Second Language Learning

Theories

Written by a team of leading experts working in different SLA specialisms, this

fourth edition is a clear and concise introduction to the main theories of second
language acquisition (SLA) from multiple perspectives, comprehensively
updated to reflect the very latest developments in SLA research in recent
years.
The book covers all the main theoretical perspectives currently active
in SLA and sets each chapter within a broader framework. Each chapter
examines the claims and scope of each theory and how each views language,
the learner and the acquisition process, supplemented by summaries of key
studies and data examples from a variety of languages. Chapters end with
an evaluative summary of the theories discussed. Key features to this fourth
edition include updated accounts of developments in cognitive approaches
to second language (L2) learning, the implications of advances in generative
linguistics and the “social turn” in L2 research, with re-worked chapters
on functional, sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives, and an entirely
new chapter on theory integration, in addition to updated examples using
new studies.
Second Language Learning Theories continues to be an essential resource for
graduate students in second language acquisition.

Rosamond Mitchell is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at the

University of Southampton, UK.

Florence Myles is Professor of Second Language Acquisition at the University

of Essex, UK.

Emma Marsden is Professor at the Centre for Research into Language

Learning and Use at the University of York, UK.
“This book continues to be a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction
to the ever-growing field of Second Language Learning research. With its
systematic structure and its numerous illustrations from empirical work, the
book will allow students and language teachers alike to compare and to
contrast the aims, the claims and the scopes of the leading L2 theories in
the field today. If you want to know something about the scientific study of
Second Language Learning, there is no better place to start than right here.”
Jonas Granfeldt, Lund University, Sweden
“This new edition is excellent news.The combined interests and ­expertise of
its authors ensure a very complete and balanced overview that will f­ascinate
students and strengthen their interest in the field.”
Carmen Muñoz, University of Barcelona, Spain
“Having used the previous three editions in my SLA courses, I ­enthusiastically
welcome the fourth edition of Second Language Learning Theories.
­Presenting new data from a range of languages, it clearly illustrates the major
theoretical approaches of the discipline.”
Julia Herschensohn, University of Washington, USA
Second Language Learning
Theories
Fourth Edition

Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles

and Emma Marsden
Fourth edition published 2019
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles and Emma Marsden
to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Hodder Arnold 1998
Third edition published by Routledge 2013
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-67140-9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-67141-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-61704-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents

List of Illustrationsviii
Acknowledgementsx
Prefacexiii

  1 Second Language Learning: Key Concepts and Issues 1

1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 What Makes for a Good Theory?  2
1.3 Views on the Nature of Language  6
1.4 The Language Learning Process  11
1.5 Views of the Language Learner  21
1.6  Links with Social Practice  27
1.7 Conclusion 28
References 28

  2 The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research 39

2.1 Introduction 39
2.2 The 1950s and 1960s  40
2.3 The 1970s  43
2.4 The 1980s: A Turning Point  57
2.5  Continuities and New Themes in the Research Agenda  60
2.6  Second Language Learning Timeline  63
References 77

  3 Linguistics and Language Learning: The Universal

Grammar Approach 81
3.1 Introduction 81
3.2 Why a Universal Grammar?  82
3.3 What Does UG Consist Of?  89
3.4  UG and L1 Acquisition  98
3.5  UG and L2 Acquisition  102
3.6 Evaluation of UG-Based Approaches to L2 Acquisition  116
References 119
vi  Contents
  4 Cognitive Approaches to Second Language
Learning (1): General Learning Mechanisms 128
4.1 Introduction 128
4.2  Input-Based Emergentist Perspectives  129
4.3 Processing-Based Perspectives 146
4.4  Evaluation of General Cognitive Approaches  154
References 158

  5 Cognitive Approaches to Second Language

Learning (2): Memory Systems, Explicit Knowledge
and Skill Learning 167
5.1 Introduction 167
5.2  Memory Systems and Their Role in L2 Learning  169
5.3 Explicit Knowledge, Information Processing and Skill
Acquisition 175
5.4  Awareness and Attention in L2 Acquisition  186
5.5 Working Memory and L2 Learning  189
5.6 Evaluation of Cognitive Approaches (2): Memory Systems,
Explicit Knowledge and Skill Learning  195
References 198

  6 Interaction in Second Language Learning 209

6.1 Introduction 209
6.2 The Revised Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996):
An Appeal to Cognitive Theory  211
6.3 Negotiation of Meaning and the Learning of Target L2
Structures and Vocabulary  213
6.4 The Role of Feedback during Oral Interaction  216
6.5 The Problem of “Noticing”  226
6.6  L2 Development in Computer-Mediated Interaction  229
6.7  Characteristics of Learners and of Tasks  231
6.8 Evaluation 232
References 236

  7 Meaning-Based Perspectives on Second

Language Learning 242
7.1 Introduction 242
7.2  Early Functionalist Studies of SLL  243
7.3 Functionalism beyond the Case Study:The “Learner
Varieties” Approach  249
7.4 “Time Talk”: Developing the Means to Talk about Time  255
7.5  The Aspect Hypothesis  259
7.6  Cognitive Linguistics and “Thinking for Speaking”  263
 Contents vii
7.7  Second Language Pragmatics  269
7.8 Evaluation 276
References 279

  8 Sociocultural Perspectives on Second Language Learning 286

8.1 Introduction 286
8.2 Sociocultural Theory 286
8.3  Applications of SCT to Second Language Learning  293
8.4 Evaluation 317
References 320

  9 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 326

9.1 Introduction 326
9.2  Sociolinguistically Driven Variability in Second Language Use  326
9.3  Second Language Socialization  333
9.4  Conversation Analysis and Second Language Learning  342
9.5  Communities of Practice and Situated Learning  348
9.6 The Language Learner as Social Being: L2 Identity, Agency
and Investment  355
9.7 Evaluation:The Scope and Achievements of Sociolinguistic
Enquiry 363
References 365

10 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on Second

Language Learning 373
10.1 Introduction 373
10.2 The MOGUL Framework  376
10.3  Dynamic Systems Theory (DST)  384
10.4 Conclusion 394
References 395

11 Conclusion 399
11.1  One Theory or Many?  399
11.2 Main Achievements of Second Language Learning Research  399
11.3 Future Directions for Second Language Learning Research  402
11.4  How to Do Research  403
11.5 Second Language Learning Research and Language
Education 405
References 407

Glossary410
Subject Index424
Name Index433
Illustrations

Tables
4.1 Input Profile of Difficult and Easy Constructions 131
4.2 Processability Hierarchy for English Questions 149
4.3 Predicted and Actual Degree of Difficulty Based on
Isomorphism154
6.1 Examples of Interactional Modifications in NS-NNS
Conversations212
6.2 Immersion Teachers’ Feedback Moves 218
6.3 Negative Feedback and Modified Output, Number of
Tokens per Group 224
6.4 Question Development, Number of Learners per Group 225
7.1 Pragmatic and Syntactic Modes of Expression 244
7.2 Paratactic Precursors of Different Target Language
Constructions248
7.3 Coding Scheme and Example Utterances from The
Finite Story254
7.4 Distribution of Commonest Forms for Future Expression
in L1/L2 Spanish 258
7.5 Number of Participants Producing Each Future Form 258
7.6 Summary of the Main Verbs Used for Danish and Spanish
Placement Events 268
8.1 Perceptions of PBLL Activity: Sample Participants’
Comments299
8.2 Regulatory Scale for Error Feedback: Implicit (Strategic) to
Explicit303
8.3 Microgenesis in the Language System 304
8.4 Methods of Assistance Occurring during Classroom Peer
Interaction307
9.1 [t]/[d] Deletion in Detroit African-American Speech 329
9.2 Varbrul Results for [t]/[d] Deletion by African-American
Speakers from Detroit: Hypothetical Data Inferred
from Table 9.1329
9.3 [t]/[d] Absence by Grammatical Category in Chinese-
English Interlanguage and in Native English Dialects 330
 Illustrations ix
Figures
1.1 Spolsky’s General Model of Second Language Learning 4
2.1 Acquisition Hierarchy for 13 English Grammatical
Morphemes for Spanish-Speaking and Cantonese-
Speaking Children 50
2.2 Comparison of Adult and Child Acquisition Sequences for
Eight Grammatical Morphemes 51
5.1 Comparing Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems
of L1 and L2 Learners 172
6.1 Mean Accuracy of Three Groups on Test of Possessive
Determiners (Oral Picture Description Task) 220
6.2 Performance of (a) “Low” and (b) “High” Students on
Grammaticality Judgement Task (Written Error
Correction Task) 221
7.1 Expected Direction of Spread of Preterit and Imperfect
Forms in L2 Spanish across Lexical Classes 260
7.2 Diagrammatic Representation of Modal Verbs Will and May264
7.3 Distribution of Request Types by Learner Group 273
8.1 Model of an Activity System 293
8.2 Activity of L1 Arabic and L1 Korean Students Using
Web Tutor 301
8.3 Development of Self-Regulation over Time 306
8.4 Didactic Model for Mood Selection in Spanish 312
8.5 Sample Pedagogical Diagram: “Social Distance” 313
9.1 A Sample Individual Network of Practice (INoP): Liliana 352
10.1 The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and
Teaching374
10.2 The General MOGUL Framework 377
10.3 The Wider Language System of MOGUL 377
10.4 Core Language Architecture within MOGUL 378
10.5 The Word Lamp as a Representational Chain 380
10.6 Moving Min-Max Graph Showing the Development of
Case Accuracy over Time 389
10.7 Development of Complexity on (a) the Morphological
Level, (b) the Noun Phrase Level and (c) the Sentence Level 390
Acknowledgements

The authors and publishers wish to thank the following for permission to
use copyright material:
Academic Press/Emerald Publishing: figure from “From discourse to syn-
tax: Grammar as a processing strategy”, by T. Givón, in Syntax and Semantics
12, 1979.
Cambridge University Press: table from “Corrective feedback and learner
uptake”, by R. Lyster and L. Ranta, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
19, 1996. Two tables from “Identifying the impact of negative feedback and
learners’ responses on ESL question development”, by K. McDonough,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 2005. Two figures from “One size
fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning”, by A. Ammar and N. Spada, Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 2006. Figure from “The role of dynamic
contrasts in the L2 acquisition of Spanish past tense morphology”, by
L. Dominguez, N. Tracy-Ventura, M. J. Arche, Rosamond Mitchell and Flor-
ence Myles, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 2013.Three figures from
Michael Sharwood Smith and John Truscott, The multilingual mind: A modular
processing perspective, © Michael Sharwood Smith and John Truscott 2014.
Figure from Michael Sharwood Smith, Introducing language and cognition:
A map of the mind, © Michael Sharwood Smith 2017.
Elsevier: figure from “Sociocultural influences on the use of a web-based
tool for learning English vocabulary”, by A. Juffs and B. E. Friedline, System
42, 2014.
Equinox Publishing Ltd: figure from “Revolutionary pedagogies: Learn-
ing that leads (to) second language development”, by E. Negueruela, in Soci-
ocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, edited by J. P. Lantolf and
M. Poehner, © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008. Figure from “Understanding
the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of
mediation matter”, by J. P. Lantolf, L. Kurtz and O. Kisselev, Language and
Sociocultural Theory 3, © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2016.
John Benjamins Publishing Company: Table from “Competing con-
straints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese learners of English”,
by R. J. Bayley, in Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, edited by
R. Bayley and D. R. Preston, 1996.Two tables from “Variationist perspectives
 Acknowledgements xi
on second language acquisition”, by D. R. Preston, in Second language acquisi-
tion and linguistic variation, edited by R. Bayley and D. R. Preston, 1996. Table
from The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisi-
tion: The multiple constraints hypothesis, by A. Lenzing, 2013. With kind per-
mission by John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
www.benjamins.com.
John Wiley & Sons Inc.: figure from “Negative feedback as regulation
and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development”, by
A. Aljaafreh and J. P. Lantolf, The Modern Language Journal 78, 1994. Table
from “Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical
study”, by L. Collins et al., The Modern Language Journal 93, 2009. Figure
from “A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world”, by
Douglas Fir Group, The Modern Language Journal 100 (S1), 2016. Figure from
“Instructed concept appropriation and L2 pragmatic development in the
classroom”, by R. A. van Compernolle and A. Henery, Language Learning 64,
2014. Table from “Semantic categorization of placement verbs in L1 and L2
Danish and Spanish”, by T. Cadierno, I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano and A. Hijazo-
Gascón, Language Learning 66, 2016.Two tables from “What we gain by com-
bining variationist and concept-oriented approaches: The case of acquiring
Spanish future-time expression”, by M. Kanwit, Language Learning 67, 2017.
Table from “Beyond statistical learning: Communication principles and
­language-internal factors shape grammar in child and adult beginners learn-
ing Polish through controlled exposure”, by C. Dimroth, Language Learning
Early View, 2018.Table from “The impact of interaction on comprehension”,
by T. Pica, R. Young and C. Doughty, TESOL Quarterly 21, 1987. Figure
from “Academic English socialization through individual networks of prac-
tice”, by S. Zappa-Hollman and P. A. Duff, TESOL Quarterly 49, 2015.
MIT Press: Extract from Impossible languages, by A. Moro, 2016.
National Academy of Sciences: Figure from “Child first language and
adult second language are both tied to general-purpose learning systems”,
by P. Hamrick, J. A. G. Lum and M. T. Ullman, Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences 115, 2018.
Oxford University Press: two figures from Language two, by H. Dulay, M.
Burt and S. Krashen, reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press.
Copyright © 1982 Oxford University Press, Inc. Figure from Conditions for
second language learning, by B. Spolsky, reproduced by permission of Oxford
University Press. Copyright © B. Spolsky 1989. Table from “A note on
canonical word order”, by W. O’Grady and Y. Yamashita, Applied Linguistics
26, 2005. Two figures from “Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy
and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish”,
by M. Spoelman and M. Verspoor, Applied Linguistics 31, 2010. Figure from
“Enriching activity theory without shortcuts”, by Yrjö Engeström, Interacting
with Computers 20, 2008.
Taylor & Francis: Table from Second language acquisition processes in the class-
room: Learning Japanese, by A. S. Ohta, 2001. Figure from Cognitive linguistics
xii  Acknowledgements
and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence, by
K. Tyler, 2012. Table from “Project-based language learning: An activity the-
ory analysis”, by M. Gibbes and L. Carson, Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching 8, 2014.
Walter de Gruyter and Company: Figure from “Pragmatic development
in the Spanish as a FL classroom”, by J. C. Félix-Brasdefer, Intercultural Prag-
matics 4, 2007.
Preface

0.1 Aims of This Book

This book is the result of collaboration between researchers interested
in second language (L2) learning from a range of perspectives: linguistic
(Myles), cognitive (Marsden) and social/educational (Mitchell). As in pre-
vious editions, our general aim is to provide an up-to-date, introductory
overview of the current state of L2 studies. Our intended audience is wide:
undergraduates following first degrees in language/linguistics, graduate stu-
dents embarking on courses in foreign language education/English as a for-
eign language/applied linguistics, and a broader audience of teachers and
other professionals concerned with L2 education and development. Second
language learning is a field of research with potential to make its own dis-
tinctive contribution to fundamental understandings of, for example, the
workings of the human mind or the nature of language. It also has the
potential to inform the improvement of social practice in a range of fields,
most obviously in language education. We ourselves are interested in L2
learning from both perspectives, and are concerned to make it intelligible to
the widest possible audience.
All commentators recognize that while the field of L2 research has been
extremely active and productive in recent decades, we have not yet arrived
at a unified or comprehensive view of how second languages are learned,
although tentative models have regularly been proposed (see Chapter 10).We
have therefore organized this book as a presentation and critical review of a
number of different L2 theories, which can broadly be viewed as linguistic,
psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic. Indeed, the overall “map” of the field
we proposed in the first edition largely survives today, reflecting the fact that
key strands of research already active 20 years ago have continued to flour-
ish and develop. No single theoretical position has achieved dominance, and
new theoretical orientations continue to appear. Whether this is a desirable
state of affairs or not has been an issue of some controversy (see discussion in
Chapter 1). On the whole, while we fully accept the arguments for the need
for cumulative programmes of research within the framework of a particular
theory, we incline towards a pluralist view of L2 theorizing. In any case, it is
xiv  Preface
obvious that students entering the field today need a broad introduction to a
range of theoretical positions, with the tools to evaluate their goals, strengths
and limitations, and this is what we aim to offer.
In this fourth edition, our primary aim remains the same: to introduce the
reader to those theoretical orientations on language learning which seem
currently most productive and interesting for our intended audience. But we
have revised our text throughout to reflect the substantial developments that
have taken place in the field in the last few years, so that the work aims to
be fully up to date. In particular, the new edition takes account of substantial
recent developments in cognitive approaches to L2 learning, and we also
review the implications of recent advances in generative linguistics (Chom-
sky’s Minimalist Program); the strength of the ongoing “social turn” in L2
research has been acknowledged, with substantial revisions of later chapters
dealing with functional, sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives; and in
an entirely new chapter, we evaluate some contrasting recent proposals for a
more integrative approach to L2 theorizing. Throughout the book, key the-
oretical and methodological advances are presented and explained, greater
attention has been paid to research on internet-based language learning,
and new studies (in a range of languages, and with recent methodological
innovations) have been incorporated as examples. The evaluation sections in
each chapter have been expanded, and the book is rebalanced in favour of
newer material.
As one clear sign of the vigour and dynamism of L2 research, a very high
number of surveys, reviews and meta-analyses are available. Reflecting the
variety of the field, these vary in their focus and aims. Some are written from
the perspective of a single theoretical position, construct or issue (e.g. Cook &
Newson, 2007; Deters, Gao, Miller, & Vitanova, 2015; Duff & May, 2017; Gass,
Spinner, & Behney, 2018; Hawkins, 2001; Hulstijn, 2015; Lantolf & Poehner,
2014; Lardiere, 2007; Leung, 2009; Li, 2015; Mackey, 2007; MacWhinney &
O’Grady, 2015; Ortega & Han, 2017; Loewen & Sato, 2017; Paradis, 2009;
Rebuschat, 2015; Slabakova, 2016; Taguchi & Roever, 2017; Thomas, 2004;
Wen, Borges Mota, & McNeill, 2015); some are encyclopaedic in scope and
ambition (e.g. Atkinson, 2011; R. Ellis, 2015; Gass & Mackey, 2012; Gass,
Behney, & Plonsky, 2013; Herschensohn & Young-Scholten, 2013; Ortega,
2009; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2009; Robinson, 2013); some pay detailed attention
to research design and methods and data analysis (e.g. Barkhuizen, Benson, &
Chik, 2014; Duff, 2008; Kasper & Wagner, 2014; Li Wei & Moyer, 2008;
Mackey & Gass, 2015; Mackey & Marsden, 2016; Marsden, Morgan-Short,
Thompson, & Abugaber, 2018; Norris, Ross, & Schoonen, 2015; Phakiti, De
Costa, Plonsky, & Starfield, 2018; Plonsky, 2015).
This particular book is intended as a unified introduction to the field,
for students without a substantial prior background in linguistics. We begin
with an introduction to key concepts (Chapter 1) and a historical account of
how the second language learning field has developed (Chapter 2). In later
chapters (3–9) we have made a selection from across the range of L2 studies
 Preface xv
of a range of theoretical positions which we believe are most active and
significant. To represent linguistic theorizing, we have concentrated on the
Universal Grammar approach (Chapter 3). In Chapters 4 and 5 we deal with
a selection of cognitive theories: in Chapter 4 we examine the application to
L2 learning of general and implicit learning mechanisms, concentrating on
emergentist and processing perspectives, while in Chapter 5 we explore the
place of memory, explicit knowledge and attention, and their contribution
to L2 skill acquisition in particular. Chapter 6 explores the concept of L2
interaction, tracing earlier and later versions of the Interaction Hypothesis
and related theories. Chapter 7 examines a range of theoretical positions
which assume the centrality of meaning-making for second language learn-
ing (functionalism, “cognitive linguistics”, L2 pragmatics). Chapter 8 deals
with sociocultural theory and some of its more recent extensions (activity
theory, dynamic assessment, concept-based instruction). In Chapter 9 we
turn to the emergence of socially patterned variation in L2, and examine L2
socialization theory, as well as theories of L2 identity, agency and investment
as applied. Each of these theoretical positions is explained, and then illus-
trated by discussion of a small number of key empirical studies which have
been inspired by that approach. We use these studies to illustrate the meth-
odologies which are characteristic of the different research traditions (from
controlled laboratory-based studies of people learning artificial languages to
naturalistic observation of informal learning in the community); the scope
and nature of the language “facts” which are felt to be important within
that family of theories; and the kinds of generalizations which are drawn.
Where appropriate, we refer our readers to parallels in first language acqui-
sition research, and also to more comprehensive treatments of the research
evidence relevant to different theoretical positions. Each chapter concludes
with an evaluation section (see below). We have introduced an entirely new
chapter (10) which discusses prospects for more integrative approaches to L2
theorizing. We review contemporary calls for building shared, transdiscipli-
nary frameworks within which to locate the various research traditions, and
we present two current integrative initiatives: the Modular Online Growth
and Use of Language (MOGUL) project, and Complexity Theory/Dynamic
Systems Theory (DST).
In addition to these revisions, we have updated our timeline of impor-
tant milestones in the development of L2 research, as well as our glossary
explaining key terms used in the book.

0.2 Comparing Second Language Learning

Perspectives
We want to encourage our readers to compare and contrast the various
theoretical perspectives we discuss in the book, so that they can get a better
sense of the kinds of issues which different theories are trying to explain,
and the extent to which they are supported to date with empirical evidence.
xvi  Preface
In reviewing our chosen perspectives, therefore, we evaluate each system-
atically, considering the nature and extent of empirical support and paying
attention to the following factors:

The claims and scope of the theory;

The view of language involved in the theory;
The view of the language learning process;
The view of the learner.

In Chapter 1 we discuss each of these factors briefly, introducing key ter-

minology and critical issues which have proved important in distinguishing
one theory from another.

References
Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and
learning research. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2015). Theorizing and analyzing
agency in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. A., & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course (4th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisi-
tion. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (Eds.). (2018). Salience in second language acquisition.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Herschensohn, J., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.). (2013). The Cambridge handbook of second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and
research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–42.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2
education:Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Preface xvii
Leung,Y. I. (Ed.). (2009). Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar
acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36,
385–408.
Li Wei, & Moyer, M. G. (2008). The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and
multilingualism. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. Abing-
don/New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Marsden, E. (Eds.). (2016). Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS
repository of instruments for research into second languages. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in
second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for
the field. Language Learning, 68, 321–391.
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence.
Chichester/West Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Norris, J. M., Ross, S., & Schoonen, R. (Eds.). (2015). Improving and extending quantita-
tive reasoning in second language research [Special issue]. Language Learning, 65.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Ortega, L., & Han, Z.-H. (Eds.). (2017). Complexity theory and language development: In
celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of
applied linguistics research methodology. New York: Palgrave.
Plonsky, L. (Ed.). (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New
York: Routledge.
Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ritchie,W.C., & Bhatia,T. K. (Eds.). (2009). The new handbook of second language acquisition.
Bingley: Emerald Group.
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition. Abing-
don/New York: Routledge.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Thomas, M. (2004). Universal grammar in second language acquisition: A history. London:
Routledge.
Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.). (2015). Working memory in second language
acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
1 Second Language Learning
Key Concepts and Issues

1.1 Introduction
This preparatory chapter provides an overview of key concepts and issues
which will recur throughout the book. We offer introductory definitions of
a range of terms, and try to equip the reader with the means to compare the
goals and claims of particular theories with one another. We also summarize
key issues, and indicate where they will be explored in more detail later in
the book.
The main themes to be dealt with in following sections are:

1.2 What makes for a “good” explanation or theory

1.3 Views on the nature of language
1.4 Views of the language learning process
1.5 Views of the language learner
1.6 Links between language learning theory and social practice.

First, however, we must offer a preliminary definition of our most cen-

tral concept, “second language learning” (SLL). We define this broadly, to
include the learning of any language, to any level, provided only that the
learning of the “second” language takes place sometime later than the learn-
ing by infants and very young children of their first language(s) (i.e. from
around the age of 4).
Simultaneous infant bilingualism from birth is of course a common phe-
nomenon, but this is a specialist topic, with its own literature, which we do
not try to address in this book; for overviews see, for example, Serratrice
(2013) and Nicoladis (2018). We do, however, take account of the thriving
research interest in interactions and mutual influences between “first” lan-
guages (L1s) and later-acquired languages, surveyed, for example, in Cook
and Li Wei (2016) and Pavlenko (2011); aspects of this work are discussed in
later chapters.
For us, therefore, “second languages” are any languages learned later than
in earliest childhood. They may indeed be the second language (the L2) the
learner is working with, in a literal sense, or they may be his/her third, fourth
2  Second Language Learning
or fifth language. They encompass both languages of wider communica-
tion encountered within the local region or community (e.g. in educational
institutions, at the workplace or in the media) and truly foreign languages,
which have no substantial local uses or numbers of speakers. We include
“foreign” languages under our more general term of “second” languages
because we believe that many (if not all) of the underlying learning pro-
cesses are broadly similar for more local and more remote target languages,
despite differing learning purposes, circumstances and, often, the quantity
and nature of experiences with the language. (And, of course, languages are
increasingly accessible via the internet, a means of communication which
cuts across any simple “local”/“foreign” distinction.)
We are also interested in all kinds of learning, whether formal, planned
and systematic (as in classroom-based learning) or informal and incidental to
communication (as when a new language is “picked up” in the community
or via the internet). Following the proposals of Stephen Krashen (1981),
some L2 researchers have made a principled terminological distinction
between formal, conscious learning and informal, unconscious acquisition.
Krashen’s “Acquisition-Learning” hypothesis is discussed further in Chap-
ter 2; however, many researchers in the field do not distinguish between
the two terms, and unless specially indicated, we ourselves will be using
both terms interchangeably. (Note, in Chapters 4 and 5, where the distinc-
tion between conscious and unconscious learning is central, we will use the
terms “implicit” and “explicit” learning, which often broadly align with the
distinction between “acquisition” and “learning”.)

1.2 What Makes for a Good Theory?

Second language (L2) learning is an immensely complex phenomenon. Mil-
lions of human beings experience L2 learning and may have a good practical
understanding of activities that helped them to learn. But this experience
and common-sense understanding are clearly not enough to help us explain
the learning process fully. We know, for a start, that people cannot reliably
describe the language system that they have internalized, nor the mecha-
nisms that process, store and retrieve many aspects of that new language. We
need to understand L2 learning better than we do, for two basic reasons:

1. Because improved knowledge in this domain is interesting in itself and

can contribute to a more general understanding about the nature of
language, human learning and intercultural communication, and thus
about the human mind itself, as well as how all these affect each other;
2. Because the knowledge will be useful. If we become better able to
account for both success and failure in L2 learning, there will be a payoff
for many teachers and their learners.

We can only pursue a better understanding of L2 learning in an organ-

ized and productive way if our efforts are guided by some form of theory
 Second Language Learning 3
(Hulstijn, 2014; Jordan, 2013;VanPatten & J.Williams, 2015). For our purposes,
a theory is a (more or less) abstract set of claims about significant entities
within the phenomenon under study, the relationships between them, and
the processes that bring about change.Thus, a theory aims not just at descrip-
tion, but at explanation. Theories may be embryonic and restricted in scope,
or more elaborate, explicit and comprehensive. They may deal with different
areas of interest; thus, a property theory will be primarily concerned with
modelling the nature of the language system to be acquired, while a transi-
tion theory will be primarily concerned with modelling the developmental
processes of acquisition (Gregg, 2003; Jordan, 2004, Chapter 5; Sharwood
Smith, Truscott, & Hawkins, 2013). One particular property theory may deal
only with one domain of language (such as morphosyntax, phonology or
the lexicon). Likewise, one particular transition theory itself may deal only
with a particular stage of L2 learning or with the learning of some par-
ticular subcomponent of language; or it may propose learning mechanisms
that are much more general in scope. Worthwhile theories are collabora-
tively produced and evolve through a process of systematic enquiry in which
the claims of the theory are assessed against some kind of evidence or data.
This may take place through hypothesis-testing through formal experiment,
or through more ecological procedures, where naturally occurring data are
analysed. In addition, bottom-up theory development can happen, usually
through reflections on data (whether naturally or experimentally elicited),
from which theories can emerge and become articulated. (There is now a
considerable number of manuals offering guidance on research methods in
both traditions, such as Mackey & Gass, 2012; Phakiti, De Costa, Plonsky, &
Starfield, 2018. We will provide basic introductions to a range of research
procedures as needed, throughout the book and also in the Glossary.) Finally,
the process of theory building is a reflexive one; new developments in the
theory lead to the need to collect new information and explore different
phenomena and different patterns in the potentially infinite world of “facts”
and data. Puzzling “facts” and patterns that fail to fit with expectations in turn
lead to new, more powerful theoretical insights.
To make these ideas more concrete, an early “model” of L2 learning is shown
in Figure 1.1, taken from Spolsky (1989). This model represents a “general
theory of second language learning”, as the proposer described it (p. 14). The
model encapsulates this researcher’s theoretical views on the overall relation-
ship between contextual factors, individual learner differences, learning oppor-
tunities and learning outcomes. It is thus an ambitious model, in the breadth
of phenomena it is trying to explain. The rectangular boxes show the factors
(or variables) which the researcher believes are most significant for learning,
that is, where variation can lead to differences in success or failure.The arrows
connecting the various boxes show directions of influence.The contents of the
various boxes are defined at great length, as consisting of clusters of interact-
ing “Conditions” (74 in all: 1989, pp. 16–25), which make language learning
success more or less likely. These summarize the results of a great variety of
empirical language learning research, as Spolsky interprets them.
 provides
Social context

leads to

Attitudes
(of various kinds)

which appear in the

learner as

Motivation

which joins with other personal

characteristics such as

Previous
Age Personality Capabilities
Knowledge

all of which explain the use the

learner makes of the available

Learning opportunities (formal or informal)

the interplay between learner

and situation determining

Linguistic and non-linguistic

outcomes for the learner

Figure 1.1 Spolsky’s General Model of Second Language Learning

Source: Spolsky, 1989, p. 28
 Second Language Learning 5
How would we begin to evaluate this or any other model, or, even more
modestly, to decide that this was a view of the language learning process
we could work with? This would depend partly on the extent to which the
author has taken account of evidence and provided a systematic account
of it. It would also depend on rather broader philosophical positions: for
example, are we satisfied with an account of human learning which sees
individual differences as both relatively fixed and also highly influential for
learning? Finally, it would also depend on the particular focus of our own
interests, within L2 learning; this particular model seems well adapted for
the study of the individual learner, for example, but has relatively little to
say about the social relationships in which they engage, the way they process
new language, nor the kinds of language system they construct.
Since at least the mid 1990s, there has been debate about the adequacy of
the theoretical frameworks used to underpin research on L2 learning. One
main line of criticism has been that L2 research (as exemplified by Spolsky,
1989) has historically been too preoccupied with the cognition of the indi-
vidual learner, and sociocultural dimensions of learning have been neglected.
From this perspective language is an essentially social phenomenon, and L2
learning itself is a “social accomplishment”, which is “situated in social inter-
action” (Firth & Wagner, 2007, p. 807) and discoverable through scrutiny
of L2 use, using techniques such as conversation analysis (Pekarek Doehler,
2010; Kasper & Wagner, 2011). A second—though not unrelated—debate
has concerned the extent to which L2 theorizing has become too broad.
Long (1993) and others argued that “normal science” advanced through
competition between a limited number of theories, and that the L2 field
was weakened by theory proliferation. This received a vigorous riposte from
Lantolf (1996) among others, advancing the postmodern view that knowl-
edge claims are a matter of discourses. From this point of view, all scientific
theories are viewed as “metaphors that have achieved the status of accept-
ance by a group of people we refer to as scientists” (p. 721), and scientific
theory building is all about “taking metaphors seriously” (p. 723). For Lan-
tolf, any reduction in the number of “official metaphors” debated could
“suffocate” those espousing different world views.
These debates about the nature of knowledge, theory and explanation
have persisted up to the present. It is probably fair to say that the major-
ity of L2 researchers today adopt some version of a “rationalist” or “realist”
position ( Jordan, 2004; Long, 2007; Sealey & Carter, 2004, 2014). This posi-
tion is grounded in the philosophical view that an objective and knowable
world exists (i.e. not only discourses), and that it is possible to build and test
successively more powerful explanations of how that world works, through
systematic programmes of enquiry and of problem-solving. Indeed, this is
the position we take in this book. However, like numerous others ( Jordan,
2004; Ortega, 2011; Rothman & VanPatten, 2013; Zuengler & Miller, 2006),
we acknowledge that a proliferation of theories is necessary to make better
sense of the varied phenomena of SLL, the agency of language learners, and
6  Second Language Learning
the contexts and communities of practice in which they operate. We believe
that our understanding advances best where theories are freely debated and
challenged. As later chapters show, we accommodate a range of linguistic,
cognitive, sociocultural and poststructuralist perspectives. But in all cases, we
would expect to find the following:

1. Clear and explicit statements about the ground the theory aims to cover
and the claims it is making;
2. Systematic procedures for confirming/disconfirming the theory,
through data gathering and interpretation: the claims of a good theory
must be testable/falsifiable in some way;
3. Not only descriptions of L2 phenomena, but attempts to explain why
they are so, and to propose mechanisms for change, i.e. some form of
transition theory;
4. Last but not least, engagement with other theories in the field, and
serious attempts to account for at least some of the phenomena which
are “common ground” in ongoing public discussion (VanPatten &
J. Williams, 2015). Remaining sections of this chapter offer a prelimi-
nary overview of numbers of these.

(For fuller discussion of rationalist evaluation criteria, see Gregg, 2003; Hul-
stijn, 2014; Jordan, 2004, pp. 87–122; Sealey & Carter, 2004, pp. 85–106; and
for a poststructuralist perspective on theory in second language acquisition
and applied linguistics, see McNamara, 2012; S. Talmy, 2014.)

1.3 Views on the Nature of Language

1.3.1  Levels of Language

Linguists have traditionally viewed language as a complex communication
system, which must be analysed on a number of levels (or subcomponents),
such as phonology, morphology, lexis, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, dis-
course. (Readers unsure about this basic descriptive terminology will find
help from the Glossary, and in more depth from an introductory linguistics
text, such as Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2017.) They have differed about
the extent of interconnections between these levels; for example, while, e.g.,
Chomsky argued at one time that “grammar is autonomous and independ-
ent of meaning” (1957, p. 17), another tradition initiated by the British lin-
guist Firth claims that “there is no boundary between lexis and grammar:
lexis and grammar are interdependent” (Stubbs, 1996, p. 36). (See also our
discussion of O’Grady’s work in Chapter 4.)
In examining different perspectives on SLL, we will first of all be look-
ing at the levels of language which they attempt to take into account. (Does
language learning start with words or with pragmatics?) We will also exam-
ine the degree of integration or separation that the theories assume, across
 Second Language Learning 7
various levels of language. We will find that the control of syntax and mor-
phology is commonly seen as central to language learning, and that most
general L2 theories try to account for development in this area. Other levels
of language receive much more variable attention, and some areas are com-
monly treated in a semi-autonomous way, as specialist fields. This is often
true for L2 pragmatics, lexical development and phonology, for example:
see Kasper and Rose (2002), Bardovi-Harlig (2012, 2017) or Taguchi and
Roever (2017) on pragmatics; Daller, Milton, and Treffers-Daller (2007),
Kroll and Ma (2017), Meara (2009), Schmitt (2008) or Webb and Nation
(2017) on vocabulary; Colantoni, Steele, and Escudero (2015), Derwing and
Munro (2015), Eckman (2012) and Moyer (2013) on phonology and L2
pronunciation.
As a consequence of the focus on morphosyntax of many L2 theorists,
both those concerned with property theories and those concerned with
transition theories, our own attention in much of what follows reflects this.
Indeed, in our view, some of the most controversial and theoretically stimu-
lating challenges have been thrown up in the area of learning morphosyntax.
However, as noted earlier, an increasing number of theories are more explic-
itly integrating the lexicon with morphosyntax (on this, see Chapters 3 and
4 in particular, and also the MOGUL framework discussed in Chapter 10).

1.3.2 Competence and Performance

Throughout the 20th century, theorists changed their minds about their
approach to language data. Should this be the collection and analysis of
actual attested samples of language in use, for example by recording and
analyzing people’s speech? The structuralist linguistics tradition of the early
20th century leaned towards this view. Or should it be to theorize underly-
ing principles and rules which govern language behaviour, in its potentially
infinite variety? The linguist Noam Chomsky famously argued that it is the
business of theoretical linguistics to study and model underlying language
competence, rather than the performance data of actual utterances which
people have produced (Chomsky, 1965). By competence, Chomsky was
referring to an abstract representation of language knowledge hidden inside
our minds, with the potential to create and understand original utterances
in a given language (rather than sets of stored formulae or patterns). Much
of the Chomsky-inspired research discussed in Chapter 3 indeed concerns
itself with exploring L2 competence in this sense.
However, even if the competence/performance distinction is accepted,
there are clearly difficulties in studying competence. Performance data is
seen as only an imperfect reflection of competence; for Chomsky himself, the
infinite creativity of an underlying system can never adequately be reflected
in a finite sample of speech or writing (1965, p. 18). Researchers interested
in exploring underlying competence have not generally taken much inter-
est in the analysis of linguistic corpora, for example (see below). Instead,
8  Second Language Learning
they are likely to believe that competence is best accessed indirectly and
under controlled conditions, through experimental tasks such as sentence-
completion, eye-tracking or grammaticality judgement tests (roughly, tests
in which people are offered sample sentences, which are in (dis)agreement
with the rules proposed for the underlying competence, and invited to
say whether they judge them to be acceptable or not: Ionin, 2012). What
exactly is being measured in such tasks is regularly debated (Gutiérrez, 2013;
Plonsky, Marsden, Crowther, Gass, & Spinner, in press).
This split between competence and performance has never been univer-
sally accepted, however, with, e.g., linguists in the British tradition of Firth
and Halliday arguing for radically different models. Firth himself described
such dualisms as “a quite unnecessary nuisance” (Firth, 1957, p. 2n, quoted
in Stubbs, 1996, p. 44). In the Firthian view, the only option for linguists is
to study language in use, and there is no opposition between language as
system and observed instances of language behaviour; the only difference is
one of perspective.
Of course, the abstract language system cannot be “read” directly off
small samples of actual text, any more than the underlying climate of some
geographical region of the world can be modelled from today’s weather
(a metaphor of Michael Halliday, quoted in Stubbs, 1996, pp. 44–45).The devel-
opment of corpus linguistics has challenged the competence-performance
distinction and has revitalized the writing of observation-based, “probabil-
istic” grammars (Conrad, 2010; Hunston & Francis, 2000). In this form of
linguistics, very large corpora (databases) comprising millions of words of
running text are collected, stored electronically and analysed with a growing
range of software tools. New descriptions of English grounded in corpus
analysis have provided greatly enhanced performance-based accounts of the
grammar and vocabulary of spoken language and of variation among spo-
ken and written genres (Biber & Reppen, 2015; Carter & McCarthy, 2006;
Dang, Coxhead, & Webb, 2017; O’Keefe & McCarthy, 2010). In L1 acqui-
sition research, the CHILDES project has made extensive child language
corpora available in an increasing number of languages, and is a central tool
in contemporary research (MacWhinney, 2000, 2007).Within the field of L2
learning, large new learner corpora are also becoming available, which can
be analysed both from a bottom-up perspective (to find patterns in the data)
and from a top-down perspective (to test specific hypotheses) (Myles, 2008,
2015; Granger, Gilquin, & Meunier, 2015). More recently, emphasis is shift-
ing towards the integration of experimental and corpus-based approaches in
computational linguistics (Rebuschat, Meurers, & McEnery, 2017).
In making sense of contemporary perspectives on SLL, then, we will also
need to be aware of the extent to which a competence/performance dis-
tinction is assumed. This will have significant consequences for the research
methodologies associated with various positions, for example the extent to
which these pay attention to naturalistic samples and databases of learner
language, spoken and written, or rely on more controlled and focused—but
 Second Language Learning 9
more indirect—testing of learners’ underlying knowledge. (For further dis-
cussion of the relationship between language use and language learning, see
Section 1.4.8.)

1.3.3 Models of Language: Formalist, Functionalist and Emergentist

A further debate in contemporary linguistics which is relevant to SLL theo-
rizing has to do with whether language is viewed primarily as a formal or a
functional system. From a formal linguistics perspective such as that adopted
in structuralist or Chomskyan theory, language comprises a set of abstract
elements (parts of speech, morphosyntactic features, phonemes and so on)
which are combined together by a series of rules or procedures. Semantics
forms part of this formal system, but does not drive it (for discussion see, for
example, Rispoli, 1999).
From a functionalist perspective, on the other hand, research and theorizing
must start with the communicative functions of language, and functionalists
seek to explain the structure of language as a reflection of meaning-making.
For example, a speaker’s intention to treat a particular piece of information
as already known to their interlocutor, or alternatively as new for them, is
seen by theories such as Halliday’s systemic functional grammar as moti-
vating particular grammar phenomena such as clefting (fronting a piece of
information within a sentence: It was my mother who liked jazz). Theoreti-
cal linguists who have adopted this perspective in varying ways, and whose
work has been important for both L1 and L2 research, include Givón (e.g.
1979, 1985), Halliday (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), Lakoff (1987),
Langacker (1987) and L. Talmy (2000) (and see Chapter 7 for discussion of
this perspective in L2 research).
A third theoretical perspective which is important in L2 research is that
of emergentism. From this viewpoint, language does not have fixed abstract,
underlying representations. Rather, language is conceived of as emerging in
a dynamic fashion from language use, and its form is strongly and continu-
ously influenced by statistical patterns detected by the learner in the sur-
rounding input. Emergentist perspectives are explored in Chapters 4 and 10.

1.3.4 Models of Language: Communicative Competence and CAF

Sociolinguists and many language educators have long been interested in
models of language proficiency which are somewhat broader than those
discussed so far, and which take full account of the ability to use language
appropriately in its social context. The most famous of these proposals is of
course the “communicative competence” concept proposed by Dell Hymes
(1972), and adapted for discussions of L2 learning by Canale and Swain
(1980). The ongoing influence of these ideas can be traced in L2 learning
research, in work on L2 pragmatics and on interactional competence, dis-
cussed here in Chapters 7 and 9.
10  Second Language Learning
A newer integrative framework which has become quite widely used in
L2 research to capture major aspects of L2 development is that of complex-
ity, accuracy and fluency (the CAF framework). It reflects a general view that
L2 proficiency is best understood as having multiple components, and has
emerged as a leading framework which can be justified in terms of psycho-
linguistic theory (Skehan, 2009) and empirical support (Norris & Ortega,
2009). The components of CAF have been summarized as follows:

Complexity is commonly characterized as the ability to use a wide

and varied range of sophisticated structures and vocabulary in the L2,
accuracy as the ability to produce target-like and error-free language,
and fluency as the ability to produce the L2 with native-like rapidity,
pausing, hesitation, or reformulation.
(Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012, p. 2)

There are now quite extensive debates around the definition of each of
these CAF components and the best way to measure them: see, for example,
Pallotti (2009, 2015) on syntactic complexity, De Clercq (2015) on lexi-
cal complexity, Lambert and Kormos (2014) on accuracy and Segalowitz
(2010) on fluency. Versions of CAF are commonly used to conceptualize
the L2 proficiency of advanced learners (as, for example, in Mitchell, Tracy-
Ventura, & McManus, 2017), and are applied in Dynamic Systems Theory
research (see Chapter 10).

1.3.5 Debates around the Language Target

Much 20th century linguistics followed the Chomskyan notion that the
object of study should be the underlying competence of an “ideal speaker-
listener” of each given language, and that the intuitions of the (educated)
native speaker provide access to this. In turn, much SLL research has assumed
that native speaker competence provides a convergent, single target for L2
development. However, as we shall see in Chapter 2, 1970s researchers urged
that learners’ developing L2 competence should be seen as a language sys-
tem in its own right, and not merely a defective copy of the target (Selinker,
1972). (But note, the very term “interlanguage” proposed for L2 systems in
fact implied an in-between system in transition towards a native-like target:
Larsen-Freeman, 2014.)
These ideas were challenged in some quarters in later 20th century
linguistics, and in turn they have also been challenged increasingly in L2
research. Corpus linguistics, cognitive linguistics and sociolinguistics have
highlighted aspects of variability within “native speaker” usage (Hulstijn,
2015, Chapter 6), and complexity theorists have emphasized the dynamic
nature of all language knowledge, defined as a “dynamic set of graded pat-
terns emerging from use”, with some “emergent stabilities”, but by defini-
tion never fully acquired (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, pp. 52–53). Proponents of
 Second Language Learning 11
“multicompetence” have argued that multilingualism involves development
of a merged language system, in which different languages (L1, L2, L3 . . .)
mutually influence each other (Cook, 2008, 2016; Kroll & Ma, 2017).While
others continue to hold that multilingualism involves acquiring and using
(parts of) distinct language systems, there is general acknowledgement that
“parallel monolingualism” (Heller, 2006, p. 5), in which fully developed lan-
guages sit alongside each other without mutual interaction, is an implausible
way of thinking about language knowledge and language use.
Finally, an increasing number of researchers concerned with the learn-
ing of English as a global language have rejected altogether the notion of a
standard native speaker target, instead arguing that English as a lingua franca
(ELF) is the prime target for most learners, and that ELF itself does not offer
any fixed norm, but instead is “essentially hybrid and plurilingual in nature”
(Jenkins, 2014, p. 51). More generally, Larsen-Freeman (2014) among many
others argues that the prime goal of L2 learning is not to develop native
speaker competence, but to develop L2 “capacity” (p. 214), i.e. the language
resources needed to function effectively in a range of desired—and evolving—
contexts, genres and speaker roles. Duff (2012, p. 410) points out that new
terminology has emerged, reflecting this more open view of language learn-
ing goals and contexts: advanced L2 users, lingua franca speakers, multicom-
petent speakers and so on. These changing views of the language learning
target are important for how we conceptualize the learning process, to
which we now turn.

1.4 The Language Learning Process

1.4.1  Nature and Nurture

Discussions about SLL have always been coloured by debates on human
learning more generally. One of these is the nature-nurture debate. How
much of human learning derives from innate predispositions, i.e. some form
of genetic preprogramming, and how much of it derives from social and
cultural influences as we grow up? In the 20th century, the best-known
controversy on this issue concerning L1 learning involved the behaviourist
psychologist B. F. Skinner and the linguist Noam Chomsky. Skinner took
the view that language in all its essentials could be and was taught to the
young child, by the same mechanisms which he believed accounted for
other types of learning. (In Skinner’s case, the mechanisms were those envis-
aged by general behaviourist learning theory—essentially, the shaping of
“habits” through repeated trial, error and reward. From this point of view,
language could be learned primarily by imitating caregivers’ speech. More
details of this argument are given in Chapter 2.)
Chomsky, on the other hand, argued consistently that human language is
too complex to be learned in its entirety from the evidence actually avail-
able to the child; we must therefore have some innate predisposition to
12  Second Language Learning
expect natural languages to be organized in particular ways and not oth-
ers. For example, all natural languages have word classes such as Noun and
Verb, and permissible operations (such as movement) which apply to these
word classes. It is this type of information which Chomsky doubts children
could discover from scratch in the speech they hear around them. Instead,
he argues that there must be some innate core of abstract knowledge about
language form, which provides a foundation for all natural human languages.
This core of knowledge is currently known as Universal Grammar (UG)
(see Chapter 3).
Here, it is enough to note that child language specialists now generally
accept the basic notion of some innate predisposition to language, though
views continue to differ as to whether the underlying grammatical core
of language is learned by the distinctive mechanisms of UG, or “emerges”
through exposure to and use of language using more general learning mech-
anisms. Other aspects of language development, not least which language(s)
is/are actually learned, and many aspects of vocabulary and pragmatics,
clearly must result from an interaction between innate and environmental
factors. Whatever view is taken of the learning of the grammatical core,
active involvement in language use is essential for the overall development
of communicative competence. (See Ambridge & Lieven, 2011; N. C. Ellis,
Römer, & O’Donnell, 2016; Foster-Cohen, 2009; Hawkins, 2008, for over-
views of this debate.)
How does the nature-nurture debate impact on L2 learning theories? If
humans are endowed with an innate predisposition for language, then per-
haps they should be able to learn as many languages as they need or want
to, provided (important provisos!) that the time, circumstances and motiva-
tion are available. On the other hand, the environmental circumstances for
L2 learning differ systematically from those for L1 learning, except where
infants are reared from birth in multilingual surroundings. Should we be
aiming to reproduce the “natural” circumstances of L1 learning as far as
possible for the later L2 learner? This was a fashionable view in the 1970s,
but one which downplayed some very real social, psychological, contextual
and linguistic obstacles. In recent decades there has been a closer and more
critical examination of “environmental” factors which seem to influence L2
learning; some of these are detailed briefly in Section 1.4.8, and elaborated
in later chapters.

1.4.2 Modularity vs Unitary Views of Cognition

A further issue of controversy for students of the mind has been the extent
to which it should be viewed as modular or unitary. That is, should we see
the mind as a single, flexible organism, with one general set of procedures for
learning and storing different kinds of knowledge and skills (Deák, 2014)?
Or is it more helpfully understood as a bundle of modules, with distinctive
mechanisms relevant to different types of knowledge (Fodor, 1983)?
 Second Language Learning 13
The modular view has found significant support from within linguistics,
though linguists may disagree on the number and nature of language mod-
ules to be found within the mind (Jackendoff, 1997, 2002; Sharwood Smith,
2017; Smith & Tsimpli, 1995). Regarding language acquisition, Chomsky’s
general view is that not only is language too complex to be learned from
environmental exposure (his criticism of Skinner), it is also too distinctive in
its structure to be learnable by general cognitive means. UG is thus assumed
to be endowed with its own distinctive mechanisms for learning, though
there is continuing debate over their nature and relations with other, gen-
eral mechanisms (Meisel, 2011; Yang, Crain, Berwick, Chomsky, & Bolhuis,
2017).
The alternative view, that language “emerges” as a symbolic system among
others through the working of general cognitive processes, has been further
developed by numerous child language researchers (see, e.g., Lieven, 2016;
MacWhinney & O’Grady, 2015; Tomasello, 2003). Neurolinguistic views
can vary about the components of the brain that are involved, and how far
specific subsystems and networks are responsible for different aspects of the
entire set of mechanisms involved in learning, storing and retrieving the dif-
ferent levels (components) of language and their functions. Different brain
networks are thought to come into play for different types, contexts and
even styles of learning (discussed a little more in Chapter 5).

1.4.3 Modularity and L2 Learning

The possible role of an innate, specialist language module in the mind that
supports L2 as well as L1 has been much discussed. If distinctive language
learning mechanisms indeed exist, there are four logical possibilities:

1. That they continue to operate during L2 learning, in the same way that
they make L1 learning possible;
2. That after the acquisition of the L1 in early childhood, these mecha-
nisms cease to be operable, and the L2 must be learned by other means;
3. That the mechanisms themselves are no longer operable, but that the L1
provides a model of a natural language and how it works, which can be
“copied” in some way when learning the L2.
4. That distinctive learning mechanisms for language remain available, but
only in part, and must be supplemented by other means. (From a UG
point of view, this would mean that UG was itself modular, with some
modules still available and others not.)

The first position was popularized by Stephen Krashen in the 1970s, in

a basic form (see Chapter 2). This strand of theorizing has been revital-
ized by the continuing development of Chomsky’s UG proposals, and active
debates continue on the related points 3 and 4 (see Chapter 3). Proposals for
L2 transition theories compatible with UG pay increasing attention to the
14  Second Language Learning
psycholinguistics of L2 processing (Sharwood Smith et al., 2013; Slabakova,
2016, Chapter 12).
On the other hand, thinking about those general learning mechanisms
which may be operating at least for L2 adult learners (if not for all learners)
has also developed considerably further, since the proposals of McLaughlin
(1987, pp. 133–153).The work of the cognitive psychologist J. R. Anderson on
human learning, from an information processing perspective, and related pro-
posals for a distinction between declarative and procedural forms of knowl-
edge, have attracted longstanding interest and have been applied to various
aspects of SLL by different researchers (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Towell &
Hawkins, 1994; Ullman, 2015a, 2015b). Following their emergence in L1
acquisition, usage-based or emergentist learning theories are now prominent
also in L2 research. There is by now a family of such theories, which have in
common the view that L2 learning is primarily driven by exposure to L2
input, and that learners “induce” the rules of their L2 from the input by gen-
eral learning mechanisms (N. C. Ellis & Wulff, 2015;Wulff & N. C. Ellis, 2018).
Usage-based theories include, for example, “construction learning”, that is,
the piecemeal learning of pairings of L2 forms and functions, from the level of
individual morphemes to phrases and idioms (N. C. Ellis, 2017; N. C. Ellis &
Ferreira-Junior, 2009; N. C. Ellis, Römer, & O’Donnell, 2016). Another ver-
sion of usage-based theory is connectionism or “statistical learning” (Rebus-
chat, 2013; Rebuschat & J. N. Williams, 2012), which views acquisition as
“the absorption of statistical regularities in the environment through implicit
learning mechanisms” (J. N. Williams, 2009, p. 328). Such statistical learning
effects, tempered by the established L1 and individual differences, have been
demonstrated for phonology and for the identification and production of
words, morphosyntax and phrase structures. These general cognitive theories
of learning, along with others, are reviewed in Chapters 4 and 5.

1.4.4 Systematicity and Variability in L2 Learning

When the utterances produced by L2 learners are examined and compared
with traditionally accepted target language norms, they are often con-
demned as being full of errors or mistakes. Indeed, language teachers have
often viewed learners’ errors as the result of carelessness or lack of concen-
tration. If only learners would try harder, surely their productions could
accurately reflect the target language rules which they had been taught! In
the mid 20th century, under the influence of behaviourist learning theory,
errors were often viewed as the result of “bad habits”, which could be eradi-
cated if only learners did enough rote learning and pattern drilling using
target language models.
As will be shown in more detail in Chapter 2, one of the big lessons
which was learned from early L2 research is that though learners’ L2 utter-
ances may depart from target language norms, they are by no means lacking
in system. So-called errors and mistakes are often patterned. Some are due
 Second Language Learning 15
to the influence of the L1 or other known languages, but this is by no means
true of all of them. Instead, there is a good deal of evidence that learn-
ers work their way along similar developmental pathways, from apparently
“simple” versions of the L2, distant from the target, to progressively more
elaborate and more target-like versions.
One clear example of a so-called developmental sequence, which has been
studied for a range of target languages since the 1970s, has to do with the
formation of negative sentences. It has commonly been found that learners
start off by tacking a negative particle of some kind on to the beginning
or the end of an L2 utterance (No you play here). Next, they learn to insert
a negative particle of some kind into the Verb Phrase (Mariana not coming
today); and, finally, they learn to manipulate modifications to auxiliaries and
other details of negation morphology, including placement of the nega-
tive particle following a finite verbal element (I can’t play that one) (English
examples from R. Ellis, 2008, pp. 92–93). This kind of data has commonly
been interpreted to show that, for parts of the L2 grammar at least, learners’
development follows a common route, even if the rate at which learners
actually travel along the route may be different.
Many commentators identify this systematicity as one of the key fea-
tures which L2 learning theories are required to explain (e.g. VanPatten &
J. Williams, 2015, pp. 9–11), and we will refer to it repeatedly throughout
the book. (Ortega, 2014, reviews a series of studies of the acquisition of
negation, showing very effectively how the same or similar developmental
sequences can be interpreted rather differently, depending on the research-
er’s theoretical perspective.)
However, learner language (or interlanguage: Han & Tarone, 2014;
Selinker, 1972) is not characterized only by systematicity. Learner language
systems are frequently unstable and in course of change; that is to say, they are
characterized also by degrees of variability (VanPatten & J. Williams, 2015,
p. 10). Developmental sequences have been described in some areas, such as
negation, English interrogatives or German word order (Meisel, 2011); how-
ever, in other domains, such as inflectional morphology, L2 developmental
routes are much less clear, and ultimate attainment itself very variable (unlike
in L1 acquisition). Furthermore, learners’ utterances may vary from moment
to moment, in the choices of forms which are made, so that learners seem
to switch between a selection of “optional” forms over lengthy periods of
time. A well-known example offered by R. Ellis involves a child learner of
L2 English who seemed to produce the utterances no look my card, don’t look
my card interchangeably over an extended period (1985). Myles, Hooper, and
Mitchell (1998) reported similar data from a classroom learner of L2 French,
who variably produced forms such as non animal, je n’ai pas de animal within
the same 20 minutes or so (to say that he did not have a pet; the correct
French form should be je n’ai pas d’animal). Here, in contrast to the underly-
ing systematicity earlier claimed for the development of rules of negation,
we see performance varying quite substantially from moment to moment.
16  Second Language Learning
Like systematicity, variability is also found in child L1 development. How-
ever, the variability found for L2 learners is much greater than that found for
L1 learners; in later chapters we will see attempts to account for this phenom-
enon from different theoretical perspectives.These will include explanations
in terms of linguistic optionality/indeterminacy (discussed in Chapter 3),
the influence of processing loads, memory constraints, task-dependency and
the L1 (Chapters 4 and 5), changes in form-function mappings (Chapter 7),
interactional competence, social context and speech style (Chapter 9), and
the dynamism of individual learning trajectories (Chapter 10).

1.4.5 Creativity and Routines in L2 Learning

There is plenty of common-sense evidence that learners can put their L2
knowledge to creative use, even at the very earliest stages of L2 learning. It
becomes most obvious that this is happening when learners produce utter-
ances like non animal (no animal = “I haven’t got any pet”), which they are
unlikely to have heard from any interlocutor. It seems most likely that the
learner has produced it through an early mechanism for marking negation,
in combination with some basic vocabulary.
But how did this same learner manage to produce the near-target je n’ai
pas de animal, with its negative particles correctly inserted within the Verb
Phrase, within a few minutes of the other form? One likely explanation is
that at this point the learner was reproducing an utterance that they have
indeed heard before, which has been memorized as an unanalysed whole, i.e.
a formulaic sequence or a prefabricated chunk.
Work in corpus linguistics has led to the increasing recognition that for-
mulaic sequences play an important part in everyday language use; when
we talk, our utterances are a complex mix of creativity and prefabrication
(Biber & Reppen, 2015). That is to say: “a language user has available to
him or her a large number of semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute
single choices, even though they might appear to be analyzable into seg-
ments” (Sinclair, 1991, p. 100). L1 acquisition research has documented the
use of unanalysed chunks by young children (Lieven & Tomasello, 2008;
Wray, 2002, 2008), though for L1 learners the contribution of chunks seems
limited by processing constraints (i.e. the memory load involved in storing
long sequences). For older L2 learners, memorization of lengthy sequences
is more possible. (Think of those singers who successfully memorize and
deliver entire songs in different languages, without necessarily being able to
manipulate the language creatively for themselves.)
Analysis of L2 data produced by classroom learners, in particular, seems to
show extensive and systematic use of chunks to fulfil early communicative
needs (Myles, 2004; Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998; Myles, Mitchell, &
Hooper, 1999). Studies of informal learners also provide some evidence of
chunk use, and the contribution of formulaic sequences to the learning of
both L1 and L2 is now receiving more sustained attention, especially among
 Second Language Learning 17
theorists of usage-based learning (Buerki, 2016; N. C. Ellis & Ogden, 2017;
N. C. Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, Römer, O’Donnell, & Wulff, 2015).

1.4.6 Incomplete Success, Fossilization and Ultimate Attainment

Infants learning their L1(s) embark on the enterprise in widely varying
social situations. Yet with remarkable uniformity, at the end of five years or
so, they have achieved a very substantial measure of success. Teachers and
students know that this is by no means the case with L2s, embarked on after
these critical early years, and that few, if any, adult learners ever come to
blend indistinguishably with a community of target language (monolingual)
“native speakers”, even if they are strongly motivated to do so.
If the eventual aim of the SLL process is to adopt native speaker usage,
therefore, it is typified by incomplete success. Indeed, while some learners
go on learning, and develop a language system very close to that of the L2
input, others seem to stabilize as users of an alternative system, no matter
how many language classes they attend, or how actively they use their L2
for communicative purposes. The term “fossilization” has been proposed to
describe this phenomenon (Han, 2014; Selinker, 1972), though this term
has been seen as objectionable by some (e.g. Jenkins, 2007), and more neu-
tral terms such as “end state”, “ultimate attainment” and “L2 user” are also
regularly used.
These variable long-term L2 outcomes are also significant “facts” about
the process of L2 learning, which theory needs eventually to explain. As we
will see, explanations of two basic types have been offered.The first group of
explanations are psycholinguistic: the learning mechanisms available to the
young child cease to work (at least partly) or work less effectively for older
learners, and study and effort can rarely if ever recreate them. This is the
view taken by some UG theorists (such as Meisel, 2011) and also cognitive
theorists who believe that learning mechanisms change with age (DeKeyser,
2012) or who believe that the existence of an established language system
(the L1) influences the working of learning mechanisms (N. C. Ellis & Wulff,
2015; Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014). The second group of explana-
tions are sociolinguistic: older L2 learners do not necessarily have either
appropriate opportunities for exposure and interaction or the motivation to
identify completely with the L1 user community, but may instead value their
distinctive identity as multilingual speakers, as members of an identifiable
transnational group or as “lingua franca” speakers (Benson & Cooker, 2013;
Block, 2007; Jenkins, 2007; Miller & Kubota, 2013).These ideas are discussed
in more detail in relevant chapters.

1.4.7 Cross-Linguistic Influences in L2 Learning

Everyday observation tells us that learners’ performance in a new language
is influenced by the language, or languages, that they already know. This is
18  Second Language Learning
routinely obvious from learners’ “foreign accent” (Moyer, 2013), i.e. pro-
nunciation which bears traces of the phonology of their L1. It is also obvi-
ous when learners make certain characteristic mistakes, for example when
a native speaker of English says something in French like je suis douze, an
utterance parallel to the English “I am twelve”. (The correct French expres-
sion would be j’ai douze ans = I have twelve years.)
This kind of phenomenon has been called language transfer. But how
important is it, and what exactly is being transferred? SLL researchers have
been through several “swings of the pendulum” on this question, as Gass put
it (1996). Behaviourist theorists of the 1950s and 1960s viewed language
transfer as an important source of error in L2 learning, because L1 “hab-
its” were so tenacious and deeply rooted. The interlanguage theorists who
followed in the 1970s downplayed the influence of the L1 in L2 learning,
however, because of their preoccupation with identifying creative processes
at work in L2 development; they pointed out that many L2 “errors” could
not be traced to L1 influence, and were primarily concerned with discover-
ing patterns and developmental sequences on this creative front.
Theorists today, as we shall see, would generally accept once more that
cross-linguistic influences play an important role in L2 learning and use, on
all language levels from phonology to discourse (Ortega, 2009, pp. 31–54).
Montrul (2014) points out that transfer is not only “a very salient feature
of interlanguage grammar”, but may be multidirectional; that is, the gram-
mar of the L2 may influence that of the L1 also; indeed, transfer can in
the longer term lead to the development of new language varieties and
language change more generally. However, we will still find widely dif-
fering views on the extent and nature of these cross-linguistic influences.
For example, in Chapter 7 we visit the issue from a functionalist perspec-
tive, and find one group of researchers studying informal adult learners
who argue that L1 influence is weak (Klein & Perdue, 1992), but also
others who argue for ongoing mutual influences between all the learn-
er’s languages (Cook, 2016; Stam, 2017; Vanek & Hendriks, 2014). Other
researchers have claimed that learners with different L1s progress at some-
what different rates, and may follow different acquisitional routes, at least
in some areas of the target grammar. For example, Ringböm has shown
that L1 Swedish speakers can learn many aspects of L2 English at a faster
rate than L1 Finnish speakers (Ringböm, 2007). A more general effect has
also been observed in some multilingualism research (also known as “L3
acquisition research”), whereby learners of any third or fourth language
seem to do so with added efficiency, and to be able to draw on all of the
previous languages they may know, as sources of support for the newest
language (Berkes & Flynn, 2016; Hufeisen & Jessner, 2009). Nevertheless,
consistent with the idea that the amount of cross-linguistic influence is
affected by the extent of similarity between one’s languages, a landmark
study, with a staggering 39,300 multilingual speakers, found that typologi-
cal distance between learners’ L1 and L3, and between their L2 and L3,
 Second Language Learning 19
explained, to a substantial extent, the proficiency they reached in L3 Dutch
(Schepens, van der Slik, & van Hout, 2016).
A UG perspective has its own distinctive implications for the phenom-
enon of language transfer (Lardiere, 2012). If L2 learners have continuing
direct access to their underlying UG, L1 influence will affect only the more
peripheral areas of L2 development. If, on the other hand, learners’ only
access to UG is indirect, via the working example of a natural language
which the L1 provides, then L1 influence lies at the heart of L2 learning.We
review these alternatives in Chapter 3.

1.4.8 The Relationship between L2 Use and L2 Learning

In Section 1.3.2, we considered the distinction between language com-
petence and performance. Here, we look more closely at the relationship
between using (i.e. performing in) an L2 and learning (i.e. developing one’s
competence in) that same language.
We should note first of all, of course, that “performing in” or “using” a
language not only involves speaking or writing it. Making sense of the lan-
guage which we hear (and read) around us is an equally essential aspect of
performance/use. It is also obviously necessary to interpret and to process
(= analyse, make sense of) incoming language data in some form, for lan-
guage development to take place.
There is thus general agreement around the common-sense view that
language input is essential for normal language learning. Indeed, during the
late 1970s and early 1980s, the more distinctive view was argued by Stephen
Krashen and others that input (at the right level of difficulty) was all that
was necessary for L2 acquisition to take place (Krashen, 1982, 1985: see dis-
cussion in Chapter 2). Input, and what learners do with it, has remained a
central issue in L2 theorizing ever since.
Krashen was unusual, however, in not seeing any central role for lan-
guage production in his theory of L2 acquisition. Most other theoretical
viewpoints support in some form the equally common-sense view that
speaking a language is helpful for learning it. For example, behaviourist
learning theory saw regular (oral) practice as helpful in forming correct
language “habits”. A directly contrasting view to Krashen’s is the Output
Hypothesis, advanced by Merrill Swain and colleagues (Swain, 1985, 1995,
2005). Swain originally pointed out (1985) that much input is comprehen-
sible, without any need for a full grammatical analysis, particularly as L2
learners can often successfully guess at the likely meanings being expressed
from contextual clues. If we don’t need to pay attention to the grammar,
in order to understand the message, why should we be compelled to learn
it? On the other hand, when we try to say something in the L2, we are
forced to try out our ideas about how the target grammar actually works
so as to express ourselves precisely. These ideas are covered in more detail
in Chapter 6.
20  Second Language Learning
Other contemporary theorists continue to lay stress on the “practice”
function of language production, especially in building up fluency and con-
trol of an emergent L2 system (DeKeyser, 2015; Lyster & Sato, 2013: see
Chapter 5 for fuller discussion.)
So far in this section, we have seen that theorists can hold different views
on the relative contributions of input and of output. However, another way
of distinguishing among current theories of L2 learning from a “perfor-
mance” perspective has to do with their view of L2 interaction—that is,
their interpretation of the value for learning of events such as everyday L2
conversation, or online exchanges. Two major perspectives are found con-
cerning SLL through interaction, one psycholinguistic, one sociolinguistic.
From a psycholinguistic point of view, L2 interaction is mainly interesting
because of the opportunities it seems to offer to individual L2 learners to
fine-tune the language input they are receiving, and adapt it to their cur-
rent state of development. What this means is that learners need the chance
to talk with more fluent speakers in a fairly open-ended way, to ask ques-
tions and to clarify meanings when they do not immediately understand.
Following early proposals by Michael Long (1983), conversational episodes
involving the regular negotiation of meaning have been intensively studied
by many of the interactionist researchers discussed in Chapter 6.
Interaction is also interesting to linguistic theorists because of controver-
sies over whether negative evidence is necessary or helpful for L2 devel-
opment. By “negative evidence” is meant some kind of information that
lets the learner know that a particular interlanguage form is not acceptable
according to target language norms, such as a formal correction offered by
a teacher, or a misunderstanding that impedes successful communication.
Why is there a controversy about negative evidence in L2 learning? The
problem is that overt correction often seems ineffective—and not (only)
because L2 learners are lazy! It seems that learners cannot always benefit
from correction, but may continue to produce the same forms despite feed-
back being offered. Also, explicit negative evidence has been argued to be
largely absent from most L1 learning contexts. For some theorists, language
must therefore be learnable from positive evidence alone (evidence of what
is acceptable), and corrective feedback is largely irrelevant (Truscott, 2007).
Many others continue to see value in negative evidence, though its useful-
ness may differ for different aspects of the learner’s emerging L2 system
(Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013).
These different (psycho)linguistic views have one thing in common, how-
ever: they view the learner as operating and developing a relatively autono-
mous L2 system, and see interaction as a way of feeding that system with
more or less fine-tuned input data. Sociolinguistic views of interaction are
very different. Here, the language learning process is viewed as essentially
social; both the identity of the learner and their language knowledge are
collaboratively constructed and reconstructed in the course of interaction
(Duff, 2011; Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). The details of how
 Second Language Learning 21
this “interactional competence” is understood to develop vary from one
theory to another, as we shall see in Chapters 8 and 9.

1.5 Views of the Language Learner

Who is the L2 learner, and how are they introduced to us, in current L2
research?
We have already made it clear that the infant bilingual is not the subject of
this book. Instead, “L2” research generally deals with learners who embark
on the learning of an additional language at least some years after they have
started to acquire their L1. So, L2 learners may be children or adults; they
may be learning the target language formally in school or “picking it up” in
the playground, online or at work. They may be learning a highly localized
language, which will help them to become insiders in a local speech com-
munity; or the target language may be a language of wider communication
relevant to mobility and broader social aspirations, which gives access to
employment and public life.
Indeed, in the first part of the 21st century, the target language is highly
likely to be English; estimates suggest that while around 5% of the world’s
population (c. 350 million) speak English as their L1, between one and two
billion are using it as an L2 or a lingua franca, or learning to do so (Graddol,
2006, p. 98). Consequently, much research on L2 learning, whether with
children or adults, is concerned with English, or with a small number of
other languages with global reach (French, German, Japanese, Mandarin,
Spanish . . .).There are many multilingual communities today (e.g. townships
around fast-growing mega-cities, transnational communities arising from
global migration flows, or online gaming communities) where L2 learning
can involve a much wider range of languages. However, these have been
comparatively little studied.
It is possible to distinguish three main points of view among L2 research-
ers as far as the learner is concerned: the linguistic and psycholinguistic
perspective, which is concerned with modelling language structures and
processes within the mind; the social psychological perspective, which is
concerned with modelling individual differences among learners, and their
implications for eventual learning success; and the sociocultural perspective,
which is concerned with learners as social beings and members of social
groups and networks.

1.5.1 The Learner as Language Processor

Linguists and psycholinguists have typically been concerned primarily
with analyzing and modelling the inner mental mechanisms available to the
individual learner, for processing (making sense of), learning and storing
new language knowledge. Their general aim is to document and explain
the developmental route along which learners travel and their degree of
22  Second Language Learning
ultimate success. Researchers for whom this is the prime goal are less con-
cerned with the speed or rate of development.Thus, they tend to minimize
or disregard social and contextual differences among learners; their aim
is to document universal mental processes available to all normal human
beings.
As we shall see, however, there is some controversy among researchers in
this psycholinguistic tradition on the question of age. Do child and adult
L2 learners learn in essentially similar ways? Or is there a critical age which
divides younger and older learners, a moment when early learning mecha-
nisms atrophy and are replaced or at least supplemented by other compensa-
tory ways of learning? Many L2 researchers agree with some version of a
view that “younger = better in the long run” (Singleton, 1995, p. 3), while
others argue that this debate is far from resolved (for recent accessible over-
views, see Cook & Singleton, 2014, Chapter 3; R. Ellis, 2015, Chapter 2;
Jaekel, Schurig, Florian, & Ritter, 2017; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011). Some
possible explanations for age differences are discussed in Chapters 3 and 5.

1.5.2 Differences between Individual Learners

Real-life observation quickly tells us L2 learners differ greatly in their rate
of learning and ultimate attainment. Psychologists have argued consistently
that these differences must be due at least in part to individual differences
among learners, and many proposals have been made concerning these. For
fuller overviews of these proposals, and surveys of related research, we refer
the reader to sources such as Dewaele (2009), Dörnyei and Ryan (2015),
R. Ellis (2015, Chapter 3), Roberts and Meyer (2012) and M. Williams,
Mercer, and Ryan (2015). As Dewaele remarks, nobody has yet come up
with any “Grand Unified Theory of Individual Differences” (2009, p. 625).
Here we introduce a selection of the most prominent cognitive and affective
(emotional) factors which have been claimed to influence aspects of the L2
learning process and/or ultimate attainment.
Language aptitude: Is there really such a thing as a “gift” for L2 learn-
ing, distinct from general intelligence, as folk wisdom often holds? The most
famous formal test of language aptitude was designed in the 1950s, by Carroll
and Sapon (1957, in Skehan, 2012, p. 393).This “Modern Language Aptitude
Test” (MLAT) was grounded in a four-factor view of language learning
aptitude developed by the social psychologist John B. Carroll. The aptitude
factors proposed by Carroll were (a) phonetic coding ability, (b) grammatical
sensitivity, (c) inductive language learning ability and (d) associative memory
abilities. The Carroll view of aptitude reflected the behaviourist language
learning theory of the day, and its view of memory in particular is now out-
dated. However, the MLAT and more recent tests (Linck et al., 2013) have
remained broadly robust predictors of SLL success, for learners instructed
using varying methods including “communicative” approaches, and also
for informal language learners (Granena, 2013). In a recent meta-analysis,
 Second Language Learning 23
Li (2016) has confirmed the existence of language aptitude as a distinct con-
struct with strong predictive power for general L2 proficiency.
The general claim that a distinctive language aptitude exists has gained
further support from research investigating the relationship between L1
development, L2 proficiency and L2 aptitude, in classroom contexts. An early
longitudinal study by Skehan (1986) demonstrated a significant relationship
between early L1 development measures and L2 aptitude measures for the
same children when learning a foreign language 10 years later. Research by
Sparks and associates also tracked a cohort of American children through
early L1 literacy instruction and later foreign language instruction. These
scholars have shown through a series of repeated tests (including MLAT)
that L1 literacy skills are strong predictors of both L2 aptitude and eventual
L2 proficiency, at least in a classroom context, while factors such as gen-
eral intelligence and classroom anxiety played a much more limited role.
(See Sparks, 2012, for a review.) Finally, new studies of classroom learning
by identical and non-identical twins have also suggested the existence of a
specific L2 aptitude somewhat distinct from both L1 ability and intelligence
(Dale, Harlaar, & Plomin, 2012).The concept of aptitude is given fuller con-
sideration in Chapter 5.
Memory systems: Among the individual traits which have been seen
as part of the “language aptitude” construct, one type of memory system,
working memory (WM), has attracted a large amount of attention. Many
L2 researchers have worked with the proposals of Baddeley (2007), which
distinguish long-term memory and WM from each other and which visual-
ize WM as “a limited capacity, mental workspace that regulates our ability
to consciously code, store, and process information” (Serafini, 2017, p. 371),
of course including language information. A number of studies reviewed
by Serafini (2017) have found that learners with stronger WM capacity (as
measured by various types of memory test) perform better in a range of L2
domains (oral production, processing morphosyntax and others).The role of
memory systems is central to current cognitive theories of L2 processing and
development, including the idea that individuals may have different capaci-
ties in different types of memory subsystems and that these can change over
time, examined further in Chapter 5.
Language learning strategies: Do more successful language learners
set about the task in some distinctive way? Do they have at their disposal
some special repertoire of ways of learning, or strategies? If this were true,
could these even be taught to other, hitherto less successful learners? From
the 1970s onwards, numerous researchers have tried to identify the strate-
gies supposedly used by learners at different levels (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015,
Chapter 6). Early research was grounded in observation and interviews with
successful learners (Naiman, Fröhlich, & Todesco, 1978). Subsequent research
developed more detailed taxonomies of learning strategies, which were then
incorporated into questionnaires to elicit learners’ reported behaviours. The
best known are those of Oxford (1990, 2011a) and of O’Malley and Chamot
24  Second Language Learning
(1990). Oxford has defined learning strategies as “the learner’s goal-directed
actions for improving language proficiency or achievement, completing a
task, or making learning more efficient, more effective, and easier” (2011b,
p. 167). Her original taxonomy included six groups of strategies, illustrated
below:

Memory strategies e.g. “creating mental images”

Cognitive strategies e.g. “analyzing and reasoning”, “practising” (both
repetition and natural practice)
Compensation e.g. “guessing intelligently”, “adjusting the
strategies message”
Metacognitive e.g. “setting goals and objectives”, “self-evaluating”
strategies
Affective strategies e.g. “taking risks wisely”, “rewarding yourself ”
Social strategies e.g. “cooperating with peers”, “asking for
clarification or verification”
(Oxford, 1990, pp. 18–21)

Research on the usefulness of learning strategies for language develop-

ment has been partly informed by information processing theory—the idea
that knowledge about a strategy can be learned as a “fact”, practised and
automatized—which is discussed further in Chapter 5.
Language attitudes: Social psychologists have long been interested in
the idea that the attitudes of the learner towards the target language, its
speakers and the learning context may all play some part in explaining suc-
cess or lack of it. Research on L2 attitudes has largely been conducted within
the framework of broader research on motivation, and empirical research
has shown—unsurprisingly—that favourable attitudes alone are not a strong
predictor of achievement, unless accompanied by active engagement and
learning effort (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Similarly, attitudes have not
been shown to play any clear independent role in L2 attrition (Schmid &
Mehotcheva, 2012).
Motivation: Research into L2 motivation was pioneered from the 1970s
by the Canadian social psychologist Robert C. Gardner and associates (e.g.
Gardner, 1985, 2010). For these researchers, motivation is defined by three
main components: “desire to achieve a goal, effort extended in this direction,
and satisfaction with the task” (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993, p. 2). Gardner
and his Canadian colleagues carried out a long programme of work on moti-
vation with English-Canadian school students learning French as an L2, and
developed a range of questionnaires to measure motivation. Over the years
consistent relationships have been demonstrated between language attitudes,
motivation and L2 achievement, with the strongest relationships obtaining
between motivation and achievement (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). These
researchers also proposed the well-known distinction between integrative
 Second Language Learning 25
and instrumental motivation. Integrativeness has been defined as “an open
and accepting orientation toward the other language community and other
communities in general” (Gardner, 2010, p. 202); it has consistently shown
itself to be a powerful predictor of L2 learning success. Instrumental moti-
vation reflects the belief that language learning will bring concrete benefits
(e.g. a better job).
More recently the Gardner tradition has been critiqued in a number of
respects, using ideas from general educational psychology. Greater attention
has been given to the importance of the learning context in shaping moti-
vation, in particular to the motivation of classroom learners (Dörnyei, 1994,
2001; Dornyei & Kubanyiova, 2014; M. Williams et al., 2015). Increasing
attention has also been given to the idea that L2 motivation is dynamic and
alterable, and has a close relationship with learner identity (MacIntyre & Ser-
roul, 2015). Indeed, Dörnyei, Ushioda and others now propose that motiva-
tion is best viewed within a broader “complex dynamic systems” perspective
on L2 learning (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry,
2015: see Chapter 10). In line with increased questioning of “native speaker”
competence as the ultimate target for L2 learning, the concept of integrative
motivation has also been questioned, and it is acknowledged that contem-
porary learners may be motivated by a desire for an international identity
as a lingua franca or plurilingual speaker, rather than specific aspirations to
integrate with a native speaker community. Dörnyei and Al-Hoorie (2017)
discuss these questions from the perspective of learners of languages other
than English; the motivation-identity link is discussed further in Chapter 9.
Finally, Dörnyei and associates have tried to sum up these developments
through their proposals for the “L2 motivational self system” (Csizér &
Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, Chapter 4; Henry,
2015). This model proposes that learners make their decisions about how to
act primarily with reference to an ideal self, i.e. the imagined person that
they would like to be; when this ideal self is a proficient L2 user, whether for
integrative, instrumental or transnational reasons, learners are more likely to
invest the necessary effort to become so.
Affect, anxiety and willingness to communicate: Heightened anxi-
ety is a commonly reported experience for the L2 learner, whether in the
classroom or outside it. But is this anxiety solely a temporary phenomenon,
attaching to particular situations? Some social psychologists have viewed lan-
guage anxiety as “a stable personality trait referring to the propensity for an
individual to react in a nervous manner when speaking . . . in the second lan-
guage” (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993, p. 5). However, a special form of anxiety
can also attach to L2 use, i.e. “foreign language anxiety” (Horwitz, Horwitz, &
Cope, 1986), and it is this specific form of anxiety which has been shown
to affect academic, cognitive and social aspects of SLL (MacIntyre, 2017). As
M. Williams et al. (2015) remind us, “using a foreign language is closely con-
nected with self-expression and if we feel limited in our ability to communicate
personally meaningful messages,then we may feel that we are not projecting . . .an
26  Second Language Learning
accurate reflection of ourselves” (p. 87).The anxious learner may be less willing
to speak in class, or to engage target language speakers in informal interaction;
they may actually process the L2 less efficiently, with negative consequences
for development. This issue has typically been investigated through question-
naires, e.g. using the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz
et al., 1986). There are numerous studies which suggest that language anxiety
has a negative relationship with learning success (see review by MacIntyre,
2017). Some researchers have queried whether anxiety actually causes reduced
success, and suggested that it is equally likely that poor achievers/communica-
tors will be anxious, a circular debate that is difficult to resolve through cor-
relational, questionnaire-based studies. In a longitudinal study which tracked
L1 literacy development among American schoolchildren as well as their L2
aptitude, proficiency and anxiety, Sparks and Ganschow (2007) showed that
early L1 literacy achievement is a very strong predictor of both L2 proficiency
and L2 anxiety, in later schooling; from this they conclude that anxiety arises
primarily from poor achievement, and not the other way around. MacIntyre
(2017) remains sceptical about this conclusion, but agrees that more longitu-
dinal and experimental research is needed to resolve such debates.
Finally, a broad construct “willingness to communicate” (WTC) has also
been proposed as a mediating individual factor in both L2 use and L2 learn-
ing (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998). The WTC construct
includes variables ranging from personality traits and general L2 confidence
to immediate contextual variables such as the desire to communicate with
a particular person. In combination, these variables produce “the intention
to initiate communication, given a choice” (MacIntyre et al., 1998). WTC is
clearly relevant to current versions of motivation theory. Like other areas of
research on individual differences, much WTC research is currently explor-
ing more integrated and flexible models of learner development, within the
framework of Dynamic Systems Theory, which we discuss in Chapter 10
(MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011;Yashima, MacIntyre, & Ikeda, 2018).

1.5.3 The Learner as Social Being

The two perspectives on the learner which we have highlighted so far have
concentrated (a) on universal characteristics and (b) on individual character-
istics. But the L2 learner is also a social being, taking part in structured social
networks and social practices. After early decades when psycholinguistic
and individualist perspectives on L2 learners predominated, recent research
is redressing the balance through the so-called social turn in L2 research
(Block, 2003; Douglas Fir Group, 2016: see Chapters 8 and 9).
Two major characteristics distinguish this social view of the learner from
the “individual differences” view which we have just dipped into.
Firstly, interest in the learner as a social being leads to the concept of
a multilingual identity, including a range of socially constructed dimen-
sions of that identity, and their relationship with learning—so, for example,
 Second Language Learning 27
social class, power, ethnicity and gender make their appearance as poten-
tially significant for L2 research. Identity itself may be seen as in flux
throughout the language learning journey: “a dynamic and shifting nexus
of multiple subject positions or identity options” (Pavlenko & Blackledge,
2004, p. 35).
Secondly, the relationship between the individual learner and the social
context of learning is also viewed as dynamic, reflexive and constantly
changing, a matter of engagement in social and discourse practices.The clas-
sic “individual differences” tradition saw that relationship as being governed
by a bundle of learner traits or characteristics (such as aptitude, or anxiety),
which have been viewed as relatively fixed and slow to change. More socially
oriented researchers increasingly lay stress on learner agency, i.e. the learner’s
capacity to choose learning goals, and to shape their environment and learn-
ing opportunities (Deters, Gao, Miller, & Vitanova, 2014; Duff, 2012). These
views are most clearly expressed by “poststructuralist” researchers such as
Norton (2017), whose work is discussed in Chapter 9.

1.6 Links with Social Practice

Is L2 theory useful? Does it have any immediate practical applications in
the real world, most obviously in the L2 classroom? In our field, theorists
have been divided on this point. Beretta and associates argued for “pure”
theory building in SLL, uncluttered by requirements for practical applica-
tion (1993). Van Lier (1994), Rampton (1995) and others have argued for
a socially engaged perspective, where theoretical development is rooted in,
and responsive to, social practice, and language education in particular, and
such calls continue (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). Many, from Krashen (1985)
onwards, have argued that L2 teaching in particular should be guided sys-
tematically by L2 research findings.
This tension has partly been addressed by the emergence of “instructed
language learning”, “task-based learning” and “processing instruction” as
distinct sub-areas of research (see, e.g., surveys and discussion by Bryfon-
ski & McKay, 2017; R. Ellis, 2016, 2017; Loewen, 2015; Loewen & Sato,
2017; Long, 2017;VanPatten, 2017). Some of the research traditions surveyed
in later chapters also explicitly promote pedagogical applications of their
espoused theories; this is especially true of social psychological research on
motivation (discussed earlier in this chapter), of some interactionist perspec-
tives (Chapter 6), of cognitive linguistics (Chapter 7) and of sociocultural
theory (Chapter 8). Overall, we think that language teachers who read this
book will themselves want to take stock of the relations between the theo-
ries we survey and their own beliefs and experiences in the classroom. They
will, in other words, want to make some judgement on the “usefulness”
of theorizing in making sense of their own experience and their practice,
while not necessarily changing it (Marsden & Kasprowicz, 2017). In our
general conclusions to this book, therefore, we will end with some brief
28  Second Language Learning
consideration of the connections we ourselves perceive between learning
theory and classroom practice.

1.7 Conclusion
This chapter has introduced a range of recurrent concepts and issues which
most theorists agree will have to be taken into account if we are to arrive
eventually at any complete account of SLL. In Chapter 2 we provide a brief
narrative account of the recent history of SLL research, plus a chronologi-
cal timeline of key publications in the field. We then move in the remaining
chapters of the book to a closer examination of a number of broad perspec-
tives, or families of theories, with their distinctive views of the key questions
to be answered and key phenomena to be explained. In each case, these
theories are illustrated with a small number of empirical research studies, fol-
lowed by some evaluative commentary, which takes into consideration how
each family of theories views three key constructs: language, the learner and
learning. In making these choices we have inevitably been selective, with the
overall result that some areas (such as L2 vocabulary and phonology) receive
limited treatment.The book concludes with a short overall evaluation of the
field, and a Glossary providing brief definitions of key terms.

References
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass &
A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147–162).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224–245). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Benson, P., & Cooker, L. (Eds.). (2013). The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural
approaches to identity, agency and autonomy. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Beretta, A. (Ed.). (1993). Theory construction in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 14. [Special
Issue].
Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2016). Multi-competence and syntax. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 206–226). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-
analysis. Language Teaching Research. Online First, 1–30.
 Second Language Learning 29
Buerki, A. (2016). Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or some-
thing more significant? European Journal of English Studies, 20, 15–34.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to sec-
ond language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Colantoni, L., Steele, J., & Escudero, P. (2015). Second language speech: Theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, S. (2010).What can a corpus tell us about grammar? In A. O’Keefe & M. McCa-
rthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 227–241). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Cook,V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acqui-
sition research? In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16–26).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multi-competence. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), The Cam-
bridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Cook, V., & Li Wei (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook,V., & Singleton, D. (2014). Key topics in second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation
and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language
Journal, 89, 19–36.
Dale, P. S., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2012). Nature and nurture in school-based second
language achievement. Language Learning, 62(s2), 28–48.
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary
knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dang, T. N.Y., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2017). The academic spoken word list. Language
Learning, 67, 959–997.
Deák, G. O. (2014). Interrelations of language and cognitive development. In P. J.
Brooks & V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language development (pp. 284–291).Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
De Clercq, B. (2015).The development of lexical complexity in second language acquisi-
tion: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. In L. Roberts, K. McManus,
N. Vanek, & D. Trenkic (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. 15, pp. 69–94). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B.VanPatten & J.Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspec-
tives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2014). Theorising and analyzing
agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
30  Second Language Learning
Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623–
647). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–284.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). The motivational foundation of learning lan-
guages other than global English: Theoretical issues and research directions. The Mod-
ern Language Journal, 101, 455–468.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building vision
in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language
learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dornyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual
world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Duff, P. A. (2011). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 564–586). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency and SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Eckman, F. (2012). Second language phonology. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Rout-
ledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 91–105). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage-
based language learning. Language Learning, 67(S1), 40–65.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency,
frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.
Ellis, N. C., & Ogden, D. C. (2017). Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-
based approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 604–620.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & Brook O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-based approaches to lan-
guage acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction
grammar [Special issue]. Language Learning, 66, 1–358.
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Wulff, S. (2015). Learner
corpora and formulaic language in second language acquisition research. In S. Granger,
G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research
(pp. 357–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B.VanPatten & J. Wil-
liams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118–131.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
 Second Language Learning 31
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
Ellis, R. (2017). Task based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Rout-
ledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 108–127). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplish-
ment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91,
800–819.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foster-Cohen, S. (Ed.). (2009). Language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2017). An introduction to language (11th ed.).
Boston: Cengage.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning:The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition:The socio-educational model.
New York: Peter Lang.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second language
learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11.
Gass, S. M. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of lan-
guage transfer. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acqui-
sition (pp. 317–345). San Diego: Academic Press.
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón
(Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press.
Givón, T. (1985). Function, structure and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The
crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1005–1027). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second lan-
guage acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.
Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner
corpus research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregg, K. (2003). SLA theory: Construction and assessment. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 831–865). Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Gutiérrez, X. (2013).The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures
of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional
grammar (4th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Han, Z.-H. (2014). From Julie to Wes to Alberto: Revisiting the construct of fossilization. In
Z.-H. Han & E.Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 47–74).Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Han, Z.-H., & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hawkins, R. (Ed.). (2008). Current emergentist and nativist perspectives on second lan-
guage acquisition [Special issue]. Lingua, 118, 445–642.
Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography (2nd ed.).
London: Continuum.
32  Second Language Learning
Henry, A. (2015). The dynamics of possible selves. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre & A.
Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 83–94). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and profi-
ciency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2009). Learning and teaching multiple languages. In K.
Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning
(pp. 109–138). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2014). Epistemological remarks on a social-cognitive gap in the study of sec-
ond language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 375–380.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers:Theory and research.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical
grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Socio-
linguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.),
Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 30–52). Oxford:Wiley
Blackwell.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaekel, N., Schurig, M., Florian, M., & Ritter, M. (2017). From early starters to late
finishers? A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in school. Language
Learning, 67, 631–664.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as an international lingua franca. In J. Jenkins (Ed.), Global Eng-
lishes: A resource book for students (3rd ed., pp. 50–53). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Jordan, G. (2013).Theoretical constructs in SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge ency-
clopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 635–641). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language
Learning, 52. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition
(pp. 117–142). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Kroll, J. F., & Ma, F. (2017). The bilingual lexicon. In E. M. Fernández & H. Smith Cairns
(Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 294–319). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Second Language Learning 33
Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2
research:Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!” Language Learn-
ing, 46, 713–749.
Lardiere, D. (2012). Linguistic approaches to second language morphosyntax. In S. M.
Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 106–
126). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language develop-
ment/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 49–72). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Another step to be taken—rethinking the end point of the
language learning continuum. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty
years later (pp. 203–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, S. (2016).The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.
Lieven, E. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go
from here? Language and Cognition, 8, 346–368.
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-
based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics
and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., . . .
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language
proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1993). Assessment strategies for SLA theories. Applied Linguistics, 14,
225–249.
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M. H. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, meth-
odological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 1, 7–44.
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2
development. In M. d. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián
(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its develop-
ment. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anx-
iety:Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol: Multilingual matters.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing will-
ingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of l2 confidence and affiliation.
The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
34  Second Language Learning
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to
communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect.
Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Serroul, A. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examin-
ing approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D.
MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition:
A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project:Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B. (2007).The TalkBank project. In J. C. Beal, K. P. Corrigan, & H. L. Moisl
(Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora:Volume 1, synchronic databases. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady,W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence. Chich-
ester: Wiley Blackwell.
Marsden, E., & Kasprowicz, R. E. (2017). Foreign language educators’ exposure to
research: Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. The
Modern Language Journal, 101, 613–642.
Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language
learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language
Learning, 53, 123–163.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McNamara, T. (2012). Poststructuralism and its challenges for applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 33, 473–482.
Meara, P. (2009). Connected words:Word associations and second language vocabulary acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meisel, J. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Miller, E. R., & Kubota, R. (2013). Second language identity construction. In M.Young-
Scholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 230–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad: Iden-
tity, social relationships and language learning. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Montrul, S. (2014). Interlanguage, transfer and fossilization: Beyond second language
acquisition. In Z.-H. Han & E.Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Moyer, A. (2013). Foreign accent: The phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ulti-
mate attainment. Language Teaching, 44, 1–35.
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory:The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in
SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.
Myles, F. (2008). Investigating learner language development with electronic longitudinal
corpora: Theoretical and methodological issues. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The
longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 58–73). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In
F. Meunier, G. Gilquin, & S. Granger (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus
research (pp. 309–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Second Language Learning 35
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic
language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323–363.
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for
creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49–80.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Edu-
cation Series 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for the Study of Education.
Nicoladis, E. (2018). Simultaneous child bilingualism. In D. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Roth-
man, & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across
its subfields (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in
instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
Norton, B. (2017). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bris-
tol: Multilingual Matters.
O’Keefe, A., & McCarthy, M. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand.
In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2014).Trying out theories of interlanguage: Description and explanation over
40 years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty
years later (pp. 173–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies:What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House/HarperCollins.
Oxford, R. L. (2011a). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow:
Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (2011b). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language
Teaching, 44, 167–180.
Pallotti. G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguis-
tics, 30, 590–601.
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31,
117–134.
Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual settings.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On lan-
guage and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse,
S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interac-
tional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organi-
zation, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W.
Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–270).
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Phakiti, A., De Costa, P. I., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (2018). The Palgrave handbook of
applied linguistics research methodology. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
36  Second Language Learning
Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S. M., & Spinner, P. (in press). A methodological
synthesis of judgment tests in second language research. Second Language Research.
Rampton, B. (1995). Politics and change in research in applied linguistics. Applied Lin-
guistics, 16, 233–256.
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Statistical learning. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia
of second language acquisition (pp. 612–614). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Rebuschat, P., Meurers, D., & McEnery, T. (2017). Experimental, computational, and
corpus-based approaches to language learning: Evidence and interpretation. [Special
issue]. Language Learning, 67, 1–287.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (Eds.). (2012). Statistical learning and language acquisition.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ringböm, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Rispoli, M. (1999). Functionalist accounts of first language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of child language acquisition (pp. 253–269). London: Aca-
demic Press.
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2012). Individual differences in second language learn-
ing. [Special issue]. Language Learning, 62(S2), 1-212.
Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B. (2013). On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity:The case for
different SLA theories. In M. d. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Mar-
tínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 243–256).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schepens, J. J., der Slik, F., & Hout, R. (2016). L1 and L2 distance effects in learning L3
Dutch. Language Learning, 66, 224–256.
Schmid, M. S., & Mehotcheva, T. (2012). Foreign language attrition. Dutch Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 1, 102–124.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Lan-
guage Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum.
Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2014). Response to Elder-Vass: “Seven ways to be a realist about
language”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44, 268–281.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219–231.
Serafini, E. J. (2017). Exploring the dynamic long-term interaction between cognitive
and psychosocial resources in adult second language development at varying profi-
ciency. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 369–390.
Serratrice, L. (2013). The bilingual child. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The
handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 85–108). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M., Truscott, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Explaining change in transition
grammars. In M. Young-Scholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 560–580). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Second Language Learning 37
Singleton, D. (1995). A critical look at the critical period hypothesis in second language
research. In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyet (Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition
(pp. 1–29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V. Cook (Ed.),
Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 81–94). Oxford: Pergamon.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity,
accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, N., & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sparks, R. (2012). Individual differences in L2 learning and long term L1-L2 relation-
ships. Language Learning, 62(S2), 5–27.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language Annals, 40, 260–287.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stam, G. (2017).Verb-framed, satellite-framed, or in between? A L2 learner’s thinking for
speaking in her L1 and L2 over 14 years. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and
space across languages (pp. 329–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Hand-
book of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, S. (2014). Toward an interpretivist turn in L2 studies: Reflexivity, the cognitive-
social divide, and beyond. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 383–389.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
Ullman, M. T. (2015a). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically moti-
vated theory of first and second language. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theo-
ries in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 135–158). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Ullman, M. T. (2015b). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of
language learning, knowledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of
language (pp. 954–968). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
38  Second Language Learning
Vanek, N., & Hendriks, H. (2014). Convergence of temporal reference frames in sequen-
tial bilinguals: Event structuring unique to second language users. Bilingualism: Lan-
guage and Cognition, 18, 753–768.
Van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hope: Pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied
Linguistics, 15, 328–346.
VanPatten, B. (2017). Processing instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Introduction: The nature of theories. In B. VanPat-
ten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 1–16).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bing-
ley: Emerald Group.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language learning and
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wulff, S., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In D. Miller, F. Bayram,
J. Rothman, & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language:The state of the science
across its subfields (pp. 37–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of
language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neurosci-
ence & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119.
Yashima, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Ikeda, M. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate
in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research,
22, 115–137.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives:Two parallel
SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
2 The Recent History of
Second Language Learning
Research

2.1 Introduction
In order to understand current developments in second language learning
research, it is helpful to retrace its recent history. We will see throughout this
chapter that the kind of questions researchers are asking today are for the
most part firmly rooted in earlier developments in the fields of linguistics,
psychology, sociology and pedagogy.
The first part of this chapter explores in general terms the theoretical
foundations of today’s thinking. More detailed reviews can be found else-
where, such as de Bot (2015), Dulay, Burt, and Krashen (1982), Gass (2009),
Ortega (2014), Selinker (1992), Tarone (2015), Thomas (2004, 2013) and
VanPatten and Williams (2015). We will limit ourselves to the period since
the 1950s, which has seen the development of theorizing about L2 learning
from an adjunct to language pedagogy to an autonomous field of research.
We will start with the 1950s and 1960s and a short description of how
L2s were believed to be learned at the time. We will then describe the initial
impact of the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics on the field of language
acquisition in the 1970s, firstly on the study of L1 acquisition, and subse-
quently that of L2 acquisition.
We will then briefly consider the 1980s, which witnessed the development
of second language acquisition (SLA) theorizing as a relatively autonomous
field of enquiry (a “coming of age”: Sharwood Smith, 1994, p. ix). During
this period, the impact of Chomskyan linguistics developed considerably,
though with L2 researchers sometimes struggling to adapt their empirical
programmes in line with changes in Chomskyan theorizing. However, ideas
coming from cognitive psychology also became increasingly significant.
Research strands initiated in the 1980s will then systematically be reviewed
and evaluated in the rest of the book, as well as some newer trends which
made their appearance in the 1990s and beyond. On the one hand, cognitive
and psycholinguistic theorizing have developed considerably. On the other
hand, there has emerged what has been described as the “social turn” in SLA
(Block, 2003), with greatly increased interest in learner identity and agency,
and the wider social context for SLA. This social turn is linked to more
40  The Recent History of SLL Research
integrative views of language knowledge and language practice, which view
multilingualism as a “normal” state, and reject notions of “native speaker”
competence as a necessary target for SLA (Cook, 2016; Ortega, 2013). Fur-
thermore, Chomskyan theorizing about what is to be acquired, that is, the
nature of language itself, has been challenged increasingly by more usage-
based perspectives (Holme, 2013).
The last part of the chapter comprises a timeline of significant publica-
tions which have advanced the L2 field, from the 1950s up to the present.

