essen-
tially is change in the strength of these connections. Some version of this
idea has been present in psychology at least since the 1940s and 1950s (see
McClelland, Rumelhart, and Hinton 1986 for an overview of historical devel-
opments), but Connectionism has received widespread attention as a
model for first and second language acquisition only since the 1980s.
The best-known connectionist approach within SLA is Parallel
Distributed Processing, or PDP. According to this viewpoint, processing
takes place in a network of nodes (or units) in the brain that are con-
nected by pathways. As learners are exposed to repeated patterns of units
in input, they extract regularities in the patterns; probabilistic associa-
tions are formed and strengthened. These associations between nodes are
called connection strengths or patterns of activation. The strength of the
associations changes with the frequency of input and nature of feedback.
The claim that such learning is not dependent on either a store of innate
knowledge (such as Universal Grammar) or rule-formation is supported by
computer simulations. For example, Rumelhart and McClelland (1986)
demonstrated that a computer that is programmed with a pattern asso-
ciator network can learn to associate English verb bases with their appro-
priate past tense forms without any a priori rules, and that it does so
with much the same learning curve as that exhibited by children learning
English L1. The model provides an account for both regular and irregular
tense inflections, including transfer to unfamiliar verbs, and for the U-
shaped developmental curve (discussed in the previous section on order
of acquisition) which is often cited in linguistic models and in other cog-
nitive approaches as evidence for rule-based learning.
Assumptions about processing from a connectionist/PDP viewpoint dif-
fer from traditional IP accounts in other important ways. For example
(McClelland, Rumelhart, and Hinton 1986; Robinson 1995):
(1) Attention is not viewed as a central mechanism that directs
information between separate memory stores, which IP claims are
available for controlled processing versus automatic processing.
80 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Rather, attention is a mechanism that is distributed throughout the
processing system in local patterns.
(2) Information processing is not serial in nature: i.e. it is not a pipeline . . .
in which information is conveyed in a fixed serial order from one
storage structure to the next (Robinson 1995:288). Instead, processing is
parallel: many connections are activated at the same time.
(3) Knowledge is not stored in memory or retrieved as patterns, but as
connection strengths between units which account for the patterns
being recreated.
It is obvious that parallel processing is being applied when tasks simulta-
neously tap entirely different resources such as talking on a cell phone
while riding a bicycle, but it also less obviously occurs within integrated
tasks such as simply talking or reading, when encoding/decoding of
phonology, syntactic structure, meaning, and pragmatic intent occur
simultaneously. Many connections in the brain must be activated all at
once to account for successful production and interpretation of language,
and not processed in sequence (i.e. one after the other).
Little research based on this approach has been conducted in SLA, but
the assumption is that transfer from L1 to L2 occurs because strong asso-
ciations already established in L1 interfere with establishment of the L2
network. Because frequency is the primary determinant of connection
strength, it might be predicted that the most common patterns in L1
would be the most likely to cause interference in L2, but research on trans-
fer from linguistic perspectives does not support this conclusion in any
strong sense; L1-L2 relationships are not that simple. Proponents of con-
nectionist approaches to language acquisition note that while frequency
is an all-pervasive causal factor (Ellis 2002:179), it interacts with other
determinants, including how noticeable the language patterns are in the
input learners receive, and whether the patterns are regular or occur with
many variations and exceptions.
Many linguists and psychologists would argue against a strong deter-
ministic role for frequency of input in language learning. One counter-
argument is that some of the most frequent words in English (including the
most frequent, the) are relatively late to appear, and among the last (if ever)
to be mastered. Still, whatever ones theoretical perspective, the effects of
frequency on SLA clearly merit more attention than they have typically
received since repetition drills went out of fashion in language teaching.
Researchers from several approaches to SLA which focus on learning
processes are taking a renewed look at how frequency influences learning.
In Chapter 3, we considered the basic question of why some L2 learners are
more successful than others from a linguistic perspective, and in Chapter 5
we will again consider this question from the perspective of the social
contexts of learning. Here we address this question from a psychologi-
cal perspective, focusing on differences among learners themselves.
Differences in learners
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 81
The differences we explore here are age, sex, aptitude, motivation, cogni-
tive style, personality, and learning strategies. Some of the relevant
research looks at neurological representation and organization (such as
the research reported above in the section on languages and the brain),
some is of an experimental nature (which manipulates variables and
makes direct claims about cause and effect), and some relies on good lan-
guage learner studies (which deal with correlations between specific
traits and successful SLA). Some of this research remains quite speculative.
Age
It is a common belief that children are more successful L2 learners than
adults, but the evidence for this is actually surprisingly equivocal. One
reason for the apparent inconsistency in research findings is that some
studies define relative success as initial rate of learning (where, con-
trary to popular belief, older learners have an advantage) while other stud-
ies define it as ultimate achievement (where learners who are introduced
to the L2 in childhood indeed do appear to have an edge). Also, some
studies define success in terms of how close the learners pronuncia-
tion is to a native speakers, others in terms of how closely a learner
approximates native grammaticality judgments, and still others in
terms of fluency or functional competence. It is very important to keep
evaluative criteria clearly in mind while judging conflicting claims.
The question of whether, and how, age affects L2 outcomes has been a
major issue in SLA for several decades, and a number of recent publica-
tions provide reviews from different points of view (e.g. Birdsong 1999;
Scovel 2000; Singleton 2001). Some of the advantages which have been
reported for both younger and older learners are listed in 4.3.
82 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
4.3 Age differences in SLA
Younger advantage Older advantage

Brain plasticity

Learning capacity

Not analytical

Analytic ability

Fewer inhibitions (usually)

Pragmatic skills

Weaker group identity

Greater knowledge of L1

Simplified input more likely

Real-world knowledge
We noted in the earlier section of this chapter on languages and the
brain that there is a critical period for first language acquisition: children
have only a limited number of years during which normal acquisition is
possible. Beyond that, physiological changes cause the brain to lose its
plasticity, or capacity to assume the new functions that learning language
demands. Individuals who for some reason are deprived of the linguistic
input which is needed to trigger first language acquisition during the crit-
ical period will never learn any language normally. One famous
documented case which provides rare evidence for this point is that of
Genie, an abused girl who was kept isolated from all language input and
interaction until she was thirteen years old. In spite of years of intensive
efforts at remediation, Genie never developed linguistic knowledge and
skills for her L1 (English) that were comparable to those of speakers who
began acquisition in early childhood (Curtiss 1977).
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 83
Genie:
Evidence for the Critical Period Hypothesis
The tragic case of Genie bears directly on the critical period
hypothesis. Genie was discovered in 1970, at the age of thirteen,
having been brought up in conditions of inhuman neglect and
extreme isolation. She was severely disturbed and underdeveloped,
and had been unable to learn language. In the course of her treatment
and rehabilitation, great efforts were made to teach her to speak. She
had received next to no linguistic stimulation between the ages of two
and puberty, so the evidence of her language-learning ability would
bear directly on the Lenneberg hypothesis.
Analysis of the way Genie developed her linguistic skills showed
several abnormalities, such as a marked gap between production and
comprehension, variability in using rules, stereotyped speech, gaps in
the acquisition of syntactic skills, and a generally retarded rate of
development. After various psycholinguistic tests, it was concluded
that Genie was using her right hemisphere for language (as well as for
several other activities), and that this might have been the result of
her beginning the task of language learning after the critical period of
left-hemisphere development. The case was thus thought to support
Lennebergs hypothesis, but only in a weak form. Genie was evidently
able to acquire some language from exposure after puberty (she made
great progress in vocabulary, for example, and continued to make
gains in morphology and syntax), but she did not do so in a normal
way. (After S. Curtiss 1977, in Crystal 1997b.)
Lenneberg (1967) speculated that the critical period applies to SLA as
well as to first language acquisition, and that this accounts for why almost
all L2 speakers have a foreign accent if they do not begin learning the
language before the cut-off age. Seliger (1978) and Long (1990) argue
instead that there are multiple periods which place constraints on differ-
ent aspects of language: e.g. different periods relate to the acquisition of
phonology versus the acquisition of syntax. They also suggest that these
periods do not impose absolute cut-off points; it is just that L2 acquisition
will more likely be complete if begun in childhood than if it does not start
until a later age. This weaker claim seems warranted since some older
learners can achieve native-like proficiency, although they definitely con-
stitute a minority of second language learners.
While most would agree that younger learners achieve ultimately high-
er levels of L2 proficiency, evidence is just as convincing that adolescents
and adults learn faster in initial stages. While brain plasticity is listed as
a younger learner advantage in 4.3, older learners are advantaged by
greater learning capacity, including better memory for vocabulary.
Greater analytic ability might also be an advantage for older learners, at
least in the short run, since they are able to understand and apply explic-
it grammatical rules. On the other hand, Newport (1990) suggests that
less is more in this respect: one reason younger learners develop more
native-like grammatical intuitions is that they are in a non-analytic pro-
cessing mode. This calls for another qualification: younger learners are
probably more successful in informal and naturalistic L2 learning con-
texts, and older learners in formal instructional settings.
Other advantages that younger learners may have are being less inhib-
ited than older learners, and having weaker feelings of identity with peo-
ple (other than close family or caregivers) who speak the same native lan-
guage. Children are also more likely to receive simplified language input
from others, which might facilitate their learning (a factor that will be
discussed in Chapter 5). Other advantages that older learners may have
include higher levels of pragmatic skills and knowledge of L1, which may
transfer positively to L2 use; more real-world knowledge enables older
learners to perform tasks of much greater complexity, even when their
linguistic resources are still limited.
Sex
Most research on the relation of learner sex and SLA has been concerned
with cognitive style or learning strategies, or to issues of what variety of
L2 is being acquired or opportunities for input and interaction (social fac-
tors to be discussed in Chapter 5). There is widespread belief in many west-
ern cultures that females tend to be better L2 learners than males, but this
belief is probably primarily a social construct, based on outcomes which
reflect cultural and sociopsychological constraints and influences.
There do appear to be some sex differences in language acquisition and
processing, but the research evidence is mixed. For example, women out-
perform men in some tests of verbal fluency (such as finding words that
begin with a certain letter), and womens brains may be less asymmetri-
cally organized than mens for speech (Kimura 1992). Of particular poten-
tial relevance to SLA are findings in relation to mental representations in
the lexicon versus the grammar: females seem to be better at memorizing
complex forms, while males appear to be better at computing composi-
tional rules (e.g. Halpern 2000). Other differences may be related to hor-
monal variables: higher androgen level correlates with better automa-
tized skills, and high estrogen with better semantic/interpretive skills
(Mack 1992). Kimura (1992) reports that higher levels of articulatory and
motor ability have been associated in women with higher levels of estro-
gen during the menstrual cycle.
Aptitude
The assumption that there is a talent which is specific to language learn-
ing has been widely held for many years. The following four components
84 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
were proposed by Carroll (1965) as underlying this talent, and they con-
stitute the bases for most aptitude tests:

Phonemic coding ability

Inductive language learning ability

Grammatical sensitivity

Associative memory capacity

Phonemic coding ability is the capacity to process auditory input into
segments which can be stored and retrieved. It is particularly important
at very early stages of learning when this ability is concerned with the
extent to which the input which impinges on the learner can become
input that is worth processing, as opposed to input which may simply be
an auditory blur or alternatively only partially processed (Skehan
1998:203). In other words, if the hearer cannot analyze the incoming
stream of speech into phonemes in order to recognize morphemes, input
may not result in intake.
Inductive language learning ability and grammatical sensitivity are
both concerned with central processing. They account for further pro-
cessing of the segmented auditory input by the brain to infer structure,
identify patterns, make generalizations, recognize the grammatical func-
tion of elements, and formulate rules. It is in central processing that
restructuring occurs.
Associative memory capacity is importantly concerned with how lin-
guistic items are stored, and with how they are recalled and used in out-
put. Associative memory capacity determines appropriate selection from
among the L2 elements that are stored, and ultimately determines speak-
er fluency.
The concept of language-learning aptitude is essentially a hypothesis
that possessing various degrees of these abilities predicts correlated
degrees of success in L2 acquisition. Skehan (1998) reviews research in this
area which largely supports this assumption, although he concludes that
individual ability may vary by factor: e.g. a learner who has a high level of
grammatical sensitivity may have a poor associative memory or vice versa.
Talent in all factors is not a requirement for success in L2 learning. Some
good learners achieve success because of their linguistic-analytic abilities,
and some because of their memory aptitude. Skehan further concludes
that language-learning aptitude is not completely distinct from general
cognitive abilities, as represented by intelligence tests, but it is far from
the same thing (1998:209).
The findings that aptitude is an important predictor of differential suc-
cess in L2 learning holds both for naturalistic contexts and for formal
classroom instruction. It is not completely deterministic, however, and is
but one of several factors which may influence ultimate L2 proficiency.
Motivation
Another factor which is frequently cited to explain why some L2 learners are
more successful than others is individual motivation. Motivation largely
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 85
determines the level of effort which learners expend at various stages in
their L2 development, often a key to ultimate level of proficiency.
Motivation is variously defined, but it is usually conceived as a con-
struct which includes at least the following components (see Oxford and
Ehrman 1993; Drnyei 2001):

Significant goal or need

Desire to attain the goal

Perception that learning L2 is relevant to fulfilling the goal or

meeting the need

Belief in the likely success or failure of learning L2

Value of potential outcomes/rewards

The most widely recognized types of motivation are integrative and
instrumental. Integrative motivation is based on interest in learning L2
because of a desire to learn about or associate with the people who use it
(e.g. for romantic reasons), or because of an intention to participate or
integrate in the L2-using speech community; in any case, emotional or
affective factors are dominant. Instrumental motivation involves percep-
tion of purely practical value in learning the L2, such as increasing occu-
pational or business opportunities, enhancing prestige and power, access-
ing scientific and technical information, or just passing a course in
school. Neither of these orientations has an inherent advantage over the
other in terms of L2 achievement. The relative effect of one or the other is
dependent on complex personal and social factors: e.g. L2 learning by a
member of the dominant group in a society may benefit more from inte-
grative motivation, and L2 learning by a subordinate group member may
be more influenced by instrumental motivation. Other reported motiva-
tions include altruistic reasons, general communicative needs, desire to
travel, and intellectual curiosity (Skehan 1989; Oxford and Ehrman 1993).
Most of the research on this topic has been conducted using data col-
lected with questionnaires that ask individuals to report on their reasons
for learning another language. The reliability of such information has
been questioned, but the consistently high correlation between reported
strength of motivation and level of L2 achievement make it seem quite
likely that the connection is indeed significant. Whether any causeeffect
relationship is a chicken-and-egg matter is more uncertain. Does high
motivation cause high L2 achievement, or is the satisfaction which results
from successful L2 learning responsible for increasing motivation? In the
process of language learning (which usually requires several years), there
is probably a reciprocal effect.
More recent developments in SLA theory (Schumann 1997, 2001) sug-
gest that motivation for second language learning, along with L2 repre-
sentation and processing, is controlled by neurological mechanisms.
Specific areas within our brain conduct a stimulus appraisal, which
assesses the motivational relevance of events and other stimuli and deter-
mines how we respond, including what our attitudes and ultimately
degree of effort will be.
86 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
The potential power of motivation can be seen in rare cases where even
older learners may overcome the odds of not acquiring native-like pro-
nunciation if sounding native is perceived to be important enough.
Cognitive style
Cognitive style refers to individuals preferred way of processing: i.e. of
perceiving, conceptualizing, organizing, and recalling information.
Unlike factors of age, aptitude, and motivation, its role in explaining why
some L2 learners are more successful than others has not been well estab-
lished, but extravagant claims have sometimes been made which need to
be viewed with skepticism and caution. We do know that, whatever the
relation of cognitive style to success, it involves a complex (and as yet poor-
ly understood) interaction with specific L2 social and learning contexts.
Cognitive style is also closely related to and interacts with personality fac-
tors and learning strategies, which will be discussed below.
Categories of cognitive style are commonly identified as pairs of traits on
opposite ends of a continuum; individual learners are rarely thought to be
at one extreme or the other, but are located somewhere along the contin-
uum between the poles. Researchers typically correlate individuals ratings
on different dimensions of cognitive style with various measures of L2 pro-
ficiency. Some of the traits which have been explored are listed in 4.4.
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 87
4.4 Cognitive styles
Field-dependent Field-independent
Global Particular
Holistic Analytic
Deductive Inductive
Focus on meaning Focus on form
The field-dependent/field-independent (FD/FI) dimension is the one
most frequently referred to in SLA-related research (reviewed in Chapelle
and Green 1992). This distinction was originally introduced by Witkin et al.
(1954) in a study of how individual perceptual differences relate to general
cognitive processes, and was only later applied to language learning. A com-
monly used criterion for FD/FI is performance on an embedded figures test,
which requires subjects to find a simple shape within a more complex
design. Individuals who have difficulty discerning a figure apart from the
ground (or field) within which it is embedded are judged to be relatively FD;
individuals who have no difficulty with this test are judged relatively FI.
The cognitive tasks are to disassemble or restructure visual stimuli and to
rely on internal versus external referents. As this dimension has been
applied to learning, individuals who are FD are also considered more glob-
al and holistic in processing new information; individuals who are FI are
considered more particularistic and analytic. FD learners are thought to
achieve more success in L2 acquisition via highly contextualized interactive
communicative experiences because that fits better with their holistic
cognitive style, and FI learners to profit more from decontextualized ana-
lytic approaches and formal instruction. In terms of an Information
Processing model of learning, FI learners may have better attentional capac-
ities (Skehan 1998). This distinction has been metaphorically extended by
some investigators to cultural differences between whole national or ethnic
populations, with highly questionable results.
Another partially related dimension is preference for deductive or
inductive processing. Deductive (or top-down) processing begins with a
prediction or rule and then applies it to interpret particular instances of
input. Inductive (or bottom-up) processing begins with examining
input to discover some pattern and then formulates a generalization or
rule that accounts for it and that may then in turn be applied deductive-
ly. An inductive cognitive style is related to the linguistic-analytic ability
discussed above as one component of language aptitude, which does
appear to contribute to success in L2 learning in either naturalistic or
instructed circumstances.
Some evidence can also be found for differential success in relation to
relative focus on meaning versus focus on form. In a study of exceptional-
ly talented L2 learners, for instance, Novoa, Fein, and Obler (1988) found
that they possess a cognitive style whereby subjects are able to focus on
form perhaps better than meaning (but certainly in conjunction with
meaning) (Obler and Hannigan 1996:512-13).
Another difference in cognitive style may be related to age. Ellen
Bialystok (1997) suggests that L2 learners have two options when adapting
their existing categories of linguistic structure to adequately represent the
structure of the new language. One option is extending the existing cate-
gories to include new instances from L2: in phonological structure, an L2
sound which is actually slightly different from a similar sound in L1 may be
identified as the same as the L1 sound and pronounced with that value,
resulting in a foreign accent. The second option is creating new categories:
in phonological structure, this would mean recognizing the slightly differ-
ent L2 sound as phonetically different, and learning to keep it distinct from
the similar (and often functionally equivalent) L1 sound. For example, both
English and Spanish have a sound that we can broadly represent as [t], but
the English [t] is usually pronounced with the tongue touching the bony
ridge that is behind the teeth (the alveolar ridge), while the Spanish [t] is
usually pronounced with the tongue further forward, touching the back of
the teeth. If English L1 learners of Spanish L2 fail to perceive the difference
and produce these sounds as the same, this will contribute to an English
accent in their Spanish. If they recognize the difference and learn to devel-
op motor control of the tongue to produce the Spanish [t] differently, they
will sound more like a native speaker of that language. (The reverse, of
course, contributes to a Spanish accent in L2 learners English.)
Bialystok claims that adults tend to extend existing categories (i.e. not
notice small differences), while children notice differences and tend to
create new categories accordingly. She suggests that this difference in cog-
nitive style, rather than a critical or sensitive period, may account for why
many people consider children to be superior in L2 learning. Since the
88 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
agestyle relationship is a tendency rather than absolute, children might
pronounce L2 with a foreign accent (but be less likely to) and adults might
achieve native-like pronunciation (but are less likely to do so). However, as
we will see in the next chapter, children might intentionally choose to
adopt nonnative pronunciation in their L2 because of social factors.
Another dimension sometimes considered as a matter of cognitive style
is sensory preference for processing input: visual, auditory, kinesthetic
(movement-oriented), or tactile (touch-oriented). Apparently no one
means of processing has an inherent advantage over others, but L2 learn-
ers reportedly feel more comfortable when teachers instructional strate-
gies are congruent with their sensory preference. This dimension may
also be age-related, with younger learners showing more preference for
kinesthetic and tactile modalities (cited in Reid 1987).
Criticisms of research on cognitive style and the implications which
are drawn for L2 instruction have been primarily directed at the field-
dependent/field-independent (FD/FI) distinction and related continua.
One criticism is that the embedded figure test used to assess traits is not
applicable to language acquisition and therefore is not relevant. Another
concerns analytic procedures which often correlate a single cognitive
trait and a single language proficiency measure without taking other
influencing factors and complexities of performance into account. Still
other criticisms concern lack of consideration given to differences in cul-
tural background, prior educational experiences, possibilities of change
over time, and stages of language learning. While cognitive style is inter-
esting, and is ultimately likely to prove significant in some way in
explaining differential L2 learning outcomes, we must be cautious in
drawing conclusions at the present time.
Personality
Personality factors are sometimes added to cognitive style in characteriz-
ing more general learning style. Speculation and research in SLA has
included the following factors, also often characterized as endpoints on
continua, as shown in 4.5. As with cognitive styles, most of us are
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 89
4.5 Personality traits
Anxious Self-confident
Risk-avoiding Risk-taking
Shy Adventuresome
Introverted Extroverted
Inner-directed Other-directed
Reflective Impulsive
Imaginative Uninquisitive
Creative Uncreative
Empathetic Insensitive to others
Tolerant of ambiguity Closure-oriented
somewhere in between the extremes. Boldface print in this figure indi-
cates positive correlation with success in L2 learning.
Research in this area is almost always correlational: individuals are
assessed for some personality trait (usually using questionnaires and
scales), and the strength of the relationship between that score and the
result of an L2 language proficiency measure is calculated. Evidence in
some cases is very limited or contradictory.
Anxiety has received the most attention in SLA research, along with
lack of anxiety as an important component of self-confidence (see Horwitz
2001 for a review). Anxiety correlates negatively with measures of L2 pro-
ficiency including grades awarded in foreign language classes, meaning
that higher anxiety tends to go with lower levels of success in L2 learning.
In addition to self-confidence, lower anxiety may be manifested by more
risk-taking or more adventuresome behaviors.
We need to keep some complex issues in mind when we read about or
interpret research on anxiety:
(1) The direction of cause and effect is uncertain. Lower anxiety levels
might very well facilitate language learning; conversely, however,
more successful language learners might feel less anxious in
situations of L2 learning and use, and thus be more self-confident.
(2) Instructional context or task influences anxiety level and reporting.
For example, foreign language classes or tests which require oral
performance normally generate more anxiety than do those in which
production is in writing. Small-group performance generates less
anxiety than whole-class activity.
(3) Although personality factors are defined as individual traits,
systematic cultural differences are found between groups of learners.
For example, oral performance in English classes generates relatively
more anxiety for Korean students (Truitt 1995) than for Turkish
students (Kunt 1997). This may be because of cultural differences in
concepts of face (i.e. projecting a positive self-image; see Liu 2001), or
because of cultural differences in classroom practices and experiences.
(4) Low anxiety and high self-confidence increase student motivation to
learn, and make it more likely that they will use the L2 outside of the
classroom setting. It is therefore not clear whether more successful
learning is directly due to lower anxiety, or to a higher level of
motivation and more social interaction.
On a partially related personality dimension, introverts generally do
better in school and extroverts talk more. Some SLA researchers have
hypothesized that extroverts would be more successful language learn-
ers, but there is no clear support for the advantage of either trait.
Nearly synonymous pairs of terms found in the research literature are
inner-directed/other-directed and reflective/impulsive. Most person-
ality studies have involved adult subjects, but when I explored this
dimension with children from several countries, I found no significant
correlation between either trait and academic achievement measures of
90 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
English (Saville-Troike 1984). I did find that among the Japanese L1 girls
in my study, higher achievers on the academic language measures tend-
ed to be less passive, less compliant, and less dependent in coping with
the challenges of learning English. However, these trends did not hold
true for other L1 groups (Arabic, Hebrew, Icelandic, Korean, Polish, and
Spanish), nor for Japanese boys.
Little study has been carried out on other personality factors in relation
to differences in L2 outcomes, but there is some evidence that being imag-
inative or creative, empathetic, and tolerant of ambiguity is advantageous.
Learning strategies
Differential L2 outcomes may also be affected by individuals learning
strategies: i.e. the behaviors and techniques they adopt in their efforts to
learn a second language. Selection from among possible strategies is often
a conscious choice on the part of learners, but it is strongly influenced by
the nature of their motivation, cognitive style, and personality, as well as
by specific contexts of use and opportunities for learning. The other vari-
ables we considered earlier in this section age, sex, and aptitude also
play a role in strategy selection. Many learning strategies are culturally
based: individuals learn how to learn as part of their socialization experi-
ences, and strategies they acquire in relation to other domains are com-
monly transferred to language learning, which may take place under very
different circumstances, sometimes within a foreign educational system.
Not all strategies are equal: some are inherently more effective than
others, and some more appropriate in particular contexts of learning or
for individuals with differing aptitudes and learning styles. One goal in
SLA research has been to identify which strategies are used by relatively
good language learners, with the hope that such strategies can be taught
or otherwise applied to enhance learning.
A typology of language-learning strategies which is widely used in SLA
was formulated by OMalley and Chamot (Chamot 1987):

Metacognitive: e.g. previewing a concept or principle in anticipation

of a learning activity; deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects
of input; rehearsing linguistic components which will be required for
an upcoming language task; self-monitoring of progress and
knowledge states.

Cognitive: e.g. repeating after a language model; translating from L1;

remembering a new word in L2 by relating it to one that sounds the
same in L1, or by creating vivid images; guessing meanings of new
material through inferencing.

Social/affective: e.g. seeking opportunities to interact with native

speakers; working cooperatively with peers to obtain feedback or pool
information; asking questions to obtain clarification; requesting
repetition, explanation, or examples.
Metacognitive strategies are those which attempt to regulate language
learning by planning and monitoring; cognitive strategies make use of
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 91
direct analysis or synthesis of linguistic material; social/affective strate-
gies involve interaction with others.
Self-reporting is a common means for collecting information on what
strategies learners select, usually with interviews and questionnaires
about what they have done or usually do (retrospective reports), or with
think-aloud activities which have learners talk about what they are
doing while engaged in an L2 learning task (concurrent reports). Self-
reports are also collected by asking learners to keep journals or diaries
and to record what they are conscious of doing in their effort to learn.
Because the strategies used by adults are usually not visible, observation
has limited value, but it is often used to collect information on children.
Some researchers (e.g. Kleifgen 1986) have also used play-back tech-
niques with children, where they videotape learners working at L2 tasks
and then interview them in their L1 about what strategies they were
using along with replaying the videotape for them. Recording private
speech with unobtrusive wireless microphones is also a profitable data-
collection procedure with children who naturally talk to themselves
while working at cognitively demanding tasks (e.g. Saville-Troike 1988).
Some of my subjects as young as three years in age softly repeated the
new language forms after others, drilled themselves with self-created
pattern practices, translated L2 forms to L1, rehearsed what they were
going to say before speaking, and played games that were based on
sounds of the new language. (Examples from this research are included
in the next chapter.)
Age can have an influence on learning strategies; for example, children
tend to use more repetition whereas adults use more synthesis. Similarly
the sex of learners can be significant, as females tend to use relatively
more social/affective strategies than males, as well as more metacognitive
strategies in listening tasks. A range of findings show good learners to
have the following major traits (Ellis 1994:546):

Concern for language form (but also attention to meaning)

Concern for communication

Active task approach

Awareness of the learning process

Capacity to use strategies flexibly in accordance with task requirements

As with other correlational research, it is difficult to establish causali-
ty, or even directionality: for example, good learners may approach
language tasks more actively because they are more proficient (not
more proficient because they are more active), or because they are more
self-confident.
In spite of the extensive research documenting good learner traits, the
extent to which strategic behavior can be initiated or changed with train-
ing is still not known. One problem in determining this, as noted above, is
whether strategies are the cause or the result of L2 learning success.
Another problem is the complex of other variables which must be taken
into account. Inclusion of strategy training for SLA is generally viewed pos-
itively in any case, with the reasonable expectation that heightened
92 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
awareness of strategic possibilities will beneficially inform L2 learners and
may empower them to take control of their own learning (e.g. Jones 1998;
Oxford 1992). A danger is that a researcher or instructor may have precon-
ceived ideas as to what works, and disrupt a students successful strategy
by imposing or encouraging a different one.
The possible gains/costs of multilingualism in relation to other cognitive
faculties or processes has been a matter of speculation and study for many
years. The strength of positive versus negative perceptions of the relation-
ship has shifted over time, and this shift has been attributable as much to
philosophical and political factors as to scientific findings.
Philosophically, the notion that multilingualism has positive effects on
cognitive development was traditionally related to the belief that foreign
language study (especially Greek and Latin) is good for training the
mind; there is still an assumption in many parts of the world that mul-
tilingualism is an essential characteristic of educated and cultured
members of society.
The opposite notion, that multilingualism has a negative impact on
general intelligence, perhaps reached its zenith in US-based research on
immigrants during the 1930s, motivated by increasingly xenophobic iso-
lationist political sentiments at that time, and based on the low scores of
immigrants who spoke languages other than English natively on the stan-
dardized tests of intelligence which then were coming into widespread
use. (The point was not made until some years later that these tests were
being administered in a language which the subjects did not speak flu-
ently or understand well, and that the individuals were not being tested
in their native languages.)
Research since the 1960s has largely supported claims that multilin-
gualism has positive effects on intellectual functions, based on measures
of conceptual development, creativity, metalinguistic awareness, seman-
tic development, and analytic skills (Diaz 1985:18). The following list is a
summary of positive findings (Diaz and Klingler 1991:184):

Bilingual children show consistent advantages in tasks of both verbal

and nonverbal abilities.

Bilingual children show advanced metalinguistic abilities, especially

manifested in their control of language processing.

Cognitive and metalinguistic advantages appear in bilingual

situations that involve systematic uses of the two languages, such as
simultaneous acquisition settings or bilingual education.

The cognitive effects of bilingualism appear relatively early in the

process of becoming bilingual and do not require high levels of
bilingual proficiency nor the achievement of balanced bilingualism.

Bilingual children have advantages in the use of language for verbal

mediation, as shown by their higher frequency of private-speech
utterances and their larger number of private-speech functions.
The effects of multilingualism
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 93
Relatively recent negative claims regarding multilingualism have pri-
marily addressed capacity limitations for language acquisition and main-
tenance, with evidence that simultaneous bilingualism in childhood may
result in a narrower range of lexical development in either language, and
that intensive and continued use of L2 may reduce accessibility of L1.
Common and stable multilingualism among populations in many parts of
the world, however, suggests that whatever limitations there may be are
not biological in nature. Some of the social factors influencing interac-
tion between multilingualism and other aspects of cognitive development
and academic performance are discussed in Chapter 5.
Most interesting here is that, whether evidence is positive or negative
(and it is generally positive), there are differences in the way multilinguals
perform cognitive tasks. A person who knows more than one language can
perceive and experience the world through more than one lens: Both
negative and positive effects are signs that L2 users think differently from
monolinguals . . . Multicompetence is a different state of mind (Cook
1992:565). Accounting for the differences remains one of the most intrigu-
ing challenges for psychological approaches to SLA.
94 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Chapter summary
Psychological perspectives on what is acquired in SLA concentrate on
additions or changes that occur in neurological makeup, and on how
the multilingual brain is organized. We have seen that the physical
representation of the second language in the brain is not very different
from the first, but there are differences in brain organization which
relate to how proficient people are in L2, and to how they learned it. In
contrast to Chomskys proposal that there is a species-specific Language
Acquisition Device (LAD), the psychologists surveyed in this chapter
generally view how second languages are learned as involving the same
processes as the acquisition of other areas of complex knowledge and
skills: i.e. learning is learning. Some consider the processes to be
largely a matter of abstracting rules or principles, and some to be more
a physical neurological development of associative networks and
connections. The question of why some learners are more successful
than others leads to the examination of differences in the learners
themselves. We find that language-learning outcomes are influenced
by age, aptitude, and motivation. Other factors in individuals learning
styles and strategies correlate with degree of success in SLA, but we can
be much less sure of claims for causeeffect relationships.
Humans are inherently social creatures, and it is difficult to assess
individual cognitive factors in language learning apart from the
influence of the learners total social context, to which we turn next.
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 95
Activities
Questions for self-study
1. Match the following areas of SLA theory and research to their descriptions:
1. learning processes a. considers aptitude in learning, how
learning is linked to age and sex, and
addresses why some second language
learners are more successful than others
2. neurolinguistics b. studies the stages and sequences of
language acquisition, addressing how
acquisition happens
3. learner differences c. studies how the location and
organization of language might differ in
the heads of monolingual versus
multilingual speakers, addressing what is
added and changed in peoples brains
when they learn another language
2. Brocas area is responsible for the ability to ___________, whereas
Wernickes area is responsible for processing ___________.
3. Match the following terms to the situation that illustrates each:
1. coordinate bilingualism a. Maria speaks French and English
fluently, and often speaks
Frenglish, a mixture of French and
English, with her other bilingual
friends. She produces and
understands this mixture of
languages easily.
2. subordinate bilingualism b. Ursula speaks French and German
fluently, but cannot switch readily
between the two. She must speak
all German with you, or all French,
even if you both know both
languages.
3. compound bilingualism c. Shane speaks English natively and
German as an L2. Each time he
learns something new in German,
he translates it into English to
memorize the literal translation and
compare it to the English meaning
and structure.
4. Input is considered whatever sample of L2 that learners are exposed to.
However, according to the Information Processing framework, what must
learners do to make this input available for processing? What is the term
for this kind of input?
5. Swain contends that ___________ is necessary for successful L2 learning
because it helps develop automaticity through practice and because it
helps learners notice gaps in their own knowledge.
96 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
6. The ___________ approach to learning focuses on the increasing strength
of associations between stimuli and response, considering learning a
change in the strength of these associations.
7. ___________ motivation involves emotional or affective reasons for
learning an L2, such as an intention to participate or integrate in the L2
speech community. ___________ motivation involves a purely practical
reason for learning, such as better job opportunities or passing required
courses in school.
Active learning
1. If you have learned any second languages, at what age did you begin
learning them? Are you more successful now in languages that you were
exposed to earlier? Based on your personal experience, what do you
think of the Critical Period Hypothesis? Do you know others whose
experiences would support or refute it?
2. Which models relating to L2 learning processes do you feel you can use
to explain your own learning process in your L2(s)? Does one seem
more plausible than the others? Explain why or why not.
3. Integrative and instrumental motivation can both play a role in the desire
to learn an L2. How have these two kinds of motivation influenced your
L2 learning? If you have learned more than one L2, is it different
depending on the L2 in question? If you know other L2 learners, ask them
about what kinds of factors motivated them to learn, and compare them
to your own.
4. Some studies define success in L2 acquisition per the initial rate of
learning, some define it per the ultimate achievement, whereas others
define it based upon how closely a learner comes to native-like
pronunciation, or grammaticality judgments similar to a native speakers.
How do you define success in L2 acquisition in general as compared to
how you define it for yourself? Is your definition of success in L2 learning
the same as the standards by which you are judged, or do the members
of your L2 speech community (teachers, classmates, colleagues, friends,
etc.) have different definitions of success in L2 learning than you do?
5. It is postulated that younger learners are probably more successful in
informal and naturalistic learning contexts, and older learners are more
successful in formal instructional settings. Do you agree or disagree? Use
your own experience combined with theoretical support from this chapter
to make your argument.
Further reading
Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language
Acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
Bialystok and Hakuta treat the Critical Period Hypothesis and different models of how language is
processed by the brain in Chapters 3 and 4.
Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999). Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
A compilation of articles from various scholars, this book offers competing views on the Critical Period
Hypothesis, allowing readers to hear many sides of the argument before judging for themselves.
Obler, L. K. & Gjerlow, K. (1999). Language and the Brain. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
As foundational knowledge, Chapter 1 offers a useful overview of the history and
present-day state of neurolinguistics and Chapter 2 is an introduction to the brain
and its language-specific areas. More related to SLA, Chapter 10 focuses on
bilingualism, whereas Chapter 11 explores the relationship between linguistic
theory and neurolinguistics.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company.
For clear discussion of various aspects of language acquisition, learning and
processing, see Chapters 13, 7, 10, and 13.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
This volume contains discussion of psycholinguistics and learner differences with
respect to language learning, with emphasis on cognition rather than on linguistics
or sociolinguistics.
The psychology of Second Language Acquisition 97
CHAPTER
Social contexts of
Second Language
Acquisition
5
When we talk about what is being acquired in SLA, it is not
enough just to talk about the language itself. We must also
include the social and cultural knowledge embedded in the
language being learned, that is required for appropriate
language use. What must L2 learners know and be able to
do in order to communicate effectively? Part of this
knowledge involves different ways of categorizing objects
and events and expressing experiences. But an important
part involves learners understanding their own and others
roles as members of groups or communities with
sociopolitical as well as linguistic bounds. What difference
does group membership and identity make in regard to
what is learned, how it is acquired, and why some learners
are more successful than others? In this chapter, we focus
attention on two levels of context that affect language
learning: the microsocial and the macrosocial: The
microsocial focus deals with the potential effects of different
immediately surrounding circumstances, while the
macrosocial focus relates SLA to broader cultural, political,
and educational environments.
CHAPTER PREVIEW
Communicative
competence
Language
community
Foreigner talk
Direct correction
Indirect correction
Interaction
Hypothesis
Symbolic
mediation
Interpersonal
interaction
Zone of Proximal
Development
(ZPD)
Scaffolding
Intrapersonal
interaction
Acculturation
Additive
bilingualism
Subtractive
bilingualism
KEY TERMS
From a social perspective, the notion of linguistic competence which was
introduced in Chapter 1 is inadequate to account for what is being
acquired in any language that is going to be used for communicative pur-
poses. Dell Hymes (1966), in establishing the framework for a field he
called the Ethnography of Communication, made a critical observation
that speakers who can produce any and all of the grammatical sentences
of a language (which satisfies Chomskys 1965 definition of competence)
would be institutionalized if they indiscriminately went about trying to
do so. The concept of communicative competence became a basic tenet in
the then-emerging field of sociolinguistics, and was soon adopted as well
by many specialists in the field of SLA and language teaching. This term
can be defined simply as what a speaker needs to know to communicate
appropriately within a particular language community (Saville-Troike
2003). It involves knowing not only the vocabulary, phonology, grammar,
and other aspects of linguistic structure (although that is a critical com-
ponent of knowledge) but also when to speak (or not), what to say to
whom, and how to say it appropriately in any given situation. Further, it
involves the social and cultural knowledge speakers are presumed to have
which enables them to use and interpret linguistic forms.
The term language community refers to a group of people who share
knowledge of a common language to at least some extent. Multilingual indi-
viduals are often members of more than one language community gener-
ally to different degrees, and the one or ones they orient themselves to at
any given moment is reflected not only in which segment of their linguis-
tic knowledge they select, but which interaction skills they use, and which
features of their cultural knowledge they activate. As we have already seen,
the competence of nonnative speakers of a language may differ significant-
ly from the competence of native speakers, even as they may participate in
the same or overlapping language communities. This may include struc-
tural differences in the linguistic system, different rules for usage in writ-
ing or conversation, and even somewhat divergent meanings for the same
lexical forms. Further, a multilingual speakers total communicative com-
petence differs from that of a monolingual in including knowledge of rules
for the appropriate choice of language and for switching between lan-
guages, given a particular social context and communicative purpose.
Differences between monolingual and multilingual communicative
competence are due in part to the different social functions of first and
second language learning, and to the differences between learning lan-
guage and learning culture. L1 learning for children is an integral part of
their socialization into their native language community: a childs native
language is normally part of his or her native culture, and thus part of the
body of knowledge, attitudes, and skills which are transmitted from one
generation to the next as well as a primary medium through which other
aspects of culture are transmitted and through which social relations are
maintained. L2 learning may be part of second culture learning and
Communicative competence
100 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
adaptation, but the relationship of SLA to social and cultural learning
differs greatly with circumstances.
In discussing linguistic and psychological perspectives on SLA, I have for
the most part used second language learning in the inclusive sense of
adding another language to ones first (or native) language, but it is impor-
tant at this point to return to the distinction among second language (SL)
learning, foreign language (FL) learning, and auxiliary language (AL)
learning which was mentioned in Chapter 2. This is relevant to differential
considerations not only of what is being learned in the process of SLA from
social perspectives, but of how it is being learned, and of why some learners
are more successful than others.
What we are here distinguishing as an SL is generally learned and used
within the context of a language community which dominantly includes
members who speak it natively; it is needed to participate in that com-
munity socially, academically, politically, and economically. Examples of
SL learners would include Spanish speakers in the USA learning English,
Turkish speakers in Germany learning German, or Koreans in China learn-
ing Chinese. Communicative competence in an SL thus often requires con-
siderable knowledge of the larger communitys culture and social struc-
ture, although learners may be selective in deciding which elements they
want to adopt as part of their own identity. In contrast, students learning
an FL usually do so within the context of their own native culture, often
have little opportunity to interact with members of the language com-
munity who speak the FL natively (unless they study abroad), and typical-
ly have little opportunity (or need) to participate fully in the FL society
indeed, too often the sole reason for studying the language is that it is
required for graduation. An AL is learned in a context where it will func-
tion for political or technological purposes, and when its use will gener-
ally be limited to these social domains; to the extent an AL is required at
all for face-to-face interaction, it is likely to be used in linguistically
diverse settings which require participants to make use of a common lan-
guage code for a restricted range of social functions. Examples might
include use of English by a Thai speaker for international trade, an Igbo
speaker in Nigeria for national-level political meetings, or a Chinese
speaker for pan-Asian economic conferences.
Within the definition of communicative competence, then, the content
of what a speaker needs to know, as well as judgments of relative success
in attaining that knowledge, depend on the social context within which
he or she learns and is using the language.
Within a microsocial focus, our first topic will be L2 variation, which has
received extensive attention since the 1970s from SLA researchers con-
cerned primarily with sociolinguistics. We explore how contextual dimen-
sions relate to variation in learner language and consider why differing
varieties of an L2 may be chosen as targets of SLA even within groups who
Microsocial factors
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 101
are supposedly learning the same language. Our second microsocial
topic is input and interaction, where we consider how native speakers often
modify their language in communicating with L2 learners, how social and
cultural factors may affect the quantity and quality of input, and how cul-
tural knowledge and prior experience are involved in processing and inter-
preting input. As our third topic, we examine how Vygotskys Sociocultural
Theory views interaction as the basic genesis of language itself and explore
how learners negotiate meaning and fulfill pragmatic objectives even
while their linguistic resources are still exceedingly limited.
Variation in learner language
One defining characteristic of L2 learner language is that it is highly
variable. Some of the variability is due to changes that occur in what
learners know and can produce as they progressively achieve higher levels
of L2 proficiency. However, there is also considerable variation in learners
L2 production at every stage along the way that we can attribute to their
social context.
One of the most important contributions of sociolinguistics (beginning
with Labov 1965) has been the demonstration that much of what earlier
linguists had considered unsystematic irregularity in language produc-
tion can be seen to follow regular and predictable patterns, when treated
as variable features. These are multiple linguistic forms which are sys-
tematically or predictably used by different speakers of a language, or by
the same speakers at different times, with the same (or very similar)
meaning or function. They occur at every linguistic level: vocabulary,
phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse; they include both standard
(correct) and nonstandard options; and they are characteristic of all nat-
ural language production, whether L1 or L2. For example, native speakers
of English may say: I ate dinner or I ate supper (variable vocabulary); She was
coming or She was comin (variable phonology); She has sewed or She has sewn
(variable morphology); and That is a big book or That a big book (variable syn-
tax); and they may respond to an introduction with Hi or I am very pleased
to meet you (variable discourse).
Which variable feature occurs in the production of any one speaker
(native or language learner) depends largely on the communicative con-
texts in which it has been learned and is used. Some relevant contextual
dimensions are:

Linguistic contexts: elements of language form and function associated

with the variable element. In the examples given above, for instance,
the phonological variable [] in coming is more likely to be used before a
word which begins with a back consonant or before a pause, and the
variable [n] in comin is more likely before a front consonant. The part of
speech can also be a relevant linguistic context, with production of []
most frequent in one-syllable nouns such as ring or song, and [n] in the
progressive form of verbs, as in Im workin.

Psychological contexts: factors associated with the amount of attention

which is being given to language form during production, the level of
102 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
automaticity versus control in processing, or the intellectual
demands of a particular task. In learners production, for instance,
the copula of That is a big book may be produced during a formal
second language lesson or in a writing exercise but omitted in
informal conversation even at the same point of L2 development.
Similarly, the variable [] is more likely to be used by L1 or L2
speakers when they are focusing on their pronunciation in a formal
setting than in casual conversation.

Microsocial contexts: features of setting/situation and interaction

which relate to communicative events within which language is being
produced, interpreted, and negotiated. These include level of
formality and participants relationship to one another, and whether
the interaction is public or intimate. Such features interact
importantly with the amount of attention that is paid to language
form, as illustrated above for the probability that the copula or []
versus [n] will be produced, or that the differences among see, saw, and
have seen will be consistently observed.
Macrosocial factors, which will be discussed later, may also influence
linguistic variation. These include features of the larger political setting
within which language learning and use takes place, including the social
position and role of users (e.g. whether immigrant, international student,
visiting dignitary), societal attitudes toward specific languages and multi-
lingualism in general, and institutional organization (e.g. patterns of edu-
cation, employment, and political participation). For example, standard
and prestige L2 forms are more likely to be used by international students
or diplomats while they are functioning within those social roles than by
the same individuals while they are shopping in a market or visiting
tourist sites.
Variation that occurs in learners language as they develop increasing
competence over a period of time is of particular interest from linguistic
and psychological perspectives, as it reflects a developmental continuum.
Variation that occurs in different contexts at a single point in time is of
more interest from a social perspective, as it often corresponds to informal-
formal features associated with linguistic register.
A substantial amount of research on the effect of microsocial contexts
has been based on the framework of Accommodation Theory. Speakers
(usually unconsciously) change their pronunciation and even the gram-
matical complexity of sentences they use to sound more like whomever
they are talking to. This accounts in part for why native speakers tend to
simplify their language when they are talking to an L2 learner who is
not fluent (which we will discuss below), and why L2 learners may
acquire somewhat different varieties of the target language when they
have different friends.
The effect of macrosocial contexts can also be seen when learners
acquire different varieties of the same target language. Given similar
linguistic, psychological, and microsocial contexts, for instance, female
immigrants in the US may hear and use more standard variants than male
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 103
immigrants from the same language and cultural background in part
because females are more likely to find employment in middle- or upper-
class households or in service positions, while males are more likely to
find employment in blue-collar occupations. Workplace stratification
affects both the nature of language input and group identity.
Still more effects of macrosocial contexts can be found in the variable L2
production of learners whose L1 is relatively more or less prestigious in
the wider society, and in the L2 of learners who are acquiring it as an aux-
iliary language for indigenous technical and political functions rather
than as a second language for use with its native speakers. Speakers of a
prestigious L1 may carry more features of L1 pronunciation and lexical
borrowings into a less prestigious L2 than they do when their L1 is less
prestigious. For learners of an auxiliary language, the target language
grammar may not be that of native speakers, but of educated users of the
L2 in their own country (Kachru 1986); learners may not wish to identify
with or fully participate in a language community for which the L2 is
politically dominant. These factors are explored further when we shift to
a macrosocial focus later in this chapter.
104 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Research in social contexts of SLA
In one study, Adamson and Regan (1991) examined the pronunciation
of -ing in Cambodian and Vietnamese immigrants in the Washington,
DC area. Native English-speaking men tend to pronounce -ing as -in,
whereas native women are less likely to do so, perhaps because women
tend to be more status conscious and want to use the more prestigious
form. While the Cambodian and Vietnamese immigrants produced
less -in than native speakers overall, there is still a gender division
with males producing -in more often than females. Adamson and
Regan hypothesize that the Cambodian and Vietnamese immigrant
males are unconsciously attempting to sound more like native-
speaking men.
Frequency of -in according to sex of speaker
Subjects Sex Overall % produced
Native speakers Female 20
Male 65
Total 58
Nonnative speakers Female 15
Male 23
Total 20
Adamson, H. D. and Regan, V. (1991). The acquisition of community
speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second
language: a preliminary study. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13, 122.
Some variation in IL production (called free variation) remains even
after accounting for linguistic, psychological, and social contexts as much
as possible, and it can shed particularly important insights on processes
of development. Indeed, Ellis suggests that free variation constitutes an
essential stage in the acquisition of grammatical structures (1997:19). He
hypothesizes that the nature of variability changes during the process of
L2 development in the following stages:
(1) A single form is used for a variety of functions.
(2) Other forms have been acquired but are initially used interchange-
ably (i.e. in free variation).
(3) The variant forms begin to be used systematically (e.g. depending on
the amount of attention to form or the situational context).
(4) The non-target forms are eliminated. Removal of free variability is
making the IL more efficient.
Summarizing the sociolinguistic perspective, then: (1) what is acquired
in L2 includes variable linguistic structures and knowledge of when to use
each; (2) the process of acquisition includes progress through stages in
which different types of variability are evident; and (3) reasons why some
learners are more successful than others include how well they can per-
ceive and align their own usage in accord with the target system.
Considering all of the variable features which occur in IL development
and use, and all of the contextual dimensions which influence their
occurrence, however, we are still left with the observation made in pre-
vious chapters that the sequence of SLA is remarkably the same under all
conditions.
Input and interaction
Language input to the learner is absolutely necessary for either L1 or L2
learning to take place, but the nature of its role is in dispute. Within the
linguistic approaches discussed in Chapter 3, for instance, followers of
behaviorist learning theories consider input to form the necessary stimuli
and feedback which learners respond to and imitate; followers of
Krashens Monitor Model consider comprehensible input not only neces-
sary but sufficient in itself to account for SLA; proponents of UG consider
exposure to input a necessary trigger for activating internal mechanisms,
but of minimal importance for many aspects of language development
beyond the initial state. Within the psychological approaches discussed in
Chapter 4, those working from an IP framework consider input which is
attended to (i.e. intake) as essential data for all stages of language pro-
cessing; those working from a connectionist framework further consider
the quantity or frequency of input structures to largely determine acqui-
sitional sequencing, though this is partially contradicted by actual fre-
quencies. Within the social approaches surveyed in this chapter, some
researchers also consider input primarily as data for essentially innate
linguistic and/or cognitive processes, but others claim a more important
role for input in determining what features of language are learned, and
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 105
how. Social approaches also consider the nature and role of interaction in
acquisition, and ways in which it is helpful and perhaps necessary for
the development of advanced levels of L2 proficiency. From a social per-
spective, interaction is generally seen as essential in providing learners
with the quantity and quality of external linguistic input which is
required for internal processing, in focusing learner attention on aspects
of their L2 which differ from target language norms or goals, and in pro-
viding collaborative means for learners to build discourse structures and
express meanings which are beyond the current level of their linguistic
competence.
Nature of input modifications
Language addressed by L1 speakers to L2 learners frequently differs in sys-
tematic ways from language addressed to native or very fluent speakers.
In speech, the modified variety is called foreigner talk; it has the charac-
teristics listed in 5.1 (based on Long 1996).
While utterances by native speakers to language learners are usually
grammatical, simplified input may omit some obligatory elements. For
example, JoAnne Kleifgen (1986) recorded the following utterances by a
native English-speaking teacher to L2 children who were engaged in an art
activity:
___ Mommy look at your work? (deletes does)
___You have Indians in Korea? (deletes do)
Would you give us ___ pencil? (deletes a)
See, Sitis made ___ mouth real scary. (deletes the)
Baby sitter take_ care of baby. (deletes -s)
Although this teachers modification of input to L2 learners was for the
most part unconscious, she adroitly adjusted her language to individuals
106 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
5.1 Characteristics of foreigner talk
Simple vocabulary, using high-frequency words and phrases
Long pauses
Slow rate of speech
Careful articulation
Loud volume
Stress on key words
Simplified grammatical structures
Topicalization (topic at the beginning, then a comment about it)
More syntactic regularity
Retention of full forms (e.g. less contraction, fewer pronouns)
level of proficiency. This includes not only the grammatical deletions that
these examples illustrate, but also shorter sentences and less varied vocab-
ulary addressed to the least proficient children. This selective modifica-
tion can be considered part of her own communicative competence,
acquired as a result of many years experience in teaching young English
learners.
There is no direct evidence as to whether or not the modifications
found in Kleifgens study enhanced the childrens comprehension, but we
have reports that it does for older learners. When we surveyed interna-
tional students at a US university to determine which professors they
found easiest to understand, for example, faculty with extensive teaching
experience in L2 contexts (who were more practiced in making appropri-
ate modifications) were rated more comprehensible. Modifications with
students at the university level are also generally unconscious, but they
are likely to rise to an instructors awareness when addressing classes
which include both beginning and advanced L2 learners, or both limited
and native speakers of the language. In such situations, I often find myself
restating a point I consider important with stress on key terms as a topic
indicator and then a translation of them with simpler vocabulary.
The types of adaptations that are found in speech to L2 learners are sim-
ilar in some ways to the baby talk used with young children in many lan-
guages (Ferguson 1971). Some of the linguistic modifications appear to aid
comprehension at early stages of learning: e.g. high frequency phrases
may be memorized as chunks of speech which can be processed automat-
ically; pauses at appropriate grammatical junctures can help listeners rec-
ognize constituent structures; a slower rate of speech allows more time
for information retrieval and controlled processing; and topicalization
helps in identifying what a sentence is about and what part of it contains
new information. On the other hand, the common practice of speaking
louder to an L2 learner (as if the person were hard of hearing) probably
does no good at all, and simplification of sentence structure may actu-
ally impair comprehension to the extent that it reduces redundancy.
Modification of written input for L2 learners also typically includes con-
trolled vocabulary and shorter, simpler sentence structure. In written
academic texts, modifications meant to help L2 students understand what
they read are essentially the same as those used in textbooks for native
speakers of English. These include those listed in 5.2.
As in oral input, simplification of sentence structure alone is of ques-
tionable value in enhancing the comprehensibility of written text (e.g. see
Floyd and Carrell 1987). More important for interpretive processing are
the provision of relevant background knowledge and modifications which
assist readers in focusing on important terms and concepts.
In the nature of input modifications, then, we find both similarities
and differences for L1 and L2 learners. Some of the oral modifications may
make acquisition easier, but all L1 and many L2 learners can succeed with-
out them. Modifications in written input which improve comprehension
are similar for L2 and L1 students, but research on their effectiveness for
SLA is quite limited.
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 107
Nature of interactional modifications
Along with input, social interaction is also essential for L1 acquisition: no
children can learn their initial language by merely listening to tape
recordings, radio broadcasts, or television programs. In contrast, many L2
learners do acquire at least some level of competence without interacting
with speakers of the target language, and for at least some highly moti-
vated and/or talented learners, that level may be very high. For example, I
recall meeting with a delegation of English L2 speakers from China not
long after the end of the Cultural Revolution in that country, which had
banned almost all contact with foreigners for twenty-five years. Members
of the Chinese delegation reported that they learned English via language
laboratory drills (notably translations of political slogans) and BBC broad-
casts, and that they had not engaged interactionally in English until their
(then) current trip to the USA. Some of the delegates level of L2 profi-
ciency was exceptionally high, so they must be considered successful
learners. This observation does not argue against the helpful effects of
reciprocal social interaction on SLA but does contribute to the conclusion
that it is not absolutely necessary.
Interactional modifications made by L1 speakers in discourse with L2
learners appear to provide even more significant help than do the modi-
fications of oral input which are listed above. Some useful types of modi-
fications include those listed in 5.3, together with illustrations of each in
English learning contexts (taken from personal observations).
Repetition by native speakers (NSs) of part or all of their previous utter-
ances allows nonnative speakers (NNSs) more time for processing and an
opportunity to confirm or correct perception; paraphrase by NSs allows
NNSs to cast a wider net for words they recognize and may increase their
vocabulary store; expansion and elaboration by NSs provide models of
contextually relevant utterances which may exceed NNSs immediate
ability to produce; sentence completion and frames for substitution pro-
vide NNSs with words or chunks of language from NSs which they can
use in subsequent turns of talk; and vertical constructions allow NNSs to
108 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
5.2 Modifications in academic texts
Frequent organization markers, such as headings and linking devices
Clear topic statements
Highlighting of key terms and inclusion of synonyms and paraphrase
Bulleted or numbered lists of main points
Elaboration of sections which require culture-specific background knowledge
Visual aids, such as illustrations and graphs
Explicit summations at regular intervals
Questions which can be used for comprehension checks
construct discourse sequences beyond their current independent means
(a notion associated with scaffolding, which is discussed below).
Comprehension checks and requests for clarification by NSs focus NNSs
attention on segments of sentences which are unclear, and such checks
and requests by NNSs inform NSs where repetition, paraphrase, or addi-
tional background information is required. These are important devices
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 109
5.3 Interactional modifications
Ns = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker
Repetition
NS: This is your assignment for tomorrow.
NNS: What?
NS: This is your assignment.
Paraphrase
NS: This is your assignment for tomorrow.
NNS What?
NS: This is homework.
Expansion and elaboration
NNS: Hot.
NS: Yes, it's very hot today.
Sentence completion
NNS: For tell how old tree is, you count . . .
NS: Rings. Tree rings.
Frame for substitution
NS: How old are you?
NNS: Five old are you.
Vertical construction
NNS: Taki. (name of another student)
NS: What did Taki do?
NNS: Pencil.
NS: What did Taki do with the pencil?
NNS: Throw. (makes throwing motion)
NS: Taki, don't throw pencils.
Comprehension check and request for clarification
NS: Subtract, and write the remainder here.
NNS: What is remain?
in the negotiation of meaning between NSs and NNSs which help in pre-
venting or repairing breakdowns in communication. Other devices include
selecting topics that the other is familiar with, and switching topics to
repair conversational breakdowns which do occur.
Feedback
Other types of interaction which can enhance SLA include feedback from
NSs which makes NNSs aware that their usage is not acceptable in some
way, and which provides a model for correctness. While children rarely
receive such negative evidence in L1, and dont require it to achieve full
native competence, corrective feedback is common in L2 and may indeed
be necessary for most learners to ultimately reach native-like levels of pro-
ficiency when that is the desired goal.
Negative feedback to L2 learners may be in the form of direct correc-
tion, including explicit statements like That is the wrong word; directives
concerning what cannot or must be said; and explanations related to
points of grammar and usage. Or the negative feedback may come as
indirect correction, which includes several of the same interactional
modification forms which were listed in 5.3, but here they have a different
function. For example:

What appears at a literal level to be a comprehension check or request

for clarification may actually be intended to mean that the NNS utter-
ance was incorrect.
NSS: I cant assist class. (Meaning I cant attend class.)
NS: You cant what? (Meaning Youve got the wrong word. Try again.)

Rising intonation questions by NSs which repeat part or all of a NNSs

utterance (echo questions) often mean that the utterance was
wrong. (In contrast, repetition by NSs with falling intonation usually
affirms correctness.) The NS usually stresses some element in the
repeated form with either meaning.
a. NNS: John goed to town yesterday.
NS: John goed to town? (Meaning The word goed is wrong.)
b. NNS: This book is hard.
NS: This book is hard. (Meaning Youre right. It is.)