2.2 The 1950s and 1960s

In the 1950s and early 1960s, theorizing about L2 learning was still very
much an accompaniment to the practical business of language teaching.
However, the idea that language teaching methods had to be justified in
terms of an underlying learning theory was well-established, since the peda-
gogical reform movements of the late 19th century at least (Howatt, 2004,
pp. 187–227). The writings of language teaching experts in the 1950s and
1960s included consideration of learning theory, as preliminaries to their
practical recommendations (Lado, 1964; Rivers, 1964, 1968).
As far as its linguistic content was concerned, innovative 1950s language
pedagogy drew on a version of structuralism developed by the British lin-
guist Palmer in the 1920s, and subsequently by Fries and his Michigan col-
leagues in the 1940s. Howatt sums up key features of this approach as follows:

• Learning the spoken language meant acquiring a set of appropriate

speech habits;
• Courses of instruction should be built round a graded syllabus of struc-
tural patterns to ensure systematic step-by-step progress . . .;
• Grammar should be taught inductively through the presentation and
practice of new patterns . . . with visual and/or textual support . . .;
• Error should be avoided through adequate practice and rehearsal.
(Howatt, 2004, pp. 299–300)

Howatt’s summary makes it clear that language teaching experts and reform-
ers were appealing at this time to the general learning theory then dominant
in mainstream psychology, behaviourism, which we explain more fully in
the next section.

2.2.1 Behaviourism
In the behaviourist view (Bloomfield, 1933; Skinner, 1957;Thorndike, 1932;
Watson, 1924), language learning is seen like any other kind of learning,
as the formation of habits. It stems from work in psychology which saw
the learning of any kind of behaviour as being based on the notions of
 The Recent History of SLL Research 41
stimulus and response. Human beings are exposed to numerous stimuli in
their environment.The response they give to these stimuli will be reinforced
if successful, that is, if some desired outcome is obtained. Through repeated
reinforcement, a certain stimulus will elicit the same response time and
again, which will then become a habit. The learning of any skill is seen as
the formation of habits, through the creation of stimulus-response pairings
which become stronger with reinforcement. Applied to language learning,
this means a certain situation will call for a certain response; for exam-
ple meeting someone will call for some kind of greeting, and the response
will be reinforced if the desired outcome is obtained, that is, if the greet-
ing is understood; in the case of communication breakdown, the particular
response will not be reinforced, and the learner will hopefully abandon it.
When learning a first language, from this point of view, the process is
relatively simple: all we have to do is learn a set of new habits as we learn to
respond to stimuli in our environment. When learning a second language,
however, we run into problems: we already have a set of well-established
responses in our L1. The L2 learning process therefore involves replacing
those habits by a set of new ones. The complication is that the old L1 habits
interfere with this process, either helping or inhibiting it. If structures in the
L2 are similar to those of the L1, then learning will take place easily. If, how-
ever, structures are different, then learning will be difficult. As Lado put it:

We know from the observation of many cases that the grammatical

structure of the native language tends to be transferred to the foreign
language . . .We have here the major source of difficulty or ease in learn-
ing the foreign language . . . Those structures that are different will be
difficult.
(Lado, 1957, pp. 58–59, cited in Dulay et al., 1982, p. 99)

Take the example of an L1 English learner of L2 French, who wants to say

I am twelve years old, which in French is realized as J’ai douze ans (= I have
twelve years), and now consider the same learner learning to express the
same meaning in German, which is realized as Ich bin zwölf Jahre alt (= I am
twelve years old). According to a behaviourist view of learning, the German
structure would be much easier and quicker to learn, and the French one
more difficult, the English structure acting as a facilitator in one instance, and
an inhibitor in the other. Indeed, it may well be the case that English learn-
ers have more difficulty with the French expression than the German one,
as many French teachers would testify after hearing their pupils repeatedly
saying *Je suis douze1 (= I am twelve), but more about that later.
From a teaching point of view, the implications of this approach were
twofold. First, it was strongly believed that practice makes perfect; in other
words, learning would take place by imitating and repeating the same struc-
tures time after time.
42  The Recent History of SLL Research
Second, teachers needed to focus their teaching on structures which were
different in the L1 and the L2, as was the case for the English-French pair
cited earlier.Teachers of French, in our example, would need to engage their
students in many drilling exercises in order for them to produce the French
structure correctly.
The logical outcome of such beliefs about the learning process was that
effective teaching should concentrate intensive practice on areas of differ-
ence. Researchers began to compare pairs of languages in order to pinpoint
these areas. This work was termed Contrastive Analysis and can be traced
back to Fries, who wrote in the introduction to his book Teaching and Learn-
ing English as a Foreign Language: “The most effective materials are those
that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned,
carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the
learner” (Fries, 1945, p. 9, cited in Dulay et al., 1982, p. 98). Work in this
tradition has some continuing influence on L2 pedagogy, in spite of many
emerging criticisms which we will now discuss.

2.2.2 Behaviourism under Attack

Starting in the 1950s and continuing in the 1960s, both linguistics and psy-
chology witnessed major developments. Linguistics saw a shift from struc-
tural linguistics, which was based on the description of the surface structure
of a large corpus of language, to generative linguistics, which emphasized
the rule-governed and creative nature of human language. This shift was
initiated by the publication in 1957 of Syntactic Structures, the first of many
influential books by Noam Chomsky.
In the field of psychology, the pre-eminent role for the environment—as
argued by Skinner and others—in shaping the child’s learning and behav-
iour was losing ground in favour of more developmentalist views of learn-
ing, such as Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, in which inner forces
drive the child, in interaction with the environment (Piaget, 1970; Piaget &
Inhelder, 1966; Piatelli-Palmarini, 1980).
The clash of views applied to how we learn language came to a head at
the end of the 1950s with two publications. These were Skinner’s Verbal
Behavior in 1957, which outlined in detail his behaviourist view of language
learning (summarized in Section 2.2.1), and Chomsky’s critical review of
Skinner’s book, published in 1959.
Chomsky’s response centred around a number of issues:

1. The creativity of language: children are not limited to memorizing

and reproducing a large set of sentences, but they routinely create new
sentences that they have never heard before. This can only be possible
because they internalize rules rather than strings of words; common
utterances such as it breaked or Mummy goed show that children are not
copying the language around them but applying rules.
 The Recent History of SLL Research 43
2. Given the complexity and abstractness of linguistic rules (for example
the rules underlying the formation of questions in many languages, or
the rules underlying the use of reflexive pronouns in English), it is amaz-
ing that children are able to master them so quickly and efficiently. This
has been termed “Plato’s problem” (Chomsky, 1987), and refers specifi-
cally to the idea that some of the structural properties of language, given
their complexity, could not possibly be learned on the basis of the sam-
ples of language which children are exposed to. Furthermore, children
are not very often corrected on the form of their utterances, but rather
on their truth values. When correction of form does take place, it seems
to have very little effect on the development of language structure.
For these reasons, Chomsky claimed that children have an innate faculty
which supports their language learning. Given a body of speech, children
are programmed to discover its rules, and are guided in doing so by an
innate knowledge of what rules are possible. We will leave fuller discussion
of Chomsky’s ideas until Chapter 3. Suffice to say for now that this revolu-
tionary approach gave a great stimulus to the field of psycholinguistics, and
especially to the study of language acquisition. The next section reviews
work in the 1970s, which was heavily influenced by these new ideas.

2.3 The 1970s

2.3.1  First Language Acquisition

The work outlined earlier led to investigations of the acquisition of language
in young children, by researchers such as Daniel Slobin (1970, 1985) and
Roger Brown (1973). They found striking similarities in the language learn-
ing behaviour of young children, whatever the language they were learning. It
seemed that children all over the world go through similar stages, use similar
constructions in order to express similar meanings, and make the same kinds
of errors. The stages can be summarized as follows (Aitchison, 2008, p. 80):

Language stage Beginning age (rough guidelines only)

Crying Birth
Cooing 6 weeks
Babbling 6 months
Intonation patterns 8 months
One-word utterances 1 year
Two-word utterances 18 months
Word inflections 2 years
Questions, negatives 2 years 3 months
Rare or complex constructions 5 years
Mature speech 10 years
44  The Recent History of SLL Research
The research emphasis of the time was on the universal nature of these
stages.
Similarly, when studying children’s learning of particular languages, a con-
sistent order was found for the emergence of new structures. Brown’s (1973)
so-called morpheme study was to be very influential for L2 research. In an
in-depth longitudinal study of three children, Brown traced the develop-
ment of 14 grammatical morphemes in L1 English. He found that although
the rate at which the children learned these morphemes varied, the order in
which they acquired them remained the same:

Present progressive boy singing

Prepositions dolly in car
Plural sweeties
Past irregular broke
Possessive baby’s biscuit
Articles a car
Past regular wanted
3rd person singular eats
Auxiliary be he is running.

As well as acquiring a number of grammatical morphemes in the same

order, the children were also shown to follow definite stages during the
acquisition of a given area of grammar. For example, children not only
acquire negatives around the same age, but they also mark the negative in
similar ways in all languages, initially attaching some negative marker to the
outside of the sentence: no go to bed, pas faut boire (= not need to drink), and
gradually moving the negative marker inside the sentence. These stages are
illustrated here for English (R. Ellis, 2008, p. 71, based on Klima & Bellugi,
1966, and Cazden, 1972):

Stage 1: Negative utterances consist of a positive proposition, either pre-

ceded or followed by a negator:
wear mitten no
not a teddy bear
Stage 2: Negators are now incorporated into affirmative clauses. Nega-
tors at this stage include don’t and can’t, used as unitary items. Negative
commands appear:
there no squirrels
you can’t dance
don’t bite me yet
Stage 3: Negators are now always incorporated into affirmative clauses.
The “Auxiliary + not” rule has been acquired, as forms like don’t, can’t
 The Recent History of SLL Research 45
are now analysed. But some mistakes still occur (e.g. copula be is omit-
ted from negative utterances and double negatives occur):
I don’t have a book
Paul can’t have one
I not crying
no one didn’t come
These stages are not unlike those followed by L2 learners, which were out-
lined in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4.4); similar sequences can be observed for the
acquisition of interrogatives and other structures.
Another important characteristic of child language was that it seemed to
be rule-governed, even if children’s early “rules” did not correspond to adult
ones. As early as the two-word stage, children express relationships such as
possession, negation or location in a consistent way. Also, it has been dem-
onstrated that when children produce an adult-like form which reflects the
application of a rule, such as adding -s to dog in order to produce the plural
form dogs, they are not merely imitating the adult language around them.
Two kinds of evidence support this. Firstly, children commonly produce
forms such as sheeps or breads, which they have never heard before. Secondly,
some ingenious and now famous experiments were carried out in the 1950s
(Berko, 1958) in which young children were shown a picture of a strange
bird-like creature and told, for example, This is a wug; they were then shown a
picture of two of those creatures and told Now there’s another one.There are two
of them.There are two . . . ? The children almost invariably replied wugs, show-
ing that they do not merely memorize each plural form they hear, but that
they somehow extract a plural rule from surrounding input, and then apply
that rule to their own productions. As far as verbs are concerned, children go
through an early stage when they supply irregular past tense forms such as
took or went, on the basis of having learned these forms individually, before
having created an English past tense “rule”. Once the rule is established, they
start producing forms such as taked and goed, which can persist for a long
time, in spite of any attempts at correction by worried parents. It can take
considerable time for children to be able to handle exceptions to rules.
The fact that children do not seem susceptible to adult correction is well-
documented. The psycholinguist Martin Braine once tried for several weeks
to stamp out one of his daughter’s grammatical errors. Here is an example
(quoted in Pinker, 1994, p. 281):

CHILD: Want other one spoon, Daddy

FATHER: You mean, you want THE OTHER SPOON
CHILD: Yes, I want other one spoon, please, Daddy
FATHER:  Can you say “the other spoon”?
CHILD:  Other . . . one . . . spoon
FATHER:  Say . . . “other”
46  The Recent History of SLL Research
CHILD: Other
FATHER: “Spoon”
CHILD: Spoon
FATHER:  “Other . . . spoon”
CHILD:  Other . . . spoon. Now give me other one spoon?

This famous example is typical of such attempts, and this child is neither
slow in her development, nor particularly stubborn; it is as if she cannot
make the alternative proposed by her father fit within her current grammar.
From this necessarily brief and oversimplified account of 1970s L1 acqui-
sition research, the following characteristics emerge:

• Children go through stages;

• These stages are similar across children for a given language, although
the rate at which individual children progress through them is variable;
• These stages are similar across languages;
• Child language is rule-governed and systematic, and the rules created by
the child do not necessarily correspond to adult ones;
• Children are resistant to correction.

These findings seemed to support Chomsky’s claims that children followed

some kind of pre-programmed, internal route in acquiring language, in
which each stage could be described as rule-governed. However, psycho-
linguists as well as theoretical linguists were taking an interest in this kind
of evidence, with a greater focus on language processing. For example, the
psycholinguist Dan Slobin made proposals about language acquisition orders
which were grounded in a set of Operating Principles supposed to char-
acterize the way in which children perceive their environment, and try to
make sense of it and organize it. Slobin’s early principles were as follows
(Slobin, 1979, pp. 108–110):

Operating Principle A: Pay attention to the ends of words.

Operating Principle B:There are linguistic elements that encode relations
between words.
Operating Principle C: Avoid exceptions.
Operating Principle D: Underlying semantic relations should be marked
overtly and clearly.
Operating Principle E: The use of grammatical markers should make
semantic sense.

Such early ideas about how language processing could contribute to L1

development had a long-term influence on the development of transition
theories in L2 acquisition research.
 The Recent History of SLL Research 47
2.3.2 L2 Learning:The Birth of Error Analysis and the Concept
of Interlanguage
The findings reported soon attracted the attention of researchers and teach-
ers interested in L2 learning. This was the case, not only because of their
intrinsic interest, but also because the predictions made by Contrastive Anal-
ysis (CA) did not seem to be borne out in practice. Teachers were finding
out in the classroom that constructions that were different in pairs of lan-
guages were not necessarily difficult, and that constructions that were similar
were not necessarily easy either. Moreover, difficulty sometimes occurred in
one direction but not the other. For example, the placement of unstressed
object pronouns in English and French differs: whereas English says I like
them, French says Je les aime (= I them like). CA would therefore predict
that object pronoun placement would be difficult for both English learn-
ers of French and French learners of English. This is not the case, however;
whereas English learners of French do have problems with this construction
and produce errors such as *J’aime les in initial stages, French learners of
English do not produce errors of the type I them like, as would be predicted
by CA. The task of comparing pairs of languages in order to design efficient
language teaching programmes now seemed to be disproportionate: if it
could not adequately predict areas of difficulty, then the whole enterprise
seemed to be pointless.
These two factors combined—developments in L1 acquisition and disil-
lusionment with CA—meant that researchers and teachers became increas-
ingly interested in the language actually produced by learners, rather than
the target L2 or the L1. This was the origin of Error Analysis, the systematic
investigation of L2 learners’ errors. The language produced by L2 learners
began to be seen as a linguistic system in its own right which was wor-
thy of description. Corder (1967) was the first to focus attention on the
importance of studying learners’ errors.The predictions of CA, that all errors
would be due to L1 interference, were shown to be unfounded, as many
studies showed that the majority of errors could not be traced to the L1, and
also that areas where the L1 should have prevented errors were not always
error-free. For example, Hernández-Chávez (1972) showed that, although
the plural is realized in almost exactly the same way in Spanish and in Eng-
lish, Spanish children learning English still went through a phase of omit-
ting plural marking. Such studies became commonplace, and a book-length
treatment of the topic appeared (Richards, 1974: see Timeline).
In a review of studies looking at the proportion of errors traceable to L1,
R. Ellis (1985) found that there was considerable variation in the findings,
with results ranging from 3% (Dulay & Burt, 1973) to 51% (Tran-Chi-Chau,
1975), and a majority of studies finding around a third of all errors traceable
to the L1. Error Analysis thus showed clearly that the majority of the errors
made by L2 learners do not come from their L1.
48  The Recent History of SLL Research
The next question therefore was: where do such errors come from? They
are not target-like, and they are not L1-like; they must be learner-internal in
origin. Researchers started trying to classify these errors in order to under-
stand them, and to compare them with children’s L1 errors. Child language
had already come to be seen as an object of study in its own right, rather
than as an approximation of adult language. In L2 research, coupled with
the interest in understanding learner-internal errors, interest in the overall
character of the L2 system was also growing.
The term “interlanguage” was coined in 1972, by Larry Selinker, to
refer to the language produced by learners, both as a system which can be
described at any one point in time as resulting from systematic rules, and as
the series of interlocking systems that characterize learner progression. In
other words, the interlanguage concept relies on two fundamental notions:
the language produced by the learner is a system in its own right, obeying
its own rules, and it is a dynamic system, evolving over time. Interlanguage
studies thus moved a major step beyond Error Analysis, by focusing on the
learner system as a whole, rather than only on its non-target-like features.
The concept continues to prove descriptively useful (Gass, Behney, & Plon-
sky, 2013; Han & Tarone, 2014).

2.3.3 Morpheme Studies and Second Language Learning

As far as L2 research is concerned, the most important empirical findings of
this period were probably the results of the so-called morpheme studies. At
a conceptual level, Krashen’s Monitor Model was an influential theoretical
development arising from such studies.
The L2 morpheme studies of the 1970s were inspired by the work of
Brown (1973) in L1 acquisition, which we introduced above. Brown had
found a consistent order of emergence of 14 grammatical morphemes in
English in his longitudinal study, as did other researchers (like de Villiers &
de Villiers, 1973).
L2 researchers set about investigating the acquisition of the same gram-
matical morphemes by L2 learners. Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974, 1975) were
the first to undertake such studies, reporting first of all on the accuracy of
production of eight of Brown’s morphemes in children acquiring L2 Eng-
lish (1973). Their study was cross-sectional and analysed the speech of three
groups of Spanish-speaking children who had been exposed to English for
different lengths of time, as immigrants to the USA.
There were 151 children in the study, and the method used for eliciting
speech was the Bilingual Syntax Measure, a structured conversation based
on cartoons and designed to elicit certain grammatical constructions. The
researchers found that “the acquisition sequences obtained from the three
groups of children were strikingly similar. This was so even though each
group on the whole was at a different level of English proficiency” (Dulay
et al., 1982, p. 204). Dulay and Burt (1974) then carried out a similar study,
 The Recent History of SLL Research 49
but this time using children from different L1 backgrounds, namely Chinese
and Spanish. They found very similar acquisition orders for 11 of Brown’s
grammatical morphemes, for both groups. Dulay and Burt (1975) then
extended their study to include 536 Spanish- and Chinese-speaking chil-
dren of varying levels of proficiency in English, investigating 13 of Brown’s
original morphemes. They found a clear hierarchy for the acquisition of
these morphemes, with four different groups of morphemes being acquired
in a set order, no matter the L1, as shown in Figure 2.1 (from Dulay et al.,
1982, p. 208).
Dulay et al. conclude: “It is highly probable that children of different
language backgrounds learning English in a variety of host country envi-
ronments acquire eleven grammatical morphemes in a similar order” (1982,
pp. 207–209).
To investigate whether adults would also exhibit the same order of acqui-
sition, Bailey, Madden, and Krashen (1974) conducted a similar study with
adults. They again used the Bilingual Syntax Measure to investigate produc-
tion of the eight morphemes studied in Dulay and Burt (1973), by 73 adult
learners of English from different L1 backgrounds. Their results were very
similar to those reported for child learners, as shown in Figure 2.2 (taken
from Dulay et al., 1982, p. 210).
These morpheme acquisition studies attracted criticism, both at the time
and subsequently. (The criticisms are mainly about the elicitation technique
used in these early studies, which was thought to bias the results, and also
about the assumption that relative accuracy of production reflects acquisi-
tion sequences: see review in Gass et al., 2013, Chapter 5.) However, the
basic argument that both child and adult learners of L2 English developed
accuracy in a number of grammatical morphemes in a set order, no mat-
ter what the context of learning (classroom, naturalistic, mixed), survived
the critique. The existence of such an order suggested that L2 learners are
guided by internal principles which are largely independent of their L1, an
important challenge for CA.
Moreover, soon after, a number of studies were reported which strongly
suggested that systematic developmental stages could be found in a number
of syntactic domains as well. For example, the acquisition of negative struc-
tures in L2 English and in L2 German was shown to occur in well-defined
stages (R. Ellis, 2008, pp. 92–94). Regular developmental sequences were
also documented for interrogatives and relative clauses in English, and for
word order in German (R. Ellis, 2008, pp. 94–98). Moreover, the stages fol-
lowed by L2 learners in these areas showed similarities to those found in L1
acquisition.
Thus, the 1970s witnessed a wealth of studies investigating development
in L2 learners which seemed to demonstrate that it is systematic, that it is
largely independent of the L1 and that it has similarities with L1 acquisition.
These were major empirical findings which undermined classic behaviourist
beliefs about how an L2 is acquired.
 SAMPLE:
N: 536 Research
design: Cross-sectional
Age: 5–9 years old
Elicitation
L1: 461 Spanish
technique: Structured conversation
55 Chinese
L2
L2: English environment: Host

Acquisition hierarchy observed

GROUP I
CASE WORD ORDER
(Nominative/Accusative) (In simple declarative sentences)

GROUP II
SINGULAR COPULA SINGULAR AUXILIARY
(’s/is) (’s/is)
PLURAL AUXILIARY PROGRESSIVE
(are) (-ing)

GROUP III
PAST IRREGULAR CONDITIONAL AUXILIARY
would
POSSESSIVE LONG PLURAL
(‘s) (-es)
THIRD PERSON SINGULAR
(-s)

GROUP IV
PERFECT AUXILIARY PAST PARTICIPLE
have -en

Figure 2.1 Acquisition Hierarchy for 13 English Grammatical Morphemes for Spanish-

Speaking and Cantonese-Speaking Children
Source: Dulay et al., 1982, p. 208
 SAMPLE:
N: 73 Research design: Cross-sectional
Age: 17–55 years old
L1: Greek, Persian, Italian, Turkish, Elicitation technique: Structured conversation
Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Afghani,
Hebrew, Arabic, Vietnamese Second-language
L2: English environment: Host

Sequence observed
100

90

80

70

60

50 Children*

40

30 Adults**

20

10
Pr

Co ssi

Pl

Ar (-s) opu

Co

Po

3r ssiv

Lo rso
Pa ctib
Pr

d
ur ible g)
og

tic

ng n (
ss ula (’s
on

st
nt

nt

pe e (’
al

le
ra

ra
re

e
irr
ou

pl -s)
c

ur
a,
t
n

al
ve
ca

th

le

(-e
e)
se

(-i

au

s)
n

s)
x.
la

)
(’s
)

Correlation coefficients and significance levels:

Adults (Spanish Ss)
Children rho = 0.976 (p <0.01)
(Spearman)

Figure 2.2 Comparison of Adult and Child Acquisition Sequences for Eight Grammati-
cal Morphemes
Source: Dulay et al., 1982, p. 210
52  The Recent History of SLL Research
Before moving to examine the theoretical proposals advanced to explain
such findings, let us pause for an instant on the last point, namely the find-
ing that acquisitional patterns in L1 and L2 learning were both similar and
different, as this issue is still debated today. Remember that the discovery
of acquisition sequences in L1 was linked to the theory that children are
endowed with a language faculty which guides them in the hypotheses
they make about the language around them. Brown’s order of acquisition
of grammatical morphemes was seen as evidence to support this view. So,
what could be made of the finding that L2 learners also seemed to follow
an order of acquisition, but that this order was somewhat different? A rather
ambiguous picture emerged from the empirical work characteristic of the
1970s, and the 1980s research agenda tried to address some of these issues.
But first of all, we need to consider Krashen’s Monitor Model, an influential
first attempt to bring together a range of post-behaviourist findings in a
comprehensive model of L2 acquisition.

2.3.4 Krashen’s Monitor Model

Stephen Krashen first developed his ideas in the late 1970s, and then refined
and expanded his theoretical claims in a series of books (1981, 1982, 1985).
While many of his specific proposals have been overtaken today, they opened
up research agendas of ongoing importance.
Krashen based his general theory around a set of five basic hypotheses:

1. The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis;

2. The Monitor Hypothesis;
3. The Natural Order Hypothesis;
4. The Input Hypothesis;
5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis.

We shall briefly outline each of these in turn.

2.3.4.1  The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

This hypothesis attracted considerable attention and, albeit in a different
form, is still discussed. The basic premise is that language acquisition, on the
one hand, and learning, on the other, are separate processes. For Krashen,
acquisition refers to the “subconscious process identical in all important
ways to the process children utilize in acquiring their first language”, and
learning refers to the “conscious process that results in ‘knowing about’
language” (1985, p. 1). In other words, acquisition is the result of natural
interaction with the language via meaningful communication, which sets
in motion developmental processes akin to those outlined in L1 acquisition,
and learning is typically the result of classroom experience, in which the
 The Recent History of SLL Research 53
learner is made to focus on form and to study systematically the rules of the
target language.
The contrast between the naturalistic environment and the classroom
environment is not the crucial issue, however. What is claimed to be impor-
tant is the difference between meaningful communication on the one hand,
which might very well take place in the language classroom, and which will
supposedly trigger subconscious acquisition processes, and conscious atten-
tion to form on the other hand, which can also take place in naturalistic
settings, especially with older learners who might explicitly request gram-
matical information from people around them. Krashen has been criticized
for his vague definition of what constitutes conscious versus subconscious
processes, as they are very difficult to distinguish: how can we tell when a
learner’s production is the result of a conscious process and when it is not?
Nonetheless, this conceptual contrast between acquisition and learning has
been very influential, especially among foreign language teachers who saw
it as an explanation of the lack of correspondence between error correc-
tion and direct teaching, on one hand, and their students’ (in)accuracy of
performance, on the other. If there was some kind of internal mechanism
constraining learners’ development, then perhaps it could account for the
fact that some structures, even simple ones like the 3rd person singular -s in
English (he likes), can be so frustrating to teach, with learners knowing the
rule consciously, but often being unable to apply it in spontaneous conversa-
tion. In Krashen’s terminology, learners would have learned the rule, but not
acquired it.
Another much discussed claim is Krashen’s view that learning cannot
turn into acquisition, i.e. that language knowledge acquired/learned by
these different routes cannot eventually become integrated into a unified
whole (Krashen & Scarcella, 1978). Other 1980s researchers disagreed (e.g.
Gregg, 1984; McLaughlin, 1987), and the debate about whether differ-
ent kinds of knowledge interact, or remain separate, remains alive today.
This issue is pursued again in Chapter 5, where we review contempo-
rary thinking about implicit and explicit knowledge and the interactions
between them.

2.3.4.2 The Monitor Hypothesis

According to Krashen,“learning” and “acquisition” are used in very specific ways
in second-language performance. The Monitor Hypothesis states that “learning
has only one function, and that is as a Monitor or editor” and that learning
comes into play only to “make changes in the form of our utterance, after it has
been ‘produced’ by the acquired system” (1982, p. 15). Acquisition “initiates” the
speaker’s utterances and is responsible for fluency. Thus the Monitor is thought
to alter the output of the acquired system before or after the utterance is actually
written or spoken, but the utterance is initiated entirely by the acquired system.
(McLaughlin, 1987, p. 24)
54  The Recent History of SLL Research
The above quotation summarizes Krashen’s view that conscious learning,
with attention to L2 form, contributes only to the development of an editor
or “Monitor”, which does not operate all the time. When a focus on form is
important for the learner, and when the relevant grammatical rule has con-
sciously been learned, Krashen believed they might make use of the Moni-
tor to self-correct and apply target language norms. However, early studies
investigating learners’ performance when given more time (Hulstijn & Hul-
stijn, 1984), or being made to focus on form (Houck, Robertson, & Krashen,
1978; Krashen & Scarcella, 1978), failed to provide evidence of Monitor
use. The same applied to studies checking whether learners who are able
to explain the rules perform better than learners who do not (Hulstijn &
Hulstijn, 1984).
Krashen also appealed to the concept of the Monitor in order to explain
individual differences among learners. He suggests that it is possible to find
Monitor “over-users” who do not like making mistakes and are therefore
constantly checking what they produce against the conscious stock of rules
they possess. On the other hand, Monitor “under-users” do not seem to care
very much about the errors they make, and for them, speed and fluency are
more important. In between the two are the supposed “optimal” Monitor
users, who use the Monitor when it does not interfere with communication.
These early claims attracted considerable critical commentary (McLaugh-
lin, 1987), and remained underdeveloped and difficult to test empirically.
However, elsewhere in this book we see how later research has pursued
some of the ideas underpinning the Monitor Hypothesis, with a new range
of methodologies (Chapters 4 and 5).

2.3.4.3 The Natural Order Hypothesis

We acquire the rules of language in a predictable order, some rules tending to
come early and others late. The order does not appear to be determined solely
by formal simplicity and there is evidence that it is independent of the order in
which rules are taught in language classes.
(Krashen, 1985, p. 1)

This particular hypothesis was grounded in the concept of interlanguage and

the research into morpheme acquisition orders and domains of syntax such
as negation, relative clauses and word order, which we have briefly reviewed
in Section 2.3.3 above. However, later research has seen a revival of interest
in the nature of L1 influence on L2 learning, from new and varied theo-
retical perspectives, and has also paid much more attention to the existence
of variability in L2 systems. Krashen’s Natural Order Hypothesis represents
the universalism of 1970s theorizing, and has no place for concepts such
cross-linguistic influence. In addition, it makes primarily a descriptive claim,
which provides little help in understanding why “natural orders” should be
apparent in L2 development. Again, later theories invest considerable effort
 The Recent History of SLL Research 55
in trying to provide explanations for observed developmental sequences (see,
for example, discussion of Pienemann’s Processability Theory in Chapter 4).

2.3.4.4 The Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis claims that we move along the developmental path
of the Natural Order by receiving and processing “comprehensible input”.
Comprehensible input is defined as L2 input just beyond the learner’s
current L2 competence. If a learner’s current competence is i, then com-
prehensible input is i + 1, that is, input still understandable by the learner,
but containing linguistic evidence relevant for the next step in the devel-
opmental sequence. Input which is either too simple (i.e. containing only
language material which has been already acquired) or too complex for
learner comprehension (i + 2 / 3 / 4) will not be useful for acquisi-
tion. A key claim of the Input Hypothesis is that learners do not need to
produce L2 utterances (output) in order to develop; the opportunity for
regular parsing and interpretation of suitable input i + 1 will be sufficient
to develop the interlanguage system.
Krashen views the Input Hypothesis as central to his model of SLA:

a. Speaking is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be

taught directly but “emerges” on its own as a result of building compe-
tence via comprehensible input.
b. If input is understood, and there is enough of it, the necessary gram-
mar is automatically provided. The language teacher need not attempt
deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order—it will
be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the
student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input.
(Krashen, 1985, p. 2)

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis has been frequently criticized for imprecision:

how do we determine level i and level i + 1? Nowhere is this vital point
made clear. Moreover, Krashen’s claim is somewhat circular: acquisition
takes place if the learner receives comprehensible input, and comprehensible
input is claimed to have been provided if acquisition takes place. The theory
becomes impossible to verify, as no independently testable definitions are
given of what comprehensible input actually consists of, and therefore of
how it might relate to acquisition. Nor does Krashen ever try to describe
the internal workings of the “Language Acquisition Device” where acquisi-
tion actually takes place—this remains an opaque black box. Nonetheless,
the emphasis placed by the Input Hypothesis on the importance of natural-
istic and meaning-oriented exposure to the target language was one of the
underpinnings of the communicative approach to language pedagogy, which
facilitated its rise in place of the audiolingual pattern drilling associated with
behaviourist learning theory.The Input Hypothesis also launched a tradition
56  The Recent History of SLL Research
of empirical research and theorizing about learner interaction which con-
tinues strongly up to the present. (See Section 2.4.3 and Chapter 6.)

2.3.4.5 The Affective Filter Hypothesis

As we have just seen, Krashen believed that the availability of comprehen-
sible input is the prime requirement for language acquisition to take place,
and that learner production (and grammar explanation) are non-essential.
However, learners also need to be receptive to the input. This is the role of
the so-called Affective Filter, which supposedly determines learners’ willing-
ness to seek comprehensible input, and their ability to process it:

The Affective Filter Hypothesis captures the relationship between affec-

tive variables and the process of second language acquisition by positing
that acquirers vary with respect to the strength or level of their affec-
tive filters. Those whose attitudes are not optimal for second language
acquisition will not only tend to seek less input, but they will also have
a high or strong affective filter—even if they understand the message,
the input will not reach that part of the brain responsible for language
acquisition, or the Language Acquisition Device. Those with attitudes
more conducive to second language acquisition will not only seek and
obtain more input, they will also have a lower or weaker filter.They will
be more open to the input, and it will strike “deeper”.
(Krashen, 1982, p. 31)

Krashen’s Affective Filter was a strong early claim about the importance of
emotion in L2 learning. Once again, this idea has been followed up in later
research on motivation, on emotion and on individual learner differences.
However, Krashen’s Affective Filter concept itself remained undeveloped,
and how it actually worked remained unexplored.
While presenting Krashen’s five hypotheses, we have also reflected criti-
cisms which have been current almost since Krashen first advanced them.
It remains true nonetheless that Krashen’s ideas have shaped later research
agendas, as we have indicated. Krashen’s main overall weakness was the
presentation of what were just hypotheses that remained to be tested, as
a comprehensive model that had empirical validity, as well as pedagogical
implications.

2.3.5 Schumann’s Pidginization/Acculturation Model

Other models appeared in the 1970s which attempted similarly to theorize
SLA findings. We will introduce very briefly here one other model, which
viewed L2 learning from a radically different angle, taking account of the
sociocultural setting in a new way.
 The Recent History of SLL Research 57
John Schumann first proposed his pidginization/acculturation model in
the late 1970s (1978a, 1978b, 1978c).This was an important early attempt to
investigate the language learning of adult immigrants, who were learning a
surrounding majority language informally. On the basis of naturalistic stud-
ies, Schumann noticed that early interlanguages resemble pidgin languages
(i.e. simplified trading languages which lack native speakers: Sebba, 1997),
with characteristic features such as fixed word order and lack of inflections.
L2 acquisition was compared to the complexification of pidgins, and this
process was linked to degree of acculturation of the learners.The closer they
feel to the target language speech community, according to Schumann, the
better learners will “acculturate”, and the more successful their L2 learn-
ing will be. The greater the social and psychological distance between the
learner and the majority community, the more pidgin-like their L2 will
remain. Schumann discussed a learner named Alberto as a case study, and
tried to account for his apparent fossilization in terms of the model.
This model opened up alternative lines of research comparing SLA with
other language change processes (pidginization and creolization, i.e. the pro-
cess whereby pidgins become elaborated as full natural languages), and also
brought to the fore social psychological variables and their role in SLA. For a
substantial period of time, Schumann’s proposals were the most theoretically
ambitious claims about SLA which drew on sociolinguistic thinking, though
they received only limited empirical support. In Chapter 9 we explore other,
newer sociolinguistic approaches which build on some of this early work.

2.4 The 1980s: A Turning Point

Partly in response to developments in linguistics and in L1 acquisition
research, partly in reaction to the 1970s proposals of Burt, Dulay, Selinker,
Krashen and others, and partly in response to the continuing great expan-
sion of L2 and foreign language education, the 1980s were a period of strong
development for L2 theorizing and empirical research. Many of the main
strands which continue today can trace their origins to this period. Here, we
introduce some key 1980s ideas and names only: more detail can be found
in the Timeline which follows, and subsequent developments are followed
up in later chapters. (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991, offer a book-length
discussion of the 1980s.)

2.4.1 The Impact of Chomskyan Linguistics

As we have seen, Krashen’s various hypotheses assumed the existence of a
Language Acquisition Device which would analyse L2 input and ensure
interlanguage development, without conscious awareness on the part of the
learner. However, Krashen himself never specified in detail the contents or
functioning of the Language Acquisition Device: it remained a “black box”.
58  The Recent History of SLL Research
In the 1980s, however, researchers such as Suzanne Flynn (1987) and Lydia
White (1989) began to draw upon Chomskyan generative linguistics and
the concept of Universal Grammar (UG) to model learners’ formal language
knowledge. In particular, Chomsky’s Government and Binding theory
(1981, 1986a, 1986b) specified “Universal Principles” applying to all lan-
guages, and a limited set of “Parameters” which accounted for variation
between languages.This Principles and Parameters model gave much greater
elaboration and power to the concept of an innate language faculty, and its
possible role in L2 acquisition, including the role played by the L1 when
parameters are set differently from those of the L2. These ideas gave impetus
to an extensive research programme, which has continued to draw inspi-
ration from generativist linguistic theory, as that theory itself has evolved
into the Minimalist Program in later decades (Slabakova, 2016). We survey
UG-inspired L2 research in Chapter 3.

2.4.2 Information Processing Models of Second Language Learning

One of Krashen’s 1980s critics was the psychologist Barry McLaughlin, who
addressed some perceived gaps in Krashen’s account by reintroducing into L2
research ideas about learning from general psychology. In the latter part of
the 20th century, cognitive psychology offered much more elaborate models
of the mind than did the behaviourism of the mid 20th century. McLaughlin
(1987) viewed the mind as a limited capacity processor, with different memory
stores; from this view, learning involved moving from controlled processing
to automatic processing of language, and the transfer of new knowledge from
the (very limited capacity) short-term memory to long-term memory. Other
1980s researchers of second language learning borrowed different models of
knowledge and of learning from cognitive psychology: thus, for example, the
distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge was popularized
by O’Malley and Chamot (1990), and Slobin’s proposals for Operating Prin-
ciples (1979) were adapted to SLA by Andersen and associates (Andersen,
1990; Andersen & Shirai, 1994). As can be seen in Chapters 4, 5 and 10, these
cognitive beginnings have led to major developments in L2 transition theo-
ries and now provide a powerful complement to linguistic perspectives.

2.4.3 The Interaction Hypothesis and the Output Hypothesis

In response to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, a number of 1980s researchers
also proposed alternative ideas about the role of environmental language in
L2 learning. Foremost among these was Michael Long, with his proposal of
the so-called Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1981, 1983a, 1983b).
In the 1980s, Long shared the underlying assumptions of Krashen regard-
ing the existence of some form of Language Acquisition Device, but shifted
attention from comprehensible input, as a means of stimulating acquisi-
tion, towards more interactive aspects of L2 discourse. Long’s early research
 The Recent History of SLL Research 59
showed that interactions between L1 and L2 speakers when performing
tasks such as informal conversation or game-playing were rich in mean-
ing negotiations, including repetitions, confirmation checks or clarification
requests. Long argued that these adjustments made L2 speech more com-
prehensible, and thus increased its usefulness for L2 acquisition; a number of
controlled studies, in which learners undertook oral problem-solving tasks,
provided evidence showing that negotiation of meaning did indeed lead to
greater problem-solving success (e.g. Gass & Varonis, 1994; Pica, Young, &
Doughty, 1987). Later formulations of the Interaction Hypothesis, and asso-
ciated research, are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
A different alternative to the Input Hypothesis was proposed by the Cana-
dian researcher Merrill Swain, based on her experience of studying learners
of L2 French in the context of immersion schooling. Swain’s observations of
these students led her to question the claim that comprehensible L2 input
was sufficient to ensure all-round interlanguage development.
Swain (1985) argued that students could often succeed in comprehending
L2 texts, while only partly processing them, i.e. concentrating on semantic
processing. She took the view that only production (i.e. output) really forces
L2 learners to undertake full grammatical processing, and thus drives for-
ward most effectively the development of L2 syntax and morphology. The
Output Hypothesis has been further developed by Swain and associates, and
is also discussed further in Chapter 6.

2.4.4 Other 1980s Developments

The 1980s saw other new beginnings in L2 research, attached to rather
diverse theoretical positions; for this reason, we postpone description of these
until the relevant chapters, where we have space to unpack the theoretical
perspectives first of all. Thus, functionalist models of language, introduced
in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.3, began to be drawn upon, to study the inter-
language produced by informal learners such as adult migrants, and how it
reflected their communicative needs. In Chapter 7, we begin by briefly pre-
senting some pioneering studies of this type (Huebner, 1983; Dittmar, 1984).
Another group of researchers primarily interested in instructed learners
were attracted by the learning theories of Lev Vygotsky, being popularized
in general education from the 1970s onwards, and started to publish neo-
Vygotskian accounts of second language learning (the very first being the
study of Frawley & Lantolf, 1985); this work has also flourished in following
decades and is described in Chapter 8. Lastly, ideas from social psychology
drove pioneering 1980s research on learner motivation, and on “individual
differences” more generally (Gardner, 1985; Skehan, 1989). A gap in 1980s
research and theorizing which seems obvious today, however, is the marginal
attention given to sociolinguistic concepts and methods (with, e.g., the work
of Schumann very much the exception)—these had to wait until the 1990s
to take a central place in the L2 field.
60  The Recent History of SLL Research
2.5 Continuities and New Themes in
the Research Agenda
While methods and theories have become more diverse and sophisticated,
the SLA research agenda continues to focus on a number of fundamental
issues carried forward from the 1970s, as follows:

2.5.1 Property Theories in L2 Research

In the mid 20th century, as we have seen, L2 theorists relied on structural-
ist models of language to guide research approaches such as CA. From the
1980s, generativist theory of language became prominent, and continues
to drive a strong L2 agenda up to today. However, the relevance of UG
has been increasingly questioned by a variety of other L2 researchers who
find functionalist or usage-based models of language much more compat-
ible with transition theories grounded in the processing of input and/or
in sociocultural interaction. Thus, the definition of language itself has once
more become a matter of debate in the field.

2.5.2 Transition Theories in L2 Research

As with property theories, there is longstanding and continuing debate
within and between key families of transition theories:

a. Language-specific theories: How similar are the L1 and L2 acquisi-

tion processes, and how far are the similarities due to language-specific
mechanisms still being activated? If language-specific mechanisms are
important, how can they best be modelled?
b. Cognitive theories: In what respects are both L1 and L2 learning and
processing in the mind similar to the learning and processing of any
other complex skill? If there are no distinctive learning mechanisms for
language, what are the implications for the nature of language itself?
c. Social theories: What is the contribution of multilingual social interac-
tion and wider socialization to L2 development?

2.5.3 The Role of the L1

Theorists subsequent to Krashen, from a number of different perspectives,
have revived the idea that cross-linguistic influences from the L1 and other
languages are operating in L2 acquisition. However, it is also clear that such
language transfer is selective: some L1 properties transfer, and others do not.
A central aspect of today’s research agenda is still to understand better the
phenomenon of cross-linguistic influence, including transfer from any other
languages that have been learned (L2s, L3s, L4s . . .), and in both directions:
it is now increasingly recognized that an L2 or L3 may also influence the
 The Recent History of SLL Research 61
L1, and some researchers question the existence of distinct languages in the
mind, preferring to see all language knowledge as a unified resource.

2.5.4 The Role of Individual Differences

How do individual characteristics of the learner, such as age, motivation,
personality, language aptitude or working memory, affect the learning pro-
cess? These questions are central to investigations by researchers in the cog-
nitive tradition.

2.5.5 The Wider Role of Social and Environmental Factors

How does the overall socialization of the L2 learner relate to the language
learning process? What is the impact of social positioning, learner agency
and learner identity on language learning opportunity, and language learn-
ing success? How important is membership in different types of speech
community, community of practice or online community, for L2 use and
development? What impact does language status have in an increasingly glo-
balized world? Is the learning of English, with its special lingua franca sta-
tus, a qualitatively different experience from learning other languages? Such
questions have emerged more recently, and are central to the sociocultural
and sociolinguistic traditions.

2.5.6 The Role of the Input

It is a common-sense observation that learners must engage with and use a
new language if they are to acquire it. But how exactly do learners exploit
the input that they receive? What is the nature of those internal mechanisms
which analyse that input, extract meaning from it and store new language
forms? Do certain interaction patterns facilitate learning? Aspects of this
issue remain central to the whole field.

2.5.7 The Role of Explicit Knowledge

How far is it helpful, for L2 learning and use, to possess explicit metalin-
guistic knowledge about the L2? And what is the contribution of explicit
instruction and feedback, in shaping or speeding up development? From
a theoretical perspective this issue is now framed as the implicit/explicit
learning debate, and it is also central to more applied work on instructed
L2 learning.

2.5.8 And Some Newer Themes . . . 

Here we touch very briefly on some newer themes which have been mak-
ing an impact on L2 research in the 2000s and 2010s. Firstly, there has been
62  The Recent History of SLL Research
a clear rise in interest in informal language learning, often among groups
such as adult transnational migrants, but also among—often younger—L2
users of the internet and digital technologies such as gaming, instant mes-
saging or fan fiction. This has partly been complementary to the emergence
of “instructed second language acquisition”, that is, the study of classroom
learners, as a distinct subfield with its own dedicated literature.
Secondly, there has been a rise of interest in more complex language rela-
tionships, involving the learning of third or fourth languages, and acknowl-
edgement of the possibility of mutual influences across all known languages.
This is accompanied by the realization that contemporary social contexts
for L2 learning are highly likely to be multilingual, and that lingua franca
usage and translanguaging practices are a normal part of the repertoire of
competent speakers.
A third area of change and innovation has concerned the range of research
methods employed to study L2 activity and development. As we have seen,
from very early days, L2 researchers have collected and analysed naturalistic
language samples from learners, and/or have had them complete many types
of language test under controlled conditions. From the 1990s, researchers
began also to document the social practices of L2 learners and users using
conversation analysis and ethnographic methods, and these qualitative meth-
ods gained considerable impetus from the broader “social turn” of the 2000s.
More recently, research on L2 processing has drawn upon a range of new
technologies such as eye-tracking, and the measurement of brain activity
using the methodology of electroencephalography (EEG).
Furthermore, there is now a large enough body of research studies on
many L2 topics for research overviews and syntheses to be productive and
necessary. There has been a striking increase since 2000 in a particular
type of research synthesis: the meta-analysis. This kind of research involves
reanalyzing actual data (such as test scores) from a clearly defined group of
existing studies, a process known as secondary data analysis. In substantive
domains, meta-analyses have investigated grammar instruction, strategy
instruction, pronunciation instruction, processing instruction, English-
medium instruction, motivation and attitudes, among many others. On
methodological issues, syntheses have reviewed the field’s study designs
and research quality, statistical procedures, data collection procedures, and
reporting practices. To date, there are few meta-analyses that have directly
addressed specific L2 learning theories or hypotheses. However, meta-
analyses have strived to quantify the role of explicit knowledge, work-
ing memory or corrective feedback in L2 learning, and these studies will
appear regularly in subsequent chapters in this book.
In the following chapters we examine how L2 theories and research pro-
grammes have evolved to investigate these issues up to the present. Before
proceeding to these narrative accounts, however, we introduce a timeline
of major publications in the field, from the 1950s to the present, with brief
accounts of their significance in framing and shaping L2 learning theory.
 The Recent History of SLL Research 63
2.6 Second Language Learning Timeline
[This timeline is an adapted version of Myles (2010), reprinted with permis-
sion from Cambridge University Press.]

Year Text Comment

1945 Fries, C. (1945). Teaching Fries develops a pedagogy of language

and learning English as based on behaviourism, which claims that
a foreign language. Ann repetition and practice lead to accurate
Arbor: University of and fluent foreign language habits, and
Michigan Press. that teaching must be based on careful
comparison of the L1 and L2 of the learner,
in order to teach what is different in the
L2—and therefore difficult for that learner.
1957 Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal In a detailed account of behaviourism
behavior. New York: applied specifically to language, Skinner
Appleton-Century-Croft. argues that language learning, like any
other learning, takes place through
stimulus—response—reinforcement,
leading to the formation of habits.
1957 Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics In keeping with behaviourist thinking, Lado
across cultures: Applied compares pairs of languages in order to
linguistics for language identify differences, as these will be the
teachers. Ann Arbor: areas which will be difficult for the learner
University of Michigan and which the teacher must concentrate
Press. on, in order to avoid transfer from the L1.
This is termed “Contrastive Analysis”.
1959 Chomsky, N. (1959). Chomsky writes a fierce critique of
Review of B. F. Skinner’s Skinner (1957), arguing that children
Verbal behavior. Language, have an innate faculty guiding them in
35, 26–58. acquiring language, as they do not merely
imitate the language around them, but
routinely generate novel sentences and
rules. This innate language faculty will
subsequently become known as Universal
Grammar (UG). Chomsky does not deal
with L2 acquisition, but his ideas have had
a major impact on the field.
1964 Lado, R. (1964). Language Following from his previous work (Lado,
teaching: A scientific 1957), Lado draws on then-current
approach. New York: science (structuralist linguistics and
McGraw Hill. behaviourist psychology) in order to
develop an audiolingual approach to
language teaching.
1966 Newmark, L. (1966). Newmark (in contrast to Lado, 1964, and
How not to interfere the then-dominant behaviourist thinking)
in language learning. argues that teachers should let the
International Journal of learning process in the classroom take its
American Linguistics,32, course, rather than try to directly shape it
77–87. as in audiolingualism.

(Continued)
(Continued)

Year Text Comment

1967 Corder, S. P. (1967). The Corder draws attention to the significance

significance of learners’ of studying learners’ errors, as it becomes
errors. International evident that a great number do not
Review of Applied originate in the L1 of learners, and that
Linguistics, 5, 161–169. learners seem to have an in-built syllabus
of their own, as suggested by Chomsky
(1959) for L1 acquisition.
1967 Lenneberg, E. (1967). In the wake of the Chomskyan revolution,
Biological foundations Lenneberg suggests that there must
of language. New York: be a biologically triggered, innate
Wiley. language faculty, in order to explain why
L1 children seem to “grow” language
spontaneously, as long as language is
around them, in the same way as they will
learn to walk or grow teeth, without the
need for any intervention or teaching.
1972 Selinker, L. (1972). Selinker coins the term “interlanguage”
Interlanguage. to refer to the L2 learner’s developing
International Review of system (both the L2 system of a learner
Applied Linguistics, 10, at a given point in time and the series
209–231. of interlocking systems developing over
time). This term captures the imagination
of L2 researchers, keen to move away from
Contrastive Analysis (see Lado, 1957), for
both theoretical and empirical reasons.
1972 Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, In this book Gardner and Lambert
W. E. (1972). Attitudes launch the influential proposal that
and motivation in second motivation for L2 learning can be
language learning. Rowley, integrative (reflecting a wish to integrate
MA: Newbury House. with the L2-using community) or
instrumental (reflecting pragmatic needs).
They argue for the power of integrative
motivation in particular.
1973 Dulay, H., & Burt, M. Dulay and Burt report the first major
(1973). Should we teach study of learners’ errors. They argue that
children syntax? Language only 3% of errors L2 children make can
Learning, 23, 245–258. be traced back to their L1, and that most
errors are developmental rather than the
result of habit formation. They follow up
Brown’s (1973) findings that L1 children
go through a well-defined order of
acquisition of grammatical morphemes
in English, and find similar patterns in L2
learners.
1974 Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. Although not primarily focused on language
(1974). Working memory. learning, Baddeley and Hitch’s work
In Bower, G. (Ed.), The paved the way for investigating links
psychology of learning and between working memory and SLA.
motivation: Advances in Working memory is now thought to be
research and theory, Vol. 8 central in attending to, processing and
(pp. 47–90). New York: learning vocabulary and morphosyntax.
Academic Press.
Year Text Comment

1974 Bailey, N., Madden, Bailey et al. carry out morpheme studies
C., & Krashen, S. with adult L2 learners and find very
(1974). Is there a similar results to Dulay and Burt (1973).
“natural sequence” in The morpheme studies show for the
adult second language first time that L1 and L2 acquisition are
learning? Language both driven by learner-internal creative
Learning, 24, 235–243. mechanisms rather than behaviourist
principles.
1974 Richards, J. (Ed.). (1974). Richards takes the findings on learners’
Error analysis: Perspectives errors beyond the research laboratory into
on second language learning. the classroom, in this first book-length
London: Longman. analysis of L2 learners’ errors.
1978 Schumann, J. (1978). The With the focus now firmly on the study of
pidginization process: L2 production, Schumann notices that
A model for second language early interlanguages resemble pidgins
acquisition. Rowley, MA: before becoming more complex in ways
Newbury House. similar to the creolization process. He also
claims that L2 learners who feel closer
to the target language community are
likely to make the most progress beyond
the pidgin stage, and terms this process
“acculturation”.
1978 Bialystok, E. (1978). Bialystok is the first to draw a distinction
A theoretical between implicit (subconscious) and
model of second language explicit (conscious) knowledge in SLA,
learning. Language arguing that the two interact, a dichotomy
Learning, 28, 69–84. which has led to much subsequent
theorizing and research.
1979 Givón, T. (1979). From Givón argues that learner speech in early
discourse to syntax: stages resembles the “pragmatic mode”
Grammar as a processing typical of informal speech, relying heavily
strategy. In T. Givón on context. He contrasts this with the
(Ed.), Syntax and “syntactic mode” of more formal styles
semantics (pp. 81–112). which rely more on grammatical coding.
New York: Academic Authors such as Huebner (1983), Dittmar
Press. (1984) and Sato (1990) apply this model
in a range of detailed small-scale L2
studies, in what becomes the functionalist
tradition.
1980 Long, M. (1980). Input, Long’s Ph.D. thesis shows that learners are
interaction and second active partners in L2 interactions rather
language acquisition. than mere recipients of input, negotiating
Ph.D. dissertation, the input in order to maximize its
University of California, comprehensibility, given their current
Los Angeles. developmental level. This work represents
a new focus on the input learners receive
and how they engage with it.
1981 Krashen, S. (1981). Second Krashen develops and refines his Monitor
language acquisition and Model, which claims that “learning”
second language learning. and “acquisition” are different processes.
Oxford: Pergamon. Acquisition is the subconscious process

(Continued)
(Continued)

Year Text Comment

whereby the learner constructs the
grammar of the L2, and conscious
learning (of, for example, grammar rules)
cannot impact on this process. It can only
be used to “monitor” (and, if necessary,
modify) output once an utterance has
been produced by the acquired system.
1981 Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & On the basis of a large-scale study of Italian,
Pienemann, M. (1981). Spanish and Portuguese immigrant
On determining workers in Germany, Meisel et al.
developmental stages in find a clear developmental route in
natural second language the acquisition of German word order,
acquisition. Studies unrelated to the L1 of learners. This
in Second Language study supported earlier claims from the
Acquisition, 18, 109–135. “morpheme studies” about the existence
of developmental orders.
1982 Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Dulay et al. extend the morpheme
Krashen, S. (1982). studies work (Dulay & Burt, 1973) to
Language two. Oxford: larger groups of children and a range
Oxford University Press. of different L1s. They conclude that
children follow a similar order in their
acquisition of 13 English grammatical
morphemes, irrespective of their L1 or
host environment. They also conclude
that the L1 plays a minor role in the L2
acquisition process, and that most errors
produced are developmental.
1983 Flynn, S. (1983). A study One of the very first to apply a generative
of the effects of model to SLA is Flynn. Her doctoral
principal branching dissertation investigates the implications
direction in second of UG theory for L2 acquisition, by
language acquisition: testing whether L2 learners can reset
The generalization of a their L1 parameters to the L2 values. She
parameter of Universal concludes that, in the case of the head
Grammar from first parameter at least, resetting is possible
to second language and occurs very early on. This provided
acquisition. Ph.D. a principled framework for investigating
dissertation, Cornell similarities and differences in L1 and L2
University. acquisition.
1984 Hyltenstam, K. (1984). Hyltenstam relates developmental patterns
The use of typological in L2 acquisition to universal typological
markedness conditions tendencies of the world’s languages. He
as predictors in second shows that L2 learners acquire subject
language acquisition: relative clauses before object relative
The case of pronominal clauses, which in turn are acquired before
copies in relative indirect object, oblique object, genitive
clauses. In R. Andersen and, finally, object of a comparison relative
(Ed.), Second language: clauses, mirroring how common each
A crosslinguistic perspective of these are in the world’s languages.
(pp. 39–58). Rowley, MA: Resorting to typological universals for
Newbury House. explaining L2 acquisition becomes a fairly
productive line of enquiry.
Year Text Comment

1984 Pienemann, M. (1984). Pienemann is the first to link

Psychological constraints developmental stages to learnability
on the teachability and teachability issues, suggesting that
of languages. Studies it is only when a given stage has been
in Second Language acquired that learners will be able to learn
Acquisition, 6, 186–214. the following one.
1985 Krashen, S. (1985). The Krashen further develops his Input
input hypothesis: Issues Hypothesis, arguing that all learners
and implications. Harlow: need in order to acquire an L2 is to be
Longman. exposed to comprehensible input just
beyond their current developmental level
(i + 1).
1985 Swain, M. (1985). Swain argues that not only do learners
Communicative need comprehensible language input, but
competence: Some roles they also need to produce output in order
of comprehensible input to fully develop their communicative
and comprehensible abilities in the L2. This follows research
output in its on immersion students in Canada (who
development. In S. M. are taught their academic subjects through
Gass & C. Madden the medium of L2 French), who become
(Eds.), Input in second close to native-like in comprehension, but
language acquisition not in production.
(pp. 235–253). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
1987 McLaughlin, B. (1987). McLaughlin introduces new ideas from
Theories of second language cognitive psychology to L2 theorizing.
learning. London: Arnold. Specifically he argues that that L2
learning involves processes controlled
by the short-term memory initially.
Through repeated activation, new L2
items become automatized and move
to the long-term memory, from which
they can be retrieved quickly, and
without conscious attention. As new
linguistic structures are incorporated
within the system, restructuring takes
place.
1989 Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). Bley-Vroman argues that there are too
What is the logical many important differences between
problem of foreign L1 and L2 acquisition to claim that
language learning? In UG underpins both. His “fundamental
S. M. Gass & J. Schachter difference hypothesis” claims that L1
(Eds.), Linguistic acquisition can be explained by UG,
perspectives on second but that L2 acquisition is the result of
language acquisition general cognitive mechanisms. This line
(pp. 41–68). Cambridge: of enquiry leads to the application of
Cambridge University constructionist or emergentist models to
Press. the L2 context.

(Continued)
(Continued)

Year Text Comment

1989 White, L. (1989). Universal White’s detailed analysis of the various

Grammar and second options for the role of UG in L2
language acquisition. acquisition provides the theoretical
Amsterdam: John foundations for much later research
Benjamins. within this framework.
1989 Johnson, J., & Newport, Johnson and Newport compare L2
E. (1989). Critical ultimate attainment on a number of
period effects in second English grammatical structures by learners
language learning: The who vary in terms of age of arrival in the
influence of maturational United States. They conclude that there
state on the acquisition is a clear and strong advantage for earlier
of ESL. Cognitive arrivals over the later arrivals and argue
Psychology, 21, 60–99. for the “Critical Period Hypothesis” to be
extended to L2 learners.
1989 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Skehan brings together the role of
differences in foreign individual differences in L2 learning,
language learning. London: in the first book-length treatment.
Arnold. Constructs such as language aptitude,
motivation, personality and anxiety
among others become more widely
researched thereafter.
1990 Schmidt, R. (1990). The Also turning to psychological constructs
role of consciousness in to explain the L2 acquisition process,
second language learning. Schmidt argues that (comprehensible)
Applied Linguistics, 11, input is not sufficient; it needs to
129–158. become intake, and this is done through
“noticing”, i.e. registering a form in the
input.
1991 Cook,V. J. (1991). The Cook argues that the bilingual mind is
poverty-of-the-stimulus not merely two monolingual minds
argument and multi- added together. Not only does the L1
competence. Second have an impact on the L2, but the L2
Language Research, 7, also impacts on the first, and this has
103–117. important implications for a view of the
mental grammar as one (and only one)
instantiation of UG.
1992 Klein, W., & Perdue, C. The functionalist tradition (Givón, 1979)
(1992). Utterance structure: receives a major impetus through an
Developing grammars ambitious L2 adult migrant project funded
again. Amsterdam: John by the European Science Foundation
Benjamins. between 1982 and 1986 and involving
research teams in five European countries
and 10 language pairs. Klein and Perdue
find that all learners, irrespective of L1
and L2, go through similar developmental
stages, and propose a common “Basic
Variety” for all uninstructed learners. The
project provides a very rich dataset widely
used by other researchers.
Year Text Comment

1992 Sokolik, M., & Smith, M. For the first time, researchers resort to
(1992). computer modelling to account for
Assignment of gender to L2 development. Sokolik and Smith
French nouns in primary developed a connectionist network model
and secondary language: which was able to learn the gender of
A connectionist model. French nouns solely on the basis of
Second Language Research, associative patterns.
8, 39–58.
1993 VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, VanPatten’s input processing model, and
T. (1993). Explicit associated processing instruction, pays
instruction and input fresh attention to links between learning
processing. Studies and teaching, arguing that learners initially
in Second Language tend to ignore redundant grammatical
Acquisition, 15, 225–244. information. For example, in He played in
the garden yesterday, learners do not need to
process the -ed inflection for the meaning
of “pastness” as they tend to retrieve
it from the word yesterday. Processing
instruction activities avoid redundancy,
forcing learners to process grammatical
information to extract meaning.
1994 Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (1994). In this special issue of the Modern Language
Socio-cultural theory Journal, Lantolf applied the Vygotskyan
and second language sociocultural framework to L2 acquisition,
learning [Special issue]. arguing that language learning is
The Modern Language quintessentially a mediated social process.
Journal, 78(4). Concepts such as regulation, scaffolding,
the Zone of Proximal Development,
microgenesis, private and inner speech
and activity theory are at the core of
sociocultural analyses of L2 learning.
1994 Bayley, R. (1994). Theorizing from the field of sociolinguistics
Interlanguage variation makes an entry into SLA. In the Labov
and the quantitative sociolinguistic tradition, Bayley applies
paradigm: Past tense a quantitative model based on statistical
marking in Chinese— probabilities (VARBRUL) to the analysis
English. In E.Tarone, S. M. of L2 variation. This methodology is used
Gass & A. Cohen (Eds.), to show how far L2 learners appropriate
Research methodology in target sociolinguistic norms.
second language acquisition
(pp. 157–181). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
1995 Duff, P. (1995). An Continuing the emergence of sociolinguistic
ethnography of concerns in SLA, Duff conducts one of
communication in the first substantial ethnographic studies of
immersion classrooms L2 socialization, in the context of English
in Hungary. TESOL immersion in Hungarian high school.
Quarterly, 29, 505–537.

(Continued)
(Continued)

Year Text Comment

1996 Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, Within UG approaches to SLA, questions

R. (1996). L2 cognitive centre around whether L2 learners start
states and the Full with their L1 parameters initially, and
Transfer/Full Access whether they are able to reset them to
model. Second Language the L2 values (see Flynn, 1983; White,
Research, 12, 40–72. 1989). Schwartz and Sprouse argue for
Vainikka, A.,  & Young- Full Transfer/Full Access; i.e. L2 learners
Scholten, M. (1996). initially transfer all their L1 parameter
Gradual development settings, thereafter resetting them on the
of L2 phrase structure. basis of positive evidence in the input.
Second Language Research, Vainikka and Young-Scholten argue
12, 7–39. that learners start with Minimal Trees, i.e.
lexical projections only (content words),
before being able to project functional
categories such as complementizer
phrases, tense etc., with L2 parameters
coming online gradually.
1997 Lyster, R., & Ranta, E. Lyster and Ranta investigate systematically
(1997). Corrective the type of error feedback provided by
feedback and learner teachers in L2 classrooms. They draw
uptake: Negotiation of conclusions on the relative effectiveness
form in communicative of recasts (where the teacher repeats what
classrooms. Studies the learner has produced, but without the
in Second Language mistake and without any explanation) and
Acquisition, 19, 37–61. other correction types.
1997 Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Larsen-Freeman first develops the
Chaos/complexity argument that language is a complex
science and second adaptive system, and ascribes the particular
language acquisition. characteristics of learner language to its
Applied Linguistics, 18, conditions of emergence.
141–165.
1997 Firth, A., & Wagner, J. In a special issue of the Modern Language
(1997). On discourse, Journal, Firth and Wagner argue
communication and for a reconceptualization of SLA to
some fundamental take account of interactional and
concepts in SLA research. sociolinguistic views of language and
Modern Language Journal, language development. This article made
81, 285–300. a significant contribution to the emerging
“social turn” in SLA research.
1998 Pienemann, M. (1998). Pienemann develops further his model
Language processing of L2 development based on processing
and second language (Pienemann, 1984), stating that learners
acquisition: Processability are initially only able to process linguistic
theory. Amsterdam: John information in local domains before
Benjamins. more distant ones, e.g. at word level
before lexical phrase level, before clause
level, before sentence level and, finally,
discourse level. His model is applied to
the acquisition of a range of L2s (Arabic,
Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese and
Swedish; see Pienemann, 2005).
Year Text Comment

1998 Lardiere, D. (1998). Within the UG tradition and on the basis of

Dissociating syntax the study of an end-state learner, Lardiere
from morphology in a argues that the ability to acquire syntax is
divergent L2 end-state unimpaired in L2 learners and that they
grammar. Second Language still have access to UG parameters for the
Research, 14, 359–375. L2.What is impaired is the ability to map
morphological paradigms onto the relevant
syntactic categories. She shows that after
18 years living and working in the US, this
learner has no problem with syntax but
persistently fails to provide inflections on verbs.
1998 Archibald, J. (1998). Second Archibald brings the development of
language phonology. L2 phonology to the attention of SLA
Amsterdam: John researchers. The late 1990s/early 2000s see
Benjamins. a diversification of SLA, to include studies
of L2 vocabulary, phonology, discourse
and pragmatics becoming commonplace.
1999 Birdsong, D. (Ed.). (1999). Birdsong reviews the evidence relating
Second language acquisition to a Critical Period in the context
and the Critical Period of L2 acquisition (Lenneberg, 1967;
Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Johnson & Newport, 1989). The results
Lawrence Erlbaum. are somewhat inconclusive, with many
studies supporting the Critical Period
Hypothesis but others refuting it. There
are maturational effects in SLA, but these
seem to be gradual rather than resulting
from a discrete cut-off point.
2000 Carroll, S. (2001). Input Carroll proposes an ambitious model
and evidence:The raw outlining the role of processing
materials of second language mechanisms and interaction in SLA. Her
acquisition. Amsterdam: Autonomous Induction Theory is the
John Benjamins. first complex model linking language
representation, processing and learning.
2000 Herschensohn, J. (2000). Developments in generative linguistics, in
The second time around: the shape of Chomsky’s (1995) Minimalist
Minimalism and second Program, have important implications for
language acquisition. SLA theorizing. In a far-reaching new
Amsterdam: John model, Herschensohn outlines these
Benjamins. implications and argues that L2 learners use
a coalition of resources (UG, L1 transfer,
primary linguistic data, input and intake,
instructional bootstrapping) in order to
construct the L2 vocabulary and grammar.
2000 Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. This systematic review and meta-analysis
(2000). Effectiveness of set new standards of reviewing, reporting
L2 instruction: A research and analysis for journals, and research
synthesis and quantitative design standards for those wishing to
meta-analysis. Language inform language teaching. It defined and
Learning, 50, 417–528. re-opened debate into methodological
issues such as different types of language
knowledge and measures of language.

(Continued)
(Continued)

Year Text Comment

2000 Norton, B. (2000). Identity In her study of women migrants living and
and language learning. working in Canada, Norton proposes
Harlow: Longman. a dynamic, poststructuralist view of
learner identity, and treats learner agency
and investment as central to learning
success.
2001 Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second The sociocultural framework sees its first
language acquisition very detailed longitudinal study. Ohta’s
processes in the classroom: investigation of adult Japanese learners of
Learning Japanese. English enables her to gain insights into
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence the role of private speech in L2 learning
Erlbaum. processes, and to document mutual
scaffolding, which, she argues, plays a
crucial role in L2 development.
2001 Hawkins, R. (2001). Within the generative tradition, Hawkins’
Second language syntax: Modulated Structure Building model
A generative introduction. argues that learners start with lexical
Oxford: Blackwell. projections only, gradually building
functional categories, and that they cannot
acquire through UG functional features
(e.g. grammatical gender) not instantiated
in their L1.
2001 Ullman, M. (2001). The Ullman’s articulation of the declarative/
neural basis of lexicon procedural model of memory, with
and grammar in first and supporting neuroanatomical evidence, has
second language: The been influential in explaining differences
declarative/procedural between how language is stored, processed
model. Bilingualism: and accessed in a first and second
Language and Cognition, 4, language.
105–122.
2002 Kasper, G., & Rose, Kasper and Rose carry out a survey of
K. (2002). Pragmatic studies of L2 pragmatic development since
development in a second the early 1980s, putting this hitherto-
language. Oxford: neglected aspect of development firmly
Blackwell. on the SLA map.
2003 Ellis, N. C. (2003). N. C. Ellis has long been one of the
Constructions, chunking, strongest advocates of emergentism,
and connectionism: The arguing that the acquisition of the L2
emergence of second results from the analysis of patterns in
language structure. In the language input, through associative
C. Doughty & M. Long learning processes. In this view, there are
(Eds.), The handbook of no pre-existing rules underpinning the
second language acquisition grammars of languages, only probabilistic
(pp. 63–103). Malden, patterns.
MA: Blackwell.
2004 Paradis, M. (2004). A New and increasingly sophisticated
neurolinguistic theory of technologies (e.g. ERPs [Event-
bilingualism. Amsterdam: Related Potential], fMRI [functional
John Benjamins. Magnetic Resonance Imaging]) are
enabling researchers to investigate the
neurobiological foundations of language
Year Text Comment

in the brain, in a very fast-growing field.

Paradis reviews neuroimaging studies
of the multilingual brain, proposing
a linguistic theory of bilingualism
integrating a neurofunctional model
and a set of hypotheses about language
processing.
2004 Truscott, J., & Sharwood Truscott and Sharwood Smith introduce
Smith, M. (2004). their model of language development,
Acquisition by MOGUL (Modular Online Growth and
processing: A modular Use of Language). It is a processing model
perspective on based on a modular view of language, in
language development. which competence is embodied in the
Bilingualism: Language and processing mechanisms. They argue that
Cognition, 7, 1–20. the development of language (L1 or L2)
occurs as a natural product of processing
activity, without any acquisition
mechanisms as such.
2005 Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Dörnyei proposes a new approach to
psychology of the language conceptualizing L2 motivation, the “L2
learner: Individual motivational self system”. This model is
differences in second grounded in psychological research on the
language acquisition. self, and proposes the imagined “ideal L2
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence self ” as an alternative to the concept of
Erlbaum. integrative motivation.
2005 O’Grady, W. (2005). O’Grady’s book gives a full account of
Syntactic carpentry: An his emergentist approach to explaining
emergentist approach to language structure and learning, using
syntax. Mahwah, NJ: the notion of a computational processing
Lawrence Erlbaum. device that is driven by the need for
efficiency.
2006 Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. In this book-length treatment, Lantolf
(2006). Sociocultural theory and Thorne provide an authoritative
and the genesis of second overview of sociocultural theory and its
language development. application to L2 development, including
Oxford: Oxford newer strands such as concept-based
University Press. instruction and dynamic assessment.
2007 DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). DeKeyser has been one of the main
Practice in a second proponents of skill acquisition approaches
language: Perspectives to adult L2 learning, around which the
from applied linguistics early information processing models
and cognitive psychology. were built. DeKeyser proposes that adult
Cambridge: Cambridge L2 learners tend to use explicit learning
University Press. mechanisms, resulting in age-related
differences. This volume brings together
studies underpinned by the notion that
controlled knowledge gradually becomes
automatized via practice.

(Continued)
(Continued)

Year Text Comment

2008 Hawkins, R. (Ed.). (2008). In this special issue of Lingua, Hawkins

Current emergentist brings together leading researchers to
and nativist perspectives debate the strengths and weaknesses
on second language of UG-based accounts of SLA (see
acquisition [Special White, 1989; Hawkins, 2001; Lardiere,
issue]. Lingua, 118. 1998) versus emergentist explanations
(where second language learning is an
associationist process: see N. C. Ellis, 2003)
2008 Hellermann, J. (2008). In this book-length study, Hellermann
Social actions for classroom analyses a longitudinal video corpus of
language learning. ESL lessons using conversation analysis
Clevedon: Multilingual technique, and demonstrates in detail how
Matters. participants develop their interactional
competence in context.
2009 Thorne, S. L., Black, This paper by Thorne et al. is an
R. W., & Sykes, J. M. important example of a growing tradition
(2009). Second language of research into how L2 socialization can
use, socialization, and take place informally and online through
learning in internet activities such as fan fiction and internet
interest communities gaming.
and online gaming. The
Modern Language Journal,
93, 802–821.
2009 Lam, W. S. E. (2009). In this case study Lam analyses the
Multiliteracies on instant multilingual online literacy practices
messaging in negotiating of an adolescent transnational migrant.
local, translocal, and The paper sheds light on translocal
transnational affiliations: forms of linguistic diversity and literacy
A case of an adolescent development in migration settings.
immigrant. Reading
Research Quarterly, 44(4),
377–397.
2010 Lyster, R., & Saito, K. Oral feedback studies were sufficiently
(2010). Oral feedback in numerous for Lyster and Saito to
classroom SLA: A meta- undertake a meta-analysis of 15 studies,
analysis. Studies in Second reported here. They conclude that
Language Acquisition, feedback is generally beneficial for
32(2), 265–302. instructed learners, especially where
further practice is promoted, but much
remains to be learned about individual
responses to feedback.
2011 Schmid, M. (2011). Language attrition (loss or changes in
Language attrition. a language arising from disuse) is of
Cambridge: Cambridge theoretical interest for psycholinguists
University Press. and of practical interest for educators. In
offering the field a book-length treatment,
Schmid has stimulated a new strand of
empirical research.
Year Text Comment

2012 Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive In this book, Tyler develops a meaning-

linguistics and second based theory of language (“cognitive
language learning: linguistics”) and associated pedagogy
Theoretical basics and which promotes L2 learners’ conceptual
experimental evidence. understanding of the semantics underlying
Abingdon/New York: language forms.
Routledge.
2013 Bardovi-Harlig, K. L2 pragmatics has developed its own
(2013). Developing L2 distinctive research tradition, and
pragmatics. Language Bardovi-Harlig takes stock in this paper
Learning, 63, 68–86. of the methodological approaches and
measurement tools, arguing for a focus on
the “twinned development of grammar
and pragmatics”.
2013 Ortega, L. (2013). SLA Ortega makes a strong argument
for the 21st century: for a “multilingual turn” in SLA,
Disciplinary progress, which acknowledges the normality
transdisciplinary of bi- or multilingualism and the
relevance, and the bi/ interconnectedness and mutual influence
multilingual turn. between languages in language knowledge
Language Learning, 63, and language use.
1–24.
2014 Han, Z.-H., & Tarone, In this edited volume Han and Tarone
E. (Eds.). (2014). have collected varied commentaries
Interlanguage: Forty years on the “interlanguage” construct, its
later. Amsterdam: John foundational role in SLA and its evolution
Benjamins. over time.
2014 Plonsky, L. (2014). Study In numerous methodological papers,
quality in quantitative L2 Plonsky encourages the field to reassess
research (1990–2010): and improve the use made of statistics
A methodological in L2 research, and in promoting the
synthesis and call for adoption of measures such as effect sizes,
reform. The Modern and of techniques such as meta-analysis.
Language Journal, 98, This paper gives an illustration of his
450–470. arguments.
2015 Montrul, S. (2015). The “Heritage” languages are yet another
acquisition of heritage research domain which has risen to
languages. Cambridge: prominence thanks to transnational
Cambridge University migration: as the languages learned in
Press. the home or community by the children
of minority language speakers, alongside
another socially dominant language, their
development is distinctive and may be
incomplete. Here, Montrul presents a
state-of-the-art overview of heritage
language research.

(Continued)
(Continued)

Year Text Comment

2015 Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, In this edited volume, Deters et al. bring
E. R., & Vitanova, G. together a representative group of papers
(2015). Theorizing and on the role of learner agency in second
analyzing agency in language socialization and multilingual
second language learning: practice and development.
Interdisciplinary approaches.
Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
2015 Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Rebuschat acknowledges the founding role
Implicit and explicit of Krashen in exploring the conceptual
learning of languages. distinction between implicit and explicit
Amsterdam: John learning. Here, he has brought together
Benjamins. theorists from a range of backgrounds in
this interdisciplinary volume to take stock
of current research, including applications
of new methodologies such as eye-tracking
and Event-Related Potentials research.
2016 Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & N. C. Ellis and his colleagues address
Brook O’Donnell, the processing and acquisition of verb-
M. B. (2016). Usage- argument constructions from a usage-
based approaches to based perspective, in a comprehensive
language acquisition and way. They bring together a wide range of
processing: Cognitive and psycholinguistic, corpus and experimental
corpus investigations of evidence, as well as theoretical guidance
construction grammar and methodological commentary.
[Special issue]. Language
Learning, 66(S1).
2016 Marsden, E., Mackey There is a general movement in
A., & Plonsky, L. (2016). international science towards greater
The IRIS Repository: openness and sharing of methods and data,
Advancing research as well as research findings. Marsden,
practice and methodology. Mackey and Plonsky describe here
In A. Mackey & E. the rationale and nature of the IRIS
Marsden (Eds.), Advancing repository of research instruments, which
methodology and practice: offers SLA researchers access to a highly
The IRIS Repository of valuable resource.
Instruments for Research
into Second Languages
(pp. 1–21). New York:
Routledge.
2017 Loewen, S., & Sato, M. This volume edited by Loewen and Sato
(Eds.). (2017). The bears witness to the gradual emergence
Routledge handbook of of “instructed SLA” as an independent
instructed second language subfield of research.
acquisition. Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
2018 Benati, A., & Rastelli, Neurolinguistics and its associated
S. (Eds.). (2018). methodologies are becoming reference
Neurolinguistics and points in psycholinguistic studies of L2
the language classroom. learning. Benati and Rastelli have
[Special issue]. Second assembled a special issue which illustrates
Language Research, 34(1). applications of this field in SLA.
 The Recent History of SLL Research 77
Note
1 Asterisks are traditionally used in linguistics in order to indicate ungrammatical

sentences.

References
Aitchison, J. (2008). The articulate mammal (5th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Andersen, R. W. (1990). Models, processes, principles and strategies: Second language
acquisition inside and outside of the classroom. In B. VanPatten & J. Lee (Eds.), Sec-
ond language acquisition – foreign language learning (pp. 45–68). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Andersen, R.W., & Shirai,Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition
principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133–156.
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a natural sequence in adult second
language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243.
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language:The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cazden, C. (1972). Child language and education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B.F. Skinner,Verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.
Chomsky, N. (1987). Transformational grammar: Past, present and future. In Studies in
English language and literature (pp. 33–80). Kyoto: Kyoto University.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cook,V. (2016). Where is the native speaker now? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 186–189.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5, 161–169.
de Bot, K. (2015). A history of applied linguistics 1980–2010. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
De Villiers, P. A., & De Villiers, J. G. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the development of
grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 299–310.
Dittmar, N. (1984). Semantic features of pidginised learners of German. In R. Andersen
(Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 243–270). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 24,
245–258.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 24, 37–53.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language learning and
teaching. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teach-
ing, and bilingual education (pp. 21–32). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking and connectionism. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford: Blackwell.
78  The Recent History of SLL Research
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition: Experimental studies in anaphora.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian perspective.
Applied Linguistics, 6, 19–44.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning:The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gass, S. M. (2009). A historical survey of SLA research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bha-
tia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 3–28). Bingley: Emerald
Group.
Gass, S. M., Behney, L., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Givón, R. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón
(Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 81–112). New York:Academic Press.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.
Han, Z.-H., & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1972). Early code separation in the second language speech of Spanish-
speaking children. Paper presented at the Stanford Child Language Research Forum,
Stanford University, Stanford.
Holme, R. (2013). Emergentism, connectionism and complexity. In J. Herschensohn &
M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 605–626). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houck, N., Robertson, J., & Krashen, S. (1978). On the domain of the conscious gram-
mar: Morpheme orders for corrected and uncorrected ESL student transcripts. TESOL
Quarterly, 12, 335–339.
Howatt, A. P. R. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Huebner, T. (1983). The acquisition of English. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Hulstijn,W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing con-
straints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J.
Lyons & R. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistic papers (183–219). Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Krashen, S., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in second language acquisi-
tion and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283–300.
Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state
grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. Harlow: Longman.
 The Recent History of SLL Research 79
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.
Long, M. H. (1983a). Native speaker/non native speaker conversation and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Myles, F. (2010). The development of theories of second language acquisition. Language
Teaching, 43, 320–332.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary rel-
evance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1–24.
Ortega, L. (2014).Trying out theories of interlanguage: Description and explanation over
40 years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty
years later (pp. 173–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia, OH: Columbia University Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (Ed.). (1980). Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pica, T.,Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension.
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. London: Penguin Books.
Richards, J. (Ed.). (1974). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language learning. London:
Longman.
Rivers, W. M. (1964). The psychologist and the foreign-language teacher. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Rivers,W. M. (1968). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sato, C. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr Verlag.
Schumann, J. (1978a). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Row-
ley, MA: Newbury House.
Schumann, J. (1978b). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.
Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27–50). Arling-
ton,VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. (1978c). Social and psychological factors in second language acquisition. In
J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and approaches
(pp. 163-178). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sebba, M. (1997). Contact languages: Pidgins and creoles. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219–231.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. Harlow:
Longman.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1970). Universals of grammatical development in children. In G. Flores d’Arcais &
W. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
80  The Recent History of SLL Research
Slobin, D. I. (1979). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Slobin, D. I. (Ed.). (1985). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Tarone, E. (2015). Second language acquisition in applied linguistics: 1925–2015 and
beyond. Applied Linguistics, 36, 444–453.
Thomas, M. (2004). Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: A history. Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Thomas, M. (2013). History of the study of second language acquisition. In M. Young-
Scholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 26–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Columbia Teachers College.
Tran-Chi-Chau. (1975). Error analysis, contrastive analysis and students’ perception:
A study of difficulty in second language learning. International Review of Applied Lin-
guistics, 13, 119–143.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Early theories in SLA. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 17–33). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Watson, J. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
3 Linguistics and Language
Learning
The Universal Grammar
Approach

 . . . all human languages do share the same structure. More explicitly: they have
essentially the same primitive elements and rules of composition . . . , although
of course there may be variations, such as the obvious ones derived from the
arbitrary association between sounds and meanings . . .
(Moro, 2016, p. 15)

3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, we start to consider individual theoretical perspectives on
L2 learning in greater detail. Our first topic is the Universal Grammar (UG)
approach (the generative linguistics approach), developed by the American
linguist Noam Chomsky and numerous followers over the last few decades.
This has been the most influential linguistic theory in the field, and has
inspired a wealth of publications (for full-length treatments, see Hawkins,
2001; Herschensohn, 2000; Lardiere, 2007; Leung, 2009; Slabakova, 2016;
Snape & Kupisch, 2016; Thomas, 2004; White, 2003; Whong, Gil, & Mars-
den, 2013).
The main aim of linguistic theory is twofold: firstly, to characterize what
human languages are like (descriptive adequacy), and, secondly, to explain
why they are that way (explanatory adequacy). In terms of L2 acquisition,
a linguistic approach sets out to describe the evolving language produced
by L2 learners, and to explain its characteristics. UG is therefore a prop-
erty theory (as defined in Chapter 1); that is, it attempts to characterize
the underlying linguistic knowledge in L2 learners’ minds. In contrast, a
detailed examination of the learning process itself (transition theory) will
be the main concern of the cognitive approaches which we describe in
Chapters 4 and 5.
First in this chapter, we will give a broad definition of the aims of the
Chomskyan tradition in linguistic research, in order to identify the aspects
of second language acquisition (SLA) to which this tradition is most relevant.
Secondly, we will examine the concept of UG itself in some detail, and
finally we will consider its application in L2 learning research.
82  Linguistics and Language Learning
3.2 Why a Universal Grammar?

3.2.1  Aims of Linguistic Research

The main goals of linguistic theory, as defined by Chomsky (1986a), are to
answer three basic questions about human language:

1. What constitutes knowledge of language?

2. How is knowledge of language acquired?
3. How is knowledge of language put to use?

(“Knowledge of language” is an ambiguous term. Here, it means the subcon-

scious mental representation of language which underpins all language use.)
All three questions are also of concern to SLA researchers. They can be
briefly developed as follows:

1. What Constitutes Knowledge of Language?

From a generative perspective, linguistic theory aims to describe the rep-
resentations of language which are stored in the human mind. It aims to
define what all human languages have in common, as well as the distinc-
tive characteristics which make human language different from other sys-
tems of communication. It also needs to specify in what ways individual
human languages can differ from one another, as they clearly do. However,
Chomsky (e.g. 2000) argues that to a Martian landing on Earth, the dif-
ferences between human languages would seem like variations on a single
theme.
The UG approach views language as a genetic endowment. In the 1980s,
this was conceptualized by claiming that all human beings inherit a universal
set of abstract principles and parameters which constrain (limit) the shape
human languages can take, and which make human languages similar to
one another. In his Government and Binding theory, Chomsky (1981, 1986a,
1986b) argues that the core of human language must comprise these two
components. His proposed principles are unvarying and apply to all natural
languages (see Section 3.3.1). In contrast, parameters possess a limited num-
ber of open values which characterize differences between languages (para-
metric variation; see Section 3.3.2). In recent years, the notion of parameter
has undergone major reconceptualization following Chomsky’s Minimalist
Program (1995, 2000, 2005, 2007a, 2007b), in which he argues that the core
of human language is the lexicon (the morpheme and word store).The lexi-
con itself consists of two elements:

lexical categories (dog; give)



Lexicon
functional categories (the; which)

 Linguistics and Language Learning 83
We will define these elements in more detail later (in Section 3.3.1). Basi-
cally, lexical categories include “content” words such as verbs and nouns,
and functional categories include “grammatical” words such as determin-
ers or auxiliaries, as well as abstract grammatical features such as tense or
agreement.
In the Minimalist Program, parametric variation is located within the
lexicon, primarily within functional categories. UG makes available a set
of features (phonological; semantic; formal morphosyntactic), and languages
select and combine these features differently, causing the various surface
differences in word order, morphology and so on which we are familiar
with. UG in this view is thought to consist of a universal computational
system which specifies how words can combine to form syntactic units,
and a universal inventory of features. These features are then assembled
into lexical and functional items (Domínguez, 2013; Eguren, Fernandez-
Soriano, & Mendikoetxea, 2016; Lardiere, 2012; Roberts, 2017b; Slabakova,
2016; Sorace, 2011; White, 2009b). Parametric variation in this view is due
to different languages selecting different features from the universal set avail-
able, and also bundling them differently within functional categories, giving
rise to different form-function mappings.Within SLA theorizing, the earlier
principles and parameters approach is gradually being replaced by this newer
conceptualization of parametric variation being localized in the different
ways in which languages map functional features onto functional categories.
SLA involves remapping of these features as appropriate to the L2, which can
be the source of considerable difficulty for the learner.
UG is a general theory of language, which should therefore apply to
learner language, as one possible variety of language alongside other lan-
guage varieties. In practice, one of the main interests of the UG approach
for SLA research is that it provides a detailed descriptive framework which
enables researchers to formulate well-defined hypotheses about the task
facing the learner, and to analyse learner language in a more principled
manner.

2.  How Is Knowledge of Language Acquired?

Evidently each language is the result of the interplay of two factors: the initial
state and the course of experience.We can think of the initial state as a “language
acquisition device” that takes experience as “input” and gives the language as an
“output”—an “output” that is internally represented in the mind/brain.
(Chomsky, 2000, p. 4)

How does the child create the mental construct that is language? Chomsky
first resorted to the concept of UG because he believes that children could
not learn their first language so quickly and effortlessly without the help of
an innate language faculty to guide them. The so-called logical problem of
language learning is that on the basis of highly complex and often messy
84  Linguistics and Language Learning
input (spoken language is full of false starts, unfinished sentences, slips of
the tongue and so on), children create a mental representation of language
which not only goes beyond the input they are exposed to (children use
language creatively), but is also strikingly similar to that of other speakers of
the same language variety. Children achieve this at an age when they have
difficulty grasping abstract concepts, yet language is among the most abstract
pieces of knowledge they will ever possess. If there is a biologically endowed
UG, this would make the task facing children much easier, by providing a
genetic blueprint which predetermines much of the shape which language
will take.
If we now turn to L2 learning, learners are faced with the same logical
problem of having to construct abstract mental representations of the new
language on the basis of limited samples of language. But this does not mean
to say that L2 learners necessarily set about the learning challenge in the
same way as children. After all, their needs are very different, if only because
they are already successful communicators in one language, and because they
already have a mental representation of language, with the parameters set
to the values of their L1. Moreover, L2 learners are cognitively mature and
therefore presumably much better equipped to solve problems and to deal
with abstract concepts. From a theoretical point of view, therefore, different
possible scenarios are open to consideration:

• L2 grammars are fully constrained by UG (Full Functional

Representation). The L2 is one example of a natural language, and it is
constrained by UG in the same way as native grammars.Within this view,
there is a range of different possibilities. For example, some researchers
believe that L2 learners start off with the parameter settings of their L1,
and reset them on the basis of input. Others believe that L2 learners have
the full range of UG parameters available to them from the beginning,
like L1 children, and do not resort to L1 parameter settings in the first
instance. Others again believe that L2s gradually draw on UG, and that,
e.g., functional categories are not available to learners at the beginning
of the learning process but are acquired gradually. Within the Minimal-
ist view of parameters as the various options available for selecting and
mapping features onto lexical items, the task facing learners is seen as
having to remap features and morphophonological forms appropriately
onto the L2. All these approaches believe that the L2 grammar is con-
strained by UG and can (but does not necessarily) become native-like
(Hawkins, 2008a, 2008b; Lardiere, 2000, 2007, 2009, 2012; Rothman &
Slabakova, 2018; Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996; Slabakova, 2016;Vainikka &
Young-Scholten, 1996a; White, 2003, 2009a, 2009b).

• UG does not constrain L2 grammars OR UG is impaired (Rep-

resentational Deficit). Some researchers believe that L2 grammars
are fundamentally different from L1 grammars because they are not
 Linguistics and Language Learning 85
constrained any longer by UG, and learners have to resort to general
learning mechanisms (Bley-Vroman, 1989), potentially giving rise to
“wild” grammars, i.e. grammars which do not necessarily conform
to the general rules underlying natural human languages (e.g. Mei-
sel, 1997), although that view has not received much support recently
(Schwartz & Sprouse, 2017). Other researchers believe that only the
parameters instantiated (activated) in the learners’ L1 will be available,
and that parameter resetting is impossible; for example, features which
have not been selected in the L1 are no longer available (grammati-
cal gender in genderless languages for example). Within this view, the
L2 grammar does not violate UG principles and parameters (it is not
“wild”), but it can never become identical with that of L1 speakers
of the same language (Hawkins, 2001, 2009; Hawkins & Chan, 1997;
Hawkins & Franceschina, 2004; Tsimpli & Dimitrakopoulou, 2007).

There is considerable controversy around all these issues, and we revisit

them in Section 3.5.

3.  How Is Knowledge of Language Put to Use?

The UG approach is concerned with the abstract mental representation
of language and the computational mechanisms associated with it which
all human beings possess. This mental representation is commonly called
competence. It is not about performance, i.e. about how language is used
in real life. Performance requires a theory of language use, in which lin-
guistic competence is only one aspect, and psycholinguistic factors such
as the brain’s information processing systems also come into play, as well
as domain-general cognitive variables and sociocultural factors. Although
Chomsky acknowledges that this is an important area for research, he has
been concerned almost exclusively with exploring linguistic competence,
and this has also been true for UG-inspired research in SLA. Recently, how-
ever, generative linguists have been increasingly concerned with how dif-
ferent language modules (syntax, phonology, semantics) interface with one
another (Domínguez, 2013; Serratrice, Sorace, & Paoli, 2004; Sorace & Ser-
ratrice, 2009), and with non-linguistic modules such as the sensory-motor
system (SM—involved in perception and production of language) and the
conceptual-intentional system (CI—involved in thought and information
structure), as well as the processing system (Sharwood Smith, 2017: see dis-
cussion in Chapter 10). In turn, these new foci, as well as the new methodol-
ogies available to researchers to investigate language processing in real time,
have led to somewhat increased attention to the domain of performance and
what it can tell us about competence (Chomsky, 2005, 2007b; de Villiers &
Roeper, 2011; Di Sciullo et al., 2010; Lardiere, 2012; Rothman, Bayram,
Cunnings, & González Alonso, in press; Sharwood Smith, 2017; Tsimpli &
Sorace, 2006; White, 2009a). Additionally, the role of the input in providing
86  Linguistics and Language Learning
sufficient evidence and clear cues about certain properties is increasingly
seen as crucial within generative SLA (Rankin & Unsworth, 2016; Roth-
man & Slabakova, 2018).

3.2.2 Arguments for UG from L1 Acquisition

In this section, we will review in more detail the arguments which sup-
port the existence of an innate language faculty in children. We will start
from the characteristics of L1 acquisition outlined in Chapter 2, and sum-
marized here:

1. Children go through developmental stages;

2. These stages are very similar among children learning the same lan-
guage, although individual children’s rate of progress is variable;
3. These stages are similar across languages;
4. Child language is rule-governed and systematic, though the rules cre-
ated by the child often do not correspond to adult ones;
5. Children are resistant to correction;
6. Children’s processing capacity limits the number of rules they can apply
at any one time, and they will revert to earlier hypotheses when two or
more rules compete.

Universalists could not conclude from such evidence alone that there must
be a specific language module in the brain. These regularities, although very
striking, could be due to the more general cognitive makeup of human
beings. After all, children learning maths or learning to play the piano also
go through fairly well-defined stages, although not at such a young age and
not necessarily so successfully, and they need to be taught these skills, unlike
language. Indeed, many non-UG researchers believe that language acquisi-
tion uses the same kind of information processing as other kinds of learning,
as we will see in Chapters 4 and 5.
However, another striking feature of child language is that it does not
seem to be linked in any clear way to intelligence. Children do vary in the
age and speed at which they go through each developmental step. By age
4 or 5, though, individual differences have largely disappeared, and the late
starter has usually caught up with the precocious child.
Not only is language development not directly linked to intelligence, but
it also involves mastering a highly complex and abstract kind of knowledge.
To give an example of the complexities which children have to disentangle,
consider the following English reflexive sentences, some of them grammati-
cal and others ungrammatical:

a. John saw himself.

b. *Himself saw John.
c. Looking after himself bores John.
 Linguistics and Language Learning 87
d. John said that Fred liked himself.
e. *John said that Fred liked himself.
f. John told Bill to wash himself.
g. *John told Bill to wash himself.
h. John promised Bill to wash himself.
i. John believes himself to be intelligent.
j. *John believes that himself is intelligent.
k. John showed Bill a picture of himself.

(Examples are taken from White, 1989, cited in Lightbown & Spada, 2013,
pp. 20–21. In all these sentences, italics are used to indicate the noun and the
pronoun which refer to the same person; asterisks indicate ungrammaticality—
i.e. the two words in italics cannot co-refer.)
Now imagine you are the child trying to work out the relationship
between the reflexive pronoun and its antecedent.You might conclude from
(a) and (b) that the reflexive pronoun must follow the noun it refers to, but
(c) disproves this. Sentences (d), (e), (f) and (g) might lead you to believe that
the closest noun is the antecedent, but (h) shows that this cannot be right
either. It is also evident from (h) that the reflexive and its antecedent do not
have to be in the same clause. Furthermore, the reflexive can be in subject
position in (i), an untensed clause, but not in (j), a tensed clause. Moreover,
the reflexive can sometimes have two possible antecedents, as in (k), where
himself can refer to either John or Bill.
These few sentences illustrate the magnitude of the task facing children; how
can they make sense of data like this, and invariably arrive at the correct rule?
In support of the view that language is not linked to intelligence, there is
also relevant evidence from children with cognitive deficits who nonethe-
less develop language normally (Bartke & Siegmuller, 2004; Bishop, 2001;
Bishop & Mogford, 1993). For example, Bellugi,Van Hoek, Lillo-Martin, and
O’Grady (1993) studied children suffering from Williams syndrome, a rare
metabolic disorder which causes mental impairment, as well as other physical
symptoms.They demonstrated that individuals whose overall mental develop-
ment is otherwise very slow and remains below that of a 7-year-old can make
sophisticated use of language with complex syntax and adult-like vocabulary.
Smith and Tsimpli (1995; Smith, Tsimpli, Morgan, & Woll, 2011) have
studied in detail the exceptional case of a brain-damaged man, Christopher,
who is institutionalized because he is unable to look after himself, but who
can read, write and communicate in many languages:

The most salient feature is a striking mismatch between his verbal and
non-verbal abilities, supported by test results over a prolonged period
and with recent documentation across a wide range of different tests.
The basic generalization is that he combines a relatively low perfor-
mance IQ with an average or above average verbal IQ.
(Smith & Tsimpli, 1995, p. 4)
88  Linguistics and Language Learning
Evidence of the opposite is also found: children who are cognitively “nor-
mal”, but whose language is impaired, sometimes severely. This condition,
known as Specific Language Impairment (SLI), is characterized by “(persis-
tent) difficulties with the productive rules of word-formation, the morpho-
syntactic prerequisites of feature agreement and the construction of complex
phonological units” (Lorenzo & Longa, 2003, p. 645; see also van der Lely,
1998; J. Paradis, Rice, Crago, & Marquis, 2008). One English-speaking fam-
ily has been studied, in which 16 out of 30 members in the last three gen-
erations suffer from SLI, suggesting that it is an inherited disorder, and that
some aspects of language at least might be genetically controlled (Gopnik &
Crago, 1991). Recently, the gene FOXP2 has been discovered, whose muta-
tion apparently leads to SLI (Lai, Fisher, Hurst,Vargha-Khadem, & Faraneh,
2001; Pinel et al., 2012; Reuter et al., 2017).
The picture we have just outlined of the relationship between brain and
language is necessarily very oversimplified. (For more detailed accounts, see,
for example, Friederici, 2017; Jenkins, 2000; Lorenzo & Longa, 2003.) From
such evidence, it has been concluded that specific areas of the brain deal
with specific aspects of language. Recent advances in brain-imaging tech-
niques have also supported this view, although the picture is becoming more
complex as techniques become more sophisticated (Carter, 1998; Dörnyei,
2009; M. Paradis, 2004).
Evidence such as this has been used by universalists to propose that there
must be some kind of innate language faculty which is biologically trig-
gered, in order to explain why language in children just seems to “grow”.
An influential book by Lenneberg (1967) called The Biological Foundations of
Language outlined the characteristics which are typical of biologically trig-
gered behaviour (such as learning to walk), and argued that language con-
forms to these.
Aitchison (2008, p. 71) presents Lenneberg’s criteria as a list of six features:

1. “The behaviour emerges before it is necessary”. Children start talking

long before they need to: they are still being fed and looked after, and
therefore do not need language for survival.
2. “Its appearance is not the result of a conscious decision”. It is quite
obvious that children do not get up one morning and decide to start
talking, whereas they might consciously decide to learn to ride a bike
or play the piano.
3. “Its emergence is not triggered by external events (though the sur-
rounding environment must be sufficiently ‘rich’ for it to develop ade-
quately)”. Although children need language around them in order to
learn it, there is no single event which will suddenly trigger language
development.
4. “Direct teaching and intensive practice have relatively little effect”. We
have seen in Chapter 2 how oblivious children seem to be to correction.
 Linguistics and Language Learning 89
5. “There is a regular sequence of ‘milestones’ as the behaviour develops,
and these can usually be correlated with age and other aspects of devel-
opment”. Just as a baby will sit up before standing up before walking
before running, we have seen how children go through well-defined
stages in their language development, which tend to run parallel to
physical development. The onset of the first words usually roughly cor-
responds to the onset of walking for example.
6. “There may be a ‘critical period’ for the acquisition of the behaviour”. It
is often argued that for normal development, human beings have to be
exposed to language before puberty.This is a controversial issue; the evi-
dence from children who have been deprived of language in their early
years is difficult to interpret, as it is not usually known whether they
might have been born with other disabilities (Curtiss, 1977; Eubank &
Gregg, 1999; Smith, 1999). We examine in Section 3.5.3 the evidence
that adult L2 learners bring to this ongoing debate.