Paraphrase of an NNS utterance by NSs may be intended merely to

provide an alternative way to say the same thing without overtly
suggesting that an error has been made, but what might appear to be
a paraphrase is often a recast which substitutes a correct element for
one that was incorrect.
NNS: John goed to town yesterday.
NS (correcting): Yes, John went shopping.
One potential problem for L2 learners is that they sometimes do not
recognize when indirect feedback is corrective in intent. It does not help
that the English phrases OK and all right (when followed by pauses) are
110 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
often used as discourse markers to preface corrections and not to convey
that the prior utterance is actually OK or all right in form or content.
Even many experienced English teachers are not conscious of this poten-
tial source of confusion for their students, which highlights the impor-
tance and relevance of understanding L2 discourse conventions as well as
vocabulary and syntax.
Intake to cognitive processing
We have already emphasized that language input may go in one ear and
out the other, and it contributes to acquisition only if it is let in to the
mind for processing: i.e. if it becomes intake. According to claims made in
the Interaction Hypothesis, the modifications and collaborative efforts
that take place in social interaction facilitate SLA because they contribute
to the accessibility of input for mental processing: negotiation for meaning,
and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by
the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it
connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective atten-
tion, and output in productive ways (Long 1996:15152).
To summarize the interactionist perspective, then: what is acquired in
L2 includes only that portion of L2 input which is assimilated and fed
into the IL system (Ellis 1985:159); L2 is acquired in a dynamic interplay
of external input and internal processes, with interaction facilitating (but
not causing) SLA; and the reasons that some learners are more successful
than others include their degree of access to social experiences which
allow for negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback. However, recip-
rocal interaction as a source and stimulus for learning ignores autodi-
dacts who teach themselves from books and recordings. Further, this per-
spective addresses in only a limited way the evidence for universal
sequencing in L2 learning.
Interaction as the genesis of language
An alternative view of the role of interaction in SLA is based on
Sociocultural (S-C) Theory (Vygotsky 1962, 1978). A key concept in this
approach is that interaction not only facilitates language learning but is
a causative force in acquisition; further, all of learning is seen as essen-
tially a social process which is grounded in sociocultural settings. S-C
Theory differs from most linguistic approaches in giving relatively limit-
ed attention to the structural patterns of L2 which are learned, as well as
in emphasizing learner activity and involvement over innate and univer-
sal mechanisms; and it differs from most psychological approaches in its
degree of focus on factors outside the learner, rather than on factors
which are completely in the learners head, and in its denial that the
learner is a largely autonomous processor. It also (as noted above) differs
from most other social approaches in considering interaction as an essen-
tial force rather than as merely a helpful condition for learning.
According to S-C Theory, learning occurs when simple innate mental
activities are transformed into higher order, more complex mental func-
tions. This transformation typically involves symbolic mediation, which
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 111
is a link between a persons current mental state and higher order func-
tions that is provided primarily by language. This is considered the usual
route to learning, whether what is being learned is language itself or
some other area of knowledge. The results of learning through mediation
include learners having heightened awareness of their own mental abili-
ties and more control over their thought processes.
Interpersonal interaction
So far we are using the term interaction to mean interpersonal interac-
tion: i.e. communicative events and situations which occur between peo-
ple. One important context for symbolic mediation is such interpersonal
interaction between learners and experts (experts include teachers and
more knowledgeable learners). Vygotsky calls the level where much of this
type of mediation occurs the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). This is
an area of potential development, where the learner can achieve that
potential only with assistance. According to S-C Theory, mental functions
that are beyond an individuals current level must be performed in collab-
oration with other people before they are achieved independently.
One way in which others help the learner in language development
within the ZPD is through scaffolding. This includes the vertical con-
structions mentioned above as a type of modified interaction between
NSs and NNSs, in which experts commonly provide learners with chunks
of talk that the learners can then use to express concepts which are
beyond their independent means. This type of mediation also occurs
when peers collaborate in constructing language which exceeds the com-
petence of any individual among them. More generally, the metaphor of
scaffolding refers to verbal guidance which an expert provides to help a
learner perform any specific task, or the verbal collaboration of peers to
112 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Lev Vygotsky (b. Orsha, current Republic of Belarus), 18961934
Social psychology
Vygotsky pioneered the notion that children learn within
communities, rather than strictly as individuals. He is perhaps most
famous for his discussion of the zone of proximal development, wherein
children learn more with the support of adults around them.
Because of international politics, Vygotskys work was not available
outside Russia until well after his death.
Interesting note: Vygotskys works were banned in the Soviet Union from 1936 to 1956 because of his
criticism of theories of psychology officially approved at the time, especially Marxist psychology.
perform a task which would be too difficult for any one of them individ-
ually (see Bruner 1985). Very importantly, scaffolding is not something
that happens to a learner as a passive recipient, but happens with a learner
as an active participant.
For L2 learners, L1 as well as L2 can provide helpful mediation. Talk
between peers who are collaborating in tasks is often in their common L1,
which provides an efficient (and sometimes essential) medium for problem-
solving and can enhance learning of both L2 and any academic subjects
students are studying in the second language. Symbolic mediation can be
interactional without involving face-to-face communication: although we
do not often think of it that way, reading actually involves an interaction
between the individual and the author(s) of a text or book, resulting in an
altered state of knowledge. Symbolic mediation need not even necessarily
involve language (although it usually does) but can also be achieved with
such nonlinguistic symbols as gestures, diagrams and illustrations, and
algebraic symbols.
Intrapersonal interaction
In addition to interpersonal interaction, S-C Theory requires considera-
tion of intrapersonal interaction: i.e. communication that occurs within
an individuals own mind. This is also viewed by Vygotsky as a sociocultu-
ral phenomenon.
When reading, for example, we engage in intrapersonal as well as inter-
personal activity: we draw interactively on our ability to decode print,
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 113
Scaffolding
The following dialogue (from Donato 1994) is an example of
Vygotskys notion of scaffolding (within a peer group in this case,
rather than from adult to child). Alone, each member of the group
lacked the knowledge to produce the French equivalent of You
remembered (Tu tes souvenu) in a grammatically correct form.
However, each member of the group had some useful knowledge that
they could all build upon until they arrived at the desired solution.
(In the classroom while preparing for a presentation the next day . . .)
Speaker 1: . . . and then Ill say. . . tu as souvenu notre anniversaire de
mariage . . . or should I say mon anniversaire?
Speaker 2: Tu as . . .
Speaker 3: Tu as . . .
Speaker 1: Tu as souvenu . . . you remembered?
Speaker 3: Yea, but isnt that a reflexive? Tu tas . . .
Speaker 1: Ah, tu tas souvenu.
Speaker 2: Oh, its tu es
. . .
Speaker 1: Tu tes souvenu.
our stored knowledge of the language we are reading and the content
schemata through which our knowledge of the world is organized (Ellis
1999:1).
A second type of intrapersonal interaction that occurs frequently in
beginning stages of L2 learning and in later stages when the content and
structure of L2 input stretches or goes beyond existing language compe-
tence makes use of L1 resources. This takes place through translation to
oneself as part of interpretive problem-solving processes.
Yet another type (which was of particular interest to Vygotsky) is private
speech. This is the self-talk which many children (in particular) engage in
that leads to the inner speech that more mature individuals use to con-
trol thought and behavior. While inner speech is not necessarily tied to
the surface forms of any specific language, private speech is almost always
verbalized in L1 and/or L2. Study of private speech when it is audible pro-
vides a window into the mind of sorts for researchers, through which
we can actually observe intrapersonal interaction taking place and per-
haps discover its functions in SLA.
I was intrigued by this possibility, and recorded children over a period of
several weeks while they were just beginning to learn English (Saville-Troike
1988). I was particularly interested in finding out if the children were using
English to themselves, and if so, what they were using the language for, dur-
ing a period when they were generally very reluctant to try speaking out
loud to others in the new language. Because private speech is generally
much lower in volume than interactional speech, and often inaudible
unless the observer is within a few inches of the speaker, I equipped these
children with wireless radio microphones for recording purposes.
For the youngest children I recorded, English was largely something to
play with. For example, three- and four-year-old Chinese L1 brothers (called
Didi and Gege, meaning younger brother and older brother in Chinese)
focused extensively on the L2 sounds and seemed to derive pleasure from
pronouncing certain words. High-frequency private vocabulary items for
them included butter pecan, parking lot, skyscraper, and Cookie Monster. Both
children also demonstrated their attention to sound by creating new
words with English phonological structure, including otraberver, goch,
treer, and trumble impossible sequences in their L1. The focus on sounds
not infrequently led to a private game, as the boys chanted rhythmically
or intoned words to themselves. For example:
DIDI: Jelly bean, jelly bean. Jelly, jelly, jelly, jelly.
GEGE: Yucky. Yucky scoop. Scoop scoop yucky scoop. Yucky yucky yuck-yucky.
For somewhat older children, English was used more to comment about
ongoing events. They displayed a higher level of mental activity related to
L2 learning by focusing on grammar as well as on the sound of their utter-
ances. This was very clear in private pattern drills, such as those in the fol-
lowing examples that were produced by a five-year-old Japanese L1 boy in
his kindergarten class. While saying (a) to himself, he was practicing
English auxiliaries; his drill indicates he had correctly assigned have and
am to the same syntactic slot, and he recognized the contraction Im as
114 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
equivalent to I am. Example (b) represents a build-up drill, where the
same child practiced adding an object to make the sentence longer.
a. I finished. I have finished. I am finished. Im finished.
b. I want. I paper. Paper. Paper. I want paper.
The oldest children I recorded also focused on L2 form but added self-
guiding language more frequently than did the younger learners. The
next example illustrates a pattern which an eight-year-old Chinese L1 girl
commonly produced while writing sentences in her language workbook.
She first constructed the parts to herself, then named letters as she wrote,
and finally repeated the result.
I see a, elephant. E, L, E, P, H, A, N, T.
I see a elephant. I see a elephant nose?
Is in the, water. W, A, T, E, R. Water.
In addition to play, even the youngest children used private speech as
intrapersonal symbolic mediation, as illustrated below in my final exam-
ples of private speech. Here, they are making use of their L1 to translate
to themselves as they incorporate new language forms. (The Chinese and
mixed utterances below are glossed in English.)
Didi (while watching another child who is crying):
Look? Lets stop? Stop? Stop? Stop? Stop?
Ting a.
(Stop.)
Stop?
Bu yao ku.
(Dont cry.)
Gege (while driving around on a tricycle):
Dao skyscraper Chicago.
(Go to skyscraper Chicago.)
Wo yao dao Chicago le.
(I want to go to Chicago.)
Private speech by these children provides good evidence that even when
they were not interacting with others, they were not merely passively
assimilating L2 input; they were using intrapersonal interaction in an
active process of engagement with the input they heard, practicing to
build up their competence. Similar audible evidence would be more diffi-
cult to obtain from older learners (partly because of the inhibiting effects
of social constraints on talking to oneself in public), but many report rep-
etition and experimentation strategies in their inner speech, and some
report continuing private speech (often reduced to muttering) when not
within hearing range of others.
Audible private speech may continue among adult learners in special-
ized, socially sanctioned settings where imitation or other controlled
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 115
response to linguistic input is considered normal behavior. A low level
of muttering is frequently heard in language laboratories where learners
wearing headphones practice alone in cubicles, for instance, and Ohta
(2001) recorded students in a language classroom as they responded to
corrections and questions quietly, even when they were not being directly
addressed. The social constraints that determine which type of symbolic
mediation is appropriate in a specific situation underscore its nature as a
sociocultural as well as a mental phenomenon.
A common intrapersonal activity that is closely related to private
speech is private writing, in which individuals record language forms
and other meaningful symbols on paper in order to help store items in
memory, organize thought, solve problems, or such, without intent to
communicate with others. Students of language, for example, may keep
personal journals or diaries of their learning experiences, jot notes in
the margins of textbooks, list new words along with some mnemonic
aid, write interlinear L1 translations in a text, and highlight or under-
line important points. Many language teachers list major topics and
activities which they plan to include in a class lesson in a form of pri-
vate writing, and they may add phonetic symbols to student names on
their class roster which they otherwise might not remember how to
pronounce.
Overall, Sociocultural Theory claims that language is learned through
socially mediated activities. The S-C framework supports the view that
some learners may be more successful than others because of their level
of access to or participation in a learning community, or because of the
amount of mediation they receive from experts or peers, and because of
how well they make use of that help.
Acquisition without interaction; interaction without
acquisition
There are challenges to a socioculturally oriented view of L2 acquisition,
however. The following two facts are somewhat difficult to explain if we
hold a strong position that social interaction is an essential causative force
in second language learning:
(1) Some individuals are able to achieve a relatively advanced level of L2
proficiency without the benefit of any interpersonal communication
or opportunity to negotiate meaning in the language with others.
(2) Some individuals engage in extensive interaction with speakers of
another language without learning that language to any significant
degree.
We might explain the first phenomenon by including learner engage-
ment with text and electronic media as types of social interaction, as
well as intrapersonal communication in the form of private speech and
writing, or of inner speech. Such learners would not have the benefit of
scaffolding with immediate help from other humans, but corrective
feedback and other potential enhancements to SLA can be provided by
116 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
other means. We could still claim that live face-to-face interaction facil-
itates L2 learning at least for most people, but not that it is absolutely
necessary.
Explaining why some individuals apparently interact quite successfully
with others while developing little or no competence in a common lin-
guistic code requires a closer look at what other strategies are used for
communication. These include:

Background knowledge and experience which help individuals

organize new information and make guesses about what is going on
and what will happen next

Understanding of the overall situation or event, including its goal, the

relationships among participants, and what they expect one another
to do and say

Extralinguistic context, including physical setting and objects

Knowledge of genre-specific discourse structures: e.g. what rules for

interaction are expected in a conversation versus a lesson at school,
and what sequence of actions is likely

Gestures, facial expressions, and other nonverbal signs

Prosodic features of tone and stress to convey emotional state

In spite of cultural differences in each of these elements, there is often
enough commonality to allow at least some level of meaningful commu-
nication between people who do not speak the same language, but who
are cooperative and willing to guess.
An experience I had in Taiwan illustrates how well these nonlinguistic
factors can work. I had accepted a last-minute opportunity to teach
English there, and I arrived in the country with no prior knowledge of
Chinese. One of my first goals was to mail a letter back to my family in the
USA to let them know that I had arrived safely. A student who spoke some
English pointed out a post office to me, and I was on my own. The physi-
cal setting inside the building was familiar enough, with a long counter
on the far side of a large, rather bare room. I knew from prior experience
that I needed to buy a stamp, that the man standing behind the counter
facing me must be a postal clerk who could sell me one, and that the peo-
ple standing in line in front of me must be other patrons. I followed the
rule I know of taking a place in line and waiting my turn to be served.
When I reached the counter, the clerk said something in Chinese (I assume
the equivalent of May I help you?) and I asked for a stamp in English,
holding out my letter and pointing to the upper right corner of the enve-
lope where I knew that a stamp should be placed. He took the letter from
me and said something else (I assume telling me the amount of money I
owed, since that was what I expected to hear next in the sequence of this
event). I held out a handful of Chinese coins, although I had no idea how
much he had said the stamp cost or how much money I was offering; the
clerk took a few and returned the rest. He said something, but seemed
from facial expression and tone of voice to be satisfied, so I said Thank
you and left. The transaction was thus successfully completed without
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 117
benefit of any mutual linguistic knowledge, but making use of all of the
other communicative strategies that I listed above.
Communicative events cannot be completed without a common lan-
guage in the absence of familiar context and props, of course, or when
nonpredictable information needs to be conveyed. Students studying in a
foreign country, for example, cannot understand or express abstract con-
cepts in academic subject fields without L2 knowledge or L1 translation;
however, they may be able to function quite adequately in many social sit-
uations while still possessing only limited linguistic resources. If individ-
uals have need and opportunity to develop increasing competence in the
L2, they will do so; if they are not motivated to learn the L2, they may not
even if they have ample social opportunity.
An illustration of fairly prolonged interaction without acquisition
comes from the experiences of Gege and Didi, the young Chinese brothers
whom I introduced earlier with examples of their private speech. They not
only talked to themselves while in the nursery school they attended, but
addressed in Chinese their teachers and other children who spoke and
understood only English, with sometimes surprisingly successful results:
Three-year-old Didi walked over to a teacher and showed her a broken
balloon.
DIDI: Kan. Kan. Wo zhe mei le. Kan. Kan.
(Look. Look. Mine is gone. Look. Look.)
TEACHER: Oh, it popped, didnt it? All gone.
The teacher understood Didis meaning because he was holding up a bro-
ken balloon for her to see, and his comment was obviously about the con-
dition of that object.
Four-year-old Gege looked at a hose lying on the playground.
GEGE: Zhege shi shenme guanzi a?
(That is what [kind of] hose?)
TEACHER: Thats a fire hose.
Geges question to a different teacher was also clear because there was a
notable object in the immediate setting which she could assume he was
asking about.
In contrast, the following exchange was not successful:
DIDI: Laoshi, qu na shui.
(Teacher, go get water.)
TEACHER: What do you want?
DIDI: He shui.
(Drink water.)
TEACHER: He shui. Um.
DIDI: Laoshi, qu na shui.
(Teacher, go get water.)
In this case, Didi was trying to get the teacher to understand that he want-
ed to have a drink of water. Didis attempts to convey his message includ-
ed repetition and paraphrase, and the teacher even repeated his Chinese
118 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
utterance He shui in an apparent effort to understand it, or to elicit clari-
fication. She understood from his tone of voice that he wanted something,
but this attempt at communication failed because no contextual cues
were available to identify the object he wanted.
My final example in this section shows that children can also make use
of nonlinguistic cues for negotiation of coherent interaction between
themselves. In this event, English-speaking Michael (also four years old)
approached a playhouse in the nursery school yard and correctly inter-
preted Geges repeated utterance in Chinese as a directive to come inside,
which he rejected. Gege then softened his invitation for Michael to come
in with a paraphrase, which Michael agreed to. Although in this exchange
neither child understood what the other was saying, they successfully
negotiated entry to a social event that subsequently yielded several minutes
of sustained cooperative play.
GEGE: Yao jinlai cai yao kai.
([If you] want to come in, then open [the door].)
Yao jinlai cai yao kai.
([If you] want to come in, then open [the door].)
MICHAEL: I dont have to.
GEGE: Ni yao bu yao jinlai?
(Do you want to come in?)
MICHAEL: Okay.
[He enters the playhouse.]
The strategy that was shared by Chinese- and English-speaking four-year-
olds in this exchange was probably the use/interpretation of paraphrase as
having a softening effect. The sheer persistence of Gege in maintaining
verbal interaction may also have been interpreted by Michael as a friendly
overture, regardless of what Gege actually said or meant.
In due time, Didi and Gege became aware that others could not under-
stand them. Indeed, when interviewed in Chinese, Gege stated this real-
ization explicitly and said that he intended to learn English. Over the next
few years, Didi and Gege became fluent English speakers, even dominant
in English to the extent that they had problems communicating in
Chinese but that is another story. The illustrative case of non-acquisition
here concerns the other participants in these events. Although the nurs-
ery school teachers and other children interacted successfully with Didi
and Gege for several months before English became a common language,
none of them learned even a single word of Chinese as a result of the
interaction. The teachers and playmates relied completely on context,
nonverbal signals, and internal information to infer meaning. They had
the opportunity to learn, but neither need nor motivation.
We now shift to consideration of macrosocial factors in looking at how
social contexts affect SLA, drawing primarily on the frameworks of the
Ethnography of Communication and Social Psychology. These broader
Macrosocial factors
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 119
societal approaches in research and theory allow exploration of issues
such as how identity, status, and values influence L2 outcomes, and why.
The macrosocial factors we will consider are at several levels in the eco-
logical context of SLA:

Global and national status of L1 and L2

Boundaries and identities

Institutional forces and constraints

Social categories

Circumstances of learning
At a global and national level, influences on SLA involve the power and
status of learners native and target languages, whether overtly stated in
official policies or covertly realized in cultural values and practices. Social
boundaries that are relevant to SLA may coincide with national borders,
but they also exist within and across them as they function to unify
speakers as members of a language community and to exclude outsiders
from membership; influences on SLA at this level often involve the rela-
tionship between native and target language groups, as well as the open-
ness and permeability of community boundaries. Within nations, institu-
tional forces and constraints often affect the use and knowledge of L2 in
relation to such things as social control, political and religious practices,
and economic and educational opportunities. Age, gender, and ethnicity
are factors of social group membership which may potentially be relevant
to SLA. Finally, circumstances of learning can influence SLA, such as
learners prior educational experiences, whether the L2 learning process
is informal or formal, and (if formal) the type of educational model learn-
ers have access to and the pedagogical orientation of their teachers and
administrators.
Global and national status of L1 and L2
Languages have power and status at global and national levels for both
symbolic and practical reasons. An important symbolic function of lan-
guage is political identification and cohesion. We see this in the USA, for
example, where English is generally accepted as the single national lan-
guage, and most people consider it important for national unity that all
citizens be able to use one language. Immigrants who come from other lan-
guage backgrounds are expected to add English as a requirement for citi-
zenship, for participation in US democratic processes, for economic mobil-
ity, and for access to education and other social services. Maintenance of
indigenous and immigrant languages other than English is not widely
encouraged and is often actively discouraged. Indeed, pride in ethnicity
along with associated language use can be seen as very threatening to the
dominant group, and as a symbol of disunity and separatism; to speak a
language other than English may be considered somehow unpatriotic and
un-American. In sum, learning English is expected, and the teaching of
English as an L2 to immigrants is encouraged and/or mandated by state
120 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
and federal agencies. In contrast, state and federal support for learning
other languages is sporadic and generally ineffectual.
The symbolic function of language for political identification and cohe-
sion is even more important for countries that are in the process of
nation-building. For example, establishing the official use of Hebrew was
symbolically important to the creation of Israel, even though few early cit-
izens spoke it natively. Massive efforts were made to teach Hebrew as an
L2 to all immigrants, and there were social sanctions against the use of
Yiddish or other languages which might rival Hebrew for ethnic identifi-
cation or religious functions. Efforts have also been made to spread knowl-
edge and use of Irish and Welsh as L2s for purposes of national identity,
but these have not been as successful.
Second languages have also served political functions in times of con-
quest and empire-building: e.g. the Norman Conquest brought French L2
to Great Britain, colonial expansion brought English L2 to Africa and Asia
and French L2 to Africa, and post-World War II domination by the Soviet
Union brought Russian L2 to much of Eastern Europe. These three exam-
ples also illustrate the highly diverse outcomes which may follow periods
of linguistic spread. The linguistic absorption of the Norman conquerors
left behind a residue of French vocabulary embedded in English no
longer as elements of a second language, but integrated in English native
speech. With the end of British colonial rule in Africa and Asia, English
remained in some of the newly independent nations for auxiliary or offi-
cial functions. In Nigeria and India, for instance, English was selected as
the official national language (in India along with Hindi) because it was
widely used and accessible, although not native to any major group of
citizens (and thus ethnically neutral). In contrast, the role of Russian L2
has been of sharply waning importance as Ukrainian, Kyrgyz, Kazakh, and
other languages of former USSR constituent republics have become sym-
bols of nationalism. Indeed, the situation has become inverted, as many
native Russian speakers living in the newly independent countries have
recognized the need to add those national languages to their own lin-
guistic repertoires: to learn them as L2s.
We see both historically and in the present that the need for L2 learning at
a national level is strongest when groups from other language backgrounds
immigrate to a country without prior knowledge of its official or dominant
language, and when the official or dominant language shifts because of con-
quest, revolution, or other major political change. Need for L2 learning at a
global level is motivated largely by control of and access to resources in areas
of commerce and information/technology transfer. Opportunities as well as
motivation for learning a particular L2 often depend on its relative power or
status, whether symbolic or practical; this usually cannot be separated
from the relative economic or military power or status of the society that
it represents. For this reason, interest in learning Chinese as an L2 can be
predicted to increase as the economic status of China grows. Where
knowledge of a particular language confers few visible economic or social
benefits, there will be little motivation for acquiring it as an L2.
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 121
Boundaries and identities
Part of the identity function of language is accomplished by creating or
reinforcing national boundaries, but linguistic boundaries often also exist
within or across national borders. They serve both to unify speakers as
members of one language community, and to exclude outsiders from
insider communication. The function of unification is illustrated by the
official use of Hebrew in Israel and English in Nigeria as part of the
process for establishing those nation-states. In contrast, the function of
exclusion can be illustrated by the refusal of the Spanish conquerors in
Mexico to teach the Castilian language to the native Indian population, or
of the Mongol conquerors of China to make their language accessible to
the Chinese. Language communities may also reinforce their boundaries
by discouraging prospective L2 learners, by holding and conveying the
attitude that their language is too difficult or inappropriate for others
to use. When artificially created national borders transect language areas
(as is the case for most former colonial territories or the Southwestern
USA), social and political tensions may lead to discrimination against
minority language speakers, and to enforced teaching of the dominant
language.
Crossing a linguistic boundary to participate in another language com-
munity, and to identify or be identified with it, requires learning that lan-
guage. It is both a necessary tool for participation and a badge which
allows passage. Full participation also commonly requires learning the
culture of that community and adapting to those values and behavioral
patterns: i.e. acculturation. Whether or not this occurs depends largely on
group motivation.
We considered the concept of motivation in Chapter 3 as a difference
among individuals which accounts for why some are more successful L2
learners than others, but motivation is also profoundly influenced by
external social factors. Social psychologists who study SLA emphasize the
effects of motivation on whether groups of immigrants or ethnic minori-
ties integrate culturally and linguistically into the dominant society. The
same general motivational factors account for why dominant group mem-
bers often do not learn a minority language at all, or not too well if they
do not want to be identified with the minority community. Wallace
Lambert (1991:220) suggests this is why many English L1 students in
Canadas French L2 immersion programs showed a limit on how much
French they acquired even after years of study that began in childhood
(and why some even regressed in their pronunciation of French when they
reached high school).
John Schumann (1978) identifies other group factors that affect SLA out-
comes negatively in his Acculturation Model. For example, factors that are
likely to create social distance between learner and target groups, limit
acculturation, and thus inhibit L2 learning are: dominance of one group
over the other, a high degree of segregation between groups, and desire of
the learner group to preserve its own lifestyle. English speakers in the
Southwestern USA often live and work side by side with Spanish speakers
for years without acquiring more than a few words of the language, and
122 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Spanish speakers in Paraguay who employ Guarani speakers as servants in
their homes rarely learn more than a smattering of Guarani.
Institutional forces and constraints
Within the bounds of nations and communities, social institutions are sys-
tems which are established by law, custom, or practice to regulate and
organize the life of people in public domains: e.g. politics, religion, and
education. Many of these involve power, authority, and influence related to
SLA; the forces and constraints which most concern us here are language-
related social control, determination of access to knowledge, and other
instances of linguistic privilege or discrimination.
The most obvious form of linguistic social control takes the form of offi-
cial or unofficial policies that regulate which language is to be used in
particular situations. For example, use of the national language is often
required in political meetings and is sometimes required even for lower-
level bureaucratic functions such as applying for permits of various kinds
or negotiating for social services. A high level of fluency in the national
language is typically required for election or appointment to political
office, which tends to reinforce the power of some groups over others
because of the language they speak. On the other hand, to the extent that
political officeholders need to represent (or at least get votes from) speak-
ers of other languages, competence in those languages may also be val-
ued, and perhaps mandated. For example, presidential election cam-
paigns in the USA recently have featured candidates orating in Spanish
(often poorly) as well as in English in regions of the country which have
strong blocs of Spanish L1 voters, in spite of the de facto national status of
English-only. Use of even a few words or phrases in Spanish is intended to
carry the symbolic message that the candidate is concerned about that
segment of the population. Conversely, in Bolivia and Guatemala, Spanish
was until recently spoken natively by only a minority, but their economic
status and the institutionalization of Spanish as the official language
enabled them to maintain control of the respective Quechua/Aymara and
Mayan L1 majorities.
Looking at language-related social control in the domains of law and
social services, we can see that language policy may result in blatant dis-
crimination, especially if a trial defendant does not understand the lan-
guage of the court, or if the officially designated language of service is
not one in which some of those being served are fluent. This is likely to
have a particularly negative impact on immigrants in countries where
there is no provision for official communication in minority languages.
As a side-effect, differences in multilingual competence within immigrant
families can lead to disintegration of the traditional family structure, as
children who are learning the dominant language at school become trans-
lators and brokers for their parents in service encounters, inverting the
power structure and undermining parental authority.
Access to education may also be limited for minority language speakers,
since entry to those institutions often requires applicants to display com-
petence in proper language usage. In some multilingual societies, this
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 123
means that linguistic competence may be recognized only insofar as it is
demonstrated in the official or prestigious language of the dominant
group; the potential for discrimination is multilayered, since access to
knowledge of the language which is required for social opportunities may
itself be prevented at an earlier level by financial barriers. For example,
admission to universities and professional schools in some countries
requires prior study of a foreign language (often English), with the neces-
sary quality and quantity of language instruction available only in exclu-
sive preparatory academies. These in turn may require prior language
study which is not offered by public education, but only to children whose
parents are wealthy enough to send them to private schools. Thus wealth
and social status may determine opportunities for acquisition of an L2.
Access (or barriers) to language instruction may also be motivated for
other political reasons. The riots of the 1970s in Soweto, South Africa, for
example, were motivated in part as protests to a language policy which
would not provide basic elementary education in English, a policy that
was perceived as keeping the Black population in the region from acquir-
ing the unification and international voice which English would provide,
and that Afrikaans would not. More recently, differential access to knowl-
edge and power through a second language has been reported by
Palestinians in Israel who say that limited opportunities to develop
advanced English skills in their high schools block admission to better
universities in the country because the entrance examinations require
knowledge of English.
An unintentional international outcome of providing advanced-level
education in English, on the other hand, has perhaps been inhibiting
access to knowledge in some academic areas. There are contemporary
concerns about the power position of English as the international lan-
guage for scholarly conferences and publications, for example, since this
status clearly privileges individuals in many disciplines who have received
higher education in English-medium universities.
Although the acquisition of an L2 has been treated neutrally or posi-
tively as an additive gain from linguistic and psychological perspectives,
from a social perspective it may be problematic for several reasons.
Acquisition of a dominant L2 may lead to actual loss or attrition of a
minority L1, potentially creating alienation from the L1 group for the
individual, and the ultimate disappearance of the minority language
itself. Also, acquisition of technical knowledge through the medium of an
L2 may render the learner unable to express that knowledge in his or her
L1. For example, native speakers of Arabic, Chinese, and other languages
who study linguistics in an English-speaking country may return to their
home countries and find themselves ill-equipped to make the subject
accessible to others in the national language or to relate to traditional lan-
guage scholars.
Social categories
People are categorized according to many socially relevant dimensions:
e.g. age, sex, ethnicity, education level, occupation, and economic status.
124 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Such categorization often influences what experiences they have, how
they are perceived by others, and what is expected of them. When they are
L2 learners, members of different social categories frequently experience
different learning conditions, and different attitudes or perceptions from
within both native and target language communities. Therefore, this is
another level we need to consider in the macrosocial context of SLA.
Age is an example. We considered age as a biological factor affecting L2
learning in Chapter 4, but it is social as well. Young L2 learners are more
likely than older learners to acquire the language in a naturalistic setting
as opposed to a formal classroom context. They are more likely to use the
L2 in highly contextualized face-to-face situations rather than decontex-
tualized academic ones, or ones which initially involve reading and writ-
ing. It is not certain whether these social factors favor SLA by children
over older learners, but they make different requirements and involve dif-
ferent learning tasks.
Some aspects of the social setting within which SLA takes place may
particularly disadvantage lower age groups. Young immigrant children
who are submerged in L2 dominant environments appear ultimately to do
less well both in L2 learning and in academic content learning through
the medium of L2 than do children who immigrate after receiving basic
education in their native language and begin L2 learning at an older age.
For instance, Gonzalez (1986) has shown both in Illinois and California
that immigrant students from Mexico who attended school in Mexico for
two years prior to coming to the US had higher reading scores in English
by the sixth grade than did Spanish L1 peers who began school in the USA.
In short, students with two years less instruction in English did better in
English than those who had two years more instruction in the USA.
Similar findings are reported by Cummins (1981) for Japanese immigrant
students in Canada.
The likely explanation for such findings is complex, and we should
beware of simplistic one-dimensional interpretations. Development of
cognitive and academic competence in their L1, which Mexican children
acquire in Mexico and Japanese children in Japan, may have a significant
effect in promoting the transfer of these skills into English and enabling
them to succeed in American or Canadian English-medium schools. At the
same time, however, these children also have not faced the early negative
expectations or pressures for assimilation in and out of school that their
peers often do in a predominantly English-speaking setting, which may
have adversely affected the level and quality of their instructional experi-
ence. In another famous case, Finnish children attending school in
Sweden, where they were viewed negatively as members of a minority
group, did less well than Finnish children in Australian schools, where
they were viewed positively as Scandinavians.
Biological factors which generally favor a younger age for SLA can also
be overridden by contexts in which older learners succeed in SLA to the
level of being able to pass for a native speaker (even in pronunciation)
when social motivation is strong enough. For example, research conduct-
ed with couples in mixed English L1German L1 marriages suggests that
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 125
age of first exposure to a new language is less important for predicting
ultimate ability than the age when learning the L2 really becomes impor-
tant to the learners, and when they take active responsibility for that
learning (Piller 2002).
Another example is sex, which we also considered in Chapter 4 as a bio-
logical factor in learning. This, too, is a social category. We can see that dif-
ferent attitudes and learning conditions which are experienced by males
and females may advantage one group over the other for SLA in different
ways in different societies, but neither group has an innate advantage. For
example, young male children of migrant farm laborers appear to be more
fluent in Spanish L1 and better learners of English L2 than their female
age-mates. The boys in a study which I conducted had been allowed to play
outside in the labor camps with other children prior to attending school,
while the girls had been kept inside both because of their responsibility
to care for younger siblings and for their own safety. While the early lim-
itations on their opportunity for social interaction were generally over-
come with subsequent experience, the girls were at an initial disadvan-
tage for language learning. On the other hand, girls were advantaged over
a male peer for L2 learning in a classroom that was studied by Willett
(1995). The girls were allowed to sit together, collaborate productively, and
support one another; the boy was kept apart from other boys because of
gender-related differences in his behavior, and he was not allowed to seek
help from bilingual peers.
Different learning conditions for males and females are not limited to
children. Some female students who enroll in study-abroad programs
while in college report having less opportunity than male students to
immerse themselves in foreign language and cultural experiences, which
may inhibit development of L2 skills. This may be because there are more
restrictions on unsupervised activities for females, or because female stu-
dents tend to avoid situations in which they might encounter sexual
harassment (see Polanyi 1995).
Ethnic category may have influence on SLA primarily because of socially
constructed attitudes from within native and target communities as a
result of historic or current intergroup relations related to social bound-
aries and identities. These attitudes determine to a significant degree
what input L2 learners will be exposed to and make use of, as well as the
nature of their interaction with native speakers and other learners of the
target language.
The relationship between people assigned to different ethnic categories
is usually characterized along one of two dimensions when the different
categories coexist in heterogeneous societies: perceived horizontal dis-
tance between the groups, or relative power and prestige of one over the
other. Members of ethnic groups who perceive themselves to have much
in common are more likely to interact, and thus are more likely to learn
the others language. Miller (2000) reports that ethnicity is one of the fac-
tors involved in perceptions of difference in her study of migrant high
school students in Australia. She found that fair-haired Europeans who
physically resembled their Australian classmates established friendships
126 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
and assimilated more readily than did differently appearing students
from Asia. Other factors potentially contributing to perceptions of social
distance include religion and cultural background, along with patterns of
behavior that are considered appropriate for interaction with strangers or
new acquaintances. In my own research with younger students (e.g.
Saville-Troike 1984), I observed that children from South America and the
Middle East as well as from Europe appeared to establish friendships with
American children more readily than did children from China, Japan, and
Korea. I would attribute this to relative cultural congruence of interaction
patterns rather than to physical appearance.
Perceptions that members of one ethnic category are more, or less, privi-
leged than another are determined in large part by which group is politi-
cally and economically dominant in a multiethnic society, which is also
often the one that has majority status. Two outcomes of SLA related to this
dimension are the types of bilingualism which may result from contact
(Lambert 1974; Gardner 2002): additive bilingualism, where members of a
dominant group learn the language of a subordinate group without threat
to their L1 competence or to their ethnic identity; or subtractive bilingual-
ism, where members of a subordinate group learn the dominant language
as L2 and are more likely to experience some loss of ethnic identity and attri-
tion of L1 skills especially if they are children. There are many other social
variables contributing to additive versus subtractive outcomes, includ-
ing (for immigrant groups) the degree of opportunity for continued contact
with their country of origin, the composition of families (e.g. whether they
include grandparents or other elderly relatives), and whether the L1 contin-
ues to fulfill an institutional function such as the practice of religion.
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 127
Wallace Lambert (b. Nova Scotia), 1922present
Social psychology
Wallace Lamberts diverse education and experiences explain his
success as a researcher in the complex and sensitive area of
bilingualism and biculturalism. Lambert (1974) differentiated
between additive and subtractive bilingualism. Lambert is also well
known for his work on motivation with Gardner (see Gardner
1985 for a summary). In addition, Lambert is known for his work
in Matched Guise studies (Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, and
Fillenbaum 1960). These studies investigate listeners reactions to
bilingual speakers who read a passage in two languages. The
listeners are not told that the same person is speaking and are
asked to make judgments about the person reading each passage,
thus possibly revealing their personal biases or attitudes towards
the group they imagine the speaker to belong to.
Interesting note: During his student years, Lambert was involved with psychiatric social work, served in the
army, studied psychology, sociology, and anthropology in three different countries (Canada, the United
States of America, and France).
Circumstances of learning
The final macrosocial factors in the ecological context of SLA that we will
consider are circumstances of learning. We begin with learners prior educa-
tional experiences. These are part of the larger social context within
which SLA takes place because learning begins with childrens first expe-
riences with the families into which they are born, the communities to
which they belong, and the cultural environment within which they live.
By the time children begin their formal education at the age of five or six,
they have already internalized many of the basic values and beliefs of
their native culture, learned the rules of behavior which are considered
appropriate for their role in the community, and established the proce-
dures for continued socialization. They have learned how to learn.
We already noted in Chapter 3 that learner differences in cognitive
styles and learning strategies are at least partly based in these experi-
ences. The difference between field-dependent (FD) and field-independent
(FI) cognitive styles, for example, correlates with how children are raised.
Findings on this subject are somewhat speculative, but FD styles appear to
be related to the more cooperative settings of rural residence, FI to more
competitive urban circumstances; and FD seems to be related to lower eco-
nomic categories and FI to more affluent. Cultural values for some cogni-
tive styles over others also play a role.
A clear example of culture-based learning strategies is seen in the supe-
rior capacity for rote learning among Asian students who have had more
experience with teaching methods that involve memorization. Chinese
students score significantly higher than Europeans and Americans on tests
that measure memory for numbers, which reflects ways they have learned
to learn in the course of earlier schooling. This advantage is lost if Chinese
students are schooled in Europe or America, which proves that their
achievement is based on prior educational experience and not genetic
makeup. Chinese students learning English as an L2 may learn more effec-
tively and efficiently through memorization, while this approach may not
work as well for students less accustomed to this learning strategy.
Another fundamental difference in situational circumstances is
whether L2 learning is informal versus formal, or naturalistic versus
instructed. Informal/naturalistic learning generally takes place in set-
tings where people contact and need to interact with speakers of
another language. This can be because they live in a multilingual society,
their circle of family and friends is multilingual, and/or their lifestyle
involves international travel and residence for business or pleasure.
Formal/instructed learning generally takes place in schools, which are
social institutions that are established in accord with the needs, beliefs,
values, and customs of their cultural settings.
L2 learners who are majority L1 speakers often have access only to for-
eign language programs which offer the L2 as an academic subject and
give little opportunity for students to develop full communicative compe-
tence. In social contexts where multilingualism is highly valued and
expected, however, program options are more likely to include other sub-
jects such as history or science additionally taught in the L2, immersion
128 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
programs with all instruction in the L2, or two-way bilingual programs in
which students who speak different native languages attend classes
together, learn each others language, and learn subject matter through
both languages. Where economic resources permit, options may also
include study-abroad and student-exchange programs.
Minority L1 speakers who receive formal L2 instruction within the L2
speech community typically have quite different experiences. To begin
with, because second language instruction for minorities generally takes
place in educational institutions that are situated in and controlled by the
dominant social group, teaching methods and materials may conflict
with ways minority students have already learned to learn. Social atti-
tudes toward ethnic boundaries and identities influence whether stu-
dents are segregated from L2 peers or have integrated learning experi-
ences. Social attitudes toward the value and validity of students L1
largely determine whether instructional goals include multilingual
competence, with L2 added while L1 is maintained and enriched, or
there is a complete transition to L2. Most so-called bilingual programs
in US schools provide instruction in the L1 only as a temporary expedi-
ent until students can be transitioned entirely into L2, after which the
L1 is abandoned.
No individual factors in the macrosocial context of SLA can be isolated
from others. Circumstances of learning are related to the nation that the
learner lives in and its history, culture, and geopolitical position, and to
social and economic categorizations within the society, which in turn are
related to historical, institutional, and political forces and constraints, all
of which are related to and reflect or determine the status of the lan-
guages involved. All of these factors powerfully influence the microsocial
contexts of learning, determining who does and does not have opportu-
nities for L2 input and interaction and of what sort, and what the out-
comes of L2 learning are likely to be. The individual learner often has few
or no choices in the matter of whether an L2 will be available for formal
study, what language it will be, how it will be taught and at what levels,
the level of proficiency that will be expected or required, and what the
consequences or advantages of learning or not learning will be. The acci-
dent of ones birth may determine what L2s will be available or expected
for informal acquisition, and what value or significance they will have in
affecting ones life chances. These various factors are beyond the control
of the individual, but whether options are available or not, ones L1 and
possible L2(s) can have profound effects on the course of ones life.
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 129
130 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Learning a second language for communicative purposes requires
knowledge and skills for using it appropriately, as well as knowing
aspects of linguistic forms and how they are organized. Taking a social
perspective, in this chapter we have seen ways in which L2
interpretation and production are influenced by contextual factors, how
the nature of social interaction may facilitate or inhibit L2 acquisition,
and how outcomes of learning may be determined by the broad
ecological context of SLA. The L1 we are born into, and our success or
failure in acquiring a particular L2, whether through formal or informal
means, can profoundly influence the entire trajectory of our lives.
We have explored the effects of microsocial contexts that we see
primarily within the communicative events which learners experience,
including who they interact with about what, and how the negotiation
of meaning is accomplished in various settings. We have also explored
the effects of macrosocial contexts in accounting for language power
and prestige, group boundary and identity issues, institutional forces
and constraints, and other circumstances which affect learning.
We have now viewed SLA from three disciplinary perspectives:
linguistic, psychological, and social. As these perspectives provide
different foci and different insights, their multiple lenses bring us
closer to the goal of a holistic understanding of second language
learning.
Activities
Questions for self-study
1. Match the following terms to their corresponding examples:
1. auxiliary language a. A French person studies German for six years
because the school system requires it.
2. foreign language b. A Chinese family immigrates to Canada and
studies English so as to enter the school
systems and the work force.
3. second language c. In India, native speakers of Tamil learn English
to participate in official Indian governmental
proceedings.
2. Variation in second language can occur for linguistic, psychological, or
social reasons. Match the following communicative contexts to the
corresponding description(s) of second language variation. Two responses
have more than one possible answer, so consider multiple options and
explain your reasoning for each match.
Chapter summary
Social contexts of Second Language Acquisition 131
1. linguistic a. When answering the question what are you
doing? a child responds, Im dancing,
pronouncing the final syllable of dancing ing. The
child then elaborates, Im dancing with my doll.
and pronounces the final syllable of dancing in.
2. psychological b. The same child on a playground tells a classmate
Yesterday I was dancing with my doll, pronouncing
the final syllable of dancing in. She later tells a
teacher the exact same thing, pronouncing the final
syllable of dancing ing.
3. microsocial c. A student always remembers third person s
inflection on present tense English verbs when
writing, i.e. John walks to school, but often omits it
when speaking, i.e. John walk to school.
3. According to_________Theory, interaction is necessary for (and a cause
of) language acquisition, and all of learning is a social process.
4. The_________represents an area of potential development where the
learner achieves more through interaction with a teacher or a more
advanced learner.
5. The_________Model identifies group factors that are likely to create social
distance between learner and target groups and ultimately inhibit L2
learning (such as dominance of one group over the other, or the desire
of the learner group to maintain its lifestyle).
6. _________bilingualism is where members of a dominant group learn the
language of a minority without threat to their L1 competence or to their
ethnic identity._________bilingualism is where members of a minority
group learn the dominant language as L2 and are more likely to
experience some loss of ethnic identity and L1 skills.
7. _________learning is instructed learning, usually occurring in schools.
_________learning is naturalistic, occurring in settings where people
contact and need to interact with speakers of another language.
Active learning
1. The author claims that face-to-face interaction is not absolutely necessary
for second language acquisition. What do you think? Support or refute
this claim based on your own experience.
2. Communicative competence is defined as what a speaker needs to
know to communicate appropriately within a language community. How
is this different from pure linguistic competence? Do you believe linguistic
competence is sufficient for effective communication, or do you agree
that communicative competence is necessary? Provide real-life examples
to support your viewpoint, combined with theoretical explanations from
the chapter.
132 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
3. Subtractive bilingualism is defined as having members of a minority group
learn the dominant language as L2, where they are more likely to
experience some loss of ethnic identity and L1 skills. What are the
challenges to maintaining ethnic identity and L1 skills while learning an L2
in the L2 setting? Is it possible to be a minority group in an L2-dominant
setting and experience more of an additive bilingualism, where the L1 skills
and identity are maintained? Support your answer with your own
experiences and the experiences of people you know.
4. Considering your own learning, or the learning of someone you know well,
do you believe in scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development?
Describe examples in your own life when you are the learner in need of
scaffolding, and when you are the more advanced learner or teacher
providing a learner with more opportunity for development.
Further reading
Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction (Third Edition). Oxford:
Blackwell.
This text introduces the basic concepts of the ethnography of communication, one important one being
communicative competence. Chapter 2, Basic terms, concepts and issues specifically defines and explains
communicative competence (pp. 1822), along with other central ideas, such as communicative functions
and units of analysis.
Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language Acquisition.
New York: Basic Books.
Chapter 5, Self, and Chapter 6, Culture, present discussion of social factors in second language acquisition.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a Second Language through Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Along with several former students, Ellis reports on the role of interaction in second language learning.
While some language learning may take place without interaction, Ellis openly supports the notion that most
learners get their input from interaction, and that input from interaction will be more readily available to
learners in the acquisition process.
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This book contains many perspectives on using Vygotskys theories (i.e. private speech, activity theory,
scaffolding, and the zone of proximal development) in diverse areas of second language learning.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Chapters 12 and 13 offer discussion of the social aspects of language acquisition and language learning.
McKay, S. L. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.) (1996). Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Part I, Language and society, discusses how aspects of society influence perception of languages and
language varieties and motivation to learn or not learn certain languages. Chapter 1 treats how the larger social
setting can influence an individuals motivation regarding language study. Chapter 2 presents multilingualism in
society, showing how different purposes are attributed to different languages. Chapter 3 discusses the use of
English in a global context. Chapter 4 examines language planning undertaken to solve perceived problems of
communication between members of a society.
CHAPTER
Acquiring
knowledge for
L2 use
6
In this chapter, we continue our consideration of the
acquisition of communicative competence by examining
the knowledge that is needed for second language use. After
beginning with an overall characterization of communicative
competence, we will see that we must distinguish between
(1) knowledge that must be learned in order to fulfill
academic functions and (2) knowledge required for
interpersonal functions. Areas of knowledge needed are
then categorized and prioritized according to traditional
levels of language (vocabulary, morphology, phonology,
syntax, discourse), and according to activity type (reading,
listening, writing, speaking). This chapter thus brings together
and integrates the elements of SLA study that we have been
exploring within separate linguistic, psychological, and
social frameworks in the previous chapters.
CHAPTER PREVIEW
Pragmatic
competence
Academic
competence
Interpersonal
competence
Cohesion
Genre
Bottom-up
processing
Top-down
processing
Context
Schemas
Speech acts
Contextualization
cues
Communication
strategies
KEY TERMS
The definition of communicative competence introduced in Chapter 5 is
broadly inclusive in scope: everything that a speaker needs to know in
order to communicate appropriately within a particular community.
This construct combines the knowledge of language which defines
linguistic competence, knowledge of the specific components and levels
of a language, and knowledge that is required for their appropriate use in
communicative activities. Accounting for competence in this broader
sense also requires considering encyclopedic cultural knowledge con-
cerning the content of what is written or talked about, and recognizing
the social significance of the context within which language use takes
place. Knowledge of culture includes content, context, and linguistic ele-
ments in important respects, as well as an understanding of the wider
societal structures and practices that influence norms and conventions of
language interpretation and usage. The relationship of these domains is
represented in 6.1.
Competence and use
134 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Culture knowledge
Content Context
Language use
Language
knowledge
The ability to use language appropriately includes pragmatic compe-
tence. This can be defined as what people must know in order to interpret
and convey meaning within communicative situations: knowledge that
accounts for the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in
using language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language
has on other participants in the act of communication (Crystal
1997a:301).
The relationship of knowledge among domains of content, context,
culture, language form and structure, and language use is dynamic, inter-
active, and constitutive. It would be a mistake to think of language use
merely as the product of the other domains, since use plays an essential
role in their very creation, maintenance, and change.
6.1
Relationship of domains
of communicative
competence
The knowledge that an L2 learner begins with includes everything that
he or she has previously acquired as part of his or her general cognitive
development and prior social experience, as well as in his or her acquisi-
tion of L1. This prior knowledge partly explains the advantages that older
L2 learners such as college students typically have over children in
expressing and understanding the information content of L2 writing and
speech, in perceiving writer/speaker intent, and in fulfilling interactional
and instrumental goals of communication. It also accounts in part for the
interference which may occur when prior knowledge of content, context,
and culture (as well as L1 linguistic elements) is inappropriately applied to
situations of L2 use.
This chapter addresses aspects of commmunicative competence from
the perspectives of the three basic questions which have organized this
book. We focus here particularly on what knowledge of language is
required for different types of language use, how activities in L2 reading,
listening, writing, and speaking are achieved, and why learners reach dif-
ferent levels of proficiency in language use.
L1 competence ideally involves the broad repertoire of knowledge which
people need to communicate appropriately for many purposes within
their native language community. L2 competence is typically, perhaps
unavoidably, much more restricted, especially when SLA takes place in a
foreign language setting. For most people, their second language often
serves a much more limited range of needs than their first language,
depending on the situation they are in. For example, native speakers of
English in the USA might learn Spanish L2 because their jobs require
engaging in cross-national sales and services, or because they are in social
service roles which involve daily communication with native Spanish
speakers, or because they have academic interests in New World history
and need access to archival records and scholarly publications that are
available in Spanish. Native speakers of Chinese in China, on the other
hand, might need to learn English L2 to prepare for an influx of English-
speaking visitors to China for Olympic games, to serve on international
committees that use English as a common language for proceedings, or to
pursue graduate degrees in an English-dominant country. Native speakers
of Turkish might learn German L2 to engage in information exchange on
technological topics, to provide guide services for German tourists in
Turkey, or to work for a company in Germany. Each of these motivations
for learning an L2 entails very different combinations of linguistic and
cultural knowledge and different levels and types of proficiency.
Priorities for L2 use
In considering the purposes for which people learn second languages, we
must make a distinction between at least two fundamental types of com-
municative competence: academic competence and interpersonal
competence. Academic competence would include the knowledge needed
Academic vs. interpersonal competence
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 135
by learners who want to use the L2 primarily to learn about other
subjects, or as a tool in scholarly research, or as a medium in a specific
professional or occupational field. Learners with such a goal should
concentrate above all on acquiring the specific vocabulary of their field or
subject area, and on developing knowledge that enables them to read rel-
evant texts fluently in that subject area. If language learners plan to study
the subject at an L2-medium university, beyond specific vocabulary knowl-
edge and reading ability, they must also put a high priority on processing
oral L2 input during lectures and class discussions: i.e. on developing the
ability to engage successfully in academic listening. Further, they are like-
ly to need proficiency in L2 academic writing in order to display their
knowledge on examinations that may be required for university admis-
sion and to earn academic degrees. Many students need to develop L2 writ-
ing proficiency for the academic purposes of producing term papers or
theses, and researchers may need to do so for publishing articles for
international information exchange. Developing L2 academic reading,
listening, and writing proficiency, however, does not necessarily require
fluent speaking ability, particularly for learners studying the L2 in a
foreign language context.
Interpersonal competence encompasses knowledge required of learn-
ers who plan to use the L2 primarily in face-to-face contact with other
speakers. As with academic competence, vocabulary is the most important
level of language knowledge for these learners to acquire, although the
domains of vocabulary involved are likely to be very different. Knowledge
which enables them to participate in listening and speaking activities
merit the highest priority for interpersonal contexts; they must be able to
process language rapidly online (without the opportunity to review or
revise text that is possible in reading and writing), as well as possess strate-
gies for achieving clarification and negotiation of meaning during the
course of face-to-face interaction. Depending on the situation, the level
of language to be used may be formal or informal. Writing and reading
activities are required in some interpersonal situations, but speaking
and listening are much more likely to play dominant roles in interper-
sonal production and interpretation.
The contrast in priorities for L2 communicative activities depending on
academic versus interpersonal needs is shown in 6.2. The key differences
are that reading is typically much more important for academic than for
interpersonal needs, and that speaking is usually much more important
for interpersonal than for academic purposes.
136 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
6.2 Priorities for L2 activities
Academic competence Interpersonal competence
1. Reading 1. Listening
2. Listening 2. Speaking
3. Writing 3. Reading
4. Speaking 4. Writing
As shown in 6.3, the four areas of activity involving language use that
are listed in 6.2 may be classified along two dimensions: as receptive ver-
sus productive, and as conveyed by written versus oral modes of commu-
nication. The activities that have highest priority in academic competence
are receptive (reading and listening), which function primarily in pro-
cessing input; the activities with highest priority for interpersonal com-
petence are oral (listening and speaking), which function in processing
both input and expression. While all four areas of communicative activi-
ty draw on an overlapping pool of L2 knowledge at different language lev-
els, they are independent to some extent. Development of receptive abili-
ty must normally precede productive ability in any language, but beyond
that basic sequence, order of L2 development along these dimensions
depends on social circumstances. It is possible for learners to develop a rel-
atively high degree of proficiency for engaging in receptive activities
along with only very limited ability for production, or a high degree of
proficiency for engaging in either written or oral activities without well-
developed ability to engage in activities in the other mode. Many fluent
bilinguals around the world are illiterate in one or both of their lan-
guages. Learners academic and interpersonal competence which underlie
their ability to engage in these activities usually develop to different
degrees, and there is no necessary reason for one type to precede or out-
pace the other. It is known, however, that literacy (and schooling) in the
L1 facilitates acquisition of competence in an L2 under conditions of for-
mal instruction.
Linguists have traditionally divided language into the following five com-
ponents for purposes of description and analysis (as listed in Chapter 3):

vocabulary (lexicon)

morphology (word structure)

phonology (sound system)

syntax (grammar)

discourse (ways to connect sentences and organize information)

Even the most highly educated adult native speakers can never expect
to have mastery of all the potential resources of a communitys language,
and such an expectation for the vast majority of any L2 learners would be
completely unrealistic. Especially in contexts where a second language
is going to be needed for only a limited range of functions, deciding on
Components of language knowledge
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 137
6.3 Classification of activities involving language use
Written mode Oral mode
Receptive Reading Listening
Productive Writing Speaking
priorities for what needs to be learned is an important step for teachers
and learners to take.
Determining the specific L2 needs of any group of learners involves
identifying what subset of linguistic elements is associated with the vari-
eties (or registers) of a language that are used in particular situations. In
recent years, much of this task has been carried out using computerized
analyses of corpora, or large collections of written and spoken texts (e.g.
Biber, Conrad, and Reppen 1998). Such corpus linguistic analysis can be
especially useful in determining the relative frequency of different vocab-
ulary items and grammatical patterns as a basis for deciding what needs
to be taught for specific purposes.
Vocabulary
As we have already noted, vocabulary (or lexicon) is the most important
level of L2 knowledge for all learners to develop whether they are aim-
ing primarily for academic or interpersonal competence, or for a broader
scope of communicative competence that spans the two. There is a core of
high-frequency words in a language that everyone needs to learn, but
beyond that, which specific vocabulary elements learners are most likely
to need depends on whether the L2 is going to be used primarily for aca-
demic or interpersonal functions.
The core vocabulary in every language includes function words, a limit-
ed set of terms that carry primarily grammatical information. For exam-
ple, in English the most frequently used words include: determiners the,
that, this; prepositions to, of, for; conjunctions and, but; pronouns I, it, he, she,
you; and auxiliary verbs is/was/be, have/has/had. The most frequently used
words in spoken (but not written) English also include interjections yeah,
oh; contractions its, thats, dont; and verbs expressing personal opinion or
feeling know, like, think. Compilations of the fifty most common words in
written versus spoken English are listed in 6.4.
English words that occur with high frequency in a wide range of aca-
demic (but not interpersonal) contexts include modifiers such as analyti-
cal, explanatory, and implicit, as well as names for scientific concepts such
as data, hypotheses, and correlation. Other general academic vocabulary
items from written texts have been compiled in the University Word List
(Xue and Nation 1984). A subset of these words is reproduced in 6.5. Many
technical terms must be learned for any specialized field, such as lexicon,
morphology, phonology, and discourse for linguistics. Beginning students in a
field (whether L1 or L2 speakers) typically encounter such subject-specific
terms during introductory coursework along with the concepts they rep-
resent. Part of the vocabulary challenge for advanced L2 students and
scholars in a field is learning L2 labels for concepts they may have already
acquired in their L1. Some of these will be recognized even without learn-
ing, since common scientific and technological terms increasingly tend to
be borrowed from one language to another. But this is not always the case,
and differences can create additional difficulties for learners from differ-
ent L1s. For example, English linguistics is la linguistique in French, and la
lingustica in Spanish, but Sprachwissenschaft in German and yuyanxue in
138 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 139
6.4 Fifty most frequent words in written and spoken English
Rank Written Spoken Rank Written Spoken
1 the the 26 by we
2 to I 27 me he
3 of you 28 her do
4 a and 29 they got
5 and to 30 not that's
6 in it 31 are for
7 I a 32 an this
8 was yeah 33 this just
9 for that 34 has all
10 that of 35 been there
11 it in 36 up like
12 on was 37 were one
13 he is 38 out be
14 is it's 39 when right
15 with know 40 one not
16 you no 41 their don't
17 but oh 42 she she
18 at so 43 who think
19 his but 44 if if
20 as on 45 him with
21 be they 46 we then
22 my well 47 about at
23 have what 48 will about
24 from yes 49 all are
25 had have 50 would as
Written data from Cambridge International Corpus (CIC); spoken data from CANCODE (from McCarthy and
Carter 1997:23-24)
Chinese. Obviously going between English and French or Spanish is easier
in the field of linguistics than between any of these languages and
German or Chinese.
On the other hand, everyday vocabulary and expressions are most
likely to be very different in unrelated languages, since they are rarely bor-
rowed. Thus while English good is gut in German, it is bon in French, bueno
in Spanish, and hao in Chinese. However, similarities in borrowed or com-
monly inherited words can sometimes contain unexpected traps for the
learner, as German gross means simply large, and Spanish largo means
long, while embarazada in Spanish means pregnant. Thus, ironically,
learning the L2 vocabulary for ordinary informal interpersonal interac-
tion sometimes poses more difficulties than learning the technical vocab-
ulary for an academic or scientific field.
Interpersonal situations can be subdivided into those which have prima-
rily affective (interactional) purposes, and those which are task-oriented
(transactional). Each specific context determines priorities for vocabulary
learning beyond the most frequent core. Beyond common greetings, leave-
takings, invitations, refusals, and warnings, the necessary vocabulary and
phraseology is likely to differ drastically between, say, going on a swim-
ming party at the beach and following instructions on how to repair an
automobile engine. And social context may dictate register differences as
great as How are you today? vs. Howre ya doin? or Im fine, thank you vs. Just
great or some current slang-determined response. Regional differences are
likely to be greatest at the informal interactional level, and least at more
formal and more academic levels. Differences between national varieties
of a widespread language may affect even relatively technical transac-
tions, as the names for car parts famously differ between British and
American English, and the meanings of food terms may differ between
Spain and Latin American countries.
Besides individual vocabulary items (single words and compounds),
other lexical elements which vary in frequency by domain include idioms,
metaphors, and other multiple word combinations that commonly occur
together (collocations). These chunks of language are typically memo-
rized as holistic units, and often without recognition of individual words
or analysis of how they are combined. Some of those reported in English
academic speech (e.g. occurring in class lectures and discussion) are bottom
line, the big picture, take at face value, and a ballpark guess. Others serve orga-
nizational functions, signaling logical connections between segments of
classroom discourse or a change of focus: e.g. go off on a tangent, on that note,
and train of thought (Simpson and Mendis 2003). Though such expressions
are seldom taught in language lessons, their appropriate interpretation
may be significant for establishing coherence in L2-medium subject area
140 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
6.5 General Academic Word List (Nation and Waring 1997:16).
accompany formulate index major objective
biology genuine indicate maintain offer
comply hemisphere individual maximum passive
deficient homogeneous job modify persist
edit identify labour negative quote
feasible ignore locate notion random
instruction. The most frequent multiple-word combinations in English
interpersonal speech include greetings and other formulaic routines, and
such discourse fillers, hedges, or smoothers as you know, kind of, and never
mind.
Vocabulary knowledge is acquired to different degrees, with learners
first recognizing words they see or hear, then producing them in limited
contexts, and ultimately (perhaps) fully controlling their accurate and
appropriate use. L2 speakers may never acquire complete knowledge of
some words that nevertheless become part of their productive repertoire.
Among the last types of word knowledge to be mastered are collocational
behavior (what words go together), metaphorical uses, connotations asso-
ciated with synonyms, and stylistic register constraints (see Nation 1990).
The number of words that L2 speakers learn, as well as the degree of their
vocabulary knowledge, depends on their ability to pick up this informa-
tion from contexts (both oral and written) in which the words are used as
well as from explicit instruction. The following types of knowledge con-
tribute to effective use of context for vocabulary learning (Nagy 1997):

Linguistic knowledge: syntactic information; constraints on possible

word meanings; patterns in word structure; meanings of surrounding
words.

World knowledge: understanding of the concepts which the words

represent; familiarity with related conceptual frameworks; awareness
of social associations.

Strategic knowledge: control over cognitive resources.

Beyond knowledge of words, fluent use of language requires a level of
automaticity that allows processing their structures and meanings in real
time. This is an incremental achievement upon which effective engage-
ment in all language activities ultimately depends.
Morphology
L2 learning at the level of morphology (or word structure) can be very
important for vocabulary development as well as for achieving grammati-
cal accuracy. This level is highly significant for learning English, for
instance, where thousands of words are formed by compounding smaller
words (e.g. wind shield windshield [British windscreen]) or by adding pre-
fixes and suffixes (called derivational morphology) that can create new
meanings (e.g. un- kind unkind) or change part of speech (e.g. friend
[noun] -ly friendly [adjective]). Again using English as an example, words
used for academic communication (especially in writing) are characteristi-
cally longer than words used for interpersonal communication (especially
in speech), and using them requires knowledge of such word-forming ele-
ments and processes. Commonly encountered affixes in scientific terms are
the suffix -ology study of (sociology, psychology, biology), and the prefix bio-
life (biology, biodiversity, biochemical) or geo- earth (geography, geology,
geomorphism). Suffixes may convert adjectives to verbs or nouns, verbs to
nouns, nouns to adjectives or verbs, and adjectives to adverbs, as in
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 141
divers-ifi-cation-al-ly or operat-ion-al-ize-abil-ity. (In fact, learning to compute the
meaning of such complex forms automatically is part of the L2-like experi-
ence of getting a college education even for native speakers.)
Grammatical accuracy in many languages requires knowledge of the
word parts that carry meanings such as tense, aspect, and number (called
inflectional morphology, or inflections), as in English kicked, coming, and
books. Researchers from both linguistic and cognitive perspectives have
focused considerable attention on how these are acquired (discussed in
Chapters 3 and 4). The process is an especially interesting target of study
in SLA because errors at the level of morphology often persist even many
years after individuals have learned substantial vocabulary and mastered
most elements of L2 syntax.
Inflectional morphology, and related phenomena like gender and num-
ber agreement (in Romance languages, German, or Russian) may long
remain problematic for L2 learners in part because the information these
carry is often redundant in actual contexts of language use, and thus not
essential for the interpretation of meaning (especially in face-to-face inter-
action). The logical unnecessariness of most inflectional morphology is
shown by the fact that languages like Chinese and Thai dispense with it
almost entirely. However, in those languages which have it and this
includes all European languages accuracy in production of morphology
is usually expected as part of advanced academic language competence,
and in the interpersonal competence of L2 speakers who want or need to
project an image of being well educated, or who want to be fully accepted
as an in-group member.
Phonology
Mastery of the L2 sound system was considered the first priority for teach-
ing and learning during the middle of the twentieth century (as expressed
in the writing of Fries 1945; quoted in Chapter 3). This level of language
received much less attention during the second half of the century as
major interests in linguistic theory shifted from phonology to syntax, and
with general acceptance of the Critical Period Hypothesis, which claims
that learners past the age of puberty are in all probability unable to
achieve native-like pronunciation in any case no matter how much
effort is spent on the learning task. In recent years, however, there has
been renewed interest in phonological perception and production from
linguistic, cognitive, and social perspectives, and (for at least some con-
texts of use) renewed emphasis is now being placed on pronunciation in
teaching second languages.
As a component of academic competence, proficiency in phonological
perception is required for listening if learners are studying other subjects
through the medium of L2, and at least intelligible pronunciation is need-
ed for speaking in most educational settings. A much higher level of pro-
ficiency in production is required if researchers or students are using the
second language to teach others or for participating orally in professional
conferences, but the relative priority of pronunciation otherwise remains
low compared to vocabulary and syntax.
142 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
As a component of interpersonal competence, proficiency in phonolog-
ical perception and intelligible production are essential for successful spo-
ken communication, but a significant degree of foreign accent is accept-
able in most situations as long as it is within the bounds of intelligibility.
Native or near-native pronunciation is usually needed only when learners
want to identify socially with the L2 language community for affective
purposes, or when their communicative goals require such identification
by hearers. With many US and British business firms establishing
telephone-based service centers in other parts of the world, for instance,
employees in those countries may need to master even specific regional
features of American or British English as part of their job training in
order to create the illusion for customers that calls are being answered
domestically.
The following aspects of the sound systems are likely to differ for L1 and
L2 (see Chapter 3):

Which speech sounds are meaningful components of the phonologi-

cal system (phonemes)

Possible sequences of consonants and vowels (phonotactics)

Which speech sounds can and cannot occur in combination with one
another, in which syllable and word positions

Intonation patterns (stress, pitch, and duration)

Rhythmic patterns (pauses and stops)