After having reviewed the kind of argumentation used by universalists in

order to propose the existence of a language-specific module in the brain,
we now turn to the question of what this so-called language faculty or UG
might be like.

3.3 What Does UG Consist Of?

The aim of this section is to illustrate UG sufficiently to understand how it has
been applied to the study of language acquisition. Generative linguistics is very
complex and has changed considerably in the last 60 years or so, from the early
phase of phrase structure rules to the more recent Minimalist Program. How-
ever, its primary goal has remained the same, that is, to characterize the innate
language faculty: “The problem that has virtually defined the serious study of
language since its ancient origins, if only implicitly, is to identify the specific
nature of this distinctive human possession” (Chomsky, 2007a, p. 1).The vary-
ing emphases over the years have essentially resulted from tension between
“descriptive” and “explanatory” adequacy. In the case of UG, the search for
descriptive adequacy has attempted to account for the details of increasing
numbers of typologically unrelated languages, while the search for explanatory
adequacy has aimed to make effective cross-language generalizations:

A theory of language must show how each particular language can be

derived from a uniform initial state under the “boundary conditions” set
by experience . . . The search for descriptive adequacy seems to lead to
ever greater complexity and variety of rule systems, while the search for
explanatory adequacy requires that language structure must be invariant,
except at the margins.
(Chomsky, 2000, p. 7)
90  Linguistics and Language Learning
In recent accounts, three factors are argued to contribute to language design
(Berwick & Chomsky, 2016; Chomsky, 2005; Huang & Roberts, 2017;Yang,
Crain, Berwick, Chomsky, & Bolhuis, 2017):

• Genetic endowment (UG);

• Experience (PLD—Primary Linguistic Data);
• Principles not specific to the faculty of language (located in general
cognitive systems such as logical reasoning and memory, computational
efficiency, minimality and general laws of nature).

Whatever exact description of UG is entertained, the general concept

remains the same: “UG will be the smallest amount of innate structure
needed to explain outcome competence that ultimately cannot be reduced
to deduction from the input and domain-general cognition alone” (Roth-
man et al., in press, p. 5).
Next, we will examine more concretely what UG consists of, that is, what
might be invariant in human language (the principles of the Principles and
Parameters model; the inventory of features and the computational system in
the Minimalist Program), and what varies across languages (the parameters
of Principles and Parameters and, in the Minimalist Program, the parametric
variation linked to feature selection and feature mapping onto functional
categories). We consider both the earlier Principles and Parameters model
and the later Minimalist Program, as both remain active points of reference
in L2 research.

3.3.1 What Is Invariant in Human Language?

We have seen earlier that, according to early generative views, the L1 learner’s
initial state consists of a set of universal language principles. Individual lan-
guages vary in limited ways, expressible in terms of innate parameters which
need to be selected on the basis of exposure to language evidence (Lardiere,
2012; Slabakova, 2016; White, 2009a). In current Minimalist thinking, the
genetic endowment for languages is thought to consist only of a closed
inventory of universal features which languages select from and assemble in
different ways, and the unique structure-building operation Merge, which
we will exemplify (Eguren et al., 2016; Roberts, 2017a).
From the point of view of acquisition, the general idea is that language
learning is highly constrained in advance, thus making the task for the child
much more manageable. In this section, we will first of all examine one
concrete example of a principle common to all languages. Next, we will
consider the array of lexical and functional categories which UG also makes
available, and how the Minimalist idea of universal features is relevant to
language learning (de Villiers & Roeper, 2011; Meisel, 2011).
Our first example is the well-known principle of structure dependency,
which states that language organization depends on the structural relation-
ships between elements in a sentence, which are combined in a binary
 Linguistics and Language Learning 91
fashion through a single operation, Merge. That is to say, individual words
and morphemes are regrouped into higher level abstract structures which
are the building blocks of language. Intuitively, we know that this is the case.
In the following sentences,

a. She bought a new car yesterday

b. My friend bought a new car yesterday
c. The friend that I met in Australia last year bought a new car yesterday
d. The friend I am closest to and who was so supportive when I lost my job two
years ago bought a new car yesterday.

we know that she, my friend, the friend that I met in Australia last year, and the
friend I am closest to and who was so supportive when I lost my job two years ago are
groupings which play the same role in the sentence, and in fact might refer to
one single individual. Moreover, we also know that we could carry on adding
details about this friend more or less indefinitely by using devices such as and,
that, which etc., running the risk of boring our listener to tears! We also know
that the crucial word in these groupings is friend, or she if we have already
referred to this person earlier in the conversation. This kind of grouping is
called a Phrase; in the examples above, we are dealing with a Noun Phrase, as
the main or central element (the head) of this phrase is a noun (or pronoun).
It turns out that all languages in the world are structured in this way, and are
made up of sentences which consist of at least a Noun Phrase (NP) and a
Verb Phrase (VP), as in [NPPaul][VPsings], which in turn may optionally con-
tain other phrases or even whole sentences, as in (d) above.
This knowledge—that languages are structure-dependent—is a crucial
aspect of all human languages which has many implications; it is a principle
or invariant feature of UG which explains many of the operations we rou-
tinely perform on language. For example, when we ask a question in English,
we change the basic order of the sentence:

Your cat   is   friendly
Subject   Verb   
Complement

Is   your cat  friendly?

Verb  Subject  
Complement

This movement is not based on the linear order of the sentence, but is
structure-dependent.We do not move the first verb we encounter, or, say, the
third word in the sentence, rules which would work in the above example,
but would generate ungrammatical sentences in the following example:

The cat who is friendly is ginger

*Is the cat who friendly is ginger?
*Who the cat is friendly is ginger?
92  Linguistics and Language Learning
The correct question here is of course Is the cat who is friendly ginger?, where
the second is is moved to the beginning of the sentence. Note that there
is no immediately obvious reason why this should be the case; computers
would have no problems dealing with either of the two artificial rules above.
In fact, computers find it considerably more difficult to apply a rule which
is based on a hierarchical structure, as is the case in this natural language
example.
To take another example, the same restrictions apply to passive sentences.
The sentence The car hit the girl can be made into a passive by raising the
object NP to the subject position: The girl was hit by the car. Notice that it is
the whole NP which is moved to the front; it could just as well have been
Lisa, or The girl with the blue trousers, or The girl who won first prize in the crea-
tive writing competition. French passive constructions work in exactly the same
way: L’enfant chatouille le nounours (= the child tickles the teddy) becoming
Le nounours est chatouillé par l’enfant (= the teddy is tickled by the child). The
general claim can be made that:

structure-dependency can therefore be put forward as a universal prin-

ciple of language: whenever elements of the sentence are moved to
form passives, questions, or whatever, such movement takes account of
the structural relationships of the sentence rather than the linear order
of words.
(Cook & Newson, 1996, p. 11)

The movement we have just described, underlying the formation of inter-

rogative and passive sentences, is a very common feature of many languages,
called Move α.
Finally, according to this theory, the lexical and functional categories used
in language also form part of our UG endowment, and do not have to be
learned. UG includes a universal inventory of categories and features which
the child selects from on the basis of the input, as not all languages will nec-
essarily make use of all categories or their features.
The task for L2 learners, then, is to identify which syntactic categories are
required in the L2, where the selection might be different from that of their
L1. For example, some syntacticians argue that Japanese lacks the functional
category Det (Determiner) (Fukui & Speas, 1986). The features associated
with syntactic categories might also be different; for example, the French
determiner phrase has a grammatical gender feature, whereas the English
determiner phrase does not, as in la (feminine) chaise, “the chair”; le (mascu-
line) fauteuil, “the armchair”. The way in which features are “assembled” or
packaged to form functional and lexical categories can vary from language
to language. Thus, the French determiner phrase has gender and number
features, while the German determiner phrase has gender, number and case
features. Feature values can also vary: for instance, Infl (Inflection) is said to
be “strong” in French and “weak” in English, which leads to different word
 Linguistics and Language Learning 93
orders in these two languages in the context of negative structures, interrog-
atives and adverb placement (White, 2003, p. 10). The task of the L2 learner
is to “identify, select, and redistribute the required features among the lexical
items of the L2” (Lardiere, 2012, p. 110).
We will come back to these sources of variation shortly. Before doing so,
let us define in more detail what is meant by these functional categories.
What we call lexical categories are groups such as nouns, verbs or adjec-
tives, that is, so-called content words that carry a specific meaning. The
kind of items we are now turning our attention to are grammatical words
or “function” words, such as determiners (the, my) and complementizers
(whether), or grammatical morphemes such as plural -s, past tense -ed and
so on. Another way of conceptualizing the difference between lexical and
functional categories is in terms of an open class of language items, and a
closed class. An open class (a lexical category) is one to which you can add
new items quite freely; for example, in the lexical categories Noun or Verb,
words such as selfie or fracking are being added all the time. A closed class
(a functional category) is one to which items cannot easily be added. For
example, you cannot add new determiners or new past tense morphemes
to a language, in the straightforward way in which you can add new nouns,
verbs or adjectives.
In itself, this distinction between content words and functional items is not
new to linguistics. However, generative theory claims that these “functional”
items, whether words or morphemes, also have phrases attached to them in
the same way as “lexical” words do. These functional phrases are organized
in the same way as any other phrase, with the function word or morpheme
as head of that phrase. We will therefore have Determiner Phrases (DP) and
Complementizer Phrases (CP), with determiners such as the or complemen-
tizers such as whether as their heads, and also Inflection Phrases (IP) made
up of Tense Phrases (TP) and Agreement Phrases (AgrP), which carry tense
and agreement markers such as past tense -ed or 3rd person singular -s in
English.The structure of these functional phrases is basically the same as that
of lexical phrases, such as NPs, and they can be represented in the same way.

3.3.2 Parameters and Language Variation

The structure dependency principle which we discussed earlier is common
to all languages, so they are all organized hierarchically in terms of phrases
(Noun Phrases, Verb Phrases, Prepositional Phrases and so on). From a UG
perspective, such a principle would form part of the innate computational
module and will therefore not have to be learned. However, we also know
that not all languages have identical structural properties. This is where
parameters come in. Parametric variation across languages is due to the fact
that languages select different sets of features out of the universal inventory
provided by UG, and also bundle them differently onto functional phrases.
These features can reflect grammatical meanings (for example tense, case,
94  Linguistics and Language Learning
finiteness or grammatical gender) or conceptual meanings (for example evi-
dentiality, habituality, definiteness or animacy). The features that contribute
to the meaning of the sentence, for example tense or definiteness, are called
“interpretable features”; those that do not contribute to meaning but have a
grammatical role only, such as grammatical gender or case, are termed “unin-
terpretable features” (Rothman & Slabakova, 2018).

Universal Grammar provides a common store of atomic elements of

meaning (such as semantic and grammatical features); languages select
and assemble these features into lexical items (LIs). Now, one language
may choose to assemble one array of these features into one L1, while
another language may assemble a slightly different array into what
superficially looks like an equivalent lexical item. A lexical item is noth-
ing but a bundle of features, including phonological, grammatical and
semantic features.
(Slabakova, 2016, p. 43)

In the Minimalist Program (Berwick & Chomsky, 2016; Chomsky, 1995,

2000, 2002, 2005, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2013), Chomsky suggests that the lan-
guage faculty consists of a computational procedure, sometimes called “nar-
row syntax”, which contains operations such as Merge (the operation by
which two syntactic objects are combined to form a new syntactic unit, for
example a verb and its complement combining to form a Verb Phrase), Move
α (described above) or Agree (when two items have to match for features
such as number or gender). This narrow syntax is virtually invariant across
languages, and the lexicon is the site of parametric variation. The functional
lexicon in particular will contain features dictating, for example, whether
movement or agreement is required. In this view, languages are different
from one another only because their lexicons are different (Chomsky, 2005;
Domínguez, 2013; Eguren et al., 2016; Lardiere, 2012; Roberts, 2017b).The
task facing children (or L2 learners) is therefore to learn the lexicon of the
language around them, including the settings of the parameters applying to
that language. This is the “lexical parameterization hypothesis”, which sug-
gests that parameters are contained in the lexicon, primarily attaching to
the functional categories. For example, the functional category Agr, which
governs agreement phenomena, contains a gender feature in languages such
as French or Italian, but not in others such as English.
Let us now turn our attention to an often-discussed example of a param-
eter, which was proposed to account for one of the more obvious ways in
which languages can vary: the so-called head parameter (Chomsky, 1981).
(For more detailed analyses, see, for example, Cook & Newson, 2007; Eguren
et al., 2016; Hawkins, 2001; Herschensohn, 2000; Huang & Roberts, 2017;
Slabakova, 2016).
The head parameter deals with the way in which phrases themselves
are structured. It applies to phrases headed by both lexical and functional
 Linguistics and Language Learning 95
categories. Each phrase has a central element, called a head; in the case of
a Noun Phrase, the head is the noun; in the case of a Verb Phrase, it is the
verb; in the case of a Determiner Phrase, it is the determiner; and so on.
One dimension along which languages vary is the position of the head
in relation to other elements inside the phrase, called complements. For
example, in the Noun Phrase (the) girl with blue trousers, the head noun girl
appears to the left of the complement with blue trousers; in the Verb Phrase
hit the girl, the head hit appears to the left of its complement the girl; similarly,
in the Prepositional Phrase with blue trousers, the head with is on the left of
its complement blue trousers; in the Complementizer Phrase whether he is too
old, the complement he is too old follows the head whether. In fact, English
is a head-first language, because the head of the phrase normally appears
before its complements.
Japanese, on the other hand, is a head-last language, because the comple-
ments precede the head within the phrase:

E wa kabe ni kakatte imasu

(picture wall on is hanging)
“The picture is hanging on the wall”.

The head verb kakatte imasu occurs on the right of the verb complement
kabe ni, and the postposition ni (on) comes on the right of the PP comple-
ment kabe.
(Cook & Newson, 2007, pp. 42–43)

Because of its head-last setting, all Japanese phrases will be ordered in that
way. So, the head parameter tells us how the head and its complements are
ordered in relation to one another in a given language, and it has two pos-
sible settings: head-first (like English) or head-last (like Japanese). (Some
languages are not unidirectional, but these are rare: Eguren et al., 2016.)
From an acquisitional point of view, what this means is that children do
not need to discover that language is structured hierarchically into phrases,
as this principle forms part of the UG blueprint for language in their mind
(Guasti, 2017). They also assume that all phrases in the language they are
learning are going to behave in the same way, a phenomenon which has
been called the Uniformity Principle (Boeckx, 2011), Harmonic Systems
(Baker, 2008) or Generalization of the Input (Roberts, 2012, 2016; Rob-
erts & Holmberg, 2010).These terms allude in this case to learners’ expecta-
tions that a value assigned to one head will apply to all heads, unless there
is contrary evidence in the input (Eguren et al., 2016, p. 21). The only task
remaining is to learn which parameter setting actually applies in the lan-
guage which the child is learning: in this case, is it head-first or head-last? In
theory, the only input the child needs in order to set the head parameter to
the correct value is one example of one phrase, and they will then automati-
cally “know” the internal structure of all other phrases.
96  Linguistics and Language Learning
In this view, the task facing children is considerably simpler than if they
had to discover the order of constituents within each type of phrase. Moreo-
ver, they only need minimal exposure in order to make wide-ranging gen-
eralizations which affect different parts of the syntax of the language they are
learning. For example, Radford claims:

young children acquiring English as their native language seem to set

the head parameter at its appropriate head-first setting from the very
earliest multiword utterances they produce (at around age 18 months),
and seem to know (tacitly, not explicitly, of course) that English is a
head-first language.
(1997, p. 22)

Remember also the puzzle which we posed in Section 3.2.2, when we asked

how children could work out the precise relationships which apply between
reflexives such as himself and their NP antecedents, in English? The answer
offered by UG theory to this problem is another classic UG parameter, the
“Governing Category” parameter. This parameter determines which “bind-
ing domains” are possible in a given language, that is to say, what elements in
the sentence can co-refer across which structural boundaries. For example,
in English, reflexive pronouns must be bound within a local domain (such
as a clause), which means that in the sentence Mark wanted Tom to treat him-
self, “himself ” can only refer to Tom and not to Mark. In other languages
which allow long distance binding (across clause boundaries), such as Chi-
nese, “himself ” could refer to either Tom or Mark. Once again, the assump-
tion is that the relevant Binding principles, and the associated Governing
Category parameter, are already pre-existing in the child’s language module.
So, acquiring a highly complex area of grammar is reduced to the simple
matter of picking the appropriate binding domain out of a restricted set of
possibilities (for further details, see, for example, Hawkins, 2001; Herschen-
sohn, 2000).
Let us now illustrate parametric variation for a functional category, Inflec-
tion (Infl, or I). Inflection is the functional category which contains the tense
and agreement features of verbs (tense, person, number: whence its name,
as these features are often realized through an inflectional paradigm). Just as
nouns and verbs can head NPs and VPs, Infl can also head an Inflectional
Phrase (IP). Features associated with functional categories can have either
weak or strong values, with implications for syntactic properties of that lan-
guage. For example, Infl in English is weak, whereas in French it is strong.
This parametric variation (+/- strong) has consequences for word order. In
languages like French, finite verbs have to move to the I position for feature
checking (i.e. to “collect” their tense, number and agreement features), result-
ing in the verb preceding the adverb. In English, however, where Infl is weak,
the verb remains in the VP. This is illustrated in the tree diagrams that follow:
 Linguistics and Language Learning 97

English French
IP IP

Spec I’ Spec I’

David David
I VP I VP

joue
Adv V’ Adv V’

always toujours
V NP V PP

plays football ti
P NP

au football

This parametric variation in feature strength has important consequences

for other areas of grammar, and explains a number of word order differences
between French and English, which otherwise have very similar structures.
These differences are summarized here:
English French
Declaratives Patrick reads the newspaper Patrick lit le journal
 S  V     O  S   V  O
Adverb Patrick often reads the newspaper Patrick lit souvent le journal
placement  S  A   V     O  S   V   A  O
Negation Patrick doesn’t read the newspaper Patrick (ne) lit pas le journal
  S    neg     V   O  S     V neg    O
Questions Does he read the newspaper? Lit-il le journal?
    S   V     O V   S  O
(pronominal subjects only)

Within this view of learning, all learners should have to do is set the
parameter (called the Verb Movement parameter for obvious reasons) to
either weak or strong, on the basis of the input (French or English), and all
these properties should be in place. Empirical evidence, however, shows that
L2 learners do not acquire them all at the same time (White, 1991;Trahey &
White, 1993). (For fuller treatments, see, e.g., Hawkins, 2001; Herschensohn,
2000; White, 2003.)
But let us now turn specifically to the way in which UG explains lan-
guage acquisition data.
98  Linguistics and Language Learning
3.4 UG and L1 Acquisition
So, what is the evidence in the child acquisition literature for the UG view-
point? Do children indeed build grammars guided by UG, as described
above?
Before we can deal with this question, we need to first examine in more
detail the structure of phrases (see Hawkins, 2001, pp. 13–16). We have seen
already that all languages are made up of phrases consisting of a head cat-
egory (the core element of the phrase) and of complements which option-
ally modify the head. Another type of modifier—also optional—is called a
specifier, as shown in the example of an English Noun Phrase (Diagram A).
Here the head noun holiday is modified by its complement in the Caribbean
Islands, and the grouping holiday in the Caribbean Islands is itself modified by
the specifier my mother’s.

Diagram A: [NP my mother’s holiday in the Caribbean Islands] [VP was

fantastic]
NP

Specifier N’

my mother's N0 Complement

holiday in the Caribbean Islands

It is claimed in generative syntax that the same underlying structural con-

figuration of head, complement and specifier usually applies to all phrases in
a given language. The following examples show how this works in English
for the Verb Phrase (Diagram B), the Adjectival Phrase (Diagram C) and the
Prepositional Phrase (Diagram D):

Diagram B: [NP My brother] [VP regularly wins the first prize]

VP

Specifier V’

regularly V0 Complement

wins the first prize

 Linguistics and Language Learning 99
Diagram C: [VP She became] [AP incredibly clever at making excuses]

AP

Specifier A’

incredibly A0 Complement

clever at making excuses

Diagram D: [VP He did this] [PP quite without reason]

PP

Specifier P’

quite P0 Complement

without reason

All phrases are organized in this hierarchical manner, with an optional speci-
fier modifying an X′, itself consisting of an X0 (the head) modified by an
optional complement, where X can be any of the head categories: N0 (noun),
V0 (verb), A0 (adjective), P0 (preposition), D0 (determiner), Infl0 (inflection).
(The notation X′, X0 is used to indicate the different levels in the hierarchi-
cal structure of phrases, with X0 representing the head element on its own,
X′ representing the unit “head element + complement” and so on.) The
only possible variant is the situation of head, specifier and complement in
relation to one another.Thus, in a language such as English, the general con-
figuration illustrated in Diagrams A–D above can be summed up as follows:

XP

Specifier X’

X0 Complement
100  Linguistics and Language Learning
That is, in all types of phrase in English, the specifier typically precedes the
head element, and the complement follows it. However, in languages such as
Japanese, Turkish and Burmese, both specifier and complement precede the
head (Hawkins, 2001, p. 15):

XP

Specifier X’

Complement X0

Following this pattern, a literal translation of the examples given above

would be my mother’s in the Caribbean Islands holiday, incredibly at making
excuses clever and quite reason without.
A third possible ordering also found in natural languages comprises the
head followed by both complement and specifier:

XP

X’ Specifier

X0 Complement

This would give rise to the following reordering of our examples: holiday
in the Caribbean Islands my mother’s, clever at making excuses incredibly and with-
out reason quite. This configuration is found in languages such as Malagasy,
Gilbertese and Fijian (Hawkins, 2001, p. 15).
In terms of L1 acquisition, what are the implications? We have noted that
the structure of phrases is an invariant principle of UG, part of the narrow
syntax, the universal computational system containing operations such as
Merge. Children would therefore “know” that sentences are made of phrases
which consist of (specifier)—head—(complement), and would not have to
work this out. However, they would not know the precise ordering of these
elements which is found in their own language; that is, they would have to
“set” the head parameter on the basis of language input. Notice, though, that
the number of possibilities is very limited; specifiers either precede or fol-
low X′ categories, and complements either follow or precede X0 categories
(Hawkins, 2001, p. 16).
 Linguistics and Language Learning 101
There is evidence from L1 acquisition research that children have set the
head parameter as early as the two-word stage (Radford, 1997, p. 22), and that
they “know how to project productively X0 categories into X′ categories,
and X′ categories into XP categories” (Towell & Hawkins, 1994, p. 65), at
least as far as lexical categories are concerned. This is shown in the examples
that follow (from Radford, 1990, cited in Towell & Hawkins, 1994, p. 66):

X0 Complement
cup tea (N′) “a cup of tea”
ball wool (N′) “a ball of wool”
open box (V′) “open the box”
get toys (V′) “get my toys”
(put) in there (P′) “put it in there”
(get) out cot (P′) “I want to get out of the cot”

Specifier X′
Mummy car (NP) “Mummy’s car”
Hayley dress (NP) “Hayley’s dress”
Dolly hat (NP) “Dolly’s hat”
Daddy gone (VP) “Daddy has gone”
Hayley draw (boat) (VP) “Hayley is drawing (a boat)”
Paula play (with ball) (VP) “Paula is playing (with a ball)”

UG theory would predict these findings, as the result of the general prin-
ciple underlying phrase structure. However, it would also predict that chil-
dren have to learn the particular parameter settings for the language they are
exposed to on the basis of language input; these are not “inbuilt” (Guasti,
2017; Lidz & Gagliardi, 2015).
There is also evidence that the kind of parametric variation found in
functional features which we have illustrated earlier (strong or weak Infl) is
acquired by children in a cluster-like fashion. That is to say, when L1 French
children start to use inflected verbs (or in formal terms, when they project
the Inflection Phrase), all properties linked to the “strong Infl” parameter
setting fall into place. Notably, the verb rises to I, past adverbs, negators and
so on. We find such children producing sentences such as Pas aller dodo (“no
go bed”), in which IP has not yet been projected and the verb is there-
fore non-finite and has not moved from its VP-internal position. They may
almost simultaneously produce sentences in which IP has been projected
and the verb is therefore finite and has risen past elements like negators, such
as bébé va pas dodo (“baby goes not bed”). What we do not find, however, are
sentences in which non-finite verbs have risen past adverbs or negators, e.g.
*bébé aller pas dodo (“baby go not bed”), or in which the finite verb does not
rise, e.g. *bébé pas va dodo (“baby not goes bed”) (Pierce, 1992).
Guasti (2016, p. 189), reviewing the available evidence, claims that “from
the earliest syntactic productions there is evidence that children have assigned
102  Linguistics and Language Learning
the correct value to the parameters that govern clausal structure (head direc-
tion parameter, verb movement parameter, V2 parameter)”. (In languages
like German or Dutch, the “V2 parameter” specifies that the finite verb must
appear in second position.) Overall, the notion of parameters remains an
important tool for generativist L1 acquisition researchers.
This simplified account has illustrated the kinds of predictions a UG
approach can offer, in the context of children acquiring their L1. Controver-
sies remain, not least regarding how soon functional categories are acquired.
For a discussion of these issues, and for wider accounts of the UG approach
to L1 acquisition, see Guasti (2009, 2016), Snyder (2007), Ambridge and
Lieven (2011), Meisel (2011) and de Villiers and Roeper (2011). We next
consider how far the approach can also be applied to L2 acquisition.

3.5 UG and L2 Acquisition

3.5.1 Theoretical Relevance of UG to L2 Learning

To address the potential of the UG model for L2 acquisition, we need to go
back to the 1970s developments outlined in Chapter 2. For example, in that
chapter we outlined similarities in the development of a number of English
morphemes and of English negative and interrogative structures, in both L1
and L2 acquisition. In L1 acquisition, the UG explanation was that there was
some kind of language blueprint in the brain constraining the hypotheses
that children can entertain. This is the work we have summarized so far in
this chapter.
If L2 learners also go through fairly rigid stages when acquiring certain
constructions in the L2, producing interim forms which are unlike both
their L1 and the L2 input they are receiving, and which are not unlike the
stages children go through, then a similar explanation is surely worth inves-
tigating. However, there are several complicating factors:

• L2 learners are cognitively mature;

• L2 learners already know at least one other language;
• L2 learners have different learning motivations (language learning does
not take place in order to answer the basic human need to communicate).

These points have important implications, and even if the UG hypothesis is

correct for L1 learning, there are still a number of logical possibilities con-
cerning its role in L2 learning:

1. L2s Are Not UG-Constrained

L2s are not constrained by UG principles and parameters, and they do not
behave like natural languages.
 Linguistics and Language Learning 103
2.  L2s Are UG-Constrained

FULL ACCESS

The whole of UG is available to L2 learners, as it is to L1 learners. Within

this view, there are different hypotheses about the initial grammars of L2
learners, which we will review shortly.

PARTIAL ACCESS

Some parts of UG are not available any longer. For example, functional fea-
tures which are not activated in the L1, particularly uninterpretable features
such as grammatical gender, cannot be acquired. Within this view, L2 gram-
mars do not violate principles and parameters, but learners might not be able
to reset parameters, and therefore continue to operate with L1 settings for
some parts of the new language.

3.5.2 Principles and Parameters in SLA

3.5.2.1 The Head Parameter

To begin to address these possibilities, let us return to the first examples
which we used to illustrate L1 acquisition, namely the structure dependency
principle and the head parameter.
Firstly, there seems to be no evidence in L2 grammars that learners ever
violate the structure dependency principle. From the onset of L2 develop-
ment, learners seem to know that the L2 will be hierarchically structured in
terms of phrases.
Secondly, we saw that there are two possible settings for the head param-
eter, head-first and head-last. Both French and English are head-first lan-
guages; i.e. the head precedes its complements. However, in French, although
all phrases normally exhibit this order, there is one exception (Hawkins,
2001, pp. 11–12): the case of unstressed object pronouns, as exemplified here:

1. Le chat [VPmange [NPla souris]] (“the cat eats the mouse”)

2. Le chat [VP[NPla] mange] (the cat it eats = “the cat eats it”)

In VPs in French where the complement is a full NP (1), the head verb
precedes its complement as normal; however, when the complement is an
unstressed pronoun (2), the head verb follows it.1 From an acquisitional point
of view, we have seen that children quickly set the head-direction param-
eter, as all phrases in a given language normally follow the same order. For
French children, there is ample evidence in the language around them that
French is head-first. We would therefore expect French children to set the
104  Linguistics and Language Learning
parameter early on, and place the head before its complement. This is in fact
the case, and children produce utterances such as *Le chat mange la, before
going through a stage of omitting the pronoun altogether *Le chat mange ⊘,
only later still inserting it in its target position Le chat la mange (Clark, 1985;
Hamann, Rizzi, & Frauenfelder, 1996).
If French children follow this developmental sequence for ordering of
unstressed object pronouns, then we should expect the same to happen for
L2 French learners, if they are also guided by UG. There is indeed evidence
to support this:

In fact, the stages of development that L1 English speakers go through

in acquiring this pattern in L2 French are very similar to the stages that
child L1 learners of French go through in acquiring it. Following an ini-
tial stage where learners leave object pronouns postverbally in the posi-
tion occupied by full noun phrases, e.g. Le chien a mangé les, “The dog
has eaten them” (Zobl, 1980; Clark, 1985), they go to a stage of omission
of the pronoun: Le chien a mangé ⊘ (Adiv, 1984; Schlyter, 1986; Véro-
nique, 1986) before eventually acquiring preverbal object pronouns: Le
chien les a mangés.
(Towell & Hawkins, 1994, p. 69)

On the other hand, L1 French learners of L2 English do not have problems

in acquiring object pronouns in English, and do not go through a stage of
preposing the pronoun (*the cat it eats), which would be expected if they
transferred the French order, nor through a stage of omitting the pronoun
(Zobl, 1980). This is to be expected if we assume that, on the basis of ample
evidence in English that it is head-first, L2 learners set the head-direction
parameter early on and apply it consistently. In the absence of evidence in
the input that pronouns can precede the verb, they do not alter their initial
hypothesis.
Because both French and English are head-first languages, we cannot say
whether these observations are due to the fact that L2 learners reset the
parameter to its correct value, or simply transfer their L1 parameter value.
What is interesting, however, is that French learners do not transfer the idi-
osyncratic property of French for pronoun placement.
In order to know whether the head parameter can be reset, it is neces-
sary to investigate the acquisition of, say, a head-first language by learners
whose L1 is head-last. Flynn has studied this question with Japanese learn-
ers of English. (We have already seen that Japanese is a head-last language.)
She concludes “that, from the earliest stages of acquisition, Japanese speakers
learning English as a Second Language (ESL), are able to acquire the English
value of the head-direction parameter” (Flynn, 1996, p. 135).
The evidence presented here therefore seems to suggest that, in the case of
the head parameter at least, L2 learners have access to UG in the same way
that children do. We cannot draw hasty conclusions on the basis of evidence
 Linguistics and Language Learning 105
relating to one structure only, however, and other non-UG explanations
have indeed been put forward.

3.5.2.2  Strong/Weak Infl (I)

We have explained earlier that the functional lexicon is now seen as the
main site for parametric variation, as different languages select and bundle
together functional features from the universal inventory differently, giving
rise to the variations in word order and morphology evident in the world’s
languages. Here we return to the example of strong/weak Infl in French and
English, introduced in Section 3.3.1.
Remember that in French, Infl is strong, so that the verb rises past adverbs
and negators, unlike in English, where Infl is weak and the verb remains
within the Verb Phrase (except for auxiliaries and modals, which do rise to
SpecIP, i.e. the specifier position in the Inflection Phrase). French learners
of English therefore have to reset the verb movement parameter located in
Infl to [-strong], and English learners of French have to reset it to [+strong].
Several studies have investigated this property (see White, 2003, for a review).
Yuan (2001) studied the acquisition of L2 Chinese (weak Infl) by French
(strong Infl) and English (weak Infl) learners. He found that all learners,
regardless of their L1 or their proficiency level, realized the ungrammati-
cality of verb-raising in Chinese, suggesting that they were able to reset
this parameter. Rogers (2009), in her study of English learners of French,
shows similar findings. Another study by White (1992), however, found
somewhat different results. She studied the acquisition of verb-raising in
questions, negatives and adverb placement, by French learners of L2 English.
Her learners (beginners) seemed to have realized that English has weak Infl
in the context of questions and negatives, but not in the context of adverbs.
Learners rejected sentences such as:

• Like you pepperoni pizza?

• The boys like not the girls.

with a high degree of accuracy. However, they commonly accepted:

• Linda takes always the metro.

White argues this might be because we are dealing with two different
parameters underlying these properties (2003, pp. 129–132), though results
to date are somewhat inconclusive.

3.5.3 Current Debates about the Role of UG in SLA

It should be clear by now that the general question which has generated so
much research over several decades, namely whether UG is available to L2
106  Linguistics and Language Learning
learners or not, is being replaced by more focused questions and debates
among generativist researchers, some of which we now introduce.

The Initial State

One area of active debate concerns what is termed the Initial State (the
subconscious linguistic representations L2 learners have at the start of
L2 learning). By its very nature, the Initial State of L2 acquisition differs
from that of L1 acquisition by the very presence of another fully fledged
language (as well as important cognitive and maturational differences).
As in L1 acquisition (see Section 3.4), some generativist researchers have
argued that functional categories are absent in the very early stages of
adult L2 acquisition (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1996b, 1998, 2007;
White, 2003; Hawkins, 2001, 2009; Myles, 2005), evidenced by a lack
of morphological markings and of syntactic movement. Others, how-
ever, have argued that functional categories are indeed present in the
early stages in child L2 (Grondin & White, 1996; Haznedar, 2001) and
also in adult L2 (Prévost & J. Paradis, 2004; Prévost & White, 2000;
Renaud, 2014; Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996) and that the lack of morpho-
logical markings is not a syntactic issue, but a processing difficulty. Some
accounts argue that L2 learners gradually “build” syntactic structure,
starting in local domains (the Structure-Building approach: Hawkins,
2001; Herschensohn, 2000). Yet others argue that the Initial State is the
L1 with all its parameter values fixed (Schwartz & Sprouse, 1996). This
exchange of views is complicated by the fact that the exact nature of
functional features and categories themselves is a subject of debate in
UG theory, and that L1 influences have to be taken into account (Lar-
diere, 2012).

Ultimate Attainment/Steady State

Interest in L2 learners’ “ultimate attainment” arises from the well-docu-
mented fact that the vast majority of them do not become native-like, even
when the context is optimal—i.e. input and interaction are plentiful—as
might be the case for immigrants who operate in their L2 on a daily basis.
This is of course in stark contrast to children, who always become native-like
in their L1.Another difference concerning L2 attainment is that it is less stable
than L1 grammars, with learners sometimes applying a rule, other times not.
This phenomenon is referred to as optionality (Sorace, 2005, 2011; Sorace &
Serratrice, 2009). For example, Lardiere (1998a, 1998b, 2007) has worked
in detail over time with a very proficient L2 user of English named Patty,
an L1 Chinese speaker who has lived and worked in the USA for 18 years.
Yet Patty’s L2 morphological system is still unstable and deviates from the
target in specific ways, in spite of plentiful input; for example, she regularly
 Linguistics and Language Learning 107
omits the 3rd person singular -s or past tense -ed. Researchers within the
generative paradigm have argued that it is important to study learners—like
Patty—whose development has reached its end point, in order to be able to
assert that certain linguistic features are or are not acquirable by L2 learners.
Such research has generally found systematic, if subtle, differences between
end-state L2 learners and L1 speakers (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009;
Birdsong, 2009; DeKeyser, 2012; Herschensohn, 2007, 2013), especially when
learning has begun post-puberty. These findings have been used to inform
debates around the Critical Period Hypothesis, which claims that UG is no
longer available to adult L2 learners, although no consensus has yet been
reached, as we will discuss in Section 3.5.4.

The Role of Interfaces

Another departure from previous work focusing primarily on the availability
of UG in SLA has been the recent interest in interfaces. This shift occurred
as a result of research findings showing that some areas of syntax which
require parameter resetting are acquired by L2 learners without undue dif-
ficulty, yet learners have persistent problems in using those same structures
in appropriate discourse contexts. For example, so-called pro-drop languages
such as Italian or Spanish allow the subject of a sentence to be omitted, giv-
ing rise to sentences such as:

(egli) mangia la mela

(he) eats the apple (“he eats the apple”)

piove
rains (“it’s raining”)

Selection of the + pro-drop value on this Null Subject parameter is usually

linked in those languages to other properties such as much freer word order
and richer inflectional morphology:

la mangia il ragazzo
it eats the boy (“the boy eats it”)

Languages like English and French, on the other hand, do not allow subjects
to be dropped in this way, and their word order is much more rigid. This
property does not seem to pose many problems for L2 learners of pro-drop
languages. For example, English or French learners do not have difficulties
with dropping the subject or inverting the verb and its subject in L2 Italian
or Spanish. However, even at very advanced levels, they have continuing
problems with knowing when to do it. L1 speakers obey discourse constraints
when choosing whether or not to omit the pronoun: they prefer to omit
108  Linguistics and Language Learning
the subject pronoun when there is no change in topic, and to have an overt
subject pronoun when there is a change of topic.To offer an Italian example:

Mia madre ha comprato un dolce perche *lei/Ø aveva fame

“My mother bought a cake because she was hungry”

In this case native speakers would omit the pronoun lei if “mother” is the
subject of “was hungry”, as the topic remains constant (unless wishing
to stress or contrast lei in some way). If a different (female) person was
the subject of “was hungry”, however, they would produce the pronoun.
L2 users have been shown to produce the overt pronoun optionally, in
both cases, suggesting that they are not sensitive to the relevant discourse
constraints.
The Interface Hypothesis has been proposed to explain findings like this.
The suggestion is that “language structures involving an interface between
syntax and other cognitive domains are less likely to be acquired completely
than structures that do not involve this interface” (Sorace, 2011, p. 1). (For
detailed discussion of this issue, see, for example, Domínguez, 2013; Roth-
man & Slabakova, 2011; Sorace & Filiaci, 2006; Sorace & Serratrice, 2009;
White, 2009a.) The Interface Hypothesis has received much attention, but
mixed support. For example, Mai and Yuan (2016, p. 247), in their study of
L2 Chinese by L1 English learners, conclude that the reassembly of features
involving cross-domain operations (e.g. from prosody to syntax) is more
difficult than reassembly within the same linguistic domain. Conversely,
in a study of L2 Chinese by L1 Russian learners, Dugarova (2014, p. 431)
concludes that wh-topicalization, a syntax-discourse phenomenon, can be
acquired by very advanced learners, suggesting that not all interface phe-
nomena are beyond L2 learners. Özçelik’s (2018) study of English learners
of Turkish, and Turkish learners of English, found that learners had more
difficulties with internal than external interfaces. In a study of L2 Japanese
and Korean, Laleko and Polinsky (2016) suggest that interfaces might play
a part in explaining difficulty, but they argue that structural complexity as
well as memory demands also play a role. What the Interface Hypothesis has
enabled researchers to do, however, is to generate testable (and increasingly
sophisticated) hypotheses about how different modules of language might
interact with one another during the acquisition process, and with other
aspects of cognition.

The Relationship between Linguistic Knowledge

and Language Processing
A longstanding debate in SLA research centres around L2 learners’ ultimate
attainment, which is typically not fully native-like. Reasons put forward by
generativist researchers include the (non)availability of UG reviewed above,
and/or difficulties in processing linguistic knowledge in real time. Because
 Linguistics and Language Learning 109
L2 learners’ mental representations of language can only be inferred indi-
rectly, whether from their productions or their intuitions about language,
teasing these two explanations apart has proved difficult, and researchers
have engaged in lively debates about which explanation can best account for
the same empirical findings. For example, the well-documented failure, even
at advanced stages, to supply verb morphology consistently (3rd person -s
or past tense -ed), in spite of its focus in instruction and its abundance in the
input, has been explained as either a representational deficit (the syntax of
these learners has not fully developed) or a processing problem (the learner
has acquired and stored the morphological forms, but cannot retrieve them
reliably).
The advent of new psycholinguistic and neurolinguistics methodologies
has enabled new insights into how learners process specific language struc-
tures in real time. For example, self-paced reading and eye-tracking have
been widely used by SLA researchers to test whether L2 learners are sensi-
tive to the same syntactic constraints as L1 speakers. (In self-paced reading,
the participants are presented with a text word by word on a computer
screen and have to press a button for the next word to appear—they are
slower at pressing the button when encountering something unexpected
or ungrammatical, showing processing difficulty. In eye-tracking studies,
the movement of the eyes while reading a text is recorded—again here,
processing difficulties lead to backtracking while reading the text, and the
landing site of this backtracking, and the length of pausing, are indicative
of where exactly processing is hindered.) Many phenomena of interest to
UG researchers have been tested in this way, for example the constraints
underpinning wh-movement (Juffs & Harrington, 1995, 1996), or anaphora
resolution, i.e. what the pronouns him and himself can take as antecedents; see
Section 3.2.2 above (Felser & Cunnings, 2012). These empirical studies are
producing a range of fresh proposals from generativists about the source of
differences in L2 vs L1 processing, and what these tell us about the under-
pinning linguistic representations (Rothman et al., in press).
Neurolinguistic tools are also now used in SLA research as a means to
explore the linguistic representations underpinning L2 use. The main tech-
niques used are electroencephalography (EEG), which measures Event-
Related Potentials (the brain’s electrophysiological response to a stimulus),
or functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), which measures brain
activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow. These tools are
increasingly used by both UG and non-UG researchers to investigate and
compare L1 and L2 speakers’ processing of linguistic stimuli; for a recent
review of this work, see Benati and Rastelli (2018). Recent longitudinal
research has shown, for example, that brain processes change with increased
grammatical knowledge, becoming increasingly native-like (L. Roberts,
González Alonso, Pliatsikas, & Rothman, 2018). These methodologies are
further discussed in Chapter 5. And in Chapter 10, we discuss the MOGUL
framework, as a recent principled approach to integrate a UG view of how
110  Linguistics and Language Learning
language is represented in the mind, with a transition theory grounded in
language processing.

What Attrition and Heritage Language Speakers Can Tell Us about SLA
Increasingly, L2 acquisition is conceptualized as the development and
interaction of multiple languages in the mind of an individual. Research
has convincingly shown that when we learn a second or third language,
our L1 and any other previously acquired language change as a result. The
interaction between L1 and L2 is not unidirectional, with L1 properties
transferring onto the L2; it is bidirectional, with changes also taking place
in our L1 (see Cook’s Multi-competence Model, 2016, or Dynamic Sys-
tems Theory, discussed here in Chapter 10). As Schmid and Köpke (2018,
p. 638) put it:

Research on second language acquisition and bilingual development

strongly suggests that when a previously monolingual speaker becomes
multilingual, the different languages do not exist in isolation: they are
closely linked, dependent on each other, and there is constant interac-
tion between these different knowledge systems.

There are many long-term transnational migrants today who use one or
more L2s for most functions of daily life, and make only infrequent use of
their L1. Under such circumstances, the L1 can become affected through
competition with the L2. This phenomenon is described as language attri-
tion (Schmid, 2011); typical problems include forgetting some words,
becoming hesitant and disfluent, using odd expressions and developing a
“foreign” accent. Current UG-inspired research on language attrition is pro-
viding useful information about the nature and resilience of the underpin-
ning linguistic system established in early childhood, the extent to which
feature reassembly may take place within the L1 over extended periods of
time, and the role of age in language acquisition, maintenance and change
(Schmid, 2014; Domínguez, 2018).
Heritage language speakers are another multilingual population of cur-
rent interest to UG researchers. Heritage speakers are L1 speakers of a
minority language they learn at home, who live in a community where
a different language is spoken. In such cases, it is usual for the heritage
language not to fully develop (Montrul, 2015). If these speakers are acquir-
ing their home language from birth, any representational deficit cannot
be explained through lack of access to UG, and other factors have to be
explored. Which elements of the linguistic system are vulnerable, and why?
And how far do the representational deficits of heritage speakers resemble
those of L2 learners, whether children or adults? All these questions have
been investigated recently, with mixed results. For example, Silva-Corvalán
 Linguistics and Language Learning 111
(2014) and Montrul (2018) found that heritage speakers have difficulties
with the discourse-pragmatic rules underlying the use of subject pronouns in
Spanish, just like adult L2 learners. Polinsky (2011) showed that Russian adult
heritage speakers performed differently from monolingual Russian adults
and from Russian child heritage speakers in their comprehension of relative
clauses, suggesting that their grammar has actually attrited. Kaltsa, Tsimpli,
and Rothman (2015) compared monolingual speakers of Greek with groups
of attriters and heritage speakers who were bilingual in Greek and Swedish.
They again focused on the use of null versus overt pronouns, and found the
two bilingual groups to be different from the monolingual group. However,
they suggest that the source of divergence is different in the two groups:
. . . while L1 attrition is clearly loss at some abstract level, heritage
speaker divergence can be viewed as the outcome of a developmental
path that is destined to be distinct from monolinguals as a result of a
general byproduct of bilingualism, qualitative input differences among
other factors.
(p. 283)

The inclusion of these different populations where multiple languages are

learned and used in different contexts at different times of life brings a new
dimension to UG-inspired attempts to understand how different languages
are acquired, are represented and coexist/compete in the human mind, with
important implications for our understanding of the nature of human lan-
guage and its genetic endowment.

3.5.4 Empirical Evidence
After having illustrated the UG perspective and its relevance to L2 learn-
ing, taking the example of one principle (structure dependency) and two
parameters (head-direction and strength of Infl), and having introduced
some more recent theoretical debates and concepts, we can now reassess the
theoretical positions we outlined in 3.5.1.These various positions attempt to
reconcile somewhat contradictory facts about L2 acquisition:

• Learners do not seem to produce “wild” grammars, i.e. grammars which

fall outside the constraints of UG (Schwartz & Sprouse, 2017). Does
that suggest that UG is available to them? Additionally, learners have
grammatical knowledge that does not appear to derive from experience,
known as Poverty of the Stimulus (POS) phenomena (Hawkins, 2004,
2008a; Rothman & Slabakova, 2018; Schwartz & Sprouse, 2013);
• Learners produce grammars which are not necessarily like either their
L1 or their L2. Does this suggest that parameter settings other than
those of their L1 or L2 are available to them?
112  Linguistics and Language Learning
• Some parameters seem to be easy to reset (like the head parameter), oth-
ers more difficult, or even impossible. Why?
• Learners sometimes fail to fully acquire properties of the L2 in spite of
abundant evidence in the input and after extended exposure to the L2
(as for Lardiere’s participant Patty: Lardiere, 2007).

3.5.4.1  Hypothesis 1: UG Does Not Play a Role in SLA

UG theorists who believe that UG is no longer available to adult L2 learn-
ers argue that there is a “critical period” for language acquisition during
children’s early development, and that adults have to resort to other learning
mechanisms. There are several reasons for adopting such a position (Slaba-
kova, 2009; Bley-Vroman, 1989, 2009), but perhaps the most convincing
one is the common-sense observation that immigrant children generally
become native-like speakers of their L2, whereas their parents rarely do. For
example, an influential study (Johnson & Newport, 1989) found a correla-
tion between age of arrival in the USA and native-like judgements on a
number of grammatical properties of English. Immigrants who had arrived
before age 7 performed in a native-like way, and the older learners were on
arrival, the more errors they made in the test. More recently, Abrahamsson
and Hyltenstam (2009) have conducted very detailed analyses of the L2 of
advanced adult learners who pass as L1 speakers, and suggest that they still
differ from those speakers in subtle ways.This study failed to find a clear cut-
off point, however, which would be the best indicator of a critical period for
the availability of UG. (Some UG researchers have challenged the Johnson
and Newport study, arguing their evidence is compatible with continuing
availability of UG: Hawkins, 2001; White, 2003. See Chapter 5 for further
discussion of age effects in SLA, from another theoretical perspective.)
In an extensive study of the acquisition of negation in French and Ger-
man by L1 and L2 learners, Meisel (1997, p. 258) concluded: “I would like
to hypothesize that second language learners, rather than using structure-
dependent operations constrained by UG, resort to linear sequencing strat-
egies which apply to surface strings”. Here, Meisel was claiming that one
of the most fundamental principles of UG (structure dependency) is not
available to L2 learners any more. It must be said, however, that this view has
not received much support, and Meisel himself (2011) reviewed his posi-
tion, claiming that “L2 learners’ hybrid systems are indeed natural grammars”
(p. 251), and that “L2 knowledge and acquisition processes are in large part
domain-specific and share with native grammars the crucial property of
structure dependency” (p. 252). Evidence for wild grammars which violate
UG has not been forthcoming in L2 research (Schwartz & Sprouse, 2017).
Researchers from outside the UG framework, and in particular propo-
nents of the “emergentist” position, of course also compare more broadly
whether a usage-based account better explains some of the facts of SLA, and
conclude that UG is not involved (see Chapter 4).
 Linguistics and Language Learning 113
3.5.4.2  Hypothesis 2: UG Is Fully Available to Second Language Learners

FULL ACCESS/NO TRANSFER

Some early UG work adopted this position. For example, Flynn (1996)
argued that UG continues to underpin L2 learning, for adults as well as
children, and that there is no such thing as a critical period after which UG
ceases to operate. If it can be shown that learners can acquire the principles
and/or parameter settings of the L2, which differ from those of their L1,
she claimed, the best interpretation is the continuing operation of UG, a
view supported by her review of a range of empirical work with L2 learners
moving from Japanese to English (pp. 134–148). We have already met her
claim that adult Japanese learners of L2 English can successfully reset the
head-direction parameter (i.e. from head-last to head-first). She also claimed
that similar learners can activate principles which do not operate in Japanese,
such as the Subjacency principle (which controls wh-movement in English;
i.e. the way in which we move the wh- phrase to the beginning of the sen-
tence, which is subject to certain constraints), and can acquire functional
categories which are supposedly non-existent in Japanese. Flynn concluded
her review thus:

It appears that L2 learners do construct grammars of the new TLs [tar-

get languages] under the constraints imposed by UG; those principles of
UG carefully investigated thus far indicate that those not instantiated or
applying vacuously in the L1 but operative in the L2, are in fact acquir-
able by the L2 learner.
We are thus forced to the conclusion that UG constrains L2 acquisi-
tion; the essential language faculty involved in L1 acquisition is also
involved in adult L2 acquisition.
(Flynn, 1996, pp. 150–151)

Other researchers who have argued that UG is still available to L2 learners

include Thomas (1991), on the basis of work on the acquisition of reflexive
binding, and White, Travis, and MacLachlan (1992), on the basis of work
on wh-movement. However, more recent research which argues for full
access to UG usually acknowledges that the L1 is involved in shaping initial
hypotheses at least.

FULL TRANSFER/FULL ACCESS

This position agrees that L2 learners have full access to UG and its param-
eters, whether they are present in the learners’ L1 or not (Ionin, Zubi-
zarreta, & Maldonado, 2008; Schwartz & Sprouse, 1994, 1996). But in this
view, L2 learners are thought to begin by transferring all the parameter set-
tings from their L1, and to revise their hypotheses afterwards, when the L2
114  Linguistics and Language Learning
fails to conform to these L1 settings. Learners then develop new hypotheses
which are UG-constrained. For example, a study of the acquisition of Eng-
lish articles by Spanish and Russian learners (Ionin et al., 2008) found that
Spanish learners (whose article system encodes definiteness and specificity
in the same way as English) transfer their L1 settings. Russian learners, how-
ever, whose L1 does not have articles, access the semantic universals of defi-
niteness and specificity, and initially fluctuate between them before adopting
the correct setting for English.This suggests that they have full access to uni-
versal features not realized in their L1. In a recent study of the L2 acquisition
of the count/mass distinction in English by Korean and Mandarin speakers,
Choi, Ionin, and Zhu (2017) found that learners had access to the semantic
universal of atomicity. For a review of studies supporting the full transfer/full
access hypothesis, see White (2003).

FULL ACCESS/IMPAIRED EARLY REPRESENTATIONS

Some researchers also believe that learners can reset parameters to the L2
values, but that initially they are lacking functional categories altogether.The
Minimal Trees approach, later renamed as Organic Grammar (Vainikka &
Young-Scholten, 1996b, 1998, 2007, 2011), forms the starting point for a
number of accounts of the development of syntax: only lexical categories
are projected initially, via transfer from the L1. Functional categories develop
later, but are not transferred from the L1.
This view has much in common with the approaches we will review next,
but crucially believes that all parameters can be reset.

3.5.4.3  Hypothesis 3: L2 Grammars Are Partially Constrained by UG

NO PARAMETER RESETTING

Proponents of this position claim that learners only have access to UG via
their L1.They have already accessed the range of principles applying to their
L1, and set parameters to the L1 values, and this is the basis for their L2
development. Other parameter settings are not available to them, and if the
L2 possesses parameter settings which are different from those of their L1,
they will have to resort to other mechanisms in order to make the L2 data
fit their internal representations.These mechanisms will be rooted in general
problem-solving strategies, rather than being UG-based.
For example, Schachter studied Korean L1 learners of English as L2, who
performed randomly in grammaticality judgement tests of wh-­movement
(Schachter, 1990, cited in Schachter, 1996). In English, wh-movement
is allowed, but is restricted by Subjacency (the extracted wh-word can
move only across certain structural boundaries). In Korean, there is no
wh-movement, so Subjacency is presumably not operative. If UG is still
available to the learner, the absence of Subjacency from their L1 should
 Linguistics and Language Learning 115
not matter, and it should still be acquirable in English L2. Schachter claims
that the Korean subjects’ failure to recognize wh-movement constraints
reflects the non-availability of aspects of UG which were not already
operative in their L1. However, other studies have claimed that adult L2
learners whose L1 lacks overt wh-movement do eventually observe Sub-
jacency in the L2 (Belikova & White, 2009).
Schachter does accept that UG may be available for child L2 learners, but
believes that a critical period (or periods) applies for the successful acquisi-
tion of L2 principles and/or parameter settings which have not been opera-
tive in the learner’s L1 (1996). In support, she cites a study by Lee (1992)
which tested Korean-English bilinguals on a particular parameter, the Gov-
erning Category parameter, which is set differently in the two languages (as
described in Section 3.3.2).
In Lee’s (1992) study, the Korean learners of English were of different
ages; the youngest and oldest participants had not acquired the English set-
ting for the Governing Category parameter, while the older children had
apparently succeeded in doing so. Schachter concludes that these findings
show a Window of Opportunity not yet operative for the youngest learners,
but available to the older children. However, she concludes that the only
parameter settings easily available to the adult L2 learner are those already
activated in the L1.

IMPAIRED FUNCTIONAL FEATURES

Finally, we will review influential approaches which believe that L2 gram-

mars are UG-constrained, but that not all parameter settings are available
to learners. Different terms have been used to describe this approach: the
Failed Functional Features Hypothesis (Hawkins, 2001; Hawkins & Chan,
1997), the Representational Deficit Hypothesis (Hawkins & Liszka, 2003)
and the Interpretability Hypothesis (Hawkins & Hattori, 2006; Tsimpli &
Dimitrakopoulou, 2007). This approach argues that uninterpretable func-
tional features (explained above in Section 3.3.2) cannot be reset in the
L2. For example, Cantonese learners of English studied by Hawkins and
Chan (1997) failed to acquire properties linked with wh-movement, which
does not exist in Cantonese. Similarly, Franceschina (2005) showed that the
grammatical gender feature is not available to L2 learners whose L1 does
not activate it.

3.5.4.4  Access to UG Revisited

With the advent of Minimalism, the role of UG in L2 acquisition has been
reconceptualized somewhat. With language variation now understood as
being located in the different selection and bundling of universal features,
the questions being asked in generativist SLA research have shifted; UG
researchers are now making close comparisons of how the feature inventory
116  Linguistics and Language Learning
is grammaticalized (or not) in different languages. This has led to the pro-
posal by Lardiere (1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2007, 2009, 2012) of the Feature
Reassembly Hypothesis, which argues that L2 learners’ problems with mor-
phology are due to mapping problems: functional categories in different
languages not only select different functional features from the universal set
provided by UG, but also bundle features in different ways when mapping
onto specific morphosyntactic forms. The task facing L2 learners is there-
fore not only to realize which features are operational in the L2, but also
to discover how they map onto specific forms in the L2. For Lardiere, this
mapping or reassembling of features in new clusters is the main source of
persistent difficulties.
Other proposals such as Slabakova’s Bottleneck Hypothesis also argue
that functional morphemes and their features are the main challenge in L2
acquisition; acquisition of universal syntax, semantics and pragmatics flows
smoothly (Slabakova, 2006, 2008, 2013).
The accounts reviewed in this section all share the belief that L2 acquisi-
tion is UG-constrained, but that the acquisition of parametric options might
be problematic and unlike L1 acquisition. However, they have different
views on the Initial State, on the role of the L1, on the possibility of param-
eter resetting, on the Steady State and on the role of non-UG-constrained
mechanisms.
To round off this section, it is fair to say that the argument concerning
access to UG in L2 learning is not concluded, and that defenders of all
these positions can still be found. Often, they seem to be arguing about the
best technical interpretation of admittedly indirect and tantalizing evidence.
Research in this area has shifted from the initial question of the availability
versus non-availability of UG, towards a more modular view of language
and the language faculty, while understandings of UG itself have also been
evolving in fundamental ways.

3.6 Evaluation of UG-Based Approaches

to L2 Acquisition

3.6.1 The Scope and Achievements of the UG Approach

UG is a well-established theory which aims to describe and explain all
human language. In evaluating the relevance of UG theory to L2 learn-
ing, however, we must remember that it is a linguistic theory, and not a
learning or transition theory. Although one of Chomsky’s stated objectives
mentioned earlier on in this chapter is to understand how knowledge of
language is acquired and put to use, most UG work to date has focused on
his first question: what constitutes knowledge of language? These questions
are related, though, and both L1 and L2 acquisition data have increasingly
been used to refine and test hypotheses about the nature of human language.
Additionally, the UG descriptive framework has been used by researchers to
 Linguistics and Language Learning 117
draw up sophisticated hypotheses about a range of issues which are central to
our understanding of SLA, such as the exact nature of the language system at
different stages of acquisition (the learner system as well as the L1 and target
L2 systems), the interplay between L1 and L2, and the linguistic knowledge
learners bring to the task of L2 acquisition.
As a general theory of language, the scope of UG is potentially very broad.
It would be fair to say, however, that UG research has been primarily con-
cerned with the description and explanation of the formal system underly-
ing language, with a main focus on morphosyntax. The UG contribution to
our understanding of the acquisition of morphosyntactic properties in L2
acquisition has indeed been outstanding. However, its scope does not include
a theory of processing, nor a theory of learning, although it has increasingly
been concerned with what processing can tell us about linguistic knowledge.
It has very little to say about what triggers development in either L1 or L2
acquirers, or about the role of the input (Rankin & Unsworth, 2016). To
repeat, it is a property theory and not a transition theory, and must therefore
be evaluated as such.

3.6.2 The UG View of Language

The UG approach is concerned to describe the mental framework under-
lying all human languages. Until very recently as we have seen, syntax was
the privileged object of study. UG is primarily concerned with the sentence
and its internal structure, rather than any larger unit of language. Work at
the level of smaller units (words, morphemes, phonemes) has also been con-
cerned with structure and how different elements relate to one another.This
is one of the major criticisms of work in this tradition; it studies language
somewhat clinically, in a vacuum, as a mental object rather than a social or
psychological one. Moreover, it separates rigidly language knowledge and
language use, and many linguists disagree with this dichotomy, as we see
elsewhere in this book.
Following from this, the methodologies used by UG theorists have
sometimes been criticized for lack of ecological validity. The theory is pre-
occupied with the modelling of linguistic competence, and the study of
naturalistic performance has not been accepted as a suitable window into
mental representations of language (Towell & Hawkins, 2004). We have seen
(Chapter 1) that grammaticality judgement tests used to be seen as the most
appropriate methodology to access native speakers’ intuitions about their
native language, and that native speakers usually agree about what is gram-
matical or ungrammatical in their language. L2 learners’ intuitions, however,
are much more likely to be unstable, and therefore less reliable; for example,
their responses to grammaticality judgement tests may also be influenced by
explicit knowledge.We have seen in earlier sections how data on L2 compe-
tence deriving from grammaticality judgement tests are often disputed and
reinterpreted (for discussion see Chaudron, 2003; Sorace, 1996; Ionin, 2012).
118  Linguistics and Language Learning
UG theorists have taken criticisms about the lack of reliability of L2
judgements seriously, and more recent work in this tradition has used a
much wider range of elicitation techniques, ranging from analysis of large
naturalistic corpora to experimental methodologies such as eye-tracking,
measurement of Event-Related Potentials and brain-imaging. The problem
of drawing inferences about mental representations from such data remains.
However, in spite of these criticisms, UG remains probably the most sophis-
ticated tool available for linguistic analysis.

3.6.3 The UG View of Language Acquisition

When applied specifically to the analysis of interlanguage and the problem
of L2 acquisition, how successful can UG theory claim to be?
UG-based approaches to SLA have been criticized for exactly the same
reasons as the theory itself. Firstly, linguistically, this approach has tradition-
ally been almost exclusively concerned with morphosyntax, though recent
interest in phonology (e.g. Archibald, 1998, 2004, 2009, 2018; Özçelik &
Sprouse, 2017; Roncaglia-Denissen, Schmidt-Kassow, Heine, & Kotz, 2015;
Schmid, Gilbers, & Nota, 2014), morphology (as seen in previous pages) and
the lexicon (e.g. Hopp, 2017; Juffs, 2009; van Hout, Hulk, Kuiken, & Towell,
2003) has redressed the balance somewhat. Additionally, semantics, pragmat-
ics and discourse are now of concern in work on interfaces. Secondly, the UG
approach has been exclusively concerned with documenting and explain-
ing the nature of the L2 linguistic system. Social and psychological variables
which affect the learning process are beyond its remit and therefore ignored.
Overall, there is little doubt that the UG approach has greatly enhanced
our understanding of L2 morphosyntactic development. It has enabled
researchers to formulate well-defined hypotheses which could then be tested
in empirical work. This powerful linguistic tool has been useful in describ-
ing not only the language produced by learners, but also the language to be
acquired as well as the L1. In addition to establishing some of the facts about
L2 acquisition, the UG approach has also proposed explanations for such
facts. For example, it has enabled L2 researchers to theorize cross-linguistic
influence in a new way, in terms of parametric variation, and this has led to
a productive programme of empirical research.

3.6.4 The UG View of the Language Learner

The UG approach is only interested in the learner as the possessor of a mind
which contains language(s); the assumption is that all human beings are
endowed with such a mind, and variations between individuals are of little
concern to UG theorists.The emphasis is very much again here on language
as the object of study, rather than on the speaker or learner as a social being,
and the focus is on what is universal within this mind.
 Linguistics and Language Learning 119
Overall, there is little doubt that the UG approach to L2 research meets
the criteria for a good theory as defined in Chapter 1, by making clear and
explicit statements of the ground it aims to cover and the claims it makes, by
having systematic procedures for theory evaluation, by attempting to explain
as well as describe at least some L2 phenomena and, finally, by engaging
increasingly with other theories in the field. As one of the most active and
developing theories, it can be expected to continue to make highly valuable
contributions to the field, within its self-determined limitations.

Note
1 In fact, this is not a violation of this parameter setting but occurs because unstressed
pronouns in French cliticize onto the verb (i.e. attach themselves to the verb). In other
words, object pronouns originate after the verb as expected given that French is head-
first, and subsequently move to a preverbal position.

References
Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second
language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.
Adiv, E. (1984). Language learning strategies: The relationship between L1 operating
principles and language transfer in L2 development. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Second
languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 125–142). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Aitchison, J. (2008). The articulate mammal (5th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Archibald, J. (2004). Interfaces in the prosodic hierarchy: New structure and the phono-
logical parser. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 29–50.
Archibald, J. (2009). Phonological feature reassembly and the importance of phonetic
cues. Second Language Research, 25, 231–233.
Archibald, J. (2018). Transfer, contrastive analysis and interlanguage phonology. In O.
Kang, R. Thomson, & J. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English
pronunciation (pp. 9–24). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Baker, M. (2008).The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In T. Biberauer (Ed.),
The limits of syntactic variation (pp. 351–374). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bartke, S., & Siegmuller, J. (Eds.). (2004). Williams syndrome across languages. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Belikova, A., & White, L. (2009). Evidence for the fundamental difference hypothesis or
not? Island constraints revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 199–223.
Bellugi, U., Van Hoek, K., Lillo-Martin, D., & O’Grady, L. (1993). The acquisition of
syntax in young deaf singers. In D. Bishop & K. Mogford (Eds.), Language development
in exceptional circumstances (pp. 132–150). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Benati, A., & Rastelli, S. (Eds.). (2018). Neurolinguistics and the language classroom [Spe-
cial issue]. Second Language Research, 34.
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
120  Linguistics and Language Learning
Birdsong, D. (2009). Age and the end state of second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 401–
424). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Bishop, D. (Ed.). (2001). Language and cognitive processes in developmental disorders. Hove:
Psychology Press.
Bishop, D., & Mogford, K. (Eds.). (1993). Language development in exceptional circumstances.
Hove: 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. 41–68).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009).The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.
Boeckx, C. (2011). Approaching parameters from below. In A.-M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx
(Eds.), Biolinguistic approaches to language evolution and variation (pp. 205–221). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Carter, R. (1998). Mapping the mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Chaudron, C. (2003). Data collection in SLA research. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 762–828). Oxford:Wiley Blackwell.
Choi, S. H., Ionin, T., & Zhu, Y. (2017). L1 Korean and L1 Mandarin L2 English learn-
ers’ acquisition of the count/mass distinction in English. Second Language Research, 34,
147–177.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.
Chomsky, N. (2007a). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H. Gärtner (Eds.),
Interfaces + recursion = language? (pp. 1–31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (2007b). Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, 9–27.
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero, & M.-L. Zubizaretta (Eds.),
Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49.
Clark, E. (1985). The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In D.
Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 687–782). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multi-competence. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), The Cam-
bridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child”. New York:
Academic Press.
 Linguistics and Language Learning 121
de Villiers, J., & Roeper, T. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of generative approaches to language
acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Di Sciullo, A.-M., Piattelli-Palmarini, M.,Wexler, K., Berwick, R. C., Boeckx, C., Jenkins,
L., . . . Bever, T. (2010). The biological nature of human language. Biolinguistics, 4, 4–34.
Domínguez, L. (2013). Understanding interfaces: Second language acquisition and first language
attrition of Spanish subject realization and word order variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Domínguez, L. (2018). Bridging the gap between selective and non-selective L1 attrition.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 686–690.
Dornyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dugarova, E. (2014). Russian speakers’ L2 Chinese acquisition of wh-topicalization at the
syntax—discourse interface. Second Language Research, 30, 411–437.
Eguren, L., Fernandez-Soriano, O., & Mendikoetxea, A. (Eds.). (2016). Rethinking param-
eters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eubank, L., & Gregg, K. (1999). Critical periods and (second) language acquisition:
Divide et impera. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period
hypothesis (pp. 65–99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Felser, C., & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing
of structural and discourse-level information. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.
Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 121–158). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical
gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Friederici, A. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fukui, N., & Speas, M. (1986). Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,
8, 128–172.
Gopnik, M., & Crago, M. B. (1991). Familial aggregation of a developmental language
disorder. Cognition, 39, 1–50.
Grondin, N., & White, L. (1996). Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of French.
Language Acquisition, 5, 1–34.
Guasti, M. (2009). Universal Grammar approaches to language acquisition. In S. Foster-
Cohen (Ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 87–108). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guasti, M. (2016). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hamann, C., Rizzi, L., & Frauenfelder, U. (1996). On the acquisition of subject and
object clitics in French. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition
(pp. 309–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Hawkins, R. (2008a). Commentary: Can innate linguistic knowledge be eliminated from
theories of SLA? Lingua, 118, 613–619.
Hawkins, R. (2008b). The nativist perspective on second language acquisition. Lingua,
118, 465–477.
122  Linguistics and Language Learning
Hawkins, R. (2009). Second language acquisition of morphosyntax. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–236). Bing-
ley: Emerald Group.
Hawkins, R., & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in sec-
ond language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis”. Second Language
Research, 13, 187–226.
Hawkins, R., & Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisition and non-acquisition
of determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish. In P. Prévost & J. Paradis
(Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories (pp. 175–
205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hawkins, R., & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by
Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research,
22, 269–301.
Hawkins, R., & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in
advanced L2 English speakers. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken, & R. Towell (Eds.),
The lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Haznedar, B. (2001).The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 23, 1–39.
Herschensohn, J. (2000). The second time around: Minimalism and second language acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herschensohn, J. (2007). Language development and age. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Herschensohn, J. (2013). Age-related effects. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 317–337). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hopp, H. (2017). Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence pro-
cessing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 96–130.
Huang, C.-T. J., & Roberts, I. (2017). Principles and parameters of Universal Grammar.
In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 307–354). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.),
Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 30–52). Oxford:Wiley
Blackwell.
Ionin, T., Zubizarreta, M. L., & Maldonado, S. B. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge
in the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118, 554–576.
Jenkins, L. (2000). Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning:
The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of ESL. Cognitive Psychology, 21,
60–99.
Juffs, A. (2009). Second language acquisition of the lexicon. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K.
Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 181–210). Bingley:
Emerald Group.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing:
Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
17, 483–516.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second lan-
guage sentence processing. Language Learning, 46, 283–323.
 Linguistics and Language Learning 123
Kaltsa, M., Tsimpli, I. M., & Rothman, J. (2015). Exploring the source of differences and
similarities in L1 attrition and heritage speaker competence: Evidence from pronomi-
nal resolution. Lingua, 164, 266–288.
Lai, C., Fisher, S., Hurst, J.,Vargha-Khadem, F., & Faraneh, M. (2001). A fork-head-domain
gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature, 413, 519–523.
Laleko, O., & Polinsky, M. (2016). Topic and case marking in heritage speakers and L2
learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 396–439.
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language
Research, 14, 1–26.
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state
grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.
Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J.
Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Chiches-
ter: Wiley Blackwell.
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second lan-
guage acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.
Lardiere, D. (2012). Linguistic approaches to second language morphosyntax. In S. M.
Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 106–
126). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Lee, D. (1992). Universal Grammar, learnability, and the acquisition of English reflexive bindings
by L1 Korean speakers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). The biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Leung,Y. I. (Ed.). (2009). Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Lidz, J., & Gagliardi, A. (2015). How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statis-
tical learning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 333–353.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lorenzo, G., & Longa, V. (2003). Minimizing the genes for grammar: The minimalist
program as a biological framework for the study of language. Lingua, 113, 643–657.
Mai, Z., & Yuan, B. (2016). Uneven reassembly of tense, telicity and discourse features in
L2 acquisition of the Chinese shì . . . de cleft construction by adult English speakers.
Second Language Research, 32, 247–276.
Meisel, J. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German: Con-
trasting first and second language development. Second Language Research, 13, 227–263.
Meisel, J. (2011). First and second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Montrul, S. (2015). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Montrul, S. (2018). Heritage language development: Connecting the dots. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 530-546.
Moro, A. (2016). Impossible languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Myles, F. (2005). The emergence of morpho-syntactic structure in French L2. In
J.-M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches
(pp. 88–113). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
124  Linguistics and Language Learning
Özçelik, Ö. (2018). Interface hypothesis and the L2 acquisition of quantificational scope
at the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface. Language Acquisition, 25, 213–223.
Özçelik, Ö., & Sprouse, R. A. (2017). Emergent knowledge of a universal phonological
principle in the L2 acquisition of vowel harmony in Turkish: A “four”-fold poverty of
the stimulus in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 179–206.
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paradis, J., Rice, M., Crago, M., & Marquis, J. (2008). The acquisition of tense in English:
Distinguishing child second language from first language and specific language impair-
ment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 689–722.
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and
English child grammars. London: Kluwer.
Pinel, P., Fauchereau, F., Moreno, A., Barbot, A., Lathrop, M., Zelenika, D., . . . Dehaene,
S. (2012). Genetic Variants of FOXP2 and KIAA0319/TTRAP/THEM2 locus are
associated with altered brain activation in distinct language-related regions. Journal of
Neuroscience, 32, 817–825.
Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: New evidence in support of
attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328.
Prévost, P., & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (2004). The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on
functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prévost, P., &White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second lan-
guage acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16,
103–133.
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: A minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rankin, T., & Unsworth, S. (2016). Beyond poverty: Engaging with input in generative
SLA. Second Language Research, 34, 563–572.
Renaud, C. (2014). A processing investigation of the accessibility of the uninterpretable
gender feature in L2 French and L2 Spanish adjective agreement. Linguistic Approaches
to Bilingualism, 4, 222–255.
Reuter, M. S., Riess, A., Moog, U., Briggs, T. A., Chandler, K. E., Rauch, A., . . . Zweier, C.
(2017). FOXP2 variants in 14 individuals with developmental speech and language disor-
ders broaden the mutational and clinical spectrum. Journal of Medical Genetics, 54, 64–72.
Roberts, I. (2012). Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative
research. In C. Galves, S. Cyrino, R. Lopez, F. Sândalo, & J. Avelar (Eds.), Parameter theory
and linguistic change (pp. 320–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. (2016). Object clitics. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to
the romance languages (pp. 786–801). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. (2017a). Introduction. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Universal
Grammar (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. (Ed.). (2017b). The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Roberts, I., & Holmberg, A. (2010). Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In T.
Beiberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts, & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null
subjects in Minimalist theory (pp. 1–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from
neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition
 Linguistics and Language Learning 125
theories and translate to evidence-based applications? Second Language Research, 34,
125–143.
Rogers,V. (2009). Syntactic development in the second language acquisition of French by instructed
English learners. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Roncaglia-Denissen, M. P., Schmidt-Kassow, M., Heine, A., & Kotz, S. A. (2015). On
the impact of L2 speech rhythm on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Second Language
Research, 31, 157–178.
Rothman, J., Bayram, F., Cunnings, I., & González Alonso, J. (in press). Formal linguistics
approaches to adult second language acquisition and processing. In J. W. Schwieter &
A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (Eds.). (2011). Acquisition at the linguistic interfaces [Spe-
cial Issue]. Lingua, 121.
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in
modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–444.
Schachter, J. (1996). Maturation and the issue of Universal Grammar in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 159–193). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schlyter, S. (1986). Surextension et sous-extension dans l’acquisition des verbes de mou-
vements/déplacement. In A Giacomi & D. Véronique (Eds.), Acquisition d’une langue
étrangère (pp. 475–491). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
Schmid, M. S. (2011). Language attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, M. S. (2014). The debate on maturational constraints in bilingual development:
A perspective from first-language attrition. Language Acquisition, 21, 386–410.
Schmid, M. S., Gilbers, S., & Nota, A. (2014). Ultimate attainment in late second language
acquisition: Phonetic and grammatical challenges in advanced Dutch—English bilin-
gualism. Second Language Research, 30, 129–157.
Schmid, M., & Köpke, B. (2018). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of
bilingual development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 637–667.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative lan-
guage acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In
T. Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar
(pp. 317–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access
model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimu-
lus. In J. Herschensohn & M.Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 137–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (2017). The role of Universal Grammar in nonnative lan-
guage acquisition. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar
(pp. 289–304). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six
years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research,
22, 302–338.
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Slabakova, R. (Ed.). (2009). The fundamental difference hypothesis twenty years later
[Special Issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31.
126  Linguistics and Language Learning
Slabakova, R. (2013).What is easy and what is hard in second language acquisition: A gen-
erative perspective. In M. del Pilar García Mayo, M. Junkal Gutierrez-Mangado, & M.
Martínez Adrián (Eds.), contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 5–28).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Serratrice, L., Sorace, A., & Paoli, S. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-prag-
matic interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual
acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, N. (1999). Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, N., & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Smith, N., Tsimpli, I., Morgan, G., & Woll, B. (2011). The signs of a savant: Language against
the odds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snape, N., & Kupisch, T. (2016). Second language acquisition: Second language systems. Lon-
don: Palgrave.
Snyder,W. (2007). Child language:The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgements in second language acquisition
research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 375–409). San Diego: Academic Press.
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K.
Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.
Sorace, A., & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.
Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.
Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language
development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 1–16.
Thomas, M. (1991). Universal Grammar and knowledge of reflexives in a second language. PhD
dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Thomas, M. (2004). Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: A history. Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (Eds.) (2004). Empirical evidence and theories of representa-
tion in current research in second language acquisition. [Special issue]. Transactions of
the Philological Society, 102.
Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and pre-emption in the second lan-
guage classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.
Tsimpli, I., & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence
from wh-interrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23,
215–242.
Tsimpli, I., & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntax-
semantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman,T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University conference on language development
(BUCLD) (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
 Linguistics and Language Learning 127
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996a). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Addi-
tional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12, 140–176.
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996b). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure.
Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998). The initial state in the L2 acquisition of
phrase structure. In S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), The generative study
of second language acquisition (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2007). Minimalism vs. organic syntax. In S. Karimi,
V. Samiian, & W. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and
interpretation. In honor of Joseph Emonds (pp. 319–338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2011). The acquisition of German: Introducing organic
grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
van der Lely, H. K. J. (Ed.). (1998). Specific Language Impairment in children [Special
Issue]. Language Acquisition, 7.
van Hout, R., Hulk, A., Kuiken, F., & Towell, R. (Eds.). (2003). The lexicon-syntax interface
in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Véronique, D. (1986). L’apprentissage du français par des travailleurs marocains et les pro-
cessus de pidginisation et de créolisation. In A. Giacome & D.Véronique (Eds.), Acqui-
sition d’une langue étrangère (pp. 559–584). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of posi-
tive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.
White, L. (1992). Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Cana-
dian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 273–286.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
White, L. (2009a). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–68). Bingley:
Emerald Group.
White, L. (2009b). Some questions about feature reassembly. Second Language Research,
25, 343–348.
White, L., Travis, L., & MacLachlan, A. (1992). The acquisition of wh-question formation
by Malagasy learners of English: Evidence for universal grammar. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics, 37, 341–368.
Whong, M., Gil, K.-H., & Marsden, H. (Eds.). (2013). Universal Grammar and the second
language classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of
language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neurosci-
ence & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119.
Yuan, B. (2001). The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chi-
nese. Second Language Research, 14, 248–272.
Zobl, H. (1980).The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisi-
tion. Language Learning, 30, 43–57.
4 Cognitive Approaches to Second
Language Learning (1)
General Learning Mechanisms

4.1 Introduction
Basic questions asked by researchers adopting cognitive perspectives on L2
learning include:

• To what extent can general cognitive learning explain L2 phenom-

ena, without the need to define a predetermined linguistic architecture
within the brain?
• What are these cognitive mechanisms?
• What are the main factors that affect how they work?

Chapters 4 and 5 address different aspects of these questions. In this chapter

we focus on theories that foreground cognitive mechanisms that are thought
to work for both L1 and L2 learning and, largely, to work in similar ways
across individual learners. In Chapter 5 we turn our attention to theories
that emphasize differences in the mechanisms at play for L1 and L2 learn-
ing, foreground a role for explicit knowledge in L2 learning and also take
account of differences between individual learners. We think this division is
helpful for illustrating the logic of cognitive theory, a range of major con-
structs and the research methods typical of cognitively oriented L2 research.
However, the reach of cognitive theories is wide, as they provide support-
ing transition theories for many other perspectives. As well as close links
between Chapters 4 and 5, strong links can also be found with the theories
presented in Chapter 6 (cognitive perspectives on interaction), Chapter 7
(theories that emphasize the meaning and function of language) and Chap-
ter 10, where we review attempts to integrate a range of theoretical perspec-
tives and phenomena which also draw, to different degrees, on the general
cognitive mechanisms described in this chapter. One of these, Dynamic Sys-
tems Theory, sits firmly within the emergentist tradition, but we cover it in
a separate chapter because it draws together many ideas and makes a spe-
cial case for distinctive research approaches and data collection and analysis
methods, as noted by Van Geert and Verspoor (2015). The other integrative
framework covered in Chapter 10, MOGUL (Sharwood Smith & Truscott,
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 129
2014), has much in common with the thinking outlined in Chapters 4 and
5 regarding the contribution of language processing to development, but
assumes that this is in part constrained and directed by an innate linguistic
module.
In this chapter we describe cognitive accounts of L2 learning that draw
on systems that every normal human has access to, that are thought to func-
tion largely—though not exclusively—without awareness (i.e. implicitly).
The assumption of theories in this chapter is that many aspects of language
learning, whether L1, L2 or L3, tap into the same, general, cognitive mecha-
nisms and architecture that drive general human learning. “Learning”, in
this chapter, does not mean the kind of learning that results from conscious
effort and study, but extraction of meaningful patterns from environmen-
tal stimuli, via all types of sensory perception. In this view, outcomes of
L2 and L1 learning are different not because of fundamental differences in
the nature of the learning mechanisms at play, nor because of the chang-
ing extent to which different learning mechanisms are drawn upon (these
issues are covered in Chapter 5). Instead, different L1 and L2 outcomes are
accounted for by other factors, such as, in the case of L2 learning, at least
one language has been acquired; basic understandings and expectations have
already been established about how the world functions; learners are more
socially, personally, interactionally and cognitively mature; and the learning
environment and motivations to learn are usually very different.
In Section 4.2, we introduce research that examines how features of
the input affect learning, drawing on general theories of learning. These
approaches are transition theories, rather than property theories. In Sec-
tion 4.3, we discuss research perspectives that investigate whether processing
constraints influence what learners can do, and when. Our first example
(Pienemann’s Processability Theory) focuses on a particular transition theory
whereby developmental stages in L2 learning are determined by the growth
of the L2 language processor. Our second example (O’Grady’s Processing
Determinism) argues that language acquisition and language structure are
both dependent on characteristics of our language processing capacities, thus
eliminating the property theory–transition theory distinction.

4.2 Input-Based Emergentist Perspectives

“Emergentism” is an umbrella term for research sharing the underlying view
that L2 learning is bottom-up; that is, learners use general learning mecha-
nisms in order to extract structure and patterns from the language input they
are exposed to. From this perspective, formal aspects of language “emerge”
from language experience, rather than either being innate or being repre-
sented as rigid abstract structures. Emergentism is the overarching term for
a group of theories, including usage-based, frequency-based, construction
grammar, cognitive grammar, connectionism, and priming (MacWhinney,
2015). Influencing emergentist language growth are many factors, which,
130  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
for the sake of presentation, are grouped here into input-related factors (such
as salience of target features in the L2 input) and learner-related mechanisms
(such as associative learning and learners’ L1). Of course, input-related factors
and learner mechanisms are highly interdependent (N. C. Ellis, 2016). Indeed,
a recent edited volume on salience in SLA (Gass, Spinner, & Behney, 2018)
surveys empirical and theoretical perspectives that treat salience as something
emanating from the intrinsic properties of the language itself and from the
learners’ cognitive functions, as well as perspectives that combine both (see
N. C. Ellis and O’Grady’s chapters in that volume). Similarly, Housen and
Simoens (2016) review the complex interaction of linguistic (structural and
semantic), learner and task features that can influence the ease or difficulty
with which specific aspects of language are learned. Nevertheless, for clarity’s
sake, we introduce input and learner factors separately here.

4.2.1 Input-Related Factors
An extensive research agenda has investigated how far intrinsic character-
istics of L2 input can determine whether particular language features are
acquired early or late. In some such studies, samples of input are coded
for a range of physical and linguistic characteristics, including frequency in
the input, physical salience (how prominent/easy the feature is to hear/read
compared to other features around it), redundancy (how essential or unique
the feature is for conveying meaning), complexity in terms of relationships
between the feature and the meaning(s) it conveys or the functions it has,
and the lexical and semantic contexts in which the feature occurs. These
characteristics have been used to explain the extent to which features are
“easy” or “difficult” to learn.
One such study, by Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001), investigated the
learning of English morphemes believed to be acquired in a fixed order, i.e.
progressive -ing, plural -s, possessive -s, the articles a, an, the, 3rd person singu-
lar present -s and regular past -ed. These researchers used an existing corpus
of naturalistic parent-child L1 talk mentioned in Chapter 2 (Brown, 1973).
They coded each morpheme according to various intrinsic characteristics:
its perceptual salience (how easy it is to hear); semantic complexity (number
of meanings); morphophonological regularity (how regular and distinctive
its sounds are); syntactic category (lexical or functional word, free or bound
morpheme); and frequency.To find out how well these six morphemes were
learned by L2 learners, the researchers pooled the results of 12 previous stud-
ies (drawing on data from over 900 learners) that had documented whether
learners had supplied the morphemes in about 90% of expected contexts.
They found that perceptual salience in the L1 corpus was strongly associated
with accuracy, and all five input characteristics in combination predicted a
significant proportion of the accuracy scores. However, the authors acknowl-
edged that they did not take L1 influence into account; as Spanish was by far
the most dominant L1 (N = 354), this may have biased the results. They also
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 131
acknowledged that frequency evidence from an L1 caretakers’ corpus may
not reflect accurately the input heard by L2 learners.
Addressing this issue, Collins, Trofimovich, White, Cardoso, and Horst
(2009) used a 110,000-word corpus of classroom talk to 11- and 12-year-
old Francophone learners of L2 English in Quebec, to investigate the input
characteristics associated with English structures thought to be easier/harder
to acquire. They focused on progressive -ing (known to be acquired early),
the regular simple past -ed and the possessive determiners his/her (both
known to be later acquired). They analysed the frequency of these forms in
the classroom input, their lexical and morphosyntactic properties and their
perceptual salience. Collins et al. showed that raw frequency counts (token
frequency) could not explain relative ease of acquisition (none of these items
was particularly frequent in the corpus). However, progressive -ing occurred
with a greater range of moderately frequent verbs than simple past (type fre-
quency), and in a greater variety of situations (semantic scope). In contrast,
Noun Phrases such as his mother, critical for working out the relationship
between the possessor and the possessed because the determiner and noun
refer to different genders, were rare and occurred only with a restricted set
of nouns.They argue that together these factors can explain why -ed and his/
her are acquired later than -ing, as illustrated in Table 4.1.
Both these studies used acquisition orders taken from other studies, whereas
ideally research needs to document both actual input and acquisition pat-
terns for the same learners. Additionally, some researchers have argued that
you cannot measure salience independently (as an intrinsic characteristic of
the input), as what is salient for one learner in one context might not be so
for another learner or in another context (N. C. Ellis, 2006b, 2016). Online
measures (such as those that record reaction times and eye movements while
learners read or listen to language) can help to investigate learners’ percep-
tions of salience (Indrarathne, Ratajczak, & Kormos, 2018).
Another acknowledged shortcoming of both these studies (Goldschnei-
der & DeKeyser and Collins et al.) is that they did not take into account the
potential effects of learners’ L1. Addressing this issue, Luk and Shirai (2009)

Table 4.1  Input Profile of Difficult and Easy Constructions

Difficult: Difficult: Possessive Easy: Progressive

“Simple past” determiner his/her

Token frequency* Low Low Low

Type frequency** Low Low High
Semantic scope Low Low Moderate
Perceptual salience Low Low High
Source: Collins et al., 2009, p. 346
*Token frequency counts all occurrences of every relevant word/morpheme
**Type frequency counts the range of different words/morphemes
132  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
drew together the findings from 18 previous studies to investigate the influ-
ence of semantic and structural similarity between L1 and L2 morphemes
on the learning of three English morphemes: articles, plural -s and posses-
sive -s. They found that L1 Spanish learners followed the so-called Natural
Order (Krashen, 1981, described in Chapter 2), but that L1 Japanese, Korean
and Chinese learners mostly did not: they acquired plural -s and articles later,
probably because these morphemes do not exist in their L1, and possessive -s
earlier, probably because this is structurally similar to their L1 (p. 721).
The influence of previously learned languages on L2 morphosyntax has
been studied further by Murakami and Alexopoulou (2016), who analysed
over four million words in 11,893 written examination scripts. The study
focused on the same six English grammatical morphemes as Goldschneider
and DeKeyser (2001), but with learners from seven different L1 groups.
They found relative accuracy reflected the presence or absence of individual
features in the L1. So, articles were consistently the least accurate morpheme
among L1 Japanese learners but exhibited high accuracy among L1 Spanish
learners; past tense -ed exhibited high accuracy for L1 Japanese learners but
low accuracy for L1 Spanish learners. Also demonstrating L1 influence, for
oral proficiency more generally, Schepens, van der Slik, and van Hout (2016)
analysed an enormous sample of 39,300 learners’ oral production tests in L3
Dutch. The researchers found that the amount of lexical and morphological
similarity with previously learned languages determined L2 oral proficiency
to a considerable degree; similarity with L1 explained about half of the over-
all variation in test scores, and similarity with other L2s explained a further
third. In analyzing their data, these researchers took care to account for other
potential factors that could explain test scores, such as amount of exposure
to the language, age and education.
These investigations have been taken further by Murakami’s (2016) inves-
tigation of the same morphemes, which tracked their development over
time within individuals and between individuals with the same L1. As well as
documenting L1 influence, he provided robust evidence of large variation
between individuals with the same L1 in the order in which they began to
use these morphemes accurately.
The overall picture from these studies challenges notions of an invariant,
universal acquisition order (Murakami, 2016, p. 737), running against the
claims of the 1970s and 1980s morpheme studies (see also Collins, 2004).
They suggest that morpheme acquisition orders could be dependent on
interactions among a range of factors, including L1 influence, input charac-
teristics and learners’ individual differences. Their relevance for this chapter
is that factors such as individual variation, input characteristics and L1 influ-
ence sit more easily within cognitive perspectives on the emergence of lan-
guage than within a perspective that requires innate linguistic constraints, as
these factors interact with general learning mechanisms. As discussed below,
such factors are closely intertwined in general cognitive mechanisms such as
entrenchment, attention blocking and statistical learning.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 133
Before looking more closely at some of these learner-related mechanisms,
we visit one more theory that foregrounds the nature of the input, but
also considers how learners’ L1 influences the processing of L2 input. One
complication in language learning is that some meanings (or functions) are
expressed in different ways. For example, the meaning PAST can be realized
in a range of different ways, which may or may not co-occur in the L2, such
as through adverbs like yesterday and the -ed verb inflection. In some lan-
guages, the subject role in a sentence can be reliably identified by its position
in the sentence, but in others, it may also be identified by markings on arti-
cles or suffixes, or even by a common-sense guess based on the (in)animacy
of nouns. Language learners have to use these different—and sometimes
competing—cues in the input in order to make decisions about how best to
process (parse and understand) it.
A theoretical framework that has focused on this phenomenon is the
Unified Competition Model (UCM: MacWhinney, 2005, 2012). In this
model, the learner’s task is to discover the nature of particular form-function
relationships in the language system. A typical experiment within this frame-
work aims to determine the strength of different cues for particular learn-
ers by making the cues contradict one another. For example, in The ball are
chasing the boys (MacWhinney, 2012, p. 213), the word order implies ball is
the subject of chase, yet the semantic properties of the word ball tell us it is
unlikely to be the subject (though not impossible!), and the plural verb form
does not allow the singular ball as the subject. The extent to which such
competing cues influence which noun is interpreted as the subject is called
their “cue strength”.
L2 researchers exploring the UCM have been investigating the influence
of L1 cues on learning L2 cue strength. For example, in Italian the subject
can follow the verb, so both la mangiano i ragazzi (= it eat the boys) and i
ragazzi la mangiano (= the boys it eat) are grammatical, and both mean “the
boys eat it”. This makes word order a much weaker cue in Italian than in
languages like English or French that do not normally allow the subject to
follow the verb. If L1 cue strengths impact on the L2 learning process, then
French word order should be easier for L1 English learners than Italian word
order. For studies investigating such issues, see Isabelli (2008), Jackson (2007,
2008) and MacWhinney (2012).
The UCM accounts for learning by general cognitive mechanisms and
by social interaction, and draws on neurolinguistic evidence (MacWhinney,
2005, 2008, 2012). Like other cognitively oriented researchers, MacWhinney
sees input driving both L1 and L2 learning; the detectability and reliability
of cues play a major role, and learners’ ability to recover from errors and
pre-empt overgeneralizations is related to the competition between cues.
Learners must track the probabilities with which input cues, such as word
order or morphology, are associated with specific interpretations, while for
L2 learning, cue strength is also influenced by expectations entrenched by
the L1. These are key features of associative learning, described next.
134  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
4.2.2 Learner-Related Factors: Associative Learning
We now describe some of the general cognitive mechanisms thought to oper-
ate when processing and learning from L2 input. These associative learning
mechanisms, and the methodologies used to investigate them, are generally
adopted from cognitive psychology. For accounts of L1 learning from an
emergentist perspective, see Elman et al. (1996), Ambridge and Lieven (2011),
Ambridge, Kidd, Rowland, and Theakston (2015) and MacWhinney and
O’Grady (2015). For overviews from L2 researchers, see Robinson and N.
C. Ellis (2008) and N. C. Ellis (2006a, 2006b, 2007). However, the family of
cognitive theories about mechanisms involved in the emergence of language
is now enormous. In the following subsections, we introduce key features
of associative learning: frequency-biased probability calculations; overshadow-
ing and attention blocking; statistical (or sequence) learning and pre-emption;
prediction and prediction errors; construction learning; and implicit learning
of form-meaning connections. Each of those topics now has its own healthy
research agenda, covered by entire handbooks, edited volumes and special
issues of journals.

4.2.2.1  Learners’ Use of Frequency in the Input

Frequency is argued to play a large role in shaping language acquisition,
as it provides evidence about the likelihood of particular language fea-
tures appearing in particular linguistic contexts with particular functions.
Humans have innate abilities to pick out cues, to track frequencies and
to calculate statistical probabilities implicitly (without awareness): “Learn-
ing language can thus be viewed as a statistical process in that it requires
the learner to acquire a set of likelihood-weighted associations between
constructions and their functional/semantic interpretations” (N. C. Ellis,
2006a, p. 12). For example, learners experience, one by one, that adverbs
in English often occur after the main verb (e.g. I run slowly), and they will
abstract a generalization from this statistical information and apply it to
all adverbs (sometimes erroneously, as in I run always). Similarly, they will
tally that verbs often end in -ed and that this happens in particular mean-
ing contexts, and will then apply this generalization to all verbs (sometimes
producing structures such as he drived). This illustrates the associative learn-
ing principle of entrenchment: that frequency of exposure increases the
chances of long-lasting learning. However, clearly, frequency alone does
not explain L2 learning, as highly frequent forms and structures are not
necessarily acquired first or most successfully. Salience and reliability of
cues in the input affect both L1 and L2 acquisition alike, and so cannot
explain the differences observed between L1 and L2 learning phenomena.
To explain the limited end state typical of L2 learning, other associative
learning processes must be considered.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 135
4.2.2.2  Overshadowing, Attention Blocking and the Role of the L1
Sometimes meaning can be satisfactorily extracted by learners without con-
necting each form they hear or read to a meaning or function. For example,
on hearing the sentence Yesterday, I carried that heavy box, a cognitively mature
L2 learner does not have to process the -ed on the verb to understand that
the sentence is in the past, as they can process yesterday. This processing fail-
ure is thought to happen when world knowledge can deliver a communica-
tively satisfactory meaning (as learners know concepts such as yesterday and
that they are expressed with lexical items), or when other ways of process-
ing the input have been activated many more times before (i.e. in the L1),
or when other features are more perceptually salient (e.g. a content word
is more physically salient than -ed). Thus, one feature can “overshadow”
another. In our example, the temporal adverb yesterday overshadows the past
tense marking (N. C. Ellis, 2008). Overshadowing can, over time, lead to
learned selective attention, known as attention blocking. Essentially, if a par-
ticular meaning (or function) has reliably been expressed using x, it is dif-
ficult to associate a different or an additional language feature with that same
meaning; if x has always expressed a particular meaning (or function), it is
difficult to associate x with another meaning (or function). Overshadowing
and attention blocking are thought to affect L2 learning more powerfully,
because at least one language is already established.
In a series of experimental studies, N. C. Ellis and Sagarra (2010, 2011)
used Latin (an inflection-rich dead language) to investigate how far inflec-
tional morphology is attended to. In a first experiment (2010), they trained
L1 English participants in different ways to interpret the past in Latin sen-
tences, with one group being trained on adverbs, another on verb morphol-
ogy, and a third control group receiving no training. Some members of the
verb morphology group showed sensitivity to that cue. However, all groups
were sensitive to the (lexical) adverb cue, even those who had received no
training on it. A further experiment included participants from a range of
L1s. Learners from L1s without verb morphology (Chinese, Malay, Indone-
sian) were found to be less sensitive to cues on the verb than the other learn-
ers, and the researchers conclude that “sensitivity to these cues is, therefore, a
matter of degree” (N. C. Ellis & Sagarra, 2011, p. 611). Another pair of studies
has demonstrated that this selective attention can be observed online, in real
time processing, by tracking eye movements whilst learners comprehended
written input.These studies showed the influence of prior L1 experience on
what learners attended to in the input (Sagarra & N. C. Ellis, 2013) and on
what they produced (N. C. Ellis et al., 2014).
This set of studies, by holding frequency of the features in the input
constant, demonstrated that regardless of how frequent a particular cue
is, learners’ sensitivity to it can be reduced by greater reliance on another,
prior-learned cue.
136  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
4.2.2.3  Statistical Learning and Connectionist Accounts
The term “statistical learning” conveys the idea that learners unconsciously
tally the likelihood that a particular linguistic form will occur in specific
slots in specific contexts. Laboratory research in the 1990s demonstrated that
humans could extract regularities (like those that govern word boundaries)
from streams of syllables such as ba-bu-pu-du-ta-ba-bu-pa (Saffran et al., 1996b,
cited in Williams, 2009; Misyak & Christiansen, 2012).This kind of statistical
learning is central to associative learning (Shanks, 2007).
To study statistical learning, some researchers have used computer simula-
tions. One reason is that if patterns similar to human learning can be gen-
erated by a computer that has no pre-programmed linguistic constraints,
then human learning could also be driven by the same kind of statistical
probabilities that computers use. Connectionist computer models, such as a
simple recurrent network (SRN), simulate how links between information
nodes become strengthened or weakened through repeated activation or
non-activation. Such networks are used to investigate the learning of arti-
ficial grammars, where, for example, a target grammar string to be learned
might be ABCD, where C follows B but only if B follows A. The networks
are fed many examples of such strings as input data, and when they correctly
predict what will come next, their connections are strengthened; regardless
of whether they predict correctly or not, they receive the “correct” input
(as a human might implicitly predict the next sound or word(s), and then
encounter either the same or a different one). This information feeds into
the computer’s bank of tallies about what can be expected to follow what, in
which specific contexts. (For fuller descriptions see Cleeremans & Dienes,
2008; N. C. Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009; Williams, 2009.)
Computer simulations have modelled the L2 acquisition of features such
as verb argument constructions, recursion and the constraints governing
phoneme combinations in English. Simulations have also been used widely
in L1 acquisition research. (Semi-)Artificial grammar learning has also been
investigated with human learners (Christiansen, Conway, & Onnis, 2012;
Ettlinger, Morgan-Short, Faretta-Stutenberg, & Wong, 2016; van den Bos,
Christiansen, & Misyak, 2012; Williams, 2010; Williams & Kuribara, 2008).
This line of work has addressed many earlier concerns about this research,
such as that artificial grammars do not reflect natural language learning,
complex grammatical relations or the ability of learners to generalize gram-
mar to new contexts or items.

4.2.2.4  Statistical Pre-emption and Priming

An important challenge for statistical learning accounts that rely heavily
on frequency in the input is how to explain what learners do not produce,
and, related to that, why they ever move away from overgeneralizing the
more frequent patterns in language.Why do the less frequent form-function
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 137
relationships get learned at all, such as irregular morphology (went, not goed)
or the syntactic patterns that are subtly context-dependent (such as when
to use a pronoun in Spanish and when not to)? Why do all languages not
converge over time into highly regular and easily predictable grammars?
These questions are challenging because of the lack of negative evidence in
the input (discussed in Chapter 1); in L1 learning, children are rarely explic-
itly corrected. In instructed L2 learning, correction is known to help (see
Chapter 6), but it seems unlikely to feed the same implicit statistical learning
mechanisms that drive L1 learning that we are discussing here. So, how can
statistical learning explain how language learning appears to be constrained
and rule-like, even for infrequent language structures and features, without
evidence of how not to use language? To cast this issue in Universal Gram-
mar terminology, how does statistical learning account for the “Poverty of
the Stimulus” problem?
Cognitive theorists argue that learners are highly sensitive to contrast
(Ambridge, Pine, Rowland, Jones, & Clark, 2009; Boyd & Goldberg, 2011;
Goldberg, 2011; Stefanowitsch, 2008).Thus, if learners have established that a
meaning is expressed using a particular form, then this indicates that alternate
forms are not appropriate, even if suggested by other high-frequency patterns
in the input. This is a process known as statistical pre-emption (Ambridge,
Pine, Rowland, Chang, & Bidgood, 2013). For example, hearing She made
it disappear rules out the possibility of She disappeared it, despite the high fre-
quency of transitive verb constructions in the input. Goldberg explains as fol-
lows: “How is that we know we should use went instead of goed? Clearly it is
because we consistently hear went in contexts where goed would have been at
least as appropriate” (2011, p. 133). Robenalt and Goldberg (2016) extend the
idea to verb argument constructions, investigating why even though many
verbs that have two objects (Verb + OBJ + OBJ, such as passed John the salt)
can also take the dative structure (passed the salt to John), learners eventually
come to know that the lexical item explain cannot take the former structure,
as they only ever hear the dative version: explain + OBJ + to + OBJ.
But, after the first representations of these pre-empted structures are
stored in the mind, how are they then strengthened and consolidated over
time, especially when they may have to compete against higher frequency
forms in the input? One possibility is that structures are primed—that is,
once established in memory, subsequent exemplars serve to reinforce the
representations, and make it more likely for them to be produced in the
future or recognized (activated) with greater ease. Priming has been widely
documented in both L1 learning (Bock & Griffin, 2000) and L2 learning, at
many different levels of language (lexical, prosodic, syntactic: McDonough &
Fulga, 2015; McDonough & Trofimovich, 2015). There now seems to be
ample evidence that priming serves as a learning mechanism, consolidat-
ing and reinforcing representations that have already been stored. However,
regardless of frequency and (ir)regularity in the input, emergentist theorists
must still explain how initial representations are established in the first place.
138  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
4.2.2.5  Prediction and Prediction Errors as a Learning Mechanism
Another element of statistical learning is prediction: the ability to anticipate
upcoming language and meaning when trying to comprehend the input.
This idea relates to statistical learning and connectionist models, described
above, which propose that learners weigh up probabilities and work towards
more accurate predictions in order to establish more accurate representations
of the language they hear. Prediction fits within the idea that processing
drives acquisition (Chang, Dell, & Bock, 2006). It is seen as a key driver in
general human learning as well as in L1 and L2 acquisition (Greve, Cooper,
Kaula, Anderson, & Henson, 2017; Phillips & Ehrenhofer, 2015). Prediction
is thought to occur at all levels—phonemic, prosodic, morphemic, syntac-
tic, semantic—building up an inventory of possible predictions over time.
For example, at the morpho-phonemic level, when I hear Yesterday, I was
walk . . ., I expect to hear -ing; at the semantic level, when I hear He really likes
eating . . ., I anticipate a noun that denotes something edible; when I hear
what, I can then expect certain categories of words, such as specific verb
groups (auxiliaries BE, DO, HAVE); modals might, can, may; or nouns (time,
house). I would be less likely to expect, based on my experience, to hear items
from other categories, such as non-finite lexical verbs (go, thinking).
So, how does this help learning? Firstly, predictions may help learners
move away from non-target-like productions. Even though as a learner
I may produce such utterances (What eating?), I will, if I am able to tally
statistical probabilities, eventually stop producing them because my implicit
predictions of the input would not match actual input, and so would not be
reinforced.
Secondly, prediction errors (where a prediction is not fulfilled by the input)
can help create new representations. At any moment of exposure to a new
language, some sounds or sequences are rarer than others. For instance, using
the example above, the combination “what + finite lexical verb” can occur
but is rare (What goes up and down, but never moves?). It is thought that on hear-
ing less frequent or unexpected constructions, which we had not predicted,
the experience of not having a prediction fulfilled “surprises” us and this helps
us to learn. That is, due to the sheer power of our predictive mechanisms, the
surprisal effect establishes a new representation in our minds (also known as
the “Bayesian surprise”: Zarcone, van Schijndel, Vogels, & Demberg, 2016).
This new representation can then be reinforced on further encounters (or
not, if it was just “noise” in the input). As N. C. Ellis (2016) describes:

The brain is a prediction machine (Clark, 2013). One consequence is

that, when prediction goes wrong, it is surprisal that maximally drives
learning from a single trial. Otherwise, the regularities of the usual
course of our experiences add up little by little, trial after trial, to drive
our expectations.
(p. 344)
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 139
So, a key mechanism for learning is when input does not match one’s expec-
tations, as this gives the learner critical information about what is allowed in
the language, and what is not. This learning mechanism is closely related to
that of statistical pre-emption. For example, where learners might be expect-
ing to hear regular syntax or morphology (buyed), but hear an irregularity
such as bought, this causes them to establish a new representation or consoli-
date an earlier learned item. To give a more complex example, on hearing I
don’t know what . . ., the expectation might be a verb + subject (what are you),
given the very high frequency of wh- followed by subject and verb inversion.
However, input such as I don’t know what you are thinking provides funda-
mental information to the learners that in certain contexts non-inversion
is licensed, following a wh-word. The contexts allowing non-inversion are
ascertained by experiencing the distributions of these strings in the input,
though this may be adversely affected by attention blocking, as described
above. (See Processability Theory below and Pozzan and Quirk (2014) for
evidence that non-inversion is indeed difficult to learn.)
We have just reviewed claims about the significance of prediction, and
prediction errors, for language learning. However, some theorists argue
that L2 learners have a reduced ability to predict and anticipate upcom-
ing information (Grüter, Rohde, & Schafer, 2014), known as the Reduced
Ability to Generate Expectations (RAGE) hypothesis. Research explor-
ing this possibility has focused largely on prediction within Noun Phrases.
Such research tracks participants’ eye movements as they look at a scene
that they hear described. The research was inspired by work with adult L1
speakers that found that semantic and morphosyntactic information helped
participants to anticipate meaning in the pictures they were looking at (Alt-
mann & Kamide, 1999; Chambers, Tanenhaus, Eberhard, Filip, & Carlson,
2002). A pioneering eye-tracking study with L2 Spanish learners conducted
by Lew-Williams and Fernald (2010) found that adult learners were less able
to make such predictions. For example, participants were offered images of
a horse (in Spanish, el caballo, masculine) and of a frog (la rana, feminine).
On hearing just el (the + masc.) native speakers looked more to caballo than
to rana, but adult L2 learners did not. Later studies have produced similar
findings (Grüter, Lew-Williams, & Fernald, 2012; Hopp, 2015, 2016; Martin
et al., 2013).
However, other studies have found evidence that learners can use mor-
phosyntactic and semantic information to anticipate language. For example,
Hopp (2013, 2016) found that if learners knew the correct gender assign-
ment, they were able to use the gender-marking in articles to anticipate
nouns in native-like ways. Trenkic, Mirkovic, and Altmann (2014) found
that learners used definite and indefinite articles in the input to predict
upcoming noun referents, even when their L1s lacked overt articles. Oth-
ers have found that the extent of prediction is affected by similarities and
differences between L1 and L2 (van Bergen & Flecken, 2017; Hopp &
Lemmerth, 2018).
140  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
The idea of prediction errors driving the learning process chimes with
other ideas from non-emergentist views (i.e. not related to probabilistic
prediction). For example, Carroll’s (2001) Autonomous Induction Theory
proposes that learning happens when online parsing fails. Within the Full
Access to Universal Grammar view (see Chapter 3), Schwartz and Sprouse
(1996) propose that the resetting of parameters occurs when the learner
fails to assign a representation to the input within their current grammar.
However, as Phillips and Ehrenhofer (2015) note, very little L2 processing
research investigating prediction actually explores questions related to learn-
ing. In fact, some argue that anticipatory effects do not have a causal role in
driving and in constraining acquisition, but may be byproducts of learning
that happened via other mechanisms (e.g. Foucart, 2015; Huettig & Mani,
2015; Kaan, 2015; Rabagliati, Gambi, & Pickering, 2016). Nonetheless, a
better understanding of L2 learners’ capacity to predict has clear potential
to shed light on learning. For example, do learners make fewer or weaker
predictions than natives—and therefore make fewer beneficial prediction
errors—because learners have weaker or non-existent representations on
which to base predictions? In Chapter 5 we consider whether prediction
and surprisal effects are accessible to consciousness, and so potentially ame-
nable to explicit training.

4.2.2.6  Construction Learning

A theory of language learning that lacks a distinctive language module entails
a view of development as a process of bottom-up construction of linguistic
representations, derived entirely from analysis of input.That is, to learn a lan-
guage one must learn a very diverse array of constructions, i.e. convention-
alized form-meaning mappings of all kinds (abstract and concrete), which
become schematized over time in users’ minds. Constructions can include
concrete lexical items; formulae such as once upon a time; slot-and-frame con-
structions such as give [someone] [something]; and more open abstract schemata
such as [noun stem + plural] and [SUBJ + V + OBJ + OBJ2]. Work in this
area relates to both L1 learning (Auer & Pfänder, 2011; Goldberg, 2006;
Jackendoff & Audring, 2016; Tomasello, 2003) and, increasingly, L2 learning
(Boyd & Goldberg, 2009; Cadierno & Eskildsen, 2015; Collins & N. C. Ellis,
2009; N. C. Ellis & Cadierno, 2009; N. C. Ellis, Römer, & O’Donnell, 2016;
Tyler & Ortega, 2016). These studies typically investigate to what extent
learners are assisted by factors such as frequency or prototypicality when
extracting various constructions from the language they are exposed to. Pro-
totypicality is the term used to refer to the fact that some members of a
group are seen as more typical of that group than others. For example, a
sparrow is considered as a more prototypical bird than an ostrich.
The focus of much of this work on the role of prototypicality in L2
learning has been on verb-argument constructions (VACs), because, as N. C.
Ellis, O’Donnell, and Römer (2015) argue, “verbs are the cornerstone of the
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 141
syntax-semantics interface” (p. 166). These researchers illustrate how we use
constructions that we already know to interpret and learn new items as fol-
lows: when we hear “The teacher spugged the boy the book” (p. 165), we imme-
diately know that the book is a transferred object from a donor (teacher) to
a recipient (boy), and this helps us to know that spugg is permitted in verb
+ double object (ditransitive) constructions. This is known as bootstrapping,
where features of new language are learned by mapping them onto language
that is already known, by a process of tallying distributions experienced in
the input.
For example, N. C. Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (2009) examined the effects
of frequency, prototypicality and generality of meaning on the L2 acqui-
sition of three English VACs over a period of 2–3 years. The study used
naturalistic data from the European Science Foundation adult learner cor-
pus (described in Chapter 7: Klein & Perdue, 1992). Data from seven adult
learners of English were used, along with data from their native speaker
interlocutors during oral tasks such as conversations, role plays and picture
descriptions. The authors found that particular expressions were highly pre-
ferred by all speakers, accounting for the majority of total productions for
each VAC. In the case of verb locatives, the first and most common construc-
tion was go somewhere; for verb object locatives, it was put something somewhere;
and for ditransitives, it was give someone something. The researchers argue that
high-frequency verbs such as go, put and give provided the learners with
a prototypical exemplar for each particular construction, and acted as an
entry point for learning it. Such verbs are useful, and learned early, not only
because of their prototypicality in particular constructions, but also because
of their very generic meanings. As these researchers note: “Before learners
can use constructions productively, they have to encounter useful exemplars
and analyze them, to identify their linguistic form and to map it to meaning
and use” (2009, p. 109).
A naturalistic, correlational study like this can suggest the importance of
prototypes of constructions, but it cannot demonstrate conclusively that they
cause learning. It is possible that the early learning of an apparent prototype
is simply due to its frequency and high semantic generalizability. Partially
addressing this concern, some experimental studies have been carried out
to investigate whether input which is skewed towards a higher proportion
of prototypes, with fewer exemplars of other types, can help L2 learning.
As yet, results from these studies have not offered strong support for the
role of prototypes in construction learning. For example, Year and Gordon
(2009) found that skewed input (including a high proportion of the proto-
type construction give [someone] [something]) did not help Korean speakers
to learn the English ditransitive construction in an instructed setting. The
studies of Nakamura (2012), McDonough and Nekrasova-Becker (2014)
and McDonough and Trofimovich (2013) had similar findings, for which
there may be several reasons. Firstly, it may be because these studies were
carried out with adult L2 learners, who tend to revert to more explicit
142  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
learning (see Chapter 5). This may reduce the extent to which learners even
engaged in statistical learning. Secondly, it may be that greater variability
in type frequency within particular constructions actually helps learners to
pick out patterns (Gries & N. C. Ellis, 2015). That is, a smaller range of
exemplars of any single construction may constrain learners’ developing sys-
tem, whereas more variety allows the developing system to establish patterns
with wider generalizability. As McDonough and Nekrasova-Becker (2014,
p. 433) explain:

If the skewed groups associated the double object dative with the
combination of lexical verb + human/pronoun + object, then this
association would not facilitate comprehension of the lexical verb +
inanimate/noun + object items presented on the tests. However, if the
balanced group learned a more general pattern of lexical verb + recipi-
ent + object, then this association would facilitate performance on the
test items.

Thus, although it has been found that prototypical constructions encoun-

tered in the input are also used first in production, and in similar proportions
(see Chapter 5 of N. C. Ellis et al., 2016), this may not fully reflect actual
learning mechanisms available to L2 learners, at least to mature adults in
instructed settings. Another reason may be that L2 learners already have an
established set of estimations about constructions and their prototypicality:

L2 learners are distinguished from infant L1 acquirers by the fact that

they have previously devoted considerable resources to the estimation
of the characteristics of another language . . . Because they are using
the same cognitive apparatus to survey their L2 too, their inductions
are often affected by transfer, with L1-tuned expectations and selective
attention blinding the computations system to aspects of L2 form and
meaning, thus rendering biased estimates from naturalistic usage.
(N. C. Ellis et al., 2016, p. 151)

It seems that the contribution of prototype constructions requires further

investigation. This will require a wider range of constructions to be inves-
tigated (such as the syntax of negation and interrogatives), and longitudinal
studies that document both input given to learners and their subsequent
comprehension and production. Such studies have flourished in L1 acquisi-
tion in the last 15 years, and have included longitudinal analyses of prototype
use (such as Pine, Conti-Ramsden, Joseph, Lieven, & Serratrice, 2007). For
example, Rowland, Pine, Lieven, and Theakston (2003) were able to account
for children’s development of word order by their experience and mis-anal-
ysis of cues in the constructions experienced in their input.
So far, L2 research into construction-based learning has dealt with a quite
limited range of constructions. Other syntax that is argued by generativists
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 143
to require innate linguistic constraints demands the attention of L2 usage-
based researchers. In L1 acquisition research, for example,Westergaard (2009)
argued that both sensitivity to frequency of cues in the input and some
innate grammatical principles are required, to explain how highly subtle
word order rules in wh-questions are acquired. Other L1 researchers have
suggested that, rather than the kinds of fixed frames offered by prototypical
VACs, learners actually use a wider range of distributional cues in the input
to facilitate learning the grammatical categories of new words (St Clair,
Monaghan, & Christiansen, 2010).

4.2.2.7  Implicit Learning of Form-Meaning Connections

As noted above, one criticism of statistical learning research has been that it
has sometimes treated language as a meaningless string of sounds, rather than
involving mapping between form and meaning. Additionally, researchers
investigating statistical learning have not been very concerned with check-
ing the extent to which learners are aware of the patterns they are exposed
to. The presence or absence of awareness is important when determining
how far L2 learning draws on the same or different cognitive mechanisms as
child L1 learning. We now turn to a body of work that has addressed these
concerns, investigating the implicit learning of form-meaning connections.
The term “implicit learning” usually refers to situations in which the
learning was both incidental (the learner did not intend to learn the feature)
and, most critically, without awareness.To determine the extent of awareness,
researchers need to probe learners’ consciousness. This is methodologically
very demanding, given that conscious thought can occur only 300 milli-
seconds after registration of a stimulus (Dehaene, 2014). Furthermore, con-
sciousness may be a matter of degree; Norman, Price, Duff and Mentzoni
(2007) describe “fringe consciousness” as “a situation in which behaviour
is driven in a flexible manner by consciously accessible feelings, but where
there is no conscious access to the antecedents of those feelings” (p. 833).
Thus, identifying whether there was awareness during learning is somewhat
challenging, as the very act of asking about it may influence awareness levels.
Asking about awareness after the learning experience is equally problematic,
as participants may not have a lasting experience of the awareness, or be able
to articulate it to the researcher minutes later.
To identify awareness during learning, researchers have elicited “con-
fidence ratings” and “knowledge source” reports from participants about
their responses during learning events or during the tests given after the
learning phase. For example, Dienes and Scott (2005) asked participants
in a grammar learning experiment to say whether each judgement they
made in a test was based on a guess, intuition, memory or rule. Judgements
based on memory and rule were considered to reflect conscious awareness
(explicit knowledge); judgements based on guess and intuition suggested
a lack of awareness (a contribution of implicit knowledge). Researchers
144  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
also use reaction times during online processing and assume that given the
sheer speed of these reactions, such processes are not accessible to con-
sciousness. This is sometimes also corroborated with knowledge source
reports (Marsden, Williams, & Liu, 2013). Other researchers use neurolog-
ical techniques; for example, Event-Related Potentials in the brain may be
used to measure responses to specific stimuli (Tokowicz & MacWhinney,
2005). (See Chapter 5 for more discussion about eliciting different types
of knowledge.)
Partly due to the difficulty of probing consciousness, implicit learning
research has mainly taken place in laboratory settings, with artificial lan-
guages (for example Hulstijn, 2005). Some research has been undertaken
in classrooms, with real learners and natural languages (R. Ellis et al., 2009).
However, it is difficult to be certain that learners in a classroom study are not
engaged in some degree of explicit learning (Shintani & R. Ellis, 2010). For
this reason, we focus here on laboratory studies.
Such studies consist of (1) exposing participants to miniature linguistic
systems, (2) testing whether they had extracted patterns and could generalize
these to new sentences and (3) checking whether they report awareness of
the target form-meaning relationship that had been embedded in the input.
For example, DeKeyser (1995) exposed participants to a miniature artificial
language with rich inflectional morphology for marking biological gender,
number and thematic role. In the implicit learning condition, participants
heard sentences in the new language, and viewed pictures illustrating these.
After over 8 hours of exposure, participants did not perform above chance
in applying the implicitly presented structures to new sentences, even for
structures that were present in their L1 (subject-verb agreement). Similarly,
Robinson (2005) found no evidence for the learning of form-meaning links
for Samoan morphosyntax by Japanese participants.
Following these negative results, Williams and colleagues designed several
laboratory studies that monitored awareness more tightly. Williams (2005)
explored whether a form-meaning connection could be learned when par-
ticipants’ attention was drawn to a particular form-meaning connection
(determiner-distance associations) but not to the connection between the
same form and an additional meaning (determiner-animacy). During the
training phase, Noun Phrases including artificial determiners (e.g. gi dog
“near dog”) were presented orally; after training, participants’ knowledge
of the artificial determiner system was tested through a multiple-choice
sentence-completion test. Participants then had to describe how they had
arrived at their decisions during the test, and if they did not mention “any
references to living or nonliving, moves or does-not-move, and so forth”
(p. 283), they were classified as unaware of the animacy connection. Many
of these “unaware” participants nonetheless could complete test items cor-
rectly—provided, that is, they had some previous knowledge of a natural
language with grammatical gender (such as French or German). It seemed
that even though none of the participants’ L1s expressed animacy, those
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 145
whose L1 had gender were more sensitive to agreement information whilst
processing the input.
Many related studies have followed. For example, Leung and Williams
(2011) sought reaction time evidence for implicit learning. Learners were
first exposed to one set of form-meaning connections (similar to that
described above), and then the pattern was reversed, introducing a kind of
“ungrammaticality”. Slower reaction times were taken to indicate that the
learners had perceived the ungrammaticality, and therefore that they must
have learned the first set of form-meaning connections they had experi-
enced. Twenty out of 25 participants (80%) remained unaware of the system
at the end of the experiment. Nonetheless, for these unaware participants,
there was a sudden increase in reaction times for the items which broke the
rules. Leung and Williams conclude that this “implicit learning process . . .
is of very wide generality . . . It could thus underlie naturalistic acquisition
of grammatical form-meaning connections in the domains of, for exam-
ple, definiteness or tense and aspectual distinctions” (2011, p. 52). Rogers,
Révész, and Rebuschat (2016) similarly provide evidence that learners
exposed to Czech inflectional morphology for a short time were able to
accurately judge the grammaticality of sentences without being able to
articulate awareness of the relevant rules.
A range of evidence has accumulated from such studies that implicit
learning plays a role in acquiring L2 morphosyntax, at the phrase and sen-
tence level, moving the implicit learning agenda beyond the processing of
meaningless strings or computer simulations. The studies open up avenues
for future research, such as whether rules learned implicitly from the input
can be used in production. One limitation is that the miniature systems
used generally contain (mainly) known lexical items but novel grammatical
features, while in natural language learning there is mutual support between
lexical and morphosyntactic growth. A few studies have addressed this, such
as Marsden et al. (2013), who observed learning without awareness follow-
ing input with both novel words and novel inflections. But we do not yet
have a clear understanding of whether, and if so when, L2 morphosyntactic
systems can be picked out, without awareness, from entirely novel input.
We have just reviewed studies where implicit learning occurred. Research-
ers are also interested in finding out where implicit learning does not occur.
For example, implicit learning may not occur for more abstract features
such as grammatical gender (Brooks & Kempe, 2013), nor in the context of
long distance dependencies (where an item and its co-referent are separated
from one another by one or more intervening items), at least in the absence
of other cues (Williams & Kuribara, 2008; Williams, 2010). It has also been
suggested that implicit learning may be constrained by learners’ individual
differences.
Indeed, there is growing evidence that there are differences between
individuals’ statistical learning ability. For example, Misyak and Christian-
sen (2012) found that statistical learning ability for non-adjacent artificial
146  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
grammars (A_variable slot_B grammars) varies between individuals, and
also predicted language comprehension (see Kidd, Donnelly, & Christiansen,
2018). Riches and Jackson (2018) also found differences in young children’s
ability to learn constructions that they hadn’t heard before, and found that
this construction learning ability was related to their overall morphosyntac-
tic receptive skills. Perhaps unsurprisingly, several studies now also provide
evidence that differences in statistical learning ability also affect L2 learning
(Brooks & Kempe, 2013; Granena, 2013; McDonough & Trofimovich, 2016;
though see Grey,Williams, & Rebuschat, 2015). Further evidence about pos-
sible individual differences in accessing the cognitive mechanisms discussed
in this chapter is needed, if we are to explain why some learners appear to
learn syntax better than other learners, in terms of both the rate of learning
and what is learned (in both L1 and L2: Dabrowska, 2012; Hulstijn, 2015,
2018; Street & Dabrowska, 2014).
Overall, several challenges remain for future research into implicit learn-
ing, which needs to ensure that:

• the system-to-be-learned reflects the form/meaning/function relation-

ships of natural language;
• complex syntax such as long distance dependencies or word order con-
straints are investigated;
• any learning is generalizable to new items, and learners are sensitive to
ungrammaticality;
• there is sufficient quantity and quality of input for statistical learning to
happen;
• relationships between the participants’ other languages are taken into
account;
• a range of measures of awareness are taken into account.

4.3 Processing-Based Perspectives
The term “processing” is used with many meanings. Used here in the gen-
eral sense of online attempts to understand streams of input, it is generally
thought to play an active role in learning, from a wide range of perspectives.
In this section, we present two theories that foreground processing mecha-
nisms: Processability Theory (Pienemann) and Processing Determinism (or
the Efficiency-Driven Processor: O’Grady). Both are concerned with rela-
tionships between the nature of language, human processing constraints, and
learning phenomena. One major difference between them is that in Piene-
mann’s framework, language and processing are separate systems, whereas
O’Grady proposes that language itself derives its structure from the need for
efficiency during comprehension. However, what brings them together in
this section of the book is the notion that L2 development is influenced by
the nature of internal processing.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 147
A central question for this chapter is how learners are able to process
increasingly complex language, without an internal source of linguis-
tic knowledge. Perhaps, better comprehension, due to improving lexi-
cal storage and access, may release attentional resources to establish new
representations of morphosyntax (Bates & Goodman, 1997; Thordardot-
tir, Weismer, & Evans, 2002). Perhaps, once a prototypical construction is
established, implicit tallying of occurrences in the input takes place (N. C.
Ellis, 2002; Schmidt, 2001). Perhaps, as sentences become easier to under-
stand, communicatively redundant forms are more likely to be processed
(Sagarra, 2008;VanPatten, 2015). Broadly, there are good arguments for the
general notion that what has been learned previously affects what can be
processed.
Here, we have chosen to review two processing-related theories which
address in different ways this idea that learning is shaped by what learners
can process.

4.3.1 Processability Theory
Processability Theory (Bettoni & Di Biase, 2015; Pienemann, 1998, 2010;
Pienemann & Kessler, 2011; Pienemann & Lenzing, 2015) claims we need
to use both a theory of grammar and a processing component in order to
understand L2 acquisition.The theory of grammar adopted by Processability
theorists is Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG: Bresnan, 2001). Unlike Uni-
versal Grammar, LFG attempts to represent both linguistic knowledge and
language processing within the same framework.
Processability Theory itself sets out to identify the computational mecha-
nisms that are needed to process and acquire language. Limitations in these
computational mechanisms in the early stages of learning prevent learn-
ers from manipulating the L2 in target-like ways. The processing challenge
facing learners, within this framework, is that they must learn to exchange
grammatical information across elements of a sentence:

The unification of lexical features, which is one of the main character-

istics of LFG, captures a psychologically plausible process that involves
(1) the identification of grammatical information in the lexical entry,
(2) the temporary storage of that information and (3) its utilisation at
another point in the constituent structure.
(Pienemann, 1998, p. 73)

This process of sharing grammatical information is called “feature unifica-

tion” within the LFG model. For example, learners have to ensure that a
verb and its subject have the same number feature, or that a noun and its arti-
cle have the same gender, number and case features, in languages where this
is appropriate. The ability to match features across elements and move ele-
ments in a sentence develops gradually.The basic logic behind Processability
148  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
Theory is that learners have a Hypothesis Space, which increases over time
following a hierarchy of processing procedures.
This hierarchy of processing procedures is the main principle of the the-
ory, but the theory also relies on the idea of perceptual salience. Pienemann
interprets perceptual salience to mean that the beginning and end of sen-
tences are easier to remember and manipulate. This is used to predict that
learners first move elements to (or from) sentence-initial or -final positions,
before moving elements around within the sentence. A set of developmental
stages is proposed:

Stage 1: The learner has no syntactic information about the L2 lexical

item, and is only able to map conceptual structures onto individual
words and fixed phrases.
Stage 2: Once lexical items have been assigned a grammatical category,
morphological markers can be produced. However, no syntactic infor-
mation can be exchanged, so to express roles (subject, object etc.)
learners rely on procedures such as serial word order, e.g. doer + action
+ receiver of the action.
Stage 3: Information can now be shared within the phrase level, e.g.
between a head and its modifiers, e.g. to mark both nouns and arti-
cles within a Noun Phrase as +feminine. No information can be
exchanged yet across phrases.
Stages 4 and 5: Phrases can be assembled into sentences, allowing matches
such as person and number agreement between subject and verb, and
each phrase can have a function within the sentence (e.g. subject).
Stage 6: Syntactic information at sentence level allows subordinate clauses
to be produced.

These stages of computational procedures are illustrated in Table 4.2, with

examples showing the development of English interrogatives.
Pienemann’s theory has attracted interest partly because of its potential
pedagogical implications. According to his Teachability Hypothesis, stages
of acquisition cannot be skipped through formal instruction, and instruc-
tion will be most beneficial if it focuses on structures from “the next stage”
(Pienemann, 1998, p. 250). A number of empirical studies have provided
some support for this hypothesis (Pienemann, 1998, 2010; Pienemann &
Kessler, 2011).
Pienemann and his collaborators have applied Processability Theory to
a range of L2 developmental phenomena, in morphology and syntax, in
many languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, German, Italian, Japanese, Span-
ish, Swedish, Turkish). In recent years, several book-length treatments have
emerged (Baten, Buyl, Lochtman, & Herreweghe, 2015; Bettoni & Di Biase,
2015; Dyson & Hakansson, 2017; Keßler, Lenzing, & Liebner, 2016), and
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 149
Table 4.2  Processability Hierarchy for English Questions

Processing Information exchange Morphology Syntax

procedures

6. Subordinate Main and subordinate Cancel inversion

clause- clause I wonder what he wants
procedure
5. S-procedure Interphrasal Interphrasal morph. Neg/Aux-2nd?
information SV-agreement Why doesn’t he go home?
exchange The mouse plays
volleyball
Aux-2nd
What do you collect?
4. VP-procedure Interphrasal Wh copula S (x)
information What is your number?
exchange
Copula S(x)
Are there boots?
3. Phrasal Phrasal information Phrasal morphemes Adverb First
procedure exchange Det + N agreement Today he stay here.
two ears
Wh SV(O)?
What you like?
Do SV(O)?
Do you have a son?
2. Category No information Lexical morphemes Canonical word order
procedure exchange plural -s (pets) SVO
past -ed (played) The mouse play volleyball
1. Word/lemma No information Invariant forms Formulae
access exchange
Source: Lenzing, 2013, p. 85

studies have tracked developmental patterns in a range of grammatical fea-

tures, such as number and mood agreement in Spanish (Bonilla, 2015) and
case in German (Baten, 2013). Concerns that Processability Theory does not
account for the initial state of the learners’ computational mechanisms, or
for individual variation and idiosyncratic productions, are being addressed by
Lenzing (2013, 2015), who discusses a range of constraints which can influ-
ence learners’ developing processing.
Another challenge facing Processability Theory is that data from recep-
tive tasks (such as sentence reading) do not reflect the same developmental
route as that shown in the production tasks used in Processability research
150  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
(Spinner, 2013; Spinner & Jung, 2018), though see Buyl and Housen (2015)
for comprehension data interpreted in support of Processability Theory.

4.3.2 Processing Determinism and the Efficiency-Driven Processor

Over the last decade cognitive theorists have increasingly argued that lan-
guage itself is shaped by general human learning capacities and limitations.
They aim to provide explanations for language itself that rest on evolution-
ary, biological and neurological factors, and on pragmatic principles, rather
than internal linguistic constraints; see Christiansen and Chater (2008) for a
review. We describe O’Grady’s Efficiency-Driven Processor (EDP) model as
an example of one such framework.
O’Grady (2005, 2008b, 2010a, 2010b) and O’Grady, Kwak, Lee, and Lee
(2011) present an account in which language structure arises from an effi-
ciency-driven online computational processor (EDP), and in which lan-
guage structure, processing and acquisition are all interdependent. O’Grady’s
core claim is that

a single, efficiency-driven linear computational system, not a grammar,

offers the best hope of understanding why sentences have the particular
properties they do . . . and the best way to engage the classic problems
confronting both the theory of sentence structure and the theory of
sentence processing.
(O’Grady, 2005, pp. 181–182)

He proposes that “the key properties of a language’s syntax reflect a neuro-

physiologically motivated drive for efficiency in the interests of minimizing
the burden on working memory [WM]” (2005, p. 193). The computational
processor strives to interpret incoming language and produce outgoing lan-
guage so that as little information as possible needs to be stored before it
can be “discarded”, having been satisfactorily incorporated into the ongoing
utterance. This is expressed as the Efficiency Requirement (2005, p. 3): an
increased burden is caused by having to hold on to information before its
relationship (“codependency”) with other elements of the sentence can be
properly computed. For example, in the sentence The girl with the blond hair
laughed loudly, the Noun Phrase the girl needs to be kept in WM at least until
we reach the verb laughed, where it can be assigned a role as subject of the
verb. Processing costs are caused by having to revise an interpretation and so
reactivate representations within WM; by not knowing which elements of
a sentence resolve a codependency; or by having an item left unresolved in
the sentence.The computational system is driven to “combine functors with
their arguments one at a time, left to right, at the first opportunity” (p. 208).
Critically, physical characteristics of features in the input (such as phonologi-
cal salience, boundedness or syllabic status) and raw frequency play less of
a role in determining what is learned when (O’Grady, Kim, & Kim, 2018).
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 151
Codependencies could be thought of as the glue that holds items in a
sentence together to create a meaningful proposition. Information about
codependencies is stored within the representation held in the mind for
each item. That is, the lexicon in the mind includes information about the
category membership (N,V, etc.) of words and morphemes, and their com-
binatorial propensities. For example, the lexical entry for drink would, over
time, come to indicate that it is a verb that can have two nominal arguments,
such as he drinks red wine:

drink:V, <N N>

The codependencies are resolved online via computational routines, or

Combine and Resolve operations. These routines are real time processes
that describe how structures are built, and syntactic representations are “just
a fleeting residual record of how the computational system goes about its
work” (O’Grady, 2005, p. 9). As the processor works its way through a sen-
tence, it immediately assigns each Noun Phrase an interpretation, based on
distributional cues such as position, determiner, case marker, context etc.
The same applies to all lexical items; for example, verbs of motion look to
the right for a prepositional argument (move to London), prepositions com-
bine with a nominal argument to the right (in the box), and copulas and
auxiliaries look rightward for their first argument in yes-no questions. These
computational routines become stronger as they prove useful, in line with
the emergentist principles outlined above.
Two cognitive systems are central to the EDP: a lexicon that draws pri-
marily on declarative memory, and a computational system sometimes called
procedural memory (Ullman, 2001, see Chapter 5).This computational pro-
cessor functions innately in all normal human brains (but O’Grady does
not define its nature in detail). WM is conceptualized as a pool of resources
that holds representations and supports computations on those representa-
tions. The precise model of WM or its capacity in different individuals (see
Chapter 5) is not deemed relevant, as whatever the capacity of any indi-
vidual’s computational processor, holding information within WM is costly
and therefore avoided.
O’Grady’s model has been used to explain the structure and acquisition of
a wide range of phenomena, for example voiced stops in phonology; relative
clauses; quantifier scope; constraints on want + to contractions; and reflexive
pronouns (providing an alternative account of reflexives to the account we
met in Chapter 3).

4.3.2.1 The EDP and L1 Acquisition

Underlying the framework is the relatively uncontroversial statement that
language acquisition is about the creation of “mappings between form and
meaning” (O’Grady, 2012, p. 117). In addition, O’Grady strives to account
152  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
for the “logical problem of language acquisition”, by discussing the acquisi-
tion of language features where the input does not provide sufficient or any
exemplars (i.e. frequency cannot account for development), and where feed-
back or negative evidence is rare or non-existent (see, for example, O’Grady,
2007).
For O’Grady, acquisition results from automatizing computational rou-
tines based on the information held in the lexicon about words’ codepend-
encies. The computational system competes for processing space with other
cognitive functions; development takes place as the computational system
succeeds in this competition, known as “processing amelioration” (O’Grady,
2012, p. 116).
Computational routines become strengthened and automatized at differ-
ent rates, depending on their cost, and this is what results in apparent orders
of development. Some well-known characteristics of L1 and L2 acquisition
are accounted for by the Efficiency Requirement; for example, L1 learners
omit subject-verb agreement because dependency between subject and verb
can be resolved by less costly processes, such as animacy-based assumptions.
Learners do not insert incorrect agreement (e.g. *I likes her) as this would
overburden the processor with no evidence in the input for its necessity.
Overgeneralization, whereby learners produce forms like *eated, is explained
because both regular and irregular markings have the same dependencies,
and therefore *eated is no harder to process than ate. *Eated is preferred
because the computational routine of producing -ed becomes automatized,
making it less costly to overgeneralize than to inhibit the automatic rou-
tine (see “entrenchment” discussed in Section 4.2.2.1, and “inhibition” in
Chapter 5).
Central to the acquisition process is learning the properties of lexical
items—each lexical item can only combine with other words in particu-
lar ways. For example, children learn movement of BE in yes-no questions
(structure dependency; see Chapter 3) because copula be requires two
arguments that must both come to the right, and adjectives cannot be co-
indexed with wh- arguments. Any deviation from this, e.g. *Are people who
rich are happy? does not resolve the correct codependencies that are stored
in the lexicon.
A critical question is how these necessary lexical properties are learned.
O’Grady’s answer is by having to interpret sentences over and over again,
and so creating probabilistic, distributional biases. That is, “routines are mas-
tered gradually, over a period of months” (p. 195). In line with emergent-
ism and statistical pre-emption, described above, entrenched computational
routines can block or inhibit other routines from developing.Together, these
mechanisms (a) constrain the likely interpretation of the input (disallow-
ing wild interpretations and productions) and (b) provide an explanation
for developmental orders. So, for example, the early routine of computing
NVN strings as SVO then makes other sequences that do not comply with
SVO, such as passives, more difficult to acquire. Early language development
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 153
is constrained by infants’ WM, and as this increases between ages 4 and 10,
children can produce and interpret more complex structures. To explain
how computational routines are established in the first place, O’Grady refers
to construction learning (above).
Apparent routes of development may emerge, yet with slightly differ-
ent rates, because although the capacity of individuals’ computational sys-
tems may vary, the relative ease of each computational routine is the same
for everyone. This idea helps explain the similarities in acquisition routes
between L1 and L2 learners, though with the important exceptions laid
out below.

4.3.2.2  Second Language Acquisition (SLA) through the EDP

A basic prediction is that L2 learners transfer the dominant processing rou-
tine of their L1, unless a competing routine is less costly. That is: “the pre-
ferred interpretation in the L1 will be favoured in the L2, if and only if it
does not have a greater processing cost in the L2” (O’Grady, Lee, & Kwak,
2009, p. 83). Thus, SLA phenomena (initial states, developmental changes,
end states) are argued to be side-effects of the transfer of L1 computational
routines and the emergence of new routines if they allow more efficient
processing (O’Grady, 2012, pp. 127–128). Patterns of L2 development arise
from the extra burdens imposed on the WM due to having to process a new
phonological system, to segment words and morphology, to assign syntactic
roles to these words and morphological forms and to learn which arguments
and codependencies can go with which lexical items and morphology in
the L2.

4.3.2.3  Empirical Research on the EDP and SLA

Researchers working in this framework seek evidence that what lies behind
L2 acquisition is the drive to prevent a heavy processing cost, as illustrated
by the following study (O’Grady,Yamashita, & Lee, 2005).
Some structures follow the chronological order of the events described
(e.g. Put the crayon on the pencil), while others do not (e.g. Tap the crayon with the
pencil); this distinction is called isomorphism/nonisomorphism. According to
the EDP, nonisomorphic structures are more costly, in processing terms, for
the comprehension system. To test this hypothesis, O’Grady et al. (2005)
conducted a comprehension experiment which investigated the influence of
(non)isomorphism, on the one hand, and frequency, on the other, on learn-
ers’ comprehension of simple sets of instructions in L2 English.
In this study, 47 L2 English participants (27 L1 Korean and 20 L1 Japanese)
followed instructions like those in Table 4.3. Both groups of participants
comprehended the isomorphic patterns far better than the nonisomorphic
pattern, and there was no difference in the comprehension of the two iso-
morphic patterns even though one is much more frequent than the other.
154  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
Table 4.3  Predicted and Actual Degree of Difficulty Based on Isomorphism

Patterns Frequency Isomorphic (follows real Prediction Results: % correct

world event order)? (Korean/Japanese)

Locative (Put the crayon High Yes Easy 96.2/95.5

on the pencil)
Basic instrument High No Difficult 60.8/28.4
(Tap the crayon with
the pencil)
Fronted instrument Low Yes Easy 92.6/96.6
(With the pencil, tap
the crayon)
Source: O’Grady et al., 2005, pp. 455–456

4.3.2.4  How Does O’Grady’s Work Fit with Other L2 Theories?

As O’Grady often notes, several aspects of his thesis are not original, such
as left to right processing and the idea that lexical items must be somehow
combined. He acknowledges others who have proposed that processing is
the engine for acquisition (Carroll, 2001; Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014),
and he notes that Pienemann (1998) has argued that what is transferred
from L1 to L2 is determined by processing constraints, although defined
somewhat differently. But his account is exceptionally ambitious, aiming to
cover all of: the nature of language; language typology; L1 acquisition; L2
acquisition.
Unlike strong connectionist accounts, the theory does not clearly reject
the notion of symbolic representation of language, which it sees as a possi-
ble side-product of processing (O’Grady, 2012). Unlike Universal Grammar
accounts (see Chapter 3), however, the processor’s constraints derive from
the general character of WM (O’Grady, 2008a, p. 461). Overall, O’Grady
clearly aligns his theory with associative, emergentist and constructionist
principles.

4.4 Evaluation of General Cognitive Approaches

Research into the role of general, innate learning mechanisms in SLA con-
tinues to increase and diversify. The methods used, as well as the questions
asked, differ from research stemming directly from linguistics, or from more
socially oriented approaches. However, increasing interconnections are being
made between cognitive and other approaches. For example, some research-
ers investigate whether emergentist, constructionist and associative explana-
tions can account for phenomena that have been previously accounted for
by a Universal Grammar model (e.g. Freudenthal, Pine, Aguado-Orea, &
Gobet, 2007; O’Grady, 2015). Other researchers are exploring the nature of
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 155
the input (e.g. frequency, saliency, meaningfulness), and this underpins some
of the interactionist research discussed in Chapter 6. Others are connecting
with computational linguists and statisticians to investigate the nature of
the probability calculations involved in language learning (N. C. Ellis et al.,
2016).

4.4.1 The Scope and Achievements of Research into Cognitive

Approaches to First and Second Language Learning
The scope of cognitivists’ research varies widely, including analyses of the
input and of learners’ productions, cross-linguistic experiments to identify
processing constraints, and computer simulations of the acquisition of dis-
crete grammatical phenomena. Some cognitivists see their field of enquiry
as being specifically the processing mechanisms and how they develop in L2
learning, but argue that we also need a property theory in order to under-
stand the linguistic system. Others, adopting a strong emergentist view of
learning, see the patterns observed in language as mere byproducts of the
learning mechanisms—there are no rules represented in the mind, and so
these do not need to be accounted for separately.Yet other researchers argue
that the learning mechanisms themselves actually predetermine how lan-
guage is structured and used.
There is growing evidence that some L2 form-meaning connections can
be learned implicitly—vital support for the argument that learning such a
complex system is possible without conscious knowledge of rules. However,
we still don’t know what can be learned truly implicitly, by whom, when
and after how much input; and a great variety of possible knowledge sources
have been proposed, including representations of the L1, construction proto-
types, computational processing routines and abstract grammatical represen-
tations. The possibility of an innate drive to make probabilistic predictions
during online comprehension, and the effects that erroneous prediction and
surprisal may have on learning mechanisms, seem to be very fruitful new
avenues of investigation.

4.4.2 The View of Language

As noted above, strong emergentist views do not hold that language is repre-
sented symbolically in the mind. Other emergentists view language as con-
strained by humans’ processing capacity limitations, but a processing-based
view does not necessarily entail one single view of language. For example,
one of the processing-based theorists we reviewed (Pienemann) sees a need
for a separate model of language, whilst another (O’Grady) does not.
Generally, emergentists believe that links between mental representations
of form and meaning (or function) become stronger as these form-meaning
associations keep recurring. The links become part of larger networks as
connections between elements become more numerous. Language in this
156  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
view is seen as a set of probabilistic patterns which become strengthened in
the brain through repeated activation.
In recent years, work on implicit learning of form-meaning connections
has expanded its research approach. Having formerly mostly studied the
written modality, and measured learning via acceptability tests, researchers
now employ neurolinguistic, eye-tracking and reaction time methodolo-
gies such as self-paced reading that use both oral and written input. Sev-
eral avenues remain to be pursued, however, such as links between implicit
learning and language production, and longitudinal studies to document the
development of implicit processing.
Much of the research reviewed has been done either with (semi-)artifi-
cial languages or small subsystems of real languages. This is partly because
computer simulations and short laboratory experiments are only able to use
well-defined samples of language. On the one hand, this control is an advan-
tage as researchers can eliminate noise from their data, and explain cause and
effect relations in learning. On the other hand, however, it is questionable
how far one can isolate variables that interact in a natural context, and there-
fore how far results can mirror natural language learning.

4.4.3 The View of Language Learning

The approaches reviewed in this chapter claim that a central element of
learning is the implicit calculation of the statistical properties of language,
and how they relate to meaning and function. One concern about emer-
gentist approaches has been whether this learning of statistical distribution
is simply the product of learning, rather than the actual learning mechanism
itself. In this respect, emergentists are providing mounting evidence that the
properties of the input, together with principles of associative learning, can
predict what can be learned easily and what will be more difficult. Evidence
for resemblances between general statistical learning and language learning
suggests that a general processor could be responsible for predicting and
linking together units of language.
It has been claimed for cognitive approaches that they are “neurally
inspired” (N. C. Ellis & Schmidt, 1997, p. 154). However, most of the theo-
ries discussed in the current chapter do not specify particular memory
systems within the brain. One exception is O’Grady’s framework, which
claims that a resource-limited WM constrains our computational routines
and also assumes the declarative-procedural model of memory. This model
may help explain why adults are less effective than children at establish-
ing the kind of computational routines proposed by O’Grady (see Chap-
ter 5 for age differences in computational, procedural memory systems). In
general, it remains to be seen how neurally inspired emergentist perspec-
tives are: neurolinguistic L2 research (using electrical activity in the brain
to detect, for example, sensitivity to morphosyntax) has not yet generally
set out to distinguish between language-specific modular accounts and
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 157
general cognitive accounts (as noted by Roberts, González Alonso, Pliatsi-
kas, & Rothman, 2018).
A further concern about emergentist approaches has been whether they
can account for the absence of wild grammars. The associative learning
principles of statistical pre-emption, attention blocking, prediction and pre-
diction errors, and learners’ processing limitations now provide some expla-
nation of how analyses of the input may be constrained, in the absence of
Universal Grammar.

4.4.4 The View of the Language Learner

The cognitivist researchers discussed in this chapter, like the linguists
reviewed in Chapter 3, are concerned primarily with the individual. While
comprehension of the input, and, therefore, interaction with other speak-
ers, is seen as critical for learning, these researchers do not view the learner
first and foremost as a social being (though the work of Tomasello and col-
leagues emphasizes the role of social interaction and shared attention, which
help infants to assign meaning: Tomasello, 2003). Also, cognitive theorists
are generally more interested in the learner’s mind as an implicit processor
of regularities than in focusing on the detail of the linguistic information it
contains.
The possibility of individual differences in innate cognitive mechanisms
raises challenging questions (Kidd, Donnelly, & Christiansen, 2018). The
focus in this chapter has been on mechanisms that are thought to be innate
and to drive both L1 and L2 learning. Such mechanisms cannot differ widely
between individuals, as we know that all individuals learn a critical core of
a language system. O’Grady makes it clear that his proposed computational
processor in WM is constant across humans: “The right [computational]
choices will be made by any brain with a computational system sensitive
to the burden on working memory, regardless of how ‘smart’ it is” (2005,
p. 206). Nevertheless, as described in more depth in Chapter 5, learning abil-
ities seem to vary across individuals. So, it may be interesting for researchers
to investigate whether an L2 learner with a more efficient processor in WM
is less likely to rely on L1 computational routines even when the L2 com-
putational routine is in fact more costly.
Cognitivist views of language learning have significant relevance to class-
room research. Classroom activities can be manipulated to increase input
frequency and to make grammatical relations salient and meaningful. Stud-
ies investigating the input characteristics that are favourable to learning can
inform classroom interventions. In the longer term, findings about the rela-
tive difficulty of particular constructions or computational routines could
also inform curriculum and assessment decisions about what should be
learned and tested when.
Research testing cognitive learning theories is set to increase still fur-
ther in quantity and diversity. Increased collaboration with researchers from
158  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
linguistic perspectives is needed, to challenge cognitive researchers to explain
L2 learning phenomena that cannot be explained purely by either L1 influ-
ence or input characteristics (such as frequency, salience or redundancy).
Continued collaboration with psychologists will help on a number of fronts,
such as exploring the extent to which momentary awareness—caused per-
haps by parsing errors, prediction errors or surprisal effects—may actually
play a role in learning mechanisms that have hitherto been thought to be
implicit.

References
Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting
the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of fre-
quency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–273.
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Jones, R. L., & Clark, V. (2009). A semantics-
based approach to the “no negative evidence” problem. Cognitive Science, 33, 1301–1316.
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., & Bidgood, A. (2013). The retreat
from overgeneralization in child language acquisition:Word learning, morphology, and
verb argument structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 47–62.
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2011). Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Boston: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Baten, K. (2013). The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baten, K., Buyl, A., Lochtman, K., & Herreweghe, M.V. (2015). Theoretical and methodologi-
cal developments in processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bates, E., & Goodman, J. (1997). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon:
Evidence from acquisition, aphasia, and realtime processing. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 12, 507–584.
Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B. (Eds.). (2015). Grammatical development in second languages:
Exploring the boundaries of processability theory. Amsterdam: EUROSLA.
Bock, K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient acti-
vation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192.
Bonilla, C. (2015). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for process-
ability theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 31, 53–74.
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework.
The Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: Categorization and
preemption in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Brooks, P. J., & Kempe,V. (2013). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning:
The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory and Cognition, 41, 281–296.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language:The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buyl, A., & Housen, A. (2015). Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition:
A processability theory account. Second Language Research, 31, 523–550.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 159
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learn-
ing. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2002).
Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal
of Memory and Language, 47, 30–49.
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113,
234–272.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 31, 489–558.
Christiansen, M. H., Conway, C., & Onnis, L. (2012). Similar neural correlates for lan-
guage and sequential learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language
and Cognitive Processes, 27, 231–256.
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cog-
nitive science. Behavioral and Brain Science, 36, 181–204.
Cleeremans, A., & Dienes, Z. (2008). Computational models of implicit learning. In R.
Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 396–421). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, L. (2004).The particulars on universals: A comparison of the acquisition of tense-
aspect morphology among Japanese- and French-speaking learners of English. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 251–274.
Collins, L., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2009). Input and second language acquisition:The roles of
frequency, form, and function. [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 93.
Collins, L.,Trofimovich, P.,White, J., Cardoso,W., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/
difficult grammar question: An empirical study. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 336–353.
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in
native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253.
Dehaene, S. (2014). The signatures of a conscious thought. In Consciousness and the brain:
Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts (pp. 115–160). New York: Penguin.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a
miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.
Dienes, Z., & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing struc-
tural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69, 338–351.
Dyson, B., & Hakansson, G. (2017). Understanding second language processing: A focus on
processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications
for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Lin-
guistics, 27, 1–24.
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Con-
tingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and percep-
tual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.
Ellis, N. C. (2007).The associative-cognitive CREED. In B.VanPatten & J.Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 77–95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Temporal cognition and temporal language the first and second times
around. Commentary on McCormack and Hoerl. Language Learning, 58, 115–121.
160  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive sys-
tems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 341–351.
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. E. (Eds.). (2009). Constructing a second language. [Special
section]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency,
frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.
Ellis, N. C., Hafeez, K., Martin, K. I., Chen, L., Boland, J., & Sagarra, N. (2014). An eye-
tracking study of learned attention in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholin-
guistics, 35, 547–579.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and
computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage.
[Special issue]. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M., & Römer, U. (2015). Usage-based language learning. In B.
MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 163–180).
Boston: Wiley Blackwell.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & Brook O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-based approaches to lan-
guage acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction
grammar [Special issue]. Language Learning, 66, 1–358.
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010).The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and
learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 553–580.
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A repli-
cation and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
33, 589–624.
Ellis, N. C., & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies: Labora-
tory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145–171.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and
explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996).
Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Ettlinger, M., Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Wong, P. C. M. (2016). The
relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science,  40,
822–847.
Foucart, A. (2015). Prediction is a question of experience. Linguistic Approaches to Bilin-
gualism, 5, 465–469.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado-Orea, J., & Gobet, F. (2007). Modeling the develop-
mental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish using
MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 31, 311–341.
Gass, S. M., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (Eds.). (2018). Salience in second language acquisition.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work:The nature of generalization in language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cogni-
tive Linguistics, 22, 131–153.
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme
acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. [Special issue]. Lan-
guage Learning, 55, 26–77.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 161
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second lan-
guage acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.
Greve, A., Cooper, E., Kaula, A., Anderson, M., & Henson, R. (2017). Does prediction
error drive one-shot declarative learning? Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 149–165.
Grey, S., Williams, J. N., & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental lan-
guage learning: Phonological working memory, learning styles and personality. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences, 38, 44–53.
Gries, S., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Currents in
Language Learning, 2, 228–255.
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A produc-
tion or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., & Schafer, A. (2014). The role of discourse-level expectations in
non-native speakers’ referential choices. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Boston University
Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), 179–191.
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical
and syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.
Hopp, H. (2015). Semantics and morphosyntax in L2 predictive sentence processing.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 277–306.
Hopp, H. (2016). Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender agreement in non-native
processing. Second Language Research, 32, 277–307.
Hopp, H., & Lemmerth, N. (2018). Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive
gender processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 171–199.
Housen, A., & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and
complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2015). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably
not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 19–31.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005).Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit
second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and
research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2018). An individual-differences framework for comparing non-native
with native speakers: Perspectives from basic language cognition. Language Learning,
Early View, pp. 1–27.
Indrarathne, B., Ratajczak, M., & Kormos, J. (2018). Modelling changes in the cognitive
processing of grammar in implicit and explicit learning conditions: Insights from an
eye-tracking study. Language Learning, 68, 669–708.
Isabelli, C. A. (2008). First noun principle or L1 transfer principle in SLA? Hispania, 91,
465–478.
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, A. (2016). Morphological schemas:Theoretical and psycholin-
guistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 467–493.
Jackson, C. N. (2007). The use and non-use of semantic information, word order, and
case markings during comprehension by L2 learners of German. The Modern Language
Journal, 91, 418–432.
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntac-
tic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.
Kaan, E. (2015). Knowing without predicting, predicting without learning. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 482–486.
Keßler, J.-U., Lenzing, A., & Liebner, M. (Eds.). (2016). Developing, modelling, and assessing
second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
162  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language
acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 154–169.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisi-
tion:The multiple constraints hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lenzing, A. (2015). Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development. Lan-
guage Learning, 65, 89–122.
Leung, J. H.-C., & Williams, J. N. (2011).The implicit learning of mappings between forms
and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 33–55.
Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked arti-
cles by native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63,
447–464.
Luk, Z. P.-S., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes
impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and
possessive ‘s. Language Learning, 59, 721–754.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & G. de
Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook
of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 341–371). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the unified model. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
MacWhinney, B. (2015). Introduction: Language emergence. In B. MacWhinney & W.
O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 1–32). Chichester/West Sussex/
Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady,W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence. Chich-
ester/West Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Marsden, E., Williams, J. N., & Liu, X. (2013). Learning novel morphology: The role of
meaning and orientation of attention at initial exposure. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 619–654.
Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J. R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., & Costa, A. (2013).
Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native
readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588.
McDonough, K., & Fulga, A. (2015). The detection and primed production of novel
constructions. Language Learning, 65, 326–357.
McDonough, K., & Nekrasova-Becker, T. (2014). Comparing the effect of skewed and
balanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construc-
tion. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 419–444.
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced
and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 654–662.
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Structural priming and the acquisition of
novel form meaning mappings. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based
perspectives on second language learning (pp. 105–123). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2016). The role of statistical learning and working
memory in L2 speakers’ pattern learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 428–445.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 163
Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An indi-
vidual differences study. Language Learning, 62, 302–331.
Murakami, A. (2016). Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second lan-
guage development: The case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning,
66, 834–871.
Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou,T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English
grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
38, 365–401.
Nakamura, D. (2012). Input skewedness, consistency, and order of frequent verbs in fre-
quency-driven second language construction learning: A replication and extension
of Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005) to adult second language acquisition. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 1–38.
Norman, E., Price, M. C., Duff, S. C. & Mentzoni, R. A. (2007). Gradations of awareness
in a modified sequence learning task. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 809–837.
O’Grady,W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
O’Grady, W. (2007). The syntax of quantification in SLA: An emergentist approach. In
M. O’Brien, C. Shea, & J. Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th generative approaches to
second language acquisition conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff conference (pp. 98–113).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
O’Grady, W. (2008a). The emergentist program. Lingua, 118, 447–464.
O’Grady, W. (2008b). Language without grammar. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.),
Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 139–167). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
O’Grady,W. (2010a). An emergentist approach to syntax. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 257–283). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
O’Grady, W. (2010b). Fundamental universals of language. Lingua, 120, 2707–2712.
O’Grady, W. (2012). Language acquisition without an acquisition device. Language Teach-
ing, 45, 116–130.
O’Grady, W. (2015). Anaphora and the case for emergentism. In B. MacWhinney & W.
O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 100–122). Chichester/West
Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
O’Grady, W., Kim, K., & Kim, C.-H. (2018). The role of salience in linguistic develop-
ment: A contrarian view. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Beheney (Eds.), Salience and SLA
(pp. 64–86). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, O.-S., & Lee, M. (2011). An emergentist perspective on
heritage language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 223–245.
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., & Kwak, H.-Y. (2009). Emergentism and second language acquisi-
tion. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 69–88). Bingley: Emerald Group.
O’Grady, W.,Yamashita,Y., & Lee, S.-Y. (2005). A note on canonical word order. Applied
Linguistics, 26, 453–458.
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015).The role of language processing in language acquisi-
tion. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 409–453.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language acquisition: Processability the-
ory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2010). A cognitive view of language acquisition: Processability theory
and beyond. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in
applied linguistics (pp. 69–88). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
164  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
Pienemann, M., & Kessler, J. L. (Eds.). (2011). Studying processability theory. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, (2nd ed.) (pp. 159–179). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Pine, J. M., Conti-Ramsden, G., Joseph, K. L., Lieven, E. V. M., & Serratrice, L. (2007).
Tense over time: Testing the agreement/tense omission model as an account of the
pattern of tense-marking provision in early child English. Journal of Child Language,
34, 1–21.
Pozzan, L., & Quirk, E. (2014). Second language acquisition of English questions: An
elicited production study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 1055–1086.
Rabagliati, H., Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. (2016). Learning to predict or predicting to
learn? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 94–105.
Riches, N., & Jackson, L. (2018). differences in syntactic ability and construction learning:
An exploration of the relationship. Language Learning, 68, 973-1000.
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Nonnative speakers do not take competing
alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning, 66,
60–93.
Roberts, L., González Alonso, J., Pliatsikas, C., & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from
neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition
theories and translate to evidence-based applications? Second Language Research, 34,
125–143.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit
artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, &
Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton & Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second lan-
guage acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Rogers, J., Révész, A., & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Implicit and explicit knowledge of L2
inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 781–812.
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E.V. M., & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of
acquisition order in wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal
of Child Language, 30, 609–635.
Sagarra, N. (2008).Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms.
In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 133–147). Cleveland:
Multilingual Matters.
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing morphology. Language
experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35,
261–290.
Schepens, J. J., van der Slik, F., & van Hout, R. (2016). L1 and L2 distance effects in learn-
ing L3 Dutch. Language Learning, 66, 224–256.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruc-
tion (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access
model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.
Shanks, D. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 291–309.
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1) 165
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010).The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese
children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons: A process-product
study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607–637.
Spinner, P. (2013). Language production and reception: A processability theory study.
Language Learning, 63, 704–739.
Spinner, P., & Jung, S. (2018). Production and comprehension in processability theory:
A self-paced reading study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 295–318.
St Clair, M. C., Monaghan, P., & Christiansen, M. H. (2010). Learning grammatical cat-
egories from distributional cues: Flexible frames for language acquisition. Cognition,
116, 341–360.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative
evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 513–531.
Street, J., & Dąbrowska, E. (2014). Lexically specific knowledge and individual differences
in adult native speakers’ processing of the English passive. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35,
97–118.
Thordardottir, E.,Weismer, S., & Evans, J. (2002). Continuity in lexical and morphological
development in Icelandic and English speaking 2-year-olds. First Language, 22, 3–28.
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to
violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Trenkic, D., Mirkovic, J., & Altmann, G. (2014). Real-time grammar processing by native
and non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 17, 237–257.
Tyler, A., & Ortega, L. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language and language learn-
ing: An introduction to the special issue. Language and Cognition, 8, 335–345.
Ullman, M. (2001).The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language:
The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.
van Bergen, G., & Flecken, M. (2017). Putting things in new places: Linguistic experi-
ence modulates the predictive power of placement verb semantics. Journal of Memory
and Language, 92, 26–42.
van den Bos, E., Christiansen, M. H., & Misyak, J. B. (2012). Statistical learning of proba-
bilistic nonadjacent dependencies by multiple-cue integration. Journal of Memory and
Language, 67, 507–520.
Van Geert, P., & Verspoor, M. (2015). Dynamic systems and language development. In B.
MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 537–547).
Chichester/West Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 113–134). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Westergaard, M. (2009). Usage-based vs. rule-based learning: The acquisition of word
order in Wh-questions in English and Norwegian. Journal of Child Language, 36,
1023–1051.
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27, 269–304.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bing-
ley: Emerald Group.
166  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (1)
Williams, J. N. (2010). Initial incidental acquisition of word order regularities: Is it just
sequence learning? [Special issue]. Language Learning, 60, 221–244.
Williams, J. N., & Kuribara, C. (2008). Comparing a nativist and emergentist approach to
the initial stage of SLA: An investigation of Japanese scrambling. Lingua, 118, 522–553.
Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive con-
struction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. The Modern
Language Journal, 93, 399–417.
Zarcone, A., van Schijndel, M.,Vogels, J., & Demberg,V. (2016). Salience and attention in
surprisal-based accounts of language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 844.
5 Cognitive Approaches to Second
Language Learning (2)
Memory Systems, Explicit
Knowledge and Skill Learning

5.1 Introduction
So far, we have met several theories that propose that there are at least some
identical mechanisms and knowledge sources which support both L1 and
L2 learning, either assuming an innate language-specific architecture (Chap-
ter 3) or calling upon innate general cognitive mechanisms (Chapter 4). The
extent to which these mechanisms and knowledge remain available to L2
learners is much debated. Most theorists (from both language-specific and
general cognitive perspectives) broadly agree that other mechanisms come
into play, for aspects of an L2 that are thought not to be learnable via the
same mechanisms used for L1 learning. Some of these transition theories are
covered in this chapter. Some theorists we will meet in this chapter consider
that these learning mechanisms are actually central to all learning phenom-
ena, but, for L2 learning, they are employed in distinctive ways (e.g. Ham-
rick, Lum, & Ullman, 2018; Ullman, 2016). That is, theories covered in this
chapter foreground the idea that different mechanisms are drawn on to dif-
ferent extents in L2 learning, compared to L1 learning. They consider how
learning mechanisms may change between individuals, as learning progresses,
as individuals age, and for different components of language (separating, for
example, lexical learning from rule-based learning).We also cover one cogni-
tive perspective—that of explicit rules or metalinguistic knowledge—which
is seen as distinctive to L2, and not seen as a mechanism shared with infants
learning their L1. As such, it is perhaps the most sensitive to age effects, as
it can serve only those who are cognitively ready to understand, retain and
apply descriptions about language.
Once again, a variety of perspectives could fit within the scope of the
chapter, and we have had to be selective. Each perspective discussed has
been the subject of full book-length treatments (see, for example, DeKey-
ser, 2007; R. Ellis et al., 2009; Granena, Jackson, & Yilmaz, 2016; Truscott,
2015).We review how models of memory subsystems may explain L2 learn-
ing phenomena, and how mechanisms such as attention, awareness, explicit
knowledge and skill acquisition may be essential, or at least beneficial, for
some aspects of L2 learning. As noted above, a theme running throughout
168  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
the chapter is how these mechanisms can vary with age and between learn-
ers, giving learners different capacities for attending to, storing, rehearsing
and accessing language representations in the brain. This variation, among
other factors, is used to explain individual differences in learners’ overall L2
success and why some learners may learn particular subcomponents (such as
the lexicon, morphosyntax or phonology) more easily than other subcom-
ponents or better than other learners. Note that, as discussed in Chapter 1,
some individual differences have been referred to as aptitude—the capacity
or potential to achieve something—and in this chapter, we consider in more
detail some cognitive constructs that are often investigated under this broad
banner of aptitude.
As a starting point, we must first outline the idea that different types of
knowledge underpin human learning. Later in this chapter we provide more
fine-grained distinctions between knowledge types, of course focusing on
applications in L2 learning (DeKeyser, 2017a), but here we introduce the
idea in general terms.
One type of knowledge is known as declarative: knowledge that “some-
thing is the case”. This is often explicit or conscious knowledge (held with
awareness), but declarative knowledge can also be implicit. In the case of
language, a subset of declarative knowledge is metalinguistic knowledge or
metalinguistic awareness (knowledge about describing language and how it
works). There are various types of non-declarative knowledge, and the type
that is most referred to in second language acquisition (SLA) theorizing is
called procedural knowledge (that is, “knowledge how to do something”).
This knowledge can be held without awareness (i.e. it can be unconscious
or implicit, a concept discussed in Chapter 4).
To illustrate:When learning to drive you are told to change gear when the
engine revs too much, and you are told how to do it. Holding these facts in
your mind requires you to establish declarative knowledge. However, having
this declarative knowledge does not necessarily mean that you know how
(procedural knowledge) to do it successfully, reliably or sufficiently quickly.
An example from language learning is knowing a word or a rule, e.g. the uses
of por and para in Spanish, or that -s is needed at the end of verbs to refer to
a third person in the English present tense. But the same learner might not
be able to use por, para or -s consistently in all circumstances, with sufficient
speed. Such circumstances might be spoken conversation or other situa-
tions in which they cannot use their declarative knowledge. This is said to
be because the learner does not possess procedural knowledge and has not
automatized that declarative knowledge. Conversely, it is possible for some-
one to use the forms reliably and quickly, but have no declarative knowledge
or consciousness of them. This situation is easy to imagine for an L1 speaker
who has never been taught about their language system.
The distinction we have outlined has, directly or indirectly, motivated a
great deal of work in SLA: “It would in fact be only a small exaggeration to
say that the conflict between these two perspectives [conscious and uncon-
scious processes] characterizes much of the history of the field” (Truscott,
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 169
2015, p. 129). Of most relevance for this chapter is how such distinctions
have shaped thinking about the roles of memory and attentional systems,
how these relate to different capacities to use these systems, and how, in
turn, these are associated with different learning trajectories. Note also how
distinctions between knowledge types have informed the division we have
made between Chapters 4 and 5.The theories covered in Chapter 4 focused
more on implicit knowledge and mechanisms and their relations with lin-
guistic input, whereas here in Chapter 5 our focus shifts primarily to more
explicit knowledge and associated mechanisms, and their relations with indi-
vidual learners.
We begin with the work of neuro- and psycholinguists who investigate
the memory systems that underpin learning, and use this research to explain
differences between L1 and L2 learning, and between L1 and L2 online pro-
cessing, and differences in learning trajectories between different learners.

5.2 Memory Systems and Their Role in L2 Learning

The idea that different memory systems are involved in learning, and that
they work with different types of knowledge which may or may not interact,
is at the root of various L2 models or hypotheses, including the Declarative/
Procedural model of memory; the Shallow Structure Hypothesis; Implicit/
Explicit learning; Information Processing and Skill Acquisition Theory; and,
indeed, O’Grady’s model that we met in Chapter 4.

5.2.1 Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems and

Their Role in Learning
Memory is central to learning, for establishing and storing representations in
the mind and then accessing these representations during online processing
(that is, language processing in real time).The existence of different memory
systems is supported by a long research tradition in cognitive psychology, and
over the last 30 years these ideas have been applied to L2 theories to explain
differences in learning speed and success at different ages. Some researchers
investigate how declarative and procedural memory systems are involved
in L2 learning (e.g. Paradis, 2009). Ullman, drawing on evidence from L1
learning and also from language disordered populations (Ullman, 2004) and
L2 learners (Ullman, 2005, 2006; Ullman & Lovelett, 2018), distinguishes
between the declarative and procedural (DP) memory systems (Hamrick
et al., 2018; Ullman, 2016). Other types of non-declarative memory systems
have been identified, such as priming and perceptual learning, but the proce-
dural system is the one that has most influenced L2 theorizing. For Ullman
and colleagues, the DP model has the following key characteristics:

i. The procedural systems support rule-governed aspects of understanding

and producing language, including both syntax and morphology; they
also underpin skill learning such as driving or typing.
170  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
ii. The declarative systems support item-based aspects, such as the lexicon
and lexicalized stretches of language (How are you?).
iii. Declarative knowledge, including both explicit and implicit knowl-
edge, is underpinned by declarative memory. That is, we might learn
and know new words implicitly—without awareness—but they would
still belong to our declarative memory store. Representations stored in
declarative memory can be tested using measures such as recall and rec-
ognition tasks.
iv. Implicit knowledge can be underpinned by both procedural and declar-
ative memory systems.
v. Declarative memory systems are quick to learn, require attention and
benefit from intentional learning; procedural systems are slower, require
less attention and can operate without an intention to learn.
vi. The DP systems work both collaboratively and in competition with one
another; deficits in one system will increase reliance on the other.
vii. The two memory systems can interact; for example, procedural memory
can use information in declarative memory. For L2 learning, this predicts
that declarative knowledge can influence representations in procedural
memory, and procedural memory can influence declarative knowledge.
For example, learners might bring procedural knowledge into con-
sciousness, and then analyse it: so, a learner who produces How are you?
as a lexicalized chunk might extract its components when establishing
the rules for question formation in English. (This is in contrast to the
view of Paradis, 2009, that the declarative and procedural memory sys-
tems remain unconnected.)
viii. Children rely more on their procedural memories than adults do. This
reliance tails off during adolescence due to hormonal changes, and the
declarative system is gradually used more (Ullman, 2006, p. 99). Chil-
dren and adults use both systems when learning language, but as the age
increases there is growing reliance on the declarative system for process-
ing vocabulary, morphology and syntax. Evidence for this comes from
neuroimaging and Event-Related Potential (ERP) studies; these show
few differences between L1 and L2 speakers in lexical processing (recall
that L1 vocabulary learning is thought to depend largely on the declara-
tive system), but more significant differences in grammar processing.
However, individual differences in declarative memory capacities mean
that not all L2 learners can make effective use of declarative knowledge
(such as explicit knowledge about language). Thus, sole reliance on the
declarative system cannot lead to the same kind of proficiency as that
of child L1 learners (who, recall, rely more on their procedural mem-
ory) or those adults who can tap more effectively into their procedural
memory systems.
ix. Adult L2 processing (understanding and production) can become autom-
atized and stored in the procedural memory system, and therefore poten-
tially become L1-like. Critically, however, this requires either sufficient
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 171
practice or sufficiently early acquisition, and is dependent on an “indi-
vidual’s intrinsic procedural learning abilities” (Ullman, 2006, p. 100).

Ullman’s DP model is drawn upon by a range of L2 researchers. One such

agenda focuses on whether items are stored as decomposable representations
(stem + inflection) or holistically (invariant, whole words). For example, L2
learners of German and English have been shown to store low-frequency
inflected verbs (such as polished) holistically more than L1 speakers, who
tend to store low-frequency regular verbs compositionally (polish+ed) (Gor,
2010). This evidence has been used to suggest that L2 learners rely more on
the declarative system. However, findings are not clear cut, with some studies
suggesting that high proficiency learners are no more likely to store words
holistically than L1 speakers.
Another L2 research agenda inspired by the DP model investigates dif-
ferences between individuals in terms of their capacities in these different
memory systems. If individuals have different capacities in, and/or access
to, their procedural and declarative memory systems, this could affect their
learning (Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2018; Morgan-Short, Faretta-
Stutenberg, Brill, Carpenter, & Wong, 2014; Roberts & Meyer, 2012).
Another set of issues addressed using the DP model explores transition:
that as learning progresses, different memory systems come into play. For
example, Morgan-Short et al. (2014) investigated whether individual dif-
ferences in DP abilities were related to laboratory learning of an artificial
language by young adults. Participants were told that they would be learn-
ing an artificial language (Brocanto2) and were exposed to this language,
orally, in a computerized game environment. During four sessions, totalling
10.5 hours over a few days, they heard and spoke Brocanto2, in order to
move game pieces around a board onscreen. The participants did pre- and
posttests, which measured their ability to distinguish between grammati-
cal and ungrammatical word order in Brocanto2. To measure declarative
memory capacity, the researchers used a paired-associates (vocabulary) task
from the aptitude battery Modern Language Aptitude Test (Part 5) and
a Continuous Verbal Memory Task. They found that scores on this test
predicted the learning of Brocanto2 syntax that happened early in train-
ing, but not in later stages of training. They also took tested procedural
memory using the Tower of London and Weather Prediction tasks (available
on www.iris-database.org). These procedural memory scores predicted
grammar performance after the final session, but not after the first ses-
sion. These findings were taken to align with the DP model, in that they
suggested qualitatively different memory systems at play as the learning of
syntax progresses: declarative memory in the early stage, and then proce-
dural memory at later stages. The authors also argue that varying capacities
in these two systems may account for variation which they observed in
L2 attainment. (See Hamrick, 2015, for a similar pattern of results under
slightly different learning conditions.)
172  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)

Declarative Memory Procedural Memory

0.8

0.6

0.4
Mean Weighted r

0.2

–0.2

–0.4

–0.6
Child L1 Child L1 Adult L2 Adult L2
Lexical Grammatical Grammatical Grammatical
Abilities Abilities Abilities: Lower Abilities: Higher
Experience Experience

Figure 5.1 
Comparing Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems of L1 and L2
Learners
Source: Hamrick et al., 2018, p. 1489

A recent meta-analysis of such studies (Hamrick et al., 2018) showed

distinct patterns of associations (correlations) between measures of declara-
tive and procedural memory, for lexical and grammar learning, for child L1
learners and adult L2 learners. For child L1 learners, the declarative mem-
ory system was most strongly associated with lexical knowledge, and both
declarative and procedural systems were associated with grammar knowl-
edge. For adult L2 learners, the studies included in the review separated out
the early stages of grammar knowledge from later (more proficient) stages.
The group effects observed were that the early stages of grammar learning
were associated more with declarative memory systems (thought to serve
item-based, and more explicit, learning), and later stages were associated
more with procedural memory (serving rule-based and more implicit learn-
ing: see Figure 5.1).
Another L2 learning phenomenon that is researched within the frame-
work of the DP model concerns the sensitivity of L2 learners to morpho-
syntax when processing input in real time, to which we now turn.

5.2.2 Online Sensitivity to Morphosyntax and Memory Systems:

The Shallow Structure Hypothesis
The observation that L2 learners are less sensitive to grammatical form
when trying to comprehend sentences, compared to L1 speakers, is not new.
Swain and Lapkin (1995) argued that this is due to tensions between so-
called semantic and syntactic processing; other researchers (VanPatten, 2012)
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 173
say that L2 learners process language for communication, for which many
grammatical forms are redundant (see Chapter 4). Recent studies using self-
paced reading (Marsden, Thompson, & Plonsky, 2018, and see the special
collection of self-paced reading tests on IRIS), Event-Related Potentials and
eye-tracking (Keating & Jegerski, 2015) allow us to access language process-
ing in real time (“online processing”). Such studies suggest that L2 learn-
ers are less sensitive to inflectional morphology than L1 speakers, and that
the L1 and L2 processing of inflectional morphology is based on different
mechanisms (see Clahsen, Felser, Neubauer, Sato, & Silva, 2010, for a review).
The Shallow Structure Hypothesis, developed by Clahsen and Felser (2006a,
2006b), ascribed some of these differences to the DP model of memory,
whereby L2 learners draw more on declarative memory for storing and
accessing morphosyntax than do L1 speakers. Clahsen and Felser (2018)
bring their theory up to date as follows:

i. Children rely on syntax when processing grammar, as do adult L1

speakers (known as the “continuity hypothesis”); although late (adult)
language learners can also compute syntactic structures, they do so to
a lesser extent than L1 learners or adult L1 speakers, and they rely to a
greater extent on lexical-semantic and pragmatic information.
ii. The procedural memory system can be used by L2 learners, particularly
for “local” morphology (The woman runs fast), though less for morpho-
syntactic processes which link more distant elements (The woman who
won first prize in last year’s race runs fast).
iii. “Shallow” syntactic processing (with greater reliance on semantic,
pragmatic and discourse features) occurs in both L1 and L2 speakers.
However, L2 speakers use it more often (see also Bley-Vroman, 2009;
Indefrey, 2006; Sekerina & Brooks, 2006).
iv. As shallow processing occurs for all L2 learners, regardless of the rela-
tionship between L1 and L2, it may have a greater effect on processing
than any specific L1-L2 influence. Thus, Clahsen and Felser (2018) are
“agnostic” on the extent of L1 influence during L2 processing.

Clahsen and Felser (2018) emphasize that the differences between L1 and
L2 processing may be ones of degree, and depending on many factors, rather
than one binary, qualitative difference. Indeed, Avery and Marsden (under
review) found, in a meta-analysis of 47 studies using the self-paced reading
technique, that for advanced L2 learners (almost all highly educated), sensi-
tivity to morphosyntax during L2 processing was in fact broadly similar to
that of L1 speakers, with the exception of sensitivity to violations (grammat-
ical anomalies). Furthermore, Avery and Marsden found that the magnitude
of sensitivity was not affected by the degree of similarity between L1 and L2.
However, the picture is not clear cut. There is neurolinguistic evidence
that L1 and L2 morphosyntactic processing normally rely on the same neu-
rolinguistic architecture, but different architecture may come into play when
174  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
the features being processed are dissimilar in the L1 and L2 (Tokowicz &
MacWhinney, 2005; Tolentino & Tokowicz, 2011). Other studies have sug-
gested that factors such as learners’ L1 and their working memory capacity
can allow some advanced learners to behave like adult L1 speakers (Havik,
Roberts, Van Hout, Schreuder, & Haverkort, 2009; Jackson, 2008; Jiang,
Novokshanova, Masuda, & Wang, 2011).
Despite this large and growing agenda into the nature of L2 processing,
we still do not fully understand the extent to which millisecond differ-
ences in online processing or differences in brain activation can inform us
about learning. We do not fully understand how online processing reflects
how the L2 is used in comprehension and production (see Chen, Shu, Liu,
Zhao, & Li, 2007; Grüter, Lew-Williams, & Fernald, 2012; Roberts, Gull-
berg, & Indefrey, 2008, who combined online measures of processing and
offline measures of language use). It is also unclear whether, and if so when,
knowledge stored in the procedural memory may become accessible to con-
sciousness; understanding this is crucial if explicit awareness is needed for
learning, as argued by some researchers. (See Chapter 4 for a discussion of
moments of awareness or surprisal during online processing.)
Our focus so far has been on morphosyntax, neglecting memory-based
accounts of L1/L2 differences in other areas. Ullman’s model of memory
suggests that lexical items are learned primarily using declarative memory
in both L1 and L2, consistent with the observation that vocabulary learn-
ing is not prone to age effects, as we can carry on learning vocabulary in
all our languages throughout our lives (DeKeyser, 2012). As the declarative
memory system works with both implicit and explicit information, Ullman’s
model can account for incidental and, possibly, implicit vocabulary learning
(Chen & Truscott, 2010).

5.2.3 Age Differences in Learning Mechanisms

Overall, the notion that there is a change in the way humans learn—a
change in general cognitive capabilities—as they move from childhood to
adulthood receives considerable support as an explanation for differences in
the outcomes of L1 and L2 learning. For example, DeKeyser, Alfi-Shabtay,
and Ravid (2010) argue that age influences morphosyntactic ability, and that
different aptitudes have a role in this: “younger learners learn more while
relying less on aptitude; older learners learn less, and to the extent they do
learn, must rely more heavily on their verbal aptitude” (p. 433). Similarly,
DeKeyser, Alfi-Shabtay, Ravid, and Shi (2017) found that salience interacts
with age, since older learners are more affected by salience of morphologi-
cal form than younger learners. Both these findings are compatible with the
argument that child learners rely more heavily on implicit learning mecha-
nisms, whereas adults rely more on explicit learning, at least initially (see
DeKeyser, 2000, 2012, 2015a, 2015b, 2017b).
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 175
Questions about how age might influence the learning mechanisms
employed are highly relevant to instruction. To find out whether learners
aged 10–11 were able to engage in explicit learning, Kasprowicz and Mars-
den (2018) carried out a study with 138 young learners of L2 German,
focusing on case marking on definite articles (der for nominative and den
for accusative). Brief explanation of the rules was followed by one of two
types of input-based activities. In one condition, learners had to understand
sentences and spot the German articles (clicking on them with the mouse),
and in the other they practised interpreting the function of articles as mark-
ers of Subject/Object roles in the sentence. Based on the group means, the
learners made clear gains regardless of which type of practice they had, on
a large battery of measures that tested both comprehension and production
10 weeks after the end of the instruction. Although this suggests that explicit
learning is available to young children, fuller analysis of the data at an indi-
vidual level (Hanan, 2015) revealed that some learners did not make gains,
with a clear bimodal distribution of learners who seemed to “get it” and
those who did not.This illustrates that group averages cannot fully inform us
about the precise role of age in the use of explicit learning mechanisms, and
how this varies across individuals. (See further discussion in Chapter 10.)
We now turn to research that has tried to define explicit knowledge more
closely, and then we explore research on the contribution of explicit learn-
ing in SLA.

5.3 Explicit Knowledge, Information Processing and

Skill Acquisition

5.3.1  Defining and Measuring Explicit Knowledge

Definitions of explicit knowledge are many, but a typical example reads:

A person can be said to have explicit knowledge when they are in a

higher order state of knowing that they know something. They should
be able to intentionally use this higher order knowledge to control
actions, including verbal report.
(J. N. Williams, 2009, p. 321)

There is general agreement that explicit knowledge is accessible to con-

scious awareness, can often be expressed in words and tends to be used
more when learners do not feel under time pressure. It is also thought to
be learned faster than implicit knowledge. There is some agreement, though
not complete, about other characteristics of explicit knowledge:

• It can include both rules (i.e. patterns or systems) and memories of indi-
vidual phrases and sentences;
176  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
• It is learnable only given sufficient cognitive maturity;
• Anxiety reduces reliable access to it;
• It is stored as declarative knowledge;
• It is less reliable than implicit knowledge as access to it varies in different
contexts;
• It is more prone to decay over time than implicit knowledge;
• Individuals vary in their capacity to understand, store and use it. (See R.
Ellis, 2005, for further discussion.)

“Metalinguistic knowledge”, as a subset of explicit knowledge, includes any

information held about language with awareness, such as word meanings,
explicit grammar rules or specific memories of language use. Attempts have
been made to classify degrees of difficulty or complexity of metalinguistic
knowledge, involving factors such as elaborateness (the number of steps or
subrules), clarity (technicality of metalanguage), scope (general vs specific
rules) and reliability of the rules (Housen & Simeons, 2016).
Metalinguistic knowledge has often been measured by learners’ ability to
correct, describe and explain errors. In a study with advanced L1 English
university students of L2 German, Roehr (2007) combined measures of those
abilities with a specially devised additional test of “language-analytic ability”,
requiring learners to spot grammar patterns in L2 sentences (as in classic lan-
guage aptitude tests). She found that this test combination was more highly
correlated with a measure of L2 proficiency than tests of error correction or
rule provision alone. On the basis of statistical analysis, she suggested that all
these abilities are components of the same construct of “metalinguistic ability”.
Research on the nature of different knowledge types, and how best to
measure them, continues to flourish (Andringa & Rebuschat, 2015; R. Ellis,
2004, 2005; R. Ellis & Loewen, 2007; Godfroid et al., 2015; Gutiérrez, 2013;
Kim & Nam, 2016; Rebuschat, 2015; Roehr & Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2013;
Spada, Shiu, & Tomita, 2015; Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2015). Such a proliferation
of special issues and book-length treatments, using increasingly sophisticated
measurements, shows how central this issue is to current L2 theorizing.
In a recent study, Vafaee, Suzuki, and Kachisnke (2017) compared measure-
ment methods for different types of explicit knowledge. They used a battery
of tests to investigate the knowledge of Chinese L1 speakers about four Eng-
lish morphosyntactic features—present hypothetical conditional, 3rd person
-s, simple past/present perfect and mass/count nouns. They tested 79 learners
using a timed and an untimed grammaticality judgement test (where par-
ticipants identified whether sentences were acceptable or unacceptable, under
time pressure or in their own time, respectively); a metalinguistic knowledge
test (where participants selected the rule that best explained an error, spotted
examples of named grammatical features, such as “finite verb”, and named
grammatical parts in sentences); a self-paced reading task (where participants
pressed a button to read the next part of a sentence); and a word-monitoring
task (where participants pressed a button to signal they detected a particular
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 177
word occurring just after a target grammar feature). The researchers carried
out a confirmatory factor analysis, to see how the results from the different tests
clustered together.They concluded that grammaticality judgements were suit-
able for tapping into explicit knowledge types, regardless of whether the tests
were timed or untimed and regardless of whether items were grammatical or
ungrammatical; whereas word monitoring and self-paced reading tapped into
more implicit knowledge types. (See also Plonsky, Marsden, Crowther, Gass, &
Spinner, in press; Shiu,Yalçin, & Spada, 2018).
The separation between knowledge types is not, of course, straightfor-
ward. It is likely that learners access some explicit and some implicit knowl-
edge in all test types (R. Ellis, 2002, 2005). Further, the relationship between
the type of knowledge and the type of learning is not straightforward, and
care must be taken when using terms. Explicit learning is said to take place
“when the learner has online awareness, formulating and testing conscious
hypotheses in the course of learning” (Roehr, 2008, p. 69). However, such
awareness can occur even when the learner was not necessarily expected to
become aware; that is, without being told to learn the language, and without
information about patterns in the language. Such conditions are known as
“incidental learning”, and in this situation learners may or may not establish
some awareness or explicit knowledge.There is evidence, for example, that a
learner can gain both implicit and explicit knowledge of a particular syntac-
tic structure, during the same incidental learning task (P. Bell, 2017).
But how far can explicit knowledge contribute to L2 learning? This is an
important issue which researchers are still grappling with, and several roles
have been suggested for metalinguistic knowledge, for example that it helps
the learner:

i. to first notice or register a new language element, particularly those that

are not salient or essential for understanding meaning, or those that are
also expressed by another means in the L1 and/or in the L2 (Schmidt,
1990; Terrell, 1991) (see attention blocking in Chapter 4);
ii. to parse input into parts of speech, particularly for complex rules;
iii. to clarify the number of rules or patterns that could potentially be in
operation (that is, to narrow the learner’s hypothesis space: Brooks &
Kempe, 2013; Rogers, 2017a);
iv. to formulate correct output which can then be analysed for its compo-
nent parts;
v. when comprehension fails, either to explicitly register the problematic
string in memory, or to call on existing knowledge to reanalyse the input.

Of course, just having explicit knowledge or providing learners with illus-

trative exemplars of pedagogical rules is insufficient to promote fluent use.
Of relevance for learning theory is whether explicit knowledge can lead to
other types of knowledge in the longer term, and this issue is pursued in the
next section.
178  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
5.3.2 The Use of Explicit Knowledge in Learning: Information
Processing and Skill Acquisition Theory

5.3.2.1  Description of the Theory

Under the broad umbrella of information processing, three stages of learning
have generally been proposed (Altarriba & Basnight-Brown, 2009; Ander-
son, 1983; McLaughlin & Heredia, 1996; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). In
SLA research, the Skill Acquisition Theory associated with DeKeyser (1997,
2007, 2015a, 2017a, 2018) adopts this three-stage framework. We outline
below key aspects of each stage:
Stage 1: Declarative (cognitive or presentation) knowledge. Learners first
establish some new knowledge. This includes information from a teacher, a
book or an observation made by the learner. It does not have to be explicit
as it can be established implicitly, but for current purposes we focus on
knowledge held with awareness. Examples could include a description of
how to play a certain tennis shot; explicit information about a language fea-
ture, such as “The ending -s is required on a verb after a 3rd person subject”;
or a conscious observation about how to pronounce a word.The knowledge
can include some kind of abstract description and/or concrete exemplars.
Maintaining and using these representations requires a lot of attentional
control and is constrained by the limited capacity of working memory (see
Sections 5.4 and 5.5).
Stage 2: Procedural (associative or practice) knowledge. Use of the declar-
ative knowledge leads to representations being created for a new type of
knowledge, as the knowledge about how to do something is put into action.
For example, a person tries the new tennis shot, or a learner produces a 3rd
person singular subject plus a verb and ends the verb with -s. This process is
known as proceduralization; it is constrained, so that the declarative knowl-
edge can be put into practice exactly as it was formulated. Some repetition is
required, but “proceduralization can become complete after just a few trials/
instances” (DeKeyser, 2015a, p. 95). Proceduralization reduces demands on
working memory, as proceduralized representations of information are stored
as chunks in the mind, and access to them is quicker. However, knowledge
at this stage is also prone to restructuring, as learners encounter difficulties
with their knowledge and/or reassemble it into more efficient chunks. This
can result in the apparent temporary loss of knowledge as it is reorganized
and reincorporated.
Stage 3: Automatic (autonomous, or production) knowledge. Before pro-
ceduralized knowledge can be used reliably and quickly, automatization has
to take place. Practice is needed to decrease the time required to perform
the skill, the error rate, the amount of attention required and the extent to
which other tasks interfere with the skill (DeKeyser, 2015a, p. 95). Automa-
tized knowledge is still prone to errors. However, it is difficult to change
or delete such knowledge because it is now outside attentional control. An
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 179
advantage of this is that it is less prone to corruption over time, and it does
not require attentional resources. This means automatic processes can work
in parallel, enabling clusters of complex skills to be performed simultane-
ously, while controlled processes are freed to deal with the integration of
other skills. Simple skills must become automatic before more complex ones
can be tackled, thus explaining the step by step nature of learning.
Underlying this view of learning is the observation, made across many
different kinds of cognitive skills, that performance improves rapidly after
relatively little practice, and progress then slows down. This pattern, of fast
then slow change, is referred to as the power law of practice (a mathematical
formula); in everyday language we might refer to this as “a steep learning
curve”. From an Information Processing perspective, in the proceduraliza-
tion stage, a new kind of knowledge is established, which is different in
nature as well as being stored in a different memory system. After this, in the
automatization stage, improvement slows down and can appear to gradually
stabilize without ever reaching a clear end point.
In terms of language learning, automaticity is often interpreted as fluent
and speedy access to knowledge. However, as noted above, the criterion of
speed (or performing under time pressure) is also used to identify implicit
knowledge.Thus, an important issue in skill acquisition in general is whether
automatized declarative knowledge is distinguishable from implicit knowl-
edge. And as we know, SLA research has been concerned for several decades
with the extent to which explicit knowledge is associated with the establish-
ment of implicit knowledge (see discussion in Chapter 2 of the acquisition/
learning distinction).
Suzuki (2017b) attempted to address this, using a battery of six tests.Three
of them were timed but focused learners’ attention on grammatical accu-
racy: an auditory judgement test, a written judgement test and a fill in the
blank test. These three tests produced scores that clustered together, suggest-
ing one type of knowledge, which Suzuki argued was automatized explicit
knowledge (learned and used with the awareness of the participants). These
scores were different to the scores elicited by the other measures, which all
focused learners’ attention on meaning during online comprehension, and
were argued to be robust measures of implicit knowledge. These tasks were
a visual world task (tracking eye movements between pictures whilst listen-
ing to input), a word-monitoring task (where participants press a button
on hearing a particular word) and a self-paced reading task (where reaction
times are recorded as participants press a button to read the next word in a
sentence). Scores on these three measures also clustered together, and Suzuki
argued that this provided evidence that the two constructs are separable.
However, Suzuki and DeKeyser (2017a) reanalysed these data (using the
statistical procedure of structural equation modelling) and found that the
scores on the automatized explicit knowledge tests predicted the scores
on the implicit knowledge tests. From this evidence, they argue that the
automatization of explicit knowledge is associated with the development of
180  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
implicit knowledge. But such studies are based on associations at one point
in time, and so do not yet give us the strongest kind of evidence about the
process of automatization itself, over time. For this, we need to somehow
observe automatization longitudinally, discussed next.

5.3.2.2  Documenting the Process of Automatization

As noted above, the process of automatization requires that a new kind of
knowledge has been established, during proceduralization, and consoli-
dated, during automatization. Automaticity is, therefore, more than a simple
increase in speed, as it involves establishing new routines that enhance pro-
cessing efficiency and stability. Faster reaction times alone reflect accelera-
tion without necessarily indicating restructuring (Paradis, 2009; Segalowitz,
2010). Segalowitz and Segalowitz (1993) proposed that processing stability
combined with faster performance may be a signature of automaticity. To
tease apart automatization from simple acceleration, researchers have used
the Coefficient of Variation (CV). This is a measure of processing stability
that is calculated as the standard deviation (which can be thought of, broadly,
as variability) of reaction times as a proportion of the average (mean) reac-
tion times. A general speed-up is observed where standard deviations and
mean reaction times decrease at the same rate. In contrast, in automatization,
the decrease in standard deviations (variability) is greater than the decrease
in average reaction times. This is because automatization reduces inefficient
processes that cause variability and unstable performance. Thus, processing
stability is reflected by a trajectory of decreasing CVs.
In L2 research, CV reductions have accompanied proficiency level
increases, in cross-sectional designs comparing different groups (Hulstijn,
van Gelderen, & Schoonen, 2009; Lim & Godfroid, 2014). However, stud-
ies that have tracked short-term development within a set of participants
have shown that CVs can actually become more variable (Brown & Gaskell,
2014; McManus & Marsden, in press; Solovyeva & DeKeyser, 2017; Suzuki,
2017a). These short-term learning patterns may reflect the earlier stages in
skill acquisition, where knowledge representations are created and restruc-
tured during proceduralization. In contrast, the cross-sectional designs cap-
ture a much longer period of development, allowing more opportunities for
practice, and so promoting stability and automaticity.

5.3.2.3 Transfer-Appropriate Processing
Another issue in Skill Acquisition Theory concerns the scope of the con-
texts in which declarative knowledge can be established, proceduralization
can happen, and automaticity can be observed. It is thought that declara-
tive knowledge is transferable to other contexts, skills or tasks. In contrast,
automatized knowledge is highly context- and skill-specific, and DeKeyser
(2007) suggests that it does not transfer from comprehension to production
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 181
of language. Some evidence for this was found by de Jong (2005) and Li
and DeKeyser (2017), who observed that training in one modality (such as
listening) did not lead to as many gains in another (speaking) as did training
and testing in the same modality. Transfer may appear to happen, but this is
thought to be via declarative knowledge (as in Ullman’s model: 2016).
At this point it is important to note that L2 theorists, such as DeKeyser, do
not claim that all learning starts out as explicit knowledge (recall that declar-
ative knowledge can be implicit); nor do they suggest that implicit learning
never happens (recall that procedural learning is more likely to serve infants
learning their L1, but can also serve adult L2 learning). Skill Acquisition
Theory aims to explain some L2 learning, for some learners, in some con-
texts. It offers explanations for at least six key SLA phenomena, as follows:

i. Why some structures never seem to enter the interlanguage at all:

Given that stage 1 requires accurate and reliable declarative knowledge,
structures may not become declarative knowledge if they are com-
plex, abstract, communicatively redundant, infrequent or non-salient
(DeKeyser, 2005; and see Chapter 4). Alternatively, declarative knowl-
edge may have been established but not proceduralized.
ii. Why native-like forms are used in some contexts but not others: This
variability is in line with the claims that proceduralized knowledge
undergoes restructuring and automatized knowledge is still error prone,
as well as the claim that these knowledge types are context- and skill-
specific. In addition, learners’ attentional resources are limited, and due
to competing attentional demands, they might not always have sufficient
resources to access their declarative and/or procedural knowledge.
iii. Why learning is incremental (step by step): Recall that controlled pro-
cesses are freed up only gradually, to allow new declarative knowledge
to be established or more complex processing to occur.
iv. Why there are differences between individual learners: The establish-
ment of declarative knowledge, proceduralization and automatization
are affected by individual cognitive differences, such as working mem-
ory capacity, analytical ability, general intelligence or learning style.
v. Why there is fossilization: Fossilization is thought to be a result of declar-
ative knowledge that is non-native-like undergoing automatization. As
automatized knowledge is difficult to modify, it is likely to remain in the
learner’s interlanguage, giving rise to a stable, though non-native-like,
construction.
vi. Why some structures are more likely to fossilize than others: Non-
native-like declarative knowledge is more likely for some structures
than others due to factors including the nature of the feature (com-
plexity, frequency, saliency, relation to the L1) and the number of com-
municative events which would actually push the learner to restructure
their initial declarative knowledge (failed communication, failed parsing
or corrective feedback; see Chapter 6). Non-native-like forms which
182  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
are communicatively adequate in high-frequency contexts are especially
likely to become proceduralized and automatized.