Transfer from L1 to L2 phonology occurs in both perception and pro-
duction, and is thus a factor in both listening and speaking. Trubetzkoy
([1939]1958) characterized perception of L2 speech sounds as being
filtered through the phonological system of L1, which acts like a sieve.
Particularly at early stages of acquisition, L2 learners are likely to perceive
L2 pronunciation in terms of the L1 phonemic categories which have
already been established.
The types of potential mismatch between L1 and L2 systems have been
characterized as contrasts in phonemic correspondences (Haugen 1956),
as shown in 6.6.
This contrastive model predicts that English L1 speakers will have diffi-
culty perceiving and producing Spanish L2 distinctions between pero but
(with a flapped /r/) and perro dog (with a trilled /r/) because English does
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 143
6.6 Types of phonemic correspondences
Examples
Type L1 L2
divergent English /r/ Spanish /r/ and /r/
convergent English /i/ and /I/ Italian /i/
new English German /x/; Navajo //
similar English /t/ Spanish /t/
not distinguish between flapped and trilled variants of /r/; learning
Spanish requires acquiring a divergent distinction for English speakers.
Italian L1 speakers will have difficulty with the English L2 distinction
between meet /mit/ and mitt /mIt/, because Italian does not have a mean-
ingful distinction between those two vowels. In the other direction,
Spanish L1 speakers who are learning English L2 and English L1 speakers
who are learning Italian L2 might initially overdifferentiate target
phonemes /r/ and /i/, respectively, but convergence essentially ignoring the
differences is called for as part of the SLA process. As is evident, conver-
gence is always far easier than divergence in L2 learning.
New phonemes are likely to be perceived as having features of the L1
speech sound which is the closest correspondent: German ich /ix/ I is
heard as /ik/ by the English learner, and Navajo hogan /hoan/ house is
heard as /hogan/, because the English phonemic system does not include
sounds that are represented by the symbols /x/ and //, and /k/ and /g/ are
their nearest equivalent. The similar type of correspondence, as English /t/
and Spanish /t/, is not likely to be problematic for listening but contributes
to a foreign accent in speaking; English /t/ is pronounced with the
tongue making contact further back on the gum ridge than Spanish /t/,
which is produced with the tongue against the back of the teeth.
Transfer can also be found for other aspects of phonological systems,
including syllable structure. An initial consonant cluster such as the /sk/ in
English school is not permitted in Spanish syllable structure, as mentioned
earlier, so a Spanish L1 speaker may pronounce the word as two syllables,
/es-kul/, to fit the Spanish pattern. Conversely, English speakers may find it
difficult to pronounce /ts/, which is a common sequence at the end of
words in English, as in cats, when it occurs at the beginning of words as in
German zehn 10. Intonation often conveys important elements of mean-
ing such as speaker intent which can be lost or misidentified across
languages, and patterns of stress in words and phrases, which provide
information for segmenting speech into grammatical units, may not be
perceived or produced accurately. English speakers, who are accustomed to
reducing vowels in unstressed syllables to an indistinct schwa, may create
confusion in Spanish by failing to distinguish between the final unstressed
vowels of hermano brother and hermana sister. L1 speakers of European
languages, who use differences in voice pitch primarily for sentence or
phrase intonation, find it challenging to perceive and produce distinctive
tones necessary for distinguishing individual words in Chinese.
As we saw in Chapter 3, contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 does not
account for all learner errors, and many problems which are predicted do
not emerge. The approach has been most reliable for predicting L1 influ-
ence on L2 acquisition of phonology, however, and remains useful for
explaining nonnative perceptual patterns (e.g., there are contrastive out-
lines of over twenty languages published as a guide for English teachers in
Swan and Smith 2001).
The concept of phonemes as bundles of distinctive features (e.g.
Chomsky and Halle 1968) is also still relevant in accounts of why L2 speech
144 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
sounds are perceived in terms of L1 categories. On this account, each
phoneme in a language consists of a unique bundle of distinctive
features which make it perceptibly different from other phonemes to
speakers of that language. The possible set of features is a universal;
those features which distinguish phonemes in any L1 or L2 are a subset.
Some analysts argue that it is these features, rather than the phonemes
per se, which influence perception (see Brown 2000).
Another aspect of perception and production of speech segments which
has received considerable attention is voice onset time (VOT), which is
related to the location of a phoneme boundary and to identification of ini-
tial stop consonants. The location of boundaries for multilinguals often
involves compromise, with a VOT value between L1 and L2. This process is
often found to be not so much simple transfer from L1 to L2 as restruc-
turing of acoustic-phonetic space to encompass both systems (Leather and
James 1996).
In contrast, yet another effect that is found is one of exaggeration,
where learners sometimes maximize a difference between L1 and L2. For
example, Flege (1980) found that an Arabic L1 speaker produced a greater
duration contrast between /p/ and /b/ in English L2 than do English L1
speakers (although Arabic does not have a similar /p//b/ distinction), and
Gass (1984) reported an Italian L1 speaker maximizing the phonetic con-
trast between Italian /b/ and English /p/ when producing English L2:
learners first identify that there is something to learn and then work out
the details, which in many cases involves the maximization of the fea-
tures of the new element and contrast (Gass 1996:328). Individual, socio-
linguistic, and sociocultural factors can also have a major impact on L2
phonology; these were discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.
Syntax
Depending on the theoretical linguistic perspective one takes (Chapter 3),
acquiring the syntax of another language may be seen as an issue of inter-
nalizing new construction patterns, generative rules, different parame-
ters for innate principles, or collocational probabilities and constraints.
Whatever the analysis, the process begins with recognizing that sentences
are more than just combinations of words, and that every language has
specific limits and requirements on the possible orders and arrangements
of elements. Contrastive analysis helps us anticipate some of the problems
and difficulties or lack thereof that we may face in trying to acquire
another language.
A first step is realizing that certain aspects of language are universal,
but how they are expressed may vary greatly. All languages have struc-
tures for making statements, asking questions, and denying assertions.
Sentences in all languages consist of a subject and a predicate, and predi-
cates consist of a verb, or a verb and one or two objects, plus other possible
phrases expressing such things as time, place, frequency, manner, goal,
source, or purpose. But the order of elements, and degree of flexibility in
their order, may differ radically. Using S for subject, V for verb, and O for
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 145
object, linguists classify languages according to the typical order in which
these components occur, e.g.
S V O English, Chinese, French, Russian
S O V Japanese, Turkish, Persian, Finnish
V S O Irish, Welsh, Samoan, Zapotec
(German is unusual in having a mixed system, since the word order is SVO
in main clauses and SOV in subordinate clauses.)
While these orders are statistically most common, most languages have
ways to vary the basic order to some extent for various reasons, including
focus, information structure, and style. Some languages, like English or
Japanese, are fairly rigid insofar as allowing variation in order; others
such as Russian or Latin are extremely flexible. In English, for example,
the SVO order is often essential in distinguishing subjects and objects: in
William hit Peter, we know from the order that William initiated the action
and that Peter was the one injured; if the order is reversed to Peter hit
William, we make the opposite inference. In a language like Russian or
German, however, case markers on the noun or article indicate subject or
object function, so any order is possible since the information will still be
evident (in this way morphology and syntax interact).
English as it was spoken a thousand years ago (Old English) was more
like Russian or Latin, as this sentence shows:
Se cyning seah one bisceop.
(The king saw the bishop.)
Since the form of the definite article (se vs one) identified whether the
noun was subject (nominative case) or object (accusative case), the order
could be switched without changing the basic meaning:
one bisceop seah se cyning.
Se cyning one bisceop seah.
one bisceop se cyning seah.
Modern English has lost this flexibility, since the invariant form of the no
longer reflects the function of the noun in the sentence.
Note, however, that word order in Old English was not completely free,
since the position of the article could not be switched with the noun. Just
as we cannot say
*King the saw bishop the.
the order of these words could not be switched either. Just so, even in very
flexible languages, the order of elements within constituent phrases may
be quite rigid:
146 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
English Japanese
in Tokyo Tokyo de
*Tokyo in *de Tokyo
English speakers are familiar with the concepts of grammatical gender
and number, which determine the choice of pronouns, and whether the
noun is marked for singular or plural:
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 147
Singular Plural
the boy he/him the boys
the girl she/her the girls they/them
the tree it/it the trees
Masculine Feminine
el edificio blanco la casa blanca
los edificios blancos las casas blancas
the white building the white house
the white buildings the white houses
Singular Plural
der Arm the arm die Arme the arms
die Reise the trip die Reisen the trips
das Kind the child die Kinder the children
In German, as was formerly the case in English, the form of the article must
agree both in gender and number with the noun, and additionally may
indicate whether the noun phrase is used as subject, object, or modifier
(genitive):
English speakers will predictably have difficulty with this (something
our linguistic ancestors took for granted!), whereas German speakers
learning English face a much easier task, since they can simply ignore the
need for article agreement. Speakers of Russian, Chinese, and Japanese,
on the other hand, will find even this simplified the very difficult to mas-
ter, since these languages lack an exact equivalent.
English speakers acquiring a Romance language (French, Spanish, Italian)
must learn to categorize all nouns into two genders, rather misleadingly
labeled masculine and feminine, and to select articles to agree in gen-
der and number with the noun, as well as to show this agreement in adjec-
tives (and to place most adjectives after rather than before the noun):
While speakers of these languages face a simpler task in acquiring this
aspect of English:
they conversely must learn when not to use the definite article:
*I always enjoy the rap music.
For Chinese speakers, and speakers of most Asian languages, having to
mark plurals on nouns in English will be a challenge, since this is not
done in these languages, which also do not distinguish gender (except
artificially in writing) or subject/object function in pronouns:
148 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
English Chinese
he/him ta
she/her ta
it/it ta
English Chinese
a book yiben shu (collection of objects)
a table yizhang zuo (flat object)
a pen yizhi bi (long, thin object)
Other differences between English and some other languages include
whether any movement of words in the sentence is required to form yes/no
and Wh-questions, how passives are formed, where and how negation is
marked (and whether double negatives are required, as in Romance lan-
guages), and how time and perspective are marked in the verb system.
These are only a few examples of the kinds of grammatical issues that
face speakers of different L1s acquiring an L2, just within simple sen-
tences. But academic competence requires processing much longer and
more complicated sentences than does interpersonal competence.
Academic sentences are often grammatically complex, involving various
types of subordination. In addition, passive constructions are much more
likely to be used in order to foreground objects and results and to back-
ground agents of actions (or omit them entirely, as in the present passive
sentence). The general need to provide specific content information in
academic discourse results in different forms of linguistic expansion and
elaboration, including (in many European languages, for example) the use
of more prepositional phrases and relative clauses to modify nouns. The
impersonal nature of much academic writing and speaking, especially in
European languages, leads to the use of more abstract expressions,
emphasizing states rather than expressing actions.
One way this is achieved in English is through the use of nominaliza-
tions, by which whole sentences are transformed into fillers for noun
phrase positions. E.g.
English speakers, on the other hand, while finding Chinese pronouns sim-
ple to acquire (though they must, conversely, learn not to use them much
of the time), will have to internalize a completely different system of gen-
der, one based primarily on the shape of things, e.g.:
This process allows several simple sentences to be combined into one, and
increases the density of information transmitted. E.g.
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 149
Edison invented the phonograph. ==> Edisons invention of the
phonograph
Caesar conquered Gaul. ==> Caesars conquest of Gaul
I analyzed the report. ==> My analysis of the report
Someone constructed the Sphinx. ==> The construction of the Sphinx
Bacteria exist in the mouth. ==> The existence of bacteria in the
mouth
The war was widely opposed. ==> Wide opposition to the war
Scientists were working in a laboratory.
The laboratory was in Chicago.
Scientists discovered something.
Bacteria exist in the mouth.
This is what they discovered.
Someone reported this event last month.
==> The discovery of the existence of bacteria in the mouth by scientists in a
laboratory in Chicago was reported last month.
Here six sentences are condensed into one, reducing the number of words
from thirty to twenty one, but at the expense of increasing the syntactic
complexity of the resulting sentence, and introducing the abstract nouns,
discovery and existence, which may be less familiar to some readers, who
may not know how to process the relations of other words to these, and
who may not realize that the complex construction can be deconstructed
back to simpler sentences.
In contrast, grammatical structures used for interpersonal functions are
much more likely to be short, simple sentences. Often they are not com-
plete sentences at all, but fragments like OK, Right, and Me too. Contracted
forms such as Im, its, and dont are common, and questions and directives
are more frequent sentence types. Language used for affective purposes
often serves to express a speakers point of view rather than to transmit ref-
erential information; this functional difference accounts for a high fre-
quency of such verb constructions as is going to, is supposed to, needs to, and
wants to (Scheibman 2002), and verbs like know, think, and say (see 6.4).
Because many of the grammatical structures common to interpersonal
communication are different from those found in written academic texts,
even the development of considerable fluency for everyday interactive pur-
poses does not guarantee that a learner will acquire the syntactic knowledge
that is necessary for the advanced literacy that full academic competence
requires. Nor does proficiency in processing the formal, complex structures
of academic writing guarantee a learners ability to participate appropri-
ately in informal conversations which are characterized by sentence frag-
ments and contractions, rapid give-and-take, and everyday vocabulary.
Beyond very basic common structures, the syntactic knowledge required for
either domain requires extensive input that is specific to the intended con-
text of use.
Discourse
Linguistic elements at the level of discourse function beyond the scope
of a single sentence. At a microstructural discourse level these include
sequential indicators, logical connectors, and other devices to create
cohesion. At a macrostructural discourse level we go beyond linguistic
elements to knowledge of organizational features that are characteristic
of particular genres, and of interactional strategies. Both microstruc-
tural and macrostructural levels are sensitive to the relationship
between language forms and the communicative situations within
which they are used, requiring an essential interface of linguistic knowl-
edge with content, culture, and context.
Sequential indicators are linguistic elements that connect phrases,
clauses, or longer units of written or spoken text to signal the order in
which events take place. In English they may be set off with a comma or
pause, as in the following example (which is a paraphrase of the preview
to this chapter):
First, we will consider an overall characterization of communicative
competence. Then, we will distinguish between knowledge that is
required for academic versus interpersonal functions. Next, we will
categorize and prioritize areas of knowledge according to traditional
levels of language. Finally, we will explore aspects of communicative
competence in relation to activity type.
Other common indicators of temporal sequence in English include
beforeafter, and yesterdaytodaytomorrow. An overlapping set of elements
indicates spatial sequence and may also be used to delineate items in a list
(often in order of priority or relative importance).
Logical connectors occur between clauses or other grammatical con-
stituents to indicate such relations between them as causeeffect (e.g.
because; as a result; consequently) contrast (e.g. however; on the other hand), and
addition of information (e.g. furthermore; moveover). Academic written
English typically prefers overt verbal expression of the connections, but
many other languages (e.g. Chinese and Korean) often prefer to express
such relationships by juxtaposition of clauses rather than with added lin-
guistic elements. Use of overt logical connectors is an aspect of English L2
which is problematic for many learners.
Cohesion devices link one element of discourse to another, integrating
them into a unified text. They include many of the sequential indicators and
logical connectors that are listed above, but also such ties as pronominal and
150 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
lexical reference, substitution, and ellipsis. The most frequently cited
typology of English devices is by Halliday and Hasan (1976).
Some of these devices are illustrated in the following paragraph:
Students who acquire second languages do so
1
in many social contexts.
For example, they
2
may learn L2s
3
in formal classrooms, or [ ]
4
in informal
interaction with native speakers. Language learners
5
may profit from either
setting
6
, but
7
of course
8
not all
9
will have equal success. In the end
10
,
motivation as well as
11
aptitude and
12
opportunity is a critical variable
13
.
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 151
6.7 Types of cohesion in English
Reference
Pronominals he, they
Demonstratives; articles this, the
Comparatives same, other
Substitution
Nominal substitutes one, all
Verbal substitutes do, likewise
Clausal substitutes so
Ellipsis
Nominal ellipsis (omissions at subsequent mention)
Verbal ellipsis
Clausal ellipsis
Conjunction
Additive and, as well as
Adversative yet, but, however
Causal so, it follows
Temporal then, in the end
Continuative of course, anyway
Intonation
Lexical
Same item mushroommushroom
Synonym or near synonym the ascentthe climb
Superordinate a new Jaguarthe car
General item the raftersthose things
Collocation boygirl, northsouth
1
Substitution for acquire second languages
2
Pronominal reference for students who acquire second languages
3
Synonym for acquire second languages
4
Ellipsis for they may learn L2s
5
Synonym for students who acquire second languages
6
Substitution for formal classrooms and informal interaction
7
Adversative
8
Continuative
9
Substitution of quantifier for elided language learners
10
Temporal
11
Additive
12
Additive
13
Superordinate for motivation, aptitude, and opportunity
Both academic and interpersonal domains involve conventionalized
categories and types of discourse, called genres. Different genres are typi-
cally characterized by having different functions within a language com-
munity, involving different classes of participants (speakers/writers and
audience), addressing different topics, and requiring different language
styles and organization. Academic genres include research papers, lec-
tures, and book reviews; interpersonal genres include conversations, serv-
ice encounters (e.g. ordering food in a restaurant), and letters. Genres are
conventionalized categories of discourse in the sense that knowledge of
their nature and regularities is shared by members of a language com-
munity as part of the cultural component of communicative competence.
L2 learners of a language often have to learn new organizational fea-
tures for a relevant genre as well as new linguistic elements when they
wish to join the community that uses it. For example, academic research
reports that are written in English commonly follow the following
sequence (see Swales 1990):
(1) Statement of the problem under investigation and its potential
significance
(2) Specific research questions or hypotheses
(3) Review of related research
(4) Description of data collection and analytic procedures
(5) Presentation of findings
(6) Discussion of results
(7) Conclusion (often including mention of limitations and suggestions
for future research)
There is variability in the pattern by discipline (e.g. academic reports dif-
fer somewhat depending on whether they are situated in the physical sci-
ences, social sciences, or humanities), but an English-speaking researcher
in any subject area would consider it odd if a report presented findings
before describing data-collection procedures, and a report which deviat-
ed significantly from disciplinary conventions of organization would
probably not be accepted in fulfillment of an academic thesis require-
ment or be published by a professional journal. An example of cultural
differences in the organizational pattern of this academic genre is that a
152 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Chinese scholar is likely to omit the review of related research, whether
writing in Chinese L1 or English L2 (Taylor and Chen 1991). Contrastive
Rhetoric is an area of research that compares genre-specific conventions
in different languages and cultures, with particular focus on predicting
and explaining problems in L2 academic and professional writing (see
Connor 1996 for a survey of research topics and findings).
Examples of conventional features that L2 learners must acquire for inter-
actional genres include politeness and turn-taking strategies for conversa-
tions. Some general (and perhaps universal) rules for politeness have been
suggested, such as Do not impose and Help the other person save face
(Traugott and Pratt 1980), but similar communicative behaviors may be
interpreted differently in different cultures. Essentially the same act may be
perceived as friendly in one setting but rude in another (e.g. asking a
casual acquaintance about their religious or political views, or whether
they have children). Appropriate conversational turn-taking in some cul-
tures involves interruptions, overlaps, or simultaneous speaking; some cul-
tures require several seconds of silence before another speaker may begin,
with a shorter interval again considered rude or overly aggressive.
Transfer of politeness and turn-taking conventions from L1 to L2 in
cases where such contrasts exist may not interfere with expression and
interpretation of the referential content of messages but can contribute to
instances of serious misunderstanding of speaker intent and message
tone. Comparative research on interactional genre with particular focus
on such factors can be found in the domain of Intercultural
Communication (e.g. see Scollon and Scollon 2001).
Development of the ability to use elements of L2 discourse appropriate-
ly is not unlike the development of other elements of interlanguage. It
takes place gradually and systematically, and many errors in production
can be attributed to either transfer of L1 knowledge in using the L2 or to
developmental patterns within the L2 (e.g. Ellis 1997). And as with the
other elements, the nature and amount of input to learners largely deter-
mines the degree of proficiency that they will attain. The development of
academic discourse competence requires reading and hearing an ample
number of academic texts within meaningful contexts, and it benefits
from feedback on the appropriateness of written production.
Development of interpersonal discourse competence requires opportunity
for social interaction and the input and feedback that it produces.
The labeling of reading and listening as receptive (as opposed to pro-
ductive) activities does not imply that L2 learners perform them passive-
ly and without effort. Learners must actively participate in creating mean-
ing from L2 input, or else writing remains merely marks on paper and
speech remains only a stream of noise that people emit through their
mouths. We saw examples in Chapter 5 of children and adults who failed
to learn a single word of another language even after extended opportu-
nity to do so when they lacked need or motivation. Successful SLA
requires active engagement.
Receptive activities
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 153
Comprehension of written or spoken language involves both bottom-up
and top-down processing. Bottom-up processing requires prior knowledge
of the language system (i.e. vocabulary, morphology, phonology, syntax,
and discourse structure) and interpretation of physical (graphic and audi-
tory) cues. Knowledge of vocabulary is needed to recognize words and to
understand what they mean; knowledge of morphology is needed to inter-
pret complex lexical elements, as well as to perceive grammatical infor-
mation that is carried by inflections; knowledge of phonology is needed to
recognize spoken words, to segment speech into grammatical units, and to
relate written symbols to their spoken form; knowledge of syntax is need-
ed to recognize how words relate to one another, and how they are consti-
tuted as phrases and clauses; knowledge of discourse structure is needed
to interpret stretches of language that are longer than a single sentence.
We can generally assume that sufficient prior linguistic knowledge
except perhaps vocabulary is automatically (and unconsciously) avail-
able to L1 and to highly skilled L2 speakers for interpretation of meaning,
but the language knowledge of L2 learners is often insufficient for com-
prehending written or spoken input. At early stages of learning, bottom-
up processing is limited to visual or auditory recognition of the limited
set of words and word combinations that have been acquired thus far, and
of simple grammatical sequences. When L2 input significantly exceeds
these limits, understanding is likely to be fragmentary.
Top-down processing can compensate for linguistic limitations to some
extent by allowing learners to guess the meaning of words they have not
encountered before, and to make some sense out of larger chunks of writ-
ten and oral text. For both L1 and L2 speakers, top-down processing uti-
lizes prior knowledge of content, context, and culture, which were shown
in 6.1 to be essential components of communicative competence.
Content knowledge is background information about the topic that is
being read about or listened to; new information is perceived and inter-
preted in relation to this base. For example, when early reading in an aca-
demic text is related to subject matter that L2 learners have already stud-
ied in their L1, that prior content knowledge provides a scaffold for
understanding new terms and integrating new information in a coherent
conceptual framework. Indeed, L2 learners may sometimes know more
about the topic of a text than do L1 speakers, and thus be able to make
considerable sense of what they read or hear in spite of gaps in their com-
prehension of specific words and grammatical structures.
Context knowledge includes information learned from what has already
been read or heard in a specific text or situation, as well as an under-
standing of what the writers or speakers intentions are, and the overall
structure of the discourse pattern being used; it allows prediction of what
is likely to follow, and how the information is likely to be organized.
Culture knowledge subsumes content and context in many ways but also
includes an understanding of the wider social setting within which acts of
reading and listening take place. Precisely because this knowledge is taken
for granted by the writer of the text being read (and often by the teacher in
an instructional situation as well), it is rarely expressed explicitly, so that its
154 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 155
Culture knowledge
Content Context
Vocabulary Morphology Phonology Syntax
Discourse
structure
TOP-DOWN
TEXT
Language knowledge
BOTTOM-UP
role in the process of understanding (or conversely, the failure to under-
stand) is rarely recognized. While we can generally assume that many social
dimensions of culture knowledge are automatically available to L1 speakers
who grow up as members of the native speech community, they are often
not within the background experience of foreign language learners.
All types of pre-existing knowledge that readers and listeners bring to
the interpretation of text contribute to their schemas, or the mental
structures that map the expected patterns of objects and events. These
types of knowledge are represented in 6.8.
Reading
Reading is the most important area of activity for individuals to engage in
for the development of L2 academic competence, and it is important as well
for interpersonal functions and for merely getting along in any literate
society. For many learners, reading is the primary channel for L2 input and
a major source of exposure to associated literature and other aspects of the
L2 culture. In the case of a language that is used for wider communication
(such as English), reading also provides significant input related to techno-
logical developments, world news, and scientific discoveries. Reading ability
(literacy) in general is needed not only for access to printed resources such as
books and journals but may also be needed for access to computers and the
Internet. Non-academic situations which require reading range from those
which involve interpreting directions on signs and product labels to those
which involve receiving news from friends in letters or e-mail.
Grabe (1991) reviews research on fluent academic reading in terms of six
component abilities and types of knowledge that are involved in the activity.
(1) Automatic recognition ability. Automatic (as opposed to conscious) word
perception and identification is necessary for fluency. There is also some
6.8
Receptive processing
evidence that lower-level automaticity is important (e.g. at feature and
letter levels), as well as automatic recognition of syntactic structures.
(2) Vocabulary and structural knowledge. Fluent reading requires a large
recognition vocabulary (some estimates range up to 100,000 words)
and a sound knowledge of grammatical structure.
(3) Formal discourse structure knowledge. Good readers know how a text is
organized, including (culture-specific) logical patterns of organization
for such contrasts as causeeffect and problemsolution relations.
(4) Content/world background knowledge. Good readers have both more prior
cultural knowledge about a topic and more text-related information
than those who are less proficient.
(5) Synthesis and evaluation processes/strategies. Fluent readers evaluate
information in texts and compare it with other sources of knowl-
edge; they go beyond merely trying to comprehend what they
read.
(6) Metacognitive knowledge and comprehension monitoring. Fluent readers
have [unconscious] knowledge about knowledge of language and
about using appropriate strategies for understanding texts and
processing information. Monitoring involves both recognizing problems
that occur in the process of interpreting information in a text, and
awareness of non-comprehension.
Fluency in reading takes time to develop in either L1 or L2, but it is an
essential aspect of academic competence. Most L2 learners have already
learned to read their L1 and thus do not need to begin acquiring this abil-
ity anew: there is significant transfer of knowledge and ability from read-
ing in one language to reading in another. The basic concept of deriving
meaning from abstract written/printed symbols is the same in most lan-
guages, and the same top-down strategies for making inferences, using
prior knowledge, and reasoning are applicable. Indeed, level of L1 reading
ability is a very strong predictor of how successful students will be in
learning to read L2. This is true even when the L1 is represented in a dif-
ferent symbolic writing system (or orthography), as when L1 readers of
Japanese or Hebrew transfer reading skills to English L2 (e.g. Saville-Troike
1984). Content knowledge which is applied in the top-down processing of
texts is not language-specific for the most part. Concepts that are learned
through the medium of one language still exist in the mind when access
to them is triggered through the medium of another. (Of course it is
always possible that differences might exist in the structure or content of
a concept as it was learned in an L1 and as it is presented or assumed in
the L2; the conflict, which may go unnoticed, can lead to misunderstand-
ing or confusion. This conflict can exist as well between varieties of an L1,
particularly in the application of vocabulary labels.)
Developing fluency in reading requires acquiring sufficient knowledge
of the new language elements (especially vocabulary, but also grammar
and discourse structure) for these to be recognized and interpreted auto-
matically, without conscious attention. Achieving automatic recognition
requires extensive practice: as is true in many other fields of activity, one
learns to read by reading.
156 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Purposeful academic reading is possible even during the beginning and
intermediate states of L2 learning, since reading for different purposes
does not necessarily require the same level of background linguistic
knowledge nor automaticity. Grabe (2002) lists the following functions for
reading in academic settings, which are listed here in order of their like-
ly difficulty for L2 learners (from least to most difficult):

Reading to find information: scan or search text for a specific topic,

word, or phrase

Reading for general understanding: get the main ideas and at least
some supporting ideas and information

Reading to learn: understand the main ideas and store meanings and
supporting details in a coherent organizational frame

Reading to critique and evaluate: in addition, reflect on text content,

integrate it with prior knowledge, and judge quality and appropriate-
ness of texts in relation to what is already known about the topic
Even a relative beginner can scan text for a specific topic or word, and
intermediate L2 learners can comprehend the main ideas and get some
supporting information, but reading to learn and critical/evaluative read-
ing are generally achieved only at advanced levels of SLA (though knowl-
edge of discourse/textual schemas and common technical vocabulary can
sometimes enable even a relative novice to gather useful information
from a text in another language which utilizes a similar orthography).
Beginning L2 reading
Learners whose L1 is written in a different orthographic system from their
L2 need to be able to recognize symbols in the target language as an early
step, although they may learn to recognize a number of words by their
appearance as whole units before they can identify constituent parts.
Different types of writing systems are illustrated in 6.9: alphabetic, syl-
labic, and logographic. The sentences given in English (Roman), Lao, and
Greek alphabets, Japanese syllabary, and Chinese logographic characters
have approximately the same meaning, She went to the market. English
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 157
6.9 Writing systems of the world
Alphabets English She went to the market.
Lao law pa:i thala:t
she go market
Greek pighe stin aghora
he/she.went to.the market
Syllabary Japanese kanojo ga maketto ni ikimashita
she nom. market to went
Logographic Chinese ta qu le shi.chang
she go perfect market
L1 learners of Spanish or French L2 share the same Roman alphabet and
thus already know the symbols that are used to represent the consonant
and vowel sounds of those languages. In contrast, English L1 learners of
Lao and Greek or Korean must learn rather different sets of alphabetic
symbols to relate to consonants and vowels in those languages; learners of
Japanese must learn different sets of symbols to relate to larger syllabic
(consonant vowel) units; and learners of Chinese must learn a logo-
graphic system in which symbols (or a sequence of two or more symbols)
relate holistically to word meanings. The task is made more difficult when
the same symbols take different forms in print and handwriting, in
upper and lower case (as in the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets), or in initial
and final word position (as in Hebrew and Arabic alphabets), and when
they occur in both simplified and unsimplified variants (as in Chinese
characters). Another difference in writing systems which may be encoun-
tered at an early stage is directionality (e.g. whether print is to be decoded
left to right, right to left, or top to bottom, and which part of a book is the
front).
Learning a new system of graphic representation also requires learning
to recognize and interpret new conventions of punctuation. Punctuation
provides information about the scope of grammatical constituents within
sentences and how they are related, and often signals aspects of meaning
that are carried by intonation in spoken language. There are also different
conventions for whether punctuation should be used at all, and whether
blank spaces should occur between words. (For example, Thai and Lao do
not make use of such spaces, and Chinese characters are all equally
spaced, regardless of their relation to one another.)
Depending on how much prior oral knowledge of the L2 that learners
have before starting to read, rate of progress through beginning stages
will vary greatly. Learners who are literate in their L1 and who already
recognize a substantial amount of L2 vocabulary and basic grammatical
structures can expect to extract a significant amount of information
from written L2 text as soon as they can process its graphic representa-
tion. Learners who begin reading L2 without some (prior or simultane-
ous) exposure to the oral form of the language may be more limited in
what they can process (depending on the similarity in the writing sys-
tems and the amount of identifiably related vocabulary). Even so, early
introduction of reading can be advantageous. The rate of learning (espe-
cially of vocabulary) is generally enhanced by having visual as well as
auditory input; background knowledge about the topic helps beginners
guess meanings of unknown words in context and further enhances inci-
dental learning.
What is acquired in beginning L2 reading is essentially learning how to
relate knowledge of different levels of language to graphic representa-
tion, along with developing the ability to compensate for limitations in
linguistic knowledge through top-down processing. How this is accom-
plished is largely by transfer of L1 reading processes; transfer is greatly
facilitated by selection of content topics which learners have already
experienced.
158 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Academic reading
Advanced reading ability in both L1 and L2 is usually required to extract
detailed information from L2 texts on science, technology, and other sub-
ject matter involving both linguistic and nonlinguistic prerequisite
knowledge. Prerequisite L2 linguistic knowledge includes:

A large recognition vocabulary of both basic and subject-specific

terms, including their meaning, graphic representation, and
probability of occurrence with other lexical items.

Complex sentence structures, along with punctuation conventions

that contribute to syntactic processing.

Organization features at the sentence level which identify elements

that are in focus and distinguish old and new information.

Organization features at the discourse level, such as how texts are

structured and how information is organized (Grabe 2002).
Development of advanced academic reading proficiency requires exten-
sive exposure to written text. Because vocabulary, grammar, and discourse
structures differ in the kind of language used for academic versus inter-
personal purposes, and in written versus oral channels, academic text
material provides the most appropriate source of language input for this
purpose. Texts about subjects in the target content area ensure exposure
to maximally relevant vocabulary selection and additionally add to the
background knowledge that readers can use in top-down processing for
meaning. Explicit instruction about language structure is useful in
achieving advanced academic reading proficiency in an L2, especially if
the instruction includes focus on the more complex grammatical forms
that characterize this writing and on ways in which information is organ-
ized that may differ from L1 texts. Exclusive focus on conversational L2
usage and simplified written text does not adequately prepare learners to
accomplish advanced academic goals.
Once advanced reading proficiency has been attained, it can often be
maintained at a high level without help from a teacher and even if there
is minimal opportunity for exposure to face-to-face interaction or other
sources of continuing L2 input.
Listening
Listening accounts for most of the language input for L1 acquisition by
children, but L2 learners often have much less opportunity to hear the tar-
get language and therefore receive proportionally less input via this chan-
nel. Listening is a critically important activity, however, both for learners
who want or need to participate in oral interpersonal communication and
for learners who want or need to receive information from such oral
sources as lectures and media broadcasts.
One way to classify listening tasks is on a continuum from reciprocal to
non-reciprocal communication (Lynch 1998). Participation in face-to-face
interpersonal interaction is at the reciprocal end of this continuum, and
listening to radio or TV news broadcasts is at the non-reciprocal end.
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 159
Listening to academic lectures or conference presentations has the poten-
tial to be relatively more or less reciprocal depending on whether listen-
ers have the opportunity to ask questions of the speaker and participate in
discussion. Reciprocal communication requires learners to speak as well
as to listen, and to collaborate in the negotiation of meaning. Non-
reciprocal communication places heavier requirements on the listener for
processing input and constructing meaning online or in real time, with-
out being able to request repetition or clarification.
Another way to classify listening activities is according to whether they
require general or selective listening (Nida 1953). General listening
requires only that listeners get the general gist of the message, while selec-
tive listening requires perception and comprehension of important
details. The latter type of task is common for academic lectures in which
students are expected to note facts such as names, places, and dates, but
also occurs in reciprocal interpersonal conversations such as when the lis-
tener is invited to be in a certain place at a particular time.
The theory of SLA most commonly used to account for listening phe-
nomena is Information Processing (see Chapter 4). The first stage is input,
or perception which requires noticing relevant auditory cues. This requires
much more conscious attention and effort for L2 reception than for L1,
especially in early language learning. The next stage is central processing,
involving both the bottom-up and top-down factors which were discussed
above. Bottom-up processing must be under a high degree of attentional
control until components of L2 knowledge become automatic, and many
linguistic cues to meaning are inaccessible because of learners limited
store of phonological, lexical, and grammatical information. Limits are also
imposed by the mental working space required for conscious processing,
which leaves relatively little capacity for new information and higher order
thought. Top-down factors such as prior content knowledge and expecta-
tions may already be automatized and available for integration, even at
early levels of L2 learning. While this generally facilitates comprehension,
the unconscious and automatic access that listeners have to prior knowl-
edge of content, context, and culture may be inappropriate in the L2 situa-
tion and could account for some misunderstanding. In addition to potential
inappropriate transfer of prior knowledge in top-down processing, interfer-
ence in bottom-up processing commonly results from transfer from a lis-
teners L1 phonological system, as discussed earlier in this chapter.
Beginning L2 listening
Speech in a foreign language is initially perceived as merely a stream of
noise. The first step in making sense of what people say is recognizing pat-
terns in recurring sequences of sounds and attaching meaning to them.
This begins the process of segmenting the stream of speech into meaning-
ful units: sounds that form words, words that form phrases, and phrases
that constitute clauses or sentences. Segmenting speech requires not only
perceiving sound, but noticing patterns in relation to a context which
allows interpretation. As we have seen, this requires the active engagement
of learners.
160 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Beginning L2 learners can begin to create sense from auditory input
most easily if:

They know in advance what the speaker is going to be talking about.

Key words and phrases are learned as recognition vocabulary

elements before they are encountered in connected speech.

Speakers pause frequently at boundaries between parts of sentences.

Auditory messages are supported by visual images (including writing).