5.3.3 Empirical Research Related to Skill Acquisition

L2 researchers who are interested in the role of explicit knowledge and
practice in L2 learning are, essentially, appealing to Skill Acquisition Theory.
There is, therefore, an enormous body of research that is related to skill
acquisition, at least indirectly. We mention here some of the major trends.

5.3.3.1 Broad Associations between Explicit Declarative Knowledge

and Learning
Correlational studies have found significant, positive associations between
learners’ metalinguistic knowledge and their proficiency, or between their
awareness and learning gains made over time (see Roehr, 2008, for a review).
However, as Roehr notes, correlation research cannot determine whether
increasing proficiency causes improvement in metalinguistic knowledge, or
the opposite. Recall, also, that learning can be observed, under certain cir-
cumstances, even when participants did not seem to have explicit knowledge
(awareness) of any sort (see Chapter 4). There are therefore some situations
in which skill acquisition does not seem to be applicable.

5.3.3.2  Laboratory and Classroom Studies Related to Skill Acquisition

Valid studies of skill acquisition must be longitudinal, measures of declarative
knowledge must be accurate and reliable, and the subsequent practice must
be in a context similar to that for the declarative knowledge and sufficient in
amount. These conditions are difficult to operationalize in the classroom or
laboratory. However, a number of 1990s studies were designed to test directly
some aspects of Skill Acquisition Theory. For example, DeKeyser’s (1997)
laboratory study exposed 61 adult participants to an artificial language over
11 weeks. Participants experienced three different learning conditions: com-
prehension practice, production practice and both types of practice. In line
with Skill Acquisition Theory, their learning of four morphological rules
followed the pattern of fast proceduralization, indicated by a rapid reduc-
tion in both errors and reaction times, followed by a slower automatization
stage. Also in line with Skill Acquisition Theory was the finding that their
knowledge was not transferred between the comprehension practice condi-
tion and a production test. A study by de Jong and Perfetti (2011) illustrates
an investigation into Skill Acquisition Theory in L2 classroom research.They
found that talking about the same topic three times, at increasing speeds
each time, led to improved speech fluency compared to a control group that
talked about three different topics. The benefits were maintained 4 weeks
later and transferable to another topic. The researchers argue that repeated
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 183
use of particular words and sentence structures led to the proceduraliza-
tion of knowledge. (See also de Jong, 2005; Robinson, 1997; and DeKeyser,
2017a for a review.)
A much larger body of research looks more generally at the usefulness of
teaching explicit information about language form, followed by different
types of practice with opportunities for proceduralization and automati-
zation, ranging from form-spotting activities, through error correction, to
communicative information-gap oral tasks. For full accounts of this research,
widely referred to as the focus-on-form/s agenda, see Doughty and J. Wil-
liams (1998); Loewen and Sato (2017); Norris and Ortega (2000); and Shin-
tani (2015). Meta-analyses are increasingly frequent, although the diversity
of research designs makes comparisons somewhat challenging. Within this
agenda, some researchers are interested in whether declarative knowledge
is more likely to help proceduralization and automatization when language
forms are simple or complex (Housen & Simeons, 2016; Spada & Tomita,
2010), but, again, consistent definitions of complexity are not yet agreed
upon. Overall, however, findings suggest that explicit learning conditions
combining both explicit information and intentional practice result in
higher scores on posttests than less explicit (e.g. incidental) conditions, espe-
cially on tests that give learners time to access explicit knowledge. Gains on
tests that require free, unplanned communicative production are often less
strong or not observed (e.g. Marsden & Chen, 2011; and compare the con-
trasting reviews on this issue of R. Ellis, 2002, and Truscott, 2015). The lack
of robust and widespread evidence for automatization in classroom settings
may be due to the nonideal conditions for skill acquisition, and the fact that
measurements used are not “transfer appropriate” (see above).
One strand of this classroom-based research addresses whether the ini-
tial, declarative knowledge is best learned if it is picked out by the learner
(induced) or provided by some external source such as a teacher or textbook
(deduced). Advantages of deduced knowledge include its accuracy and gen-
eralizability. On the other hand, induced knowledge may create better “stor-
age” because it is locked to a particular moment of attentional awareness and
the learner perhaps makes more, or different kinds of, connections to their
existing representations (see Section 5.4 below). For studies in which learn-
ers seemed to induce declarative knowledge, see Marsden and Chen (2011),
Robinson (1997) and Sanz and Morgan-Short (2004).
Another application to the classroom of skill acquisition involves the
teaching of learning strategies (introduced in Chapter 1). The basic idea
is that, first, conscious knowledge of a strategy is established, such as “Use
known linguistic information to facilitate a new learning task”; “Use infor-
mation in the text to guess meanings”; or “Elicit additional explanation from
a teacher or peer” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 43). Then, the strategy is
practised, new procedural knowledge is established, and eventually skill in
using the strategy becomes automatized. Research has found some learn-
ing gains following systematic instruction in learning strategies in certain
184  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
skill areas. However, overall, there has been relatively little engagement with
learning theory in this domain. In his review of 61 learning strategy stud-
ies, Plonsky (2011) notes: “Unfortunately, the lack of theory in this area has
left researchers and practitioners to design studies of Strategy Instruction
based largely on convenience, intuition, and/or some level of idiosyncrasy”
(p. 998). Nevertheless, some of the review’s findings could be argued to lend
broad support to certain aspects of Skill Acquisition Theory.

5.3.3.3  Interfaces between Explicit Knowledge and Online Processing

Another, relatively new line of work investigates the extent to which
providing explicit information to learners can affect online processing.
This is an important line of investigation as many consider that online
processing reflects knowledge (see Section 5.2) and may even drive learn-
ing (see Chapter 4). It is also important theoretically. In Section 5.3.1, we
discussed studies which claimed that online measures, such as self-paced
reading and eye-tracking, tap into more implicit knowledge (Suzuki,
2017b;Vafaee et al., 2017). If these processes were shown to be affected by
explicit information, this would suggest some interface between explicit
and implicit representations of language. For example, explicit informa-
tion may help learners to anticipate language that is coming up or estab-
lish better processing routines; or, perhaps, when parsing or prediction
fails, then awareness or conscious surprisal leads to the establishment of
explicit knowledge (discussed in Chapter 4) or perhaps of implicit declar-
ative knowledge.
A study by Andringa and Curcic (2015) is one of very few to address
this issue. They exposed a group of 51 L1 Dutch speakers to a novel lan-
guage based on Esperanto.They first taught half the participants that a direct
object marker preceded animate but not inanimate objects. All learners were
then exposed to 104 aural sentences, half of which provided exposure to the
direct object marker rule. Two tests were then given: an offline grammati-
cality judgement test (accessing explicit knowledge) and an online “visual
world” eye movement test. In the visual world test, participants heard sen-
tences and saw pictures of two possible objects, one of which was animate
and one inanimate. On hearing the direct object marker, the learners could
supposedly use it to predict which picture was going to be talked about.
The group who had been given the rule performed better in the offline
judgement test. On the other hand, there was no evidence that the explicit
information they had been given was beneficial online, as their eye move-
ments did not show that they used the direct object marker to anticipate
which picture was being talked about. (However, this study’s design features
may explain the lack of effect: the explicit information consisted of just two
examples, there was no opportunity to practise, and the nouns naming the
objects may not have been sufficiently well-established as they were in an
entirely new language.)
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 185
McManus and Marsden (2017, 2018) designed another study address-
ing the interface between explicit knowledge and online processing, which
partly addressed these issues.The researchers worked with advanced learners
of L2 French. They provided one group with explicit information about
inflectional morphology for past tense and aspect in both their L1 (English)
and French, another group with information about French only, and a
third group with no explicit information. This was followed by 3.5 hours
of ­practice, over 4 weeks, of interpreting the meaning of these inflections in
sentences. To measure the effects, the learners undertook a self-paced read-
ing test in French, 4 days after the instruction and again after 42 days. Each
of the sentences presented during the self-paced reading test either matched
or mismatched the tense-aspect of an event that had just been described in
L1 English. For example, I went to the shops every day when I was younger . . .
was followed by a match sentence in L2 French (J’allais aux magasins . . .), or
a mismatch (Je suis allée . . .). The authors found that learners with explicit
information about their L1 and L2 were faster and more accurate at using
the French inflections during online reading than the other groups. This
study suggested that explicit information, when combined with a lot of
practice, can indeed influence online processing (and thus, perhaps, contrib-
ute indirectly to implicit knowledge).

5.3.3.4 The Distribution of Practice

Another important new line of skill acquisition research is addressing the
issue of frequency of practice: whether skill acquisition is best promoted by
“massed” practice (such as 3 hours in one session) or by “distributed” prac-
tice (say, 3 hours over 3 weeks). This agenda has a solid history in cognitive
psychology, focusing on the learning of motor skills, maths or words. The
general finding is that distributed practice is more beneficial than massed
practice. In terms of general learning theory, this has been accounted for by
the idea that distributing practice makes retrieval from memory more diffi-
cult, i.e. costlier on memory resources, but this cost may help to embed rep-
resentations in memory. Another, related possibility may be that activating
a representation in memory on separate occasions gives that representation
a higher “resting level” of activation (see the discussions on frequency and
priming in Chapter 4). Linked to these questions, but not yet on the radar of
L2 researchers, is the growing literature on the role of sleep in establishing
new language (James, Gaskell, Weighall, & Henderson, 2017).
A closer look into the overarching finding that distributed practice is
more effective than massed practice reveals that this relates to the timing
of the posttest. One meta-analysis (Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer,
2006) suggested that the best learning outcomes are observed when the
interval between practice sessions (known as the “inter-study interval”) is
about 10%–40% of the interval between the practice and testing (known
as the “retention interval”). For example, it is desirable to have 1–4 days
186  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
between training sessions if the test is 10 days later. Another meta-analysis
suggested that distributed practice is best, provided the retention interval is
at least a month (Rohrer, 2015).
Unfortunately, these questions have been rather neglected in L2 research,
somewhat surprisingly given the potential implications for education (e.g.
the benefits of intensive versus slow drip-feed approaches). A recent study by
Bird (2010) has been followed by others. However, rather than comparing
massed versus distributed practice, these L2 studies have tended to investigate
“lag effects”—that is, the effects of different distributions of practice, such as
comparing inter-study intervals of 3.3 and 7 days (Rogers, 2017b; Suzuki,
2017a). These studies have largely focused on L2 morphosyntax (DeKey-
ser, 2018; Rogers, 2015, 2017b; Suzuki, 2017a, 2017c; Suzuki & DeKey-
ser, 2017b, 2017c). There is rather mixed evidence about whether different
interval lengths affect learning, with some support for the benefits of shorter
intervals and other studies providing inconclusive results.
In sum, in Section 5.3 we have looked at the nature of declarative (and par-
ticularly explicit) knowledge and related learning processes. We now move
on to the role of closely related cognitive mechanisms that are involved in
establishing a new representation of language, or explicit knowledge about
language, in the first place: awareness and attention.

5.4 Awareness and Attention in L2 Acquisition

Much research has investigated the roles of attention and awareness in L2
learning, partly in reaction to Krashen’s claims that unconscious acquisition
was superior to explicit, intentional learning (see Chapter 2), and partly
because of their relevance for language instruction. There is a very active
strand of cognitive neuroscience investigating consciousness, which to
date mainstream SLA theory has not yet systematically engaged with (e.g.
Dehaene, 2014).

5.4.1 The Role of Noticing (Conscious Awareness)

Schmidt (1990, 1994, 2001) pioneered the view that conscious registration
of a form in the input is necessary for language learning to happen. The term
“noticing” refers to the process of bringing some stimulus into focal attention,
i.e. registering its simple occurrence, whether voluntarily or involuntarily (“for
example when one notices the odd spelling of a new vocabulary word”: 1994,
p. 17). It is widely used to refer to a level of attention that does not necessarily
include understanding a rule (see Leow, 2000, 2015 for in-depth discussion).
For Schmidt, key evidence supporting the necessity of noticing came from
his own diary kept while learning Portuguese, along with self-recordings:

Journal entry, Week 21 . . . Way back in the beginning, when we learned
question words, we were told [in class] that there are alternative long
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 187
and short forms like o que and o que é que, quem or quem é que.
I have never heard the long forms, ever, and concluded that they were
just another classroom fiction. But today, just before we left Cabo Frio,
M said something to me that I didn’t catch right away. It sounded like
French qu’est-ce que c’est, only much abbreviated, approximately
[kekse], which must be (o) que (é) que (vo)cê . . .
Journal entry, Week 22. I just said to N o que é que você quer, but
quickly (kekseker). Previously, I would have said just o que. N didn’t
blink, so I guess I got it right.
(Schmidt, 1990, p. 140)

Schmidt commented on this data extract as follows:

In this particular case, it is very clear that these forms had been present
in comprehensible input all along. E que variants of question words
were used by my interlocutor on all the conversational tapes; 43 per
cent of all question words on the first tape are of this type. I heard them
and processed them for meaning from the beginning, but did not notice
the form for five months. When I finally did notice the form, I began
to use it.
(Schmidt, 1990, p. 141)

On the basis of evidence like this, Schmidt proposed that “noticing is the
necessary and sufficient condition for . . . learning” (1994, p. 17), widely
referred to as the Noticing Hypothesis. The idea was applied to all aspects
of language, from phonology to pragmatics (Schmidt, 1993); in Chapter 6
we revisit this hypothesis in relation to noticing language features during
interaction. Schmidt (2001) clarified the proposal somewhat: only the initial
registration of a feature needs to be with conscious awareness. Once it is
established in memory then implicit perception can activate this pre-existing
representation.This idea has been referred to elsewhere as the “implicit tally-
ing hypothesis”, whereby each subsequent occurrence of a form in the input
strengthens an existing representation (N. C. Ellis, 2002). So, although con-
scious noticing may be necessary for encoding instances of language use in
memory, the extraction of form-meaning relationships and subsequent (re)
organization of the linguistic system can be unconscious (Robinson, 1995;
Schmidt, 1994, p. 179).
Debate continues as to whether conscious awareness of a rule is essential,
as we saw in Chapter 4 (Rebuschat & J. N. Williams, 2012; Rogers, 2017a).
However, there is general agreement that noticing is at least beneficial. Even
studies that demonstrate that unaware learning can occur may also show
benefits for conscious awareness. For example, J. N. Williams’s (2005) study
discussed in Chapter 4 found that all “aware” participants performed signifi-
cantly better than the participants that were unaware of the specific target
form-meaning pairings, as did Marsden, J. N. Williams, and Liu (2013).
188  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
5.4.2 Evidence of Awareness and Attention, and Links to Learning
Evidence for the Noticing Hypothesis has been collected in various ways (see
Mackey, 2006; Robinson, Mackey, Gass, & Schmidt, 2011). One approach is to
elicit first-person reports from the learners themselves about their awareness,
via diaries, tally marking, questionnaires or oral reports such as think-aloud
protocols.These can be online, i.e. alongside the actual comprehension or pro-
duction process; or offline, at some time after the event, ranging from a frac-
tion of a second to several weeks. The methodology clearly affects the nature
of the data elicited, and, for retrospective approaches, shorter time delays and
the provision of stimuli to help recall are thought to increase validity.
However, self-report procedures have been criticized because, when car-
ried out during the learning activity, they can affect performance, either
positively or negatively (Bowles, 2010). An additional, perhaps more serious
problem is that first-person reports, whether elicited during or after the
learning task, can only access the kind of awareness that participants express
in words. Yet awareness may be so fleeting that it is immediately forgotten,
or it may be such that the participant cannot or does not want to describe
it. Thus, such studies may only document what learners are already capable
of articulating, rather than those critical moments where initial awareness of
some completely new feature of language is registered.

5.4.3 What Do Learners Attend To?

On the assumption that noticing is, at least, beneficial for learning, some
researchers try to determine what learners notice when left to their own
devices, often called “incidental attention to form”. Researchers have sought
evidence for this in learner-learner or learner-teacher interactions, and such
studies represent an intersection between cognitive perspectives on attention
and socioculturally inspired approaches (Chapter 8). Learners’ self-initiated
comments about language are interpreted to document the frequency and
focus of incidental or spontaneous attention (N. Bell, 2012; Park & Han,
2008). Evidence suggests that learners can pay attention to morphosyn-
tax, though vocabulary is noticed much more often (J. Williams, 1999), and
learners’ L2 proficiency level can also affect attention to form.
A long line of studies has documented the impact of the pedagogical
approach known as processing instruction, which pushes learners to attend
to a form-meaning (or form-function) connection whilst listening to or
reading sentences (VanPatten, 2012, 2017). This research agenda grew out of
the proposal that connecting form in the input to a meaning on a regular
basis is essential for learning; for reviews, see DeKeyser and Prieto Botana
(2015) and Shintani (2015). In order to test this claim, comparison must be
made with a learning condition in which form-meaning connections are
not essential. Classroom studies have found that when learners’ attention
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 189
was not drawn to the form-meaning connection, no significant learning
was observed (Marsden, 2006; Marsden & Chen, 2011), though the tests
that showed learning probably did not tap into automatized (or implicit)
knowledge types.
Another factor that affects learners’ orientation and use of attention is
likely to be the languages they have already learned. As we saw in Chap-
ter 4, learners’ prior experience, including their L1, can influence and
block what learners attend to. For example, if learners are used to inter-
preting temporality (e.g. present versus pastness) by using adverbs in an L1
such as Chinese, they are less likely to attend to and use inflectional mor-
phology expressing temporality in an L2 (such as Spanish) than if their L1
also uses inflectional morphology to communicate temporality (such as
Italian). A series of intervention studies have been undertaken to investi-
gate whether this kind of attention blocking can be overcome by training
learners to attend to new features. For example, Cintrón-Valentín and
N. C. Ellis (2015, 2016) used eye-tracking techniques to observe atten-
tional processes whilst L1 Chinese and L1 English learners were exposed to
Latin (an inflection-rich language). They found that training could reduce
the attentional biases that they brought to the learning task from their
different L1s.
The basic idea that attention to morphosyntax and to other cues in the
input are in tension with one another is based on the notion that atten-
tional resources are limited or constrained. (See Robinson’s 2007 Cognition
Hypothesis and Skehan’s 2009 Trade-Off Hypothesis for models of how
limited attentional resources may influence L2 oral performance under dif-
ferent task conditions.) Whatever the attentional constraints are on accessing
language representations, some learners appear to be better than others at
actually allocating and focusing attention, and this may affect what is learned
over time. The system in the brain which supports the focusing of attention
is known as working memory, and is discussed in the next section.

5.5 Working Memory and L2 Learning

“Working memory” (WM) is the term used to refer to mechanisms or pro-
cesses involved in the temporary storage, manipulation and maintenance
of task-relevant information during online cognitive operations, including
language comprehension and production (Miyake & Shah, 1999, p. 450). As
there is a general consensus that WM is used for language comprehension,
and comprehension is necessary for language learning, it follows that WM
may have a key role in L2 learning. Indeed, in Chapter 4, we briefly men-
tioned a role for WM in O’Grady’s Efficiency-Driven Processor, and we also
mentioned growing evidence that individual differences found in both child
and adult L1 speakers may be attributable to different capacities in memory
systems, including WM.
190  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
A strong role for WM in L2 learning aligns with several other proposals
and observations:

i. The proposal that more explicit mechanisms come into play as learners
get older;
ii. Evidence that WM seems to be involved in explicit learning and the use
of explicit knowledge (Roehr, 2008; J. N. Williams, 2012);
iii. The DP model that holds that WM is closely connected to declarative
memory (DeKeyser, 2017a; Kidd, Donnelly, & Christiansen, 2018; Ull-
man, 2016);
iv. Observations that WM capacity varies between individuals;
v. Observations that WM capacity may be explicitly trainable.

5.5.1 Defining and Measuring WM

5.5.1.1  Models of WM Used in L2 Research

Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) seminal model of WM has evolved over nearly
four decades of research and has informed much of L2 researchers’ thinking
about the role of memory in L2 learning (J. N. Williams, 2012). According
to this model, there are two essential components to the WM system. The
first is concerned with the temporary storage of information; that is, short-
term memory.The second is concerned with the control of that information
which is required to carry out complex tasks, and the component responsi-
ble for this is variously referred to as the central executive (Baddeley, 2007)
or executive attention (Kane, Conway, Hambrick, & Engle, 2007, p. 427).
In terms of supporting learning, WM processes and sifts representations of
information in real time, and then feeds some of this information into long-
term memory, which stores it. WM is also thought to access and use infor-
mation from long-term memory during processing. One or more storage
component(s) store and rehearse phonological and visual-spatial informa-
tion. These are often referred to as phonological short-term memory (or
phonological loop) and the visuo-spatial sketchpad. Information from differ-
ent sources can be held within WM in a network often called the “episodic
buffer”, which allows representations to be available to conscious awareness.
WM is generally considered to have limited capacity, so the central execu-
tive must control the distribution of attentional resources between these
storage subcomponents, and, to do this, it is thought to be accessible in
part to conscious awareness. It carries out functions such as regulating our
thought and action, inhibiting certain activations in our mind to focus on
others, switching between tasks and updating our short-term storage. Per-
formance on these executive functions varies across individuals and may
be heritable. Many executive tasks involve managing competition between
representations. Linguistic representations compete both within and across
languages during both comprehension and production, and individual
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 191
differences in executive function are thought to account for many aspects of
language processing.
Baddeley (2017) provides an accessible overview of various models of
WM. All include a role for controlling attention, but they differ in a number
of ways, such as how they conceptualize the storage components for different
types of information (e.g. audio or visual); the extent to which they interact
with storage in long-term memory; and how they conceptualize various
constraints on WM, such as capacity limitations, interference and decay. (See
also Conway et al., 2005; Conway, Jarrold, Kane, Miyake, & Towse, 2007;
Gathercole, 2007; Just & Carpenter, 1992; Miyake & Shah, 1999.)
The characteristics of WM that have attracted most attention in SLA
research are its limited capacity, the control and allocation of attention and
inhibition of information (executive functions), and the phonological loop.
There are numerous overviews of research into the role of WM in SLA
(Altarriba & Isurin, 2014; Juffs & Harrington, 2011; Sharwood Smith, 2017;
Wen, 2016; Wen, Borges Mota, & McNeill, 2015; and J. N. Williams, 2012).

5.5.1.2  Measuring WM Capacity

Measures of WM capacity need to tap into both its storage function and its
processing (computational) function, if they are to reflect language process-
ing or learning. There are many methods available for doing this (Conway
et al., 2005). SLA researchers often use a reading span task, in which partici-
pants read sequences of unrelated sentences that become increasingly longer,
and then recall the final word of each sentence in order. A person’s “span”
is the maximum number of sentence-final words they can recall. Reac-
tion times are also often incorporated into the final score (Linck, Osthus,
Koeth, & Bunting, 2014; Sagarra, 2017;Walter, 2004). Such tasks are thought
to reflect processes used for learning L2 relations at syntactic or discourse
levels. Other span tests, such as digit span tests (remembering sequences of
numbers), do not require comprehension and so have the benefit of being
more language neutral, though arguably less relevant for language-related
research. Another WM measure is a non-word repetition task, used to reflect
the capacity of the phonological short-term memory (Gathercole, Willis,
Emslie, & Baddeley, 1992). In such tests, participants have to repeat individ-
ual nonsense words of varying lengths immediately after hearing them (e.g.
ballop, empliforvent). They are widely used in vocabulary learning research,
particularly with young children (Gathercole, 2006).

5.5.2 The Influence of WM on SLA

A very active research agenda has investigated the strength of associations
between measures of WM with general L2 proficiency and also with dif-
ferent subcomponents of proficiency (Granena et al., 2016; VanDen Noort,
Bosch, & Hugdahl, 2006).
192  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
Researchers have been particularly interested in the role of WM in L2 read-
ing comprehension and grammar development. For example, Walter (2004)
found that learners with a higher L2 WM capacity were better at transfer-
ring their L1 ability to link between pronouns when reading L2 French,
and this corresponded with better reading comprehension. This advantage
was more pronounced for the lower proficiency learners, leading Walter to
argue that WM differentiates between learners when “the going gets tough”
(p. 332). Sagarra (2017) similarly found that development of university stu-
dents’ grammar knowledge and reading comprehension in L2 Spanish, over
two semesters, was associated with their ability to recall words, at high speed,
whilst also processing sentences for meaning. Rai, Loschky, Harris, Peck, and
Cook (2011) found interactions between WM capacity, anxiety levels and the
complexity of inferences to be computed while reading in L2: learners with
higher WM capacity slowed down in order to maintain accurate comprehen-
sion, whereas those with lower WM capacity only slowed down under stress,
which did not necessarily result in accurate comprehension.
There is also considerable evidence of positive associations between pho-
nological WM memory and L2 vocabulary learning (Speciale, N. C. Ellis, &
Bywater, 2004) as well as rule learning (Martin & N. C. Ellis, 2012; J. N.
Williams & Lovatt, 2003) and oral fluency (O’Brien, Segalowitz, Freed, &
Collentine, 2007). Interestingly, there is some evidence that non-alphabetic
scripts in learners’ L1 may reduce reliance on phonological memory in word
learning (Hamada & Koda, 2011).
Another subdomain in which WM is thought to have an influence is that
of online processing of syntactic relations within sentences, though results
are mixed (e.g. Felser & Roberts, 2007; Juffs & Harrington, 2011; Sagarra &
Herschensohn, 2010). It seems that when learners need to make an explicit
judgement as well as understand a sentence, then a high WM capacity
may lead to native-like sentence processing (Dussias & Piñar, 2010; Rob-
erts, 2016). Similarly, there is some evidence that learners with higher WM
capacity are more likely to attend to communicatively redundant morphol-
ogy (Sagarra, 2008). These findings are compatible with the idea that higher
WM capacities may be most useful when awareness about the language is
involved (Linck & Weiss, 2011; Roehr, 2008; J. N. Williams, 2012).
The number of studies has reached such a level that meta-analyses are
now possible. For example, Linck et al. (2014) drew together data from 79
samples involving 3,707 adult language learners, providing 748 effect sizes.
They found positive associations between WM measures and L2 outcome
measures, with a reliable estimated population effect size of .255 (an index of
correlation). These relations held for overall L2 proficiency (such as TOEFL
scores); for L2 processing (such as lexical recognition or hesitation and flu-
ency during speaking); for both L2 comprehension and production; and
for both high and low proficiency learners. However, relationships between
WM and L2 outcomes depended somewhat on the characteristics of the
WM measurement itself. That is, relationships were stronger where the test
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 193
(a) tapped into the executive control rather than storage; (b) was a verbal
measure rather than non-verbal; and (c) was conducted in the participants’
L2 rather than their L1.
Such findings support claims for a systematic relation between WM and
L2 learning, but they also raise some theoretical challenges, which we go on
to discuss in Section 5.5.4.

5.5.3 The Influence of Learning on WM

L2 theorists are also interested in how WM supports the representation
and activation of more than one language in the mind (Kroll & Bialystok,
2013). L2 learners and multilinguals have to be able to bring just one of
these languages into actual use, during comprehension or production, when
needed, and to do this, they have to suppress or “inhibit” the other repre-
sentations that they have. Of course, humans have to inhibit many stimuli all
the time—otherwise we could not focus our attention on one task. Inhibi-
tory control develops during childhood, stabilizes in young adulthood and
declines with ageing.
Language learners and multilinguals must inhibit one language when
using another. This phenomenon has received great attention (Abutalebi &
Green, 2008; Linck, Schwieter, & Sunderman, 2012; Sunderman & Kroll,
2009), and it has been argued that bilingualism improves overall inhibitory
control. That is, learning a language affects a component of WM itself. For
example, Bialystok, Martin, and Viswanathan (2005) found that bilinguals
had greater inhibitory control than monolinguals during childhood, mid-
dle age and old age (see also Bialystok, 2009). Similar WM adaptations have
also been suggested for adult L2 learners, though with less clear-cut findings
(Bak, 2015; Bak, Long, Vega-Mendoza, & Sorace, 2016; Gass & Lee, 2011;
Trude & Tokowicz, 2011).
Again, the number of studies is such that meta-analysis is possible. Grundy
and Timmer (2017) drew together the findings from 27 studies of the rela-
tionship between bilingualism and WM. They focused specifically on the
computational component of WM, as all their studies used a WM span task
of some kind, where participants are required to exert some executive con-
trol in order to process information. They extracted 88 effect sizes, from
2,901 participants. Overall, they found a meaningful but small average effect
size (of about one fifth of a standard deviation), suggesting slightly larger
scores on a range of WM span tests for bilinguals compared to monolinguals.
Effects were larger if the participants were children and also if the WM test
was carried out in the participants’ L1 or dominant language. Grundy and
Timmer argue strongly for a causal effect of language learning on executive
functioning:

Most bilinguals do not choose to be bilingual; rather, they are raised

in bilingual environments or become bilingual out of life necessity
194  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
(Bialystok & Poarch, 2014). Therefore, it is not likely that bilinguals in
the present study became bilingual because of greater WM capacity, nor
is it likely that monolinguals in the present study became so because of
smaller WM capacity. Differences in executive functions between bilin-
guals and monolinguals who are well matched on other environmental
factors, such as socioeconomic status and intelligence, are therefore not
likely due to genetic or biological factors, but rather to their linguistic
experiences.
(Grundy & Timmer, 2017, p. 334)

In line with this thinking is the idea that WM capacity can be modified with
training and experience (Hayashi, Kobayashi, & Toyoshige, 2016; Holmes,
Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009; Klingberg, 2010; Tsai, Au, & Jaeggi, 2016).
It is commonly suggested that the executive component controlling the
allocation of attention can be trained. Although this work has been carried
out largely with children with attention deficit disorders, it could be that
training in executive function may benefit L2 learning (Juffs & Harrington,
2011).

5.5.4 Challenges to the Role of WM in SLA

Despite this high level of interest in the role of WM in L2 learning, there
are continuing areas of debate: how best to measure WM capacity, and the
validity of claiming a causal role for WM in L2 learning.
Regarding methodological challenges, Révész (2012) demonstrated that
different subcomponents of WM were associated with different language
subskills. She showed that learners with high phonological short-term
memory scores made more gains in oral performance, whereas learners with
high reading span scores were more likely to improve on a written test.
Similarly, Sanz, Lin, Lado, Stafford, and Bowden (2016) found that scores on
an aural version of a reading span task correlated only with L2 interpretation
measures, not production measures. Linck et al. (2013) suggest that a battery
of measures is necessary in order to access the wide range of components
that serve WM, and Wen (2016) has called for skill-specific WM tests.
Two other concerns are discussed by Gass and Lee (2011). One is that
their participants’ scores on tests of WM conducted in the L2 increased
with their L2 proficiency. The other, related issue was that scores differed
depending on whether the WM test was delivered in the participants’ L1 or
L2. These concerns are reflected in the large meta-analyses discussed above.
Firstly, Grundy and Timmer (2017) found that the effects of bilingualism
on WM capacity were larger when the WM test was conducted in the par-
ticipants’ strongest language (L1) compared to their less dominant language
(L2). Secondly, Linck et al. (2014) found that WM tests conducted in the L2
showed higher correlations with L2 outcome measures than WM tests con-
ducted in the L1. Both these findings could suggest that WM tests may be
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 195
tapping into language proficiency itself, rather than being a separate measure
of a mechanism that drives language development.
Thus, the most significant challenge in WM research is to untangle
the relationship between WM capacity and language proficiency. On the
one hand, many studies adopt the argument that WM grows as a result of
increasing bilingualism; this is the causal claim made by researchers investi-
gating the effects of bilingualism upon WM (Kroll & Bialystok, 2013). On
the other hand, many other studies begin from the perspective that WM is
a relatively fixed trait, which stabilizes somewhere between 11 and 13 years
old, and which is responsible for driving and constraining L2 learning; this
is the causal claim made by researchers seeing WM as an individual differ-
ence that influences how language is processed and learned (Linck et al.,
2014). From this perspective, WM parallels other types of aptitude, such as
sensitivity to pitch or meta-analytic ability (Bowles, Chang, & Karuzis, 2016;
DeKeyser & Koeth, 2011; Li, 2016;Wen, 2016).This view is also at the heart
of a growing set of studies that look at the effectiveness of different types
of instruction, depending on the learners’ WM and other components of
aptitude (see, for example, Granena et al., 2016; Li, 2013, 2015; Vatz, Tare,
Jackson, & Doughty, 2013).
These two perspectives do not sit easily alongside one another in terms
of understanding whether WM drives L2 learning or whether it is influ-
enced by it. One approach to addressing this circularity would be to track
WM capacity longitudinally alongside the development of language. If high
executive functioning is a fixed trait and drives language development, then
language proficiency will change without much effect on, or at a higher rate
than, changes in executive functioning. If, on the other hand, the L2 learn-
ing causes changes in WM, this will be observed in WM scores that grow
in tandem with scores on the language measures. However, such studies are
costly, and also difficult to do in children, as WM capacity grows with age
anyway. In sum, our review of theorizing about the role of WM in SLA has
certainly indicated some important relations, but it has also highlighted sev-
eral methodological and conceptual hurdles to address.

5.6 Evaluation of Cognitive Approaches (2): Memory

Systems, Explicit Knowledge and Skill Learning

5.6.1 The Scope and Achievements of Research into Memory Systems,

Explicit Knowledge and Skill Learning
Research into different memory systems (declarative, procedural and WM)
sheds important light on individual learner differences. We have seen how
L1/L2 differences in storage, learning and online processing may be biologi-
cally determined, as humans tend to rely on different memory systems and
learning mechanisms at different times during the lifespan, and for different
components of language learning. These findings seem to account for some
196  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
L1/L2 differences in the rate of learning, what is learned and the outcomes
eventually achieved.
Additionally, research into cognitive individual differences is increasingly
being carried out with the classroom in mind. This is providing insight into
how individuals may react to different ways of orienting their attention to
input, and to different kinds of exposure and practice conditions.
Skill Acquisition Theory, with its reliance on explicit declarative knowl-
edge and intentional practice, has given us a better understanding of how
learning develops over time, why fossilized structures can be difficult to
eradicate and why individuals can vary in what they learn to do and under
what conditions. Researchers are also now investigating whether different
frequencies of practice can help learners to automatize their knowledge.
However, it remains a challenge for theorists to test skill acquisition under
optimum circumstances, where accurate and reliable declarative knowledge
is established, and where opportunities for proceduralization and automa-
tization are sufficient. Computer environments offer immense possibilities
here (MacWhinney, 2017).
The accumulation of research into WM has now foregrounded the need
to address two key challenges: the apparently circular links between WM
capacity and language use; and the need to isolate relations between different
aspects of language proficiency and particular components of WM.

5.6.2 The View of Language

The work on more explicit cognitive mechanisms and how they operate
in L2 learning, reviewed in this chapter, is not strongly identified with one
specific model of language. In Section 5.3, we briefly touched upon attempts
to classify metalinguistic complexity and the difficulty of pedagogical rules,
but, generally, this chapter’s theorists align with the views of language cov-
ered in Chapter 4. Low frequency, complex syntax (such as long distance
relations), L1-L2 differences, low perceived salience, complex form-function
mappings, communicative redundancy (lack of usefulness) and little varia-
tion of exemplars across a grammatical pattern all conspire to make certain
features less likely to be incorporated into the developing system. These
characteristics make it more difficult for learners to attend to, notice or
understand parts of the L2 system, all critical processes for establishing accu-
rate declarative knowledge, which helps to transfer knowledge across skills
(from comprehension to production) and to develop procedural and auto-
matic knowledge. However, on the whole, difficulty is more likely to be
explained by learner characteristics or behaviour, such as lack of appropriate
rehearsal, or limited capacity to attend to, understand or generalize patterns.
The approaches reviewed in this chapter are, therefore, perhaps less suc-
cessful at documenting or explaining more fine-grained developmental lin-
guistic phenomena than the cognitive approaches we met in Chapter 4.There
has been little interaction with the work of theoretical linguists (Chapter 3),
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 197
with the exception of some online sentence processing studies that investi-
gated linguistic difficulty in theoretically motivated ways (such as syntactic
distance or cross-linguistic difference). Thus, much of the research covered
in the current chapter generally works without robust theoretical accounts
of language. It does not therefore address in detail what, exactly, learners
can attend to, hold as declarative knowledge or proceduralize; that is, how
attentional and memory systems may work differently for different kinds of
linguistic features. For example, we have not seen theorizing on how mod-
els of memory systems may relate to the linguistically informed processing
frameworks we examined in Chapter 4 (Pienemann, O’Grady). These may
provide a principled approach to defining development in terms of process-
ing difficulty and computations that place a burden on memory systems.The
same may be said about the MOGUL (Modular Online Growth and Use of
Language) model of the multilingual mind, which we discuss in Chapter 10.
While MOGUL adopts a different view of memory from that discussed in
this chapter, it sets out to explore how language processing and the develop-
ment and storage of language representations may be shaped by the prior
existence in the mind of a distinctive language module.

5.6.3 The View of Language Learning

One of the strengths of Skill Acquisition Theory is that it gives a good
account of the initial establishment of representations of language and the
subsequent development of fluency; proceduralization establishes knowl-
edge packaged in easily accessible representations. The step by step nature of
learning is explained by the idea that language that is easier to establish in
declarative memory and/or as procedural knowledge will be learned before
knowledge that is difficult to establish in either memory system. We have
also seen how different memory systems are available to learners as they
progress. That is to say, WM and the declarative system can select, hold and
process information that is often available to conscious reflection, as well
as information that is implicit. On the other hand, the procedural system
is responsible for implicit and rule-based computations. Most L2 theorists
seem to assume that interaction can happen between these systems (in con-
trast to Krashen’s early thinking on this; see Chapter 2). However, exactly
how and when these systems interact is not yet clear. This has important
consequences for understanding how and when we can expect L2 learners
to make use of explicit information in fluent, automatic ways.

5.6.4 The View of the Language Learner

This chapter has emphasized the importance of cognitive differences
between language learners. Firstly, known differences between child L1 and
adult L2 learning are attributed to the fact that humans draw on different
memory systems to different degrees as age increases and learning progresses.
198  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
Secondly, these cognitive differences may also explain the different rates and
outcomes of learning observed between L2 learners.
Skill Acquisition Theory predicts clear advantages for instructed learners, as
they are more likely to have regular access to accurate and generalizable declar-
ative knowledge and opportunities for practice. However, we have also seen a
rapidly growing body of evidence showing that establishing and automatizing
knowledge can be constrained by a wide range of learner characteristics and
behaviours.These include learners’ age; their prior experience of language; the
type and frequency of exposure and practice; and many individual differences
such as use of strategies, attentional resources, analytic ability,WM capacity (and,
in particular, executive function/control), declarative and procedural learning
abilities, anxiety and motivation. To add to all this, we have seen how some of
these factors can be influenced by the demands of different tests and measures.
This complex picture is all too familiar to language learners and teachers.
The perspectives we have covered tend to view learners as individual
problem solvers and processors of information, rather than as social beings.
However, in Chapter 6, we will see how some of the cognitive mechanisms
we have presented here, such as attention, awareness, WM and skill practice,
are also relevant to interactionist perspectives on language learning. Simi-
larly, in Chapter 8, we will see how explicit knowledge and metalinguistic
discussion (“languaging”) are investigated under sociocultural perspectives
on language learning.
Finally, given that the theories we have met in this chapter tend to fore-
ground individual learner characteristics, it is perhaps surprising that the
research we reviewed has generally looked at groups of learners. That is,
the studies have analysed and averaged data across individuals, in order to
examine how characteristics cluster and affect learning among particular sets
of learners. In Chapter 10, however, we will meet a cognitive perspective
(Dynamic Systems Theory) that emphasizes the importance of examining
learning at an individual level and over time, in part so as to try to account
for the many complexities that we have outlined in this chapter.

References
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production:
Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23,
557–582.
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2009). An information-processing approach to
second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 115–136). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Altarriba, J., & Isurin, L. (Eds.). (2014). Memory, language, and bilingualism: Theoretical and
applied approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Andringa, S., & Curcic, M. (2015). How explicit knowledge affects online L2 process-
ing: Evidence from differential object marking acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 37, 237–268.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 199
Andringa, S., & Rebuschat, P. (Eds.). (2015). New directions in the study of implicit and
explicit learning [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37.
Avery, N., & Marsden, E. (under review). Estimating the magnitude of sensitivity to mor-
phosyntax and first language influence during self-paced reading in a second language.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second
Language Research, 33, 299–311.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology
of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York:
Academic Press.
Bak, T. H. (2015). Beyond a simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Cortex, 73, 332–333.
Bak, T. H., Long, M., Vega-Mendoza, M., & Sorace, A. (2016). Novelty, challenge, and
practice:The impact of intensive language learning on attentional functions. PLos One,
11, e0153485.
Bell, N. (2012). Comparing playful and nonplayful incidental attention to form. Language
Learning, 62, 236–265.
Bell, P. (2017). Explicit and implicit learning: Exploring their simultaneity and immediate
effectiveness. Applied Linguistics, 38, 297–317.
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.
Bialystok, E., Martin, M., & Viswanathan, M. (2005). Bilingualism across the lifespan: The
rise and fall of inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 103–119.
Bialystok, E. & Poarch, G. J. (2014). Language experience changes language and cognitive
ability. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17, 433–446.
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language Eng-
lish syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009).The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.
Bowles, M. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Bowles, A., Chang, C., & Karuzis,V. (2016). Pitch ability as an aptitude for tone learning.
Language Learning, 66, 774–808.
Brooks, P. J., & Kempe,V. (2013). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning:
The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory and Cognition, 41, 281–296.
Brown, H., & Gaskell, M. G. (2014). The time-course of talker-specificity and lexical
competition effects during word learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29,
1163–1179.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H.,Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice
in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132,
354–380.
Chen, C., & Truscott, J. (2010).The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on inciden-
tal vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31, 693–713.
Chen, L., Shu, H., Liu,Y., Zhao, J., & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures in subject-verb agree-
ment in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174.
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-
form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 37, 197–235.
200  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience in second language acquisition.
Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, Section
Language Sciences, 7, 1284.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693–706.
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., & Silva, R. (2010). Morphological struc-
ture in native and non-native language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43.
Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (Eds.). (2007). Varia-
tion in working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle,
R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.
de Jong, N. I. (2005). Can second language grammar be learnt through listening? Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234.
de Jong, N. I., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom. An experi-
mental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61,
533–568.
Dehaene, S. (2014).The signatures of a conscious thought. In S. Dehaene (Ed.), Conscious-
ness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts (pp. 115–160). New York:
Penguin Random House.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language mor-
phosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
DeKeyser, R. (2000).The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisi-
tion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review
of issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl), 1–25.
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics
and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2015a). Skill acquisition theory. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theo-
ries in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2015b). Why less is eventually more in second language acquisition. Lin-
guistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 454–458.
DeKeyser, R. (2017a). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2017b). Age in learning and teaching grammar. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), TESOL
encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York: Wiley. Retrieved from https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0106
DeKeyser, R. (2018).Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acqui-
sition theory. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27–41).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 201
DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature
of age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 413–438.
DeKeyser, R., Alfi-Shabtay, I., Ravid, D., & Shi, M. (2017).The role of salience in the acqui-
sition of Hebrew as a second language: Interaction with age of acquisition. In S. M. Gass,
P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience and SLA (pp. 131–146). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
DeKeyser, R., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 395–406). Abing-
don/New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R., & Prieto Botana, G. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in
L2 grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 290–305.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisi-
tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dussias, P. E., & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis
of wh-gaps by Chinese-English L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 443–472.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications
for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowl-
edge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language
Learning, 54, 227–275.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psy-
chometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
Ellis, R., & Loewen, S. (2007). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and
implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, 29, 119–126.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and
explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual dif-
ferences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language
development. Second Language Research, 34, 67–101.
Felser, C., & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in English as a second lan-
guage: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.
Gass, S., & Lee, J. (2011). Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency
in a second language. In M. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.), Modelling bilingualism: From
structure to chaos (pp. 59–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the rela-
tionship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513–543.
Gathercole, S. E. (2007).Working memory and language. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford hand-
book of psycholinguistics (pp. 757–770). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., Emslie, H., & Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Phonological memory
and vocabulary development during the early school years: A longitudinal study. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 28, 887–898.
Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J.-H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and
untimed grammaticality measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-
movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 269–297.
202  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
Gor, K. (2010). Introduction. Beyond the obvious: Do second language learners process
inflectional morphology? Language Learning, 60, 1–20.
Granena, G., Jackson, D., & Yilmaz, Y. (2016). Cognitive individual differences in second lan-
guage processing and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grundy, J. G., & Timmer, K. (2017). Bilingualism and working memory capacity: A com-
prehensive meta-analysis. Second Language Research, 33, 325–340.
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A produc-
tion or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.
Gutiérrez, X. (2013).The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures
of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.
Hamada, M., & Koda, K. (2011). The role of the phonological loop in English word
learning: A comparison of Chinese ESL learners and native speakers. Journal of Psycho-
linguistic Research, 40, 75–92.
Hamrick, P. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in inci-
dental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 9–15.
Hamrick, P., Lum, J., & Ullman, M. (2018). Child first language and adult second lan-
guage are both tied to general-purpose learning systems. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 115, 1487–1492.
Hanan, R. E. (2015). The effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction for the young foreign lan-
guage learner: A classroom-based experimental study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University
of York,York, UK.
Havik, E., Roberts, L.,Van Hout, R., Schreuder, R., & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing
subject-object ambiguities in L2 Dutch: A self-paced reading study with German L2
learners of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.
Hayashi, Y., Kobayashi, T., & Toyoshige, T. (2016). Investigating the relative contributions
of computerised working memory training and English language teaching to cognitive
and foreign language development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 196–213.
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12, F9–F15.
Housen, A., & Simeons, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and
complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second-
language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholin-
guistics, 30, 555–582.
Indefrey, P. (2006). It is time to work toward explicit processing models for native and
second language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 66–69.
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntac-
tic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.
James, E., Gaskell, M. G., Weighall, A., & Henderson, L. (2017). Consolidation of vocabu-
lary during sleep: The rich get richer? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 1–13.
Jiang, N., Novokshanova, E., Masuda, K., & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency
and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61, 940–967.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language
Teaching, 44, 137–166.
Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differ-
ences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in
working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 203
A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working
memory (pp. 21–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasprowicz, R. E., & Marsden, E. (2018). Towards ecological validity in research into
input-based practice: Form spotting can be as beneficial as form-meaning prac-
tice. Applied Linguistics, 39, 886-911.
Keating, G., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–32.
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language
acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 154–169.
Kim, J., & Nam, H. (2016). Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes,
time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 431–457.
Klingberg, T. (2010). Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sci-
ences, 14, 317–324.
Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for
language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 497–514.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware
versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centred approach. Abing-
don/New York: Routledge.
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and
individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern
Language Journal, 97, 634–654.
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar
acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36,
385–408.
Li, S. (2016).The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language Acqui-
sition, 38, 801–842.
Li, M., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Perception practice, production practice, and musical
ability in L2 Mandarin tone-word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39,
593–620.
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2014). Automatization in second language sentence processing:
A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn,Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1247–1282.
Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., . . .
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language
proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and sec-
ond language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review, 21, 861–883.
Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J.W., & Sunderman, J. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language
switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cog-
nition, 15, 651–662.
Linck, J. A., & Weiss, D. J. (2011). Working memory predicts the acquisition of explicit L2
knowledge. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning: Condi-
tions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 101–114). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisi-
tion. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
204  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental com-
parison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566.
Marsden, E., & Chen, H.-Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing
instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 1058–1098.
Marsden, E., Thompson, S., & Plonsky, L. (2018). Self-paced reading in second language
research: A methodological synthesis and recommendations for the field. Applied Psy-
cholinguistics, 39, 861–904.
Marsden, E., Williams, J. N., & Liu, X. (2013). Learning novel morphology: The role of
meaning and orientation of attention at initial exposure. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 619–654.
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and
working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 34, 379–413.
McLaughlin, B., & Heredia, R. (1996). Information-processing approaches to research on
second language acquisition and use. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 213–228). San Diego: Academic Press.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and
offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.
McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2018). Online and offline effects of L1 practice in L2 gram-
mar learning: A partial replication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 459–475.
McManus, K. & Marsden, E. (in press). Signatures of automaticity during practice:
Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical pro-
cessing. Applied Psycholinguistics.
MacWhinney, B. (2017). A shared platform for studying second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 67, 254–275.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance
and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan-Short, K., Faretta-Stutenberg, M., Brill, K. A., Carpenter, H., & Wong, P. (2014).
Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language
acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72.
Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
O’Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Freed, B., & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory pre-
dicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
29, 557–582.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Park, E. S., & Han, Z.-H. (2008). Learner spontaneous attention in L2 input process-
ing: An exploratory study. In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process
(pp. 106–132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-
analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.
Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S., & Spinner, P. (in press). A methodological
synthesis and meta-analysis of acceptability judgement tests. Second Language Research.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 205
Rai, M., Loschky, L., Harris, R., Peck, N., & Cook, L. (2011). Effects of stress and working
memory capacity on foreign language readers’ inferential processing during compre-
hension. Language Learning, 61, 187–218.
Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second lan-
guage acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.
Révész, A. (2012).Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different
L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
Roberts, L. (2016). Self-paced reading and L2 grammatical processing. In A. Mackey & E.
Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for
research into second languages (pp. 58–72). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Roberts, L., Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 dis-
course: L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
30, 333–357.
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence pro-
cessing: Introduction. Language Learning, 62, 1–4.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing hypothesis”. Language Learn-
ing, 45, 283–331.
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under
implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 223–247.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning. Effects
on L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. Interna-
tional Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–213.
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Schmidt, R. (2011). Attention and awareness in
second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Roehr, K. (2007). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2
learners. Applied Linguistics, 29, 173–199.
Roehr, K. (2008). Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning.
Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 67–106.
Roehr, K., & Gánem-Gutiérrez, A. (2013). The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second
language learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Rogers, J. (2015). Learning second language syntax under massed and distributed condi-
tions. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 857–866.
Rogers, J. (2017a). Awareness and learning under incidental learning conditions. Language
Awareness, 26, 113–133.
Rogers, J. (2017b). The spacing effect and its relevance to second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 38, 906–911.
Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over long time periods.
Educational Psychology Review, 27, 635–643.
Sagarra, N. (2008).Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms.
In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 133–147). Cleveland:
Multilingual Matters.
Sagarra, N. (2017). Longitudinal effects of working memory on L2 grammar and reading
abilities. Second Language Research, 33, 341–363.
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in
gender and number processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120, 2022–2039.
206  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presenta-
tion and explicit negative feedback). A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54,
35–78.
Sanz, C., Lin, H. J., Lado, B., Stafford, C. A., & Bowden, H. W. (2016). One size fits all?
Learning conditions and working memory capacity in Ab initio language develop-
ment. Applied Linguistics, 37, 669–692.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Lin-
guistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for
applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruc-
tion (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentia-
tion of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word
recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.
Sekerina, I. A., & Brooks, P. J. (2006). Pervasiveness of shallow processing. Applied Psycho-
linguistics, 27, 84–88.
Sharwood Smith, M. (Ed.). (2017). Working with working memory and languages [Spe-
cial issue]. Second Language Research, 33.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing II: Perceptual learning, automatic, attending, and a general theory. Psycho-
logical Review, 84, 127–190.
Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based
instruction on L2 grammar acquisition:A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 306–325.
Shiu, L.-J.,Yalçın, Ş., & Spada, N. (2018). Exploring second language learners’ grammati-
cality judgment performance in relation to task design features. System, 72, 251–225.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity,
accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
Solovyeva, K., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Response time variability: Signatures of novel
word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 225–239.
Spada, N., Shiu, J. L.-J., & Tomita, Y. (2015). Validating an elicited imitation task as a
measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language
Learning, 65, 723–751.
Spada, N., & Tomita,Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of lan-
guage feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
Speciale, G., Ellis, N. C., & Bywater,T. (2004). Phonological sequence learning and short-
term store capacity determine second language vocabulary acquisition. Applied Psycho-
linguistics, 25, 293–320.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Sunderman, G., & Kroll, J. F. (2009). When study abroad fails to deliver: The internal
resources threshold effect. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 79–99.
Suzuki, Y. (2017a). The role of procedural learning ability in automatization of L2 mor-
phology under different learning schedules: An exploratory study. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, First View, 1–15.
 Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2) 207
Suzuki, Y. (2017b). Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: Distinguishing
implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38,
1229–1261.
Suzuki, Y. (2017c). The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2 mor-
phology: A conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 67, 512–554.
Suzuki,Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as
measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860–895.
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017a). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in
second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language
Learning, 67, 747–790.
Suzuki,Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017b). Effects of distributed practice on the proceduraliza-
tion of morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 38, 27–56.
Suzuki,Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017c). Exploratory research on L2 practice distribution: An
aptitude-by-treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 27–56.
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The
Modern Language Journal, 75, 52–63.
Tokowicz, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit sensitivity to violations in
second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.
Tolentino, L., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across languages, space, and time: A review of
the role of cross-language similarity in L2 morphosyntactic processing as revealed by
fMRI and ERP methods. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 91–125.
Trude, A., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Negative transfer from Spanish and English to Portu-
guese pronunciation: The roles of inhibition and working memory. Language Learning,
61, 259–280.
Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness and second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Tsai, N., Au, J., & Jaeggi, S. (2016). Working memory, language processing, and implica-
tions of malleability for second language acquisition. In G. Granena, D. Jackson, & Y.
Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language learning and processing
(pp. 69–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ullman, M. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/pro-
cedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition:
The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in second language
acquisition. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Ullman, M. (2006). The declarative/procedural model and the shallow structure hypoth-
esis. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 97–105.
Ullman, M. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of
language learning, knowledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of
language (pp. 953–968). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Ullman, M., & Lovelett, J. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for
improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques.
Second Language Research, 34, 39–65.
Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests:
Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 39, 59–95.
VanDen Noort, M., Bosch, P., & Hugdahl, K. (2006). Foreign language proficiency and
working memory capacity. European Psychologist, 11, 289–296.
208  Cognitive Approaches to SLL (2)
VanPatten, B. (2012). Input processing. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 268–281). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B. (2017). Processing instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Vatz, K., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction
studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In G. Granena & M.
H. Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–
292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of
text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25, 315–339.
Wen, Z. (2016). Working memory and second language learning:Towards an integrated approach.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.). (2015). Working memory in second language
acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27, 269–304.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bing-
ley: Emerald Group.
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language
Learning, 53, 67–121.
6 Interaction in Second
Language Learning

6.1 Introduction
We do not need research to tell us that using a language is beneficial for
learning it. On the other hand, we have seen that one of the fundamental
challenges in L2 learning research is to explain why learners experience
continuing difficulty in learning L2 features which they encounter regularly
during L2 interaction. As we saw in Chapter 2, this problem has attracted
attention from the earliest period of systematic L2 research. In that chapter,
we explained some early thinking on this issue, in the shape of the Input
Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982, 1985) and the Interaction Hypothesis (Long,
1981, 1983a, 1983b).
The first version of Long’s Interaction Hypothesis shared the underlying
assumptions of Krashen regarding the existence of some form of Language
Acquisition Device, but shifted attention from comprehensible input, as a
means of stimulating acquisition, towards more interactive aspects of L2
discourse. Long argued that for learners to obtain L2 input at an appropriate
level of difficulty for their particular individual needs (that is, to maximize
the comprehensibility of L2 input), it was likely that ongoing conversa-
tional adjustments would be needed. His early research showed that native
speaker (NS)–non-native speaker (NNS) interactions when performing
tasks such as informal conversation, or game-playing, were rich in meaning
negotiations. Long argued that these adjustments made L2 speech more
comprehensible, and thus increased its usefulness for L2 acquisition (1985,
p. 378); a number of laboratory-based studies in which learners undertook
oral problem-solving tasks, with and without various forms of meaning
negotiation, provided evidence showing that negotiation of meaning did
indeed lead to greater problem-solving success (for example Pica,Young, &
Doughty, 1987; Gass & Varonis, 1994).
In this chapter, we concentrate on ongoing research which has continued
to tease out the relationship between L2 interaction and L2 acquisition, while
drawing increasingly on concepts from cognitive learning theory rather
than Krashen’s Language Acquisition Device, to explain learners’ successes
and failures (Long, 2015). As is evident from a sequence of edited volumes,
210  Interaction in SLL
reviews and research syntheses (for example Gass & Mackey, 2015; Keck,
Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ventura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006; Loewen, 2015, Chapter 3;
Loewen & Sato, 2018; Mackey, 2007a, 2012; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012;
Mackey & Polio, 2009; Plonsky & Gass, 2011; Sheen & Lyster, 2010), the
“interactive approach” remains a very active focus for empirical research.
Increasing attention has also been given to computer-based L2 interaction,
and its consequences for L2 acquisition, whether through text-based chat
(Lin, Huang, & Liou, 2013; Ziegler, 2016) or audio and video conferencing
(Akiyama & Saito, 2016; Saito & Akiyama, 2017;Yanguas, 2012).
In the following sections we first of all investigate the theoretical relaunch
of the Interaction Hypothesis during the 1990s (Section 6.2). In Section 6.3,
we will explore research on the negotiation of meaning, and its impact on
the learning of L2 vocabulary and target structures. A large group of interac-
tionist researchers have pursued the influence of different kinds of interlocu-
tor feedback on learning (see reviews by Lyster & Saito, 2010a, 2010b; Lyster,
Saito, & Sato, 2013), and this work is discussed in Section 6.4. This section
also includes consideration of the Output Hypothesis, proposed by Swain to
complement Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, with the argument that learners’
own productions during L2 interaction play an important role in promoting
noticing and intake of new language (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005). Other inter-
actionist researchers have continued to pursue this idea (see, for example,
Izumi, 2002, 2003; Lyster & Saito, 2010a; Saito & Akiyama, 2017; Shehadeh,
2002).
Regarding the puzzle as to why interaction is not uniformly effective in
promoting L2 acquisition, interactionist researchers have pursued a number
of ideas, which are reviewed in Section 6.5. Firstly, researchers have debated
whether L2 learners are in most need of positive evidence regarding lin-
guistic features of the L2 (that is, examples made naturally available through
interaction) or whether they also need negative evidence (that is, some form
of implicit or explicit correction), which alerts them to problems within
their own interlanguage grammar, when compared with the L2 target. Sec-
ondly, researchers have investigated the “learnability” of different language
structures such as question forms, or past tense forms, through oral interac-
tion activities (for example R. Ellis, 2007; Jeon, 2007; McDonough, 2007),
and tried to account for variability in both acquisition and retention of
different forms (Sepehrinia, Nemati, & Khomijani Farahani, 2017). Others
have compared the learnability of vocabulary versus grammar (for example
Egi, 2007), or of comprehensibility and pronunciation versus lexicogram-
mar (Saito & Akiyama, 2017). Thirdly, researchers have tried to explore the
extent to which learners actually pay attention to linguistic features during
meaning-focused interaction, and in particular, how far they notice mis-
matches between their own productions and the models and corrective
feedback which interaction makes available to them (for example Egi, 2010;
Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015; Mackey, 2006; Rassaei, 2013).
 Interaction in SLL 211
In Section 6.6, we examine the growing field of online interactionist
research (Ziegler, 2016). And finally, in Section 6.7, we explore research-
ers’ interests in learners’ individual characteristics and how these may
influence their ability to benefit from L2 interaction; the traits examined
include working memory capacity, analytic ability and powers of attention
(see reviews by Li, 2017 and Pawlak, 2017), as well as learners’ creativity
(McDonough, Crawford, & Mackey, 2015), age (Mackey & Sachs, 2012;
Oliver, 2000) and L2 proficiency level (Li, 2014). By comparison, there
has been relatively little concern in this particular research tradition with
learner identity, social characteristics or particular sociocultural contexts,
including instructional ones, as commentators have noted (Mackey, 2012,
pp. 135–137). A meta-analysis by Brown (2016) suggests, for example, that
more work is needed on the nature and quality of interaction in varied
classroom settings. However, a recent collection edited by Gurzynski-Weiss
(2017) explores the impact of different social interlocutors (teachers, peers
and others) on the quality of interaction. Philp, Adams, and Iwashita (2014)
and Sato and Ballinger (2016) offer book-length reviews of the distinc-
tive characteristics of peer interaction, covering both psycholinguistic and
social perspectives.

6.2 The Revised Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996):

An Appeal to Cognitive Theory
The original version of Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (IH) sparked a
body of controlled and semi-controlled studies which explored whether
engagement in meaning negotiations makes L2 input more comprehen-
sible to the learner. For example, Pica et al. (1987) reported a study in
which groups of L2 learners listened to different versions of a script
instructing them to place coloured cut-out figures on a landscape pic-
ture, and tried to complete the task. In one condition the learners had to
follow the instructions without any additional help. In another version
they were encouraged to ask for assistance from the person reading the
script. The researchers coded the resulting meaning negotiations using
the speech act categories of confirmation checks, clarification requests
and comprehension checks; examples of these interactional modifica-
tions as defined by Pica et al. (1987) are shown in Table 6.1. They found
that most of the negotiations took place around content words, and did
not have the effect of simplifying the grammar used by the speakers.
Nonetheless, the learners who were permitted to take part in meaning
negotiation were more successful than the others in completing the task
accurately; from this, Pica et al concluded that interactional modifications
were indeed helpful in promoting L2 comprehension (though the extent
to which this, in turn, aided language learning was not explored by this
pioneering study).
212  Interaction in SLL
Table 6.1 Examples of Interactional Modifications in NS-NNS Conversations

NS NNS

And right on the roof of the truck place the duck. I to take it? Dog? *
The duck.
Duck. Duck.
It’s yellow and it’s a small animal. It has two feet. I put where it? **
You take the duck and put it on top of the truck. Duck? *
Do you see the duck? ***
Yeah. Quack, quack, quack. That one. The one that Ah yes, I see in the—in the head
makes that sound. of him.
OK. See? *** Put what? **
OK. Put him on top of the truck. Truck? *
The bus. Where the boy is. Ah yes.
Source: Pica et al., 1987, p. 74
* Confirmation checks; ** Clarification requests; *** Comprehension checks.

In his later reformulation of the IH (1996), Long placed much more

emphasis on how interactional processes might work, proposing links
between features of the input and the linguistic environment with “learner-
internal factors” (i.e. a set of cognitive factors: 1996, p. 454). His much-
quoted definition of the IH reads as follows:

It is proposed that environmental contributions to acquisition are medi-

ated by selective attention and the learner’s developing L2 processing
capacity, and that these resources are brought together most usefully,
although not exclusively, during negotiation for meaning. Negative feed-
back obtained during negotiation work or elsewhere may be facilitative
of L2 development, at least for vocabulary, morphology and language-
specific syntax, and essential for learning certain specifiable L1-L2
contrasts.
(Long, 1996, p. 414)

This revised version highlights the possible contribution to L2 learning

of negative evidence about aspects of target language structure, derivable
from the input received by the learner (here referred to as “environmental
language”). It also highlights the need to clarify the processes by which
input becomes intake, through introducing the notions of selective atten-
tion and L2 processing capacity (see Chapter 5). These and other cognitive
concepts are repeatedly referred to in later discussions of interaction and its
contribution to language development (see, for example, N. C. Ellis, 2009;
Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2014; Izumi, 2003; Mackey, 2012; Trofimovich,
Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007).
 Interaction in SLL 213
6.3 Negotiation of Meaning and the Learning of Target
L2 Structures and Vocabulary
Next, we examine how far the interactionist approach has succeeded in
showing that negotiation of meaning promotes L2 acquisition. Empirical
research on this issue has included descriptive studies, which have tried to
trace whether learners reuse and modify L2 vocabulary or structures which
have been the object of some kind of negotiation, or recall these at a later
time. For example, Oliver (2000) investigated naturally occurring teacher-
student interaction, and documented (a) the overall frequency of negotia-
tions and corrective feedback with learners of different ages, and (b) the
extent to which learners showed “uptake” of the language points at issue.
The following example shows a child L2 learner who corrects herself fol-
lowing a teacher recast and produces modified output (interpreted as evi-
dence of uptake), in the shape of a plural marker on the noun:

TEACHER: What did you do in the garden?

NNS STUDENT (CHILD):  Mm, cut the tree
TEACHER: You cut the trees. Were they big trees or were they little bushes?
NNS STUDENT (CHILD):  Big trees
(Oliver, 2000, p. 140)

However, from an acquisition perspective, there are some difficulties in

interpreting this type of immediate self-correction. It could have a number
of causes (e.g. in this case is the child learning and applying a rule for plural
-s? or imitating a global phrase big trees?), and evidence of longer term reten-
tion is lacking. (See Gass, 2003, for fuller discussion.) Interactionists have
therefore frequently turned to experimental research designs to investigate
the issue in a more controlled manner, targeting particular L2 structures
thought to be relevant to the learner group in the study, running pretests
to document how well the structure(s) was/were known, providing some
form of structured interactive experience as the experimental treatment, and
then running one or more posttests following the interactive experience, to
document any additional learning.
In one of the first substantial studies of this type, Mackey (1999) set out
to test whether opportunities to interact and negotiate for meaning would
boost the knowledge of question forms among learners of L2 English. Ques-
tion forms were the focus of the study, for a number of reasons. They are
readily elicited, and are present in some form at all stages of learning; in
addition, their acquisition has been well studied, and as we saw in Chap-
ter 4, a six-stage acquisition sequence for English question forms has been
proposed (Pienemann & Johnston, 1987: see Table 4.2). The participants in
the study were lower-intermediate adult learners, who undertook a range
of information-gap tasks which required them to ask and answer questions
214  Interaction in SLL
(story completion, spot the difference, picture sequencing). Some partici-
pants (the “interactors”) were allowed to negotiate meanings with their NS
interlocutor, while others were not (the “non-interactors”); all participants
carried out further tasks as pretests and as posttests.
Mackey’s (1999) experimental study produced statistically significant
results showing that the learners who had engaged in interaction progressed
one (or more) stages in L2 question formation, while the non-interactors
failed to do so.The following extract illustrates this development, in the case
of one interactor participant:

Pretest 55 NNS: The meal is not there?

56 NS: No it’s gone, what do you think happened?
57 NNS: Happened? The cat?
58 NS: Do you think the cat ate it?
59 NNS: The meal is the is the cat’s meal?
60 NS: It’s not supposed to be the cat’s dinner. I don’t
think so.
61 NNS: But although this, this cat have eaten it.
Treatment 4 NNS: What the animal do?
5 NS: They aren’t there, there are no bears.
6 NNS: Your picture have this sad girl?
7 NS: Yes, what do you have in your picture?
8 NNS: What my picture have to make her crying? I don’t
know your picture.
9 NS: Yeah ok, I mean what does your picture show?
What’s the sign?
10 NNS: No sign? . . . No, ok, what the mother say to the
girl for her crying?
11 NS: It’s the sign “no bears” that’s making her cry.What
does your sign say?
12 NNS: The sign? Why the girl cry?
Posttest 1 NNS: What do your picture have?
Posttest 2 NNS: What has the robber done?
NNS: Where has she gone in your picture?
(Mackey, 1999, p. 577)

In this example we see that the NNS speaker was using declarative word
order with question intonation in order to ask questions during the pretest
(this is Stage 2 of the developmental sequence of Pienemann & Johnston,
1987). During the treatment, the learner produced wh-fronting, but still with
declarative word order (Stage 3). However, by the time of the second posttest
(without any further ESL instruction), the learner was correctly placing an
auxiliary verb in second position to wh-words (Stage 5). This kind of pro-
gress was not documented for the non-interactor group.
 Interaction in SLL 215
Mackey’s study thus provided some of the first experimental evidence
that “taking part in interaction can facilitate second language development”
(1999, p. 565). Mackey and Goo (2007) located 28 experimental studies of
this type.The review of Mackey and Goo, as well as that of Keck et al. (2006,
reviewing 14 experimental studies), reached the broad conclusion that
engagement in L2 interaction impacts positively on L2 learning, as shown in
statistical analysis of effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). However, both these surveys
make it clear that once more precise questions were asked, the research con-
ducted up to that point did not yet offer many definitive answers.
Most of the interactionist studies reviewed by Mackey and Goo con-
cern the acquisition of selected aspects of L2 English (question forms, the
article system, verb tense). To exemplify vocabulary research in this tradi-
tion, we turn to a study by de la Fuente (2002) dealing with the learning
of L2 Spanish vocabulary, by classroom learners at an American university.
The research centred on 10 nouns (names of everyday objects), which were
unknown to the (low level) learners concerned. The 32 participants were
divided into three groups. For participants in each group, the basic task to
be completed individually over 10 minutes was the same—locating images
of the 10 named objects (among others) one by one on the map of a room,
and transferring them to a worksheet. Each group completed the task twice,
under slightly different conditions, and all performances were recorded. One
group followed the instructions of a NS interlocutor, which were repeated as
often as necessary for task completion, but was not allowed to ask questions
(the input-only group). The second group also followed instructions, but
could negotiate meanings (the negotiation group).The third group followed
instructions on the first occasion, but had to run the task and give instruc-
tions to their interlocutor on the second occasion (the output group).
All participants completed posttests of receptive and productive knowl-
edge of the target words, immediately after completing the tasks, and again
after one week and two weeks. Statistical analysis of the test results showed
that the negotiation group and the output group both significantly outper-
formed the input-only group, as far as receptive vocabulary acquisition was
concerned. However, the performance of the output group was superior, for
acquisition of productive vocabulary, and their retention of the words over
time was also superior.The researcher complemented her quantitative analy-
sis with discussion of task transcripts, suggesting that the requirements of the
output condition forced learners to notice gaps in their own knowledge, and
to test hypotheses about language forms, as in the following example:

NNS  → NS (task 1, day 1)

NNS:  Los zapatos que se usan en el verano . . . ay, no recuerdo la palabra . . .
   “The shoes you use in the summer . . . I can’t remember the word . . . ”
NS:  ¿No te acuerdas?
“You don’t remember?”
NNS:  ¿Es
algo como chacas, cha . . . ? No sé . . .
216  Interaction in SLL
  “It is something like chacas, cha . . . ? I do not know . . . ”
NS: ¿Cacles?
NNS:  Sí, cacles.
  “Yes, cacles [sandals]”.
(de la Fuente, 2002, p. 101)

The results of this particular study relate to the more general discussion of
Keck et al. (2006) and Mackey and Goo (2007). Keck et al. suggested that
interaction is just as likely to be effective for the acquisition of lexis as for
morphosyntax; Mackey and Goo suggest an advantage for lexis, at least in
the short term. However, Mackey and Goo also detected some evidence that
interaction may have a delayed effect on the acquisition of morphosyntax (in
some studies, delayed posttests provide evidence for the long-term learning
of morphosyntax). However, both review teams agreed that the evidence
base was still small and called for more experimental studies, before such
questions could be resolved. (In addition, the study of Jeon, 2007, suggested
that some areas of morphosyntax are more “learnable” through interaction
than others, a view confirmed in later large-scale reviews: Lyster, Saito, &
Sato, 2013; Sepehrinia et al., 2017.)

6.4 The Role of Feedback during Oral Interaction

The question of whether, and how, feedback on learners’ errors is useful in
driving forward L2 learning is a longstanding focus of research in language
education, where the practical implications are very obvious (see Chaudron,
1988, for an early review). The interactionist approach has pursued this
issue in many observational and experimental interactionist studies. Plonsky
and Brown (2015) identified no fewer than 18 meta-analyses of feedback
research, which show generally positive results for impact on L2 grammar,
vocabulary, pronunciation and pragmatics. Here we focus on oral feedback.
Research on oral feedback began with descriptive taxonomies of feed-
back types (e.g. Allwright, 1975; Chaudron, 1977). However, discussions on
the value and influence of feedback have increasingly been informed by dif-
ferent theoretical L2 perspectives. As we have seen in Chapter 3, the strong
generativist perspective takes the view that positive evidence about the lan-
guage to be learned is sufficient to trigger parameter setting, within a pre-
existing Universal Grammar; from this point of view, corrective feedback
is of limited theoretical interest and usefulness to learners (Truscott, 1999;
VanPatten & Rothman, 2015). However, from an interactionist perspec-
tive, Long (1996) claims that the incorporation of forms of feedback within
meaningful L2 interaction provides negative evidence which is usable by the
L2 learner. Usable in what way? Long’s essential claim is that interlocutor
feedback involving reformulation of the learner’s own intended utterance
can assist with “noticing” of gaps between the learner’s own L2 productions
and L2 target forms, and may even be essential in overcoming aspects of L1
influence. (We discussed the concept of noticing in Chapter 5, and give it
 Interaction in SLL 217
more attention below in Section 6.5.) Skill acquisition theorists (Chapter 5)
view feedback as contributing to the proceduralization of declarative knowl-
edge (Ranta & Lyster, 2007). Those who see a role for explicit knowledge
in L2 learning see metalinguistic feedback as one means of making explicit
knowledge available in a usable form (R. Ellis, 2007, p. 358).
Most research on corrective oral feedback has been conducted with
instructed learners interacting with their teachers and/or with their peers in
classroom settings, or else in controlled laboratory studies. An observational
study conducted by Lyster and Ranta (1997) in four French immersion
classrooms in Canadian schools documented relatively high rates of cor-
rective feedback, and identified six typical feedback moves by teachers. This
taxonomy has been very influential in feedback studies, and is presented
below. (Examples come from Lyster & Ranta, 1997, and from Yang & Lyster,
2010.)

Explicit Learner is clearly S: We cut the straws into six

correction told they have different widths . . .
made an error, T: No David, I want you to use
and a correct the word “lengths”
reformulation is
provided
Recast Teacher reformulates S: Well Cinderella was such an,
all or part of a such a simple girl that she
student utterance, never knew what is waiting
minus the error for her
T: What was waiting for her
Clarification Learner is asked S: Why does he fly to Korea last
request to clarify their year?
meaning (without T: Pardon?
any indication of the S: Why did he fly to Korea last
presence of an error) year?
Metalinguistic Comments, S: I went to the train station and
feedback information or pick up my aunt
questions relating to T: Use past tense consistently
the well-formedness S: I went to the train station and
of the learner picked up my aunt
utterance
Elicitation The learner is S: Once upon a time, there lives
prompted to a poor girl named Cinderella
reformulate their T: Once upon a time, there . . .
utterance S: There lived a girl
Repetition The teacher S: Mrs Jones travel a lot last year
repeats the learner T: Mrs Jones travel a lot last
utterance, including year?
any error(s) S: Mrs Jones travelled a lot last
year
218  Interaction in SLL
Table 6.2  Immersion Teachers’ Feedback Moves

T3 T4 T5 T6 Total
(n=243) (n=146) (n=194) (n=103) (n=686)

Recast 93 96 116 70 375

(39%) (66%) (60%) (68%) (55%)
Elicitation 45 18 26 5 94
(18%) (12%) (13%) (5%) (14%)
Clarification request 37 9 14 13 73
(15%) (6%) (7%) (13%) (11%)
Metalinguistic feedback 32 3 20 3 58
(13%) (2%) (10%) (3%) (8%)
Explicit correction 16 15 9 10 50
(7%) (10%) (5%) (10% (7%)
Repetition 20 5 9 2 36
(8%) (3%) (5%) (2%) (5%)
Source: Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 53

In this study, Lyster and Ranta examined 18 hours of naturally occurring

immersion classroom talk, some of it from L2 lessons and some from content
lessons, and coded all of the errors made by the students, the teachers’ feed-
back moves and subsequent learner repairs (if any). The researchers found
that the teachers responded in some way to over 50% of the students’ errors,
and that recasts were the commonest type of feedback move (see Table 6.2).
The feedback types which were least successful in eliciting immediate stu-
dent repairs were recasts and explicit corrections. (In this study, the only way
in which the effectiveness of feedback was assessed was through its role in
prompting learner repair. This does not necessarily reflect a change in the
learner’s underlying L2 system, which is better demonstrated through sepa-
rate posttests.)
The Lyster and Ranta study has been followed by many more. Reviews
show that the amount of corrective feedback provided in ordinary class-
rooms is quite variable. In 12 classroom studies reviewed by Lyster et al.
(2013), for instance, the number of teacher oral feedback moves per hour
ranged from 6 to 41. However, the proportions of feedback types seem rela-
tively constant across different settings. In the 28 classroom studies analysed
by Brown (2016), recasts were generally the most common feedback type
provided by teachers (57% overall), with different types of prompt (eliciting
modified L2 output) at 30%, and explicit corrections at 10%. (Brown (2016)
also reports the type of L2 feature most commonly attracting corrective
feedback by teachers in these studies: these were grammar 43%, vocabulary
28% and phonology 22%.)

6.4.1 A Focus on Recasts
Having identified a range of feedback types, researchers have been inter-
ested in their relative effectiveness in promoting L2 development. Ranta
 Interaction in SLL 219
and Lyster (2007) regrouped their 1997 taxonomy into two broad groups:
reformulations (recasts and explicit corrections) and prompts (all feedback
moves eliciting modified output from the learner, including clarification
requests). Meta-analyses and systematic reviews suggest that all of these
feedback types can be helpful for learning, compared to the absence of
oral feedback (Lyster & Saito, 2010a, 2010b; Plonsky & Brown, 2015; Rus-
sell & Spada, 2006). However, the relative usefulness of different feedback
types has been extensively debated. For example, Lyster and Saito (2010a)
analysed a selection of 15 classroom-based experimental studies, and con-
cluded that prompts are somewhat more effective for classroom learners
than are recasts. Yet this conclusion was criticized by Goo and Mackey
(2013), who argue that recasts are effective. Overall, it seems that different
types of feedback serve different functions, as concluded by Lyster et al.
(2013).
To understand these issues more clearly, we will examine a quasi-­
experimental classroom study of the learning of the English possessive deter-
miners his and her, different aspects of which are reported by Ammar and
Spada (2006) and Ammar (2008).The study was conducted in three primary
school (Grade 6) classrooms in Quebec, Canada, with L1 French children
learning English as an L2. Possessive determiners present some learning dif-
ficulty for L1 French speakers, as they behave differently in French (where
they show morphological agreement with the formal gender of the noun
that is possessed), and in English (where they show agreement with the
semantic gender of the possessor).This contrast is illustrated in the following
pairs of sentences:

Pair 1 Le garçon joue avec sa voiture

(possessive determiner sa agrees with feminine noun voiture)
The boy is playing with his car
(possessive determiner his agrees with male human possessor boy)
Pair 2 La fille joue avec sa voiture
(possessive determiner sa agrees with feminine noun voiture)
The girl is playing with her car
(possessive determiner her agrees with female human possessor girl)

The research team worked with three intact classes, and their regular
teachers.The teachers had been selected after a period of classroom observa-
tion, on the grounds of their observed personal preferences regarding cor-
rective feedback. (One teacher regularly used recasts, a second used prompts,
and the third teacher rarely corrected students’ errors in spoken English.) All
of the teachers were asked to deliver a short episode of formal instruction on
English possessive determiners (presentation plus controlled practice), using
materials provided by the research team. Each teacher was then asked to run
the same sequence of communicative activities including information-gap
activities and games, over a 4-week period, all presenting opportunities to
use possessive determiners. At the same time, they were each asked to react
220  Interaction in SLL
to any student errors produced during these activities by implementing only
their preferred type of feedback.
A range of tests including grammaticality judgement tests, oral production
tests (based on pictures showing interaction among family members) and a
computer-based multiple-choice test were administered as pretest, posttest
and delayed posttest.
A statistical analysis of test scores was carried out, exploring relationships
among the children’s starting knowledge of possessive determiners, the dif-
ferent feedback conditions and their learning and retention of determiners
during and after the study (Ammar & Spada, 2006). The main differences in
learning outcomes across the three groups are shown visually in Figure 6.1.
The figure shows that both of the experimental groups who were receiving
corrective feedback outperformed the control group, who received none,
on the immediate and delayed posttests. However, the “prompts” group also
outperformed the “recasts” group; both sets of findings were statistically
significant.
The three intact classes in this study achieved similar group scores on the
pretests, and it was therefore reasonable to compare them in the different
ways described above. However, within each class, there was a mix of low
achieving and high achieving students (at least, in terms of their starting
knowledge of possessive determiners, as shown in the pretests). The research
team also compared the learning of the “low” and “high” students, and the
responses of these subgroups to the different feedback treatments. Interest-
ingly, they found that the “high” students found feedback helpful overall, but
were equally able to benefit from prompts or from recasts. (That is, there

100

75
Mean accuracy

50

25 Recasts
Prompts
Control
0
Pre-test Immediate Delayed
post-test post-test

Figure 6.1 Mean Accuracy of Three Groups on Test of Possessive Determiners (Oral

Picture Description Task)
Source: Ammar & Spada, 2006, p. 558
 Interaction in SLL 221
was no significant difference in achievement between the “prompt-high”
and “recast-high” subgroups.) However, the “low” students benefited signifi-
cantly more from experiencing prompts than they did from recasts; in fact,
as seen in Figure 6.2, the “prompt-low” students succeeded in catching up
with the performance of the “high” students, on the grammaticality judge-
ment task, by the time of the delayed posttest, despite a significantly lower
starting point, while the “recast-low” students did not.
This study is an interesting example of a classroom-based quasi-­experiment,
which enlisted real teachers to act as research partners, and ran for 4 weeks,

(a)

15
Mean accuracy

10

5
Recast-low
Prompt-low
0
Pre-test Immediate Delayed
post-test post-test

(b)

15
Mean accuracy

10

5
Recast-high
Prompt-high
0
Pre-test Immediate Delayed
post-test post-test

Figure 6.2 Performance of (a) “Low” and (b) “High” Students on Grammaticality Judge-
ment Task (Written Error Correction Task)
Source: Ammar & Spada, 2006, p. 559
222  Interaction in SLL
thus overcoming some of the doubts which can be raised concerning the
validity of short controlled experiments (Loewen & Nabei, 2007). Unfortu-
nately, however, the teachers concerned were unwilling to be audiorecorded
while actually teaching, and allowed only limited lesson observations, so
the fine details of the treatment experienced by the students could not be
documented.
Overall, Ammar and Spada provide further confirming evidence that cor-
rective feedback contributes helpfully to classroom communicative interac-
tion. But why is it the case that different types of feedback seem to have
somewhat different effects?
Concerning recasts, Long’s original suggestion (1996) is that they provide
negative evidence, in a context where meaning is kept constant. That is, a
recast offers the learner a repaired version of their own utterance, which
should make it easy to notice and internalize the difference between this new
version and their own interlanguage production. Others (such as R. Ellis &
Sheen, 2006) have argued, however, that recasts are usually better interpreted
as providing learners with positive evidence about target language forms.
(After all, a recast consists precisely in a corrected reformulation of a poorly
formed learner utterance.) Whether or not recasts also provide an element
of negative evidence is dependent on learner attention and noticing, i.e.
whether the learner is paying attention to the detailed linguistic differences
between the recast and their own production.This kind of attention to form
is hard to detect in ongoing meaning-focused interaction, as recasts often
lead to topic continuation moves on the part of the interlocutor, with no
opportunity for the learner to repair her own utterance, and it is difficult to
ascertain learners’ awareness of an error at the actual moment that the recast
happened (see Chapter 5). Hence, the extent to which recasts provide nega-
tive evidence is probably both context- and learner-dependent.

6.4.2 Corrective Feedback and the Output Hypothesis

For Lyster and Saito (2010a) and others such as R. Ellis (2016), metalinguistic
feedback or prompts provide negative evidence in a purer form than recasts.
This is because they draw the attention of the learner to the inadequacy of
his/her utterance in conveying meaning, and/or in terms of linguistic form,
without at the same time providing a correct reformulation. The negative
evidence is noticeable and unambiguous, and importantly, there is an expec-
tation that the learner will attempt a self-repair.
This approach derives its theoretical rationale from the Output Hypoth-
esis, which we introduced briefly in Chapter 1 (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005).
The L2 French immersion students studied by Swain and her colleagues
were exposed to French-medium instruction for extended periods of time,
and achieved very advanced comprehension abilities. However, their pro-
ductive ability lagged behind, something which Swain attributed to the fact
that their classroom involvement with French mostly involved reading and
 Interaction in SLL 223
listening to L2 input, with little pressure to speak or write extensively in
French. Swain argued that students could often succeed in comprehending
L2 texts, while only partly processing them, i.e. concentrating on semantic
processing. She took the view that only production (i.e. output) really forces
L2 learners to undertake complete grammatical processing, and thus drives
forward most effectively the development of L2 syntax and morphology.
The Output Hypothesis proposes that learner output has several functions:

1. A “noticing/triggering” function, or what might be referred to as a

consciousness-raising role;
2. A hypothesis-testing function;
3. A metalinguistic function, or what might be referred to as its “reflective” role.
(Swain, 1995, p. 128)

That is to say, an attempt to produce a target language utterance may push

learners to become aware of gaps and problems in their current L2 system
(no. 1); it provides them with opportunities to reflect on, discuss and analyse
these problems explicitly (no. 3); and of course, it provides them with oppor-
tunities to experiment with new structures and forms (no. 2).
In her own research, Swain concentrated largely on the reflective role
of output, and especially the possible contribution of metalinguistic talk
between peers to L2 development (Swain & Lapkin, 1995, 1998). Others
have further discussed the psycholinguistic underpinning of the Output
Hypothesis (de Bot, 1996; Izumi, 2003). Those researching corrective feed-
back, and prompts in particular, have tried to connect individual learners’
opportunities for output to their L2 development.
For example, McDonough and associates have conducted several experi-
mental studies of the effectiveness of various kinds of prompts in eliciting
modified output, and the subsequent impact on L2 learning. Two studies
of Thai learners reported by McDonough (2005) and McDonough and
Mackey (2006) again investigated the acquisition of English question forms.
In a further study (McDonough, 2007), the target L2 structure was the sim-
ple past tense of English activity verbs (dance, walk etc.). To illustrate this
approach, we will discuss the first of these three studies in more detail.
In her 2005 study, McDonough worked with 60 young adult learners, all
of them determined by pretesting to have reached Stage 4 in the acquisition
of English L2 question forms. (That is, they were already producing ques-
tions including wh-words followed by verb-subject inversion, such as What
is the thing that he carry?). To demonstrate progression to Stage 5, the learners
needed to produce questions involving auxiliary inversion, such as When
are they going to do the business?). The study ran for 8 weeks and included
a pretest (oral production of questions), three interactive sessions with L1
interlocutors involving question-rich communicative activities, and a series
of posttests in weeks 2, 5 and 8. This was a true experiment, in which the
learners were randomly assigned to four groups (three treatment groups and
224  Interaction in SLL
one control group).The interlocutors were trained to provide different feed-
back in response to naturally occurring learner errors; two of the treatment
groups received prompts of various kinds, designed to promote modified
output, while two did not.That is, the first group (called the “opportunity to
modify” group) received open clarification requests (such as What? or Huh?),
and the second group (the “enhanced opportunity” group) heard their own
error repeated, along with an accompanying clarification request. The third
group got feedback but no opportunity to reformulate their utterance, and
the fourth (control) group got no feedback.These four treatments are exem-
plified below (McDonough, 2005, pp. 85–86):

Opportunity to modify Enhanced Feedback with no No feedback

opportunity to opportunity to modify
modify
Learner: what happen for Learner: what Learner: what we do Learner: where you
the boat? angel doing in with it? going the last
NS: what? this situation? NS: what we do? Uh holiday?
Learner: what’s wrong with NS: what angel let’s see well we could NS: to Laos
the boat? doing? Huh? talk about the purpose
Learner: what is if you want
angel doing?

In order to document all feedback, as well any modified output the par-
ticipants produced, the treatment sessions were recorded and transcribed.
Table 6.3 shows the feedback and output findings, and Table 6.4 shows the
results of the posttests, in terms of the number of students within each group
who progressed from Stage 4 to Stage 5 in their production of English
questions.
Table 6.3 shows that the first three groups received similar amounts
of feedback, and that the first two groups produced limited amounts of

Table 6.3  Negative Feedback and Modified Output, Number of Tokens per Group

Treatment group (N = 15 Negative feedback* Modified output**

per group)
Sum Median Interquartile Sum Median Interquartile
range range

Enhanced opportunity to 99 5.0 4.0 20 2.0 2.0

modify
Opportunity to modify 93 5.0 5.0 12 0.0 1.0
Feedback, no opportunity 72 4.0 2.0  0 0 0
to modify
No feedback  0 0 0  0 0 0
Source: McDonough, 2005, p. 89
*Number of feedback occasions, per group, over the three interactive sessions
**Production of Stage 5 questions only
 Interaction in SLL 225
Table 6.4  Question Development, Number of Learners per Group

Stages Enhanced opportunity Opportunity Feedback without No feedback

to modify to modify opportunity to modify
4→5 9  5  2  2
No change 6 10 13 13
Source: McDonough, 2005, p. 90
Note: In each treatment group, n = 15.

modified output (i.e. Stage 5 questions) in response. The test results pre-
sented in Table 6.4 show that 14 out of the 18 students who progressed
from Stage 4, and showed consistent ability to produce Stage 5 questions
during posttests, belonged to the first two groups. These results were further
analysed using the statistical procedure of logistic regression; the only sta-
tistically significant predictor of L2 question development turned out to be
production of modified output.
It must be noted that 16 of the 30 learners who received an opportu-
nity to modify their output did not progress, and out of 192 prompts for
modified output, only 32 were taken up by the learners. Nevertheless, this
study offers some positive support for the Output Hypothesis, and suggests
that prompts do play an indirect role in L2 development. In the immediate
instructional setting, they can promote learner reformulations, and attempts
at self-repair, and, in turn, these appear to promote longer term develop-
ment as predicted by the Output Hypothesis. This finding that attempts at
self-repair during negotiation, particularly successful ones, are predictive of
L2 development is confirmed in a number of other studies, such as that of
Egi (2010) with learners of L2 Japanese.
The study of McDonough and Mackey (2006) with another group of   Thai
L1 learners provides further supporting evidence for the impact of modi-
fied output on the learning of English question forms. This study returns
to recasts and examines learners’ responses to these. Where the participants
heard and immediately repeated native speaker recasts during instructional
activities, no influence on progression from Stage 4 to Stage 5 questions
at posttest could be shown. However, where learners heard recasts during
instruction, and later produced other utterances following the model of the
recasts, but with fresh vocabulary (called “primed production” in this study),
there was a significant relationship with progression to Stage 5 at posttest.
Feedback studies such as these, conducted within the interactionist
approach, have provided useful evidence for the Output Hypothesis. How-
ever, as with recasts, studies of prompts do not always show straightforward
evidence of learning. McDonough’s own (2007) study of the learning of
the English simple past for activity verbs, for example, did not show any
advantage for prompts accompanied by modified output, over simple recasts,
while a somewhat similar study by R. Ellis (2007) showed a weak effect for
226  Interaction in SLL
metalinguistic prompts with the learning of the English simple past, and
a stronger effect with a different grammar area (comparative adjectives).
A study by Kartchava and Ammar (2014) found that learners were better
able to notice prompts than recasts, but there were no significant differences
in the learning which took place under the two conditions. Overall, research
seems to point to a general usefulness of corrective feedback during interac-
tion, but its ultimate place in language learning theory is hard to pin down
in detail given the wide variety of variables at play, and complex relations
between feedback types, linguistic features, learner variables and pedagogical
context.

6.5 The Problem of “Noticing”

A major claim of the 1996 Interaction Hypothesis, and also of the Output
Hypothesis, derives from psycholinguistic views of the nature of attention
and its role in learning (see Chapter 5 for our own discussion of these issues).
The interactionist belief is that learners will be encouraged to “notice” (and
perhaps therefore to modify) mismatches between features of their own
interlanguage productions and target language forms, in the course of com-
municative interaction including meaning negotiation and repair. That is,
learners are expected to interpret prompts and (perhaps) recasts as nega-
tive evidence, attend to the form and realize the need to reformulate their
utterance in order to convey their intended message effectively. In turn,
the amount of attention which the learner is paying to matters of form is
expected to influence how far L2 input and interaction actually lead to L2
development. Given the importance of the construct, Mackey (2007b, 2012)
is critical of the underdeveloped nature of theories of attention as applied
in interactionist research. She comments that “interaction research to date
has typically made little reference to particular models of attention, aware-
ness and noticing. Rather, these terms have been used in a general . . . way in
claims about the utility of interaction” (2007b, p. 25).
Some attempts have been made to theorize attention and noticing, how-
ever. Nicholas, Lightbown, and Spada (2001) argued that negative evidence
needs to be highlighted in some way, as a means to promote noticing:

Recasts in L2 classrooms are effective if they are accompanied by some

additional cue, telling learners that it is the form and not only the mean-
ing of their utterance that is in focus.
(Nicholas et al., 2001, p. 748)

Izumi (2003) relates the Output Hypothesis to Levelt’s well-known model

of speech production (Levelt, 1989). Izumi comments in particular on the
role of self-monitoring and the feedback system in speech production,
where “internal speech is matched against internal standards that are formed
 Interaction in SLL 227
by the speaker’s receptive knowledge about the use of specific rules” (Izumi,
2003, p. 185). He goes on to suggest that where internal representations are
not yet fully formed or uncertain, learners will be disposed to search for
guidance in the immediate linguistic environment (e.g. in recasts or other
forms of feedback):

If relevant input is immediately available . . ., the heightened sense of

problematicity during production may cause the learners to process the
subsequent input with more focused attention; they may try to examine
closely how the TL (target language) expresses the intention which they
just had difficulty expressing on their own.
(Izumi, 2003, p. 186)

Izumi also appeals to VanPatten’s Input Processing theory (2015) to account

for learners’ inconsistent noticing and use of corrective feedback (Izumi,
2003, p. 175).
Given the centrality of noticing in interactionist theory, some interaction-
ist researchers have set out to explore learner perceptions of negotiation and
of feedback, and, in turn, how learners’ varying perceptions might affect
their uptake of new L2 forms. Such research is challenging as it sets out to
access mental processes, some of them below learners’ conscious awareness,
while distorting their functioning as little as possible (see earlier discussion
in Section 5.4.2). A range of research techniques have been used by inter-
actionists, including learner journals and written questionnaires. In several
studies, the technique of stimulated recall has been used, in order to get
closer to learners’ real time perceptions of feedback. In stimulated recall
studies of oral feedback, learners are typically filmed while taking part in
some form of L2 interaction. The film is subsequently replayed, and the
learner is asked to recall and report what they were thinking about, at par-
ticular moments during the film. There is some debate about the validity
of this technique, as a means of accessing people’s focus of attention at a
particular moment in the past, but for the purposes we are interested in,
stimulated recall research yields interesting and interpretable patterns con-
cerning at least some aspects of L2 noticing. (See Gass & Mackey, 2016, for
a full account of the technique.)
In a pioneering study, Mackey, Gass, and McDonough (2000) used stimu-
lated recall with a group of 17 learners of English and of Italian, to explore
how learners viewed the feedback they had received in a problem-solving,
picture-matching task, undertaken with an L1 interlocutor.When reviewing
video of their own interactions, the learners seemed most aware of feedback
relating to lexical and phonological problems. They made most comments
on these episodes, and focused on matters of form when they did so. How-
ever, they were less aware of feedback containing L2 morphosyntactic infor-
mation, and tended to interpret feedback of this type as relating to content
228  Interaction in SLL
rather than linguistic form. Content-focused responses to morphosyntactic
recasts are illustrated in the following examples:

NNS: It have mixed colors.

NS: It has mixed colors.
NNS: Mixed colors aha.
Recall: Uh, I was thinking . . . nothing, she just repeat what I said.
NNS: So one man feed for the birds.
NS: So one man’s feeding the birds?
NNS: The birds.
Recall: When I saw the picture I thought this is a park and I tried to describe.
(Mackey et al., 2000, pp. 485–486)

Egi (2007) also used stimulated recall in order to examine the extent to which
adult learners of L2 Japanese interpreted corrective feedback as relevant to
content and/or to language form. She found that around 17% of recasts were
interpreted as relating to content (and also showed tentatively that where this
was the case, learning as measured on individualized oral posttests was less
likely than where recasts were interpreted as having a focus on L2 form).
In a laboratory study, Philp (2003) tried to collect evidence of noticing
during rather than following the communicative event. She gave ESL learn-
ers a story completion and a picture description task; the learners had to ask
questions to complete the tasks, and their errors received active recasts from
their NS interlocutors. To investigate whether the learners were noticing
the recasts, they were prompted at intervals by a signal to repeat what their
interlocutor had just said. Their ability to do this was taken as evidence that
they had been noticing the recasts, at least enough to be holding them in
working memory.
It turned out that the participants in Philps’ study could reproduce a
high proportion of the recasts which they heard, which suggested they
had noticed them. However, the accuracy of these repetitions depended
(a) on the learner’s language level, (b) the length of the recast and (c) the
number of corrections it contained. In particular, learners had great dif-
ficulty in repeating question forms which were not currently part of their
interlanguage grammar, suggesting that noticing is easier for forms which
are already in development. Where recasts were complex and highlighted
more than one problematic L2 form, learners also had greater difficulty in
responding. Stimulated recall studies by Egi (2010) and Gurzynski-Weiss and
Baralt (2015) also suggest that noticing is more likely where forms are not
completely unfamiliar. In both these studies, participants were more likely
to report noticing corrective feedback in ongoing interaction, at moments
where they themselves had attempted to repair linguistic form in response.
Overall, these studies confirm Mackey’s view that noticing has been
shown to be “a potential mediator in the feedback-learning relationship”
 Interaction in SLL 229
(2006, p. 426). But she comes to similar conclusions to Philp (2003) regard-
ing challenges involved in studying noticing. Some individual learner factors
which appear to influence the extent of noticing are discussed in Section 6.7
below.

6.6 L2 Development in Computer-Mediated

Interaction
Digital media now offer many opportunities for L2 learners to engage
in interaction with each other as well as with L1 speakers, through text-
based synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) as well
as through audio and video technologies. Interactionist researchers have
increasingly been studying the opportunities offered by digitally based
interaction for negotiation of meaning, for receiving (and noticing) different
types of feedback, and for self-repair and production of modified output.
Recent research has shown that audio and video technologies can pro-
vide rich opportunities for oral negotiation and feedback, leading to L2
development (Saito & Akiyama, 2017). However, most of the research in this
field so far has concerned SCMC. It has been claimed that text-based chat
offers certain advantages over other media, from an interactionist point of
view. Firstly, it may reduce learner anxiety and thus promote greater learner
participation (Chun, 1994). Ziegler (2016, p.556) relates the potential of
text-based SCMC more closely to interactionist concepts, claiming that it
provides:

• increased saliency of target forms;

• extended opportunities for learners to notice target features;
• the opportunity to reread and review previous text, comparing their
own output with any feedback received;
• added processing time.

From a meta-analysis of 14 studies comparing SCMC with face-to-face

interaction, Ziegler (2016) found that both interaction modes were effec-
tive in promoting L2 development as measured in immediate posttests, with
a slight overall advantage to the former. However, it is clear that interac-
tion works somewhat differently in several respects in the two settings. In
interpreting her results, Ziegler attributed the positive effects of SCMC to
the existence of a written record of interaction, which gives the learner a
longer opportunity to notice target forms and any gaps between these and
their own L2 productions. However, she also acknowledged the multimodal
nature of face-to-face interaction, and the likelihood that visual cues such as
gesture may also support noticing.
A study by Gurzynski-Weiss and Baralt (2014, 2015) set out to com-
pare directly how learners perceive feedback in SCMC and face-to-face
(FTF) interaction, and how they make use of it in the two conditions. The
230  Interaction in SLL
participants were L2 Spanish learners, who carried out two information-gap
tasks individually, with a researcher as interlocutor; each participant com-
pleted one task online using text-based SCMC, and then completed the
other task in FTF mode. The tasks involved getting the information needed
to fit images of furniture onto a room plan, to match a master layout held
by the interlocutor. The interlocutor provided varied feedback on errors in
vocabulary, grammar, semantics and to a more limited extent phonology (for
the FTF task) and spelling (for the SCMC task). All interactions were vide-
orecorded, and extracts were used for stimulated recall activities.
Results showed that most feedback episodes concerned vocabulary
(71% in SCMC mode, 65% in FTF mode), followed by morphosyntax
(20% in SCMC, 25% in FTF) and semantics (9% and 7%). During the
stimulated recall, the participants reported noticing the majority of these
episodes, at similar rates in both modes (68% for SCMC, 71% for FTF).
While they were very likely to notice vocabulary feedback in both modes,
however, they noticed accurately less than half the morphosyntax feed-
back, in either mode (48% for SCMC, 42% for FTF). Overall, the study
found no significant differences in perceptions of feedback between the
two modes. However, there were differences between the two modes con-
cerning both the opportunities available to participants for production of
modified output, and the extent to which modified output was actually
produced. Here, the FTF mode offered significantly more opportunities
than SCMC, and these opportunities were availed of significantly more
often, as far as lexical and morphosyntactic corrections were concerned
(with large effect sizes). In both modes, the production of (partially) modi-
fied output was the best predictor of learners’ subsequent reports of accu-
rate noticing, in stimulated recall (Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015), as
seen in the following example:

Corrective recast + modified output:

LEARNER:  “. . . y es en frente—”
INTERLOCUTOR:  “—Está en frente”.
LEARNER: “Está”.
LEARNER:  . . . and it’s in front— [use of ser, wrong copula]
INTERLOCUTOR:  It’s in front. [corrects to estar, correct copula]
LEARNER: It’s. [repeats only the corrected element, the copulative verb estar]

Stimulated recall comment:

INTERLOCUTOR: “What do you remember thinking at this point during
the task?”
LEARNER:  “Well, I mean, she was basically repeating what I said but doing it
correctly. So I mean, I appreciated it. I used ser instead of estar”.
(Gurzynski-Weiss & Baralt, 2015, pp. 1404–1405)
 Interaction in SLL 231
Somewhat similar findings are reported in a three-way study of peer inter-
action comparing SCMC, video and FTF modes (Loewen & Wolff, 2016).
No distinct tests of L2 development were included in either of these studies,
but if the modification of output and associated noticing are indicators of
development, as suggested in much of the interaction literature, it is clearly
important to monitor how available they are in different interaction modes.

6.7 Characteristics of Learners and of Tasks

To conclude our presentation of interactionist research, we will briefly note
the directions being taken to explain apparent variation in learners’ ability
to notice and learn from corrective feedback. One key topic investigated is
that of individual learners’ working memory capacity, and how far this may
affect their ability to benefit from interaction including feedback. A number
of studies found that higher working memory capacity indeed promoted
interaction-based learning (Goo, 2012; Mackey, Adams, Stafford, & Winke,
2010; Révész, 2012; Trofimovich et al., 2007). Other studies have examined
the cognitive complexity of the interactionist tasks being undertaken by the
learners (in particular, whether or not they included a reasoning compo-
nent), and the consequences of different levels of complexity for learners’
attention and ability to benefit (Révész, 2009, 2011; Baralt, 2013), though
with somewhat mixed results.
A recent study by Kim, Payant, and Pearson (2015) investigated these
two themes in combination, exploring the relationship between working
memory (WM) and task complexity, how these variables interacted to affect
the noticing of recasts (on question formation in English), and how they
influenced subsequent L2 question development. The participants were 81
intermediate-level learners of English; the study examined question devel-
opment from Stage 3 to Stage 5 of the Pienemann and Johnston (1987)
sequence.
The participants were divided into two groups, who undertook two
different versions of three collaborative information exchange tasks on life-
style topics (travelling in the USA, cellphones, college life). In the “sim-
ple” (-­ reasoning) condition, participants exchanged information with a
researcher-interlocutor. In the “complex” (+reasoning) condition, they
exchanged information and also evaluated it. The interlocutors provided
feedback (recasts) for all errors, and participants were cued to repeat all
recasts. This was done partly to measure noticing (on the assumption that a
correct repetition reflected this), partly to ensure that modified output was
similar across conditions. The procedure is illustrated below:

Immediate cued recall for the recast, successful repair

LEARNER:  Dormitory rooms.
NS:  Yes
232  Interaction in SLL
LEARNER:  How many person we have to share with?
NS:  How many people do we have to share with? [2 knocks]
LEARNER:  How many people do we . . . have to share with? [recall of the recast]
NS:  Two people

Immediate cued recall, partial repair

LEARNER:  Why does stadium isn’t round?
RESEARCHER:  Why isn’t the stadium round? [2 knocks]
LEARNER:  Why this stadium is not round? [partial recall of the recast]

Similar numbers of recasts were offered, during both conditions. All tasks
were videorecorded, and immediately following the third task, a stimulated
recall was conducted on that particular task, to document participants’ per-
ceptions of task complexity (not of the recasts, which had been studied
through cued recall). The participants also undertook oral production tasks
as pretest, posttest and delayed posttest, and a WM test. On the oral produc-
tion tasks, participants who progressed one or more stages in question pro-
duction were characterized as “developed”.
The results of the stimulated recall procedure suggested that participants
in the +reasoning condition were more likely to report reasoning processes
during task completion (as intended). However, regarding participants’ abil-
ity to repeat recasts of advanced question forms correctly,WM was the main
predictor found, regardless of task complexity. Regarding participants’ L2
development (i.e. their ability to produce higher-stage question forms),
around half the members of each group made progress. The influence on
L2 development of task complexity and of WM was explored using logis-
tic regression, and it was again found that WM was the main predictor of
question development.This effect was particularly strong for the +reasoning
condition, suggesting that more complex tasks may be more beneficial for
high WM participants, and less so for low WM participants. However, the
researchers acknowledge that their insistence on repetition of recasts may
have reduced the difference between the two conditions, and accept that
more remains to be learned about the interactions among task complexity,
learner WM and other individual differences factors.

6.8 Evaluation

6.8.1 The Scope of Interactionist Research

Interaction researchers like to cite Evelyn Hatch as an early inspiration for
the interactionist research tradition. Thus, for example, Mackey et al. (2012,
p. 8) quote Hatch as saying: “One learns how to do conversation, one learns
how to interact verbally, and out of the interaction syntactic structures are
developed” (Hatch, 1978, p. 404).
 Interaction in SLL 233
However, compared with this broad formulation, the interactionist tradi-
tion as it has evolved since the 1980s has limited its focus in a number of
ways. Firstly, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis paid attention to only one side
of any given interaction, and Long’s early formulation of the Interaction
Hypothesis viewed negotiation of meaning as a means to a similar basic
end: for the learner to increase their share of comprehensible input. Swain’s
Output Hypothesis expanded the focus once again, so that more balanced
attention is now paid in interactionist research to the input being received,
to negotiations of both form and meaning and to the productions of the
learner.
Secondly, whether studying input or output, the interactionist tradition
is quite selective in the aspects of conversation to which it pays attention.
In many of the studies reviewed above, the research focus is limited to the
learner’s use of particular target words or morphosyntactic forms, and to cer-
tain discourse moves being performed by their interlocutor (recasts, prompts,
metalinguistic comments). Much richer interpretations of interaction are
found in sociocultural and sociolinguistic research (Chapters 8 and 9).
Thirdly, researchers in the interactionist tradition are wary of claiming the
status of a theory for what they prefer to call the Interaction Hypothesis,
or more recently the interaction approach (Gass & Mackey, 2015; Mackey
et al., 2012).
The main strengths of this very active tradition are indeed related to this
degree of focus. Recent reviews (Lyster et al., 2013; Plonsky & Brown, 2015;
Nassaji, 2016) show that hundreds of empirical studies have been conducted
since the 1990s, exploring the relationship between a range of interactional
behaviours and the learning of various L2 morphosyntactic features, as well
as vocabulary, phonology and overall comprehensibility. The interactional
behaviours explored include the modification of input by negotiation,
noticing of new language features, the provision of feedback and of prompts,
and opportunities for learners themselves to produce modified output. The
morphosyntactic features for which learning has been claimed include word
order, questions, tense and aspect, grammatical gender, articles and plurals.
Studies have mostly been conducted with instructed learners, but they have
included children and adults, and have been concerned with a wide range
of target languages. They have included numerous descriptive classroom-
based studies as well as controlled experiments, conducted both face-to-face
and (increasingly) online, and have regularly shown experimental groups
receiving interactional treatments performing better on posttests than other
groups. All this has demonstrated that “interaction plays a strong facilitative
role in the learning of lexical and grammatical target items” (Mackey & Goo,
2007, p. 438).
The interaction approach self-evidently meets the first two evaluation
criteria proposed in Chapter 1: the claims of the Interaction Hypothesis are
clear, and a range of systematic procedures have been adopted and devel-
oped to test these claims. The extent to which it sets out to meet the third
234  Interaction in SLL
criterion (explanatory power) is more debatable however, and we will return
to this issue at the end of the chapter.

6.8.2 The Interaction Approach and the Nature of Language

It could be inferred that the Input Hypothesis, and the early version of the
Interaction Hypothesis, assumed a broadly Chomskyan view of the nature
of language, including the existence of an innate language faculty. Some
later debates within the interactionist tradition also reflected Chomskyan
thinking, notably the discussion as to whether different types of feedback are
sources of positive or negative target language evidence (and whether nega-
tive evidence is required by L2 learners).
However, from the 1990s onwards, as interest in L2 processing issues
increased, interactionists tacitly moved away from a Chomskyan position.
Some commentators have made alternative proposals, notably N. C. Ellis
(2009), who argued that a functionalist view of language was most appropri-
ate and relevant for interactionist research. However, this kind of thinking has
not been widely adopted, and interactionists undertaking empirical research
typically say little about any broader theory of language which underlies
their work. Instead, they identify particular morphosyntactic features and
subsystems, and study how these are learned, somewhat in isolation from
any larger picture. Where developmental sequences have been identified for
particular subsystems, such as English questions, these may be used as a scale
to measure learner progression, but even in these cases there is little discus-
sion of implications for interlanguage development beyond these particular
subsystems (Sepehrinia et al., 2017).
Finally, as noted above, oral interaction itself is typically viewed here as
a sequence of functionally discrete and quantifiable discourse moves or
strategies (such as clarification requests or recasts). The idea that interac-
tion is jointly constructed, which characterizes the alternative traditions of
sociocultural theory and conversation analysis, for example, is not general
acknowledged.

6.8.3 The Interaction Approach and the Nature of Learning

As we know, Krashen’s Input Hypothesis assumed the existence of a distinc-
tive Language Acquisition Device which received and processed L2 input,
but paid little attention to the internal workings of the device.
Long’s revised Interaction Hypothesis (1996) reoriented the interaction-
ist tradition decisively in a cognitive direction, as far as learning theory was
concerned, directing attention towards learner attention and L2 processing
capacity as mediating factors which would affect the availability of L2 input
for intake and for acquisition. Progress was made in devising ways of moni-
toring learner attention (stimulated recall and cued recall), and empirical
research supported the idea that learners are more likely to acquire words
 Interaction in SLL 235
and morphosyntactic features where feedback has been noticed. Relatively
little progress has been made, however, in tracking the online processing of
L2 interaction (and, indeed, Gass & Mackey, 2015, state that this is beyond
the scope of the interactionist approach). Thus, for example, where feed-
back is complex, and deals with more than one morphosyntactic feature,
we remain unclear how it is interpreted and processed (though we know
that eventual learning is less likely). This is a central issue, and without a
better understanding of online processing (for example through a linkup
with theorists of parsing and input processing, and the adoption of more
sensitive online research tools such as eye-tracking), it remains challenging
to explain why some L2 features are learned more easily through interaction
than others.

6.8.4 The Interaction Approach and the Language Learner

The participant most typically studied in interactionist research is an indi-
vidual classroom learner, who takes part in a sequence of controlled activi-
ties in a classroom or laboratory setting. Some basic assumptions are made,
for example that the learner is uniformly motivated to attend to L2 input,
and to engage actively in the prescribed activities and tests. In most studies,
learners are chosen so as to be fairly closely positioned on a common learn-
ing route, for example at similar stages for the learning of English questions.
The individual learner characteristics which are felt to be important are psy-
cholinguistic ones: age, language proficiency level and WM capacity. Until
recently, this tradition has paid scant attention to learner identity, and to the
learning group as a community.Yet as R. Ellis and Sheen (2006) pointed out,
learners’ social orientation to the learning context may affect their engage-
ment with interaction in significant ways, and hence mediate the influence
of feedback, elicitations and the rest. Recent publications on peer interaction
(Philp et al., 2014; Sato & Ballinger, 2016) and a wider range of interlocutor
characteristics (including gender, affect and extent of training: Gurzynski-
Weiss, 2017) are going some way to enrich the interpretation of learning
context and learner identity in this tradition, including in some cases making
connections with the sociocultural perspective on interaction discussed in
Chapter 8.

6.8.5 Overall Conclusion
The interactionist approach is successfully demonstrating many intercon-
nections between aspects of L2 use and L2 learning. It partly derives from an
applied pedagogical tradition (early work on classroom feedback), and has
clear implications for classroom practice, reviewed in Mackey et al. (2012).
A solid strand of experimental research has been developed, and innovative
research techniques such as stimulated recall have been applied. However,
some major puzzles remain, for example regarding the selective nature of
236  Interaction in SLL
learner attention and noticing, and there are continuing difficulties in pre-
dicting which L2 features will prove most amenable to interactionist treat-
ments: “We cannot assume that because CF has been shown to assist the
acquisition of one grammatical feature it will necessarily do so for all fea-
tures” (Sheen, 2011, p. 165). Recent writings by interactionist researchers
acknowledge the need for closer integration with other research and theo-
retical strands, in particular L2 processing; this would be an important step
in advancing this tradition from the status of an approach, to a theory with
greater ambitions to explain underlying cause-effect relationships.

References
Akiyama,Y., & Saito, K. (2016). Development of comprehensibility and its linguistic cor-
relates: A longitudinal study of video-mediated telecollaboration. The Modern Language
Journal, 100, 585–609.
Allwright, D. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner
error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in language learning, teaching and
bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morpho-
syntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Baralt, M. (2013).The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online
versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 class-
room: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of
learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interac-
tive competence. System, 22, 17–31.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46,
529–555.
de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learner’s interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 249–268). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner
responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
Ellis, N. C. (2009).The psycholinguistics of the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio
(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 11–40). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical struc-
tures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–
360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Interaction in SLL 237
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
Ellis, R., & Sheen,Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in second language acquisi-
tion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language acqui-
sition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An
introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research
(2nd ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven
L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.). (2017). Expanding individual difference research in the interaction
approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-
based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 36, 1–37.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). A closer look at learner responses to feedback
and their effect on noticing in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based inter-
action. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. M. Hatch
(Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: New-
bury House.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning:
In search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics,
24, 168–196.
Jeon, K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterising linguistic development.
In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 379–407).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014).The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feed-
back in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating
the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In
J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching
(pp. 91–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task
complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a labo-
ratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the
linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.
238  Interaction in SLL
Li, S. (2017). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interac-
tion. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction
approach (pp. 41–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lin, W.-C., Huang, H.-T., & Liou, H.-C. (2013). The effects of text-based SCMC on
SLA: A meta analysis. Language Learning and Technology, 17, 123–142.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2
knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition
(pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-art article: Interaction and instructed second
language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato &
S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and
research agenda (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.
Long, M. H. (1983a). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: New-
bury House.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisi-
tion. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010a). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010b). Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of
classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1, 276–297.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical
study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–588.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007a). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. (2007b).The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition.
In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 1–28).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23). Abing-
don/New York: Routledge.
 Interaction in SLL 239
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship
between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60,
501–533.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research
synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition
(pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working
memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’
responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27,
79–103.
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity
verbs in English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisi-
tion (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & Mackey, A. (2015). Creativity and EFL students’
language use during a group problem-solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 188–199.
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed produc-
tion, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning:
A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language
learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork.
Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
Pawlak, M. (2017). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects
on the process and outcome of L2 interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expand-
ing individual difference research in the interaction approach (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Pica, T.,Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension.
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts
in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language
proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141).
Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-
analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results).
Second Language Research, 31, 267–278.
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes:
The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.
Ranta, E., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’
oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser
(Ed.), Practice in a second language (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
240  Interaction in SLL
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language devel-
opment. System, 41, 472–483.
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences:
A classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.
Révész, A. (2012).Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different
L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006).The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of
L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthe-
sizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Saito, K., & Akiyama,Y. (2017).Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibil-
ity, and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67,
43–74.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (Eds.). (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogi-
cal potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sepehrinia, S., Nemati, M., & Khomijani Farahani, A. A. (2017). Studies on oral error
correction: Do they provide counterevidence against nativist arguments? The Language
Learning Journal, First View, 1–17.
Sheen,Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Sheen,Y., & Lyster, R. (Eds.). (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in
SLA. Special Issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32.
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda
for acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597–647.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Hand-
book of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adoles-
cent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82,
320–337.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role
of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction
in second language acquisition (pp. 171–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 55, 437–456.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 113–134). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Rothman, J. (2015). What does current generative theory have to say
about the explicit-implicit debate? In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of
languages (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Interaction in SLL 241
Yang,Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese
EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 235–264.
Yanguas, I. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabu-
lary acquisition. Calico Journal, 29, 507–531.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction:
A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.
7 Meaning-Based
Perspectives on Second
Language Learning

7.1 Introduction
The functionalist perspective on the nature of language developed by theo-
retical linguists such as Givón, Halliday and Langacker was briefly intro-
duced in Section 1.3.3. These functionalist theories of language are “mainly
concerned with the question of why language structure is the way it is and
with finding explanations in language use” (Bischoff & Jany, 2013, p. 1). In
this chapter we investigate second language learning (SLL) research which is
grounded in this viewpoint. Functionalist researchers are centrally concerned
with the ways in which L2 learners set about making meaning, and achiev-
ing their personal communicative goals; they argue that the great variety of
interlanguage forms produced by learners cannot be sensibly interpreted,
unless we pay attention also to the speech acts which learners are seeking
to perform, and to the ways they exploit the immediate social, physical and
discourse context to help them make meaning. Further, it is argued that
these meaning-making efforts on the part of the learner are a driving force
in ongoing L2 development, which interact both with the available input
and also with the development of formal grammatical systems.
This functionalist perspective on SLL shares with the theories discussed
in Chapters 4 and 5 the assumption that general learning mechanisms drive
acquisition. However, while emergentist learning theories see statistical
learning from L2 input as the prime driving force in acquisition, functional-
ists see learners’ own intention to mean, and active selection from the input
available to them in the service of communication, as the leading force.That
is, the basic functionalist claim is “the centrality of meaning and function in
influencing language structure and language acquisition” (Bardovi-Harlig,
2015, p. 55). (Usage-based and functionalist approaches are usefully com-
pared by Dimroth, 2018.)
We begin the chapter by examining some early, small-scale functional-
ist case studies of L2 learning, which illustrate key issues and principles of
this approach. We then review a major research project of the European
Science Foundation (ESF), which built a large longitudinal dataset of natu-
ralistic speech by adult immigrants in a range of European countries, and
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 243
initiated an ongoing research programme investigating the communication-
driven development of learner grammar (the “learner varieties” approach:
Klein & Dimroth, 2009). Next we examine more focused lines of enquiry
into how learners develop the linguistic means to encode a range of con-
ceptual meanings, to do with time, movement and space. We then consider
current research into how learners develop the linguistic means, and the
contextual knowledge, to perform a range of speech acts in L2. Finally, we
evaluate the overall contribution so far of this tradition to our understanding
of L2 development.

7.2 Early Functionalist Studies of SLL

In Chapter 2, we reviewed the emergence during the 1970s of the concept
of interlanguage (Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1972, 1992; Han & Tarone, 2014).
This involved a major shift away from viewing learner language essentially
as a defective version of the target language, towards viewing it as an organic
system with its own internal structure.

7.2.1 Pragmatic vs Syntactic Modes of Expression

Within interlanguage research, functionalist approaches to the study of L2
communication and development soon appeared. Dittmar (1984) presented
a reanalysis of data collected for an earlier, grammar-oriented study of adult
Spanish migrants’ L2 German. This was a cross-sectional study of learners at
a very elementary level, who made little use of the morphology of standard
German, and typically expressed semantic concepts such as time and mood,
and also speech acts such as requesting, warning, promising and so on, either
lexically or through inference from the conversational context, rather than
through grammatical encoding.
For example, the following learner utterance involving codeswitching
between German and Spanish (between slashes) was interpreted in context
as expressing a promise:

Ich morgen /a/ España /y/ sage bei dir: zuruck España, eine /botella de coñac/
bei dir
I tomorrow to Spain and say with you: back Spain, one bottle of
cognac with you
I am going to Spain tomorrow and promise to bring back a bottle of
cognac for you.
(after Dittmar, 1984, p. 243)

Here the only explicit reference to future time is expressed in the lexical
item morgen (“tomorrow”); modality and the speech act of “promising” have
to be inferred from context; the inflected 2nd person pronoun dir seems to
be produced as part of an unanalysed chunk, bei dir; and so on. For Dittmar,
244  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
the interpretation of data like this is helped by the theoretical distinction
drawn by Givón (1979) between pragmatic and syntactic “modes of expres-
sion”. Givón argued that both informal speech and learner speech (whether
L1 or L2) convey meaning through a relatively heavy reliance on context,
whereas more formal styles of language rely on more elaborate language
coding, with reduced dependence on contextual meaning. For Givón, these
pragmatic and syntactic modes are the ends of a continuum, rather than dis-
crete categories; he interpreted language acquisition, language change and
language variation in terms of movement along this continuum.
Table 7.1 shows the main features of the two modes proposed by Givón.
Dittmar (1984) argued that the talk of his elementary adult learners showed
many characteristics of the pragmatic mode. In particular, he argued that
their utterances were typified by a theme-rheme (or topic-comment) struc-
ture, delineated by a single intonation curve, rather than by a grammar-based
subject-predicate structure. (In everyday terms, the theme or topic is what is
being talked about, and the rheme or comment is what is being said about
it.) Typical examples from his German interlanguage data are:

ich alleine—nicht gut

“I alone—not good”

immer arbeite—nicht krank

“always work(ing)—not ill”

ich vier Jahre —Papa tot

“I four years—father dead”

Table 7.1  Pragmatic and Syntactic Modes of Expression

Pragmatic mode Syntactic mode

a. Topic-comment structure a. Subject-predicate structure

b. Loose conjunction b. Tight subordination
c. Slow rate of delivery (under several c. Fast rate of delivery (under a single
intonation contours) intonation contour)
d. Word order is governed mostly d. Word order is used to signal
by one PRAGMATIC principle: SEMANTIC case functions (though it
old information goes first, new may also be used to indicate pragmatic-
information follows topicality relations)
e. Roughly one-to-one ratio of verbs e. A larger ratio of nouns over verbs
to nouns in discourse, with the verbs in discourse, with the verbs being
being semantically simple semantically complex
f. No use of grammatical morphology f. Elaborate use of grammatical
morphology
g. Prominent intonation-stress marks g. Very much the same, but perhaps not
the focus of new information; topic exhibiting as high a functional load, and,
intonation is less prominent at least in some languages, totally absent
Source: Givón, 1979, p. 98
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 245
However, Dittmar’s analysis did not address the issue of how learners’ utter-
ances might move on from topic-comment structure to conventional target
language sentence syntax. Altogether, while this study appealed to the theo-
retical framework of Givón, by showing that learners start at the pragmatic
end of the continuum, it did not yet offer any very rigorous test of it. (In
later work Dittmar performed a variety of more detailed form-to-function
and function-to-form analyses: Dittmar & Reich, 1993.)

7.2.2 Form-to-Function Analysis
Some other early functionalist studies did take a longitudinal approach,
for example the year-long case study conducted by Huebner (1983) of a
single participant known as Ge, a bilingual speaker of two Asian languages
(Hmong and Lao), and an adult migrant to the USA. Ge arrived in Hawaii
with no English, worked full time in a garden centre and attended no lan-
guage classes. Huebner audiorecorded informal conversations with him
at 3-week intervals, and studied a number of forms in Ge’s interlanguage
where development was apparent, and traced their changing functions in
discourse.
For example, Huebner studied the changing uses of the form is(a) in Ge’s
interlanguage, over time. This form served initially as a general marker for
topic-comment boundaries, and developed over time into a copular verb
be (as in Standard English). In the following example, isa is functioning as a
boundary marker:

ai werk everdei, + isa woter da trii

“As for the work I do everyday, it involves watering the plants” (p. 74).

The course of development for Ge’s use of the is(a) form was not straight-
forward. From using it frequently as a topic boundary marker, he moved
to much less frequent use of the form, in both grammatical and ungram-
matical environments, according to the norms of Standard English (SE).
Finally, Ge “gradually and systematically re-inserted the form in SE gram-
matical environments” (p. 205), i.e. those where it performed the copula
function.
Huebner describes similar patterns of development for the functional dis-
tribution of the article form da. Thus, he identified all possible contexts for
production of da, and examined its use over time. This analysis showed that:

Ge’s use of the article da shifts from an almost SE one but one which
is dominated by the notion of topic, to one in which the form marks
virtually all noun phrases. From that point, Ge’s use of da is first phased
out of environments which share no common feature values with SE
definite noun phrases, followed by those environments that share one of
the two feature values with SE definite noun phrases.
(p. 130)
246  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
Huebner’s study thus provided further evidence that “the rules governing
various aspects of the interlanguage grammar were influenced by the struc-
ture of discourse” (p. 203). He also documented the complexity of devel-
opment in Ge’s interlanguage, arguing that apparent variability is due to
gradual, systematic shifts in function for particular forms. Finally, his study
illustrated the need to pay attention to more than one level of language to
make sense of interlanguage development; in order to pinpoint the functions
of the forms isa and da, his analyses began at the level of discourse/pragmat-
ics, and moved to an examination of syntax and morphology.
A limitation of his study, however, lay in the fact that Lao and Hmong
are both topic-prominent languages. Therefore, Huebner recognized, it is
impossible to tell whether the topic-comment structure found in Ge’s early
English interlanguage is due to cross-linguistic influence, or a more universal
characteristic of learner language.

7.2.3 Function-to-Form Analysis: A Fuller Test of Givón

Another longitudinal case study, conducted by Sato (1990), working with
two Vietnamese L1 boys,Thanh and Tai, also drew on the theoretical contrast
proposed by Givón between pragmatic and syntactic modes of expression.
Her research explored the extent to which her participants’ interlanguage
moved from parataxis (similar to Givón’s pragmatic mode of expression) to
syntacticization. She redefined these concepts as follows:

Parataxis: Extensive reliance on discourse-pragmatic factors in face-to-

face communication and minimal use of target language (TL) mor-
phosyntactic devices in expressing propositions. Discourse-pragmatic
factors include shared knowledge between interlocutors, collaboration
between interlocutors in the expression of propositions, and the distri-
bution of propositional content over a sequence of utterances rather
than within a single utterance.
Syntacticization: The process through which the use of morphosyn-
tactic devices in IL (interlanguage) increases over time, while the reli-
ance on discourse-pragmatic context declines.
(Sato, 1990, pp. 51–52)

Sato’s two participants were brothers in their early teens, and were immi-
grants to the USA and fostered in an English-speaking family.They attended
school, but received no specialist ESL instruction there. Over a period of 10
months, Sato collected informal conversational data from the boys at weekly
intervals. An example of talk between Sato (C) and Thanh (Th), in Sato’s
phonemic transcription, is given below (Sato, 1990, p. 125).

Th1: tudei ai ga muvi in də in də sku /

“Today [I got] a movie in school”
C: You saw a movie?
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 247

Th2: tu au yæ
“[For] two hours, yeah”
C: Of what?
Th3: muvi – ts əh (hʌv) yu si muvi / (1 sec. pause)
“[A] movie – (unclear) æ you [seen this] movie?”
Th4: ɔnli bɔn pipol æn dei fait /
“People only [made of bone] were fighting”
Th5: pipol ɔnli bɔn
“People [who were] only [made of] bone”
C: Skeletons?

The recorded speech of Thanh and Tai was divided into utterances using
phonological criteria (“an utterance being defined as a sequence of speech
under a single intonation contour bounded by pauses”, p. 58). To explore
the nature and degree of parataxis/syntacticization, Sato concentrated on
a function-to-form analysis of their talk. She first explored all means used
by the boys to express past time reference, and then examined the linguistic
encoding of semantic propositions, both simple and complex. (A proposi-
tional utterance was defined as one which “expressed at least one argument
and a predication about that argument” (p. 94), that is, an utterance which
mentioned an entity and made some statement about it. The most typical
grammatical expression of a semantic proposition is a clause.)

7.2.3.1 Thanh and Tai:The Expression of Past Time Reference

When the boys referred to the past, Sato found that over the 10 months,
they continued to use a paratactic mode of expression, expressing past time
either adverbially or through inference from the discourse context (as can be
seen in the quoted extract above). A few irregular past tense forms appeared
(bought, came), but the regular -ed inflection never occurred.
Sato’s findings are in line with many other studies, which show that
inflected past tense verb forms are slow to develop for naturalistic L2 learn-
ers of English. Sato noted how seldom the absence of formal past tense
markers caused communication difficulties for Thanh and Tai (that is, there
was little communicative pressure to include these). Like other functionalist
accounts (e.g. Bardovi-Harlig, 2015), Sato recognized the necessity of a mul-
tilevel analysis, with the potential need to investigate any or all of learners’
phonology, lexis, grammar and discourse, to interpret learners’ expression of
particular functions, and the nature of development. In the case of Thanh
and Tai, regular past tense inflections were not phonologically very salient
in the target language input which the boys were receiving. Additionally,
because of L1 phonological influence, realizations of syllable-final consonant
clusters in the boys’ own speech remained distant from the English target;
either or both of these phonological factors may have affected their expres-
sion of past time.
248  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
7.2.3.2 Thanh and Tai:The Encoding of Propositions
As far as propositions were concerned, Sato hypothesized that the learners’
reliance on parataxis would involve:

1. A predominance of non-propositional speech (i.e. a large proportion of

non-propositional utterances, expressed as words or phrases);
2. A low proportion of multi-propositional utterances (expressed through
clause combinations);
3. Extensive reliance on interlocutor collaboration in the production of
propositions;
4. Little use of connective morphology in expressing relationships between
propositions (p. 93).

Accordingly, syntacticization would appear through:

1. An increase in propositional speech;

2. An increase in multi-propositional utterances;
3. A decrease in reliance on interlocutor collaboration;
4. An increase in the use of connective morphology (p. 93).

The actual results did not fit the expected pattern, however. From the begin-
ning of the study, Thanh and Tai were found to be producing a high pro-
portion of (single-)propositional utterances, with little need of scaffolding
by their interlocutors; Sato attributed these findings to their relative cogni-
tive maturity. Multi-propositional utterances were rare, however, and simple
juxtaposition was the most important means of linking them; both learners
were only beginning to use a variety of logical connectors other than and.
Table 7.2 shows some examples of what Sato calls “paratactic precursors” for
various target language constructions, from the speech of Tai.
Where multi-propositional utterances (MPUs) were produced, many of
them involved a small set of memorized expressions as the starting point.
The expressions ai dono, hi dono, ai tin, hi sei, yu sei (“I don’t know”, “he

Table 7.2  Paratactic Precursors of Different Target Language Constructions

Precursors Examples

Infinitival hi wan me go fɔłbæk

complement He-want-me-go-fullback
“He wanted me to [play] fullback”
Wh-complement now ai pikidau? wʌt stɔri ai wa æn ši rid me
No-I-pick-it-out-what-story-I-want-and-she-read-me
“No I pick out which story I want and she reads it to me”
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 249

Precursors Examples

Relative clause tan hi sei ə—də pisl dei siktin dei kæn go tu mvi a:r
Thanh-he-say-the-people-they-sixteen-they-can-(?)-go-to-
movie-R
“Thanh says that people who are sixteen can go to R-rated
movies”
Adverbial clause wi wɔkin ai sɔ də di dɛd
We-walking-I-saw-the-deer-dead
“When we were walking, I saw the dead deer”
Source: Examples from Tai: Sato, 1990, p. 111

don’t know”, “I think”, “he say”, “you say”) were found in around 25% of
all such utterances. Sato argues here that particular lexical items or formu-
laic expressions may form important entry points to aspects of target lan-
guage syntax, another example of the general need for multilevel analysis.
(For a parallel, see cognitive theorists’ interest in prototypes, discussed in
Chapter 4.)
Sato’s study has been treated at some length, because it raises a number of
important theoretical issues for functionalist L2 research:

1. She sought to clarify the Givón distinction between pragmatic and syn-
tactic modes of expression;
2. In her work on past time reference and propositional encoding, she
offered a clear example of function-led analysis (in contrast with Hueb-
ner, who started with particular forms identified in the English interlan-
guage of his subject Ge, and tried to track the changing functions they
expressed);
3. She demonstrated important interrelationships between different lev-
els of language (phonology, lexis and grammar), and highlighted the
potential importance of particular formulaic expressions as entry points
into new syntactic patterns (on this see also Bardovi-Harlig, 2008, 2009;
Myles, 2004);
4. She highlighted the need to take account of L2 learners’ level of cogni-
tive maturity, and drew attention to the possible limitations of informal
conversational interaction as a driver for syntactic development.

7.3 Functionalism beyond the Case Study: The

“Learner Varieties” Approach
The functionalist research studies which we have reviewed so far were small-
scale case studies. In work of this kind, the individual characteristics of the
learner, the influence of their particular L1, and their personal social and
language practices make it difficult to generalize about L2 development.
250  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
Next we turn to a much larger project on informal L2 acquisition among
adult migrants, which launched the so-called learner varieties approach
within functionalist second language acquisition (SLA). Several book-length
accounts are available (Dietrich, Klein, & Noyau, 1995; Klein & Perdue,
1992; Perdue, 1993a, 1993b, 2000), as are shorter overviews (e.g. Klein &
Dimroth, 2009; Perdue, 2002).The original project was funded by the Euro-
pean Science Foundation (ESF), and involved research teams in five Euro-
pean countries.These teams worked with groups of adult migrants who were
acquiring one of five target languages (English, German, Dutch, French and
Swedish), but not currently attending language classes. The migrants spoke a
range of first languages, so that 10 language pairs in all were explored:

English   German   Dutch   French   Swedish
/       \       /              \     /          \      /           \     /               \
Punjabi  Italian     Turkish   Arabic      Spanish Finnish

In the end, a total of 40 learners contributed substantially to the research.

The research teams followed the participants for 2.5 years, with regular tape-
recorded or videorecorded encounters. The participants undertook a var-
ied range of tasks, including informal conversation, picture description, role
plays (of service encounters such as interviews with housing officials) and
story retelling based on extracts from the silent film Modern Times.

7.3.1 Aims and Findings of the ESF Project

The ESF project team aimed to describe naturalistic interlanguage devel-
opment among adult learners, and to identify internal and external factors
influencing the rate of development, and its overall success. Perdue and Klein
argued very explicitly for a functional approach to SLA (1993, pp. 266–269).
They argued that the basic structure of learners’ utterances derives from the
wish

to refer to persons or objects . . . Speakers do not learn—for example—

N-bar structure. They learn to refer with varying means under varying
conditions, and the result of this acquisitional process is what theoretical lin-
guists like to call N-bar structure.
(p. 269, emphasis in original)

They aimed to provide a complete, contextualized account of the origins of

the linguistic means for expressing notions such as spatial relations or tem-
porality (for example how past, present and future time come to be formally
encoded through the morphology of tense and aspect).
Drawing especially on the Modern Times narratives, Klein and Perdue
(1992) argued that three developmental levels in the basic organization of
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 251
learners’ utterances could be identified in functional terms, across all the
linguistic pairings which were studied in the ESF project. These were:

• nominal utterance organization (NUO/Pre-Basic Variety);

• infinite utterance organization (IUO/Basic Variety);
• finite utterance organization (FUO/Post-Basic Variety).

The three types of utterance organization are distinguished as follows:

In NUO, utterances are extremely simple and mainly consist of seem-

ingly unconnected nouns, adverbs and particles (sometimes also adjec-
tives and participles). What is largely missing in NUO is the structuring
power of verbs—such as argument structure, case role assignment, etc
(hence, “preverbal utterance organisation” might be a better term). This
is different in IUO: The presence of verbs allows the learner to make
use of the different types of valency which come with the (non-finite)
verb; it allows, for example, a ranking of the actants of the verb along
dimensions such as agentivity, and the assigning of positions according
to this ranking. At this level, no distinction is made between the finite
and non-finite component of the verb; such a distinction, which is of
fundamental importance in all languages involved in this study, is only
made at the level of FUO, which is not attained by all our learners.Tran-
sition from NUO to IUO and from there to FUO is slow and gradual,
and the coexistence of several types of utterance organisation as well as
backsliding is not uncommon.
(Klein & Perdue, 1992, p. 302)

The Basic Variety is illustrated in the following extract from a Modern Times
retelling by one of the Punjabi L1 learners of English. Charlie Chaplin is
escaping from a police van. Here we can see that verbs are associated with a
range of “actants”, though verb inflections are mostly absent:

(1) back door stand the policeman? right?

(2) she pushin policeman . . .
(3) charlie and girl and policeman put on the floor
(4) car gone . . .
(5) charlie get up first
(6) he say daughter/ sorry +
he pickup girl + charlie +
(7) say “go on
(8) this time nobody see you”
(9) policeman get up
(10)  charlie hittin the head
(Klein & Perdue, 1992, p. 76)
252  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
7.3.2 Constraints on the Basic Variety
An important descriptive claim of the ESF project is that all the learners
in the study, irrespective of language background, adopted the Basic Vari-
ety, though a majority eventually moved beyond this. Apart from the lack
of meaningful inflectional morphology, the structure of the Basic Variety is
determined by the interaction of three different types of word order con-
straints: phrasal, semantic and pragmatic. The phrasal constraints allow three
basic utterance patterns:

a. Noun Phrase 1—Verb—(Noun Phrase 2)

b. Noun Phrase 1—Copula—{Noun Phrase 2}
{Adjective}
{Prepositional Phrase}
c. Verb—Noun Phrase 2.

In these phrases, NP2 must be lexical, while NP1 may be represented by a

personal pronoun or an empty element. All patterns could be preceded or fol-
lowed by adverbials of time or space; verbs are not inflected (i.e. are non-finite).
The main semantic constraint claimed for the Basic Variety has to do with
the notion of control. For verbs associated with more than one “actant” (or
argument),

a semantic asymmetry is observed in that one actant has a higher, and

the other(s) a lower degree of control over the situation . . . This asym-
metry is a continuum ranging from clear “agent-patient” relations down
to cases of real or intended possession.
(p. 340)

The proposed semantic constraint on utterance structure is that the actant

with highest control over the situation (the “Controller”) should be men-
tioned first. In the foregoing Charlie Chaplin example, we see examples in
utterances such as she [Controller] pushin the policeman, Charlie [Controller]
hittin the head.
Finally, the proposed pragmatic constraints have to do with the distinction
between given and new information (Klein & Dimroth, 2009, p. 512), and
between topic and comment (called topic and focus by these researchers).
The main pragmatic constraint states that the focus containing new infor-
mation should be mentioned last, as in back door stand the policeman [Focus].

7.3.3 Development beyond the Basic Variety

All learners in the ESF study appeared to achieve the Basic Variety, and
some then reached a steady state, i.e. did not grammaticize their productions
any further. Others, however, did progress towards the Post-Basic Variety;
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 253
the most important indicator of this development was the acquisition of
“finiteness”, reflecting the gradual appearance of meaningful verb inflec-
tions (tense marking preceding aspect marking, irregular forms preceding
regular ones: Klein, Dietrich, & Noyau, 1995). Parallel developments were
identified in the pronoun system, in the acquisition of focalization devices
such as cleft structures (is not the man steal the bread, is the girl: Klein & Perdue,
1992, p. 321), and of means for subordination (they think about one house for
live together, p. 322), and the development of means to express more complex
topics (Dimroth, 2002). Some learners made considerable progress towards
target language syntactic norms. However, L1 background was now seen as
influencing at least the rate of progress beyond the Basic Variety, and possibly
as affecting the degree of ultimate success.
But what drives development? If the Basic Variety is effective for everyday
communication, why move beyond it? At varying times, the ESF research-
ers propose somewhat different answers to this question. Perdue and Klein
(1993) give priority to “communicative needs in discourse; . . . acquisition
is pushed by the communicative tasks of the discourse activities that the
learner takes part in” (p. 262). This is argued not only with reference to
the acquisition of the Basic Variety, but also with reference to some post-
basic features. However, when discussing the acquisition of temporality, the
ESF team also argue for the learner’s subjective need to adapt to the social
environment:

Our observations about development beyond the basic variety . . . clearly

indicate that . . . the subjective need to sound and be like the social
environment, outweighs the other factor, the concrete communicative
needs: Learners try to imitate the input, irrespective of what the forms
they use really mean, and it is only a slow and gradual adaptation process
which eventually leads them to express by these words and construc-
tions what they mean to express in the TL.
(Klein et al., 1995, p. 273)

7.3.4 A Beginners’ Learner Variety

The “learner varieties” approach has continued to inspire a substantial amount
of comparative language acquisition research in Europe (for a representa-
tive set of studies, see, for example, Watorek, Benazzo, & Hickmann, 2012).
The VILLA project is a recent example (Dimroth, Rast, Starren, & Watorek,
2013). In this project, researchers examined the early learning of L2 Polish
by groups of adults with Dutch, English, French, German and Italian as their
first languages (and, in addition, a children’s group, who will not be discussed
here). The participants were taught Polish from scratch for 14 hours, in a
classroom setting, using monolingual communicative methods. (There were
also comparison groups of adults for Dutch, English, French and Italian, who
were taught with a more explicit form-focused approach; additionally, all of
254  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
the participants had previous classroom experience of instruction in other
languages.) The complete corpus of lessons was recorded and transcribed,
so that the researchers could analyse all of the Polish input received by the
learners. At the end of the teaching intervention, the participants undertook
a number of language tests, including a story retelling task with a video
stimulus (Mr Green, Mr Red and Mr Blue escaping from a fire: The Finite
Story, Dimroth, 2006).
Dimroth (2018) has recently analysed the story retelling data of VILLA
from a learner varieties perspective. Table 7.3 illustrates the scheme used for
functional coding of the story retells, with some sample utterances. In her
analysis, Dimroth argues that even over the short time of 14 hours, a shared
learner variety emerged in the speech of the adult groups, which was very
little influenced by their different L1s. In some respects this learner variety
reflected the Polish input, while in others it diverged from it. For exam-
ple, word order was invariant, so that all transitive or intransitive utterances
built around verbs took the form Agent—Verb—(Patient); this reflected the
S—V—O constructions which predominated in the Polish input, but showed
no influence of alternatives common, e.g., in German, nor indeed of the
word order variations driven by information structure found in the Basic
Variety described earlier.When participants expressed negation using the Pol-
ish negator nie, this was always placed preverbally (as is the case in Polish, but

Table 7.3  Coding Scheme and Example Utterances from The Finite Story

Connector Topic(s) Assertion Lexical verb Complement(s)

dom jest duży pożar

house is big fire
ale pan czerwony robi śpi
but Mr Red does sleeps
potem strażak nie słucha telefon
then fireman not hears phone
pan zielony anica
Mr Green panic
i on skakać
and he jump
pan i strażak tańczyk
man and fireman dance
pożar jest koniec
fire is end
time: copula entity (patient/predicate N):
 adverbial support verb   lexical NP
place: negation  pronoun
 adverbial/PP particle location/path/goal:
entity (agent):  adverbial/PP
  lexical NP property:
 pronoun  adjective
Source: (Dimroth, 2018, p. 15)
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 255
in contradiction to the placing of negation in two of the source languages,
English and German, where not or nicht normally follows the inflected main
verb or auxiliary). Polish has a rich array of morphology to indicate number,
gender and person, which was mostly not reproduced systematically in the
learner variety (as in the Basic Variety). However, unlike in the Basic Variety,
some adults did produce plural verb forms in appropriate contexts, suggesting
the partial emergence of finiteness; and in some cases, Polish morphology was
reinterpreted and endowed with new learner variety functions.
For example, the Polish word strażak (“fireman”) has morphologically
marked instrumental and accusative/genitive cases strażakiem/strażaka, and all
three forms were encountered frequently in the input, in expressions such as:

on jest strażakiem “he is a fireman”

jest strażak “this is a fireman”

However, there was a clear tendency in the adult stories for these forms to
be reinterpreted in terms of their function, and used to mark number rather
than case, so that the short form strażak was treated as a singular form, and
the longer forms were used in plural settings.
Overall, the findings of this recent study of very early classroom learn-
ers make an interesting comparison with the learner varieties documented
among untaught adult migrants. The VILLA learners are producing utter-
ance patterns similar to those of the Basic Variety (Table 7.3), and with little
or no apparent L1 influence. However, unlike Basic Variety users, they are
also producing some elements of systematic morphology (for example plu-
ral forms), perhaps attributable to their status as relatively sophisticated and
experienced classroom learners. Supporting this idea, in another study, their
production of such forms was shown to be dependent to some extent on the
type of task they were undertaking (more form-focused vs more meaning-
focused: Watorek, Durand, & Starosciak, 2016).
The learner varieties approach which we have reviewed in this section
sets out to capture broad characteristics of interlanguage and its course of
development. In the following sections we follow functional investigations
into more specific domains of L2 learning.

7.4 “Time Talk”: Developing the Means to Talk

about Time
We have already noted the interest of functionalist researchers in how learn-
ers talk about time (Bardovi-Harlig, 2017a; Dietrich et al., 1995; Shirai,
2009). This section looks more closely at the development of “time talk”
from a functionalist perspective.
Drawing on the ESF project and other studies, Bardovi-Harlig (2000)
concluded that learners will usually pass through three successive stages
when talking about time:
256  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL

Pragmatic stage To express time, learners rely on

• scaffolding by interlocutors;
• inference from the context;
• contrasting events;
• chronological order.
Lexical stage To express time, learners rely on
• Temporal and locative adverbials (e.g. now, then,
here, there);
• Connectives (e.g. and, and then);
• Calendric references (e.g. May, Saturday);
• Verb lexis (e.g. start, finish).
Morphological stage Learners start to use verb morphology (tense and
aspect) as indicators of temporality.

Examples of the use of pragmatic and/or lexical means to express tempo-

rality are plentiful in the ESF data quoted earlier in this chapter, as well as in
the conversations of Sato with Thanh and Tai (Section 7.2.3). The following
example, a diary entry written by Hamad, an Arabic L1 learner of English as
L2, is particularly rich in adverbials which locate the events reported in time
(highlighted with italics):

Deat [Date]: Jan 27

It was Saturday is the wecknd I welk up at 10:00 o’clock morning I tulk

my shoer and after that I go to my frind when I pe there they sead they
well go to the mool [shopping mall] and I go with they we go around
in the mool around 2 hours than we go to the movei in the Selima
[cinema] in the mool to waching a good movei after the movei we go
Back to our Dorms we seat to gather in our Friend room we talking
to gather and after that every Budy go to he’s room me too I go back to
my room that all.
(Bardovi-Harlig, 2000, p. 58)

Learners are considered to have entered the morphological stage once exam-
ples of tense-aspect morphology are noted in their interlanguage utterances,
though they may not be used accurately and consistently. Bardovi-Harlig
proposes four key generalizations arising from functionalist verb morphol-
ogy studies:

1. The acquisition of morphology is slow and gradual, and uninflected

verb forms “linger” in interlanguage;
2. Form often precedes function; i.e. verb inflections may appear which at
first do not seem to contrast in meaning or in function with other verb
forms used at the same time;
3. Irregular morphology precedes regular morphology (went, came appear
ahead of jumped, ended);
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 257
4. Learners notice and use verbal suffixes to denote “past” meanings, ahead
of other means such as auxiliary verbs.
(After Bardovi-Harlig, 2000, pp. 111–113)

Bardovi-Harlig also claims that tense and aspect morphology “emerges” in

interlanguage in regular sequences, which remain the same for particular tar-
get L2s, regardless of learners’ L1 background. Thus, for example, the order
of emergence

Past → past progressive → present perfect → pluperfect

was observed for L2 English by Bardovi-Harlig in a study including learners

with Spanish, Korean and Japanese as L1s (2000, pp. 169–175), and was also
reported by Klein for Italian L1 learners of English (1995). Finally, Bardovi-
Harlig concludes that both observational and experimental studies show
beneficial effects for instruction on the learning of L2 tense and aspect mor-
phology, leading to faster progress and eventual arrival at a more advanced
stage than uninstructed learners. (The emergence of verb morphology is
discussed further in Section 7.5.)
Many dimensions of temporality have by now been investigated, with increas-
ing awareness of the context-sensitivity of development, and the complexity of
form-function relations (Bardovi-Harlig, 2017a; Salaberry, 2017). For example,
a recent study by Kanwit (2017) provides detailed insights into the develop-
ment of future time expression among instructed adult learners of Spanish.This
was a cross-sectional study, with 140 participants. Of these, 20 were L1 Spanish
speakers; the rest were drawn from five different levels of Spanish instruction,
from beginners to graduates in Spanish. All of the participants completed the
same set of oral tasks, designed to elicit personal responses dealing with future
time; a typical stimulus was Describe tus planes para este fin de semana, “Describe
your plans for this weekend”.The data were analysed to identify all expressions
clearly referring to future time, and these expressions were then coded in terms
of word class, tense morphology and linguistic context among other features.
Spanish offers varied options for the expression of future time. A range
of verb tenses is available, including present indicative, a periphrastic (or
analytic) future and a morphological (or synthetic) future, as well as lexical
expressions such as adverbials or modal verbs. These functional options are
exemplified below with extracts from Kanwit’s L1 speakers’ responses:

Morphological Viviré en una casa no muy grande, pero suficientemente grande

future (MF) para los niños.
“I will live (MF) in a house [that is] not very big, but
sufficiently big for the kids”. (34-year-old female, Spain)
Periphrastic Para el verano todavía no sé muy bien qué voy a hacer.
future (PF) “For the summer I still don’t know very well what I’m
going to do (PF)”.
(31-year-old male, Puerto Rico)
258  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL

Present Pues, esta noche vienen los vecinos.

indicative (PI) “Well, tonight the neighbors come (PI) over”. (36-year-
old female, Spain)
Lexical future La realidad es que este fin de semana quiero relajarme.
“The reality is that this weekend I want to relax (lexical
future)”.
(27-year-old female, Puerto Rico)
(Kanwit, 2017, p. 467)

The four possibilities just illustrated were the most common in the data
corpus, and Kanwit’s analysis concentrates mainly on these. Table 7.4 shows
the distribution of the most common forms for future expression, across the
different participant groups (in percentages), and Table 7.5 shows the num-
ber of users of each form, within all groups.
Table 7.4 shows that the L1 participants used a wide range of forms to
express future time, including subjunctive and conditional verb forms. The
Level 1 learners had many fewer options, and made extensive use of the PI,
presumably relying on pragmatic means to have the future time function of

Table 7.4  Distribution of Commonest Forms for Future Expression in L1/L2 Spanish
(percentages)

Group Present Periphrastic Morphological Lexical Present Conditional

indicative future (PF) future (MF) future (LF) subjunctive
(PI) (PS)

Level 1 53.1 8.8 2.7 9.5 2.0 1.0

Level 2 35.8 6.7 22.1 8.0 2.7 4.3
Level 3 32.2 21.1 14.9 18.7 0.6 0.3
Level 4 27.2 32.3 8.3 22.2 2.6 2.9
Level 5 19.4 34.4 13.1 15.0 8.9 6.5
Native 13.4 29.2 22.6 14.1 10.8 6.1
speakers
Source: Kanwit, 2017, p. 477

Table 7.5  Number of Participants Producing Each Future Form

Group Periphrastic Morphological Used both PF Lexical Present

future (PF) future (MF) and MF future (LF) indicative (PI)

Level 1 8/25 1/25 0 15/25 25/25

Level 2 7/25 17/25 4 12/25 18/25
Level 3 15/25 11/25 4 18/25 22/25
Level 4 24/25 9/25 8 24/25 25/25
Level 5 20/20 19/25 19 20/20 20/20
Native speakers 19/20 17/20 16 28/20 20/20
Source: Kanwit, 2017, p. 478
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 259
these expressions understood. However, the Level 2 learners had received
instruction on the MF, and made heavy use of this (alongside present tense
forms). From Level 3 onwards, MF use declined and the PF grew steadily,
replacing the PI as the most used form at Levels 4 and 5. The Level 5 learn-
ers started also to make use of subjunctive and conditional forms, and by this
stage their repertoire seemed close to that of the L1 users.Table 7.5 confirms
this picture, showing the evolution of PF and MF forms over Levels 1–4,
so that by Level 5, participants have both forms well-established in their
repertoire.
In further statistical analyses using multinomial logistic regression, Kan-
wit explored a range of linguistic and social factors predicting participants’
choices (including lexical types, association with adverbials, relative distance
of the future event, contact with peninsular or Latin American Spanish).
Overall, the study allows Kanwit to draw a number of conclusions about
the detail of L2 development within the morphological stage proposed by
functionalist theorists. He points out that across Levels 1–3, learner groups
have one most favoured form for expressing futurity (PI or MF or PF),
supporting the functionalist claim that learners start by mapping forms
and functions one-to-one (Andersen, 1984). From Level 4 onwards, mul-
tifunctionality appears, with learners choosing more freely from among
a range of formal possibilities. The regression analysis shows that those
choices become steadily more refined, in terms of the context of use, with,
for example, the use of PF being increasingly preferred with motion verbs,
and in more immediate contexts (same-day, within-week), while the use of
MF becomes connected to stative verbs and more distant contexts. That is,
“what concept oriented researchers posit to be a ‘morphological stage’ . . .
is more precisely a complex series of stages that culminate in highly con-
strained multifunctionality” (Kanwit, 2017, p. 490). These findings illustrate
once again the basic functionalist idea that linguistic development is con-
nected with the desire to communicate with increasing precision, but apply
this beyond a beginning pragmatic stage, to include later morphological
development.

7.5 The Aspect Hypothesis

One well-known developmental suggestion which links the learning of L2
meaning and form has been the so-called Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen &
Shirai, 1994). Aspect has to do with the speaker perspective on an action or
event being talked about; the event may be viewed as ongoing/unbounded
(imperfective aspect) or as bounded (perfective aspect).While verb morphol-
ogy commonly expresses what is called grammatical aspect (e.g. the English
-ing form, which marks imperfective/progressive aspect, or the Spanish pret-
erit, which marks perfective aspect), verbs also possess what is called inherent
lexical aspect, as part of their core meaning. In a well-known classification,
Vendler (1967) has proposed that verbs can be grouped into four types,
260  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
according to their inherent lexical aspect (examples after Salaberry & Shirai,
2002, p. 2):

• Statives e.g. to be, to have, to love

• Activities e.g. to run, to walk, to laugh
• Accomplishments e.g. to run a mile, to build a house
• Achievements e.g. to notice someone, to break a stick,
to reach the summit

These verb types can also be regrouped along three basic semantic dimen-
sions: dynamicity, durativity and telicity (Salaberry & Shirai, 2002). Dyna-
micity includes all verb types except for statives; durativity includes all types
except for achievements (which are punctual, i.e. happen in a moment); and
both achievements and accomplishments are telic (the actions referred to
have an end point), while statives and activities are atelic (there is no end
point).
The Aspect Hypothesis claims that “first and second language learners will
initially be influenced by the inherent semantic aspect of verbs or predicates
in the acquisition of tense and aspect markers associated with or affixed to
these verbs” (Andersen & Shirai, 1994, p. 133). Thus, for example, Andersen
(1991) suggested that L2 learners of Spanish will start to use the imperfect
tense with verbs from the stative group, and will first of all use the preterit
tense with achievement verbs. Specifically, the hypothesis predicts that use
of imperfect and of preterit in L2 Spanish will spread in opposite directions
across the four lexical aspect classes, as shown in Figure 7.1.

PRETERIT

1 2 3 4

[+telic] [+punctual]

achievements accomplishments activities states

[–telic] [–punctual]

4 3 2 1

IMPERFECT

Figure 7.1 Expected Direction of Spread of Preterit and Imperfect Forms in L2 Spanish

across Lexical Classes
Source: Domínguez, Tracy-Ventura, Arche, Mitchell, & Myles, 2013, p. 560
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 261
The Aspect Hypothesis has been widely researched with somewhat mixed
results (see reviews by Bardovi-Harlig, 2000; Comajoan Colomé, 2014; Sal-
aberry, 2008, 2017; Salaberry & Shirai, 2002; and methodological discussion
in Salaberry & Comajoan, 2011). Klein et al. (1995) say that the data from the
naturalistic learners of the ESF project do not support it. However, numerous
studies of classroom L2 learners have produced results in line with parts of the
hypothesis. Thus, for example, Bayley (1994) found that L1 Chinese learners
of L2 English were more likely to mark verbs for past tense if they were telic,
i.e. if their meaning included an end point (e.g. sing a song), than if they were
atelic (e.g. sing). Salaberry (1999) found that post-beginner L1 English learn-
ers of L2 Spanish doing a narrative task were more likely to mark stative verbs
as imperfect and accomplishment/achievement verbs as preterit, in line with
Andersen’s suggestions. Only the most advanced learners in Salaberry’s 1999
study began to use verb tense more flexibly, for example to mark the speaker’s
viewpoint on the events making up the narrative. Salaberry has also shown
clearly, however, that early learners of L2 Spanish (presumably the learners
for whom the “spreading” pattern should be most obvious) seem to use the
preterit initially as a default past tense marker (2002, 2003, 2011), for all types
of verb, against the predictions of the Aspect Hypothesis.
Many studies exploring the Aspect Hypothesis have relied on learners’
(semi)naturalistic productions, and in particular on oral narratives, for their
evidence. A study by Domínguez et al. (2013) collected a wide array of data
from groups of English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish, and also from L1
speakers of Spanish (including open-ended narratives, controlled narratives
and a comprehension/judgement task). These researchers showed that in
open-ended, naturalistic narratives, the tense and aspect choices of both L1
users and advanced learners show a statistical pattern in line with the Aspect
Hypothesis. For example, they strongly prefer preterit with achievement
verbs, and they strongly prefer imperfect with states. However, the research-
ers argued that in making these choices, these advanced users are reflecting
high-frequency and/or prototypical associations (e.g. of the copula verb “to
be” with habitual meaning) in their language usage, and that such speak-
ers are quite able to produce less usual combinations when the need arises.
(This phenomenon has been discussed by others as the “distributional bias
hypothesis”: Andersen & Shirai, 1994.)
In a controlled storytelling task which forced the production of non-­
prototypical pairings, the advanced learners studied by Domínguez et al.
(2013) could respond successfully.This is illustrated in the following example
which shows one learner’s ability to produce the non-prototypical combina-
tion imperfect-accomplishment:

Gwen de niña [leía un libroACCOMP–IMP], [pintaba un cuadroACCOMP–IMP] y

[escribía un cuentoACCOMP–IMP] cada fin de semana. Durante la semana [se
despertaba tempranoACHIEV–IMP] y [terminaba sus deberesACHIEV–IMP] temprano
también.
262  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
Gwen when she was a child would read a book, paint a picture, write
a story each weekend. During the week she used to wake up early and
used to finish her homework early too.
(Domínguez et al., 2013, p. 568)

In this same study, the early learners of L2 Spanish behaved very differently,
but their behaviour did not follow the predictions of the Aspect Hypoth-
esis. During the open-ended oral tasks, their preferred past tense form was
preterit, which they used across all four lexical classes equally. (This evidence
is consistent with Salaberry’s default past tense hypothesis, mentioned ear-
lier: 2002.) They used imperfect very little (though when they did use it,
there was a strong association with state verbs, or rather with the “be” verbs
ser/estar, which provided 85% of the examples of imperfect for this group).
On the controlled story task, these beginners also showed a strong imper-
fect/state association, but there was no evidence for the “spreading” of pret-
erit or imperfect across lexical classes, as suggested by the Aspect Hypothesis
(and modelled in Figure 7.1 above). Complementary evidence from a judge-
ment task also showed strong preterit/event and imperfect/state associations.
It seems from this study overall that dynamicity (and not, e.g., telicity) is the
semantic feature to which these early learners were most sensitive.
A later reanalysis of the same dataset (Domínguez, Arche, & Myles, 2017)
emphasizes the role of L1 influence in the development of tense and aspect
morphology. As we have seen above, the aspectual distinction between per-
fective and imperfective is grammaticalized in Spanish but not in English;
perfective meanings are always expressed by the Spanish preterit, and imper-
fective meanings by the imperfect. However, Domínguez et al. (2017) also
point out that the Spanish imperfect is used to express three different types
of imperfective aspectual meaning:

a. Marta jugaba al tenis cuando era pequeña (habitual)

Marta play3.sing.imp to-the tennis when was3.sing.imp little
“Marta played/used to play/would play tennis when she was little”
b. Marta era muy guapa cuando era pequeña (continuous)
Marta was3.sing.imp very beautiful when she was3.sing.imp little
“Marta was very beautiful when she was little”
c. Marta jugaba al tenis cuando su padre lavaba el coche (progressive)
Marta play3.sing.imp to-the tennis when her father wash3.sing.imp
the car
“Marta was playing tennis when her father was washing the car”.
(Domínguez et al., 2017, p. 432)

In English, on the other hand, these three aspectual meanings are mapped
across different verb forms. As can be seen above, the simple past played may
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 263
express habitual or continuous meaning (as well as perfective meaning, not
exemplified), and only the progressive aspectual meaning has a distinct form
was playing.
The analysis by Domínguez et al. (2017) shows that English-speaking
learners of L2 Spanish are influenced by these L1 mappings.They accept and
use the imperfect from early on, but they have difficulty rejecting the Span-
ish preterit in imperfective contexts; the problem persists even at advanced
levels, for continuous meaning. The researchers attribute this to the influ-
ence of the mapping of continuous meaning to the English simple past, that
is, to L1 influence.These researchers make the argument within a generative
theoretical framework (Chapter 3). Salaberry (2017) makes a similar argu-
ment from a more functionalist perspective, and makes an explicit connec-
tion to the “thinking for speaking” hypothesis discussed in the next section.

7.6 Cognitive Linguistics and “Thinking for Speaking”

The relationship between concepts and linguistic forms is central to theo-
ries of language, for theorists of “cognitive linguistics” (Evans & Green,
2006; Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2017; Langacker, 2008; Talmy, 2000). From this
perspective, meaning is reflected in the symbolic systems of both grammar
and vocabulary, though necessarily in complex ways; thus, lexical items
typically have more than one meaning, and grammatical meanings may
be highly abstract. There is no separate, formal semantics, so that linguis-
tic meaning corresponds with conceptual meaning (our understanding of
the world); however, we perceive and portray the world from different
perspectives, so that the meaning of any expression is partly a matter of
subjective point of view, and may be imagined rather than real. Langacker
(2008) gives the example sentence This road winds through the mountains
(p. 69); of course the road itself does not move, but we endow it with
imagined motion.
Metaphor is consequently an important strand of research and theoriz-
ing in cognitive semantics (Kövecses, 2010; Lakoff, 1987), and conceptual
metaphors are seen as connecting idioms and broader areas of vocabulary
and grammar. For example, the conceptual metaphor ANGER IS A HOT
LIQUID IN A CONTAINER is reflected in expressions such as boiling with
rage, simmer down; many English phrasal verbs reflect underlying conceptual
metaphors, such as VISIBLE IS UP (turn up, look up: examples from Boers &
Lindstromberg, 2008). There is a general tendency for language from the
realm of physical perceptions to be used to describe mental operations. This
tendency is illustrated in metaphors such as:

My thoughts raced ahead

The theory has run into an obstacle
I see your point.
(examples after Tyler, 2012, pp. 100–101)
264  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
ROOT METAPHORIC EPISTEMIC
Physical/social reasoning EXTENSION Predictive/logical–causal
WILL

Force emanates from doer.

If I let go of this apple, it will Just as I am sure about the The Court will find in
fall. state of the world and my favour of our client = “I am
I will finish the paper today commitments, the data and certain of the court's ruling;
You will be happy you took premises support the no other ruling is possible.”
this course. certainty of my conclusion.
Absolute surety of Very strong certainty
commitment  future
implied.

MAY

External authority allows Nothing bars me from That may be Liz. = “I

action, takes away possible concluding X (but nothing believe it is possible Liz is
barrier to action. forces me to conclude this at the door, but it is almost
You may finish your paper either) as likely it is someone else.”
today.
You may leave whenever
you’ve finished this
assignment.

Figure 7.2 Diagrammatic Representation of Modal Verbs Will and May

Source: After Tyler, 2012, pp. 110–112

Ideas from cognitive linguistics have been attracting increasing interest from
different branches of L2 learning and teaching research (Cadierno, 2017;
Cadierno & Hijazo-Gascón, 2014; Niemeier, 2013; Robinson & Ellis, 2008;
Tyler, 2012; Verspoor, 2017). For example, Tyler (2008, 2012) builds on a
cognitive-linguistic analysis of English modal verbs, originally developed by
Sweetser (1990), which argues that their root meanings have to do with
“physical forces, barriers and paths”. So, for example, the verb must involves
the action of an irresistible external force on the speaker or doer; the verb
may involves the removal of a barrier to action, by some figure of authority.
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 265
The polysemy (multiple meanings) of modals can be related to these key
underlying ideas, as in the following examples:

John may go = John is not barred by authority from going

John may be at the party = I am not barred by my premises from the
conclusion that he is there.
(examples from Sweetser, 1990, in Tyler, 2012, p. 102)

Tyler has developed concept-based teaching materials for the English modals
which incorporate this analysis; an example of her diagrammatic representa-
tion of the modal verbs will and may is shown as Figure 7.2. She also describes
some small-scale classroom experiments in which the approach was tested
successfully with advanced level ESL learners, to teach modal verbs, preposi-
tions and a range of clause level constructions (2012, pp. 59–213).
A considerable amount of work has also been done from this perspective
on the learning and teaching of different domains of L2 vocabulary (for
reviews, see Boers, 2013; Boers & Lindstromberg, 2008). This work seeks
to offer greater underlying conceptual coherence to the teaching of Eng-
lish formulaic expressions, prepositions, phrasal verbs and polysemous nouns,
primarily through the development of learners’ metaphorical awareness.
One further topic in cognitive semantics has recently attracted the special
attention of L2 researchers. Cross-linguistic comparisons have shown that
the semantic systems of particular languages partition the world differently,
in many domains (such as colour, or spatial relations: Malt & Majid, 2013).
L2 researchers have recently been exploring how source and target languages
categorize everyday events, such as motion events, cutting/chopping events
or placement events, and the challenges any cross-linguistic differences in
categorization may pose for L2 learning (Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2017). Here
we will briefly examine some studies of L2 expression of motion events and
of placement events.
The cognitive linguist Leonard Talmy (1985, 2000, 2017) proposed a basic
conceptual framework for verbs of motion, including the following elements:

• Figure: an object moving or located with respect to another object

(ground);
• Ground: a reference object in relation to which the figure moves;
• Path: trajectory or site occupied by the figure;
• Motion: the presence of motion/locatedness within the event;
• Manner: the manner in which the motion takes place;
• Cause: the cause of its occurrence.
(definitions after Talmy, 2000, p. 26)

Talmy noted that languages tend to encode different aspects of a movement

event within lexical motion verbs. He proposed (2000) the existence of
a number of broad language groups, including Satellite-Framed languages,
266  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
which tend to encode Motion and Manner within the verb, and encode
Path by means of an external phrase or “satellite” such as a prepositional
phrase; and Verb-Framed languages, which tend to encode Motion and Path
within the verb. English, Danish and Dutch are examples of Satellite-Framed
languages, while Romance languages such as French or Spanish are Verb-
Framed. The following sentences illustrate these differences:

English: Oscar limps out of the kitchen

French: Oscar quitte la cuisine en boitant
    “Oscar leaves the kitchen limping”
(examples after Gullberg, 2011a)

That is, the English verb limp includes the concept of motion, and also the
Manner of motion, but does not include the direction of motion or Path; this
is expressed through the prepositional phrase out of the kitchen. The French
verb quitte includes the concept of motion, plus the concept of departure (i.e.
the Path), but the Manner of motion is expressed in a second (non-finite)
Verb Phrase en boitant.
A large cross-linguistic research programme initiated by the child lan-
guage researcher Daniel Slobin investigated the use of motion verbs in
oral narratives by speakers of a range of Satellite-Framed and Verb-Framed
languages (using the famous Frog Story: Berman & Slobin, 1994). Relat-
ing to this research, Slobin elaborated the so-called thinking for speaking
hypothesis (1996), which claims that speakers are more disposed to notice,
and encode linguistically, those features of an event which are most easily
encoded in the language(s) they know. Analysis of Frog Story retellings in
Satellite-Framed languages and Verb-Framed languages showed that even by
the age of three, children differed considerably in the way they talked about
motion; for example, Manner of motion was described more elaborately by
speakers of Satellite-Framed languages (Slobin, 2000, 2004, 2017).
Moreover, it has been shown that the accompanying gestures made by
native speakers of Satellite-Framed and Verb-Framed languages when
describing motion events are not the same, mirroring differences in the
encoding of Manner and Path (Gullberg, de Bot, & Volterra, 2010). For
example, Kita and Özyürek (2003) had L1 speakers of English, Japanese and
Turkish describe the same Sylvester and Tweety Bird cartoon story (Freleng,
1950).When describing the cat Sylvester rolling down a drainpipe, a motion
event in which Manner was particularly salient, the L1 English speakers
used a verb + satellite construction, accompanied by a combined gesture,
which indicated both Manner of motion and Path. However, the Turkish
and L1 Japanese speakers typically encoded the scene in two clauses, using
both a Manner verb and a separate Path verb. If gestures appeared, they used
separate gestures for Manner and/or for Path.
Researchers have followed up these ideas through empirical studies of L2
learners describing motion events in various languages, and in some cases
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 267
have also paid attention to the accompanying gestures (overviews are pro-
vided by Bylund & Athanasopoulos, 2015; Cadierno, 2017; Gullberg, 2011a).
The theoretical interest of these studies has to do with how far the underly-
ing conceptual representations of L2 are adopted and reflected both in L2
speech and in accompanying gesture. For example, Choi and Lantolf (2008)
carried out a study with L1 Korean speakers who were learning English as
L2, and with L1 English speakers who were learning Korean as L2. Korean
is a Verb-Framed language, coding both Path and motion in the verb (but
not Manner); as we have seen earlier, English is Satellite-Framed. The par-
ticipants in the study all told the same Tweety Bird cartoon story in both
languages, and their speech and gestures were analysed in detail.
The results of this study are complex, but overall they suggest that learners
do not fully adopt the “thinking for speaking” patterns of the new language.
As far as the marking of Path was concerned, the L2 speakers showed some
flexibility, with, e.g., the Korean learners of L2 English using satellite expres-
sions, and the English learners of L2 Korean using Path verbs. For Manner,
however, all of the speakers seemed to continue their L1 behaviour when
narrating in their L2.
It is interesting to compare the results of the Choi and Lantolf study
(2008) with a longitudinal case study reported by Stam (2015, 2017). This
researcher videorecorded a L1 Spanish adult user of L2 English, residing in
an English-speaking environment, on three occasions over a 14-year period,
i.e. in 1997, 2006 and 2011.The case study participant (Rosa) reported using
both Spanish (Verb-Framed) and English (Satellite-Framed) regularly in her
daily life. On each occasion, Rosa viewed and retold the Sylvester and Tweety
Bird story, in both languages, and the drainpipe episode was transcribed,
coded and analysed in detail (both language and gesture).The first two Span-
ish versions showed the characteristics of Verb-Framed narrations, with Path
expressed through verbs such as bajar “descend” and subir “ascend”; Man-
ner was expressed through expressions such as ir(se) rodando “go rolling”. In
2011, Path was expressed similarly in Spanish. Rosa largely sustained Spanish
gestural behaviours in all her Spanish narratives, and overall Stam concluded
that she maintained a Spanish thinking for speaking pattern in her L1.
Rosa’s first English narration (recorded in 1997) also showed considerable
influence from Spanish thinking for speaking (for example Path was often
expressed with a verb rather than with a satellite expression, and Manner was
not marked in speech—e.g. the verb roll was not used). In 2006 and 2011,
the English narrative included use of satellite expressions for Path, but Man-
ner verbs such as roll were still absent. Her gesturing during the English nar-
ration followed Spanish thinking for speaking patterns in 1997. Over time,
however, this changed, so that by 2011 her gestures for both Path and Man-
ner were intermediate between Spanish and English patterns. Overall, Stam
concludes that thinking for speaking patterns are not static, but it seems that
bilingual users such as Rosa evolve intermediate thinking patterns which
may never converge on native speaker norms.
268  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
Another cross-linguistic contrast which has been of interest to thinking for
speaking researchers is how different languages describe so-called placement
events (putting something somewhere) (Kopecka & Narasimhan, 2012; Slobin,
Bowerman, Brown, Eisenbeiss, & Narasimhan, 2011). Some languages typi-
cally describe these events with reference to the characteristics of the object
being placed, and its orientation to the setting; so for example in Dutch, the
verb setten “set/stand” is used to describe placement of a vertical object (e.g. an
upright bottle), whereas leggen “lay” is used to describe placement of a hori-
zontal object (e.g. a plate). In French, in contrast, the more abstract and general
verb mettre “put” is likely to be used for both these scenarios. L2 researchers
have recently been exploring the acquisition of this contrast (Gullberg, 2011b).
For example, Cadierno, Ibarretxe-Antuñano, and Hijazo-Gascón (2016) ran
a study involving four groups of adult participants: L1 speakers of Spanish,
L1 speakers of Danish, Spanish-speaking intermediate learners of L2 Danish
and Danish-speaking intermediate learners of L2 Spanish. Danish and Spanish
were chosen because of the contrast between how the two languages realize
motion and placement semantics; Danish is a Satellite-Framed language with
specific positional verbs (e.g. stå “stand”), and Spanish is a Verb-Framed lan-
guage with more general positional expressions (e.g. meter “put in”).
All of the participants in this study viewed a series of short video clips of
placement events such as PUT CUP ON TABLE, POUR LIQUID INTO
CONTAINER. The analysis concentrated on the verb choices participants
made in describing the events. The two L1 groups made quite consistent
choices of verbs to describe particular sets of events; however, they grouped
the events somewhat differently, as shown in Table 7.6.
The table shows, for example, that where L1 Spanish speakers used a
single verb meter for full containment events (such as PUT STONE IN
POCKET), the Danish L1 speakers used three, laegge, stikke and putte. Over-
all, these results confirmed the conceptual differences obtaining between the
two languages which underlie speakers’ verb choices.

Table 7.6  Summary of the Main Verbs Used for Danish and Spanish Placement Events

Danish Support Containment

Horizontal Vertical Partial Full horizontal Full tight-fit Full general

lægge sætte/stille sætte lægge stikke putte
“lay” “set, stand” “set” “lay” “stick” “put (in)”
Spanish Support Containment

Partial Full
dejar poner meter
“leave [in a place]” “put” “put in”
Source: Cadierno et al., 2016, p. 205
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 269
The patterns of verb use by the two learner groups were rather differ-
ent, however. Whether they were speakers of Danish learning the apparently
simpler Spanish system, or the reverse, both groups used a more limited
range of verbs. In comparison to the L1 users, the learners of Spanish over-
extended the use of poner, and the learners of Danish extended the use
of lægge and sette. They were also significantly less consistent in their verb
choices to describe particular events than the L1 speakers; i.e. they were not
making the same semantic distinctions. The overall picture is complex (for
example, most learners also knew English and may have been influenced by
the semantics of that language, as well as by their L1). However, Cadierno
et al. (2016) again interpret their findings as indicating ongoing difficulties
for adult learners in adopting the thinking for speaking patterns of a new
language. Overall, varied research in this area seems to be confirming that
where conceptualizations differ between languages, even advanced L2 learn-
ers maintain intermediate/convergent thinking for speaking patterns rather
than fully adopting those of the L2 (Vanek & Hendriks, 2014).

7.7 Second Language Pragmatics

In this section we introduce one further area of current research which seeks
to connect meaning-making and L2 development: L2 pragmatics.
Pragmatics is a broad field within linguistics which examines context-
dependent aspects of meaning, and in particular the communicative intent
of speakers, the social relationships between them, and the speech acts they
wish to perform (Cruse, 2010). In L2 pragmatics, there is longstanding inter-
est in the speech acts which L2 users carry out, their understanding of the
politeness conventions governing interaction in different settings (socioprag-
matics) and the linguistic means they use to achieve conversational goals
(pragmalinguistics). Much research on L2 pragmatics has been concerned
with language use rather than with development (Rose, 2013). However, this
has begun to change, with more studies of development in the performance
of individual speech acts such as requests, apologies, compliments, greet-
ings or refusals. Other developmental L2 pragmatics research has concerned
itself with aspects of conversational management, such as topic choice or
backchannelling (Barron & Black, 2015; Shively, 2015), and the use of con-
ventional conversational formulas and forms of address. A major survey of
L2 pragmatics development was first provided by Kasper and Rose (2002);
more recent overviews include those by Bardovi-Harlig (2012, 2017b),
Shively (2014), Taguchi (2015) and Taguchi and Roever (2017).
The development of L2 pragmatics has been approached from a number
of different theoretical perspectives, including skill acquisition theory, lan-
guage socialization theory and sociocultural theory (see, for example, the
work of van Compernolle on French address forms, discussed in Chap-
ter 8). The topic is studied in diverse contexts including classroom learning,
informal learning in study abroad and the workplace, and online learning
270  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
(Taguchi, 2014; Taguchi & Sykes, 2013). Here, we focus largely on studies
which trace the course of L2 pragmatic development in descriptive terms,
and note briefly some explanations offered for the variability of eventual
pragmatic behaviours.
There is a clear relationship between the development of overall L2 pro-
ficiency, and the development of pragmalinguistic resources (Taguchi &
Roever, 2017, Chapter 6). Thus, for example, early learners are likely to
express requests through a limited set of memorized formulas, and need
some meaningful control of grammar and vocabulary before they can
choose between different ways of creating requests, and tailor these to the
immediate context (the nature of the request, the social relationship between
interlocutors and so on). “To be able to communicate intentions appropri-
ately, learners need refined knowledge of linguistic systems and the skill
to implement the knowledge in real-time interaction” (Taguchi & Roever,
2017, p. 131). However, the development of sociopragmatic behaviour in L2
has a more complex relationship with proficiency, and is less likely to follow
a linear route.
Sociopragmatic norms may vary across languages. For example, service
requests in American English are typically speaker-oriented (I’d like a coffee,
Can I get a sandwich?), while in peninsular Spanish, imperative or ellipted
forms are more usual (Dame un croissant, “Give me a croissant”; Tres barras de
pan, “Three loaves of bread”: Shively, 2011). Additionally, pragmatic behav-
iour is sensitive to context, and to the social relationships between partici-
pants. (So, for example, even in English, requests between intimate friends
are likely to be expressed with imperatives: Pass me my phone!) Learners
already possess sociopragmatic competence in their L1, and even when they
become aware of what is judged generally appropriate in the L2, they may
not be willing to change their own sociopragmatic behaviour to accom-
modate to new norms.
Many studies show that socialization into new L2 norms does take place
over time, as we shall see in some following examples. However, some studies
have shown learners resisting these norms in some settings, or negotiating
alternative norms. For example, Siegal (1996) reported that some Ameri-
can female students learning L2 Japanese were aware of gendered Japanese
politeness norms, but were reluctant to adopt them, since they viewed them
as reflecting a subordinate social position for women. Kim and Brown (2014)
studied the use of Korean honorific address terms in a longitudinal study
of computer-mediated communication between four L1 and L2 users of
Korean; they found that on both sides, what was viewed as “appropriate” use
of honorifics by the L2 users was quite fluid and open to negotiation. (The
related issues of learner identity and agency are discussed in Chapter 9.)
The most appropriate research methodologies for L2 pragmatics research
have been much discussed (Bardovi-Harlig, 2013; Kasper & Rose, 2002, Chap-
ter 3; Taguchi & Roever, 2017, Chapter 4). Longitudinal case studies of L2
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 271
pragmatics rely on naturalistic observation and recording of learners in different
social situations, and are recommended as the most ecologically valid approach,
but are very labour intensive. Consequently, much L2 pragmatics research
has relied on (semi)controlled elicitation tasks, focusing on the production of
individual speech acts such as requests or compliments. In early L2 pragmat-
ics research, the so-called Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was commonly
used. Here, L2 learners are given a written scenario, which is incomplete in
some way, and are asked to write down what they imagine they would say. An
example of a DCT intended to elicit the speech act of apology is shown below:

At the College Teacher’s Office

A student has borrowed a book from her teacher, which she promised
to return today When meeting her teacher, however, she realizes that she
forgot to bring it along.

Teacher: Miriam, I hope you brought the book I lent you.

Miriam: . . .
Teacher: OK, but please remember it next week.
(Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989, p. 14)

The validity of the DCT has been criticized, however, and other researchers
have preferred to use structured speaking activities such as role plays as data
collection tools. These mean that learners must manage the interaction in
real time, though social relations of power and distance are of course simu-
lated rather than real. For example, a study of requesting by adult learners
of English L2 (Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012) used role plays incorporating
varied social relationships, such as the following:

Situation 1 (Bread-Buying): The participant asks his housemate to go to

the supermarket and buy some bread, but the complication is that the
housemate is watching TV and would prefer not to go immediately.
Situation 2 (Lecture Notes): The participant is a student who asks his pro-
fessor to give him the lecture notes from the last lecture, which he did
not attend due to illness. Instead of acceding to the request right away,
the professor first asks him why he did not attend and whether he is
feeling better.

When investigating learners’ L2 oral productions of apologies, requests and

so on, there has also been debate about analysis methods (Kasper, 2009;
Kasper & Rose, 2002; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). Two important approaches
have been (a) the development and application of some kind of coding
scheme, to categorize the detail of the particular speech act(s) being per-
formed (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989); and (b) the use of conversation analysis
(CA), a more holistic approach which documents the evolving relationships
272  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
among the speech turns produced by both the learner and their interlocutor.
(For fuller discussion of CA in L2 research, see Chapter 9.)
To illustrate these different research approaches, we will briefly review
three studies of L2 pragmatic development, all of them concentrating on the
development of requests. Firstly, Félix-Brasdefer (2007) studied the develop-
ment of requests among instructed L1 English learners of L2 Spanish (in a
university setting). This was a cross-sectional study involving three groups
of learners (15 at each of three levels: beginner, intermediate and advanced).
The data were collected using a set of open role plays, designed to reflect
different social relationships (degree of intimacy/social distance, and power
relations). Sample role plays were:

• A student asks a professor for a letter of recommendation (Letter:

+ Power, + Distance);
• A student who frequently misses class asks to borrow the notes of a class-
mate with whom he/she rarely interacts (Notes: – Power, + Distance);
• A student asks his/her roommate to clean the bathroom over the week-
end (Bathroom: - Power, - Distance).

The students’ attempts at performing these requests were transcribed

and coded, using a modified version of the scheme proposed by Blum-
Kulka et al. (1989). For example, this scheme distinguishes between Direct
Requests, Conventionally Indirect Requests and Non-conventionally Indi-
rect Requests. Figure 7.3 shows the extent to which the different learner
groups made use of these request strategies, with sample data from the Letter
role play.
This study leads the writer to propose a four-stage developmental
sequence for learner requests (echoing to some extent the terminology of
the ESF researchers’ Basic Variety). First, in a Pre-Basic stage, learners pro-
duce verbless utterances and rely heavily on contextual information to con-
vey their meaning. They indicate their sociopragmatic competence by using
expressions such as per favor “please” and rising intonation. In the Basic stage,
learners produce infinitive verb forms and/or imperative forms, plus a few
formulas such as necesito “I need”. They still lack the pragmalinguistic means
(such as modal verbs) to make their requests indirect. In the third stage, for-
mulas are unpacked to some extent, and Conventionally Indirect requests are
preferred, with a strong preference for the modal expression puedes (tú) . . . ?
“can (you) . . . ?”, as a preface to the actual request. The fourth stage is titled
Pragmatic Expansion; by this stage, most requests are modified quite exten-
sively, and the head act of requesting is frequently delayed and follows a
variety of mitigating expressions. Overall, it seems that learners are aware of
the politeness issues relating to requests from their earliest efforts, and that
the pragmalinguistic means for indirectness (for example mastery of modals,
of conditionals or of imperfect tense) are brought into play as soon as they
are available. However, Félix-Brasdefer also notes some lack of sensitivity to
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 273

Direction
60
84% Conventional indirect
Non-conventional indirect 78.5%
50
59%

40
Frequency

30 36%

20

18.5%
10 10%
6% 5%
3%
0
Beginning Intermediate Advanced

Figure 7.3 Distribution of Request Types by Learner Group

Source: Félix-Brasdefer, 2007, p. 266

situation among his learners; for example, even advanced students tend to
use Indirect request strategies in the peer-peer situations, where direct strat-
egies could be more appropriate.
A second example is a longitudinal study by Shively (2011) of L2 prag-
matic development in authentic service encounters. Here, we concentrate
on Shively’s discussion of the learning of the pragmatics of requests. Her case
study participants were seven American students of Spanish, undertaking a
one-semester period of study abroad (SA) in Spain. Shively enlisted the stu-
dents as research partners, and they each self-recorded examples of authentic
service encounters, in shops, cafés and so on, on three occasions over the
SA period. In addition, the participants’ reflections were gathered through
interviews and learning journals.
This study was conducted within the theoretical framework of L2 sociali-
zation (see Chapter 9). In the first set of recordings (Week 2 of the SA
period), all of the participants used speaker-oriented request strategies typi-
cal of American English. However, by the third recording (Week 11), four of
the seven participants were using the hearer-oriented strategies more typical
274  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
of peninsular Spanish (including imperatives and ellipsis). This is illustrated
in the data from participant Chloe. In Week 2, she is ordering food and
drinks with a female employee in a café, using the speaker-oriented formula
“can I have”:

 1 C: ho::la: uh puedo tener  1 C: hi:: uh—can I have coffee with

café co leche y: milk and:
 2 C: qué es (.) eso?  2 C: what is (.) that?
 3 (1.2)  3 (1.2)
 4 C: es- qu- qué se llama- or  4 C: is—wh- what it is called—or
cómo se llama? how is it called?
 5 E: caracola  5 E: conch
 6 C: caracola  6 C: conch
 7 C: u:: (.) una:::: croissant  7 C: u:: (.) a:::: croissant
 8 E: croissant sí  8 E: croissant yes
 9 ((long pause while  9
waiting))
10 C: gracias 10 C: thanks

In Week 11, Chloe is ordering wine in a bar, and has shifted to direct,
hearer-oriented realizations for her requests (“give me . . . ”):

1 E: hola 1 E: hi
2 C: hola 2 C: hi
3 C: ponme un tinto de verano por 3 C: give me a summer red
favor [wine] please
4 E: cada uno::? 4 E: each one::?
5 C: sí (.) y pon tapas? (1.1) tapas 5 C: yes (.) and give tapas? (1.1)
bien tapas ok
6 E sí sí que sí 6 E: yes yes yes
7 C bueno (.) gracias 7 C: ok (.) thanks

Shively regards these changes as instances of language socialization into

more usual L2 request forms. In their learner journals and interviews, partic-
ipants did not report receiving overt correction, but some did comment on
developing awareness of request (in)appropriacy because of lack of response
on the part of their local interlocutors. Some also reported overhearing the
requests of locals in service settings, which provided models for locally more
appropriate requests.
Our final example, the previously mentioned study by Al-Gahtani and
Roever (2012), is in some respects similar to that of Félix-Brasdefer (2007).
In this case, L1 Arabic learners of L2 English were also recorded undertak-
ing a series of open role plays involving requests, for example to buy bread
on the requester’s behalf; there were 26 learners, and as in the first study,
they were assigned to beginner, intermediate and advanced groups. Each
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 275
individual participant completed the role plays with an L1 English speaker
as their interlocutor. However, while Félix-Brasdefer focused mainly on
the pragmalinguistic realization of the particular speech act of requesting,
these researchers were more interested in the evolution of students’ abil-
ity to manage the requesting interaction as a whole. Consequently, they
adopted a CA approach to their data, and studied the following issues
among others:

1. The nature of interactional sequences preceding the actual request (here

termed pre-expansions);
2. The nature of sequences inserted by the interlocutors between the
request itself, and its acceptance (insert expansions);
3. Distribution of first pair parts between the interlocutors (i.e. who was
taking the conversational initiative).

The extract below illustrates the performance of the “Bread-buying” role

play, by a beginner learner:

1 ↑Excuse me::
P:
2 I:
yes
3 I (.) want bread
P:
4 I:
OK
5 P:
Yea::h
6 So:: you want bread?
I:
7 Yes:: (.) it is enough in the ( )
P:
8 hhh (.) >you mean< there is nothing: in the fridge?
I:
9 P:
Yes
10 So:: (.) you wa::nt me to go:: to the superma::rket and get some
I:
bread for you
11 P: Yes
12 I: Ok (.) I’ll go ↑now and get it for you
(Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012, p. 57)

This example shows the very early introduction of the learner’s request
(line 3), and lack of any pre-expansions. The learner does attempt some
sort of account or justification (line 7), but the interlocutor takes over the
conversational leadership at this point, and uses successive first pair parts to
clarify the situation (lines 6, 8 and 10) and reduces the learner’s role to agree-
ment (lines 9 and 11), before finally offering an acceptance (line 12).
A performance of the same role play by an upper intermediate learner is
shown below for comparison:

1 P: Hi ((name))
2 I: Hi ((name))
3 P: .hhh >actually< I wanna ask you something?
276  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL

4 I: →Su::re.
5 P: .hhh today I have too many (.) assignments to do=
6 I: → =Yeah
7 P: ↑so I have no:: more time (.1) to do my shopp[ing
8 I: [.hh
9 P: for today (.) a::nd I’m running out (.) the bread so could you (.3)
buy
10 some bread for me?
11 I: →Su:re yeah (.) but you know (.) right n::ow I’m wa::tching this
match (.) so::
12 do you want it at the moment or I can buy it la::ter on?
13 P; yeah (.) that’s all right (.3) you can do [this
14 I: [later
15 P: later on.
16 I: .hh
17 P: yep.
(Al-Gahtani & Roever, 2012, pp. 56–57)

In this example, we can see the learner using a number of pre-expansions

to mitigate their request (lines 3, 5, 7 and 9), while the interlocutor only
produces one first pair part, introducing an insert expansion (lines 11–15).
Overall, the CA approach allows these researchers to show how requesting
behaviour changes with proficiency at a more strategic level.They also draw
an interesting conclusion, regarding the impact of the learners’ requesting
behaviour on their interlocutor: “Early provision of the request and lack of
pre-expansions signals to the interlocutor a lower degree of interactional
ability and the need to take greater charge of the conversation and keep
complications to a minimum” (p 59). Such responses not only may enable
completion of the interaction, but may also model for the learner the types
of sequences which are culturally appropriate and thus provide relevant
sociopragmatic input.

7.8 Evaluation

7.8.1 The Scope and Achievements of the Functionalist Perspective

The functionalist tradition is well-established in L2 research. Its fundamental
claim is that language development is driven by pragmatic communicative
needs, and that the formal resources of language are elaborated in order
to express more complex patterns of meaning. Functionalist research often
takes the form of naturalistic case studies; these have frequently been adults
in the early stages of L2 learning, who are acquiring the language in informal
environments rather than in the classroom. (An important exception is those
researchers who apply Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics to the study
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 277
of advanced learner development: Byrnes, 2006; García, 2013; Ryshina-
Pankova & Byrnes, 2013). These studies have offered us rich descriptive
accounts of both the rate and route of naturalistic L2 learning, at least in
the early stages. They complement the focus on instructed learners more
typical of some other traditions. Their interest in areas such as L2 pragmat-
ics and vocabulary, and in a multilevel approach, complements the concern
with morphosyntax seen elsewhere. They also shed light on relationships
between thought, gesture and language, e.g. through research on “thinking
for speaking”. In terms of methodology, a number of techniques have been
elaborated for the analysis of (semi-)naturalistic L2 talk, ranging from speech
act coding to CA.
Functionalist researchers vary, however, in the scope of their enquir-
ies. Some have adopted a “patch” approach, studying the use and evolu-
tion of selected L2 forms, or the development of L2 within a semantic
or pragmatic domain such as time, space, motion or particular speech
acts. The intersections of such domains with specific areas of morpho-
syntax have also been explored in some depth, for example in research
on L2 aspect. There is no clear agreement on the contribution of L1
to functionalist learning. The learner varieties approach has made quite
strong universalist claims for the Basic Variety. On the other hand, those
interested in thinking for speaking detect long-lasting influence of L1
conceptualizations and form-meaning-gesture connections, in some
important domains.
Below, we comment more specifically on functionalist interpretations of
the nature of interlanguage, the learning process and the language learner.

7.8.2 Functionalism and (Inter)Language

Functionalist researchers have adopted a broad characterization of language,
encompassing metaphor, formulaic expressions, discourse and pragmatics,
in addition to lexis and formal morphosyntax. Descriptively, this tradition
has added considerably to our understanding of interlanguage communi-
cation while the formal system is still in an underdeveloped state, and has
made interesting suggestions about the interactions between form, mean-
ing and function. Functionalist researchers have demonstrated the wide
range of devices (lexical and pragmatic as well as formal) which L2 users
deploy in order to convey meaning. Research on temporality, for example,
has suggested how learners may use links between meaning and morpho-
logical form as an entry point into various formal subsystems of their target
language.
Functionalist researchers have also drawn our attention to the issue of
textual/discourse organization in learner language, and offered considerable
evidence in support of the view that early learner varieties rely heavily on
parataxis rather than on syntax in order to structure and express both indi-
vidual propositions and relationships between propositions.
278  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
A continuing limitation on functionalists’ characterization of interlan-
guage is that in studies of informal (uninstructed) learners, most attention
has been paid to the earlier stages of development. The interlanguage of
more advanced learners has been explored thoroughly in some specific areas,
but usually with instructed L2 learners (for example work on past time, on
aspect or on motion verbs). However, the range of languages investigated
is broadening beyond Germanic and Romance to include, e.g., Asian lan-
guages, and the influence of learners’ L1s on post-basic varieties is now
firmly on the agenda through the “thinking for speaking” approach.

7.8.3 Functionalism on Language Learning and Development

Functionalist researchers insist generally on the gradual nature of interlan-
guage (IL) development and syntacticization. They have made some far-
reaching proposals regarding developmental routes, especially those of the
“learner varieties” approach. However, much functionalist work has focused
on development within various semantic and formal subsystems.
Linkages across these different subsystems are not always clear, though
functionalist researchers argue consistently for a multilevel approach to the
analysis of IL data. Some valuable work has been done, e.g. demonstrating
the role of intonation and prosody in demarcating utterances, or demon-
strating how paratactic constructions mirror and prefigure their syntactic
equivalents. The lexical level has also been studied, in connection with the
development of both morphology and syntax (e.g. Sato’s comments about
the potential significance of items such as think and know for the develop-
ment of subordination, or the use of motion verbs).
While making a strong contribution at a descriptive level, however, the
contribution of functionalist studies to the explanation of IL development
has so far been more limited. The thinking for speaking tradition addresses
the role of L1 influence in an interesting new way, with its claims that L1
thinking patterns exercise an enduring influence on L2 speech and gesture.
It has also been shown how effective the Basic Variety can be in meeting
immediate communicative needs. But it is less clearly established that com-
municative need is the prime driver for L2 syntacticization and develop-
ment beyond the Basic Variety. Indeed, researchers such as Bardovi-Harlig
conclude that instructed learners make more progress with the acquisition
of tense and aspect morphology, and Tyler, Byrnes and others make extensive
proposals on how to develop advanced proficiency through instruction. But
is instruction actually necessary for advanced proficiency? There is no clear
functionalist answer as yet.
Much functionalist research has concentrated largely on the analysis of
learners’ L2 output, and paid relatively less attention to input and even to
interaction. Thus, the ESF research team paid little attention to the details
of input and interaction in which their subjects were engaged (with the
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 279
exception of ethnographic work by Bremer, Roberts, Vasseur, Simonot, &
Broeder, 1996, discussed here in Chapter 9).
Attention has been paid to input in other areas, however, for example
in functionalist research on the acquisition of tense and aspect. Sato noted
the relative rarity and lack of phonological saliency of regular past tense
forms in interlocutor speech. Bardovi-Harlig notes the frequency in input
of adverbial forms, and appeals to Input Processing theory (VanPatten, 2015:
see Chapter 5) in suggesting that learners may therefore not need to notice
or process verb tense morphology in the language that they hear. Discus-
sions of the Aspect Hypothesis have taken account of input frequency, in
explaining learners’ progress and their preference for certain prototypical
verb-aspect pairings (such as the verb be with states). And L2 pragmatics
research has added considerably to the power of its analyses, e.g. of learner
requests, through the adoption of CA methodology with its fine-grained
interpretation of complete interaction sequences.

7.8.4 Functionalism on the Language Learner

Much functionalist research has concerned itself with adult L2 users
acquiring a socially dominant target language in the workplace and other
non-domestic settings. As we have seen, the driving forces promoting L2
acquisition for such learners have been explained as (a) immediate commu-
nicative need, and (b) a longer term and more variable desire for social inte-
gration with the target language community. These ideas point the reader in
the direction of motivation theory, identity theory and theories to do with
the nature of communities, and the place of the individual within them.
However, with the exception of some work on L2 pragmatics, functionalist
researchers do not typically locate their work in larger frameworks of this
type. For a full consideration of these, it is necessary to turn to more explic-
itly sociolinguistic work, discussed in Chapter 9.
Functionalist researchers have commented on the greater general suc-
cess of classroom learners in acquiring L2 morphology. It is not, however,
very obvious from a functionalist perspective why classroom learners should
be more successful than uninstructed learners, as classroom communicative
needs are often very reduced and/or indirect.We saw in Chapter 6 that class-
room discourse pushes L2 learners to attend to the communicative value of
formal items such as tense and aspect morphology, through recasts and other
kinds of feedback which elicit modified learner productions. In this direc-
tion also, it seems that possibly fruitful connections are waiting to be made.