The communicative situation is a reciprocal one that allows the

listener to seek repetition and clarification, or to ask the speaker to
slow down.
Many nonlinguistic factors also influence comprehensibility in beginning
L2 listening. Interference can be caused by:

Poor signal quality (such as static or sound distortion)

Background noise

Any distraction of the listeners attention

Affective features such as anxiety (see a review of factors in Lynch 1998)

Speaker pronunciation is also a factor that influences listener compre-
hension. Many learners report that they find it easier to understand L2
utterances produced by speakers of their own L1 than by native speakers
of the L2, presumably because the speakers accent is closer to their own
phonological perceptual system. However, research on this topic suggests
that familiarity with the accent is even more important (Flowerdew 1994).
In universities where different native regional varieties of speech are
found among instructors (as well as different nonnative accents), students
can improve their comprehension by tape-recording classroom proceed-
ings for subsequent ear-tuning (or familiarization), as well as for pro-
viding opportunities for review of linguistic structures and content. Replay
of recorded L2 speech helps learners work out what is being said as a pre-
requisite to understanding what is being meant (Lynch 2002:47).
Considered within the Information Processing approach to SLA, repetition
can enhance noticing and contribute to automatization, by facilitating
faster processing of input, and the ability to process longer segments in
working memory. Video-recording television programs of different gen-
res, especially programs which provide simultaneous closed captioning (or
movies with subtitles) can also provide a useful source for listening practice.
Academic listening
Academic listening requires much of the same L2 linguistic knowledge as
was listed above for academic reading: a large recognition vocabulary of
both basic and subject-specific terms; complex sentence structure; and
organizational features at sentence and discourse levels that distinguish
new from old information and highlight important content. In addition,
academic listening often requires ability to process pronunciation by
speakers of different native and nonnative varieties of the language which
can be especially challenging for L2 learners. Tape-recording lectures and
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 161
other relatively non-reciprocal listening activities is useful for advanced as
well as beginning students in such contexts, both for ear-tuning and for
content review. It often takes several weeks for even advanced L2 learners
to understand all of the input they need from lectures and other oral
events if they have not had recent extensive experience with listening
activities; recordings allow for recovery of information that might other-
wise be lost, and for recontextualization of key vocabulary that has been
noted for subsequent definition or elaboration.
As with reading, development of advanced academic listening profi-
ciency requires extensive exposure to oral, academic text. Unlike reading,
listening proficiency can usually not be maintained at a high level with-
out continuing L2 oral input.
Productive activities for language use involve essentially the same top-
down and bottom-up processes as those for reception. Production (like
comprehension) of written or spoken language requires prior knowledge
of vocabulary, morphology, phonology, syntax, and discourse structure to
access words and combine them into phrases, clauses, and longer units of
text. The relatively limited knowledge of L2 learners at early language
learning levels can cause problems in production (as well as interpreta-
tion) of meaning, although productive and receptive abilities are in some
ways independent of one another. In top-down processing, prior knowl-
edge of content is the substance of information that a writer or speaker
wishes to communicate; knowledge of context accounts for writers and
speakers ability to select from potential linguistic options those which
are appropriate to a specific communicative situation, including what
should (or should not) be written or said next; prior knowledge of culture
includes cultural conventions for language use.
Writing ordinarily presumes ability to read (even if only to interpret or
review what one has produced), and speaking usually occurs in contexts
which also involve listening and in which appropriateness of what is said
requires understanding of what others have said and prediction of how
they will respond. The knowledge of language that can be accessed for
production is only a subset of what may be used for interpretation of
language that is used by others; i.e. receptive competence always exceeds
productive competence.
Writing and speaking differ from reading and listening in referring
primarily to constructing ones own linguistic forms rather than inter-
preting what others write or say. Key differences between the two produc-
tive activities are that (1) writing is typically addressed to readers and
speaking to listeners (though written text may be read aloud, and spoken
text may be transcribed and read later), (2) writing usually allows time for
planning and editing of production while speaking is often unplanned
and requires online or real-time processing, and (3) writing is more like-
ly than is speaking to be disassociated from the immediate time and place
of production and from a specific audience. Some L2 learners consider
Productive activities
162 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
writing to be the easier of these two skills to acquire because it allows
them time to consciously access and edit language elements at different
levels, but many learners find speaking easier at least in part because it
allows them to seek clarification and other types of interactional support
from cooperative partners in communication.
Writing
Writing is the most important productive activity for L2 learners to devel-
op if they will use the language for academic purposes, or in certain types
of service functions (e.g. providing reports to supervisors or clients).
Writing is a common medium for testing knowledge in much of the world
including knowledge of the L2 itself, even within instructional programs
that emphasize oral production. L2 speakers who pursue degrees in L2-
medium universities typically must display a high level of writing profi-
ciency through standardized entrance examinations and writing samples
that are evaluated by admissions committees. Once enrolled in programs,
such students must complete papers and other written assignments for
many of their classes, and essay examinations are commonly used to
judge student progress. Graduate degrees usually require writing extend-
ed texts (theses or dissertations), and many disciplines expect advanced
students and graduates to publish their work in L2-medium journals and
books.
Many professions and occupations also require a high level of L2 profi-
ciency in writing for purposes of formal correspondence or for preparing
applications and reports, whether the written texts address L1-speaking
individuals and institutions or target speakers of different native lan-
guages in multilingual settings. Advanced L2 ability is also required for
journalistic and creative purposes when writers wish to reach a wider
audience.
Functions of L2 writing may include composing informal letters and
e-mail if learners want or need to communicate with speakers of the lan-
guage outside of an immediate interactional context, and daily life in
some highly literate societies may necessitate at least limited L2 writing
ability. However, L2 writing tasks outside of academic and professional
situations typically do not have the same demanding standards for accu-
racy in production as do the more formal contexts of academic writing.
In addition to fulfilling academic and interpersonal functions, the process
of writing itself is potentially important because of how it may contribute to
successful L2 learning. We saw in an earlier discussion of Information
Processing (Chapter 4) that meaningful language output facilitates SLA in
several ways (e.g. Swain and Lapkin 1995). These notably include:

Generating input.

Enhancing fluency by furthering development of automaticity

through practice.

Helping learners notice gaps in their own knowledge as they are

forced to visibly encode concepts in L2 forms, which may lead them to
give more attention to relevant information.
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 163

Allowing learners to test hypotheses they have formulated as part of

their developing linguistic systems, with opportunity for monitoring
and revision.

Providing opportunities for others to comment on problems and give

corrective feedback.
Because writers must express ideas without recourse to objects and events
in their own immediate physical environment or that of their reader(s), or
to gestures and other nonverbal means of communication, and without
reliance on immediate feedback or hearer cooperation to fill in gaps, writ-
ing can potentially push learners closer to the limits of their current level
of linguistic knowledge than can speech. We have already seen from a
functional approach to SLA (Chapter 3) that increased reliance on lan-
guage structure over situational context to express meaning characterizes
progressive change in learners interlanguage systems. It seems likely that
pushing the limits of linguistic knowledge in written production con-
tributes to SLA by stimulating syntactic development.
The need for interaction of other domains of communicative compe-
tence with language knowledge is evident when we consider some of the
steps that are involved in proficient writing:

Formulating mental concepts that are to be expressed centrally

requires content knowledge.

Recognizing what content will be relevant for intended readers, and

what will be shared versus new information, requires context
knowledge.

Constructing text within socially defined conventions of expression

(including selecting linguistic forms and organization patterns that
are appropriate for the topic, purpose, and audience) also requires
other aspects of culture knowledge.
As in the receptive activities of reading and listening, knowledge of con-
tent, context, and culture can partially compensate for limited knowledge
of L2 language elements in writing. However, writing is probably the most
dependent of the four language activities on linguistic knowledge.
Beginning L2 writing
As is the case for developing reading ability, learners whose L1 is repre-
sented in a different orthographic system from the L2 need to learn sym-
bols for encoding the target language as an early step in acquisition.
Adding ability to use a new alphabetic system (as when an English L1
speaker is learning to write Thai or Arabic), a new syllabic system (e.g.
Japanese), or a new logographic system (e.g. Chinese) requires extensive
practice to develop automaticity. Some learners begin with the low-level
task of copying (even tracing over) words and phrases that they recognize
by sight, or recording graphically something that they hear spoken.
Knowledge of what symbols should be used to represent specific words is
part of vocabulary knowledge, along with the meaning, pronunciation,
and grammatical features of words.
164 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Transfer of effective language-specific writing processes that have been
acquired in L1 to L2 is not possible until a threshold level of L2 structural
knowledge has been reached. However, the content knowledge for formu-
lating concepts to be expressed and the context knowledge for deciding
relevance and appropriateness are not language-specific and thus may be
accessed even when knowledge of L2 linguistic elements is very limited.
More complex thinking can be involved in composition if these domains
are initially associated with L1 linguistic structure and then encoded
(insofar as possible) into L2. This allows attention to be focused on content
and context (since L1 linguistic forms can be accessed automatically), and
then shifted consciously to L2 forms of expression.
Many L2 learners feel more secure if they are given a model to follow in
early stages of writing, so that they only need to make minimal linguistic
changes and substitutions in what someone else has produced to con-
struct their own text. At a very early level, for instance, they might be
asked to revise the account of an event to include multiple participants
rather than a single participant, or to change the time frame from pres-
ent to past. This type of tightly controlled writing exercise was popular
when behaviorism was the dominant theory of SLA and free writing was
thought to present occasions for production errors and thus bad habit
formation. Controlled writing exercise has some value in developing
automaticity in accessing and producing mechanical elements, but it
does not push learners to the limits of their current level of linguistic
knowledge in a way that is likely to benefit interlanguage development,
and it may create an overreliance on following models which inhibits indi-
vidual expression at later stages of development. A few students remain so
dependent on following models in L2 writing that they approach or cross
the border of plagiarism when they are in settings where more inde-
pendence and originality are mandated.
Academic writing
Effective academic writing requires considerable knowledge of linguistic
elements at levels of vocabulary, morphology and syntax, mechanics of
orthographic representation and punctuation, and conventions related to
style and organization of presentation that are appropriate for the target
genre. Command of a relatively formal register is needed, and accuracy in
production is usually very important. The activity has received a great
deal of attention in recent years from perspectives of Contrastive Rhetoric
(mentioned above in the section on Discourse), needs assessment (e.g. Leki
and Carson 1997), and the relationship between L2 academic writing
research and pedagogy (e.g. Swales and Feak 1994). Courses exclusively
devoted to academic L2 writing are now commonly offered in universities
and language institutes, and many teacher training programs schedule a
methods course which focuses on this activity. Assessment of writing is
also now included in standardized tests of language proficiency, includ-
ing the TOEFL Test of Written English and the British Councils IELTS writ-
ing sub-test, as well as in general tests such as the Graduate Record
Examination (GRE).
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 165
The relatively formal register needed for most academic writing may
conflict with the relatively informal register that is often emphasized in
communicative language teaching. This underlines the need for teach-
ers and students to consider why an additional language is needed before
determining priorities for what must be learned. It is probably in the best
interest of most English L2 learners of the world to aim for a formal reg-
ister before an informal one (neither is inherently more difficult). It is per-
fectly possible (as the experience of generations of language learners
around the world has shown) to become proficient in writing a language
well with little experience in either hearing it or speaking it.
Speaking
Speaking (in conjunction with listening) is a very important area of activ-
ity for L2 learners if they will be using the language for interpersonal pur-
poses, whether these are primarily social or instrumental. There is need
for speaking in virtually all situations where L2 learners participate in the
L2 speech community: tourists generally need to ask directions and seek
information about hotels and entertainment; immigrants need to shop
for goods, seek services, and describe symptoms in case of health prob-
lems; foreign students and other temporary residents need to negotiate
transactions for housing, utilities, and currency exchange, as well as to
express themselves in an academic or professional speech genre.
The language knowledge involved in bottom-up processes for speech
production includes appropriate vocabulary, features of pronunciation,
grammatical patterns that will convey intended meaning, and under-
standing of discourse structures that will provide cohesion and coherence
within a conversation or other spoken communicative event. The top-
down processes simultaneously involved in speech production require
content knowledge about a topic, cultural knowledge that informs deter-
mination of proprieties and provides macrosocial context for expression,
and knowledge of microsocial context such as the significance of the
immediate communicative activity, speaker role and relationship to
addressees, and appropriateness conditions (e.g. what must be said, what
may be said, and what should be left unsaid).
As with listening, speaking tasks can be classified on a continuum from
reciprocal to non-reciprocal communication. Participation in face-to-face
interpersonal interaction is at the reciprocal end of this continuum, and
delivering lectures or conference presentations is close to the non-recip-
rocal end. Reciprocal communication requires learners to listen as well as
to speak, and to collaborate in the negotiation of meaning. Unlike listen-
ing, non-reciprocal spoken communication places lighter requirements
on the speaker for processing online or in real time than reciprocal,
since there is usually time for preplanning. Indeed, the L2 learner may
even read aloud a paper which has been written beforehand.
A linguistic approach to SLA that is commonly used to account for
speaking phenomena is Functionalism (Chapter 3), which considers the
development of learner language to be motivated and furthered by inter-
active language use. Psychological approaches (Chapter 4) explain L2
166 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 167
speaking proficiency largely as degree of automaticity in processing. A
major social approach relates to L2 variation (Chapter 5), which explores
how contextual dimensions influence quality of learner language pro-
duction. From this social perspective, fluency and accuracy in speech
activities may be attributed to how much attention the speaker is paying
to linguistic form, intellectual demands of a task, level of formality, set-
ting of interaction (e.g. public or private), and relationship of speaker and
addressee, as well as to linguistic contexts.
Speech acts
An important concept for SLA which was originated in the field of philos-
ophy (Searle 1969) is that language use accomplishes speaker goals by
means of utterances which request something, apologize, promise, deny,
express emotion, compliment, complain, and so forth. Utterances which
fulfill such functions are called speech acts, and they constitute most of
what is said by people in the course of interpersonal communication. The
same acts can be accomplished in the use of any language with others
who understand that language, but the actual forms and conventions
that can be used are of course language-specific. Learning how to perform
these acts in the L2 is central to language learning, and knowing when to
deploy them is basic to what we have called pragmatic competence.
A variety of linguistic forms may be selected to accomplish any one
speaker goal, with appropriate choice for a particular situation requiring
cultural and contextual knowledge. For example, a student who wishes to
borrow another students notes to study for a test might say (in English):
Give me your notes.
Please let me make a copy of your notes.
You are a much better note-taker than I. Would you help me prepare for this test?
Could I take a little peek at your notes before the test?
Appropriate selection from among these and other possibilities depends
on the relative social status of the speaker and addressee, the closeness or
distance of their relationship, and the degree of imposition the request
involves. Conditions do not receive the same weight in different cultures
and do not receive the same interpretation, so the appropriate L2 selec-
tion of linguistic form is not a simple translation from what would be
appropriate in L1. Acquisition of this aspect of L2 communicative compe-
tence requires adding new knowledge of culture and context. (Research
methods, findings, and implications of Speech Acts for the study of SLA
are surveyed in Cohen 1996.)
Other aspects of speaking competence
Other aspects of communicative competence which need to be acquired
especially for successful participation in conversational speech activities
include the following:
Knowledge of conversational structure. Possible differences in rules
for turn-taking were discussed above in the section on Discourse: some
languages consider interruptions, overlaps, and simultaneous speaking
168 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
to be appropriate; some consider a period of silence between speakers to
be a necessary condition for polite interaction. There are also linguistic
and cultural differences in the sequence in which turns of talk are
expected to occur (e.g. according to age or social status), and in produc-
tion of back-channel signals (e.g. verbal or nonverbal indications by a lis-
tener of comprehension or lack of it). Conversational structure also
involves rules for topic maintenance and shift, and for which utterances
should be tied as adjacency pairs (e.g. whether a question should be
immediately followed by a response, or a compliment by an acknowledg-
ment, and especially what response or acknowledgment is appropriate or
inappropriate).
Knowledge of contextualization cues. Contextualization cues (Gumperz
1977) are elements of communication that allow people to express and
interpret meaning beyond the referential meaning that the surface
structure of messages provides. Cues may involve any of the linguistic
knowledge we have considered, including speaker selection of vocabu-
lary and pronunciation, prosody (intonation and stress), and rhythmic
patterns (pauses and stops). Beyond this level, they involve sociocultural
knowledge that matches linguistic forms to culture-specific expecta-
tions and allows appropriate interpretation of meaning within the con-
texts of use. People rely on such cues to make inferences about what is
not explicitly said, and to identify speakers expressive overtones.
Because knowledge of contextualization cues depends on cultural and
communicative experience, this is a potential minefield of significant
misunderstanding for L2 learners and others they are interacting with.
Successful acquisition is most likely to be realized in situations where
learners have opportunity for feedback from culturally sensitive native
speakers, since the cues cannot be described abstractly and are elusive
targets for formal instruction.
Knowledge of communication strategies. A final aspect of communicative
competence we will consider here is learner knowledge of how to com-
pensate for limitations in their L2 linguistic resources, or communication
strategies. This includes knowledge of how to assess and repair misun-
derstanding, how to make use of interlocutor collaboration, and how to
sustain interpersonal interaction. The basic problem that the strategies
address may be formulated for early stages of SLA as: how do you manage
to communicate when you have limited command of a language?
(Bialystok 1990:vi). Use of the term strategies implies that means of
remediation for the problem may be conscious and intentional, although
they need not be.
The types of strategies that were suggested by Elaine Tarone (1977),
along with a brief description of each, is given in 6.10. Knowledge of com-
munication strategies is particularly important for early L2 learners who
want and need to participate in speaking activities because they allow talk
to continue in a situation when it might otherwise cease. Continuation of
talk, in turn, provides learners with more input, more practice, and more
opportunity for collaborative construction of meaning.
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 169
6.10 Typology of communication strategies
1 Avoidance
(a) Topic avoidance Avoiding reference to a subject for which
the learner lacks necessary vocabulary
(b) Message abandonment Giving up on a topic because it is too
difficult to talk about
2 Paraphrase
(a) Approximation Using a word that is not correct, but that
refers to a similar object or event
(b) Word coinage Making up a new word or phrase to
describe an object or event
(c) Circumlocution Describing an object or event instead of
using an appropriate vocabulary item
3 Conscious transfer
(a) Literal translation Translating word for word from the L1
(b) Language switch Inserting L1 words or phrases into L2
4 Appeal for assistance Asking a native speaker, looking a word up
in a dictionary, or consulting some other
authority
5 Mime Using gestures or other nonverbal means to
refer to an object or event
Chapter summary
Second language communicative competence involves both knowledge
of linguistic elements and the knowledge that is required for
appropriate L2 use in different contexts. In this chapter, we have
surveyed the integrated roles of linguistic, cognitive, and social
knowledge in the interpretation and expression of meaning; we have
looked in more depth at components of language knowledge that must
be accounted for in academic and interactional competence; and we
have explored what knowledge accounts for learner ability to
participate in L2 activities and how it is acquired.
What must be acquired in learning an L2 can vary as much as the goals
for learning. It is possible to develop fluent reading ability in an L2 with
only a limited awareness of its pronunciation or rules for appropriate
social use, though a knowledge of grammar and vocabulary are
determinative. At the other extreme, the achievement of fluent speaking
as interactional ability can take place without a knowledge of reading
170 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
and writing, but again the role of grammar and vocabulary are
significant. However, the grammatical forms and structures as well as
the vocabulary needed for successful informal interpersonal
communication can be vastly different from those required for advanced
academic study, using the L2 as a medium for learning complex content
and writing to meet academic requirements. Curricula for teaching L2
should be differentiated according to the relevant goals of learning, since
a one-size-fits-all approach, such as a purely communicative approach,
may do a serious disservice to learners whose primary need is to develop
academic reading, writing, and listening skills.
Learning an L2 can be facilitated or made more difficult by degrees of
similarity or difference between L1 and L2 phonology, grammar,
vocabulary, system of writing, and rules for social use. A Japanese or
Korean speaker already familiar with borrowed Chinese characters will
find it easier to gain fluency in reading and writing Chinese than will
an English speaker familiar only with the Roman alphabet (even though
all three languages are equally unrelated to Chinese). Conversely, while
an English speaker will find the acquisition of French or Spanish
facilitated by similar alphabets and numerous shared vocabulary
(particularly in more advanced technical and academic fields), as well as
grammatical parallels, a Chinese, Japanese, or Korean learner of English
or French will find them equally daunting since there are few
recognizable cognates and the alphabets are equally unfamiliar.
Learners of an L2 for academic purposes need to focus on building
receptive processing ability in listening and reading, though this can be
greatly aided by using familiar content knowledge to help interpret the
linguistic input. L2 learners with primarily interpersonal interactional
goals need to develop very different abilities, emphasizing rapid online
processing of often highly elliptical and sometimes fragmented speech,
as well as a different core of everyday vocabulary and rules for
appropriate social usage which may be encoded in subtle or obvious
lexical and intonational ways.
Activities
Questions for self-study
1. competence encompasses knowledge required of learners who
will use the L2 mostly in face to face contact with other speakers, whereas
competence encompasses the knowledge required of learners
who will use the L2 mostly as a tool for learning, research and scholarly
exchange.
2. Receptive activities, such as and , function primarily
in processing input. The ability for productive activities, such
as and , usually follows the development of receptive
ability.
Acquiring knowledge for L2 use 171
Further reading
Hinkel, E. (ed.) (1999). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Part I, Culture, interaction and learning, contains three chapters relevant to competence and use of L2 in
the classroom. Chapter 1 discusses some implications of interaction between teachers and students of
3. Halliday and Hasan (1976) discuss types of cohesion (reference,
substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical) used in English. Read the
following paragraph and underline all the cohesion devices used. Then
classify each device per Halliday and Hasans typology.
Second language communicative competence involves both
knowledge of linguistic elements and the knowledge that is required for
appropriate L2 use in different contexts. In this chapter, we have surveyed
the integrated roles of linguistic, cognitive, and social knowledge in the
interpretation and expression of meaning; we have looked in more depth
at components of language knowledge that must be accounted for in
academic and interactional competence; and we have explored what
knowledge accounts for learner ability to participate in L2 activities and
how it is acquired.
4. Bottom-up processing requires prior knowledge of the language system.
List at least one way that processing involves each of the following levels
of language: vocabulary, morphology, phonology, syntax, and discourse.
5. Top-down processing utilizes prior knowledge of essential components of
communicative competence (content, context, and culture). List at least
one way for each that content, context, and culture help with top-down
processing.
6. List at least three conditions under which beginning L2 learners are most
likely to be capable of making sense out of auditory input.
Active learning
1. Two types of communicative competence are academic competence and
interpersonal competence. In your own studies of an L2, which one of
these was stressed? Thinking of your goals for that L2, was it the right
one for you? Give examples from your life to explain why.
2. The level of L1 reading ability is a very strong predictor of success in L2
reading ability. Has this been true in your life? What is your attitude
toward reading in L1 versus in L2? Why do you feel this way?
3. Grabe lists the following four functions of reading in academic settings on
p. 38: reading to find information, reading for general understanding,
reading to learn, and reading to critique and evaluate. Which of these
functions do you use in your L2? Which ones are more and less
challenging for you? More or less interesting? Why?
4. Listening, speaking, reading and writing are seen as essential activities for
L2 use in an academic context, and often in interpersonal communication
as well. Do you feel any of these skill areas are stronger in your own L2
use? Why do you think that is?
5. We have seen thus far that some L2 learners have a higher degree of
success than others. Taking into consideration linguistic, psychological and
social factors, what do you see as most crucial to the success of L2
learning? Why?
different cultural backgrounds. Chapter 2 treats the learning of a second culture from a cognitive perspective.
Chapter 3 also explores interactions between people of different cultural backgrounds, specifically studying if
and when L2 speakers understand certain implications of conversation in the target language.
Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G. (eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
In this volume, Rose and Kasper have concentrated on the question of the viability of teaching and testing
pragmatics, with studies all relating to pragmatics in second language teaching and testing (including sections
on the theoretical and empirical background of pragmatics, issues in classroom-based learning of pragmatics,
the effects of instruction in pragmatics, and testing pragmatics).
Saville-Troike, M. (1996). The ethnography of communication. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (eds.),
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 35182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saville-Troike presents Dell Hymes (1966) notion of the ethnography of communication, including
discussion of appropriate situations to use different registers and features of language, and different areas of
competence necessary for successful L2 communication.
Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language
Acquisition. New York: Basic Books.
Bialystok and Hakutas final chapter, Last word, treats the fact that the learners diverse experiences and
goals produce different results in their L2 acquisition. Further, their differences in goals and outcomes cannot
be classified as more or less successful, only different.
Swan, M. & Smith, B. (eds.) (2001). Learner English: A Teachers Guide to Interference and Other Problems.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This book offers insight on common characteristics of English as it is learned and produced by native
speakers of a variety of other languages.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching: A Guide for Language
Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Part 1 presents background in discourse analysis and pragmatics in discourse analysis. Part 2 covers some
components of language knowledge with chapters on phonology, grammar, and vocabulary. Part 3 treats
receptive and productive activities, with chapters on listening, reading, writing, speaking, and an epilogue about
the integration of these four areas.
Flowerdew, J. (ed.) (1994). Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
While this text is not geared towards beginners to the field of SLA, this seminal volume presents original
research on academic listening in a second language from various perspectives (ethnography, discourse
analysis, application of theory to pedagogy).
McKay, S. L. (1996). Literacy and literacies. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (eds.), Sociolinguistics and
Language Teaching, pp. 42145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This article presents literacy as an individual skill and a social construct, and it recognizes the multiple kinds
of literacy possible and valued in different communities and aspects of communication.
Hinkel, E. (ed.) (1999). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Part II of this edition focuses on how culture influences writing. Chapter 4 questions whether nonnative
speakers of English should learn to write according to the Western norms underlying Anglo-American academic
writing (such as Aristotelian logic). In Chapter 5, the author uses quantitative research to present how L1 and
L2 users try to create a sense of objectivity and credibility in their academic writing. Chapter 6 is an
ethnographic report of how culture is treated in ESL writing classrooms.
172 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
CHAPTER
L2 learning and
teaching
7
WHAT exactly does the L2 learner come to know? HOW does
the learner acquire L2 knowledge? WHY are some learners
more successful than others? While there are some
significant differences of opinion, and while there is much
yet to discover, there is also much that we now know about
SLA. Our review of answers to these questions will be
followed by a discussion of what we know about the most
advanced state of L2 learning (or near-native
competence), including what features are likely to be
mastered last, and how ultimate achievement levels relate
to individual and social goals. The chapter concludes with a
brief set of important implications for L2 learning and
teaching that we may draw from the findings we have
summarized here.
CHAPTER PREVIEW
174 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
7.1 Disciplinary priorities
Linguistic Psychological Social
1 What? How? Why?
2 How? Why? What?
3 Why? What? How?
Linguistic, psychological, and social perspectives on SLA all address the
basic what, how, and why questions that we have been considering through-
out this book, but as we have seen, they have each tended to focus prima-
rily on one question over the others. These disciplinary perspectives are
listed in 7.1, along with the priorities that scholars working within them
have generally set in relation to SLA.
Integrating perspectives
There are significant differences of opinion within each perspective as
well as between them, depending on subdisciplinary orientations. Still, it
is possible at this stage in the development of SLA theory and research to
report some answers to our questions with considerable confidence. For
others, we should remain more tentative. I will integrate findings from
the three perspectives as much as possible, but I give greatest weight to
linguistic contributions in answer to what, to psychological contributions
in anser to how, and to social contributions in answer to why.
What exactly does the L2 learner come to know?

A system of knowledge about a second language which goes well beyond

what could possibly have been taught. There is significant overlap
with first language knowledge, especially (1) in underlying rules or
principles that languages have in common and (2) in the potentials of
language to make meaning. The L2 system is never exactly like the
learners L1, however, nor is it ever exactly the same as that of its
native speakers.

Patterns of recurrent elements that comprise components of L2-specific

knowledge: vocabulary (lexicon), morphology (word structure),
phonology (sound system), syntax (grammar), and discourse (ways to
connect sentences and organize information). The amount of overlap
with L1 knowledge depends on the genetic or typological relationship
of the two languages and on whether there has been borrowing or
other influence between them. Exactly which elements are acquired
within each of these components depends in large measure on learner
motivation and on other circumstances of learning.

How to encode particular concepts in the L2, including grammatical

notions of time, number of referents, and the semantic role of
elements (e.g. whether subject or object).

Pragmatic competence, or knowledge of how to interpret and convey

meaning in contexts of social interaction.

Means for using the L2 in communicative activities: listening, speaking,

reading, writing. Many learners develop only an oral channel
(listening, speaking), or only a written channel (reading, writing),
without the other; neither channel is a necessary precondition for the
other, though they may reinforce one another. Minimally, language
learning requires means for participation in at least one receptive
activity (listening or reading); otherwise, necessary input for SLA
would not be available.

How to select among multiple language systems, and how to switch

between languages in particular social contexts and for particular
purposes. What is acquired thus includes a system of knowledge about
how to process multiple languages: understanding of multilingual
language processing is also highly relevant to our understanding of
how languages are learned.

Communicative competence: all of the above, plus social and cultural

knowledge required for appropriate use and interpretation of L2
forms. Inclusion and definition of communicative competence as a
goal or outcome of L2 learning is highly variable, depending on
macrosocial contexts of learning (discussed in Chapter 5) as well as on
linguistic, psychological, and interactional factors.
A basic disagreement among different linguistic perspectives comes
in considering whether the system of knowledge about a second lan-
guage is primarily (1) an abstract system of underlying rules or princi-
ples, (2) a system of linguistic patterns and structures, or (3) a means of
structuring information and a system of communication. This disagree-
ment stems from different assumptions about the nature of language
and language study that arise from different theoretical approaches.
These differing assumptions yield different questions to be explored, dif-
ferent methods of inquiry, and different interpretations of findings.
Resolution of the disagreement is not likely in our lifetimes, and per-
haps it would not even be desirable. I have suggested that we recognize
these differences as being like different views we get of Mars through
seeing it with different color filters. They complement one another and
all are needed to gain a full-spectrum picture of the multidimensional
nature of SLA.
Looking to future directions, neurolinguists in particular have made
important advancements in exploration of what is being acquired in a
physical sense: specifically, changes in the architecture of the brain
that accompany SLA. Although this line of inquiry is far from new,
there is much that is not yet known, and findings thus far have not
been well integrated with those of scholars who take different
approaches to the study of L2 phenomena. Modern brain-imaging capa-
bilities, especially as they are applied to greater numbers of L2 learners
and at progressive stages in their L2 development, offer exciting
prospects for future discovery.
L2 learning and teaching 175
How does the learner acquire L2 knowledge?

Innate capacity. While there is disagreement over whether capacity for

language learning is basically different from learning any other
complex domain of knowledge, it is clear that some innate capacity
must be posited to account for learning. Language learners are not
merely passive recipients of stimuli. There is a creative force
involved in language development (and other domains of learning)
which must be an innate endowment.

Application of prior knowledge. The initial state of L2 includes

knowledge of L1 (and Language in general), and the processes of SLA
include interpretation of the new language in terms of that
knowledge. There is also application of what has been acquired as part
of general cognitive development, as well as of all prior social
experience.

Processing of language input. The critical need for L2 input in SLA is

agreed on, although its roles in acquisition receive differential
definition and weight in accounts from alternative perspectives and
orientations. The processing of input in itself is a necessary factor in
acquisition.

Interaction. Processing of L2 input in interactional situations is

facilitative, and some think also causative, of SLA. Benefits come
from collaborative expression, modified input, feedback (including
correction), and negotiation of meaning. SLA is likely to be greatly
inhibited if learners are isolated from opportunities for use. Social
perspectives generally hold that SLA benefits from the active
engagement of learners in interaction, or participation in
communicative events.

Restructuring of the L2 knowledge system. SLA occurs progressively

through a series of systematic stages. Development of L2 knowledge
does not manifest itself in a smooth cline of linguistic performance,
but rather in one which sometimes shows abrupt changes in the
interlanguage system. This indicates reorganization takes place from
time to time during the process of SLA, presumably as perceived L2
input cannot be accommodated within the learners existing system
of knowledge. This restructuring is a creative process, driven by inner
forces in interaction with environmental factors, and motivated both
by L1 knowledge and by input from the L2.

Mapping of relationships or associations between linguistic functions and

forms. L2 acquisition (like L1 acquisition) involves increasing reliance
on grammatical structure and reduced reliance on context and lexical
items. This development is driven by communicative need and use, as
well as by awareness of the probability that a particular linguistic
form represents a particular meaning.