References
Al-Gahtani, S., & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2
requests. Applied Linguistics, 33, 42–65.
280  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Lan-
guage Learning, 34, 77–95.
Andersen, R. W. (1991). Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in
second language acquisition. In T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in sec-
ond language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 305–324). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Andersen, R.W., & Shirai,Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition
principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133–156.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, mean-
ing and use. Language Learning, 50(Supplement 1).
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. In
Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205–222). Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource: Rec-
ognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language Learn-
ing, 59, 755–795.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass &
A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147–162).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68–86.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). One functional approach to second language acquisition: The
concept-oriented approach. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second lan-
guage acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 54–74). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017a). Beyond individual form-meaning associations in L2 Tense—
Mood—Aspect research. In M. Howard & P. Leclercq (Eds.), Tense—Aspect—Modality
in a second language: Comparative perspectives (pp. 27–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017b). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224–245). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Barron, A., & Black, E. (2015). Constructing small talk in learner-native speaker voice-
based telecollaboration: A focus on topic management and backchanneling. System,
48, 112–128.
Bayley, R. (1994). Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: Past tense mark-
ing in Chinese-English. In S. M. Gass, A. Cohen, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Research methodol-
ogy in second language acquisition (pp. 157–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmen-
tal study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bischoff, S. T., & Jany, C. (Eds.). (2013). Functional approaches to language. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apolo-
gies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and
integration. Language Teaching, 46, 208–224.
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective
vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Applications of cognitive
linguistics: Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 1–61).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M.-T., Simonot, M., & Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving
understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. Harlow: Longman.
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 281
Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2015). Introduction: Cognition, motion events, and
SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–13.
Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygot-
sky. London: Continuum.
Cadierno, T. (2017). Thinking for speaking about motion in a second language: Look-
ing back and forward. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages:
Theory and applications (pp. 279–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cadierno, T., & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2014). Cognitive linguistic approaches to second lan-
guage Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition
(pp. 96–110). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Cadierno, T., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2016). Semantic categorization
of placement verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning, 66, 191–223.
Choi, S., & Lantolf, J. P. (2008). Representation and embodiment of meaning in L2 com-
munication: Motion events in the speech and gesture of advanced L2 Korean and L2
English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 191–224.
Comajoan Colomé, L. (2014). Tense and aspect in second language Spanish. In K. L.
Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5, 161–169.
Cruse, A. (2010). Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dietrich, R., Klein, W., & Noyau, C. (Eds.). (1995). The acquisition of temporality in a second
language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dimroth, C. (2002). Topics, assertions and additive words: How L2 learners get from
information structure to target language syntax. Linguistics, 40, 891–923.
Dimroth, C. (2006). The finite story. Nijmegen: The Max-Planck-Institute for
Psycholinguistics.
Dimroth, C. (2018). Beyond statistical learning: Communication principles and language-
internal factors shape grammar in child and adult beginners learning Polish through
controlled exposure. Language Learning, 68, 863–905.
Dimroth, C., Rast, R., Starren, M., & Watorek, M. (2013). Methods for studying the
acquisition of a new language under controlled input conditions: The VILLA project.
EUROSLA Yearbook, 13, 109–138.
Dittmar, N. (1984). Semantic features of pidginised learners of German. In R. Andersen
(Ed.), Second languages: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 243–270). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Dittmar, N., & Reich, A. (1993). Modality in language acquisition. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Domínguez, L., Arche, M., & Myles, F. (2017). Spanish Imperfect revisited: Exploring L1
influence in the reassembly of imperfective features onto new L2 forms. Second Lan-
guage Research, 33, 431–457.
Domínguez, L.,Tracy-Ventura, N., Arche, M. J., Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2013).The role
of dynamic contrasts in the L2 acquisition of Spanish past tense morphology. Bilingual-
ism: Language and Cognition, 16, 558–577.
Evans,V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom:
A cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253–286.
Freleng, F. (Dir.). (1950). Canary row. New York: Time Warners.
282  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
García, L. (2013). Systemic functional approaches to second language acquisition in
school settings. In M. D. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez
Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 29–48). Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón
(Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press.
Gullberg, M. (2011a). Thinking, speaking and gesturing about motion in more than one
language. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 143–169).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gullberg, M. (2011b). Language-specific encoding of placement events in gestures.
In J. Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition
(pp. 166–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gullberg, M., de Bot, K., & Volterra,V. (2010). Gestures and some key issues in the study
of language development. In M. Gullberg & K. de Bot (Eds.), Gestures in language devel-
opment (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Han, Z.-H., & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Huebner, T (1983). The acquisition of English. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Ed.). (2017). Motion and space across languages: Theory and applica-
tions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kanwit, M. (2017). What we gain by combining variationist and concept-oriented
approaches: The case of acquiring Spanish future-time expression. Language Learning,
67, 461–498.
Kasper, G. (2009). L2 pragmatic development. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The
new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 259–295). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language
Learning, 52(Supplement 1). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Kim, E. Y., & Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer medi-
ated communication: The case of Korean address terms. Calico Journal, 31, 264–284.
Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003).What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordina-
tion of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial
thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 16–32.
Klein, W. (1995). The acquisition of English. In R. Dietrich, W. Klein, & C. Noyau (Eds.),
The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 31–70).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Klein, W., Dietrich, R., & Noyau, C. (1995). Conclusions. In R. Dietrich, W. Klein, & C.
Noyau (Eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 261–280). Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Klein, W., & Dimroth, C. (2009). Untutored second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (2nd ed.,
pp. 503–522). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kopecka, A., & Narasimhan, B. (Eds.). (2012). Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic
perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 283
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In
P. ­Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language
instruction (pp. 66–88). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Malt, B. C., & Majid, A. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 583–597.
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory:The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in
SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.
Niemeier, S. (2013). A Cognitive Grammar perspective on tense and aspect. In M. R.
Salaberry & L. Comajoan Colomé (Eds.), Research design and methodology in studies on
L2 tense and aspect (pp. 11–56). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993a). Adult language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Volume 1,
Field methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993b). Adult language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives.Volume 2,The
results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (2000). The structure of learner varieties. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 22 [Special Issue].
Perdue, C. (2002). Development of L2 functional use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2
user (pp. 121–144). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Perdue, C., & Klein, W. (1993). Concluding remarks. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language
acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Volume 2, the results (pp. 253–272). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second lan-
guage acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Rose, K. R. (2013). Pragmatics. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second
language acquisition (pp. 501–504). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Byrnes, H. (2013).Writing as learning to know:Tracing knowledge
construction in L2 German compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 179–197.
Salaberry, M. R. (1999). The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom
L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 20, 151–178.
Salaberry, M. R. (2002). Tense and aspect in the selection of past tense verbal morphol-
ogy. In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense—aspect morphology in L2 acquisition
(pp. 397–415). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Salaberry, M. R. (2003). Tense aspect in verbal morphology. Hispania, 86, 559–573.
Salaberry, M. R. (2008). Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical model.
London: Continuum Books.
Salaberry, M. R. (2011). Assessing the effect of lexical aspect and grounding on the acqui-
sition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14, 184–202.
Salaberry, M. R. (2017). The grammatical representation of aspect. In M. Howard & P.
Leclercq (Eds.), Tense-aspect-modality in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Salaberry, M. R., & Comajoan, L. (Eds.). (2011). Research design and methodology in studies
on L2 tense and aspect. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Salaberry, M. R., & Shirai,Y. (Eds.). (2002). The L2 acquisition of tense—aspect morphology.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sato, C. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr Verlag.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219–231.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
284  Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL
Shirai,Y. (2009). Temporality in first and second language acquisition. In W. Klein & P. Li
(Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 167–194). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of
Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818–1835.
Shively, R. L. (2014). Language in context. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish
second language acquisition (pp. 331–350). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Shively, R. L. (2015). Developing interactional competence during study abroad: Listener
responses in L2 Spanish. System, 48, 86–98.
Siegal, M. (1996).The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic com-
petency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356–382.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. Gump-
erz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity: Studies in the social and cultural
foundations of language (Vol. 17, pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity
and determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity
(pp. 107–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (2004).The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expres-
sion of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L.Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative:
Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I. (2017). Typologies and language use. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion
and space across languages (pp. 419–446). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeiss, S., & Narasimhan, B. (2011). Put-
ting things in places: Developmental consequences of linguistic typology. In J. Bohne-
meyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition (pp. 134–165).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stam, G. (2015). Changes in thinking for speaking: A longitudinal case study. The Modern
Language Journal, 99, 83–99.
Stam, G. (2017).Verb-framed, satellite-framed, or in between? A L2 learner’s thinking for
speaking in her L1 and L2 over 14 years. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and
space across languages (pp. 329–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic
structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2014). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in
class, and online. System, 48, 3–20.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were,
are and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N., & Sykes, J. M. (Eds.). (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and
teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen
(Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 3: Grammatical categories and the
lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2017). Past, present and future of motion research. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano
(Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson &
N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–
489). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
 Meaning-based Perspectives on SLL 285
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning:Theoretical basics and experi-
mental evidence. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Vanek, N., & Hendriks, H. (2014). Convergence of temporal reference frames in sequen-
tial bilinguals: Event structuring unique to second language users. Bilingualism: Lan-
guage and Cognition, 18, 753–768.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 113–134). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics and philosophy
(pp. 97–121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Verspoor, M. (2017). Cognitive linguistics and its application to second language teach-
ing. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (3rd
ed., pp. 55–66). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Watorek, M., Benazzo, S., & Hickmann, M. (Eds.). (2012). Comparative perspectives on lan-
guage acquisition: A tribute to Clive Perdue. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Watorek, M., Durand, M., & Starosciak, K. (2016). L’impact de l’input et du type de tâche
sur la production de la morphologie nominale en polonais par des apprenants franco-
phones débutants. Discours [online], 18.
8 Sociocultural Perspectives
on Second Language
Learning

8.1 Introduction
In this chapter and the next (Chapter 9), we turn our attention to further
groups of theorists who view language learning in essentially social terms.
The view that social interaction itself constitutes the learning process is not
new (Hatch, 1978). However, it has been given extra impetus by an increas-
ing interest in the learning theory associated with the Soviet developmental
psychologist Lev S.Vygotsky, and its application to the domain of L2 learn-
ing. In this chapter, we review and evaluate this strand of neo-Vygotskian
thinking and research, or sociocultural theory (SCT).
Since the 1980s, the foremost group advocating the relevance of SCT to
second language learning has been James Lantolf and his associates. Lantolf
has edited collections of papers illustrating the application of different fac-
ets of Vygotskian thinking to L2 learning (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Appel,
1994). A later volume (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) provides a substantial theo-
retical overview of SCT concepts relevant to second language acquisition
(SLA), and numerous other publications by Lantolf and others have provided
further overviews and updates regarding SCT theory as well as summarizing
a wider range of empirical L2 sociocultural research (Lantolf, 2011, 2012;
Lantolf & Beckett, 2009; Lantolf & Poehner, 2008; Lantolf,Thorne, & Poeh-
ner, 2015; Ohta, 2017; Swain, Kinnear, & Steinman, 2015; Thorne & Lan-
tolf, 2006; van Compernolle, 2015). The journal Language and Sociocultural
Theory is dedicated to publication of SCT-inspired research; recent work
has increasingly concentrated on the implications of SCT for L2 classroom
instruction and assessment (Davin, 2016; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011, 2014;
Poehner, 2008).

8.2 Sociocultural Theory
Lev Semeonovich Vygotsky was born in 1896 in the Russian provinces. He
was active in Moscow scientific circles between 1925 and his early death
in 1934 as a researcher and theorist of child development; however, his
work fell into disfavour within Soviet psychology, and the first of his many
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 287
writings to be translated into English, Thought and Language, appeared only
in 1962. (This book was later republished as Thinking and Speech: Vygot-
sky, 1987.) Since that time his views on child development have become
increasingly influential, among psychologists and child development theo-
rists such as Jerome Bruner (1985), James Wertsch (1985, 1998) and Barbara
Rogoff (1990, 2003), and have been applied in classroom studies by educa-
tional researchers (Daniels, 2007; Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Mercer, 1995;
Mercer & Howe, 2012; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Wells, 1999, 2009). Con-
temporary interpretations of and modifications to Vygotsky’s original ideas
mean that current SCT is best described as “neoVygotskian”; for reviews of
Vygotsky’s original ideas and their modern interpretation, see, for example,
Daniels, Cole and Wertsch (Eds.) (2007) and Miller (2011). In the rest of this
section, we will outline a number of key ideas in contemporary discussions
of Vygotsky, which have been taken up and developed by L2 theorists.

8.2.1 Mediation and Mediated Learning

Mediation is a central concept in Vygotsky’s writings (see reviews in Lan-
tolf & Thorne, 2006, pp. 59–83; Miller, 2011). Lantolf (2000) provides an
introductory account:

The central and distinguishing concept of sociocultural theory is that

higher forms of human mental activity are mediated. Vygotsky (1987)
argued that just as humans do not act directly on the physical world but
rely, instead, on tools and labour activity, we also use symbolic tools, or
signs, to mediate and regulate our relationships with others and with
ourselves. Physical and symbolic tools are artifacts created by human
culture(s) over time and are made available to succeeding generations,
which often modify these artifacts before passing them on to future
generations. Included among symbolic tools are numbers and arithme-
tic systems, music, art, and above all, language. As with physical tools,
humans use symbolic artifacts to establish an indirect, or mediated,
relationship between ourselves and the world. The task for psychol-
ogy, in Vygotsky’s view, is to understand how human social and mental
activity is organized through culturally constructed artifacts and social
relationships.
(Lantolf, 2000, p. 80)

From this perspective, language is the central symbolic “tool for thought”,
or means of mediation, in mental activity. Through language, for example,
we can direct our own attention (or that of others) to significant features
in the environment, rehearse information to be learned, formulate a plan or
articulate the steps to be taken in solving a problem. In turn, it is claimed
that the nature of our available mental tools can itself shape our thinking
to some extent. For example, once writing systems were invented, these
288  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
“mental tools” changed our understanding of the nature of language itself,
because they provided humanity with concepts and categories for think-
ing about language, such as the “word”, the “sentence” or the “phoneme”,
which did not exist prior to the development of literacy (Olson, 1995).
Similarly, Thorne (2009) claims that texts produced through internet means
such as blogging, instant messaging and online fan fiction not only have
new and distinctive characteristics shaped by the technology itself, but also
contribute to forging new cultural practices and new understandings of the
term “community”.
From the sociocultural point of view, learning itself is also a mediated
process. It is mediated partly through learners’ developing use and control
of mental tools. Mediation of learning may be of different types. First-order
mediation involves the management of behaviour such as problem-solving
and the accomplishment of tasks. Second-order mediation involves engage-
ment with everyday and/or scientific concepts, which are viewed as cultural
tools; such concepts “are relevant for the formation of consciousness because
they shape how we perceive, understand and act in and on the world” (Lan-
tolf & Poehner, 2014, p. 61). Once again, language is the central tool for
learning, though other semiotic modes of representation also play a role
(Wells, 1999, pp. 319–320). The mediation of learning is a social business;
that is to say, it is dependent on face-to-face interaction and shared pro-
cesses such as joint problem-solving and discussion, with experts, mentors
and peers (Mercer & Howe, 2012). These interpersonal processes lead to
internalization, “in which the cultural artifacts that emerge interpersonally
are appropriated and reshaped to meet the needs of the individual” (Lan-
tolf & Poehner, 2014, p. 45).
There is some controversy among sociocultural theorists about how these
learning processes are claimed to work (see extended discussion in Lantolf &
Thorne, 2006, Chapter 6). Some key ideas are explored further in the next
subsection.

8.2.2 Regulation, Scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development

The mature, skilled individual is capable of autonomous functioning and self-
management, that is, of self-regulation. However, the child or the unskilled
individual learns by carrying out tasks and activities under the guidance
of other more skilled individuals (such as caregivers or teachers), initially
through a process of other-regulation, typically mediated through language.
That is, the child or the learner is inducted into a shared understanding of
how to do things through collaborative talk, until eventually they internalize
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) or appropriate (Rogoff, 1995) new knowledge or
skills into their own individual consciousness. So, successful learning involves
a shift from collaborative intermental activity to autonomous intramental
activity. The process of supportive dialogue which directs the attention of
the learner to key features of the environment, and which prompts them
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 289
through successive steps of a problem, came to be known as “scaffolding” in
some interpretations of SCT (beginning with Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
According to Stone (1998, slightly paraphrased from Daniels, 2007, p. 323),
scaffolding has four key features:

1. The recruitment by an adult of a child’s involvement in a meaningful

and culturally desirable activity beyond the child’s current understand-
ing or control;
2. Assistance . . . using a process of “online diagnosis” of the learner’s
understanding and skill level, and the estimation of the amount of sup-
port required;
3. Support which is not a uniform prescription, but may vary in mode
(e.g. physical gesture, verbal prompt, extensive dialogue), as well as in
amount;
4. The support provided is gradually withdrawn as control of the task is
transferred to the learner.

As Donato puts it, “scaffolded performance is a dialogically constituted

interpsychological mechanism that promotes the novice’s internalization
of knowledge co-constructed in shared activity” (1994, p. 41). However in
some other sociocultural work on second language learning, the term “lan-
guaging” has been preferred for talk focusing on the construction and inter-
nalization of linguistic knowledge (Swain, 2006; Swain et al., 2015). This
concept is discussed further below in Sections 8.3.1–8.3.3.
The domain where learning can most productively take place was chris-
tened by Vygotsky as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined
as “the difference between the child’s developmental level as determined by
independent problem-solving and the higher level of potential development
as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in collabo-
ration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 85).
The sequence below presents an example of collaborative ZPD activity
in the classroom, taken from the general educational literature (Mercer &
Littleton, 2007, p. 80):

The computer screen shows:

Q3:  Rough surfaces cause  a) as much friction as a smooth surface?
b) more friction than a smooth surface?
c) less friction than a smooth surface?

RACHEL: Which one do you think it is?

CINDY: “c”
RACHEL: I think “b” (laughs)
CINDY: I don’t. Look, “changes more surfaces than a smooth surface”
(misreading the screen)
290  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL

RACHEL: Yeah I know, but if you rub

CINDY: (inaudible)
RACHEL: Yeah I know but—wait, wait—listen, if you rub two smooth
surfaces together will they be slippery or not? (rubs hands together)
CINDY: Stable—depends how tight you’ve got it
RACHEL: Cindy listen! If you’ve got oil on your hands and you rub them
together will they be slippery or not? (rubs hands together)
CINDY: Well you see (rubs hands in a parody of Rachel, but without hands
touching) cos they don’t rub together, they go
RACHEL: Cindy! (mock exasperation) If you’ve got
CINDY: Yeah, they will be slippery (laughs)
RACHEL: Yeah, exactly. So if you’ve got two rough surfaces and you rub
them together it will not be as slippery will it?
CINDY: No
RACHEL: So that proves my point doesn’t it?
CINDY: Mmm
RACHEL: Yes, do you agree? Good (she clicks on answer “b”)
(On-screen indication that “b” was selected)

Here, the student Cindy starts by approaching the computer-based problem

rather carelessly (misreading the instructions). She is scaffolded by fellow stu-
dent Rachel with a mimed example, which is made successively more explicit
(the idea of a lubricant is introduced). Eventually Rachel’s miming and ques-
tioning lead Cindy to think through the problem, and once an agreed answer
has emerged/been internalized, the computer solution is cross-checked.
The ZPD is arguably Vygotsky’s best-known theoretical concept. It has
proved very attractive for educators, but its interpretation has been contro-
versial. For example, it seems clear that from a classic Vygotskian perspec-
tive, instruction “leads” development within the ZPD. That is to say, the
learner is challenged by the presentation of some new, advanced stimulus
or idea, and the learner’s developmental level is apparent from the nature of
their response. The adult or more capable peer can then support the learner
not only to solve the current problem, but to develop their capability to
solve future problems more autonomously. However, many neoVygotskian
interpreters of the ZPD idea seem influenced by constructionist thinking,
where the learner(s) themselves build new knowledge, as they grapple with
a problem-solving activity. There are also discussions as to whether the ZPD
is best seen as an individual phenomenon, or can be understood also as a
group phenomenon, e.g. involving a whole class. Debates around the ZPD
and its application in general education are reviewed by Del Río and Álva-
rez (2007), and by Lantolf and Poehner (2014, Chapter 7).

8.2.3 Microgenesis
The example just quoted illustrates in miniature some general principles
of sociocultural learning theory. According to Vygotsky’s “genetic law” of
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 291
cultural development, these principles apply on a range of different time-
scales. These include the learning which the human race has passed through
over successive generations (phylogenesis), as well as the learning which the
individual human infant experiences (ontogenesis). For the entire human
race, as well as for the individual infant, learning is seen as first social, then
individual. As Vygotsky put it:

Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first,

on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between peo-
ple (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological).
This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to
the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual
relations between human individuals.
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 57)

Throughout their life, of course, human beings remain capable of learn-

ing, and the ongoing learning process for more mature individuals is seen
in the same way. That is, new concepts and skills continue to be acquired
through social and interactional means, a process which can sometimes be
traced visibly in the course of talk between expert and novice. This local,
contextualized learning process is labelled microgenesis (Lantolf & Thorne,
2006, p. 52); it is important for sociocultural accounts of L2 learning, as will
be clear below.
This broad cultural-historical perspective on human development, from
phylogenesis to microgenesis, forms an overall backdrop to empirical soci-
ocultural research. As far as research methods were concerned, Vygotsky
himself reacted against the experimental methods of the psychology of his
day. He made proposals for so-called double stimulation, i.e. a methodology
where one or more preplanned stimuli are introduced into a problem-solv-
ing situation, and the uses made of these stimuli by the research partici-
pants, plus their creation and use of other tools, are studied and documented
(Engeström, 2007; Engeström, Sannino, & Virkkunen, 2014). This general
idea of making one or more interventions in a situation, and tracking the
outcomes in a holistic way (but in the absence of formal experimental fea-
tures such as a control group, for example), is compatible with several current
qualitative research methodologies, and characteristic of much contempo-
rary L2 sociocultural research (see Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, Chapter 6).

8.2.4 Private and Inner Speech

For sociocultural theorists, language is the prime symbolic mediating tool
for the development of consciousness, for the human race overall and also
for the individual, whether child or adult. The relationship of language and
thought has therefore been a consistent focus of attention.
Young children can often be observed to engage in private speech, talk
apparently to and for themselves, rather than for any external conversational
292  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
partner. From the point of view of classic Piagetian theory of child develop-
ment, this talk has been interpreted as evidence of children’s egocentrism, or
inability to view the world from another’s point of view. However, private
speech is interpreted differently in SCT. Here, it is seen as evidence of the
child’s growing ability to regulate their own behaviour—when, for example,
the child talks to themself while painting a picture, or solving a puzzle. For
Vygotsky, private speech eventually becomes inner speech, a use of language
to regulate internal thought, without any external articulation. From this
point of view, private speech reflects an advance on the earliest uses of lan-
guage, which are social and interpersonal. The fully autonomous individual
has developed inner speech as a tool of thought, and normally feels no fur-
ther need to articulate external private speech. However, when tackling a
new task, even skilled adults may accompany and regulate their efforts with
a private monologue. (For fuller accounts see John-Steiner, 2007; Winsler,
2009.)

8.2.5 Activity Theory
The last sociocultural idea which we need to consider is that of activity
theory, originally developed by one of Vygotsky’s successors, A. N. Leon-
tiev (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, Chapter 8; Leontiev, 1981; Zinchenko,
1995), and further popularized by Yrjö Engeström and associates (Daniels,
Edwards, Engeström, Gallagher, & Ludvigsen, 2010; Engeström, 1999).
Where Vygotsky focused mainly on the relation between individuals and
their goals, mediated by physical and cultural tools, activity theorists set
out to make sense of individual actions within a broader, collaborative
setting. Leontiev himself illustrated the idea of “activity” with the exam-
ple of hunting among hunter-gatherer peoples, where individual actions
(such as the driving of game animals) make sense only within the broader
collective activity, stimulated by the need for food or clothing (Leontiev,
1981, p. 210).
Contemporary activity theorists have modelled so-called activity systems
as shown in Figure 8.1 (from Engeström, 2008). The top part of this model
reflects Vygotskian concerns with the individual (the “subject” in the dia-
gram, in Leontiev’s example perhaps the individual hunter), their goals (the
“object”, perhaps the game animal) and mediation by physical or cultural
tools (the “instruments”, in this case perhaps a spear). The lower part of
the model adds a collective dimension, i.e. the “community” (in Leontiev’s
example, the hunting band), the “rules” (e.g. to be silent, to conceal oneself)
and the “division of labour” (e.g. to drive the game, to lie in ambush, to
throw spears and so on). The model thus shows how individual actions and
goals are interconnected with those of the sociocultural context. Contem-
porary activity theory has been applied to the study of many types of work
and educational settings, as in the collections edited by Bozalek et al. (2015);
Daniels et al. (2010); Engeström, Miettinen, and Punamäki (1999); Gedera
and Williams (2016).
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 293

Instruments:
tools and signs ACTION

Production Object

Subject Outcome
Consumption

Exchange Distribution ENGAGEMENT

Rules Community Division of labor

Figure 8.1 Model of an Activity System

Source: Engeström, 2008, p. 257

8.3 Applications of SCT to Second Language Learning

From a sociocultural perspective, children’s early language learning arises
from processes of meaning-making in collaborative activity with other
members of a given culture. From this collaborative activity, language itself
develops as a tool for making meaning. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) note that
the view of L1 acquisition which best complements SCT is that of an emer-
gent system, in which people “develop a repertoire of linguistic devices, to
produce and interpret communicative intentions” (p. 173). They view SCT
as compatible with the usage-based theory of Tomasello (2003) and others,
which we have reviewed in Chapter 4.
From a sociocultural point of view, therefore, having internalized the sym-
bolic tools of the first language system, the L2 learner has further opportuni-
ties to create yet more tools and new ways of meaning, through collaborative
L2 activity. Application of the ZPD assumes that new language knowledge
is jointly constructed through collaborative activity, which may or may not
involve formal instruction and metatalk (depending on whether the learning
is naturalistic or classroom-bound).The new language is then internalized by
the learners, seen as active agents in their own development.
In the following sections, we will consider a selection of L2 research stud-
ies which have appealed to key Vygotskian ideas: private speech, activity
theory, the role of self-regulation and the ZPD in language learning and
assessment, and concept-based (or second-order) mediation and instruction.

8.3.1 Self-Regulation, Private Speech and Languaging in Second

Language Discourse
Instances of private speech have been regularly noted in naturalistic stud-
ies of child L2 acquisition. However, their significance has been variously
294  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
interpreted. The following example is quoted by Hatch (1978) from a study
by Itoh (1973) of a L1 Japanese child, Takahiro, using L2 English, and pro-
ducing private speech during a construction activity:

H: House.
TAKAHIRO: This house?
H: House.
T: House.
To make the house.
To make the house.
To make the house.
This?
House.
Garage.
Garage house.
House.
Big house.
Oh-no!
Broken.
H: Too bad.
T: Too bad.
H: Try again.
T: I get try.
I get try.
H: Good.

For Hatch, Takahiro’s extended speech turn is viewed as “not social speech
at all but [only] language play” (p. 411). From a Vygotskian perspective,
however, this extended spoken accompaniment to action provides evidence
about the role of language in problem-solving and self-regulation; that is
to say, the child is using private speech to manage his own activity. (It also
provides evidence for the appropriation by the child of the new lexical item
house, initially supplied by the supportive adult.)
The first phase of L2 studies which explicitly drew upon Vygotskian
conceptions of private speech mostly worked with data elicited from older
learners, in semi-controlled settings; see reviews by de Guerrero (2005),
and Lantolf and Thorne (2006, Chapter 4). For example, some early studies
examined L2 learners undertaking picture-based narrative tasks (Frawley &
Lantolf, 1985; McCafferty, 1992, 1994). These researchers noticed that the
participants used a range of self-directed expressions, such as “I can do this
in Spanish but not in English”, “I see a boy on the road”, mixed in with their
attempted L2 narrative.They interpreted these utterances as instances of pri-
vate speech, emerging as the learners struggled to regulate their own perfor-
mance. Such metacomments were absent from the fluent performances of
L1 users (“A little boy is walking down the street . . .”).
Other studies have documented the naturalistic use of private speech
among L2 learners. For example, J. Lee (2008) videorecorded seven adult
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 295
Korean-English bilingual biology students at an English-medium American
university, while they studied privately in their rooms for an upcoming exami-
nation.The students were filmed for 3 hours each; all of them used some form
of private speech, some of them very actively (up to 60 minutes of the total
time). The students read aloud to themselves, asked themselves questions and
answered them, annotated texts and drew pictures; they also regulated their
attention through self-directed gesture. Much of this private activity was carried
out bilingually, in both English and Korean, and J. Lee argues that the students
were dialoguing with themselves, both ensuring they understood the scientific
material, and also building up their specialist English language knowledge in
the field.
In the language classroom, researchers have recorded learners’ private L2
speech during ongoing classroom interaction, and have investigated possible
links between this type of private speech and the internalization of new lan-
guage forms. For example, Ohta (2001) conducted longitudinal case studies
of seven adult learners of Japanese as L2, in classroom settings. The learn-
ers wore personal microphones, so that their private speech was recorded
alongside other types of language use. Ohta considered that the learners
were using L2 private speech when they whispered or spoke with reduced
volume, and/or when they spoke but others did not pay attention. Most of
the learners in this study used L2 private speech regularly during whole class
interaction.
Ohta identified three main types of L2 private speech. The commonest
form was repetition, where the learners privately repeated the utterances of
the teacher or of other students. This was common practice with new L2
material which was the focus of class attention. The example below shows
learner Rob repeating a new Japanese word privately (the symbols °, °° and
°°° are indicators of lowered speech volume):

1 T: Ja shinshifuku uriba ni nani ga arimasu ka?

So, what is there in the men’s department?
2 S9: Kutsushita ga arimasu.
There are socks.
3 T: Kutsushita ga arimasu.
There are socks.
4 S10: Jaketto.
Jackets.
5 S11: Nekutai.
Ties.
6 T: Jaketto ga arima:su. Un S12-san? Nekutai ga arimasu.
S12-san?
There are jackets. Uh S12? There are ties. S12?
7 S12: Uh [kutsushita ga arimasu.
Uh there are socks.
→ 8 R: [°°Nekutai nekutai°° (.) °nekutai nekutai°
°°Tie tie°° (.) °tie tie°.
(Ohta, 2001, pp. 57–58)
296  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Learners also produced vicarious responses, when they responded pri-
vately to a question from the teacher, or secretly repaired or completed
someone else’s utterance. In the following example, learner Kuo-ming pro-
duces an incorrect vicarious response first of all, and then self-corrects pri-
vately after hearing the teacher’s utterance:

1 T:Eto jaa kanji no kuizu arimashita ne::. (.) arimashita. (.) ne

arimashita ne, muzukashikatta desu ka?
Um well there was a kanji quiz wasn’t there. (.) there was (.) right?
There was, was it difficult?
→ 2 Km: °Um°
3 Ss: Iie
No
→ 4 Km: °E::h yasashi desu°
°E::h it is easy° ((error: should be in the past tense))
5 T: Yasa[shikatta desu um
It was easy um
→ 6 Km: [°°Yasashikatta desu°°
°°It was easy°°
7 T: Ii desu ne::. Jaa kanji ii desu ka?
That’s good. Is everyone okay with the kanji?
(Ohta, 2001, p. 51)

Finally, learners engaged in manipulation when they privately constructed

their own L2 utterances, varying sentence structure, building up and break-
ing down words, and playing with sounds.
Ohta claims that her participants typically engaged in L2 private speech
when confronted with “new or problematic” language.This private speech
allowed them to develop phonological and articulatory control of new
material (through repetition). It provided opportunities for hypothesis-
testing about sentence construction, for example through comparison of
privately produced candidate L2 forms with the utterances of others, or
working on segmentation problems. Private speech during whole class
talk also allowed for rehearsal of social interaction and conversational
exchanges, ahead of involvement in pair or group work. Altogether, Ohta
argues that

covert learner activity is a centerpiece of learning processes, deepen-

ing our understanding of how learners appropriate language through
interactive processes . . . [R]esults suggest the power of engagement as a
factor in L2 acquisition, as the data reveal instances in which linguistic
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 297
affordances acted on by the learner in private speech are incorporated
into the learner’s developing linguistic system.
(Ohta, 2001, pp. 30–31)

The two studies just quoted (J. Lee, 2008; Ohta, 2001) concentrate on the
use of L1 and L2 private speech to manage ongoing learning activity, in nat-
ural situations (the students’ residence, a regular Japanese L2 classroom). Such
studies have not documented systematically the learning outcomes resulting
from the use of private speech. However, some studies have also set out to
capture this. For example, Swain, Lapkin, Knouzi, Suzuki, and Brooks (2009)
ran an interventionist study where they set out to teach university learners
of L2 French the grammatical concept of active/passive/middle voice, and
its realization in the French verb system, using a pretest + posttest design.
Nine students took part in this short study. At the beginning of the 90-min-
ute intervention, they were each asked to explain their understanding of gram-
matical voice.They then worked individually through a set of study materials,
written in English, which explained both the grammar and semantics of voice
in French. They were encouraged to verbalize their understandings as they
worked through the materials (this use of L1-medium private speech is called
languaging by Swain and her colleagues). Finally, they were asked to redefine
the nature of voice, and to comment on active, middle and passive verb forms
in a given text. (This was the immediate posttest.) One week later, as a delayed
posttest, they took a short cloze test in which they had to generate active, pas-
sive and middle verb forms in writing. All aspects of the study were conducted
individually, audiorecorded and transcribed for later analysis.
This study showed general improvement in participants’ understanding of
the concept of voice, and particularly of semantic concepts such as Agent and
Patient. Moreover, there was a significant correlation between the amount of
L1 languaging by the learners, and their success on the immediate posttest
(though not on the delayed posttest). The researchers conclude that indi-
vidual languaging is an effective means to develop conceptual understanding
of L2 grammar; overall, the study presents an example of the double stimula-
tion method in action (see Section 8.2.3), with the instructional materials
plus the activity of languaging promoting at least short-term development
in these L2 French learners.

8.3.2 Activity Theory, Small Group Interaction and L2 Internet

Communication
Early interest in activity theory on the part of L2 researchers broadly fol-
lowed the argument of Leontiev (1981) that human development results
from engagement in activity mediated not only by directly relevant physical
or cultural/symbolic tools, but also by the wider sociocultural context. This
in turn may mean that what appears to be the same task or activity turns
298  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
out to be enacted differently by different people, depending on their inter-
pretation of the goals of the task, or the cultural understandings they bring
to the undertaking; “people are social beings who embody their contexts
and are not merely influenced by them” (Swain et al., 2015, pp. 108–109).
Engeström (2001) has stressed the dynamic and multivoiced nature of activ-
ity systems, and the existence of internal contradictions within them, which
can lead to transformations of the system over time.
The volume of L2 research inspired by activity theory is relatively small
(see reviews by Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, Chapter 9; I. Lee, 2014; Swain et al.,
2015, Chapter 6). However, it has proved useful for researchers concerned
with how classroom L2 learners engage with different types of learning
task, and how their individual objectives and preferences for learning tools
and activities interact with contextual factors (classroom rules, teacher and
peers). Activity theorists have also turned their attention to computer-medi-
ated communication (Thorne, 2003, 2009).
In an early study, McCafferty, Roebuck, and Wayland (2001) applied
activity theory to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. They ran a small-scale
comparative study with two groups of learners of L2 Spanish. One group
were given a list of previously unknown words about animals, and asked to
include them in an essay about zoos. The second group were asked to plan
an interview with fellow students about their early language learning expe-
riences, and were told they could ask for any vocabulary items they needed
to fill gaps. It was found that the vocabulary items requested by individual
members of the second group, and then actively used by them during the
interview process, were retained much better than the animal words pro-
vided for the first group. McCafferty et al. interpreted these results as show-
ing that words are learned better when linked to “goal-directed action” (in
line with the “involvement load hypothesis” of Hulstijn & Laufer, 2001).
More recent studies have explored L2 learners’ engagement with different
classroom activities including problem-based learning (Gibbes & Carson,
2014), peer feedback on L2 writing (Yu & I. Lee, 2016; Zhu & Mitchell,
2012) and L2 writing strategies (Kang & Pyun, 2013; Lei, 2008; Park & De
Costa, 2015). Most of these studies take the form of small-scale longitudi-
nal case studies, informed by data such as writing samples, interviews and
stimulated recall. However, Gibbes and Carson (2014) report a larger scale
study of problem-based language learning (PBLL) within an institution-
wide language learning programme, which offered nonspecialists the chance
to study one of seven languages up to B2 level of the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001). As a
key part of the curriculum, students were required to form small groups, to
research a self-chosen topic and to produce in L2 both individual written
reports and a group oral presentation on the topic. The researchers investi-
gated students’ reflections on these projects through open-ended question-
naires and interviews.
Gibbes and Carson drew on the activity framework (Figure 8.1) to
categorize and analyse participants’ comments, as illustrated in Table 8.1.
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 299
Table 8.1  Perceptions of PBLL Activity: Sample Participants’ Comments

Category Explanation Example

Object and The object of an activity is what I found the group projects good
outcomes learners want from it; the
outcomes of the activity are
projects
Subject The subjects of the activity are I wanted to keep up and improve
the learner my level of French
Division of labour Roles and responsibilities in Everyone put in their share of the
group work work
Rules The rules that apply to learners’ It requires a lot of motivation and
activity research on your own
Tools The tools, external and internal, I think my projects are generally
that mediate learners’ activity constructed in English and then
translated
Community The learners’ community I’m currently 3rd year and
outside of the modules: my subject has a very heavy
college, work workload
Source: Gibbes & Carson, 2014, p. 177

A majority of participants were positive about the projects. However,

some students felt the projects (the outcome) were diversionary from their
personal goals (objects), as they downplayed L2 grammar study and core
vocabulary, in favour of (over)specialized language. Some classroom rules
were found onerous and not followed (e.g. to work through L2, to avoid
machine translation); and the division of labour was not always seen as fair
(some participants did little work). Gibbes and Carson believe that sys-
tematic analysis of classroom activity systems will give educators a better
understanding of learner motivations, and allow for better alignment of
pedagogical practice.
Turning to applications of activity theory to language learning with digi-
tal technologies, Thorne and associates have conducted a range of studies of
L2 learners engaged in telecollaboration, internet gaming and other forms
of internet use (Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Thorne, 2003, 2009). For Thorne,
activity theory helps to interpret students’ participation in such activities,
where their cultural backgrounds and prior internet experience are diverse.
A study by Juffs and Friedline (2014) drew similarly on activity theory
to investigate students’ use of an online vocabulary tutor, during a course of
instruction in reading English for academic purposes.The tool was designed
to promote learning of items from the Academic Word List (AWL: Coxhead,
2000). It contained a repository of reading texts in different subject areas,
each including several highlighted items from the AWL, with a dictionary
lookup tool. During online sessions the students were expected to work
individually, reading a set of texts tailored to their academic interests and
previous vocabulary scores.
300  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Juffs and Friedline investigated the use made of the vocabulary tutor
over three semesters by two groups of international students, L1 Arabic
speakers (n = 41) and L1 Korean speakers (n = 21). The participants’ use
of the tutor was automatically logged, lesson observations were conducted,
and a subset of participants completed questionnaires and took part in
interviews. The overall findings are summarized in the activity triangle
shown in Figure 8.2.
As can be seen from Figure 8.2, the way the two groups of students
interacted with the web-based tutor was somewhat different. Individu-
als in both groups read similar numbers of texts. However, the L1 Arabic
group concentrated on checking meanings of the AWL words, while the L1
Korean group checked meanings more widely (and also performed better
on text comprehension questions, and on a word definition test, though
not on a vocabulary cloze test). Interviews and questionnaires provided
evidence about student preferences for vocabulary learning, with the L1
Arabic group preferring oral interaction, and the L1 Korean group prefer-
ring text study (Figure 8.2, “Rules” box). However, as can be seen in the
“Division of Labor” box, both groups of students believed they learned bet-
ter in face-to-face interaction with a teacher (and with peers) than when
working individually with the tutor. Juffs and Friedline argue that their
activity theoretic analysis has shed light both on established culturally based
learning practices among students, and also on ways to make online learn-
ing more engaging in future.

8.3.3 Mediation, Languaging and L2 Learning in the ZPD

We have seen that sociocultural theorists view language as a cultural/sym-
bolic tool which arises both phylogenetically (i.e. in the history of the
human race) and also ontogenetically (i.e. in the development of the indi-
vidual child), as an outcome of social activity (Thorne & Lantolf, 2006;
Wells, 2009, Chapter 11). They agree with usage-based linguistic theorists
that the only genetic endowments needed are (a) the ability to read the
intentions of other people in a context of interaction (a so-called theory of
mind), and (b) skills of pattern-finding or categorization (Tomasello, 2003,
pp. 3–4). Given this endowment, all aspects of the cultural tool of language
can gradually be acquired through engagement in communicational activity,
and the mediation of others who will regulate attention, use language flex-
ibly to convey communicative intentions, and supplement language use with
gesture and objects.
Many naturalistic studies conducted by researchers working outside
the Vygotskian tradition show sharing and transfer of new L2 knowledge
between speakers. We have already seen the child learner Takahiro appro-
priating and using the word house, offered to him by an adult carer (Hatch,
1978, p. 410). Another of Hatch’s examples, taken from Brunak, Fain &
 Actions and Operations –
Arabic: (a) clicking
mainly on target words:
MEDIATIONAL (b) not reading for
MEANS content (c) effect of
Web-based tutor proficiency

Korean: (a) click on many

words; (b) read for
content
OUTCOME
Variable
OBJECT success in
SUBJECT/AGENT
(read to) learn vocabulary
Students vocabulary learning due to
transformation
of the tool and
object

RULES
How to study
COMMUNITY DIVISION OF LABOR
Arabic: oral
-Classmates Arabic: ask teachers
orientation – interact
-Home country questions
in class – use context
culture and learning Korean: let teacher
Korean: text
habits guide study
orientation-dictionary-
memorize

Figure 8.2 Activity of L1 Arabic and L1 Korean Students Using Web Tutor

Source: Juffs & Friedline, 2014, p. 55
302  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Villoria (1976), shows an adult learner eliciting an expression she needs (last
year) from a cooperative interlocutor:

NATIVE SPEAKER:  O that’s a beautiful plant!

  I like that.
  Did you buy that?
RAFAELA:  Excuse me . . .
  This is the . . .
  October 24.
  The how you say . . .
  The . . . (writes “1974”)
  year, ah?
NATIVE SPEAKER:  1974. Last year.
RAFAELA:  Ah! Last years.
NATIVE SPEAKER:  One. (Correction of plural form)
RAFAELA:  Last year.
  Last year a friend gave me it.

From an interactionist perspective (Chapter 6), such passages would be

viewed as negotiation of meaning, which maximizes the relevance of the
available input for the learner’s acquisitional stage. From a sociocultural per-
spective, we are witnessing microgenesis in the learner’s L2 system, through
the appropriation of a new lexical item from the talk of the L1 speaker.

8.3.3.1 Teacher Mediation in the L2 Classroom

Most sociocultural research into dialogue and its role in L2 learning has
taken place in classrooms rather than in informal settings. Following the
classic Vygotskian view of the ZPD as involving interaction between an
expert and a novice, one group of sociocultural studies has examined the
L2 development which appears to take place as a result of mediation during
teacher-student talk.
The well-known study by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) was a pioneering
example; the dataset from the original qualitative and longitudinal study has
recently been reanalysed by Lantolf, Kurtz, and Kisselev (2016). The partici-
pants in this study were adult ESL learners receiving one-to-one feedback
from a language tutor on weekly writing assignments. At each weekly tuto-
rial, the students first of all reread their own writing, and checked it for any
errors they could identify without help; the tutor and student then worked
through the assignment together, sentence by sentence. When an error was
identified, the tutor aimed to mediate development and promote self-reg-
ulation: “the idea is to offer just enough assistance to encourage and guide
the learner to participate in the activity and to assume increased responsibil-
ity for arriving at the appropriate performance” (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994,
p. 469).
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 303
The learners were tracked and audiorecorded for 8 weeks; the analysis
focused on their developing capability (or microgenetic growth) on four
grammatical points in written English (articles, tense marking, use of prepo-
sitions, and modal verbs). Firstly, the researchers looked for an increase in
accuracy in the use of these forms over time, as well as for any generaliza-
tion of learning beyond the specific items which had received attention in
tutorial discussion. Secondly, even where these errors continued to appear in
students’ writing, they looked for evidence of students’ developing capacity
to self-correct and to engage in metalinguistic discussion (i.e. increasing self-
regulation and reduced need for other-regulation).
Aljaafreh and Lantolf developed a “Regulatory Scale” to categorize the
tutor’s interventions, ranging from implicit to explicit correction; this scale
is shown as Table 8.2.
When the feedback needed by individual students moved closer to the
Implicit end of this scale, this was seen as movement towards more inde-
pendent and self-regulated performance, and consequently as positive evi-
dence of learning. The protocols presented in Table 8.3 illustrate the type of
data collected.
In Protocol L, we see the tutor and student F attempting to work out
the correct tense markings for modal + main verb constructions. The tutor
provides progressively more explicit feedback on the student’s written error
(cited in lines 2/3), actually modelling the correct past tense form for modal
auxiliary can in line 23. Later in the same tutorial, the same problem is
encountered again (Protocol M, lines 1/2). Initially, the learner focuses on

Table 8.2  Regulatory Scale for Error Feedback: Implicit (Strategic) to Explicit

0 Tutor asks the learner to read, find the errors, and correct them independently,
prior to the tutorial
1 Construction of a “collaborative frame” prompted by the presence of the tutor as a
potential dialogic partner
2 Prompted or focused reading of the sentence that contains the error by the learner
or the tutor
3 Tutor indicates that something may be wrong in a segment (e.g. sentence, clause,
line)—“Is there anything wrong in this sentence?”
4 Tutor rejects unsuccessful attempts at recognizing the error
5 Tutor narrows down the location of the error (e.g. repeats or points to the specific
segment containing the error)
6 Tutor indicates the nature of the error, but does not identify the error (“There is
something wrong with the tense marking here”)
7 Tutor identifies the error (“You can’t use an auxiliary here”)
8 Tutor rejects learners’ unsuccessful attempts at correction
9 Tutor provides clues to help the learner arrive at the correct form (e.g. “It is not
really past but something that is still going on”)
10 Tutor provides the correct form
11 Tutor provides some explanation for use of the correct form
12 Tutor provides examples of the correct pattern
Source: Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994, p. 471
Table 8.3  Microgenesis in the Language System

Protocol L Protocol M

 1 T: Okay, “to the. . . [yeah] to the US.  1 T: Okay, “I called other friends
[Okay] in that moment I can’t . . . who can’t went do the party”.
 2 lived in the house because I didn’t  2 Okay, what is wrong here?
have any furniture”.  3 F: To
 3 Is that . . . what what is wrong with  4 T: “Who can’t went do the party
that sentence, too? because that night they
 4 What is wrong with the sentence  5 worked at the hospital”. Okay,
 5 we just read? . . . “In that moment from here, “I called other
I can’t lived in the house because  6 friends who can’t went do the
 6 I didn’t have any furniture” . . . do party”. What’s wrong in this?
you see?  7 F: To?
 7 F: No  8 T: Okay, what else? . . . what about
 8 T: Okay . . . ah there is something the verb and the tense? the
 9 wrong with the verb with the  9 verb and the tense?
verb tense in this this sentence 10 F: Could
10 and the modal . . . do you know 11 T: Okay, here
modals? 12 F: Past tense
11 F: Ah yes, I know 13 T: All right, okay, “who [alright]
12 T: Okay, so what’s what’s wrong what’s could not”. Alright? and ? . . .
wrong here? 14 F: To
13 F: The tense of this live 15 T: Here [points to the verb phrase].
14 T: Okay, what about the the . . . is it What’s the right form?
15 just in this or in this, the whole 16 F: I . . . go
thing? 17 T: Go. Okay, “could not go to
16 F: The whole this [that’s right] to the party . . . ”
17 T: Okay, how do you correct it? . . .
18 Okay, “in that moment”, . . . Protocol N
What?  1 T: Is there anything wrong here
19 What is the past tense of can? what in this sentence? “I took only
was happening . . . what . . . the  2 Ani because I couldn’t took
20 past, right? What was happening both” . . . Do you see anything
. . . what . . . the event happened  3 wrong? . . . particularly here
21 in the past right? So what is the “because I couldn’t took both”
past tense of this verb can? . . . Do  4 F: Or Maki?
you know?  5 T: What the verb verb . . .
22 F: No something wrong with the
23 T: Okay, ah could verb . . .
24 F: Ah yes  6 F: Ah, yes . . .
25 T: Okay, “I could not. . . ”  7 T: That you used. Okay, where? Do
26 F: Live you see it?
27 T: Ah exactly, okay. So when you use  8 F: (points to the verb)
this in the past then the second  9 T: Took? okay
verb is the simple. . . 10 F: Take
28 F: Yes 11 T : Alright, take
29 T: Form, okay . . . ahh “in that moment 12 F: (Laughs)
I could not. . . ”
30 F: Live in the house
Source: Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994, pp. 478–479
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 305
a different problem (she has written do for to, an error which she notices
and corrects). However, once the tutor draws her attention to the incorrect
verb pattern, she supplies first the correct auxiliary past tense form could, and
then the untensed form of the main verb go. The researchers argue that this
reduced need for other-regulation itself constitutes evidence for microge-
netic development.
Protocol N provides further performance data, this time from the tutorial
centring on the student’s next assignment, one week later. The researchers
claim that here again “we see evidence of microgenesis both in production
of the Modal + Verb construction and the extent of responsibility assumed
by the learner for its production” (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994, p. 479). The
learner has independently produced the correct past tense form could in
her written text. She has still marked the main verb incorrectly for tense,
but interrupts the tutor to identify the error (line 6), and offers the correct
form take with very little hesitation (though her laughter and embarrassment
show that self-regulation is still not automatized or complete). In later essays,
this student’s performance on this particular construction is error-free, and
there is some evidence of generalization to other modals.
A study by Nassaji and Swain (2000) compared the provision of gradu-
ated feedback on students’ writing using the same regulatory scale with
the provision of “random” feedback (i.e. feedback unrelated to any diagno-
sis of the learner’s ZPD). Comparing just two case study participants, they
found that contingent, graduated feedback provided better support for L2
development. A more recent quantitative study by Erlam, Ellis, and Batstone
(2013) compared the provision of SCT-style graduated feedback on English
learners’ written work with provision of explicit corrective feedback (of the
kind discussed above in Chapter 6). Over two sessions, they noted that the
SCT-inspired feedback “was effective in promoting self-correction”; how-
ever, they did not find any decrease in the explicitness of mediation required
by the participants, between the first session and the second, and concluded
that there was “no consistent evidence that self-regulation was taking place”
(Erlam et al., 2013, p. 266). This prompted Lantolf et al. (2016) to under-
take a quantitative reanalysis of the original dataset of Aljaafreh and Lantolf
(1994).They argued that an immediate linear progression from more explicit
to more implicit mediation would not be predicted by SCT, which views
development as “a revolutionary, and therefore nonlinear process” (Lantolf
et al., 2016, p. 169). Nevertheless, their quantitative analysis confirmed that
over the sequence of six tutorial sessions, despite considerable variability,
there was an overall decline in the amount of mediational interventions
required, and in their explicitness.
Figure 8.3 illustrates this point, summarizing the mediational support
provided for Participant F with respect to modal verbs, over five tutorial
sessions. We can see that in Session 1, she requires 10 intervention “moves”,
and that the last two of these are at Level 10 on the 12-point Regulatory
Scale.The next three sessions require fewer interventions, though in all cases
 Learner F – Mediation for modal verbs
12

10

8
Episode 1 (Session 1)
6
Episode 2 (Session 1)

4 Episode 3 (Session 1)
Episode 4 (Session 2)
2 Episode 5 (Session 3)

Graduated Feedback Regulatory Scale

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Moves to resolution

Figure 8.3 Development of Self-Regulation over Time

Source: Lantolf et al., 2016, p. 161
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 307
these reach Level 6 on the scale. By Episode 5, however, the participant
is capable of independent self-correction (Level 0 on the scale), over two
moves. The authors also note that over time, the participants were engaging
in more extended metalinguistic discussion with their tutor; their view is
that this developing metacognitive ability provides further evidence of L2
development.

8.3.3.2  Peer Mediation within the ZPD

While Vygotsky’s original formulation of the ZPD was primarily concerned
with interaction between novice and expert, current sociocultural theorists
have expanded the concept to include pair and group work among peers:

To learn in the ZPD does not require that there be a designated teacher;
whenever people collaborate in an activity, each can assist the others,
and each can learn from the contributions of the others.
(Wells, 1999, p. 333)

SCT research on peer interaction in the language classroom is reviewed by

Lantolf and Thorne (2006, Chapter 11), and by Swain et al. (2015, Chap-
ter 3). Different types of collaborative dialogue have been studied, including
how learners support each other during oral L2 production, how they work
together during “focus on form” activities and how they collaborate around
L2 writing activities. Here we briefly examine examples of each type.
The longitudinal study by Ohta of seven adult learners of Japanese L2 has
already been introduced (2000, 2001). Ohta’s naturalistic classroom record-
ings provide abundant examples of peer assistance during oral pairwork.
Table 8.4 lists the array of strategies used by peers in Ohta’s study to support

Table 8.4  Methods of Assistance Occurring during Classroom Peer Interaction

1. Methods (when Degree of Description

interlocutor is struggling) explicitness

Waiting 1 One partner gives the other, even

when struggling, time to complete
an L2 utterance without making any
contribution.
Prompting 2 Partner repeats the syllable or word just
uttered, helping the interlocutor to
continue.
Co-construction 2–3 Partner contributes an item (syllable,
word, phrase etc.) that works towards
completion of the utterance.
Explaining 4 Partner explains in L1 (English).

(Continued )
308  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Table 8.4. (Continued)

2.  Additional methods (when Degree of Description

interlocutor makes an error) explicitness
Initiating repair 1–2 Partner indicates that the preceding
utterance is somehow problematic,
for example saying “huh?” This
provides an opportunity for the
interlocutor to consider the
utterance and self-correct.
Providing repair 3 Partner initiates and carries out repair.
Asking the teacher 4 Partner notices the interlocutor’s error
and asks the teacher about it.
Source: After Ohta, 2001, p. 89

their partner, ranked in order of explicitness. The extract below illustrates

both repair and co-construction, in an episode where learners Bryce and
Matt are describing what people in magazine pictures are wearing:

1 B: Un. Hai um kuroi ti-shatsu o kiru, to: um

Yeah.Yes um he wears a black t-shirt, a:nd um
→ 2 M: Kiteimasu?
He’s wearing?
3 B: Kiteimasu? (.) um (.) ahh
He’s wearing? (.) um (.) ahh
→ 4 M: Han::=
Ha::lf=
5 B: =Han- han- han- han-zubon (.) han zubon o um haiteimasu?
=Half- half- half- half-slacks (.) he’s um wearing half-
slacks?(literally,“half-slacks” means “shorts”)
6 M: Um hm:
7 B: Ah kutsu o:: (.) a:::h haiteimasu, (.) s- (.) um socks he//he
Ah he’s a:::h wearing (.) shoes, (.) s- (.) and socks hehe
→ 8 M: Kutsushita
Socks (literally, “under-shoes”)
9 B: Sha uh?
10 M: Kutsushita.
Under-shoes.
11 B: Kutsushita o:, [o::
Socks ACC:, (.) ACC::
→ 12 M: [Haite?
Wear-?
13 B: Haiteimasu un haiteimasu, (.) Ah tokai o um hai um
hameteimasu?
Wearing yeah wearing, (.) ah he’s um wearing a watch
((mispronounced))?
Source: Ohta, 2001, p. 84
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 309
The data provided by Ohta includes instances where learners are prompt-
ing others with language material which they are not capable of produc-
ing reliably themselves during their own oral production. Ohta explains
this by drawing on concepts from cognitive theory: selective attention, and
the limited capacity of working memory (see Chapter 5). She argues that
for beginning learners, formulating and producing an L2 utterance means
solving a whole variety of phonological, lexical and syntactic problems, and
they may lack the working memory capacity to solve them all in real time.
However, the listening partner, who is not burdened with the demands of
actual production, has capacity available to both analyse what is being said,
and also project what might come next. They thus have sufficient atten-
tional resources available to collaborate with the speaker, and provide assis-
tance even for language points where their own productive ability is not yet
automatized (Ohta, 2001, pp. 77–79).
Other researchers have looked at peer interaction during classroom activi-
ties with a focus on form. For example, in a study of writing in L2 French,
Swain and Lapkin (1998) recorded pairs of immersion students undertaking
a jigsaw task. Each student was given half of a set of pictures which together
told a story; the task for the pair was to reconstruct the complete story and
to produce a written version. In their report, Swain and Lapkin concentrated
on what they call “language related episodes” (LREs) recorded during the
activity, i.e. episodes where the learners were discussing points of form such
as whether or not a verb was reflexive, or sorting out vocabulary problems.
They focused on one pair of students (Kim and Rick) who produced the
best quality written story, having also invested the most time in the task, and
having produced the largest number of LREs. Kim and Rick used a wide
range of strategies to co-construct their written story, generating and assess-
ing alternatives, correcting each other’s L2 productions and also using the
L1 as a tool to regulate their behaviour. Swain and Lapkin claimed that this
cognitive activity led to microgenesis taking place for both L2 vocabulary
and grammar.This was argued from the evidence of the oral protocols them-
selves, and from the written story which resulted, but also from the evidence
of specially devised posttests, which checked the students’ recall of some of
the words and grammar points discussed during the observed LREs.
Similarly, van Compernolle and Williams (2013) studied the interaction
among a small group of adult learners of L2 French, who were undertak-
ing an activity intended to raise their awareness of sociolinguistic and prag-
matic variation in contemporary French. The students were comparing texts
from different registers, with varying degrees of formality, and examining the
use of pronouns and of negative forms. Discussion centred on two different
ways of saying “we”, i.e. the plural pronoun nous used in standard written
French, versus the singular pronoun on which is commonly used in less for-
mal speech; the interaction was videorecorded and transcribed using the con-
ventions conversation analysis. Three of the participants discussed this issue
actively, comparing examples from the different texts.The fourth participant,
Diane, followed their discussion closely, as evidenced through her gaze and
310  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
gestures. The first time she spoke was to make a contribution to resolving a
shared problem (does on take a singular or plural verb form?):

53 A: is it always conjugated the same, or-

54 C: but is it conjugated with ( )
55 B: on:: is (.) never:
56 there is no plural on
57 C: it’s not
58 it’s always like on est like il est
“one is” “he is”
59 it’s in the th- third person=
60 D: =conjugated with elle and il
“she” “he”
61 C: yeah:
62 I think you’re right.
63 ((Group moves on to consider meanings of on))
(van Compernolle & Williams, 2013, p. 55)

For van Compernolle and Williams, the group is working in a collective ZPD,
and Diane’s non-verbal participation was sufficient for her to share in the joint
development of understanding; see also van Compernolle (2015, Chapter 6)
for fuller discussion. In this study, as well as in that of Swain and Lapkin (1998),
the students involved were working effectively together. However, students
undertaking pairwork may act competitively rather than collaboratively, and
the work of Storch, for example, has provided evidence that in such cases,
the development of L2 knowledge is considerably reduced (Storch, 2002). In
response to such observations, SCT-inspired educators have developed general
instructional procedures to promote sustained collaborative dialogue among
classroom peers (Littleton & Mercer, 2013; Thinking Together, 2012).

8.3.4 Concept-Based Instruction and SCT

In their 2006 book, Lantolf and Thorne point out that for the classic Vygot-
skian tradition, the distinctive role of formal education was to develop learn-
ers’ conceptual scientific understanding (pp. 290–291), in line with the overall
view that “instruction leads development”. Thus, for example, Vygotsky
argued for the importance of L1 grammar instruction, and of language aware-
ness more generally, for the “general development of the child’s thought”
(1987, p. 205). These ideas were developed by Piotr Gal’perin in his theory
of Systemic Theoretical Instruction (STI), which involves three key phases:

1. Orienting basis of mental action (to develop conceptual understanding

of the topic under study, typically using models, diagrams or other non-
verbal representations, plus concrete material actions);
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 311
2. Verbal action (a phase of discussion and verbalization, including self-
directed talk);
3. Inner speech (a phase where new concepts can be used creatively and
without external, material support).
(Lantolf & Poehner, 2014, pp. 63–68)

Lantolf and associates apply this line of thinking to current debates about the
place of metalinguistic understanding in instructed L2 learning. They argue
in favour of research into the classroom as a site for the “intentional develop-
ment of communicatively functional declarative knowledge” (Lantolf, 2011,
p. 37). They look to cognitive linguistics (see Chapter 7) as a source of suit-
able conceptual accounts of linguistic phenomena, which are at the core of
so-called concept-based instruction (as STI is usually called in L2 studies),
along with various kinds of language practice activities, and languaging in
which the learners re-explain the new concepts to themselves, and com-
ment on concrete examples of their use. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) and
Lantolf and Poehner (2008, 2014) present a number of empirical research
studies investigating both one-to-one tutoring, and foreign language class-
room interventions, which are grounded in this approach.
In Section 8.3.1, we have already encountered an example of concept-
based instruction research (Swain et al., 2009). Another classroom study of
L2 Spanish has been reported by Negueruela (2008). Here, the students
were taught a conceptual understanding of a number of key grammatical
distinctions in Spanish, following Negueruela’s interpretation of Gal’perin’s
STI principles:

1. Concepts form the minimal unit of instruction in the L2 classroom;

2. Concepts must be materialized as didactic tools;
3. Concepts must be verbalized [including] speaking to oneself, and using
concepts as tools for understanding, to explain the deployment of mean-
ing in communication;
4. Categories of meaning must be connected to other categories of
meaning.

For example, they studied the conceptual (semantic) distinctions between

indicative and subjunctive mood in Spanish, and between perfective and
imperfective aspect. The “didactic tools” were devised following principled
accounts found in cognitive linguistics; Figure 8.4 shows an example from
Negueruela (2008), i.e. a flow chart devised to guide mood selection in
Spanish. To meet principle 3, Negueruela experimented with both class-
room collaborative dialogue (not so successful) and individual homework
verbalization tasks (more successful in this case). To meet principle 4, he
addressed a number of different grammar topics, and aimed to develop stu-
dents’ understanding of the underlying relations between them.
Negueruela evaluated the success of his project by tracing the devel-
opment of some individual participants over time, both in terms of their
312  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL

CONVEY CONVEY
ATTITUDE? NO INTELLIGENCE? YES
Anticipation, Speaker USE
evaluation of reports (new INDICATIVE
clause, info) and
commenting asserts
or influencing (presents as
true)

YES NO

USE
SUBJUNCTIVE

Figure 8.4 Didactic Model for Mood Selection in Spanish

Source: Negueruela, 2008, p. 212

verbalizations and developing semantic understandings, and also in terms

of “discourse performance” (use of the targeted grammar forms, in writ-
ten compositions). The verbalizations of the single participant discussed in
Negueruela (2008) shifted over time from “rules of thumb” to more mean-
ing-based comments on the use of the subjunctive mood; her use of sub-
junctive morphology in writing also became more consistent and accurate;
and she reflected positively on the whole experience, languaging included.
Other recent examples of concept-based SCT instruction can be found
in the work of van Compernolle and associates (e.g. van Compernolle, 2015;
van Compernolle, Gomez-Laich, & Weber, 2016; van Compernolle & Hen-
ery, 2014). For example, van Compernolle and Henery (2014) report a class-
room-based study of instruction in the sociopragmatic meaning potential of
French pronouns.The teaching approach had previously been worked out in
a one-to-one tutoring study, reported in van Compernolle (2015). The van
Compernolle and Henery study focused on “learners’ appropriation of the
concepts of self-presentation, social distance, and power with respect to the
French second-person pronoun system (i.e., tu versus vous)” (2014, p. 549).
An intact class followed their regular one-semester instructional programme,
enriched over 9 weeks with additional input and activities. To document
development, the participants completed a language awareness questionnaire
and an appropriateness judgement task, and participated in interaction sce-
narios, as pre- and posttests. As in the Negueruela study discussed above,
their conceptual understanding was developed using visual prompts as well
as reflective tasks, judgement tasks and (role play) scenarios. A sample visual
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 313

tu
vous
tu vous

Closeness or distance?

Figure 8.5 Sample Pedagogical Diagram: “Social Distance”

Source: van Compernolle & Henery, 2014, p. 555

prompt is shown in Figure 8.5. Conceptual discussions took place through

English, on six occasions.
Ten participants completed all of the activities up to post-enrichment.The
authors conclude that their conceptual understanding developed so as to
take account of the different sociopragmatic dimensions (self-presentation,
power, social distance) in combination, and also of speaker agency and inten-
tions. This development is illustrated in the following pre-enrichment and
post-enrichment comments, drawn from a judgement task (about appropri-
ate pronoun choice, when meeting a friend’s girlfriend for the first time):

“Although Sophie and I are the same age, I should use vous to be
respectful and polite since we’ve never met.” (Talia, situation 2, pre-
enrichment:VV)
“Even though we’re socially distant, she is my friend’s girlfriend so I’d
expect to get close to her soon, and we are in a casual setting and I want
her to be comfortable so I’d use tu and expect tu back.” (Talia, situation
2, post-enrichment: TT)
(van Compernolle & Henery, 2014, p. 564)

Regarding selection of tu versus vous during oral production, at pre-enrich-

ment participants showed a general preference for informal tu, regardless
of the scenario type. At post-enrichment, they continued to use tu in the
informal scenarios. However, in the more formal scenarios involving social
distance and an intention to show respect, they now consistently selected
the more formal variant vous. The authors argue that the development of
abstract, systematic, concept-based knowledge has provided “the foundation
of their concrete communicative development” (p. 573).
314  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Throughout this book, we have discussed longstanding claims that SLA
follows common developmental sequences, whether, e.g., in terms of mor-
pheme acquisition orders (Chapter 2) or syntactic processing capacities (Pro-
cessability Theory: Chapter 4). One of the most ambitious claims of the SCT
approach is that while such sequences may be observed in naturalistic acqui-
sition, since “instruction leads development”, it should be possible to alter/
bypass them in the classroom setting, following the instructional principles
of STI/concept-based instruction. A study by Zhang and Lantolf (2015) set
out to test this claim, with four instructed adult learners of L2 Chinese. The
selected focus was the development of sentence level topicalization, where
Processability Theory makes a definite prediction:

In second language acquisition learners will initially not differentiate

between SUBJECT and TOPIC. The addition of an XP to a canonical
string will trigger a differentiation of TOPIC and SUBJECT which first
extends to non-arguments and successively to arguments thus causing
further structural consequences.
(Pienemann, 2005, p. 239)

For Chinese, the following developmental stages are anticipated:

Stage 1: Lexical processing

Stage 2: TOP = SUBJ: TOPsubj V(O)   (SVO)
e.g. Mary   ate  an apple.
|        |      
|
TOP=SUBJ   
V    
OBJ
Stage 3: TOP = ADJ(unct): TOPadj SV(O)   (ADJ.+SVO)
e.g.Yesterday       Mary  ate   an apple.
|  |       
|        |
TOP=ADJ      SUBJ    V    OBJ
Stage 4: TOP = OBJ: TOPobj SV   (OSV)
e.g. Bob,     I think,     she will not forget.
|  | |
TOP=OBJ SUBJ V
According to Processability Theory, these stages should be teachable/acquir-
able only in the order presented above. However, working with four stu-
dents currently at Stage 2 on this hierarchy, Zhang and Lantolf provided
instruction according to STI principles for Stage 4 first of all, followed by
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 315
instruction for Stage 3.The instruction included visual representations of the
concepts underlying each stage, discussion, and practice including manip-
ulation of coloured Cuisenaire rods (representing structural elements) to
illustrate varying word order. Tests showed that immediately following the
highly explicit Stage 4 instruction, the participants were able to produce
some examples of Stage 4 utterances, in an Elicited Imitation test and also in
oral production tasks, as in the following example:

However, they remained unable to produce Stage 3 structures until that

stage had also been taught. The authors therefore conclude that topicaliza-
tion can be taught successfully following STI principles, without regard to
the proposed stages of Processability Theory. (These claims were debated
with Pienemann in a subsequent exchange: Lantolf & Zhang, 2015; Piene-
mann, 2015.)

8.3.5 Dynamic Assessment
We have seen throughout this chapter how SCT theorists view L2 instruc-
tion and L2 development as linked in a dialectical relationship. Recently, they
have also explored the relationship between L2 assessment and L2 develop-
ment, drawing on the concept of Dynamic Assessment (DA), developed in
Vygotsky-inspired general and special education (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006,
Chapter 12; Lantolf & Poehner, 2014, Chapters 7 and 8; Poehner, 2008).
Kozulin and Gindis (2007) sum up the underlying principles of DA, which
emphasize the formative and developmental side of the assessment process:

1. Cognitive processes are modifiable and an important task of assessment

is to ascertain their degree of modifiability, rather than remain restricted
to estimation of the child’s manifest level of functioning;
2. Interactive assessment that includes a learning phase provides better
insight into the child’s learning capacities than unaided performance;
3. The primary goal of assessment is to suggest psychoeducational inter-
ventions aimed as the enhancement and realization of the child’s latent
ability to learn.
(Kozulin & Gindis, 2007, pp. 355–356)

Lantolf and Poehner (2014) define DA for L2 as “the dialectic integration of

assessment with teaching through teacher-learner interactions during which
316  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
mediation is negotiated for learners to optimally contribute to activities
and for mediators to gain insights into learner abilities necessary to guide
their efforts to move development forward” (pp. 170–171). This definition
has much in common with other kinds of mediation within the ZPD (cf
Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994, discussed above). For example, Lantolf and Poeh-
ner (2011) and Davin (2013, 2016) report the implementation of DA in
an elementary school L2 Spanish classroom, where the teacher employed
a sequence of more implicit/more explicit prompts during her regular les-
sons, in response to learner errors in a particular domain. For example, when
teaching lessons focusing on animals of Latin America, she developed and
used a set of mediating prompts on noun-adjective concord, and recorded
the level of mediation required by individual students on a simple track-
ing sheet. The following protocol illustrates the interaction of this teacher
with a student requiring most types of mediation before he can produce
the expected noun-adjective plural concord; the teacher’s assessment notes
recorded formally this student’s need for extensive mediation at this point.

Protocol participants: Teacher (Tracy) and Vicente

1 T: ¿Cuántas orejas? “how many ears?”

2 V: tiene dos orejas “it has two ears”
(long pause, points at the image on the cube, then looks at Tracy)
3 *café “brown” (looks out to the class, then back to the teacher)
4 *café “brown” (then looks back at the cube)
5 T: ¿Tiene dos orejas *café? “it has two *brown ears?”
6 V: (looks at the cube again and points at it twice with his finger)sí
dos orejas . . . . . . *café “yes two *brown ears”
7 T: ¿*Café? “brown?”
8 V: ¿Amarillo? “yellow?”
9 T: “Café” es correcto pero ¿dos orejas café? “brown is correct but two
*brown ears?”
10 V: (no response, turns his body to face the class, looks at cube then
out at class and back to cube)
11 T: shhh (directed to another student murmuring something off
camera)
12 Hay un problema . . . . . . con la palabra café “There is a problem with
the word brown”
13 V: (Vicente does not respond but another student in the class says
“oh” and raises her hand)
14 T: (looks toward the other student and then back to Vicente)
15 ¿Es *café or cafés? “is it *brown sg. or brown pl.?”
16 V: Cafés “brown pl.”
17 T: Sí muy bien tiene dos orejas cafés muy bien excelente Vicente “Yes very
good it has two brown ears very good excellent Vicente”
(Lantolf & Poehner, 2011, pp. 21–22)
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 317
Qualitative analysis of similar lesson protocols and teacher notes showed
that students making apparently similar errors might need different levels of
prompting. Over time the need for prompts generally was reduced, and per-
formances improved. However, Davin (2016) comments on the limits to this
approach, from a pedagogical perspective, on the basis of a similar interven-
tion teaching Spanish question forms. She argues that DA in this style may
not distinguish between student L2 performances relying on memorized
formulaic utterances, and those which are creatively constructed, so that the
underlying quality of L2 development may not be detected. For Davin, DA
will work best as a classroom procedure if complemented by concept-based
instruction.

8.4 Evaluation
Since its emergence in the 1990s, L2 SCT has rapidly established an active
research programme.What are its most original features, and how far have its
claims been empirically established?

8.4.1 The Scope of Sociocultural Research

L2 researchers working in a sociocultural framework are making an ambi-
tious attempt to apply a general theory of cognition and of development
which has been influential in other domains of social and educational
research to the language learning problem. Firstly, the conventional sepa-
ration between social and psychological aspects of cognition and devel-
opment is rejected. Similarly, the classic Saussurean view of language as a
formal abstract system which has an existence distinct from language use
is also rejected. Learning is seen as a social and intermental activity, tak-
ing place in the ZPD, which leads individual development (viewed as the
internalization or appropriation of socially constructed knowledge). These
have been challenging ideas for an L2 research community accustomed to
the Chomskyan distinction between language competence and language
performance, and to psycholinguistic assumptions about individual devel-
opment. The sociocultural tradition has found a more sympathetic hearing
among other research traditions belonging broadly to the social turn of the
1990s and 2000s (see Duff, 2007, on connections between SCT and lan-
guage socialization theory). Its applications are also appealing to language
educators, who can find that SCT offers a creative agenda for the renewal
of L2 classroom practice.
The empirical research which we have sampled in this chapter has used
a range of sociocultural constructs (private speech, activity theory, media-
tion, languaging, the ZPD, Systemic Theoretical Instruction) to address a
variety of aspects of L2 learning (from the acquisition of lexis and gram-
mar, to the development of conceptual understanding, and of discourse skills
such as narrative and L2 writing). Studies have typically been small-scale,
318  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
and have mostly focused on teenage and adult classroom learners. In line
with the ideas of “genetic method” and “dynamic assessment”, sociocultural
researchers typically document learners engaging in some type of organized
language learning activity, whether with an individual tutor, a class teacher
or one or more peers. The resulting protocols are then analysed qualitatively,
to trace the mediation and co-construction of conceptual and/or linguistic
knowledge.
SCT clearly meets at least the first and third of the evaluation criteria for
a credible theory proposed in Chapter 1. It offers a well-developed con-
ceptual framework, with a long pedigree and roots in an ambitious general
explanatory theory of human learning. The research programme of L2 SCT
theorists has evolved over time to demarcate more precisely the area of
application of the theory, and, in particular, to promote applied research on
concept-based instruction and on dynamic assessment (Lantolf, 2012, p. 68).
There is a commitment to empirical research following learner devel-
opment longitudinally, using analyses of ongoing interaction to trace the
influence of learning tools such as private speech, the role of mediation, and
the emergence of new knowledge. This partly satisfies the second criterion,
though this approach to empirical research is affected by some of the usual
difficulties in developing causal explanations and generalizations through
naturalistic research.
Researchers working in this tradition are conscious of these issues, and
there are increasing numbers of studies which have tried to address them
(including those studies we have cited which have included some form of
distinct posttest in their design: Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Swain et al., 2009;
van Compernolle et al., 2016; van Compernolle & Henery, 2014; Zhang &
Lantolf, 2015). But many of the strongest sociocultural claims about the
relationship between interaction and learning have been made on a local
scale, with reference to discrete elements of language. SCT research has not
yet seen the cumulative focus of successive studies on very similar domains,
which characterizes the interactionist approach, for example. The new
sharper focus, e.g., on concept-based instruction may change this.

8.4.2 Sociocultural Interpretations of Language and Communication

SCT views language as a tool for thought. It is therefore critical of “trans-
mission” theories of communication, which present language primarily as
an instrument for the passage back and forth of predetermined messages and
meanings. Dialogic communication is seen as central to the joint construc-
tion of knowledge (including knowledge of language forms), which is first
mediated intermentally, and then appropriated and internalized by the indi-
vidual. Similarly, private speech and metastatement are valued positively as
instruments for self-regulation, i.e. the development of autonomous control
over new knowledge.
In addition to these general claims regarding language as a tool, we have
already noted the rejection by sociocultural theorists of the classic Saussurean
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 319
idea of language as an autonomous abstract system, and of Chomsky’s dis-
tinction between competence and performance. The early phases of socio-
cultural work did not offer in its place any very thorough or detailed view of
the nature of language as a system—a property theory was lacking, and ear-
lier sociocultural studies of language development within the ZPD focused
on individual lexical items or morphosyntactic features as defined in tradi-
tional descriptive grammars (for example Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994). More
recently, however, sociocultural theorists have aligned themselves much
more explicitly with meaning-based, functional perspectives on language,
and have proposed what they term a “linguistics of communicative activity”:

Language from this perspective is not about rule governed a priori

grammar systems that must be acquired before people can engage in
communication, but is instead about communicative resources that are
formed and reformed in the very activity in which they are used—
concrete linguistically-mediated communicative and cognitive activity.
(Thorne & Lantolf, 2006 p. 177)

Lantolf and Poehner (2014) point out that from the early 2000s, SCT theo-
rists have looked more specifically towards cognitive linguistics as a relevant
theory of language, and point to synergies with the cognitive linguistics
work of scholars such as Tyler (2012), discussed here in Chapter 7. These
theoretical developments have had increasing impact on empirical research
in the SCT tradition.

8.4.3 The Sociocultural View of (Language) Learning

Sociocultural theorists assume that the same general learning mechanisms
will apply to language as to other forms of knowledge and skill. All learning
is seen as first social, then individual; first intermental, then intramental. Also,
learners are seen as active constructors of their own learning environment,
which they shape through their choice of goals and operations. So, this tra-
dition has a good deal to say about aspects of the learning process, and has
invested considerable empirical effort in illustrating these. Thorne and Lan-
tolf (2007) view language learning from an SCT perspective as compatible
with the usage-based theory of Tomasello (2003). However, the language
learning documented in much sociocultural research is local, individual and
short-term, and what actually counts as learning is not uncontroversial, as
we have seen:

Unlike the claim that comprehensible input leads to learning, we

wish to suggest that what occurs in collaborative dialogues is learn-
ing. That is, learning does not happen outside performance; it occurs
in performance. Furthermore, learning is cumulative, emergent and
ongoing . . .
(Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 321)
320  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Ohta’s year-long qualitative case study of L2 Japanese learners remains
unusual in the field. She developed a very full account of language learn-
ing which integrates a range of sociocultural concepts with cognitive ideas
about learning processes (2001). The length of her study and detailed nature
of her analysis means she can offer rich exemplification in support of her
specific detailed claims.
Compared with other traditions which have addressed the issues of rates
and routes of learning very centrally, the Vygotskian tradition does not have
very much to contribute. The absence of experimental studies including a
control group makes it hard to make claims regarding the rate of develop-
ment, though there are some suggestions (Storch, 2002; Nassaji & Swain,
2000) that people who receive timely and effective mediation learn faster
than those who lack this help. Regarding routes of learning, Lantolf (2011)
notes that the logic of SCT is to challenge “the existence of a natural sylla-
bus” (p. 42). The study by Zhang and Lantolf (2015) discussed above set out
to test the claim that instruction can alter developmental routes, and claimed
to show that this was possible, with respect to topicalization in L2 Chinese.
However, apart from a vocabulary study by Song and Kellogg (2011) this
remains the only SCT study relevant to this issue, and its pioneering charac-
ter is acknowledged by the authors.

8.4.4 Overall Conclusion
SCT has established itself as a vigorous player in the field of second language
learning research, making a range of ambitious theoretical claims, and sup-
porting these with primarily qualitative research activity. Its central ideas
have undoubted appeal for educators, and concepts such as the ZPD, media-
tion and activity theory provide appealing alternative interpretations of the
L2 learning and developmental opportunities afforded by classroom basics
such as teacher-student interaction, problem-solving and communicative
tasks, learner strategy training, focus on form, and corrective feedback. The
recent concentration on concept-based instruction grounded in cognitive
linguistics reflects a more focused agenda and more strategic approach to
empirical investigation of key ideas.

References
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second lan-
guage learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal,
78, 465–483.
Bozalek, V., Ng’ambi, D., Wood, D., Herrington, J., Hardman, J., & Amory, A. (Eds.).
(2015). Activity theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Brunak, J., Fain, E. & Villoria, N. (1976). Conversations with Rafaela. Second Language
Acquisition Project, University of California, Los Angeles.
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 321
Bruner, J. (1985).Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.),
Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
Daniels, H. (2007). Pedagogy. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J.V.Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge
companion to Vygotsky (pp. 307–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J.V. (Eds.). (2007). The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Engeström, Y., Gallagher, T., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2010).
Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations
to promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language
Teaching Research, 17, 303–322.
Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: A critical examination of constructs
and practices. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 813–829.
de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2005). Inner speech—L2: Thinking words in a second language. New
York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Del Río, P., & Álvarez, A. (2007). Inside and outside the Zone of Proximal Development:
An ecofunctional reading of Vygotsky. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.),
The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 276–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf &
G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and
issues. Language Teaching, 40, 309–319.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In
Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory
(pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström,Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theory reconceptu-
alization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch
(Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Com-
puters, 20, 256–259.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity
theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Sannino, A., & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of
formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21, 118–128.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two
approaches compared. System, 41, 257–268.
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian perspective.
Applied Linguistics, 6, 19–44.
Gedera, D. S. P., & Williams, P. J. (Eds.). (2016). Activity theory in education: Research and
practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
322  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Gibbes, M., & Carson, L. (2014). Project-based language learning: An activity theory
analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 171–189.
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. M. Hatch
(Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: New-
bury House.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load
hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
Itoh, H. (1973). A Japanese child’s acquisition of two languages. Unpublished MA dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
John-Steiner,V. P. (2007).Vygotsky on thinking and speaking. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, &
J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 136–152). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Juffs, A., & Friedline, B. E. (2014). Sociocultural influences on the use of a web-based tool
for learning English vocabulary. System, 42, 48–59.
Kang, Y.-S., & Pyun, D. O. (2013). Mediation strategies in L2 writing processes: A case
study of two Korean language learners. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 52–67.
Kozulin, A., & Gindis, B. (2007). Sociocultural theory and education of children with
special needs: From defectology to remedial pedagogy. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V.
Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 332–362). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. L. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communica-
tive practice. In D. Cameron & D. Block (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching
(pp. 83–100). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching,
33, 79–96.
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. In D.
Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–47). London:
Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S.
M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 57–72). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P., & Beckett, T. G. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisi-
tion. Language Teaching, 42, 459–475.
Lantolf, J. P., Kurtz, L., & Kisselev, O. (2016). Understanding the revolutionary character
of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter. Language and Socio-
cultural Theory, 3, 153–171.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (Eds.). (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second
languages. London: Equinox.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom:Vygotskian
praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 11–33.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2
education:Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second
language development. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language
acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 207–227). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 323
Lantolf, J. P., & Zhang, X. (2015). Response to Pienemann’s critique of Zhang and Lantolf
(2015). Language Learning, 65, 752–760.
Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspec-
tives. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 201–213.
Lee, J. (2008). Gesture and private speech in second language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 30, 169–190.
Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated
actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 217–236.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
McCafferty, S. G. (1992). The use of private speech by adult second language learners:
A cross-cultural study. Modern Language Journal, 76, 179–189.
McCafferty, S. G. (1994). Adult second language learners’ use of private speech: A review
of studies. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 421–436.
McCafferty, S. G., Roebuck, R. F., & Wayland, R. P. (2001). Activity theory and the inci-
dental learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Teaching Research, 10, 289–294.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learn-
ing: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interac-
tion, 1, 12–21.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A soci-
ocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Miller, R. (2011). Vygotsky in perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2:
The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Lan-
guage Awareness, 8, 34–51.
Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second lan-
guage development. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the
teaching of second languages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assis-
tance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In
J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ohta, A. S. (2017). Sociocultural theory and second/foreign language education. In N.
Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Second and
foreign language education (pp. 57–68). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Olson, D. R. (1995).Writing and the mind. In J.V.Wertsch, P. Del Río, & A. Alvarez (Eds.),
Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 95–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, J.-H., & De Costa, P. (2015). Reframing graduate student writing strategies from an
Activity Theory perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 25–50.
Pienemann, M. (Ed.). (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other
approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and pro-
moting L2 development. New York: Springer.
324  Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three place: Participatory appro-
priation, guided participation and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Río, & A.
Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Song, S., & Kellogg, D. (2011). Word meaning as a palimpsest: A defense of sociocultural
theory. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 589–604.
Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabili-
ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 344–364.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52,
119–158.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language
proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday
and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language educa-
tion: An introduction through narratives (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adoles-
cent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82,
320–337.
Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: Univer-
sity students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language
Journal, 93, 5–29.
Thinking Together. (2012). Thinking together. Retrieved from http://thinkingtogether.
educ.cam.ac.uk/
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Lan-
guage Learning and Technology, 7, 38–67.
Thorne, S. L. (2009). “Community”, semiotic flows, and mediated contribution to activ-
ity. Language Teaching, 42, 82–94.
Thorne, S. L., & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). A linguistics of communicative activity. In S.
Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 170–195).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning:Theoretical basics and experi-
mental evidence. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian
perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Compernolle, R. A., Gomez-Laich, M. P., & Weber, A. (2016). Teaching L2 Span-
ish sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language
Journal, 100, 341–361.
van Compernolle, R. A., & Henery, A. (2014). Instructed concept appropriation and L2
pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning, 64, 549–578.
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2013). Group dynamics in the language class-
room: Embodied participation as active reception in the collective Zone of Proximal
Development. Classroom Discourse, 4, 42–62.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Sociocultural Perspectives on SLL 325
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech: Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3). New
York: Plenum Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2009). The meaning makers: Learning to talk and talking to learn (2nd ed.). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winsler, A. (2009). Still talking to ourselves after all these years: A review of current
research on private speech. In A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough, & I. Montero (Eds.), Private
speech, executive functioning and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp. 3–41). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer
feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11.
Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J. P. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route of L2 development
teachable? Language Learning, 65, 152–180.
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examina-
tion of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
46, 362–386.
Zinchenko, V. P. (1995). Cultural-historical psychology and the psychological theory of
activity: Retrospect and prospect. In J.V. Wertsch, P. Del Río, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Socio-
cultural studies of mind (pp. 37–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9 Sociolinguistic Perspectives

9.1 Introduction
In this chapter we review aspects of the relationship between sociolinguistics
and second language learning theory. As we have seen in earlier chapters,
theorizing about second language learning originally concentrated mostly
on modelling the development of language within the individual learner, in
response to an environment defined fairly narrowly as a source of linguistic
information. However, in the last 20 years or so, following the so-called
social turn (Block, 2003), a rich flow of conceptual discussion and empiri-
cal research has developed, in which wider aspects of the social context are
viewed as central to the overall understanding of L2 learning.
Sociolinguistics, or the study of language in use, is itself a diverse and
changing field, with multiple theoretical perspectives. This is clear from any
of the current survey volumes (for example Bayley, Cameron, & Lucas, 2015;
Holmes & Wilson, 2017;Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2015). Here, we will necessar-
ily be selective, identifying strands within contemporary sociolinguistics and
anthropological linguistics which are having the clearest impact on the field
of L2 learning. Where appropriate, we will pay attention to sociolinguistic
interpretations of the multilingual practices, and virtual communities, which
are receiving increasing attention. Successive sections will deal with:

• sociolinguistically driven variability in L2 use;

• L2 socialization;
• conversation analysis and L2 learning;
• communities of practice and situated L2 learning;
• L2 learning, agency and the (re)construction of identity;
• affect, emotion and investment in L2 learning.

9.2 Sociolinguistically Driven Variability

in Second Language Use

9.2.1 Introduction
Socially patterned variation in language use is a major sociolinguistic theme:
“[Sociolinguists] are interested in explaining why we speak differently in
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 327
different social contexts” (Holmes & Wilson, 2017, p. 1). Variability is also
an obvious feature of interlanguage, which we have discussed elsewhere.
In this opening section we explore how far patterns of L2 variability can
be explained by sociolinguistic factors. We show how quantitative research
methods developed by sociolinguists have been used to study these patterns,
and finally we assess how far interlanguage variability can indeed be attrib-
uted to socially motivated choices by L2 users.
By variability, to recapitulate, we refer to the fact that L2 learners com-
monly produce different versions of particular target language items, within
a short timespan (even, perhaps, within succeeding utterances). In Chap-
ter 2 we have already referred briefly to Schumann’s 40-week case study of
Alberto, an adult user of L2 English (1978). Schumann reports an example
of variability, where Alberto used two alternative forms to express negation:
“He used both no V and don’t V constructions throughout; however no V was
clearly the most dominant of the two and consistently achieved a higher
frequency of use until the very last sample” (1978, p. 20). The puzzle to be
explained is the underlying cause for such persistent L2 variability.
Most sociolinguistics commentators agree that L2 variability is “condi-
tioned by multiple causes” (Romaine, 2003). Rehner (2002) proposed a dis-
tinction between Type I and Type II variation, where Type I involves the
variable occurrence of interlanguage forms, such as the just cited example
of Alberto’s use of no V/don’t V. Type II variation involves the acquisition
of alternate forms within the target L2, for example the acquisition of dif-
ferent ways of expressing future time (I go to Beijing on Friday, I’m going to
Beijing on Friday, I’ll go to Beijing on Friday). Both Type I and Type II variation
may be conditioned in different ways, as we have already seen in Chap-
ter 7, where we discussed variation associated with semantic and pragmatic
choices. The most clearly sociolinguistic variation involves both Type I and
Type II choices which are connected to extralinguistic factors, such as the
perceived degree of formality of the setting, the amount of attention being
paid to speech, the desired relationship with the interlocutor, or the topic.
Type I variation can be exemplified by the work of Young (1991), who
studied the extent to which Chinese learners of English marked plural -s on
English nouns. Young’s main finding was that linguistic factors such as the
position of the noun within the Noun Phrase, its syntactic function and its
phonological context each affected the likelihood that these learners would
produce the plural ending.Young found that participants’ behaviour was also
connected to a more clearly sociolinguistic factor, i.e. whether their inter-
locutor was Chinese or English (in the latter case, they produced a higher
proportion of plural -s).
Much recent variationist work on L2 development has focused on Type II
variation (see reviews by Geeslin & Long, 2014; Gudmestad, 2014). For
example, Geeslin, Fafulas, and Kanwit (2013) studied the use of two past
tense forms (Present Perfect and Preterit) among learners of L2 Spanish
undertaking study abroad (SA) in Spain and Mexico. The relative frequen-
cies of these two forms, and the contexts in which they can be selected, are
328  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
somewhat different in the Spanish of Mexico and Spain, and these different
regional norms were increasingly reflected in the participants’ choices on a
questionnaire investigating past time options, in line with their SA location.
Similarly, Trentman (2017) documented how students of Modern Standard
Arabic adopted local Egyptian norms for vocabulary, grammar and phonol-
ogy to varying degrees, when undertaking SA in Egypt. Further examples
will be reviewed below, following an introduction to the leading methodo-
logical approach adopted in quantitative variationist research.

9.2.2 Quantifying L2 Variability
In trying to make sense of the variability phenomenon, one group of L2
researchers has turned to a quantitative methodological approach which was
originally developed within mainstream sociolinguistics to study L1 varia-
tion (Bayley & Preston, 1996; Bayley & Tarone, 2012; Geeslin & Long, 2014;
Preston & Bayley, 2009).
In the 1970s the sociolinguist William Labov pioneered the quantitative
study of variability in everyday speech. He concentrated on features in spo-
ken language, often pronunciation features, where two-way choices are pos-
sible which are endowed with positive or negative value by a given speech
community. An example from contemporary spoken British English is vari-
ation between the alveolar plosive [t] or glottal stop [Ɂ] to realize the /t/
phoneme in words such as better, Britain etc. The glottal stop variant is com-
mon in many forms of spoken English; yet it is typically described as “lazy”,
“sloppy” speech etc., indicating it has negative social value or prestige. Labov
called such socially preferred/dispreferred items sociolinguistic markers.
Labov and his followers systematically recorded L1 speech samples from
people representing different social groups, in a variety of situations. They
showed in many studies that the relative frequencies of use for more posi-
tively/negatively valued variants can be correlated with factors such as the
immediate linguistic context; the speaker’s social class, age and gender; and
the degree of formality of the speech setting (Labov, 1972).
Table 9.1 shows an example drawn from 1970s quantitative research in
the Labov tradition, discussed by Preston (1996). This study investigated the
simplification of word-final consonant clusters in English among African-
American speakers from Detroit city (that is, the deletion of final [t] or [d]
in these phonetic environments). The researchers recorded extended speech
samples from their subjects, and analysed the percentage of final consonant
clusters within which [t] or [d] deletion was found.
As Table 9.1 shows, in this study the percentage of observed occasions of
deletion of final [t] and [d] could be linked both to the immediate linguistic
context and to speakers’ social class.
Researchers in this tradition moved to a greater level of statistical sophistica-
tion with the development of specialized computer software (Varbrul or Gold-
varb:Tagliamonte, 2006, 2012).These statistical programmes offer a generalized
linear model of logistic regression, capable of modelling binary (two-way)
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 329
Table 9.1  [t]/[d] Deletion in Detroit African-American Speech

Environments Social classes

Upper Lower Upper Lower

middle middle working working

Following vowel:
t/d is past morpheme 0.07 0.13 0.24 0.34
(e.g. “missed in”)
t/d is not past morpheme 0.28 0.43 0.65 0.72
(e.g. “mist in”)
Following consonant:
t/d is past morpheme 0.49 0.62 0.73 0.76
(e.g. “missed by”)
t/d is not past morpheme 0.79 0.87 0.94 0.97
(e.g. “mist by”)
Source: Preston, 1996, p. 4

Table 9.2  
Varbrul Results for [t]/[d] Deletion by African-American Speakers from
Detroit: Hypothetical Data Inferred from Table 9.1

Result Probability

Following vowel (V) 0.25

Following consonant (C) 0.75
Morpheme (M) 0.31
Non-morpheme (N) 0.69
Upper middle class (UMC) 0.29
Lower middle class (LMC) 0.42
Upper working class (UWC) 0.60
Lower working class (LWC) 0.69
Input probability 0.60
Source: Preston, 1996, p. 10

variables along with multiple factors that are anticipated to influence them.
Varbrul draws on data such as that presented in Table 9.1, and calculates the sta-
tistical probability that speakers will produce one variant rather than the other,
taking account of the influence of linguistic and/or social factors identified by
the researcher (such as phonological context, or speaker gender). Probabilities
are expressed in terms of weightings ranging from 1.00 to 0.00; a weighting of
0.50 or more means that a form is systematically more likely to be produced
in a given environment, and a weighting of less than 0.50 means that this is less
likely.Varbrul type programmes not only handle these different factors simul-
taneously, but also handle interactions between them.
Preston (1996) ran the Varbrul programme on hypothetical raw data based
on the table presented earlier as Table 9.1. This Varbrul analysis produced the
pattern of probabilities for the different linguistic and social contextual fac-
tors shown in Table 9.2.
330  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
(The term “input probability” used in this table refers to the overall like-
lihood that the deletion rule will operate—note the specialized use of the
term “input” here!) In this hypothetical example we see that two linguis-
tic factors, Following Consonant and Non-morpheme, have probabilities
higher than 0.50, and therefore predict that the consonant will be deleted;
the same applies for working class membership (whether UWC or LWC).
Thus, we see that the overall likelihood of consonant deletion depends in
this case on a combination of both linguistic and social factors.
Preston and others have applied different versions of Varbrul or Goldvarb
to the study of variation in L2 use. For example, a study by Bayley (1996)
investigated variability in word-final [t]/[d] deletion by Chinese learners of
English. This study analysed over 3,000 final consonant clusters produced
during L2-medium sociolinguistic interviews by a group of 20 learners,
and compared patterns of [t]/[d] deletion with those reported for L1 users.
Using the Varbrul procedure, the extent to which the final consonant was
deleted was related to a wide range of factors, including the immediate
phonetic environment, the grammatical category of the word to which the
consonant cluster belonged, different speech styles (reading aloud, narrative
and informal conversation) and the learners’ reported social networks (L1
monocultural, or mixed American and Chinese).
Table 9.3 shows Varbrul values for [t]/[d] deletion for the L1 Chinese
learners in the study, for the different grammatical categories studied, and
compares them with values found in other studies of North American Eng-
lish.The table shows that [t]/[d] deletion occurred to some extent for all cat-
egories, but was the most usual choice of the L2 speakers only for regular past
tense inflections. This contrasted, e.g., with the African-American speakers,
who deleted final [t]/[d] most for single-morpheme words, but least where
the final [t]/[d] was a grammatical morpheme (past tense inflection).
Bayley explains this finding by arguing that not one, but two variable
rules are operating for the L2 speakers. Unlike the L1 speakers, they are not

Table 9.3  [t]/[d] Absence by Grammatical Category in Chinese-English Interlanguage

and in Native English Dialects

Variety Single-morpheme Semiweak verb, Regular past participle, Regular preterit,

word, e.g. just e.g. he lef+t e.g. he had walk#ed e.g. he walk#ed

Chinese-English .46 .39 .47 .66

interlanguage
African-American .68 .46 – .35
English
Vernacular
Philadelphia and 1.00 .91 .49 .52
NYC white
English
Source: After Bayley, 1996, p. 109
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 331
consistently inflecting verbs for past tense. So, their use of, e.g., he walk in
past tense contexts results on some occasions from the use of a noninflected
verb form (i.e. because of Type I developmental variability) and on other
occasions from Type II sociolinguistic [t]/[d] deletion.
While Varbrul has been used extensively in quantitative variationist
research, it is acknowledged to have a number of limitations (Tagliamonte,
2012), and a wider range of statistical procedures is being used in recent
research examining the emergence of Type II variation in L2. For exam-
ple, Gudmestad and Edmonds (2016) used multinomial logistic regression
capable of handling a variable with more than two options, to examine
the acquisition of variable future time reference (FTR) among learners of
French. They investigated learners’ judgements about the appropriacy of
present tense, inflected future tense and periphrastic future tense (i.e. three
options for the FTR variable), in different semantic and morphosyntactic
contexts. As we saw in Chapter 7, Kanwit (2017) used the same procedure to
explore linguistic and social factors influencing patterns of FTR in his study
of oral production by L2 Spanish learners. This procedure allowed Kanwit
to propose a sophisticated model for the route of FTR development in L2,
as learners gradually master a wider range of Type II forms and become sen-
sitized to an increasing range of linguistic and extralinguistic factors which
influence their choice among FTR options.