Automatization. While simplistic notions of habit formation are no

longer accepted as explanations for language acquisition, frequency
of input as well as practice in processing input and output are widely
recognized determinants of L2 development. Frequency and practice
176 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
lead to automaticity in processing, and they free learners processing
capacity for new information and higher-order performance needs.
Automatization is an incremental achievement upon which efficient
and effective engagement in all language activities ultimately
depends.
A basic disagreement within both psychological and linguistic perspec-
tives comes in considering language learning as primarily a process of
acquiring (1) language-specific systems of rules, (2) very general principles
with options to be selected, or (3) increasing strength of associations
between linguistic forms and meaning. Again, this disagreement derives
from very basic differences in theoretical orientations and is not likely to
be resolved.
Looking to future directions, the growing recognition of the complex
nature of SLA, and of individual and situational differences, promises
acceptance of more complex answers to the question of how language is
learned. Scholars may not need to decide whether general or language-
specific learning forces are involved in SLA, for example, but how types of
learning complement each other and interact.
Why are some learners more successful than others?

Social context. An early activity in this book asked you to identify

yourself as a good or poor second language learner, and to speculate
why that is so. Most of you probably gave reasons which relate to social
context and experience, and you were quite right. Features of social
context which affect degree of success include the status of L1 and L2,
boundary and identity factors within and between the L1 and L2
speech communities, and institutional forces and constraints. These
macrosocial factors influence L2 learning primarily because of their
impact on attitude and opportunity. They also determine whether the
L2 is being learned as a second language, a foreign language, an
auxiliary language, or a language for specific purposes.

Social experience. Quantity and quality of L2 input and interaction are

determined by social experience, and both have significant influence
on ultimate success in L2 learning. Because social variables are
complex and often impossible to control, there is very little
experimental evidence to support this conclusion. However,
correlational and anecdotal evidence abounds, and it is quite
convincing.

Relationship of L1 and L2. All languages are learnable, but not all L2s are
equally easy for speakers of particular L1s to acquire. Knowledge of L1
is an important component of all L2 competence in its initial state, but
the genetic, typological, and historical relationships of L1 and L2 will
yield differential possibilities for positive transfer of parameter
settings and surface-level features, including vocabulary and writing
system. This remains an underexplored area of SLA, but there is little
question that it is significant.
L2 learning and teaching 177

Age. There is a common belief that children are more successful L2

learners than adults, but as we noted (Chapter 4), the evidence for this
is equivocal. Younger learners generally have an advantage in brain
plasticity, in not being so analytical, in (usually) having fewer
inhibitions and weaker group identity, and in having more years to
learn the language before ultimate proficiency is judged. Older
learners generally have an advantage in learning capacity, in analytic
ability, in pragmatic skills, in greater knowledge of their L1, and in
real-world knowledge. It is possible for older learners to achieve near-
native competence in an L2, but less likely.

Aptitude. Learners differ in capacity to discriminate and process

auditory input, to identify patterns and make generalizations, and to
store linguistic elements in memory. We may conclude that aptitude
is an important predictor of differential success in L2 learning, but it
is not completely deterministic.

Motivation. Motivation largely determines the level of effort which

learners expend at various stages in their L2 development, and it is
often a key to ultimate level of proficiency. No particular type of
motivation (e.g. integrative or instrumental) appears to have any
inherent advantage over the other in terms of L2 achievement.

Instruction. Quality of instruction clearly makes a difference in formal

contexts of L2 learning, although this book has not attempted to
evaluate teaching methods. What is known from linguistic,
psychological, and social perspectives on SLA, however, does not
strongly support any one instructional approach over others, despite
the claims of proponents. The array of social circumstances and
individual learner factors which we have explored indeed suggests
that there can be no one best method that will fit all, and a
combination of different methods is undoubtedly the wisest approach.
Basic disagreement remains in the definition of relative success in L2
learning. Without common criteria for evaluation, drawing general con-
clusions is very difficult, since the definition of criteria for success
(along with determining questions to be explored, appropriate methods of
assessment, and interpretations of findings) depends on theoretical ori-
entation. Any answers to this question must be considered within the dis-
ciplinary framework in which it is posed. From a social perspective, it
becomes particularly problematic when success is measured only in
relation to native speaker norms, since there are significant ethical issues
to consider when this is used as a determining factor in access to educa-
tional and economic advancement.
Looking to future directions, we can anticipate more relativistic criteria
for the definition of success, and even more consideration of the
complex interaction of social, psychological, and linguistic criteria in
research on L2 learning. A crucial element for guiding developments in
this direction is the recognition of SLA as a necessarily interdisciplinary
field of study.
178 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
The judgment that L2 learners have approached or achieved near-native
or native-like competence means that there is little or no perceptible dif-
ference between their language performance and that of native speakers.
Because ones L2 system is never exactly the same as the native speakers
(even if we cannot readily perceive differences), most of us would not con-
sider the final state of L2 development to be completely native, although
we may allow for some rare exceptions.
The most likely level of linguistic production to retain some identifiably
foreign feature is pronunciation, especially if L2 learning began after
the age of twelve or so. Next most likely is that learners will have to select
from a more limited lexical repertoire than do native speakers of the same
educational level, will not use words with the same probability of occur-
rence in the same phrasal units (e.g. collocations), and will not recognize
connotations and allusions which require cultural information and expe-
rience. Native interpretation of variability is also unlikely ever to be
acquired in L2, including the social meaning of variants and appropriate
choice for different registers. For example, while the English adjective big
may be perfectly correct semantically and grammatically, it may sound
odd in written academic contexts where a native speaker would use
large, major, great, considerable, significant, or some other synonym.
Among the last grammatical forms to be mastered in English L2 are the
choice of complements to follow specific verbs (e.g. the use of for . . . to
after like, as in I like for her to sing but not after enjoy, as in *I enjoy for her to
sing), article selection (the, a, or nothing) before nouns, and appropriate
use of prepositions. The residual nature of these problems cannot be
explained in terms of order of exposure or frequency of input, since arti-
cles and prepositions are among the first words encountered and have the
highest frequency in the language. I cannot find convincing evidence to
account for this phenomenon, but I believe that these errors remain per-
sistent in large part because they resist conscious, logical treatment.
When nonnative uses of articles and prepositions are pointed out to them,
advanced English L2 students may ask why one form rather than another
is used. The only genuinely valid answer, Because it is, appeals to gram-
maticality judgments that are based on a level of intuition which few L2
learners can be expected to attain.
Older L2 students who do approach near-native competence almost
surely have benefitted from extensive and varied input, feedback which
includes some correction and focus on grammatical form, and very high
levels of motivation. At the same time, we must recognize that many intel-
ligent, hard-working, highly-motivated students will not approach this
level of competence.
It is important for language teachers, in particular, to accept the fact that
native-like production is neither intended nor desired by many learners
whose goals for L2 use do not include identification with native speakers of
the language nor membership in its native speech communities. Indeed,
Approaching near-native competence
L2 learning and teaching 179
adopting this goal may be considered imperialistic in many social and
political settings (discussed in Chapters 3 and 5), and in any case, is certainly
unrealistic for most beginning learners beyond the stage of puberty. To be
valid, criteria for assessing relative L2 achievement must take into account
the needs, goals, and circumstances of second language learners.
Although we have seen that knowledge of L2 goes well beyond what can
be consciously learned and taught, we have also seen that (unlike L1) L2
acquisition usually requires intentional effort, and that a number of indi-
vidual and social factors strongly affect ultimate outcomes. We cannot
control most of these factors, but recognizing them can contribute to effi-
ciency and effectiveness in second language development. As a starting
point, our findings about SLA suggest the following general guidelines for
L2 learning and teaching:

Consider the goals that individuals and groups have for learning an
additional language.

Set priorities for learning/teaching that are compatible with those goals.

Approach learning/teaching tasks with an appreciation of the

multiple dimensions that are involved: linguistic, psychological,
and social.

Understand the potential strengths and limitations of particular

learners and contexts for learning, and make use of them in adapting
learning/teaching procedures.

Be cautious in subscribing to any instructional approach which is nar-

rowly focused or dogmatic. There is no one best way to learn or
teach a second language.

Recognize achievement in incremental progress. And be patient.

Learning a language takes time.
Implications for L2 learning and teaching
180 INTRODUCING SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
Chapter summary
We conclude this book as we began, with an emphasis on the
importance of taking multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
perspectives into account if we are to gain a full-spectrum picture of
the processes involved in SLA. Linguistic perspectives have focused
primarily on what is learned; psychological perspectives on how this
knowledge is acquired; and social perspectives on why some learners
are more successful than others. An integrated view across perspectives
gives us a realistic impression of the complexity of processes and
conditions involved in SLA, and it offers us a more complete and
balanced understanding of these factors, and of their multiple
interactions.
Answer guide to
questions for self-study
Chapter 1
1. 1-B, 2-C, 3-D, 4-A
2. competence
3. performance
Chapter 2
1. Page 8 of Chapter 2 lists seven possible
reasons.
2. phonemes
3. 1-C, 2-A, 3-B
4. L1-innate capacity
L2-L1, world knowledge, interaction skills,
possibly innate capacity
5. Input is necessary for both L1 and L2; social
interaction is necessary for L1.
6. a. Children begin to learn their L1 at the
same age, and in much the same way,
whether it is English, Bengali, Korean,
Swahili, or any other language in the
world.
b. If children had to actually learn the
abstract rules of language, then only the
smartest would ever learn to talk, and it
would take several years more to learn L1
than it actually does.
c. Children master the basic phonological
and grammatical operations in their L1
by age five or six, regardless of what the
language is.
d. Children can understand and create
novel utterances; they are not limited
to repeating what they hear around
them.
e. There is a cut-off age for L1 acquisition,
beyond which it can never be complete.
7. The internal focus seeks to account for
speakers internalized, underlying knowledge
of language. The external focus emphasizes
language use, including the functions of
language which are realized in learners
production at different stages of
development.
Chapter 3
1. a. Languages consist of recurrent elements
which occur in regular patterns of
relationships. Language is created
according to rules or principles which
speakers are usually unconscious of using
if language was acquired in early
childhood.
b. Sequences of sounds or letters do not
inherently possess meaning. These
symbols of language have meaning
because of a tacit agreement among the
speakers of a language.
c. Each language reflects the social
requirements of the society that uses it.
Although humans possess the potential
to acquire an L1 because of their
neurological makeup, that potential can
be developed only through interaction
with others in the society. We use
language to communicate with others
about the human experience.
2. 1-C, 2-D, 3-A, 4-B
3. 1-E, 2-C, 3-F, 4-B, 5-A, 6-D
4. fossilization
5. Performance is actual use of language in a
specific instance, whereas competence is
182 ANSWER GUIDE TO QUESTIONS FOR SELF-STUDY
the underlying knowledge of language we
possess.
6. communication
7. a-IUO, b-FUO, c-NUO, d-FUO, e-IUO, f-NUO
Chapter 4
1. 1-B, 2-C, 3-A
2. speak; audio input
3. 1-B, 2-C, 3-A
4. Learners must notice or pay attention to
input to make it available for processing.
This kind of noticed input is called intake.
5. output
6. connectionist
7. integrative; instrumental
Chapter 5
1. 1-C, 2-A, 3-B
2. 1-A; it is more common to pronounce final
ing as ing when it precedes a vowel or a
pause in speech, and more common to
pronounce it in when it precedes
consonant sounds.
1-C; the student may be fully aware of the
grammatical rule but be unable to
pronounce the consonant cluster in the
final syllable of walks (/ks/).
2-B; the child may use her language monitor
more around her teacher.
2-C; writing and speaking, being different
cognitive activities, may be processed
differently by this student.
3-B; the child is unconsciously aware of a
social difference between speaking with her
classmate, a peer, and her teacher, a figure
of authority.
3. Sociocultural
4. Zone of Proximal Development
5. Acculturation
6. additive; subtractive
7. formal; informal
Chapter 6
1. interpersonal; academic
2. listening and reading; speaking and writing
3. Second language communicative
competence involves (1) both knowledge of
linguistic elements (2) and the
(3) knowledge (4) that is required for
appropriate L2 use in different contexts. In
this chapter, we have surveyed the
integrated roles of linguistic (5) [ ],
cognitive (5) [ ], (2) and social (3) knowledge
in the interpretation (6) [ ] (2) and
expression of meaning; (7) we have looked in
more depth at components of language
(3) knowledge (4) that must be accounted for
in academic (8) [ ] (2) and interactional
competence; (2) and (7) we have explored
(9) what (3) knowledge accounts for learner
ability to participate in L2 activities (2) and
how (10) it is acquired.
(1) Reference: both
(2) Conjunction: and
(3) Lexical: repetition of knowledge
(4) Reference: that
(5) Ellipsis: omission of knowledge
(6) Ellipsis: omission of of meaning
(7) Lexical: repetition of we have __ed
(8) Ellipsis: omission of competence
(9) Reference: what
(10) Reference: it
4. vocabulary: needed to recognize words and
to understand what they mean.
morphology: needed to interpret complex
lexical elements, as well as to perceive
grammatical information that is carried by
inflections.
phonology: needed to recognize spoken
words, to segment speech into grammatical
units, and to relate written symbols to their
spoken form.
syntax: needed to recognize how words
relate to one another, and how they are
constituted as phrases and clauses.
discourse: needed to interpret stretches of
language that are longer than a single
sentence.
5. Content knowledge is background knowledge
about the topic that is being read about or
listened to; new information is perceived
and interpreted in relation to this base.
Context knowledge includes information
learned from what has already been read or
heard in a specific text or situation,
as well as an understanding of the writers
Answer guide to questions for self-study 183
or speakers intentions and an overall
understanding of the discourse
pattern being used. It allows prediction
of what is likely to follow, and how
the information is likely to be organized.
Culture knowledge includes an
understanding of the wider social setting of
the text. Because this knowledge is usually
taken for granted by the writer or speaker,
and the instructor in a classroom setting,
this knowledge is rarely discussed explicitly.
For that reason, it may not be available to L2
learners who did not grow up in that
culture.
6. Five possible answers are listed on page 161
of this chapter.
academic competence: The knowledge needed by learners who want to use the L2 primarily to
learn about other subjects, or as a tool in scholarly research, or as a medium in a specific
professional or occupational field.
Accommodation Theory: A framework for study of SLA that is based on the notion that speakers
usually unconsciously change their pronunciation and even the grammatical complexity of
sentences they use to sound more like whomever they are talking to.
acculturation: Learning the culture of the L2 community and adapting to those values and
behavior patterns.
Acculturation Model: Schumanns (1978) theory that identifies group factors such as identity and
status which determine social and psychological distance between learner and target
language populations. He claims these influence outcomes of SLA. Also known as
Acculturation Theory.
acquisition: Krashens term for a subconscious process of SLA involving an innate language
acquisition device (LAD) that is similar to the process which accounts for childrens L1, in
opposition to learning, which is conscious. Acquisition and learning are used as
synonyms in this book.
additive bilingualism: The result of SLA in social contexts where members of a dominant group learn
the language of a minority without threat to their L1 competence or to their ethnic identity.
adjacency pairs: Segments of conversational structure in which certain speech acts are tied
together in a necessary sequence (such as question and answer, or compliment and
acknowledgment).
affective filter: Krashens notion of a mechanism that allows or restricts the processing of input.
When the affective filter is up (because the learning is taking place on a conscious level, or
because individuals are inhibited), input is not processed as well.
affective strategies: Means for learning an L2 that are related to individuals feelings.
aptitude: An individual set of characteristics which correlates with success in language learning.
associative memory capacity: Potentials and constraints on how linguistic items are stored, and
on how they are recalled and used in output. These determine appropriate selection from L2
elements that are stored and ultimately determine speaker fluency.
Audiolingual Method: An approach to language teaching that emphasizes repetition and habit
formation. This approach was widely practiced in much of the world until at least the 1980s.
automatic processing: After an initial stage of controlled processing, automatic processing is a
stage in learning that requires less mental space and attentional effort on the learners part.
automatization: The activation and retrieval of certain elements in memory whenever
appropriate input is perceived.
auxiliary language: A second language that learners need to know for some official functions in
their immediate sociopolitical setting, or that they will need for purposes of wider
communication, although their first language serves most other needs in their lives.
back-channel signals: Verbal or nonverbal indications by a listener of comprehension or lack
thereof.
basic variety: A stage in development at which L2 learners have constructed an interlanguage
grammar consisting of infinitival verbs and during which there is increasing use of
Glossary
grammatical relators such as prepositions. This is as opposed to the earlier stage where
largely nominals and adjectives are used, but seldom verbs, to organize utterances. Many
learners may be able to express themselves adequately at this stage in some contexts, and not
all continue development beyond this level.
Behaviorism: The most influential cognitive framework applied to language learning in the
1950s. It claims that learning is the result of habit formation.
bilingualism: The ability to use two languages.
bottom-up processing: Achieving interpretation and production of language meaning through
prior knowledge of the language system and of physical (graphic and auditory) cues.
Brocas area: An area in the left frontal lobe of the brain that is responsible for the ability to
speak.
case marker: A grammatical marker that indicates the function of a word in a sentence, such as
whether it is an agent or object.
central processing: The heart of the Information Processing framework, where learning occurs
as learners go from controlled to automatic processing and reorganize their knowledge.
child grammar: Grammar of children at different maturational levels that is systematic in terms
of production and comprehension.
cognitive strategies: Means for learning an L2 that make use of direct analysis or synthesis of
linguistic material.
cognitive style: An individuals preferred way of processing: i.e. of perceiving, conceptualizing,
organizing, and recalling information.
cohesion: Linguistic marking of links between elements of a text. These provide unity and
consistency of thought, logic, and structure.
collocation: A combination of words that commonly occur together, including idioms and
metaphors.
communication strategies: Learner techniques of compensating for limitations in their L2 linguistic
resources, such as repairing misunderstanding or sustaining interpersonal interaction.
communicative competence: A basic tenet of sociolinguistics defined as what a speaker needs to
know to communicate appropriately within a particular language community (Saville-Troike
2003).
communicative contexts: Different contexts in which variable features in language may appear:
linguistic, psychological, microsocial, and macrosocial.
competence: Underlying knowledge of language.
competition Model: A functional approach to SLA which assumes that all linguistic performance
involves mapping between external form and internal function.
compound bilingualism: Organization of two languages in the brain as a fused or unified system.
comprehensible input: Krashens term for input that is understood.
Connectionism: A cognitive framework for explaining learning processes, beginning in the 1980s
and becoming increasingly influential. It assumes that SLA results from increasing strength
of associations between stimuli and responses.
connection strengths: The probabilistic associations formed and strengthened when learners are
exposed to repeated patterns in units of input and extract regularities from them during
processing.
Constructionism: An approach to SLA formulated within Chomskys Minimalist Program that
considers interlanguage development as the progressive mastery of L2 vocabulary along with
the morphological features (which specify word form) that are part of lexical knowledge.
content: Knowledge of background information about the topic that is being read about or
listened to.
186 GLOSSARY
context: Knowledge based on what has already been read or heard in a specific text or situation,
as well as an understanding of what the writers or speakers intentions are, and the overall
structure of the discourse pattern being used.
contextualization cues: Elements of communication that allow people to express and interpret
meaning beyond the referential meaning which the surface structure of the message
provides.
Contrastive Analysis (CA): A linguistic approach to SLA that involves predicting and explaining
learner problems based on a comparison of L1 and L2 to determine linguistic similarities and
differences.
contrastive rhetoric: An area of research that compares genre-specific conventions in different
languages and cultures, with particular focus on predicting and explaining problems in L2
academic and professional writing.
controlled processing: An initial stage of the learning process that demands learners attention.
coordinate bilingualism: Organization of two languages in the brain as parallel linguistic
systems, where L1 and L2 are independent of one another.
corpus linguistic analysis: Analysis of large collections of written and spoken texts to determine
the relative frequency of different vocabulary items and grammatical patterns. Often used as
a basis for deciding what needs to be taught for specific purposes.
creative construction: The subconscious creation of a mental grammar that allows speakers to
interpret and produce utterances they have not heard before.
critical period: The limited number of years during which normal L1 acquisition is possible.
Critical Period Hypothesis: The claim that children have only a limited number of years during
which they can acquire their L1 flawlessly; if they suffered brain damage to the language
areas, brain plasticity in childhood would allow other areas of the brain to take over the
language functions of the damaged areas, but beyond a certain age, normal language
development would not be possible. This concept is commonly extended to SLA as well, in the
claim that only children are likely to achieve native or near-native proficiency in L2.
cue strength: A part of formfunction mapping where learners detect cues in language input
which are associated with a particular function and recognize what weight to assign each
possible cue.
cues: Linguistic signals that are associated with a particular semantic or grammatical function.
culture: Knowledge that subsumes content and context information in many ways, but also
includes an understanding of the wider social setting within which acts of communication
take place.
declarative knowledge: Isolated facts and rules. Processing of this knowledge is usually relatively
slow and under attentional control.
deductive processing: A top-down approach that begins with a prediction or rule and then
applies it to interpret particular instances of input.
derivational morphology: Prefixes and suffixes that are added to words to create words with new
meanings.
developmental errors: Also known as intralingual errors, they are inaccurate utterances that
represent incomplete learning of L2 rules or overgeneralizations.
direct correction: Explicit statements about incorrect language use.
discourse: The linguistic unit which is larger than a single sentence and involves ways of
connecting sentences, organizing information across sentence boundaries, and structuring
storytelling, conversation, and interaction in general.
Error Analysis (EA): An approach to SLA that takes an internal focus on learners creative
construction of language. It is based on description and analysis of actual learner errors in
Glossary 187
L2, rather than on idealized linguistic structures attributed to native speakers of L1 and L2 (as
in Contrastive Analysis).
errors: Inappropriate utterances which result from learners lack of L2 knowledge. Corder (1967)
contrasts these with mistakes.
Ethnography of Communication: A framework for analysis of language and its functions that was
established by Hymes (1966). It relates language use to broader social and cultural contexts,
and applies ethnographic methods of data collection and interpretation to study of language
acquisition and use.
external focus: Focus for the study of SLA that emphasizes language use, including the functions
of language that are realized in learners production at different stages of development.
feedback: Information that is provided to learners about whether or not their production and
interpretation of language is appropriate. This may be in the form of direct correction, or it
may take more indirect forms.
field-dependent (FD): A learning style characterized by a global and holistic mode of processing
new information.
field-independent (FI): A learning style characterized by a particularistic and analytic mode of
processing new information.
final state: The outcome of L1 and L2 learning, also known as the stable state of adult grammar.
first language/native language/mother tongue (L1): A language that is acquired naturally in early
childhood, usually because it is the primary language of a childs family. A child who grows
up in a multilingual setting may have more than one first language.
foreign language: A second language that is not widely used in the learners immediate social
context, but rather one that might be used for future travel or other cross-cultural
communication situations, or one that might be studied as a curricular requirement or
elective in school with no immediate or necessary practical application.
foreigner talk: Speech from L1 speakers addressed to L2 learners that differs in systematic ways
from language addressed to native or very fluent speakers.
formal L2 learning: Instructed learning that takes place in classrooms.
formfunction mapping: Basic to SLA, a process that involves correlating external form and
internal function.
fossilization: A stable state in SLA where learners cease their interlanguage development before
they reach target norms despite continuing L2 input and passage of time.
free variation: Variation in interlanguage that is not accounted for by linguistic, psychological, or
social contexts.
function: A term with several meanings in linguistics. See Structural Function and Pragmatic
Function.
function words: A limited set of terms that carry primarily grammatical information. These
words form part of the core vocabulary in every language.
functional (models of linguistics): Approaches that are based on Functionalism.
Functionalism: A linguistic framework with an external focus that dates back to the early
twentieth century and has its roots in the Prague School of Eastern Europe. It emphasizes the
information content of utterances and considers language primarily as a system of
communication. Functionalist approaches have largely dominated European study of SLA
and are widely followed elsewhere in the world.
Functional Typology: A functional approach that involves classification of languages and their
features into categories (or types; hence typology) with a major goal being to describe
patterns of similarities and differences among them, and to determine which types and
patterns occur more or less frequently or are universal in distribution.
188 GLOSSARY
function-to-form mapping: A functional approach which has been applied to the description and
analysis of interlanguage. One of its basic concepts is grammaticalization.
genres: Conventionalized categories and types of discourse.
Government and Binding (GB) Model: An earlier name for Chomskys Principles and Parameters
framework.
grammaticalization: A developmental process in which a grammatical function (such as the
expression of past time) is first conveyed by shared extralinguistic knowledge and inferencing
based on the context of discourse, then by a lexical word (such as yesterday), and only later by
a grammatical marker (such as the suffix -ed).
grammatical sensitivity: See inductive language learning ability.
hemisphere: One half of the brain. The left half is called the left hemisphere; the right half is
called the right hemisphere.
humanistic (approaches): Efforts to explain learning from a psychological perspective that began
to influence SLA teaching and research in the 1970s. They consider emotional involvement in
learning, as well as biological differences associated with age, sex, and modes of processing.
Identity Hypothesis (L1 L2): The claim that processes involved in acquisition of L1 and L2 are
the same.
idiom: A fixed expression of two or more words that is interpreted as a single lexical unit.
indirect correction: Implicit feedback about inappropriate language use, such as clarification
requests when the listener has actually understood an utterance.
inductive language-learning ability: Capacity of the brain to process segmented auditory input
and to perceive structure, identify patterns, make generalizations, recognize the
grammatical function of elements, and formulate rules. Also called grammatical sensitivity.
inductive processing: A bottom-up approach to interpretation and production that begins with
examining input to discover some pattern and then formulates a generalization or rule that
accounts for it. It may then in turn be applied deductively.
inflection: A linguistic element that adds or changes grammatical meaning when added to a
word (such as its tense, aspect, and number).
inflectional morphology: Word parts that carry meanings such as tense, aspect, and number.
informal L2 learning: SLA that takes place in naturalistic contexts.
information organization: How sentences and larger linguistic units are structured as a means for
conveying information from speaker/writer to hearer/reader.
Information Processing (IP): A cognitive framework which assumes that SLA (like learning of
other complex domains) proceeds from controlled to automatic processing and involves
progressive reorganization of knowledge.
initial rate (of learning): The speed at which new L2 material is learned early in the L2 learning
process, where, contrary to popular belief, older learners have an advantage over young
children in SLA.
initial state: The starting point for language acquisition; it is thought to include the underlying
knowledge about language structures and principles that are in learners heads at the very
start of L1 or L2 acquisition.
innate capacity: A natural ability, usually referring to childrens natural ability to learn or acquire
language.
inner speech: Vygotskys term for the unvocalized self-talk that many adults use to control their
own thought and behavior.
input: Whatever sample of L2 learners are exposed to.
instruction: Explicit teaching, often in school settings.
instructed L2 learning: Synonym for formal L2 learning.
Glossary 189
instrumental motivation: Perception of a practical value for learning an L2, such as increasing
occupational opportunities, enhancing prestige and power, accessing scientific and technical
information, or passing a course in school.
intake: Input which is attended to.
integrative motivation: Interest in learning an L2 because of a desire to learn about or associate
with the people who use it, or because of an intention to participate in or integrate with the
L2-using speech community. Affective factors are dominant.
Interaction Hypothesis: The claim that modifications and collaborative efforts which take place
in social interaction facilitate SLA because they contribute to the accessibility of input for
mental processing.
interactional (purpose): Interpersonal goals in communication that are primarily affective.
Intercultural Communication: Interactional processes that take place between people who come
from different cultural backgrounds.
interference: Inappropriate influence of an L1 structure or rule on L2 use. Also called negative
transfer.
Interlanguage (IL): Intermediate states or interim grammars of learner language as it moves
toward the target L2. See learner varieties.
interlingual errors: Errors that result from negative transfer of L1 to L2. Contrast with
intralingual errors.
internal focus: Focus for the study of SLA that is based primarily on the work of Noam Chomsky and
his followers. It sets the goal of study as accounting for speakers internalized, underlying
knowledge of language, rather than the description of surface forms as in earlier Structuralism.
interpersonal competence: Knowledge required of learners who plan to use the L2 primarily in
face-to-face contact with other speakers.
interpersonal interaction: Communicative events and situations that occur between people.
intonation: Patterns of tone or pitch levels over a stretch of speech.
intralingual errors: Errors in L2 that are not due to interference from L1. These are also
sometimes termed developmental errors, meaning that they represent incomplete learning
of L2 rules or overgeneralization of them. Contrast with interlingual errors.
intrapersonal interaction: Communication that occurs within an individuals own mind, viewed
by Vygotsky as a sociocultural phenomen.
language acquisition device (LAD): A metaphor used by Chomsky to refer to childrens language
faculty. Extended to adult SLA by Krashen and others.
language community: A group of people who share knowledge of a common language at least to
some extent.
language dominance: Multilingual speakers relative fluency in one over another of their
languages.
language faculty: Term used by Chomsky for a component of the human mind that accounts for
childrens innate knowledge of language.
language for specific purposes: Restricted or highly specialized second languages, such as French
for Hotel Management or English for Academic Purposes (EAP).
lateralization: Differential specialization of the two halves of the brain. For example, the left
hemisphere becomes specialized for most language activity, many believe during a critical
period for language development.
learner language: Synonym for interlanguage.
learner varieties: A term used by Klein and Perdue to refer to interlanguage.
learning: Krashens term for conscious SLA. Contrasts in his usage with acquisition, which is
unconscious.
190 GLOSSARY
learning strategies: The behavior and techniques that individuals adopt in their efforts to learn
L2.
learning style: Characteristics of L2 learners that include a combination of personality traits and
cognitive style.
lemmas: Within Processability Theory, lemmas are words that are processed without carrying
any grammatical information or being associated with any ordering rules.
lexicon: The component of language that is concerned with words and their meanings.
library language: A second language that functions as a tool for further learning, especially when
books or journals in a desired field of study are not commonly published in the learners L1.
linguistic competence: The underlying knowledge that speakers/hearers have of a language.
Chomsky distinguishes this from linguistic performance.
linguistic performance: The use of language knowledge in actual production.
logical problem of language acquisition: The question of how children achieve the final state of
L1 development with ease and success when the linguistic system is very complex and their
cognitive ability is not fully developed.
macrosocial (focus): An emphasis within the social perspective that is concerned with effects of
broad cultural, political, and educational environments on L2 acquisition and use.
markedness: A basis for classification of languages according to whether a specific feature occurs
more frequently than a contrasting element in the same category, is less complex structurally
or conceptually, or is more normal or expected along some dimension (rendering it
unmarked as opposed to marked in that respect).
Markedness Differential Hypothesis: Eckmans (1977) claim that unmarked features in L1 are
more likely to transfer to L2, and that marked features in L2 will be harder to learn.
Mentalism: An approach that puts emphasis on the innate capacity of the language learner rather
than on external factors of language learning.
metacognitive strategies: Strategies for learning an L2 that attempt to regulate language learning
with conscious planning and monitoring.
metaphor: An expression which involves the substitution of a similar but figurative element of
language for a literal one, such as love is a river instead of love is a long process.
microsocial (focus): An emphasis within the social perspective that is concerned with the
potential effects of different immediately surrounding conditions of language use on SLA,
including specific social contexts of interaction.
Minimalist Program: The internally focused linguistic framework that follows Chomskys Principles
and Parameters model. This framework adds distinctions between lexical and functional category
development, as well as more emphasis on the acquisition of feature specification as a part of
lexical knowledge.
mistakes: Inappropriate language production that results from some kind of processing failure
such as a lapse in memory. Corder (1967) contrasts these with errors and does not include
them within Error Analysis procedures.
monitor: A store of conscious knowledge about L2 that is a product of learning (in Krashens usage)
and is available for purposes of editing or making changes in what has already been produced.
Monitor Model: An approach to SLA introduced by Krashen (1978) that takes an internal focus on
learners creative construction of language.
monolingual competence: Knowledge of only one language.
monolingualism: The ability to use only one language.
Morpheme Order Studies: An approach to SLA introduced by Dulay and Burt (1974) that focuses
on the sequence in which specific English grammatical morphemes are acquired. Claims are
made for a natural order.
Glossary 191
morpheme: The smallest unit of language that carries lexical or grammatical meaning; often part
of a word.
morphology: The composition of words in different languages and the study of such systems
generally.
motivation: A need and desire to learn.
Multidimensional Model: An approach to SLA which claims that learners acquire certain
grammatical structures in developmental sequences, and that those sequences reflect how
learners overcome processing limitations. Further, it claims that language instruction which
targets developmental features will be successful only if learners have already mastered the
processing operations which are associated with the previous stage of acquisition.
multilingual competence: The compound state of a mind with two [or more] grammars (Cook
1991:112).
multilingualism: The ability to use more than one language.
naturalistic L2 learning: Synonym for informal L2 learning.
natural order: A universal sequence in the grammatical development of language learners.
negative evidence: Explicit correction of inappropriate utterances.
negative transfer: Inappropriate influence of an L1 structure or rule on L2 use. Also called
interference.
negotiation of meaning: Collaborative effort during interaction that helps prevent or repair
breakdown of communication between native and nonnative speakers, like comprehension
checks and clarification requests.
Neurolinguistics: The study of the location and representation of language in the brain, of
interest to biologists and psychologists since the nineteenth century and one of the first
fields to influence cognitive perspectives on SLA when systematic study began in the 1960s.
nominalization: The process of turning entire sentences into fillers for noun phrase positions.
oral (mode): Channel of communication that involves sounds produced by the vocal tract;
includes listening and speaking.
orthography: Symbolic writing system.
output: In SLA, the language that learners produce in speech/sign or in writing.
Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP): A connectionist approach to SLA which claims that
processing takes place in a network of nodes in the brain that are connected by pathways,
and that frequency of input and nature of feedback largely determine language learning.
parameters: Limited options in realization of universal principles which account for grammatical
variation between languages of the world. Part of Chomskys theory of Universal Grammar.
patterns of activation: Probabilistic associations that develop between nodes in the brain as
language learning takes place. Part of the theory of Parallel Distributed Processing.
performance: See linguistic performance.
phonemes: Speech sounds that contrast in similar contexts and make a difference in meaning.
phonemic coding ability: The capacity to process auditory input and organize it into segments
which can be stored and retrieved.
phonology: The sound systems of different languages and the study of such systems generally.
phonotactics: Possible sequences of consonants and vowels for any given language.
plasticity: The capacity of the brain to assume new functions. In early childhood, if one area
of the brain is damaged, another area of the brain is able to assume the functions of the
damaged area because it retains plasticity.
positive evidence: Actual utterances by other speakers that learners are able to at least partially
comprehend.
positive transfer: Appropriate incorporation of an L1 structure or rule in L2 structure.
192 GLOSSARY
poverty-of-the- stimulus: The argument that because language input to children is impoverished
and they still acquire L1, there must be an innate capacity for L1 acquisition.
pragmatic competence: Knowledge that people must have in order to interpret and convey
meaning within communicative situations.
pragmatic function: What the use of language can accomplish, such as conveying information,
controlling others behavior, or expressing emotion.
pragmatic mode: A style of expressing meaning which relies heavily on context.
principles: Properties of all languages of the world; part of Chomskys Universal Grammar.
Principles and Parameters (model): The internally focused linguistic framework that followed
Chomskys Transformational-Generative Grammar. It revised specifications of what
constitutes innate capacity to include more abstract notions of general principles and
constraints common to human language as part of a Universal Grammar.
private speech: The self-talk which many children (in particular) engage in. Vygostky claims that
this leads to inner speech.
procedural knowledge: Knowledge that requires processing of longer associated units and
increasing automatization in comparison to declarative knowledge. This frees attentional
resources for higher-level skills. Proceduralization requires practice.
Processability (theory): A reorientation of the Multidimensional Model that extends its concepts
of learning and applies them to teaching second languages, with the goal of determining and
explaining the sequences in which processing skills develop in relation to language learning.
productive activities: L2 use that involves communicating meaning to others by writing or speaking.
recast: An indirect correction that might appear to paraphrase what a learner says but actually
corrects an element of language use.
receptive activities: L2 use that involves interpreting the meaning of others by reading or
listening.
reduced form: The less complex grammatical structures that typically characterize interlanguage
(such as omission of past tense markers).
reduced function: The smaller range of communicative needs that are typically fulfilled by
interlanguage in comparison to learners L1.
registers: Varieties of a language that are used in particular situations.
restructuring: The reorganization of knowledge that takes place in the central processing stage
of Information Processing.
rule-governed behavior: A characterization of language use from the perspective of mentalism,
which claims that this ability is based on tacit knowledge of a relatively limited set of
underlying regularities or rules.
scaffolding: Verbal guidance which an expert provides to help a learner perform any specific task,
or the verbal collaboration of peers to perform a task which would be too difficult for any
one of them in individual performance.
schemas: Mental structures that map the expected patterns of objects and events.
second language (L2): In its general sense, this term refers to any language that is acquired after
the first language has been established. In its specific sense, this term typically refers to an
additional language which is learned within a context where it is societally dominant and
needed for education, employment, and other basic purposes. The more specific sense
contrasts with foreign language, library language, auxiliary language, and language for
specific purposes.
Second Language Acquisition (SLA): A term that refers both to the study of individuals and groups
who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children, and to
the process of learning that language.
Glossary 193
second language learning: The process of acquiring an additional language within the context of
a language community which dominantly includes members who speak it natively. This term
is also applied more generally to the process of acquiring any L2.
semantics: The linguistic study of meaning.
sequential multilingualism: Ability to use one or more languages that were learned after L1 had
already been established.
simultaneous multilingualism: Ability to use more than one language that were acquired during
early childhood.
Social Psychology: A societal approach in research and theory that allows exploration of issues
such as how identity, status, and values influence L2 outcomes and why. It has disciplinary
ties to both psychological and social perspectives.
social strategies: Means for learning an L2 that involve interaction with others.
Sociocultural Theory (SCT): An approach established by Vygotsky which claims that interaction
not only facilitates language learning but is a causative force in acquisition. Further, all of
learning is seen as essentially a social process which is grounded in sociocultural settings.
speech acts: Utterances that serve to accomplish the speakers goals, such as requesting,
apologizing, promising, denying, expressing emotion, complaining, etc.
S-R-R: stimulus-response-reinforcement: The sequence of factors which account for the learning
process according to behaviorism: stimuli from the environment (such as linguistic input),
responses to those stimuli, and reinforcement (positive if desirable and negative if not).
stimulus-response theory: A widely held view in the middle of the twentieth century that
children learn language by imitation. Refers to two of the factors that are present in the
sequence S-R-R.
structural function: The role which elements of language structure in a sentence play, such as a
subject or object, or as an actor or goal.
Structuralism: The dominant linguistic model of the 1950s, which emphasized the description of
different levels of production in speech.
subject-predicate structure: Grammatical organization at the sentence level with primary
constituents being subject and predicate. This organization involves a significant amount of
grammatical marking (or inflection) because of the agreement it requires between sentence
elements. Contrast with topic-comment structure.
subordinate bilingualism: Organization of two languages in the brain where one linguistic system
is accessed through the other. Contrast with compound and coordinate bilingualism.
subtractive bilingualism: The result of SLA in social contexts where members of a minority group
learn the dominant language as L2 and are more likely to experience some loss of ethnic
identity and attrition of L1 skills.
Sylvian fissure: A cleavage that separates lobes in the brain.
symbolic mediation: A link between a persons current mental state and higher order functions
that is provided primarily by language; considered the usual route to learning (of language,
and of learning in general). Part of Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory.
syntactic mode: A style of expressing meaning which relies on formal grammatical elements.
syntax: The linguistic system of grammatical relationships of words within sentences, such as
ordering and agreement.
Systemic Linguistics: A model for analyzing language in terms of the interrelated systems of
choices that are available for expressing meaning, developed by Halliday in the late 1950s.
target language: The language that is the aim or goal of learning.
tone: Level of pitch as a phonological feature. In some languages (e.g. Chinese), contrasts in tone
play an important role in word identification and interpretation.
194 GLOSSARY
top-down processing: Achieving interpretation and production of language meaning through
prior knowledge of content, context, and culture. This process may allow learners to guess
the meanings of words they have not encountered before, and to make some sense out of
larger chunks of written and oral text.
topic-comment (structure): Grammatical organization at the sentence level with primary
constituents being topic and comment. In this pattern, a topic is stated and then information
is given about it. The topic-comment structure does not require the agreement marking that
subject-predicate structure does.
transactional (purpose): Interpersonal goals in communication that are task-oriented.
transfer: Cross-linguistic influences in language learning: usually the influence of L1 on L2. See
positive transfer and negative transfer.
Transformational-Generative Grammar: The first linguistic framework with an internal focus,
which revolutionized linguistic theory and had a profound effect on both the study of first
and second languages. Chomsky argued effectively that the behaviorist theory of language
acquisition is wrong because it cannot explain the creative aspects of linguistic ability.
Instead, humans must have some innate capacity for language.
transitional competence: An L2 learners state of language knowledge that is potentially
independent of L1 or L2.
typology: See Functional Typology.
ultimate achievement: The end result of L2 study.
Universal Grammar (UG): A linguistic framework developed most prominently by Chomsky which
claims that L1 acquisition can be accounted for only by innate knowledge that the human
species is genetically endowed with. This knowledge includes what all languages have in
common.
U-shaped development: A sequence of acquisition for elements of both L1 and L2 where learners
use an initially correct form such as plural feet (which they first learn as an unanalyzed
word), then an incorrect foots (which shows they have learned the English plural formation
rule of foot -s). Finally, learners return to feet when they begin to acquire exceptions to the
plural inflection rule.
utterance structure: The focus of the Information Organization approach to SLA, where
emphasis is on the way in which learners put their words together (Klein and Perdue
1993:3).
variable: As a defining characteristic of learner language, inconsistency attributed both to
developmental changes in what learners know and can produce, and to social context.
variable features: Multiple linguistic forms that are systematically or predictably used by different
speakers of a language, or by the same speakers at different times, with the same or very
similar meaning or function.
Variation Theory: A microsocial framework applied to SLA that explores systematic differences in
learner production which depend on contexts of use.
vocabulary: See lexicon.
Wernickes area: An area of the left frontal lobe of the brain that processes audio input.
written (mode): Channel of communication that involves graphic symbols; includes reading and
writing.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD): An area of potential development where the learner can
only achieve that potential with assistance. Part of Vygotskys Sociocultural Theory.
ZISA: The acronym for a research project titled Zweitspracherwerb italienischer und spanischer Arbeiter
Second language development of Italian and Spanish workers.
Glossary 195
Adamson, H. D. & Regan, V. M. (1991). The acquisition
of community speech norms by Asian immigrants
learning English as a second language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 13:122.
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, Memory and Thought.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York:
Basic Books.
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1981). Second language
acquisition from a functional perspective: pragmatic,
semantic and perceptual strategies. In H. Winitz (ed.),
Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp.
190214). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Best, C. (1993). Emergence of language-specific
constraints in perception of non-native speech: a
window on early phonological development. In B. de
Boysson-Bardies (ed.), Developmental Neurocognition:
Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of Life (pp.
289304). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies: A
Psychological Analysis of Second-Language Use. Oxford:
Blackwell.
(1997). The structure of age: in search of barriers
to second language acquisition. Second Language
Research, 13 (2): 11637.
Bialystok, E. & Hakuta, K. (1994). In Other Words: The
Science and Psychology of Second-Language Acquisition.
New York: Basic Books.
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation:
A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus-
based approaches in applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 15:16989.
Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999). Second Language Acquisition and
the Critical Period Hypothesis: Second Language Research and
Methodological Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem
of foreign language learning? In S. Gass & J.
Schachter (eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 4168). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
(2002). Frequency in production, comprehension,
and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
24 (2):20913.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Broca, P. (1861). Remarques sur le sige de la facult
du langage articul suivies dune observation
dapmie. Bull. Soc. Anat., 6:330.
(1865). Sur le sige de la facult du langage
articul. Bull. Soc. DAnthropologie, 6:33793.
Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech
perception and phonological acquisition from infant
to adult. In J. Archibald (ed.), Second Language Acquisition
and Linguistic Theory (pp. 463). Oxford: Blackwell.
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: a historical and
conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (ed.), Cultures,
Communication and Cognition: Vygotskyan Perspectives
(pp. 2134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1965). The prediction of success in
intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser
(ed.), Training, Research and Education (pp. 87136).
New York: Wiley.
Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (eds.) (2001). The Cambridge
Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and
Context in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chamot, A. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL
students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.), Learner
Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 7183). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
References
Chapelle, C. & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/
dependence in second language acquisition
research. Language Learning, 42:4783.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague:
Mouton.
(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:
Foris.
(1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
(2002). On Nature and Language, ed. A. Belletti, &
L. Rizzi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of
English. New York: Harper Row.
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word
order: a test case for cognitive approaches to L2
development. In R. Andersen (ed.), Second Language:
A Cross Linguistic Perspective (pp. 21942). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J. & Pienemann, M. (1983).
Deutsch als Zweitspraches der Spracherwerb auslndischer
Arbeiter. Tbingen: Gunter Narr.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech Acts. In S. L. McKay &
N. H. Hornberger (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language
Teaching (pp. 383420). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. (1988). Chomskys Universal Grammar. Oxford:
Blackwell.
(1991). Second Language Learning and Language
Teaching (Second Edition). London: Arnold.
(1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language
Learning, 42 (4): 55791.
Cook, V. & Newson, M. (1996). Chomskys Universal
Grammar: An Introduction (Second Edition). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners errors.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5 (4): 16170.
Reprinted in S. P. Corder (1981), Error Analysis and
Interlanguage (pp. 513). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997a). Dictionary of Linguistics and
Phonetics (Fourth Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
(ed.) (1997b). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language
(Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant
second language learning in Canada: a reassessment.
Applied Linguistics, 2:13249.
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie. New York: Academic Press.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the Output
Hypothesis. Language Learning, 46 (3): 52955.
Diaz, R. M. (1985). The intellectual power of
bilingualism. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory
of Comparative Human Cognition, 7:1622.
Diaz, R. M. & Klingler, C. (1991). Towards an explanatory
model of the interaction between bilingualism and
cognitive development. In E. Bialystok (ed.), Language
Processing in Bilingual Children (pp. 16792). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to
understanding the foreign and second language
classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Learning (pp. 2750). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural
perspective on language learning strategies: the
role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78
(4)364.
Drnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in
second language motivation research. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 21:4359.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children
syntax? Language Learning, 24:24558.
(1974). A new perspective on the creative
construction process in child second language
acquisition. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 4:7198.
Eckman, F. R. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive
analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 27:31530.
(1996). A functional typological approach to
second language acquisition theory. In W. C. Ritchie
& T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 195211). New York: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language
processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
24 (2):14388.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
198 REFERENCES
(1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
(1999). Theoretical perspectives on interaction and
language learning. In R. Ellis, Learning a Second
Language Through Interaction (pp. 331). Amsterdam:
John Benjamin.
Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, Cognition and the Brain:
Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ervin, S. M. & Osgood, C. E. (1954). Second language
learning and bilingualism. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 58:13945.
Eubank, L., Selinker, L. & Sharwood Smith, M. (eds.),
(1995). The Current State of Interlanguage. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Fedio, P., August, A., Myatt, C., Kertzman, C.,
Miletich, R., Snyder, P., Sato, S. & Kafta, C. (1992).
Functional localization of languages in a bilingual
patient with intracaratid amytal, subdural electrical
stimulation, and positron emission topography.
Paper presented at the International
Neuropsychological Society, San Diego, CA.
Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the
notion of simplicity: a study of normal speech, baby
talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In D. Hymes (ed.),
Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (pp. 14150).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flege, J. (1980). Phonetic approximation in second
language acquisition. Language Learning 30:11734.
Flowerdew, J. (ed.) (1994). Academic Listening: Research
Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Floyd, P. & Carrell, P. C. (1987). Effects on ESL reading
of teaching cultural content schemata. Language
Learning, 37:89108.
Freud, S. (1891). Zur Auffassung der Aphasien, translated
into English as On Aphasia by E. Stengel, 1953. New
York, NY: International University Press.
Fries, C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a
Foreign Language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second
Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation.
London: Arnold.
(2002). Social psychological perspective on second
language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 16069). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. (1984). Development of speech perception and
speech production abilities in adult second language
learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5 (1):5174.
(1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic
theory: the role of language transfer. In W. C. Ritchie
& T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 31745). New York: Academic Press.
Givn, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: grammar
as a processing strategy. In T. Givn (ed.), Syntax and
Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 81112). New
York: Academic Press.
Glahn, E., Hkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A.,
Hvenekilde, A. & Lund, K. (2001). Processability in
Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 23 (3):389416.
Gonzalez, L. A. (1986). The effects of first language
education on the second language and academic
achievement of Mexican immigrant elementary school
children in the United States. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second
language reading research. TESOL Quarterly,
25 (3):375406.
(2002). Reading in a second language. In R. B.
Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics
(pp. 4959). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregg, K. R. (1996). The logical and developmental
problems of second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition (pp. 5081). New York: Academic Press.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in
conversational inference. In M. Saville-Troike (ed.),
Linguistics and Anthropology (pp. 191211).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). The functional basis of
language. In B. Bernstein (ed.), Class, Codes and
Control, Volume II (pp. 34366). London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
(1975). Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the
Development of Language. London: Arnold.
References 199
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in
English. London: Longman.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities
(Third Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas. The
American Dialect Society, University of Alabama.
Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (eds.) (1998). Foreign
Language Learning: Psycholinguistic Studies on Training
and Retention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Herdina, P. & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of
Multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Herschensohn, J. (2000). The Second Time Around:
Minimalism and L2 Acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hinkel, Eli. (ed.) (1999). Culture in Second Language
Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and
achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
21:11226.
Huebner, T., Carroll, M. & Perdue, C. (1992). The
acquisition of English. In W. Klein & C. Perdue (eds.),
Utterance Structure (pp. 61121). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hymes, Dell. (1966). On communicative competence.
Paper presented at the Research Planning
Conference on Language Development among
Disadvantaged Children, Yeshiva University.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language
Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jakobson, R. (1941). Child Language, Aphasia, and
Phonological Universals. The Hague: Mouton.
Johns, Ann M. (ed.) (2002). Genre in the Classroom:
Multiple Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. (eds.) (1998). Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jones, S. (1998). Learning styles and learning
strategies: towards learner independence. Forum for
Modern Language Studies, 34 (2):11429.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread,
Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford:
Pergamon Institute of English.
Kachru, B. B. & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes.
In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (eds.), Sociolinguistics
and Language Teaching (pp. 71102). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. B. (ed.) (2002). The Oxford Handbook of
Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. and Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic
Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kimura, D. (1992, September). Sex differences in the
brain. Scientific American, 11925.
Kleifgen, J. (1985). Skilled variation in a kindergarten
teachers use of foreigner talk. In S. M. Gass & C. G.
Madden (eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp.
5968). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
(1986). Communicative inferencing between
classroom teachers and limited English proficient
international children. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Kleifgen, J. & Saville-Troike, M. (1992). Achieving
coherence in multilingual interaction. Discourse
Processes, 15:183206.
Klein, W. & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance Structure:
Developing Grammar Again. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
(1993). Utterance structures. In C. Perdue (ed.),
Adult Language Acquisition: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives,
Volume II (pp. 340). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Krashen, S. (1978). The Monitor Model for second-
language acquisition. In R. C. Gingras (ed.), Second
Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching
(pp. 126). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Kroll, J. F. & Steward, E. (1994). Category Interference
in translation and picture naming: evidence for
asymmetric connections between bilingual memory
representations. Journal of Memory and Language,
33:14974.
Kunt, N. (1997). Anxiety and beliefs about language
learning: a study of Turkish-speaking university
students learning English in North Cyprus. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Labov, W. (1965). On the mechanisms of linguistic
change. Georgetown University Monographs on Language
and Linguistics, 18:91114.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
200 REFERENCES
Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as
factors in learning and education. In F. E. Aboud & R.
D. Meade (eds.), Cultural Factors in Learning and
Education (pp. 91122). Bellingham, Washington: Fifth
Western Symposium on Learning.
(1991). And then add your two cents worth. In
A. G. Reynolds (ed.), Bilingualism, Multiculturalism,
and Second Language Learning (pp. 21749). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C. Gardner, R. C. &
Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to
spoken languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 60:4451.
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000). Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Leather, J. & James, A. (1996). Second language
speech. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 269316). New York:
Academic Press.
Leki, I. & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different
world: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL
students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly,
31:3969.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of
Language. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Lightbown, Patsy M. & Spada, Nina. (1999). How
Languages are Learned (Second Edition). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Liu, J. (2001). Asian Students Classroom Communication
Patterns in U. S. Universities. Westport, CN: Ablex.
Long, M. H. (1990). Maturational constraints on
language development. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12:25185.
(1996). The role of the linguistic environment in
second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K.
Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
(pp. 41368). New York: Academic Press.
Lynch, T. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on listening.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18:319.
(2002). Listening. In R. B. Kaplan (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 3948). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The Competition Model: the
input, the context, and the brain. In P. R. Robinson (ed.),
Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 6990).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds.) (1989). The
Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (2001). Issues in Applied Linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1997). Written and
spoken vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy
(eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy (pp. 2030). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E. & Hinton, G. E.
(1986). The appeal of Parallel Distributed Processing.
In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & the PDP
Research Group, Parallel Distributed Processing, Volume I
(pp. 344). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McKay, S. L. & Hornberger, N. H. (eds.) (1996).
Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language
Learning. London: Arnold.
McNeil, D. (1966). Developmental psycholinguistics.
In F. Smith & G. A. Miller (eds.), The Genesis of
Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach (pp. 1584).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mack, M. (1992). The relationship between
neurolinguistics and applied linguistics. Paper
presented at the American Association of Applied
Linguistics Conference, Seattle, Washington.
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and
Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Miller, G. A. (1964). The psycholinguists. Encounter,
23 (1):2937.
Miller, J. (2000). Language use, identity, and
social interaction: migrant students in Australia.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33
(1):69100.
Mills, D. L., Coffey-Corina, S. A. & Neville, H. J. (1993).
Language acquisition and cerebral specialization in
20 month-old infants. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
5:31734.
Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language
Learning Theories (Second Edition). London: Arnold.
References 201
Nagy, W. (1997). On the role of context in first- and
second-language vocabulary learning. In N. Schmitt
and M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary Description,
Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp. 6483). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary.
New York: Newbury House. Cited in S. M. Gass & L.
Selinker, Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory
Course (p. 374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nation, I. S. P. & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size,
text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M.
McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy (pp. 619). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on
language learning. Cognitive Science, 14:1128.
Nida, E. (1953). Selective listening. Language Learning,
4 (34):92101.
Novoa, L., Fein, D. & Obler, L. (1988). Talent in foreign
languages: a case study. In L. Obler & D. Fein (eds.), The
Exceptional Brain: Neuropsychology of Talent and Special
Abilities (pp. 249302). New York: Guilford Press.
Obler, L. K. & Gjerlow, K. (1999). Language and the
Brain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Obler, L. K. & Hannigan, S. (1996). Neurolinguistics of
second language acquisition and use. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 50923). New York:
Academic Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Processes
in the Classroom-Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ojemann, G. A. & Whitaker, H. A. (1978). The
bilingual brain. Archives of Neurology, 35:49012.
Oxford, R. L. (1992). Language learning strategies in a
nutshell: update and ESL suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2
(2):1822.
(1993). Research on second language learning
strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
13:17587.
Oxford, R. L. & Ehrman, M. (1993). Second language
research on individual differences. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 13:188205.
Paradis, M. (1987). The Assessment of Bilingual Aphasia.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Perdue, C. (ed.) (1993). Adult Language Acquisition.
Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.
(2000). Organizing principles of learner varieties.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22:299305.
Piaget, J. (1926). The Language and Thought of the Child.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truber and Company.
(Original work published 1923.)
Pienemann, M. (1998). Developmental dynamics in
L1 and L2 acquisition: Processibility Theory and gen-
erative entrenchment. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 1:120.
Pienemann, M. & Hkansson, G. (1999). A unified
approach toward the development of Swedish as L2:
a processability account. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21 (3):383420.
Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: identity
and success in second language learning. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 6 (2):179206.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York:
William Morrow.
Polanyi, L. (1995). Language learning and living
abroad: stories from the field. In B. Freed (ed.),
Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context
(pp. 27191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ramat, A. G. (ed.) (2003). Typology and Second Language
Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton.
Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preference of
ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (1):87111.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the
noticing hypothesis. Language Learning, 45 (2):283331.
Rose, K. R. & Kasper, G. (eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On
learning the past tenses of English verbs. In D. E.
Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & the PDP Research
Group. Parallel Distributed Processing, Volume II (pp.
21671). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in
second language learning for academic
achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18 (2):199219.
(1988). Private speech: evidence for second
language learning during the silent period. Journal
of Child Language, 15:56790.
202 REFERENCES
(2002). Extending communicative concepts in
the second language curriculum: a sociolinguistic
perspective. In D. L. Lange & R. Michael Paige (eds.),
Culture as the Core: Perspectives in Second Language
Education (pp. 317). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
(2003). The Ethnography of Communication: An
Introduction (Third Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Saville-Troike, M., McClure, E. & Fritz, M. (1984).
Communicative tactics in childrens second
language acquisition. In F. R. Eckman, K. H. Bell & D.
Nelson (eds.), Universals of Second Language Acquisition
(pp. 6071). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Saville-Troike, M., Pan, J. & Dutkova, L. (1995).
Differential effects of L2 on childrens L1
development/attrition. Southwest Journal of Linguistics,
14 (12):12549.
Scheibman, J. (2002). Point of View and Grammar:
Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American
Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schleppegrell, M. J. & Colombi, M. C. (eds.) (2002).
Developing Advanced Literacy in First and Second
Languages: Meaning With Power. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in
second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11:12988.
Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds.) (1997). Vocabulary
Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schumann, J. H. (1978). The Acculturation Model for
second language acquisition. In R. C. Gingras (ed.),
Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language
Teaching (pp. 2750). Arlington, VA: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
(1997). The Neurobiology of Affect in Language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
(2001). Appraisal psychology, neurobiology, and
language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21:2342.
Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural
Communication (Second Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical
period research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
20:21323.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Seliger, H. (1978). Implications of a multiple critical
period hypothesis for second language learning. In
W. Ritchie (ed.), Second Language Research: Issues and
Implications (pp. 1119). New York: Academic Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 10:20931.
(1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London:
Longman.
Shachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis.
Language Learning, 27:20514.
Simpson, R. & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus based
study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly,
37 (3):41941.
Singleton, D. (2001). Age and second language
acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
21:7789.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second
Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
(1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, first
language influence, and developmental readiness in
second language acquisition. The Modern Language
Journal, 85 (1):122.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output
and the cognitive processes they generate: a step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
16 (3):37191.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. (1994). Academic Writing for
Graduate Students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Swan, M. & Smith, B. (eds.) (2001). Learner English
(Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in
Interlanguage. On TESOL 77 (pp. 194203). Washington,
DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages.
Taylor, G. & Chen, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and
subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis:
References 203
Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts. Applied
Linguistics, 12 (3):31936.
Tomlin, R. S. (1990). Functionalism and second
language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12:15577.
Traugott, E. C. & Pratt, M. L. (1980). Linguistics for
Students of Literature. New York : Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Trubetzkoy, N. (1958). Grundzge der Phonologie
(Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 7).
Gttingen : Vandenhoek and Ruprecht. (Original
work published 1939.)
Truitt, S. (1995). Anxiety and beliefs about language
learning: a study of Korean university students
learning English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin.
Tucker, G. R. (1999). A global perspective on
bilingualism and bilingual education. ERIC Digest.
Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages
and Linguistics.
Vaid, J. (1983). Bilingualism and brain lateraliza-
tion. In S. Segalonitz (ed.), Language Function and
Brain Organization (pp. 31539). New York: Academic
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. New York:
Linguistic Circle of New York.
Wernicke, C. (1874). Der aphasische Symptomencomplex.
Breslau, Poland: M. Cohn und Weigert.
White, L. (1996). Universal grammar and second
language acquisition: current trends and new
directions. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.),
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 85120).
New York: Academic Press.
(2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal
Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: an
ethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOL
Quarterly, 29 (3):473503.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for
Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H., Hertzman, M., Machover, K.,
Meissner, P. & Wapner, S. (1954). Personality Through
Perception. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Wuillemin, D. & Richardson, B. (1994). Right
hemisphere involvement in processing later-learned
languages in multilinguals. Brain and Language,
46:62036.
Xue, G. & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word
list. Language Learning and Communication, 3 :21529.
Yaguello, Marina. (1981/1998). Language through the
Looking Glass: Exploring Language and Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang, J. (2002). The acquisition of temporality by
adult second language learners of Chinese. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Arizona.
Young, R. (1999). Sociolinguistic approaches to SLA.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19:10532.
Zhu, X. (2001). Chinese Languages: Mandarin. Facts
about the Worlds Languages (p. 146). New York:
H. W. Wilson.
204 REFERENCES
Accommodation Theory 27, 103
Acculturation Theory 28, 12223
Audiolingual Method 25
Behaviorism 13, 25, 34, 35, 3738, 165
brain, languages and the 26, 67, 6873
Chomsky, N. 21, 24, 2526, 34, 38, 45, 46, 47, 51, 94, 100
communication strategies 1001, 11719
competence types
academic competence 13536, 138, 142, 148, 155, 156,
169
communicative competence 3, 1001, 133, 13435, 138,
167, 168, 175
interpersonal competence 135, 138, 143, 148
linguistic competence 3, 25, 46, 100, 134
multilingual competence 175, 1001, 11719, 9394
pragmatic competence 3, 134, 167, 175
Competition Model 73, 7880
Connectionism 27, 67, 73, 8081
Contrastive Analysis 31, 3334, 3437, 39, 5657, 144, 145
critical period 26, 6869, 8283, 142
culture 127, 128, 129, 15455, 162, 164, 168, 175
demographics of multilingualism 8, 912
Error Analysis 31, 3740, 38
Ethnography of Communication 2728, 100, 119
feedback 20, 11011, 116, 164, 168, 179
correction 51, 11011, 179
negative evidence 51, 110
positive evidence 22, 51
first language 1, 4, 1621, 29, 43, 56, 100
foreigner talk 1067
fossilization 21, 4142, 51, 74
Functionalism 26, 5262, 164, 166
Functional Typology 31, 50, 5557
function-to-form mapping 31, 5758, 60
information organization 31, 5862
Systemic Linguistics 31, 5355
Halliday, M. A. K. 53, 54, 55, 151
Humanistic models 27, 67
individual differences 8193
affective factors 27
age 27, 8284, 88, 92, 12526, 178
aptitude 20, 75, 8485, 178
cognitive style 8789, 128
learning strategies 9193, 128
motivation 20, 27, 8587, 178, 179
personality 8991
sex (gender) 27, 84, 126
Information Processing 26, 67, 7378, 80, 88, 160, 161, 163
innate capacity 1314, 17, 18, 25, 38, 45, 47, 67, 176
input 45, 52, 74, 102, 1056, 10610, 111, 129, 159, 160, 163,
175, 176, 177, 179
interaction 102, 106, 11119, 129, 130, 176, 177
modifications 10610
scaffolding 109, 11213, 116
Interlanguage (learner language) 16, 18, 31, 39, 4043, 45,
5152, 57, 58, 59, 105, 153, 164, 166, 167, 176
Intonation 158, 168
Lado, R. 34, 35
Lambert, W. E. 127, 128
language knowledge, components of 13753, 169
discourse 33, 102, 137, 15053, 154, 156, 159, 166, 174
morphology 25, 33, 102, 137, 14142, 154, 165, 174
phonology 25, 33, 102, 137, 14245, 154, 170, 174
semantics 25, 33
syntax 25, 33, 102, 137, 142, 14550, 154, 156, 159, 165,
169, 170, 174
vocabulary 25, 33, 102, 136, 137, 13841, 142, 154, 156,
159, 161, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 174
logical problem of language learning (poverty-of-the-
stimulus) 2124, 37, 46, 47, 62
MacWhinney, B. 78, 79
Markedness 50, 5557
memory 85, 178
Minimalist Program 2526, 47, 51
Monitor Model 31, 4546
Morpheme Order Studies 31, 4344
Multidimensional Model 73, 7677
near-native competence 21, 173, 178, 17980
Neurolinguistics 26, 67, 175
order of acquisition 1415, 4344, 46, 56, 59, 61, 7678, 105
Parallel Distributed Processing 8081
pragmatics 5354, 134
Principles and Parameters 25, 4749
private speech 11416
Processability Theory 73, 7778
productive activities 137
speaking 136, 137, 16263, 168, 169, 175
writing 16263, 16366, 170, 175
pronunciation 142, 143, 161, 166, 168, 169, 179
receptive activities 137, 15362, 170, 175
listening 137, 142, 15962, 170, 175
reading 136, 137, 15559, 162, 169, 170, 175
second language types 101
auxiliary 4, 101, 177
foreign 4, 101, 177
language for specific purposes 4, 177
Index
second language types (cont.)
library 4
second 1, 2, 4, 101, 177
target 2
social contexts of learning 12324, 125, 126,
12829
Social Psychology 28, 119
group identity 12223, 12428, 177
institutional forces 12324, 12829, 177
language status 12021
Sociocultural Theory 25, 27, 102, 111
interpersonal interaction 11213
intrapersonal interaction 11316
Structuralism 2425, 3435
transfer 18, 19, 35, 41, 52, 5657, 144, 145, 153,
158, 165
negative transfer (interference) 19, 3536, 39, 40,
50, 52
positive transfer 19, 35, 50
Transformational-Generative Grammar 25, 38
Universal Grammar 21, 25, 31, 46, 52, 47, 80
variation in learner language 27, 1012, 1025
Vygotsky, L. S. 25, 27, 102, 111
206 INDEX