9.2.3 Acquiring Sociolinguistic Variation in Interlanguage

The Bayley (1996) study of [t]/[d] deletion plus many following studies sup-
port Romaine’s view that variability among L2 learners has mixed origins,
and that external sociolinguistic factors may play a relatively restricted role.
However, there is an important group of studies focusing on French which
shows that L2 users may eventually become sensitive to sociolinguistic vari-
ation, and learn to accommodate the Type II variationist norms of the target
community. Much of this work has been conducted in Canada, with L1
English speakers who are learning L2 French in immersion schooling and
higher education, as well as informally in the community (F. Mougeon &
Rehner, 2015; R. Mougeon, Rehner, & Nadasdi, 2004; R. Mougeon, Nad-
asdi, & Rehner, 2010; Rehner, R. Mougeon, & Nadasdi, 2003).The methods
employed in these studies range from quantitative approaches, using Varbrul
style tools, to qualitative accounts. Variationist work has also been carried
out in Europe with advanced instructed learners studying French in higher
education, and/or undertaking study abroad (Dewaele, 2004; M. Howard,
2012; Regan, 1996; Regan, M. Howard, & Lemée, 2009). Kinginger (2008)
and van Compernolle (2015) have worked on sociolinguistic variation in
L2 French from ethnographic and neoVygotskian perspectives respectively.
In a large-scale example of the Canadian work, R. Mougeon et al. (2010)
ran lengthy interviews with 41 high school immersion students, to study
their acquisition of French sociolinguistic variation. They focused on 13
332  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
linguistic variables, drawn from Canadian French grammar, lexis and pho-
nology. The immersion students’ choices of different sociolinguistically con-
ditioned variants associated with each variable were compared with the use
of these same variants documented in existing corpora of spoken Cana-
dian French, in the classroom speech of French immersion teachers and in
French instructional materials.
According to R. Mougeon et al., contemporary spoken French in Canada
has three types of variant:

Vernacular Nonconforming to the rules of standard French,

associated with lower class speakers and stigmatized
Mildly marked Nonconforming to the rules of standard French, but not
socially stratified or stigmatized
Formal Typical of careful speech and written standard French,
associated with speakers from upper social strata

Their studies show that immersion students rarely or never use ver-
nacular variants (such as ouvrage, “job”; rester, “to reside”). However, they
do make use of mildly marked variants, though at lower frequency than
L1 speakers, and have some awareness of their sociolinguistic significance.
For example, in formal French, the 1st person plural pronoun nous (“we”)
predominates. In spoken Canadian French, this form is almost entirely
replaced by the mildly marked variant on (“one”). The informal L1 speech
data yielded usage of on 95% of the time, and the immersion teachers
used it 83% of the time, during supposedly formal classroom talk. R.
Mougeon et al. report that their Grade 9/Grade 12 immersion students
were only slightly more likely to use on than nous (55% vs 45%). How-
ever, factor analysis using a version of Varbrul also showed the influence
of both gender and social class on the students’ choices. Girls were more
likely to use nous than on, while boys showed the reverse pattern; middle
class students also preferred nous, while working class students preferred
on. On the other hand, the more the students reported using French out-
side school, the greater the overall predominance of on in their speech.
Similar findings were reported for optional deletion of the negative par-
ticle ne, another highly characteristic feature of less formal French, and a
number of other variables. The researchers believe that the more limited
stylistic variation among immersion students partly reflects the fact that
the teachers’ classroom speech and—even more so—the classroom teach-
ing materials showed a general bias towards formal variants, and an almost
complete absence of vernacular variants. (A similar argument regarding
the influence of teacher input is made by Li, 2017, in a study of stylistic
variation in L2 Chinese.) Even so, the classic factors of gender and social
class exerted some influence on French immersion students’ willingness to
use mildly marked variants.
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 333
This research programme suggests that while students who encounter
the L2 mainly in school are using only a limited repertoire of stylistic Type
II variants, they nonetheless gain some awareness of their social meaning,
and are likely to extend their use of informal variants outside the class-
room. These findings are generally confirmed in other studies. For exam-
ple, the advanced learners studied by Regan (1996), who were interviewed
before and after an extended stay in metropolitan France, became much
more native-like in respect of deletion of the negative particle ne, as shown
when a Varbrul type programme was used to compare these SA participants
at Time 1 and Time 2. However, recent studies have also shown that there is
considerable individual variation in the adoption of informal variants, which
may partly relate to differences in learner motivation and aspirations towards
a multilingual identity (M. Howard, 2012; F. Mougeon & Rehner, 2015).
Further studies by Li (2010, 2017) have extended the use of variationist
methods to study the acquisition of a sociolinguistic variable in Chinese (the
optional particle de). This research confirms in a fresh context (L2 Chinese)
learners’ emerging awareness of sociolinguistic variables, and the combina-
tion of linguistic and social factors which influence the selection of different
variants (in this case, inclusion/omission of optional de). It also confirms the
overall preference of classroom learners for more formal variants, and how
this may be influenced at least initially by the speech styles of their teachers.
This brief survey of research into L2 variability confirms its complex
nature. For our present purposes, it is clear that sociolinguistic factors play a
role in L2 variation, but these are intertwined with linguistic factors. It seems
that beginning L2 learners have little control of stylistic variation, either
within their own interlanguage, or reflecting the different speech styles of
the target language. On the other hand, it is clear that more advanced learn-
ers who engage actively with L1 users can move more or less rapidly towards
community norms of stylistic variation. Their motivations for doing so are
explored in following sections of this chapter.

9.3 Second Language Socialization

9.3.1 Introduction
In this section we turn to the study of L2 socialization (Duff, 2011; Talmy,
2013). This work has its roots in anthropological linguistics (Foley, 1997;
Ochs & Schieffelin, 2011, 2017), and also has connections with systemic
functional linguistics (Williams, 2017) and with sociocultural theory (Duff,
2007; Duff & Talmy, 2011). Language socialization theory is concerned with
both “socialization through the use of language and socialization to use lan-
guage” (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, p. 163). This perspective was developed
from longitudinal ethnographic studies of children learning to talk (and to
read and write), in non-Western, nonurban societies. The studies of Elinor
334  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Ochs in Western Samoa (e.g. Ochs, 1988), and of Bambi Schieffelin in Papua
New Guinea (Schieffelin, 1990), were early influential examples. The work
of Shirley Brice Heath on children’s language socialization among rural
working class communities in the SE United States can also be linked to this
tradition (Heath, 1983, 1986). As part of the general social turn in applied
linguistics, language socialization theory has been attracting increased inter-
est from L2 researchers since pioneering studies of EFL classrooms in Hun-
gary carried out by Duff in the 1990s (Duff, 1995, 1996), and this is reflected
in a number of substantial reviews and collections (Bayley & Schecter, 2003;
Duff, 2010, 2011; Duff & Doherty, 2015; Duff & May, 2017; Duff & Talmy,
2011).The concept of language socialization is proving useful to L2 research-
ers studying virtual, informal spaces such as internet chat rooms, online and
offline computer gaming and fan fiction (e.g. Duran, 2017a; Reinhardt &
Thorne, 2017; Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009). Reflecting the growth of glo-
balization and its influence both on indigenous non-Western societies and
on transnational migration, there is also an increasing volume of work on
language socialization in multilingual settings (Duran, 2017b; Fogle & King,
2017; García-Sánchez & Nazimova, 2017; Moore, 2017).

9.3.2 Developmental Links between Language and Culture

Researchers in the language socialization tradition believe that language and
culture are not separable, nor reducible to arrays of distinct factors, but are
acquired together:

It is evident that acquisition of linguistic knowledge and acquisition of

sociocultural knowledge are interdependent. A basic task of the language
acquirer is to acquire tacit knowledge of principles relating linguistic forms
not only to each other but also to referential and nonreferential meanings
and functions . . . Given that meanings and functions are to a large extent
socioculturally organized, linguistic knowledge is embedded in sociocul-
tural knowledge. On the other hand, understandings of the social organiza-
tion of everyday life, cultural ideologies, moral values, beliefs, and structures
of knowledge and interpretation are to a large extent acquired through the
medium of language . . . Children develop concepts of a socioculturally
structured universe through their participation in language activities.
(Ochs, 1988, p. 14)

In their 2011 review, Ochs and Schieffelin discuss how different domains
of language (morphosyntax, vocabulary, phonology and speech acts as well
as broader genres and registers) all play a role in the everyday reproduc-
tion and innovation of “social order and cultural knowledge, beliefs, values,
ideologies, symbols and indexes” (p. 11). That is to say, language forms “are
inextricably tied to, and hence index, culturally organized situations of use”,
and “the indexical meanings of grammatical forms influence children’s pro-
duction and understanding of these forms” (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1995, p. 74).
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 335
It is important to note that a language socialization perspective differs
from functionalist approaches to grammar development, which concen-
trate on studying the local, moment-to-moment performance of speech
acts, or creation of information structure, and their influence on the selec-
tion and learning of particular elements of the language system. A language
socialization perspective, in contrast, aims to take systematic account of the
wider frameworks and socially recognized situations within which speech
acts are performed. Thus, for example, K. M. Howard (2011) describes
how children develop a sense of social hierarchy through interactions with
adults and other older/younger children, in which they hear, and may be
coached to use, politeness routines and address terms indexing social status.
Her main study concerned Muang children in northern Thailand, where
bilingualism in the minority language Kam Muang and the national lan-
guage (Thai) is common. In both languages, hierarchical social relation-
ships are indexed through a range of linguistic means including role and
kinship terms, as well as nicknames and pronouns with differing degrees
of formality. Children were socialized into appropriate use of these terms
through a variety of practices including explicit modelling and prompting.
In the following example, while playing with a group of other children,
3-year-old Mai has addressed an older male cousin (Art) “disrespectfully”
in Kam Muang:

Mai (3 years old), Jen (6 years old) and Pae (5 years old)

1 Mai to Art t́έ Ɂì iɁaam

“True, little Art”.
2 (1.5)
3 Jen t́έέ ɁìiɁaam wãa
“She said, ‘True, little Art.’ ”
4 Mai ɁìiɁaam paj lẽn
“Little Art, go play”.
5 Mai’s aunt [laughs]
6 Mai’s mum ɁìiɁaam
“Little Art”
7 ? Ɂúuj
“Ohh”
8 (1.0)
9 Pae: ɁìiɁaam paj lẽn
“Little Art go play”.
10 Jen: nɔ́ɔŋ màaj pàak bɔ̀ ɔ dii wâa ɁìiɁaam wâa:
“Little sister Mai (your) mouth is not good, (you) said
‘little Art’!”
11 (1.5)
12 Pae bɔ̀ ɔ câj (0.4) ɁìiɁaam bɔ̀ ɔ câj
“It’s not ‘Little Art’, it’s not”.
(K. M. Howard, 2011, p. 354)
336  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
In this incident, Mai has playfully addressed Art with a term appropriate
for a younger child. As we see, the adults who were present (Mai’s aunt and
mother) took some joking notice of Mai’s utterance, but did not explicitly
correct her. However, she was explicitly corrected by the other two children,
who took an active part in promoting the expected social order.
Ochs and Schieffelin (1995) provide further instances of young chil-
dren’s language productions, which suggest that the course of language
acquisition may itself be linked to their social and gender roles. In Samoan,
for example, the language offers a choice of 1st person pronouns, including
the neutral form a’u (“I”, “me”) and the form ta ita (“poor me”), which
is marked for affect. In the early productions of the children studied by
Ochs, the affect-marked form appeared several months before the neutral
form (Ochs, 1988, p. 186), linked to a speech act of “begging” (usually for
food); children generally were “concerned with the rhetorical force of their
utterances, and . . . rhetorical strategies may account for certain acquisition
patterns” (p. 188). In Kaluli, the imperative verb form elema “say like that”
was regularly used by female caregivers when prompting a very young
child to copy and produce an utterance (Schieffelin, 1990). This form was
quickly learned and used by girls from age 2 onwards, both in play and to
direct even younger children to “say like that”. However, boys in Schief-
felin’s study never produced this imperative verb form, though they knew
and used other forms of the verb. It seems that the children’s language
choice was connected to their socialization into gender-appropriate behav-
iour (which overrode input frequency, for example, as both boys and girls
regularly heard the form).

9.3.3 Fluidity and Multidirectionality of Language Socialization

Ochs and Schieffelin (2011) insist that how children and other “novices”
take part in communicative practices is “promoted but not determined by a
legacy of socially and culturally informed persons, artifacts, and features of
the . . . environment” (p. 4) [our emphasis]. Language socialization is ongoing
throughout the lifecourse, and responsive to changes in the social context,
such as the introduction of formal schooling in traditional societies, or other
influences of globalization (Heath, 2011; Moore, 2017). Through their own
language practices, children themselves may create new forms of social order,
contributing to language change and to the transformation of communities
(Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2011). Researchers working with mobile transna-
tional populations (such as migrants or refugees) strongly stress the fluidity
and hybridity of multilingual language socialization (Duran, 2017a, 2017b).
The socialization process may also be multidirectional; thus, for example,
transnationally mobile children may be “novices” being socialized by their
parents into age-appropriate behaviour within the family, whereas at school,
or at the doctor’s office, the child may be the leading “expert”, tutoring
their parents in appropriate language behaviours. Children may also be more
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 337
expert users of modern technology, and adopt the role of social and linguis-
tic mentor to adults who are “novices” in this context (Duran, 2014).

9.3.4 Second Language Socialization in the Classroom

The language socialization perspective has proved appealing to L2 research-
ers who view language learning as “both a cognitive and a social process”
(Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003, p. 156). Duff (2011) begins by defining L2
socialization as:

a process by which non-native speakers of a language, or people return-

ing to a language they may have once understood or spoken but have
since lost proficiency in, seek competence in the language and, typically,
membership and the ability to participate in the practices of communi-
ties in which that language is spoken.
(Duff, 2011, p. 564)

Duff goes on to stress the wide range of second, foreign, concurrent bilin-
gual and multilingual contexts in which L2 socialization may take place.
While L1 socialization research is typically concerned with child learners,
L2 socialization involves adolescents and adults as well as children, and takes
place in formal as well as informal settings, both virtual and face to face.
Current theorists stress the existence of an ongoing, non-linear relationship
between L1 and L2 socialization, the cultural hybridity which emerges in
migrant or transnational contexts (Duff, 2011), and increasingly, the role of
learner agency:

This shift in focus enables researchers not only to document established

group members’ explicit or implicit expectations with respect to their
own and others’ linguistic and cultural practices and dispositions (and
particularly those of novices or newcomers), but also to show how they
are negotiated as people learn (to different degrees) to reproduce cul-
tural forms, innovate or resist certain aspects of their peers’ or mentors’
behaviours.
(Duff & Doherty, 2015, p. 55)

Duff and Doherty (2015) go on to discuss the concept of self-socialization,

a process where learners themselves takes the initiative in language and cul-
tural learning, typically in informal or online settings. We will return to this
concept in Section 9.6 below. Here, we examine some examples of L2 class-
room studies using an L2 socialization perspective.
Several of these studies have focused on young children in primary school
settings. For example, Cekaite (2007, 2017) has studied how primary school
aged children develop as conversational participants in a Swedish reception
class for immigrant children. Her 2007 study concentrated on a 7-year-old
338  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Kurdish girl, Fusi, as a single case study during one school year. Cekaite
showed how Fusi gradually developed both the linguistic ability and the
turntaking ability to contribute appropriately to teacher-led, multiparty
conversational activities.
During the year, Fusi passed through three main phases, from a “silent”
child, to a “noisy” child, to a competent classroom participant. During the
early silent phase, she only attempted to address the teacher one-to-one.
The following extract shows her early use of an object (a drawing), physical
movement (walking to the teacher), plus limited routine language, to attract
the teacher’s attention (Cekaite, 2007, p. 49):

1 Fusi Vera titta här! ((holds her drawing half-upraised and walks across
to Vera)) Vera look here!
2 Vera ((returns to her chair, not noticing Fusi))
3 Fusi Vera ((follows Vera holding out her drawing))
4 Fusi Vera (1) titta här ((standing close to Vera))
Vera (1) look here
5 Vera ojdå! vilken fin bil du har. ((about Fusi’s drawing))
wow! what a nice car you have.

By the middle period of the study, Fusi had learned to produce a num-
ber of classroom expressions (jag klar alla “I done all”, kom “come”), poly-
functional words, simple adverbials and deictics. However, her Swedish
still lacked inflectional morphology, and her verb forms were primarily
infinitives and imperatives, such as nej skriv! “no write!” and här skriv!
“here write!” These expressions were most probably appropriated from
teacher talk, but of course the giving of instructions with imperative
forms is not part of “competent” pupil behaviour. Fusi now tried actively
to join in group play, and also in the more routine teacher-led multiparty
classroom discussions, reciting material learned as homework, for exam-
ple. However, she tended to be teased and excluded from group play, and
had not yet mastered interactionally appropriate behaviour in teacher-led
discussions, as seen in the example below (with assistant teacher Fare;
Cekaite, 2007, p. 51):

1 Fare vilken årstid är det?

what is the season?
2 Sawan e-
3 Fusi det vinter!
it winter!
4 Fare vinter! my:cket bra lilla Fusi ((smiley voice)). ser ni!
winter! ve:ry good little Fusi. you see!
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 339

5 Fusi nej lilla! ((determined))

not little!
6 Fare a: du är lilla. du är bara sju år eller hur? ((smiley voice))
yea:h you are little. you are only seven years old aren’t you?
7 Fusi NEJ lilla! ((angry voice))
NOT little!
8 Hiwa he he
9 Fare du är stora Fusi. ((smiley voice))
you are big Fusi.
10 Fusi a.
yeah.
11 Fare bra.
good.
12 Miran en häst Fusi! wi: tukdik tukdik ((pretend “riding” sounds))
a horse Fusi! wi: tukdik tukdik
13 Fare nej nej! hon är bara sju år.
no no! she is only seven years old.

Here, Fusi first of all competes directly with another child (Sawan) for
the answering turn to the teacher’s original question. She can produce the
required answer, but then sets out to extend the exchange with the teacher,
by challenging her on what is topically a “side issue”—an intended term of
endearment, “little Fusi”. This “oppositional talk” is functional in obtaining
further speech turns, but also evokes teasing from other children (Miran).
By the final phase of the study, however, Fusi’s linguistic and interactional
resources had developed sufficiently for her to take part appropriately in
multiparty exchanges. This is seen in her contributions to an extended dis-
cussion about the importance of breakfast (Cekaite, 2007, p. 57):

1 Vera: <jag undrar om nån ät- har ni ätit frukost I dag då?>
<I wonder if someone ha- have you had breakfast today then?>
2 Children: [a
yeah
3 Miran [a Vera jag ätit så mycket så ((smiley voice))
yeah Vera I had so much to eat
4 Nok: (där)
(there)
5 Vera: a (.) då får du klippa där (.) har Nok ätit frukost?
yeah (.) then you may cut there (.) has Nok had breakfast?
6 Miran: >Vera alla da:g.<
>Vera all day:.<
7 Fusi: jag ät-=
I eat-=
340  Sociolinguistic Perspectives

8 Nok: =ne:=
=no:=
9 Fusi: =jag äter lite ite frukost ((smiling))
=I have a little a little breakfast
10 Vera: a det är bra att du äter [lite frukost
yeah that’s good that you have a little breakfast
11 Miran: [Vera alla dagar jag äter
Vera every day I have
12 [frukost. jag ka inte gå till skolan
breakfast. I cannot go to school
13 Abdi: [>Vera titta<
>Vera look<
14 Vera: har Nok ätit frukost?
has Nok had breakfast?
15 (1)
16 Vera: i:ngen frukost?
no: breakfast?
17 (1)
18 Vera: <lilla Nok kan du inte dricka- [äta lite frukost>
<little Nok can’t you drink- have a little breakfast>
19 Abdi: [JAG OCKSÅMÄTT
I’M ALSO FULL
20 Fusi: jag dricker mjölk Vera ef- (.) °efter frukost°
I drink milk Vera af- (.) °after breakfast°
21 Vera: a:
yea:h

In line 1 of this extract, Vera has asked a general question about who
eats breakfast. Fusi self-selects to answer, even though the teacher has spe-
cifically addressed Nok in line 5; Fusi can time her first intervention neatly
to follow that of Miran. Her utterance in line 9 has several characteristics
of a cooperative response (a full sentence including use of diminutives, a
“smiley” voice), and is duly praised by Vera, who endorses her utterance
through repetition. Her second intervention (line 20) is topically relevant,
and reflects classroom values (milk is healthy!). To construct this response,
Fusi has appropriated the verb “drink” used by the teacher in line 18, but
now she can integrate this “borrowing” into her own sentence. The overall
result, for Cekaite, is a display of “the affective stance of a diligent pupil who
complies with approved norms of student identity for the current classroom
community” (2007, p. 58).
Socialization into classroom routines and appropriation of teacher lan-
guage have also been studied in foreign language classrooms. Ohta (1999)
documented the adoption of target language routines through L2 socializa-
tion in adult classroom learning. Her focus was the achievement of Japa-
nese-style conversational alignment among interlocutors, i.e. the culturally
appropriate use of a range of expressions to show interlocutor empathy and
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 341
collaboration. The affective particle ne/na is used for one type of alignment,
i.e. “assessments” or evaluations of the state of affairs, as in the following
example (Strauss, 1995, in Ohta, 1999):

1 Mari: hondana to hon ga kao ni ochite [kichatte

“the book shelf and books fell at her face”
2 Ken: [kowai na hidoi na sore.
“how scary na that’s awful na”

In all of the adult classrooms studied longitudinally by Ohta, teacher-led

classroom routines including ne occurred regularly; over time, students were
socialized into appropriate use of similar expressions, and thus into the achieve-
ment of this alignment. Some of the teachers incorporated ne assessments into
exercises and classroom greeting routines; when students used these routines,
the teachers responded with further instances, as in the following example:

1 S1: Nanji kara nanji made gorufu o suru tsumori desu?

“What time do you plan to play golf from and how long?”
2 S2: Shichi-ji (.) kara: (.) u::m (.) juu-ji made gorufu (.) gorufu o suru
tsumori desu.
“I plan to golf from seven o’clock to ten o’clock”.
3 → S1: Hayai desu ne.
“That’s early ne”.
4 → T: Soo desu ne:::. Hayai desu ne::.
“That’s so ne::. Tha’t early ne::”.
(Ohta, 1999, p. 1503)

Turning to student-student interaction, Ohta tracked the oral contribu-

tions of one particular case study student, Candace. In the early part of the
course, Candace had the chance to hear numerous ne assessments used by
her teacher, but herself did not use any in peer-peer interactions:

1 C: Supo- (.) ag:: (.) tenisu:: (.) tenisu:: s- tenisu o shimasu (.) ka?
“Spor- (.) ag:: (.) tennis:: (.) tennis:: s- do you play (.) tennis?”
2 S: Iie shimasen
“No, I don’t”
3 C: Supo:zu o- o shimasu ka?
“Do you play sports?”
4 S: Iie shimasen
“No, I don’t”
(Candace, 11/27: Ohta, 1999, p. 1506)

By the last few weeks of the year-long course, however, Candice was
spontaneously including ne assessments and other alignments in similar peer-
peer question-and-answer sequences:
342  Sociolinguistic Perspectives

3 C: Atama ga itai toki doo shimasu ka?

“How do you do when you have a headache?”
4 S: Soo desu ne. (.) Nemasu. ((laughs))
“Let me see. (.) I sleep” ((laughs))
5 C: Hahahaha. Ii desu ne:::.
“Hahahaha. That’s goo:::d ne::”.
(Candace, 5/22: Ohta, 1999, p. 1508)

These examples show the successful socialization of child and adult learn-
ers into recognized classroom routines. Other classroom studies, typically
those conducted with older learners and in more heterogeneous contexts
(e.g. multilingual or transnational settings), have documented the evolu-
tion of unintended outcomes of classroom socialization practices, including
resistance to language learning (see, for example, Talmy, 2008, 2015).
In this section we have concentrated on L2 socialization in classroom set-
tings. However, L2 socialization theory has also been applied to L2 and mul-
tilingual development in varied informal settings (see K. M. Howard, 2017,
for review). We will look more closely at several studies of this type, when
we discuss communities of practice (Section 9.5) and the development of L2
agency and identity (Section 9.6).

9.4 Conversation Analysis and Second Language

Learning

9.4.1 Introduction
A growing sociolinguistic area is the application to L2 discourse of conver-
sation analysis (CA: Kasper & Wagner, 2011; Mori, 2013). While “conversa-
tion analysis” sounds like an everyday expression, it refers in sociolinguistics
to a distinctive research approach, deriving ultimately from the work of
sociologists and ethnomethodologists (for example Garfinkel, 1967; Sacks,
Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 2001, 2007). In its classic form, CA
is an approach to studying the local production of orderly social organiza-
tion thorough talk; it is concerned with “analysis of the competences which
underlie ordinary social activities” (Heritage, 1984, p. 241). In this book, we
have already encountered other approaches to the analysis of talk, includ-
ing the categorization of utterances according to particular functions (such
as “recasts”, or “speech acts”). In contrast, CA researchers are concerned
with the sequential development of conversation, and how each utterance
(or non-verbal contribution) affects the next. CA researchers investigate, for
example, how conversational interaction is initiated and ended, how ques-
tions create expectations for replies, how turntaking and disagreements are
managed and how misunderstandings are repaired. They believe that close
attention to conversational sequences, captured in detailed transcriptions
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 343
including non-verbal features such as laughter, pausing or gesture, will pro-
vide valid interpretations of the intentions of speakers and the social actions
they are performing. (For a fuller account of CA methodology, see Kasper &
Wagner, 2014.)
Early applications of CA methodology to L2 talk were focused on how
L2 users accomplished conversations. For example, a study of business phone
calls by Firth (1996) described how L2 interlocutors may “let pass” poten-
tially problematic utterances, without querying or correcting them, in the
expectation that the problem will “either become clear or redundant as talk
progresses” (Firth, 1996, p. 243). However, such CA studies were primarily
concerned with L2 use rather than L2 learning.
More recently, a number of researchers have applied CA methodology to
the study of aspects of L2 development (see reviews by Pekarek Doehler &
Fasel Lauzon, 2015; Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). In this tradi-
tion, researchers argue that CA makes a distinctive contribution to under-
standing the immediate interactional drivers of L2 change:

While a great deal of prior L2 acquisition studies center on changes in

L2 forms and functions, CA’s emphasis on the sequential organization
of spoken language can specify the process by which such developmen-
tal changes are occasioned in situated contexts of L2 use.
(Lee & Hellermann, 2014, p. 763)

9.4.2 L2 Interactional Competence

Much of this research has centred on the development of so-called L2 inter-
actional competence, defined by Pekarek Doehler and Berger (2018) as
“ability for context-sensitive conduct”, including:

systematic procedures (of turn-taking, repairing, opening or closing a

conversation etc.) by which members of a social group organize their
interactional conduct in mutually recognisable and accountable ways.
(p. 2)

The expectation is that over time, through engagement in L2 conver-

sational interaction, learners’ methods for accomplishing these actions will
become more varied and more effective, and will stimulate the develop-
ment of a repertoire of L2 interactional resources, linguistic and non-lin-
guistic. The “interactional competence” perspective involves rethinking of
phenomena such as recasts or communication strategies as co-constructed
social phenomena, rather than as autonomous discourse “moves” arising
from individual competence (Burch, 2014). Similarly, interactional compe-
tence may be displayed through codeswitching or translanguaging (Cheng,
2013).
344  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
9.4.3 Development of L2 Interactional Competence through
Classroom Pairwork
Empirical CA studies typically take the form of qualitative case study work,
either longitudinal or cross-sectional. A major study of this type was con-
ducted by Hellermann (2008), using a large corpus of ESL lessons for adult
migrants which were videorecorded over several months in the city of Port-
land, Oregon (Reder, Harris, & Kristen, 2003). Hellermann concentrated
on student-student interaction in his analysis, and examined three regularly
recurring classroom moments: the openings of pairwork tasks, storytellings
within pairwork tasks, and disengagement from such tasks. He compared
how these recurring activities were worked through by students at beginner
and intermediate levels. For example, opening a new pairwork task typi-
cally involved identifying a partner, agreeing on turntaking roles and (per-
haps) clarifying the nature of the task. In their second lesson, two beginner
students, Wen Ling and Dep, were asked by their teacher to undertake a
question-and-answer task:

 5 Teacher now. ask your partner.

 6 Dep yes ((aligns posture to partner))
 7 Teacher ask your partner. do you have. do you have a book.
 8 do you have ┌paper.
 9 Wen Ling=> └teacher ((points to peer))
10 student ┌((points to self))
11 Teacher └ practice with your partner.
12 Dep do you have a paper.
13 Wen Ling yes I do.
(Hellermann, 2008, p. 66)

In this extract, we can see that Dep selects her partner non-verbally
(through posture). Wen Ling then does the work of turn allocation, using
both gesture (pointing) and words teacher, student, which had been used by
the teacher herself to allocate turns in previous tasks; Dep accepts her direc-
tives, and the task can begin.
At the intermediate level, the same mix of non-verbal and verbal inter-
action is seen, as in the following episode, but the students have somewhat
greater linguistic resources to draw on. The intermediate students Inez and
Sambath have just written sentences using the reduced form gonna to express
the future, and now they must share them with their partner:

1 Teacher but read your sentences. ((Teacher standing just in

2 front of Inez))
3 Inez okay.
4 Teacher okay?
5 Inez ((reading to self))
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 345

6 Teacher five minutes

7 Inez with (.) my ((touches Sambath’s shoulder))
8 Teacher with ┌your partner.
9 Sambath └((aligns posture to Inez))
10 Inez part┌ner.
11 └((Inez aligns posture with Sambath and smiles))
12 (2.0)
13 Inez=> during the- do you reads?
14 (1.0)
15 Sambath pardon me?
16 (.)
17 Inez=> you read? (.4) first?
18 (.)
19 Sambath okay
20 (8.0)
21 Sambath I’m gonna: (1.5) >↑after class<, I’m gonna
22 buy coffee,
23 Inez okay,
24 Sambath okay. I’m gonna go buy coffee,
(Hellermann, 2008, p. 55)

As Hellermann notes (p. 63), the management needs of such routine class-

room episodes, and interpersonal relationships attaching to pairwork, offer
regular opportunities to try out language forms which are not the focus of
the assigned task. In this case, we see Inez gesturing to elicit the word partner
from the teacher, and then using it herself. She then formulates a question in
order to manage turn allocation (do you reads?). Her partner uses a conven-
tional formulaic expression to signal that a repair is needed (pardon me?), and
Inez then reformulates her question (you read (.4) first?). In other examples,
the intermediate students are seen to grow in L2 interactional competence,
drawing on varied textual resources to find needed language, and develop-
ing the scope of their interactive talk to include greetings, humour, personal
inquiries and assessments.

9.4.4 Development of L2 Interactional Competence through

Storytelling
Everyday storytelling has been a longstanding focus of CA research. From
this perspective it can be defined as “an interactional achievement in which
the speaker adapts his or her telling moment-by-moment to the recipi-
ent’s reactions (or absence of these), and which involves subtle coordination,
alignment, and affiliation between storyteller and story recipient” (Pekarek
Doehler & Berger, 2018, p. 1).
That is to say, in order to tell a story successfully, it is necessary to pre-
sent it as relevant to the ongoing talk, and appropriate for the participants,
346  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
and to mark the launching of the story. In the story preface, the storyteller
may index the story type, perhaps as a complaint, or a funny story (Sacks,
1992). In their turn, the recipients hearing an ongoing story are likely to
use “receipt tokens” (mmhm, yeah etc.) to acknowledge the ongoing story,
to assess the finished story or to offer another related story. All of this is evi-
dently challenging for an L2 user with limited L2 resources.
In his 2008 classroom study, Hellermann documented the early attempts
at storytelling by his beginner and intermediate ESL learners. These infor-
mal stories were not elicited by the teacher, but arose incidentally during
pairwork. The beginners in this study rarely attempted storytelling, but if
they did so, they launched directly into the story, typically in present tense,
without undertaking any “story prefacing work” (p. 101). The intermediate
learners told more stories, and could frame them using adverbial expres-
sions (yesterday, when I . . .), pre-sequence discourse markers (for example) and
past tense. That is to say, the formatting of the story in line with recipient
expectations was an opportunity to practise, and develop, interactional com-
petence including relevant grammar and vocabulary knowledge.
Pekarek Doehler and Berger (2018) complement the work of Heller-
mann (2008) when they report a longitudinal case study of storytelling by
an advanced learner of French (an L1 speaker of German) who spent a year
as childminder in a French-speaking family. The participant Julie recorded
her own interactions in L2 French with the family on 20 occasions over 9
months, and the researchers have analysed 26 of the everyday stories and
anecdotes she tried to tell, throughout this longitudinal corpus.
One of the first stories told by Julie followed a story told by one of the
children, about the water temperature at the swimming pool. Once it was
clear that this story was finished, Julie began an anecdote about a visit to the
bakery:

08 Julie à: la b:oulangerie elle m’a – (0.3)

at the bakery she to me
09 euh: j’ai demandé deux (0.4) euh cacaos?
I asked for  two       hot chocolates
10 (0.6)
11 Julie Et puis ehm (0.3) elle m’a [demandé&
and then    she asked me
12 Jordan              [DEUX cac[aos.
(son)            two hot chocolates
13 Julie &[ah je l-
oh I
14 je les fais <ti↑èdes>.
I do them lukewarm
15 (0.3)
16 Julie et moi j’ai (0.3) <tièdes>?=hh[hhh.]&
and me I AUX lukewarm
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 347

17 Marie [heh heh

(mother)
18 Julie &je ne savais pas qu’est-ce que ça °veut dire°°.=
I didn’t know what    it meant
19 Marie =ah ouais.=
oh yeah
20 Julie =↑oui lauwarm.
yes  lukewarm ((in German))+
21 (0.3)
22 Julie c’est – ouais.=
it’s yeah
23 Victor =↑mh=
(father)
24 Julie =c’est pas ch↑aud pas f[roid.=
it’s not warm not cold
25 Marie [>ouais ouais<.
  yeah  yeah
26 Julie hhh.
27 + (6.1) ((Manon (daughter) jumping and laughing))+
28 Jordan mais ma↑non c’est pas <drô:le> hein.
but Manon it’s not funny    PRT
29 + (8.1) ((Manon laughing))
30 Marie ouais c’est bien comme ça dans l’après-midi
yeah that’s fine this way in the afternoon
31 on peut se donner un rendez-vous en ville
we can  arrange to meet    in town
(Pekarek Doehler & Berger, 2018, p. 8)
This story is launched without any clear preface connecting it to the
swimming pool story, and Julie does not seem very successful in communi-
cating to her audience what kind of story to expect, nor in engaging their
interest as she tells it.
In later episodes, however, Julie becomes increasingly successful at launch-
ing a new story. She could alert her interlocutors to her intention to tell a
story, display the relevance of the upcoming story to prior talk, attract her
interlocutors’ interest and collaboration as story recipients, and project the
nature of the story (as amusing). To achieve this she employs a greater range
of linguistic forms, such as discourse markers and presentational construc-
tions to introduce new referents (there was this Belgian guy . . .). Pekarek
Doehler and Berger argue that she is developing a grammar-for-interac-
tion, showing increased use of “grammatical constructions that are suited
for getting exactly these interactional jobs accomplished” (p. 20). For these
researchers, interactional competence and L2 proficiency are understood to
develop together in an integrated way, driven by the sequential requirements
of face-to-face interaction.
348  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
The development of interactional competence which we have exempli-
fied with studies of classroom task management and informal storytelling is
a major focus of current CA-for-SLA (Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger,
2015). However, CA methodology has also been applied more directly to
study the development of new grammatical constructions and lexical forms.
For example, Eskildsen and collaborators have used the Portland classroom
CA corpus (Reder et al., 2003) rather differently, to trace longitudinally the
emergence in individual learners’ speech of a range of English grammati-
cal constructions including adverbials, negation, interrogatives and motion
verbs. These researchers have interpreted these case studies from the per-
spective of usage-based acquisition theory (Eskildsen, 2015; Eskildsen, Cadi-
erno, & Li, 2015; Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015). Overall, CA-for-SLA is an
actively developing area which is enhancing our understanding of how face-
to-face interaction may contribute to varied dimensions of L2 development.

9.5 Communities of Practice and Situated Learning

9.5.1 Introduction
In this section we broaden our focus, to consider sociolinguistic perspectives
on larger communities and how these too can support (or hinder) learning.
Sociolinguists have traditionally studied the social roles of language, in struc-
turing the identities of individuals and the culture of entire communities
and societies. In particular, ethnographers of communication have studied
the characteristics of speech events which matter to the members of a par-
ticular speech community (Hymes, 1972; Saville-Troike, 2003). Examples
of speech events with their own distinctive structures and routines in cur-
rent urban society might be telephone conversations, service encounters (in
shops, restaurants and so on), classroom lessons or job interviews. The ability
to participate appropriately in relevant speech events is central to commu-
nicative competence.
Ethnographers of L2 communication aim similarly to study contexts and
events where participants are struggling to achieve communicative goals
(Creese, 2005). However, while the traditional ethnography of communica-
tion typically studied relatively well-established and stable speech events and
communities, those studied by contemporary ethnographers of L2 commu-
nication are generally much more fluid and transitory.
This led many sociolinguists and L2 researchers to turn away from the
speech event and speech community to an alternative concept of greater
flexibility, the “community of practice” (CofP), proposed by Lave and
Wenger (1991). The sociolinguists Eckert and McConnell-Ginet offer a
definition:

An aggregate of people who come together around mutual engage-

ment in an endeavour. Ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs,
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 349
values, power relations—in short, practices—emerge in the course of
this mutual endeavour. As a social construct, a community of practice is
different from the traditional community, primarily because it is defined
simultaneously by its membership and by the practice in which that
membership engages.
(1992, p. 464)

A community of practice has three key characteristics: mutual engagement,

a joint enterprise and shared repertoires of practices (Wenger, 1998). Dif-
ferent individuals may be peripheral members or core members of a given
CofP. All may be engaged in the joint enterprise, but they may have unequal
access to the “repertoire of negotiable resources” which have been accu-
mulated by the community (Wenger, 1998, p. 76). For Lave and Wenger,
learning itself is socially situated, and involves “increasing participation in
communities of practice” (1991, p. 49), through “legitimate peripheral par-
ticipation” alongside experienced community members who already possess
the necessary resources. The social structure of communities and the power
relations obtaining within them define the learning possibilities available
to members. Of course, membership of a given CofP may be contested,
and individuals may be marginalized, either through their own agency, or
through exclusionary practices on the part of the group; the relevance of the
CofP construct has itself been queried for some contemporary settings, not
least for virtual communities (Barton & Tusting, 2005; Vandergriff, 2016).
Looser alternative terms such as “affinity space” or “online space” have been
suggested as more appropriate to describe informal, transient and interest-
driven groups, such as online fan fiction or gaming communities (Barton &
Potts, 2013; Gee, 2005; Lam & Smirnov, 2017; Sauro, 2017). And as part of
the “multilingual turn”, it is increasingly acknowledged that contemporary
communities of practice, whether face to face or online, may operate bi- or
multilingually as well as transnationally (Barton & Lee, 2013; Koike & Blyth,
2015).

9.5.2 Classroom L2 Learning as a Situated Social Practice

The idea of socially situated learning which takes place through partici-
pation in the activities of one or more communities of practice has been
widely adopted by L2 socialization researchers (Swain & Deters, 2007; Duff,
2007; Hellermann, 2014). One obvious application is to view the classroom
as a CofP, a perspective adopted by Hellermann (2008) in the study discussed
in Section 9.4. Other researchers have applied the CofP idea to informal
L2 learning, whether during study abroad (Giroir, 2014; Umino & Benson,
2016), during informal online activity (Chik, 2014; Sauro, 2017), in lan-
guage revitalization (Lin, 2015) or among transnational migrant communi-
ties (Norton, 2000, 2017). Below, we review a selection of classroom-based,
workplace and informal CofP studies.
350  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Toohey is another researcher who interpreted the classroom as a CofP, in
her ethnographic study of a group of six young ESL learners (2000, 2001).
Over a 3-year period, the study tracked the children’s developing identities
and patterns of participation as they progressed from kindergarten through
to second grade of elementary school. Through classroom observations and
recordings, Toohey shows that some children were more successful than
others in establishing themselves as legitimate peripheral participants in the
classroom community, and that this affected the extent to which they gained
conversational and other language learning opportunities, including access
to resources. For example, a Polish child named Julie, who had come to
school speaking little English, successfully graduated over time from her ESL
status and established herself as an “average” mainstream student. Another
Punjabi L1 child named Surjeet was positioned differently as a “struggling”
student who would need continuing ESL support. Disputes were com-
mon among the children in the class, and Toohey (2001) analyses these in
some detail, showing how Julie’s relatively aggressive and skilful responses
to threats of subordination allowed her to develop a more powerful place
in the classroom community, and consequently to win access to resources
and conversational opportunities. Surjeet, on the other hand, was regularly
marginalized by her peers. The following example, drawn from a dispute
about the recognition to be given to work completed, illustrates Surjeet’s
non-powerful position:

SURJEET:  Look! Two more pages. [She shows her notebook to Jean Paul.]
EARL:  So what?
JEAN PAUL:  I don’t care.
EARL: Yeah, we don’t care.
JEAN PAUL: We’ve got two pages too. Look!
SURJEET:  No, three.
JEAN PAUL:  [aggressive tone] Oh! There’s not three.
EARL:  I’ve got one page.
JEAN PAUL:  Let’s see.
SURJEET:  [to Earl] You’re m:::
[She watches as Jean Paul inspects Earl’s book].
(Toohey, 2001, pp. 266–267)

A similar incident shows Julie’s greater ability to switch topic and achieve
acceptance as a conversationally interesting participant:

JULIE: I’m almost finished Martin! Look Martin, I’m almost finished.

[Martin does not look, and for a few turns, other children take over the
conversation.]
JULIE:  See, I’m just colouring this part.
[Martin does not look, and he and Julie keep on colouring.]
JULIE: Who has the Lion King video? I have the Lion King.
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 351
MARTIN:  I have the Lion King.
EARL:  I have the Lion King.
DAISY:  Clark doesn’t.
[Children laugh.]
(Toohey, 2001, p. 267)

Similar themes are addressed in many studies of transnational student com-

munities, where international students struggle to integrate with host student
groups, either on campus or at leisure. For example,Vickers (2007) tracked a
team of six students of electrical engineering through the accomplishment
of their group project at an American university, over several months. Five
group members were native speakers of English, while the sixth (Ramelan)
was an L2 user. In the early months, Ramelan’s contributions to group dis-
cussion within this mini CofP were limited, and he failed either to display
his actual level of technical knowledge or to manage successfully face-threat-
ening events such as disagreements. Once the practical work of the project
was completed, however, allowing Ramelan to demonstrate his technical
skill, Ramelan took on the role of a competent group member, confidently
explaining and debating technical points with the others. Vickers summa-
rizes both positive and negative aspects of the interactional process which
facilitated Ramelan’s language socialization, and also his integration within
the group:

a. Access to observations of core members interacting;

b. Scaffolding by some core members both in the lab and in the team
meetings;
c. Ridicule by other core members; and
d. Opportunities for successful design experiences and for chances to
explain these design processes.

9.5.3 Communities of Practice beyond the L2 Classroom

Another international student study by Zappa-Hollman and Duff (2015)
traced participants’ socialization into academic discourse beyond the class-
room itself. This longitudinal, qualitative study drew on social network
theory (Milroy, 1987) as well as on L2 socialization and CofP theory.
From among a larger group of Mexican students attending university in
Canada, the researchers selected three participants as “focal cases”. The
dataset collected over 12 months included regular individual interviews as
well as journals and documentation from academic courses (students’ own
writings, readings, curriculum documents), plus mapping of participants’
social networks. The researchers viewed individuals’ learning experiences
as socially mediated, and traced how they were distributed across what
they termed “individual networks of practice” (INoPs), that is, a variant
on the CofP concept. Any INoP denoted “all the social ties reported by a
352  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
given individual, however weak/distant or strong/close, as relevant to the
phenomenon under study (in this case, their L2 academic literacy sociali-
zation)” (Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015, p. 339). Thus, relevant actors in
the network might, or might not, be classmates; and the kind of support
which was expected from the network might be emotional as well as
cognitive/academic.
Figure 9.1 provides an example of the INoP which was documented for
one of the case study participants in this study, Liliana.This complex transna-
tional (and bilingual) network involved several distinct groupings including
new classmates and roommates encountered in Canada, as well as continu-
ing relationships with Mexican family and friends. Within this network, a
small number of friends were of special importance for Liliana’s academic

family in
mother Toronto
Angela
boyfriend Yolanda

Cierra
Liliana’s S05
Cathy
family roommates
Natalia
F05 Miranda
roommates
Susan Gerardo

Non-Mexican Liliana
Rachel Mexican
friends
friends

Neela Non-Mexican
classmates Lorena

Marilu Salvador Nancy

Mexican
classmates
Franco
Soledad Analia Group
Iris Alejandra work
partners
Andres
Rafael
Juan

tie strength/proximity

Figure 9.1 A Sample Individual Network of Practice (INoP): Liliana

Source: Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015, p. 346
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 353
discourse development. Natalia was a longstanding Mexican friend from
the home university. They shared several classes, joined in class group work
together and studied regularly together out of class:

We [Liliana and Natalia] had to answer a difficult question and we spent

all Sunday working on it. We worked until 10 pm and by then we
were so desperate that we contacted Nancy [another Mexican network
member]. In the end, with her help we could solve the problem.
(Liliana’s journal, in Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015, p. 347)

Natalia also provided important emotional support for Liliana, for example
when she was marginalized by some local roommates.
Liliana’s best Anglophone friend was Susan, an Australian student who she
had met in her dormitory accommodation. She shared no classes with Susan,
but still turned to her for help with philosophy coursework:

Here we had to read a case and do a short write up in response, but it

was a hard text to understand and I wasted a lot of time. So I had to ask
my roomie, who’s from Australia, to help me with the reading.
(Liliana’s journal, in Zappa-Hollman & Duff, 2015, p. 349)

Going beyond the classroom CofP, the analysis by Zappa-Hollman and

Duff (2015) illustrates the dynamic nature of learner networks, and the
importance of learner agency in shaping and using these to develop their L2
performance. It also illustrates the need for learner flexibility, given that not
all potential CofP or INoP members may show goodwill or acknowledge
their participation as legitimate.
A further example of situated L2 learning among students deals with
CofP theory applied to informal, leisure settings. This study concerns a stu-
dent from Indonesia who spent 4 years preparing and studying for a master’s
degree in Japan (Umino & Benson, 2016). These researchers tracked their
target participant (Iwan), using a qualitative life story approach. Iwan was a
keen photographer, and the many photos he took of social occasions and
outings over the course of the 4 years were used as stimuli for several life
story interviews, towards the end of his stay in Japan. In Iwan’s biographical
story, periods of loneliness alternated with membership of a series of dif-
ferent, and evolving, leisure time CofPs. Living in an international students’
dormitory and studying Japanese language, in Year 1, Iwan mostly took part
in institutionally organized leisure CofPs, attending social events and going
on trips; however, by Year 2, he had joined a self-organized CofP of interna-
tional students, with whom he spoke both English and Japanese. In Year 3,
he moved out of the dormitory and somewhat lost touch with his interna-
tional network; finally, by Year 4, he had developed the L2 interactional com-
petence to join another self-organized student CofP, this time comprising
354  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Japanese peers. Iwan could recall the specific steps involved, reflecting his
own increasing agency:

In October, I met Yasu (a Japanese classmate) on the street near my

house. He said he wanted to visit my place so I invited him. We became
friends, calling each other by our nicknames. The next week, Yasu
brought his friend and we had dinner together. The two started visiting
my house every week. Other students also came along, and my house
became a salon for my circle of friends. After I started socializing with
this group of friends, I think I began learning how to initiate conversa-
tions in Japanese. For example, you should not begin with big topics but
start with small talk and gradually expand upon it. In Japan, you should
not make jokes when meeting for the first time. It does not work. Now
I feel like I know how to talk with new people, and how to express
myself. Now I can express what kind of person I am in Japanese whereas
before I could not.
(Umino & Benson, 2016, p. 767)

The researchers in this study draw attention to the relatively limited set
of CofPs which were actually open to their participant, as a transnational
student; how he shifted from institutionally organized communities to
self-organized communities, and also from bilingual English-Japanese
communities to a monolingual Japanese-using group; and how this evo-
lution took place over an extended period of time, and only “through a
succession of experiences in overlapping communities of practice, each
of which scaffolded the experiences that followed” (Umino & Benson,
2016, p. 771).
Our final example of the application of CofP theory, and of informal lan-
guage learning as a social practice, deals with the workplace (Norton, 2000,
2017). This longitudinal ethnographic study was conducted with five adult
women from diverse language backgrounds, all of them recent immigrants
to Canada. These women were attending ESL classes but also using Eng-
lish to different degrees at home and in a variety of workplaces. The study
focused on the participants’ informal learning experiences; they completed
questionnaires and diaries, and were also interviewed at intervals, over a
space of 2 years.
One participant in Norton’s study was a Polish girl called Eva, who was
working at a restaurant called Munchies. At first, she could not approach her
co-workers or engage them in conversation:

When I see that I have to do everything and nobody cares about me

because—then how can I talk to them? I hear they doesn’t care about
me and I don’t feel to go and smile at them.
(Norton, 2017, p. 100)
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 355
As time passed, however, she gained enough confidence to find conver-
sational openings, joining in conversations about holidays with her own
experiences of holidays in Europe, for example, introducing her boyfriend
to fellow workers on social outings, or teaching a little Italian to a col-
league. In these ways she gained acceptance as a legitimate peripheral par-
ticipant, and correspondingly developed her opportunities for using English.
At the beginning, also, Eva was allocated tasks in the restaurant which did
not involve interacting with customers. However, she paid close attention
to how her fellow workers did this, appropriated their utterances during
routines such as meal-ordering and eventually took the initiative to start
serving customers directly. In this way Eva widened her participation in the
linguistic practices of the restaurant, and further increased her own language
learning opportunities as a result.
All of these CofP studies suggest that whether or not L2 learners are
successful has to do partly with their own actions and interventions, and
partly with the willingness of target language using CofPs to accept them as
legitimate participants. In several studies (Toohey, Norton, Zappa-Hollman
and Duff), we saw examples of learners who experienced attempts to subor-
dinate or isolate them from the group. In some cases, the participants could
and did draw on both social and intellectual resources to overcome these
difficulties. Eva’s attractive boyfriend, described in Norton’s study, and Julie’s
big cousin Agatha (Toohey) were both seen as socially desirable by the very
different groups of Munchies workers and elementary schoolchildren, and
this seemed to reflect positively on the learners themselves. Eva also used her
knowledge of Italian to build relationships, and Julie similarly used cultural
knowledge such as “secrets” to position herself as a desirable playmate. In
these settings, the learner’s success in being accepted by the group was cen-
tral to access language learning opportunity; and this success derived partly
from their own actions, partly from their respective communities’ willing-
ness to adapt and to accept them as legitimate participants. In the next sec-
tion we deal with research dealing centrally with learners’ personal agency
and L2 identity, and their significance for L2 learning success.

9.6 The Language Learner as Social Being: L2 Identity,

Agency and Investment

9.6.1  Introduction: Identity, Agency and Investment

In previous sections of this chapter we have examined the contexts of L2
learning, from a variety of sociolinguistic perspectives. Here, we focus more
specifically on L2 learners, viewed as “complex social beings with various
kinds of agency, identities, aspirations, emotions, linguistic and cultural rep-
ertoires and forms of social/cultural and economic capital” (Duff, Anderson,
Ilnyckyj,VanGaya, & Wang, 2013, p. 105).
356  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
The concept of social identity was originally borrowed into L2 studies
from social psychology. One classic theorist of social identity defined it as
“that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge
of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional
significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p. 69). From this
perspective, social identity is the sense of “belonging” to a particular social
group, whether defined by ethnicity, by gender, by social class, by national-
ity, by language or any other means. These broad elements of social identity
and their influence on opportunity for L2 learning continue as important
focuses of research (Block, 2015a; Duff, 2017).
However, classic social psychological definitions of social identity have
come under criticism for being too static and too centred on the individual.
Recent treatments of L2 identities (e.g. Block, 2007; Duff, 2012; Norton,
2017) prefer “poststructuralist” conceptions of identity, which lay greater
stress on the hybridity, flexibility and negotiability of identity, the agency of
the individual in choosing and negotiating their identity, and above all the
role of language and discourse practices in the construction of identity.
In her research with adult immigrant language learners, Norton has
defined identity in poststructuralist terms as “the way a person understands
his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed
across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the
future” (Norton, 2017, p. 4). This definition also introduces the idea of a
prospective, imagined future life as a dimension of identity, similar to the
“ideal L2 self ” proposed by motivation theorists (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009).
Norton and other poststructuralists see language use as central to identity
development:

Identity is constituted in and through language. By extension, every

time language learners speak, read or write the target language, they are
not only exchanging information with members of the target language
community, they are also organizing and reorganizing a sense of who
they are and how they relate to the social world . . . [T]hey are engaged
in identity construction and negotiation.
(Norton, 2017, p. 4)

As we have seen in Section 9.5, Norton’s own research followed the evolv-

ing identities and related L2 learning opportunities of migrant women in
Canada, as they engaged with a variety of communities of practice. Simi-
lar theorizing of L2 identity has inspired numerous recent qualitative case
studies of multilingual and transnational migrants and students (Duff, 2015;
García-Sánchez & Nazimova, 2017). As with Cof  Ps, the internet has become
a very active domain for research into the development of L2/multilingual
identity, with work on activities such as internet gaming, fan fiction and the
use of social networking sites like Facebook (Bolander, 2017; Sauro, 2017;
Schreiber, 2015;Thorne, Sauro, & Smith, 2015). However, much of this work
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 357
is primarily concerned with the expression of identity through L2 use, and
pays less attention to the L2 development which results. In Section 9.6.2
below we examine in more detail some examples of studies which explore
the relationship between these two strands.
Closely related to the concept of identity are those of agency, invest-
ment and positioning. Agency is defined by Duff as “people’s ability to make
choices, take control, self-regulate, and thereby pursue their goals as individ-
uals leading, potentially, to personal or social transformation” (2012, p. 414).
For disadvantaged economic migrants, such as those in the studies of Norton
(2017) or Miller (2014), agency grows through increased legitimate partici-
pation in CofPs and, in turn, facilitates greater integration. Duff et al. (2013)
present rather different case studies of relatively privileged Canadian learners
of L2 Chinese, as examples of highly agentive learners who are motivated to
learn Chinese for the intrinsic enjoyment of the experience, and the chance
to distinguish themselves from learners of more commonly taught languages.
“Investment” has been proposed by Norton as a distinct alternative to
the social psychological construct of motivation (Norton, 2015, 2017). She
defines L2 investment as “the socially and historically constructed relation-
ship of the learner to the target language, and their often ambivalent desire
to learn and practise it” (Norton, 2017, p. 50). According to investment
theory, L2 learners hope to acquire a wider range of symbolic and material
resources, which will “in turn increase the value of their cultural capi-
tal and social power” (Norton, 2015, p. 343). However, where the social
context is unfavourable (for example where learners encounter racism or
sexism), learners may show a lack of investment or engagement (Talmy,
2008, 2015).
In classic sociological thought, the concept of agency is complemented
by that of social structure, and it is the interaction between structure and
agency which promotes, or reduces, L2 learning success (Block, 2015b). In
the poststructuralist perspective, the concept of positioning is proposed to
capture this interaction. Davies and Harré (1990) describe positioning as
“the discursive process whereby selves are located in conversations as observ-
ably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced story lines”
(p. 48). L2 learners may use agency to position themselves, but they may also
be positioned through the discourse of others, as we saw in the studies of
Toohey and Norton. Several other recent classroom studies use this concept
to explore teachers’ engagement with their students, and how they may
represent/position them as more or less competent L2 learners (Kayi-Aydar,
2014; Palmer, Martínez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014).

9.6.2 The Evolution of L2 Identity

This section introduces a short selection of studies which document the
development of L2 identity, and its relation with the development of L2
or plurilingual proficiency. Firstly, Norton’s longitudinal study (2017)
358  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
explored changes in her women participants’ social identity over time,
and, in particular, their struggles to achieve the right to speak in L2 set-
tings. Martina, for example, was a Czech-speaking immigrant in her 30s
and a mother. In the fast food restaurant where she worked, she was bossed
around initially by her teenage fellow workers; but soon she reasserted her
status as an adult with authority over children, and claimed the “right to
speak” in this role:

In restaurant was working a lot of children, but the children always

thought that I am—I don’t know—maybe some broom or something.
They always said “Go and clean the living room”, and I was washing
the dishes and they didn’t do nothing. They talked to each other and
they thought that I had to do everything. And I said “No”. The girl is
only 12 years old. She is younger than my son. I said “No, you are doing
nothing.You can go and clean the tables or something”.
(Norton, 2000, p. 99)

As Martina’s identity changed, so did her opportunities both to speak and

to learn English.
While Norton relies largely on self-report, researchers from the European
Science Foundation (ESF) study of adult migrants recorded L2 interactions
which illustrate the local negotiation of aspects of learner identity (Bremer,
Roberts,Vasseur, Simonot, & Broeder, 1996). In particular, they paid attention
to learner face and self-esteem, and how these may be affected by attempts
to negotiate understanding. Thus, threats to self-esteem can arise when mis-
understandings are too frequent in interactional data. For example, a Spanish
L1 speaker Berta, living in a French-speaking environment, attempted to get
some shelves made to order in a woodworking shop (Bremer et al., 1996,
p. 91). She failed to cope with the shop assistant’s more technical enquiries,
and eventually lost his attention to another customer. The ESF data shows
that L1 speakers in service encounters are often not very cooperative with
L2 users, so that the major burden of achieving understanding rests with
the latter. Berta also described the occasion when her child was detained
in hospital. Her attempt to get medical information from a doctor was not
successful:

N: . . . qu’est’ce que tu as fait alors ↑

what did you do then ↑
B: bon je suis fâchée avel/avec lui *y* je le dis beaucoup de choses
avec m/ + :et + je m’énerve beaucoup
well i got angry with h/ with him and i told him a lot of things with m/
+ and + i got very worked up
N: ah oui + je comprends ça oui + et tu es partie ↑
yes + i understand it yes + and did you go ↑
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 359

B: alors oui il est parti pasque je n’avais le/ avais le + que je suis fâchée
je ou/ je oubliais les mots en français *por por* dire + je ne/je ne
trouvais + rien de mots *por* dire les choses que/ que je le dis à lui
*por* pasque n’est pas bon la manière qu’il me dit au revoir
then yes he went because i did not have the/ have the + that i was
angry for/ i forgot the words in french to say + i did not/ did not find +
nothing of words to say the things which/ which i tell him because it is
not good the manner he said goodbye to me
(Bremer et al., 1996, p. 94)

In such face-threatening situations, a range of strategies may be employed

by L2 speakers. At one extreme, the ESF team found examples of resistance,
such as more or less complete withdrawal from L2 interaction, and a reasser-
tion of the speaker’s L1 identity (for example by switching to monolingual
L1 use). At the other extreme, they found speakers who worked hard during
L2 interactions to assert a positive and competent identity, by, e.g., indicating
explicitly that they had understood, or using excuse formulas when they had
to interrupt to clarify meaning (p. 100). Berta eventually became one of this
group, discovering ways of asserting herself and taking more conversational
control.
Studies focusing on the identity of adolescent L2 learners produce simi-
larly complex and dynamic portraits. Lam (2004) reported the case of two
girl students aged 17 and 18 from southern China, who were participants in
a longitudinal study in an American high school, over a period of 8 months.
Yu Qing and Tsu Ying were cousins, and were initially shy about speaking
English in school, where they felt ethnically type-cast, for fear of ridicule.
The presence of American-born ethnic Chinese students did not help:

We don’t know how to speak and we don’t dare to speak. And even
though some of them are also Chinese, they are ABC [American Born
Chinese] and their educational background is different from ours. We
have different feelings, so even when we get together, we feel that they’re
like white people or other people. So even though they have a Chinese
face, we don’t feel like they are Chinese.
(Yu Qing, February: Lam, 2004, p. 50)

However, the two girls started to use a Hong Kong based chat room, which
was popular with Chinese adolescents living outside China. In this chat
room, they engaged in informal interaction, using English together with
romanized Cantonese. Lam documented and analysed the chat room inter-
action, showing how the codeswitching seemed to facilitate the develop-
ment and sharing of a transnational identity, which was neither “Chinese”
nor “American”. As Tsu Ying said, “the kinds of friends I meet [in the chat
room] are broader”. In the following sample extract Yu Qing (= sure) is
360  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
making a request of her partner CHoCoLaTe, an English/Cantonese speaker
resident in the Netherlands:

1 sure choco . . . >_< can’t send mail to u ar (PT: neutral

softener or down-toner) 6 . . . . next time give my (sic:
me) your add la (PT: indicates request) . . . can’t send
at your web site
2 CHoCoLaTe sure> how come ar (PT: indicates question)?
3 sure i don’t know ar (PT: softener). when i click on it. a
juno web jump out
4 CHoCoLaTe huuh?
5 CHoCoLaTe very strange
6 sure choco do u know y?
7 sure and i can’t go your web site everytime . . . sometimes
can’t find the site
8 CHoCoLaTe very strange (emoticon of a sad face)
9 sure too bad
10 CHoCoLaTe haiya (“yes” or a sigh in Cantonese)
(Lam, 2004, p. 55)

While lingua franca English predominated in this chat room, the Can-
tonese particles ar, la and haiya add an empathetic quality to the exchange.
In turn, the opportunity offered in the chat room to develop a positive
transnational identity and use lingua franca English seemed to give the girls
more confidence and to facilitate language development:

I didn’t dare to speak English before because my English was poor, like
in pronunciation and grammar. I was afraid to say something wrong,
and then people would laugh at me, and I would feel embarrassed. After
talking more in the chat room, I feel like making mistakes is, well, peo-
ple joke a lot there, and if I don’t know a word, I would just sound it out.
I use a lot of wrong words there too, so I feel maybe it’s ok to say some-
thing wrong . . . After you’ve been going to the chat room for a while,
you get used to talking, and you spend more time on it and feel more
open about it. Even though you may not feel as comfortable speaking in
other places, you get into the habit. It’s like as you become more open,
you feel it’s no big deal, and I can talk to you a bit more . . .
(Yu Qing, April: Lam, 2004, p. 51)

In another longitudinal case study, Lam (2009) describes the hybrid linguis-
tic development through instant messaging (IM) of another immigrant high
school student in the USA. Kaiyee was also from a Chinese background, this
time from Shanghai. She regularly engaged in instant messaging on differ-
ent platforms, with local students and also with contacts in Shanghai; Lam
documented these exchanges, and also recorded Kaiyee’s reflections on the
process. When messaging in English with Asian-American friends, Kaiyee
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 361
started to incorporate features of Black English vernacular and hip hop
language. When using Chinese, she started to incorporate features of both
Shanghainese and Cantonese dialect (depending on her audience). Canton-
ese was a new variety for Kaiyee, and while she was a Shanghainese speaker,
using Shanghainese in writing was also new for her (as for many Shang-
hainese). Lam argues that this translanguaging allowed Kaiyee to develop
complex transnational affiliations, with local urban youth culture, with a
local (US-based, Cantonese-using) friendship network, and with Shang-
hainese regional and cultural identity:

E: There wasn’t much writing before, but now people can write in Shang-
hainese. How do you feel about this?
K: To be a Shanghainese?
E: Yeah, and to write in Shanghainese.
K: Yeah, yeah, yeah, really proud [laughs] . . . And if on the BBS (discussion
forums), uhm, we find a person who’s Shanghainese and then we’ll,
we’ll write in Shanghainese, and we’ll feel more, more 親切 (qin-qie, a
sense of closeness) [spoken in Mandarin].
(interview, August 21, 2007: Lam, 2009, p. 391)

So far, our examples of L2 identity studies have involved the analysis of

personal narrative accounts, in combination with analysis of everyday inter-
actions. Pavlenko (1998) has analysed another kind of biographical data in
order to explore relationships between L2 learning and identity formation
on a more strategic level. She has studied autobiographical narratives pro-
duced by literary figures who successfully learned a L2 after puberty, and
became writers in that language. Pavlenko argues that “language learning in
immigration” involves a first stage of continuous losses (rather than immedi-
ate acquisition), and only later a stage of gains and (re)construction. These
stages can be subdivided as follows:

The stage of losses The stage of gains and (re)construction

• Careless baptism: loss of one’s • Appropriation of others’ voices
linguistic identity • Emergence of one’s own voice, often
• Loss of all subjectivities first in writing
• Loss of the frame of reference • Translation therapy: reconstruction of
and the link between the one’s past
signifier and the signified • Continuous growth “into” new
• Loss of the inner voice positions and subjectivities
• First language attrition

9.6.3 Agency and Investment in L2 Learning

L2 learners may show varying amounts of agency and investment in L2
learning, in both formal and informal contexts. To illustrate this, we will
first of all examine the long-term ethnographic study by Heller (2006) of
362  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
a French-medium high school in Toronto, Canada. Toronto is an English-
dominant city, with a highly multiethnic and multilingual population. This
includes a long-established French-speaking minority whose language
rights are supported by government policies of English-French bilingual-
ism, including provision of French-medium schooling. Heller (2006) com-
pared the social motivations for learning French of local white students,
and of transnational students of migrant background. The school popula-
tion included students of Francophone African origin, who held ambivalent
views towards both French and English, as languages of colonialism, and
rejected them as languages of personal cultural significance. Nonetheless,
they were strongly committed to achieve mastery of the standard varieties
of both languages, which they saw as central to their individual economic
success, and their imagined selves as skilled multilingual individuals. Having
selected the French-medium school as a means to achieve advanced pro-
ficiency in French, they were disappointed with the prevalence of English
as the preferred lingua franca among students outside the classroom, and
invested significant personal effort in developing their French literacy skills.
In contrast, local French heritage students showed very different levels of
investment in standard French. Heller cites a white female student whose
dominant language was English. This student was pleased to have studied
through French, reflecting her heritage identity. However, her ambitions,
e.g. for French academic literacy, were self-limiting, as she did not see herself
needing or using French in her future education and career:

So I mean like people on my Mom’s side and my Dad’s side, like they
know French sort of thing. So it’s kind of like that’s kind of not the
background, but a lot of . . . they always knew French, so I also want my
kids to speak French as well. It’s like it’s my background you know.They
spoke French, so I think I should keep it up as well.
(. . .)
I know I’m going to an English university because, first of all, they
offer more programmes, like the programmes that I want, and it will
be easier for me to like explain myself in English, you know, especially
when I’m going to have to do like a lot of essays and stuff. English is my
first language and I can write better and stuff.
(Student Sandra, in Heller, 2006, pp. 119–120)

For an example of investment in informal learning practices, we turn to a

study by Chik (2014) of university students in Hong Kong. These students
had all studied English formally for several years, though most were now
studying other disciplines. In their leisure time, the participants were also
experienced online gamers, reporting many years of evolving gaming prac-
tice, and the games they liked to play were typically English-medium or Jap-
anese-medium. Chik collected recordings of gaming sessions, online forum
discussions, written learning histories, interviews and stimulated recall data,
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 363
and documented the participants’ plurilingual practices and also their L2
learning activities associated with gaming. Through gaming itself, the par-
ticipants reported incidental learning of English and Japanese vocabulary
and formulaic expressions, in varied domains (sports, aircraft, the law). The
gamers also reported more intentional investment in English, treating game-
play as learning:

To be honest, if I had to wait for the official release of the Chinese ver-
sion, I might as well learn English by myself. (. . .) It is also an investment
in myself.
(2011-10-04, 17:48, Taiwanese forum)

Some were working on translations, producing Chinese-medium versions of

the games, though often dissatisfied with these:

I spent a lot of time and energy translating, and I am not absolutely
happy with the translation (. . .) No single translation can bring out the
complete meaning of an English term because Chinese is different from
English. My advice is to play the English edition and learn some English
from the game.
(2009-11-17, 20:08, Taiwanese blog)

Many described support networks of family members and fellow gamers,

evolving from childhood.These often acted as language advisers, either indi-
vidually or through ancillary discussion forums:

My first Japanese game was Mario Bros on my brother’s Gameboy

Advance. He was the one teaching me the meaning of those Japanese
words. Together we went through many adventures ^.^
(Mabel, Language Learning History, in Chik, 2014, p. 92)

9.7 Evaluation: The Scope and Achievements of

Sociolinguistic Enquiry
In this chapter we have introduced several different strands of sociolinguistic
theorizing about L2 use and development. One of these, the quantitative
study of L2 variation, is very different from the others, focusing on interlan-
guage variability at the lexical and morphological level. Here we have seen
that sociolinguistic factors are increasingly important, though sociolinguistic
variation is late acquired and coexists with other forms of variation.
The remaining strands deal with L2 learning in a broader way, embed-
ded in its social context. This work is typically qualitative and interpretive
in nature, using the techniques of ethnography or of conversational analysis
and providing longitudinal accounts of the social processes of L2 interaction
364  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
and development, in face to face and virtual settings. It frequently involves
case studies of individuals or groups of learners; great attention is paid to the
personal qualities and ambitions of the learner, and their own social con-
tribution to the learning context. Concepts such as “identity”, “community
of practice” and “investment” have been vital for theorizing L2 learning as
a social practice. On the other hand, it is still rare to find in sociolinguistic
work of this kind any close attention being paid to the linguistic detail of
the learning path being followed (i.e. to the precise learning route), or the
cognitive processes involved. An exception is CA-for-SLA, where research-
ers such as Hellermann and Eskildsen are now providing thorough accounts
of the emergence of new language to meet interactional needs.

9.7.1 Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Interlanguage and

Interlanguage Communication
One of the obvious strengths of the sociolinguistic tradition in SLA is the
rich accounts offered of intercultural L2 communication. Ethnographers of
L2 communication explore complete speech events in a holistic way. They
take a multilevel view of conversational interaction; they are concerned with
the relationships between linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of communi-
cation, and how linguistic expression indexes wider social frames and con-
texts. Their main concern is studying the development of pragmatic and
discourse competence in relation to particular identities and communities
of practice.
In contrast, the variationists discussed in Section 9.3 look at a range of
relatively “micro” linguistic features in learner language. They have demon-
strated that much variability is patterned, and that it is linked increasingly to
social factors, as learners gain more varied experience of L2 use, especially
beyond the classroom.The emergence of socially patterned variation among
more advanced/more integrated learners can be linked to learners’ aspira-
tions to develop appropriate L2 identities, and thus to the themes discussed
in later sections of the chapter.

9.7.2 Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Language Learning

and Development
Sociolinguistically oriented research has provided rich descriptions of the
context for language learning, and the speech events and social practices
through which it is presumed to take place. Like sociocultural theorists, the
L2 socialization researchers studied here believe that language knowledge is
socially constructed through interaction. Longitudinal sociolinguistic studies
with both children and adults have documented learners’ evolving capabili-
ties on pragmatic, functional and stylistic dimensions. Increasing attention
is also being paid to the evolving linguistic system, as it emerges to meet
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 365
the needs of interactional competence, in work such as that of Hellermann,
though this is still not characteristic of the sociolinguistic tradition as a whole.
On the other hand, current studies of L2 communication and of L2
socialization offer a great deal of valuable evidence about how the learning
context, and the learner’s evolving style of engagement with it, may affect
the rate and direction of L2 learning, and eventual success.

9.7.3 Sociolinguistic Accounts of the L2 Learner

L2 ethnographies take an interest in a wide variety of L2 learners, from
the youngest classroom learners to adult migrants. The L2 ethnographers
that we have encountered take a more rounded view of the learner as a
social being than is true for other perspectives we have surveyed. Thus, for
example, dimensions such as gender and ethnicity are seen as significant for
language learning success.
Most striking, though, is the emphasis placed by contemporary sociolin-
guistic researchers such as Norton and Pavlenko on the dynamic and alter-
able nature of learners’ identity and engagement with the task of L2 learning.
Self-esteem and motivation are shown to be constructed and reconstructed
in the course of L2 interaction, with significant consequences for the rate of
learning and ultimate level of success. Alongside rich characterizations of the
learning context, the importance attributed to agency and investment is one
of the most distinctive contributions of this tradition.

References
Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. Abing-
don/New York: Routledge.
Barton, D., & Potts, D. (2013). Language learning online as a social practice. TESOL
Quarterly, 47, 815–820.
Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and
social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bayley, R. (1996). Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese
learners of English. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and
linguistic variation (pp. 97–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bayley, R., Cameron, R., & Lucas, C. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bayley, R., & Preston, D. R. (Eds.). (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bayley, R., & Schecter, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Language socialization in bilingual and multilin-
gual societies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bayley, R., & Tarone, E. (2012).Variationist perspectives. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 41–56). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-
versity Press.
366  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Block, D. (2015a). Social class in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
35, 1–19.
Block, D. (2015b). Structure, agency, individualization and the critical realist challenge. In
P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G.Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in
second language learning (pp. 17–36). Bristol: Multilingual matters.
Bolander, B. (2017). Language and identity on Facebook. In S. L. Thorne & S. May
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language, education and technology
(pp. 143–154). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M.-T., Simonot, M., & Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving
understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. Harlow: Longman.
Burch, A. R. (2014). Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on com-
munication strategies. Language Learning, 64, 651–684.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 45–62.
Cekaite, A. (2017). What makes a child a good language learner? Interactional com-
petence, identity, and immersion in a Swedish classroom. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 37, 45–61.
Cheng, T. P. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign
language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 869–886.
Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community. Lan-
guage Learning and Technology, 18, 85–100.
Creese, A. (2005). Mediating allegations of racism in a multiethnic London school: What
speech communities and communities of practice can tell us about discourse and
power. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice (pp. 55–76).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning:The discursive production of selves. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43–63.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). Retention or omission of the ne in advanced French interlan-
guage:The variable effect of extralinguistic factors. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 433–450.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bris-
tol: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hun-
gary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505–537.
Duff, P. A. (1996). Different languages, different practices: Socialization of discourse com-
petence in dual-language school classrooms in Hungary. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan
(Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 407–433). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and
issues. Language Teaching, 40, 309–319.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Sociolinguistics and
language education (pp. 427–454). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2011). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 564–586). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency and SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Duff, P. A. (2015).Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 35, 57–80.
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 367
Duff, P. A. (2017). Social dimensions and differences in instructed SLA. In S. Loewen &
M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 379–
395). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. A., Anderson, T., Ilnyckyj, R., VanGaya, E., & Wang, R. (2013). Learning Chinese:
Linguistic, sociocultural and narrative perspectives. Boston/Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Duff, P. A., & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (second) language socialization
research. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. Miller, & G.Vitanova (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches
to theorizing and analyzing agency and second language learning (pp. 54–72). Bristol: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A., & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Lan-
guage socialization. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language
acquisition: Social cultural and linguistic development in additional languages. In D.
Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). Abing-
don/New York: Routledge.
Duran, C. S. (2014). Theorizing agency among young language learners through the lens
of multilingual repertoires: A socio-cultural perspective. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R.
Miller, & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning:
Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 73–90). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Duran, C. S. (2017a). “You not die yet”: Karenni refugee children’s language socialization
in a video gaming community. Linguistics and Education, 42(Supplement C), 1–9.
Duran, C. S. (2017b). Language and literacy in refugee families. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language
and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–490.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2
learning of English questions. Language Learning, 65, 33–62.
Eskildsen, S. W., Cadierno, T., & Li, P. (2015). On the development of motion construc-
tions in four learners of English as L2. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-
based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 207–232). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Eskildsen, S.W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learn-
ing, 65, 268–297.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English
and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259.
Fogle, L. W., & King, K. A. (2017). Bi- and multilingual family language socialization. In
P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 79–95). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Foley, W. A. (1997). Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
García-Sánchez, I., & Nazimova, K. (2017). Language socialization and immigration in
Europe. In P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition:
Language socialization (pp. 441–456). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to
today’s schools. In D. Barton & K.Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language,
power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeslin, K. L., Fafulas, S., & Kanwit, M. (2013). Acquiring geographically-variable norms
of use: The case of the present perfect in Mexico and Spain. In C. Howe (Ed.), Selected
proceedings of the 15th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 205–220). Somerville, MA: Cas-
cadilla Proceedings Project.
368  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Geeslin, K. L., & Long, A.Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition: Learning
to use language in context. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Giroir, S. (2014). Narratives of participation, identity, and positionality:Two cases of Saudi
learners of English in the United States. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 34–56.
Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2011). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti, E.
Ochs, & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 365–390).
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Gudmestad, A. (2014).Variationist approaches to second language Spanish. In K. L. Gees-
lin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 80–95). Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Gudmestad, A., & Edmonds, A. (2016).Variable future-time reference in French: A com-
parison of learners in a study-abroad and a foreign-language context. Canadian Journal
of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 61, 259–285.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.
In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 97–124).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (2011). Language socialization in art and science. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, &
B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 425–442). Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography (2nd ed.).
London: Continuum.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Hellermann, J. (2014). Community of practice. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge ency-
clopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 98–100). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2017). An introduction to sociolinguistics (5th ed.). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Howard, K. M. (2011). Language socialization and hierarchy. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, &
B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 341–364). Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Howard, K. M. (2017). Language socialization, language ideologies, and language shift among
school-aged children. In P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education,
3rd edition: Language socialization (pp. 169–181). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Howard, M. (2012).The advanced learner’s sociolinguistic profile: On issues of individual
differences, second language exposure conditions, and type of sociolinguistic variable.
The Modern Language Journal, 96, 20–33.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gump-
erz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication
(pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kanwit, M. (2017). What we gain by combining variationist and concept-oriented
approaches: The case of acquiring Spanish future-time expression. Language Learning,
67, 461–498.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition
(pp. 117–142). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–42.
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 369
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2014). Social positioning, participation, and second language learning:
Talkative students in an academic ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 686–714.
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in
France. Supplement to Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124.
Koike, D. A., & Blyth, C. S. (Eds.). (2015). Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communi-
ties. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and
local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 44–65.
Lam, W. S. E. (2009). Multiliteracies on instant messaging in negotiating local, translo-
cal, and transnational affiliations: A case of an adolescent immigrant. Reading Research
Quarterly, 44, 377–397.
Lam, W. S. E., & Smirnov, N. (2017). Identity in mediated contexts of transnationalism
and mobility. In S. L. Thorne & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd
edition: Language, education and technology (pp. 105–117). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Y.-A., & Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversa-
tion analysis: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 763–788.
Li, X. (2010). Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of learners of Chinese as a second
language. Language Learning, 60, 366–408.
Li, X. (2017). Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese: Native speakers, learners, teachers,
and textbooks. Chinese as a Second Language, 52, 55–76.
Lin, M.-C. A. (2015).Toward a relationship-oriented framework: Revisiting agency by lis-
tening to the voices of children. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G.Vitanova (Eds.),
Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches
(pp. 252–270). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol: Multi-
lingual Matters.
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Moore, L. C. (2017). Multilingual socialization and education in non-Western settings.
In P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 155–168). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Mori, J. (2013). Conversation analysis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of
second language acquisition (pp. 131–134). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mougeon, F., & Rehner, K. (2015). Engagement portraits and (socio)linguistic perfor-
mance: A transversal and longitudinal study of advanced L2 learners. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 37, 425–456.
Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., & Rehner, K. (2010). The sociolinguistic competence of immersion
students. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mougeon, R., Rehner, K., & Nadasdi, T. (2004). The learning of spoken French varia-
tion by immersion students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 408–432.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.
Harlow: Longman.
Norton, B. (2015). Investment. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encylopedia of second
language acquisition (pp. 343–344). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Norton, B. (2017). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bris-
tol: Multilingual Matters.
370  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language sociali-
zation in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1995).The impact of language socialization on grammatical
development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language
(pp. 73–94). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti,
E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–22).
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2017). Language socialization: An historical overview. In
P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3nd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 3–16). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ohta, A. S. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in
adult learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1493–1512.
Palmer, D. K., Martínez, R. A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the
debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the
dual language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 757–772.
Pavlenko, A. (1998). Second language learning by adults: Testimonies of bilingual writers.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 9, 3–19.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability
for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguis-
tics, 39, 555–578.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Fasel Lauzon, V. (2015). Documenting change across time: Lon-
gitudinal and cross-sectional CA studies of L2 classroom interaction. In N. Markee
(Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 409–424). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional
competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair
organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.),
Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–270). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Preston, D. (1996). Variationist perspectives on second language acquisition. In D. Pres-
ton & R. Bayley (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 1–45).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Preston, D., & Bayley, R. (2009).Variationist linguistics and second language acquisition.
In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 89–113). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Reder, S., Harris, K., & Kristen, S. (2003). A multimedia adult learner corpus. TESOL
Quarterly, 37, 546–557.
Regan,V. (1996).Variation in French interlanguage: A longitudinal study of sociolinguis-
tic competence. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and
linguistic variation (pp. 177–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a
study abroad context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rehner, K. (2002).The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by
advanced second language learners of French. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada.
Rehner, K., Mougeon, R., & Nadasdi, T. (2003). The learning of sociolinguistic variation
by advanced FSL learners: The case of nous versus on in immersion French. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 25, 127–156.
 Sociolinguistic Perspectives 371
Reinhardt, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2017). Language socialization in digital contexts. In P. A.
Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language sociali-
zation (pp. 397–409). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Romaine, S. (2003). Variation. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 409–435). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organiza-
tion of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sauro, S. (2017). Fandom and online interest groups. In S. L. Thorne & S. May (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language, education and technology
(pp. 131–142). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2001). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance
of action. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 229–249). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis
(Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli
children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropol-
ogy, 15, 163–191.
Schreiber, B. R. (2015). “I am what I am”: Multilingual identity and digital translanguag-
ing. Language Learning and Technology, 19, 69–87.
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Row-
ley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched.
The Modern Language Journal, 91, 820–836.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analyzing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation.
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13,
65–93.
Talmy, S. (2008).The cultural productions of ESL students at Tradewinds High: Contingency,
multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied Linguistics, 29, 619–644.
Talmy, S. (2013). Second language socialization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge ency-
clopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 571–575). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Talmy, S. (2015). A language socialization perspective on identity work of ESL youth in a
superdiverse high school classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse
and interaction (pp. 353–368). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and
learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language
Journal, 93, 802–821.
Thorne, S. L., Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2015).Technologies, identities and expressive activity.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 215–233.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
372  Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Toohey, K. (2001). Disputes in child L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 257–278.
Trentman, E. (2017). Oral fluency, sociolinguistic competence, and language contact: Ara-
bic learners studying abroad in Egypt. System, 69(Supplement C), 54–64.
Umino, T., & Benson, P. (2016). Communities of practice in study abroad: A four-year
study of an Indonesian student’s experience in Japan. The Modern Language Journal,
100, 757–774.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian
perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vandergriff, I. (2016). Second-language discourse in the digital world. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Vickers, C. H. (2007). Second language socialization through team interaction among
electrical and computer engineering students. The Modern Language Journal, 91,
621–640.
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.). Chiches-
ter: Wiley Blackwell.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language socialization in SLA. In C.
Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 155–177).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, G. (2017). Language socialization: A systemic functional perspective. In P. A.
Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language sociali-
zation (pp. 33–47). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Young, R. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. New York: Peter Lang.
Zappa-Hollman, S., & Duff, P. A. (2015). Academic English socialization through indi-
vidual networks of practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 333–368.
10 Integrating Theoretical
Perspectives on Second
Language Learning

10.1 Introduction
So far throughout this book, we have explored a range of theoretical per-
spectives, reflecting the multivoiced and sometimes contradictory nature of
the L2 field. We have seen how the various L2 traditions are grounded in
a variety of disciplines: linguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neurosci-
ence, anthropology, sociolinguistics, sociology and education. The different
traditions have their individual strengths, and each sheds light on aspects of
second language learning (SLL); as noted earlier we agree with the com-
mentators who have viewed this multidisciplinarity, and range of theoretical
voices, as a strength which has on balance advanced the field overall (Jordan,
2004; Lantolf, 1996; Ortega, 2011; Rothman & VanPatten, 2013; Zuengler &
Miller, 2006).
However, throughout much of the history of L2 research there have
been calls for theoretical unification and, increasingly, for more power-
ful, interdisciplinary approaches to SLL theorizing. For example, Hul-
stijn (2007) and Hulstijn et al. (2014) have argued for “bridging the gap”
between cognitive-linguistic and social approaches to research on SLL.
Shirai and Juffs (2017) argue for principled engagement between formal-
ist and functionalist linguistic perspectives, in which the same language
learning phenomena are investigated in a coordinated way from the per-
spectives of both Universal Grammar (UG) and usage-based theory. They
comment on the growing interest in statistical, probabilistic and induc-
tive learning—central to usage-based approaches—shown more recently
by UG scholars (Yang, 2004; Yang, Crain, Berwick, Chomsky, & Bolhuis,
2017). From a broadly usage-based perspective (but explicitly exclud-
ing the perspective of UG), a group of 15 scholars known collectively as
the Douglas Fir group have recently (2016) joined together to propose a
“transdisciplinary framework” for language learning and teaching, which
sets out to integrate cognitive and social dimensions of language learning
at several interconnected levels.
374  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL

MACRO LEVEL
Belief Systems OF
Cultural Values
Political Values IDEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES
Religious Values
Economic Values

MESO LEVEL
OF Social identities
SOCIOCULTURAL INSTITUTIONS Investment
Agency
AND COMMUNITIES
Power

Families
MICRO LEVEL Schools
Semiotic Resources OF Neighborhood
Linguistic SOCIAL ACTIVITY Places of Work
Prosodic Places of Workship
Interactional Social Organizations
Nonverbal Multilingual Contexts
Graphic of
Pictorial Action and Interaction
Auditory Contributing to Multilingual Repertoires
Artifactual
INDIVIDUALS
ENGAGING
WITH OTHERS

Regularly Recurring Contexts of Use

Neurobiological Mechanisms
and Cognitive Capacities

Figure 10.1 The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and Teaching

Source: Douglas Fir, 2016, p. 25

An overview of the framework proposed by Douglas Fir is shown as Fig-

ure 10.1; readers may like to compare this framework with the framework of
Spolsky (1989), presented in Chapter 1. In this new framework, the individual
is at the centre, but in engagement with others rather than as an autonomous
figure. The individual language learner/language user employs a range of
verbal and non-verbal, symbolic (semiotic) resources to make meaning (Fig-
ure 10.1, inner circle), and grows those resources through “action and interac-
tion”. Local activities and interactions are framed within institutional settings
and their associated power relationships (middle circle); these in turn are given
meaning by wider belief systems and ideologies (outer circle). Language learn-
ing involves “interplay” between cognitive capacities and social experiences:

Language learning is a complex, ongoing, multifaceted phenomenon

that involves the dynamic and variable interplay among a range of
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 375
individual neurobiological mechanisms and cognitive capacities and L2
learners’ diverse experiences in their multilingual worlds occurring over
their life spans and along three interrelated levels of social activity: the
micro level of social action and interaction, the meso level of sociocul-
tural institutions and communities, and the macro level of ideological
structures.
(Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 36)

The authors also articulate a number of underlying principles or assump-

tions, which stress the origins of language development in intersubjectiv-
ity, joint attention and cognition, and the role of wider semiotic resources
(gaze, gesture, images, print . . .) in supporting the development of linguistic
resources. They emphasize the emotionally driven nature of L2 learning, its
dynamic nature, the necessity for mediation, and the expectation that indi-
vidual learners will come to control a distinctive set of multilingual resources,
relevant to their personal identity and social needs. On the other hand, learn-
ing opportunity is also socially structured, with L2 learners and users in vary-
ing positions of power and agency. Overall, the position statement builds on
some longstanding general assumptions of L2 research (for example, it is not
very new or surprising to state that learning involves interaction between
individual cognitive capacities and social experience). However, the authors’
commitment to a transdisciplinary approach to theory and research must be
interpreted as a call for a much more ambitious integration of SLL theorizing.
Readers will recognize that several theoretical positions presented sepa-
rately earlier in this book are compatible with areas of this broad frame-
work, and the Douglas Fir signatories include, for instance, James Lantolf
(see Chapter 8) and Nick C. Ellis (see Chapter 4). Lantolf (2014) rejects any
idea of a “gap” between cognitive and social activity, from the perspective of
sociocultural theory, and Ellis argues similarly from a usage-based perspec-
tive (2014, 2015). The framework also incorporates themes of interaction
and L2 identity addressed elsewhere in this book.
Overall, the Douglas Fir framework is broad and programmatic. In their
discussion, they acknowledge that no single research programme can address
all of it. However, they call on second language acquisition (SLA) researchers
to “think integratively” (p. 38) and to undertake research collaborations “in
a true spirit of transdisciplinarity”. In the main sections of this chapter, we
discuss two examples of existing L2/multilingual development research pro-
grammes which have set out to do this, and are sufficiently well-established
to have interpreted or generated a substantial volume of empirical research.
Our principal, highly contrasting examples are the Modular Online Growth
and Use of Language (MOGUL) project (Section 10.2) and complexity
theory/Dynamic Systems Theory (Section 10.3). In our view these are
the strongest current examples of integrative proposals which illustrate the
attempt, on the one hand, to bring together formal linguistic (UG) theory
with a current view of the psychology and neurology of language and, on
the other, to integrate a range of usage-based and social accounts.
376  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
10.2 The MOGUL Framework

10.2.1  Introduction to the MOGUL Architecture

The MOGUL framework was first proposed by Michael Sharwood Smith
and John Truscott in 2004, and has been systematically developed since that
time (Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2008, 2014; Sharwood Smith, 2017;
Truscott, 2015, 2017; Truscott & Sharwood Smith, 2004, 2016). The most
complete published overviews can be found in their joint book The Multi-
lingual Mind: A Modular Processing Perspective (2014), and in the more intro-
ductory book by Sharwood Smith Introducing Language and Cognition (2017).
As discussed in Chapter 3, much UG-based L2 research describes and
compares L2 grammars at varying stages of development, but does not con-
sider in detail how learners actually progress from one stage to another.
Some UG-inspired researchers have highlighted this gap, and have set out
to complement the property theory of UG with a transition theory of L2
development, including Towell and Hawkins (1994) and Carroll (2001).
However, MOGUL is the best developed current example of a theoretical
framework of this type. It is grounded in cognitive science, that is, the inter-
disciplinary study of the mind, drawing on biology, psychology, neuroscience
and computer science, as well as on linguistics. For “Poverty of the Stimulus”
reasons, the authors are committed to the view that some basics of language
are innate, and are stored and processed in distinctive language module(s),
that is, some form of UG.The focus of MOGUL is on “the world inside our
heads” (Sharwood Smith, 2017, p. 3), rather than on the external physical and
social—and language-using—world. However, MOGUL is very much con-
cerned with how that external world is interpreted and represented within
the mind.
In the MOGUL framework, the entire mind has a modular structure, and
is built from a number of “systems” (distinct memory stores, plus individ-
ual processors associated with each of these), and interfaces which connect
them. There are systems for the different bodily senses (an auditory system,
a visual system and so on), a conceptual system, an affective (emotional) sys-
tem and a motor system, in addition to the language module. An overview
of the complete MOGUL conceptualization of the mind is presented as
Figure 10.2.
The language module of MOGUL is grounded in the proposals of Jack-
endoff (2002). It can be seen in the upper left corner of Figure 10.2, in basic
form; a separate representation is shown in Figure 10.3. The “domain-­specific
area” in this figure represents the core language module, which includes
two distinctive systems, the phonological and the syntactic. The auditory, vis-
ual and articulatory systems lie outside the core language module, as does the
conceptual or semantic system. However, these external systems are strongly
adapted to the requirements of language, so that, for example, the auditory
system is highly sensitive to the sounds of language, as well as handling
 OLFACTORY
SOMATO- SYSTEM
SENSORY
CORE SYSTEM
LANGUAGE smell
SYNTAX
SYSTEM body
sense MOTOR
SYSTEM
PHONO- SIGNE
D LAN
GUAG motor
LOGY ES
VISUAL
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM
SYSTEM SIGNE
D LAN
GUAG
ES
see
AUDITORY meaning
SYSTEM
AFFECTIVE
SYSTEM GUSTATOSORY
hear
SYSTEM

value
taste

INTERFACES
PERCEPTUAL SYSTEM
CORE LANGUAGE SYSTEM
OTHER

Figure 10.2 The General MOGUL Framework

Source: Sharwood Smith, 2017, p. 195

AUDITORY
SYSTEM

VISUAL PHONOLOGICAL SYNTACTIC CONCEPTUAL

SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM

DOMAIN-SPECIFIC AREA

ARTICULATORY LANGUAGE BROADLY DEFINED

SYSTEMS

Figure 10.3 The Wider Language System of MOGUL

Source: Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014, p. 17
378  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
non-linguistic sounds such as birdsong, or the ringing of a doorbell. The
conceptual system in particular holds many representations corresponding
directly to outputs of the syntactic system; however, it also comes to hold
representations of words deriving directly from the auditory system, and
conscious knowledge about many aspects of language, as well as representa-
tions deriving from other non-linguistic sources such as the bodily senses,
the imagination, visual art or music. The distinctive language domain does
not contain the totality of the individual’s language knowledge.
Finally, Figure 10.4 presents a slightly more detailed image, in which it can
be seen that the “systems” we have introduced are each composed of two
basic elements: a dedicated memory space and a dedicated processor.
So far, we have presented MOGUL in quite general terms, and it is time
to look more closely at some of its distinctive features. Firstly, it should be
noted that MOGUL proposes a single memory space for each system, and
does not accept the widely held separation into working memory and long-
term memory. Within MOGUL, memories hold representations with dif-
ferent “resting” levels, depending on how recently and how frequently these
representations have been called upon or activated. There is thus simply a
graduation between representations with higher and lower resting levels;
the most frequently activated items with the highest resting levels are the
equivalent in MOGUL of working memory as we discussed it in Chapter 5.
But what are the contents of these memories? For MOGUL, each system
including the language module(s) is equipped with a set of innate primitives;
thus, for example, the syntactic system contains basic “category features” such
as [+N], [+V], which support the development of lexical categories such as
Noun or Verb. The syntactic system also contains the functional categories

auditory phonological syntactic conceptual

processor processor processor processor

AS–PS PS–SS SS–CS

interface interface interface
auditory phonological syntactic conceptual
memory memory memory memory

Figure 10.4 Core Language Architecture within MOGUL

Source: Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014, p. 36
Note: AS=Auditory System; PS=Phonological System; SS=Syntactic System; CS=Conceptual
System
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 379
proposed by UG, such as Inflection and Case, with all of their feature val-
ues (for example [strong] and [weak] values, in the case of Inflection: see
Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1). Similarly, the phonological memory contains a
set of innate phonological primitives which enable the system to get started
in distinguishing language from non-language in auditory input; the con-
ceptual memory contains a set of innate conceptual primitives, and so on.
Importantly, all of these systems are capable of handling multiple languages
(for example a null subject language alongside a language that does not
permit null subjects); different grammars coexist within MOGUL, hence its
claim to reflect the “multilingual mind”.
However, the MOGUL memory stores contain much more than these
innate primitives. In addition, they contain multiple language-specific rep-
resentations developed through language processing, such as phonological
representations of syllables, words and phrases in the phonological mem-
ory. In the syntactic memory, “subcategorization frames” are developed and
stored, which specify the arguments attaching to a particular word (such as
[Vi+NP], for a transitive verb), or combine a Case item with a head (such as
V+[Case] accusative). As for representations in memory of longer units such
as a complex sentence: “what this consists of is a set of integrated represen-
tations that have been activated in syntactic memory in response to input”
from the phonological and conceptual systems (Sharwood Smith & Truscott,
2014, p. 352). The memory stores thus contain a wide array of simpler and
more complex representations, with rich interconnections.
As we saw in Figure 10.4, all modules within the language system are
connected by interfaces. It is the task of these interfaces to match up repre-
sentations in the different stores across the system, usually by locating already
co-indexed items. (For a user of English, for example, the category Tense
in the syntactic store will be co-indexed with representations such as past
tense endings /d/, /t/ or /ǝd/ in the phonological store, and meanings such
as PAST in the conceptual store.) Thus, when the auditory system receives
auditory input and builds a phonetic representation of this, the phonological
system tries to create a phonological representation which is a sufficiently
good match for it. In turn, the syntactic system tries to build a syntactic rep-
resentation which can be co-indexed to the incoming phonological infor-
mation, and the conceptual system tries to build a matching conceptual
representation.
All of this processing work takes place in line with the distinctive prin-
ciples of the relevant processor (UG principles, for instance, in the case of
the syntactic and phonological systems). Potentially relevant representa-
tions with indexes matching all or part of the input are activated within
each memory store, and compete with one another to build a satisfactory,
complete representation which can be indexed to those being created in
neighbouring stores. Obviously, this processing work can begin with new
auditory input (language comprehension), or work in the other direction,
starting with conceptual input (language production). All languages known
380  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL

‘LANGUAGE MODULE’
Syntactic
Phonological structures, e.g.
PS structure, e.g. +N–V
SS
/læmp/. +Singular
+Nom, etc.

Conceptual
structures,
Auditory structures, e.g. meanings CS
e.g. those associated associated
with lamps incl. with lamps.
AS clicks, etc.
and the sound of
the word: [læmp]. Visual structures,
associated with
lamps
incl. images and
orthographic
structures: lamp.

VS
Figure 10.5 The Word Lamp as a Representational Chain
Source: Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014, p. 40

are stored in the same way, in the same memory stores, and compete for
access to the processing system.
It follows from this brief account that MOGUL possesses no separate
lexical store (unlike many other models of speech processing). Instead, lexi-
cal items exist as “representational chains”, that is to say, a set of co-indexed
representations across the different modules. Figure 10.5 presents an example
for the word lamp.

10.2.2 Language Learning within MOGUL: Acquisition by

Processing Theory
The basic view of MOGUL regarding language learning (whether L1 or L2)
is similar to that of connectionists, emergentists and other usage-based theo-
rists: that there is no requirement for any distinctive Language Acquisition
Device, but that language development takes place through language use
(or more specifically through language processing). Where MOGUL differs
from usage-based theorists is in its commitment to the existence of innate
linguistic primitives (UG), and the formal linguistic architecture deriving
from these. But as far as development is concerned, they declare a clear com-
mitment to “Acquisition by Processing Theory” (APT).
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 381
So how does APT work in practice? On receiving auditory input, for
example, the various processors described in Section 10.2.1 set to work in
parallel to construct a set of co-indexed representations and form a represen-
tational chain.To do this, they search their individual memory stores, activat-
ing existing candidate representations and attempting to combine them to
match the input. The most frequently/recently used existing representations
have the highest “resting” level within the memory store, and will therefore
be the most accessible, though many competing representations will also be
activated momentarily.
But what happens if incoming auditory input contains some new mate-
rial, for example an unknown L1 word, for which the various stores do not
yet have a representation? In MOGUL, the processors continue their work,
and establish a new item, as a “best fit” with the syntactic and conceptual
context. (If relevant non-verbal information is available, such as input from
the visual system to the conceptual system, this will also be drawn upon.)
This new representation will have a low resting level in memory initially,
but each further occasion on which it is activated will raise this level slightly,
improving its ability to compete with other representations during process-
ing. Language growth is thus seen essentially as “the lingering effect of pro-
cessing” (Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014, p. 229).
As we have seen, different languages coexist within MOGUL, and com-
pete through processing to create representations of input.When input from
a new L2 is heard, the processors will try initially to build representations
using existing and easily accessible material, i.e. L1 representations (such as
L1 phonology, well-established in the phonological store). Where these rep-
resentations prove insufficient, new representations are created (for example,
a new L2 phonological distinction is recognized). Initially having a low rest-
ing level, these new representations will become stronger through repeated
activation, just as with new L1 items.
In Chapter 3, we reviewed longstanding debates among UG researchers
concerning the (non)availability of UG for L2 acquisition among adults.
The position of MOGUL is clear: that all UG elements are fully available,
but any new instantiations of UG, for example the selection of different
parameter settings or alternative feature values, must compete continually
with well-established L1 representations. This competition means that vari-
ability is highly likely in L2 production of feature values, or feature com-
binations, which differ from those of L1; development in L2 production is
best seen as a gradual (and variable) progression from L1 values to L2 values,
rather than as a succession of clear interlanguage stages. It may be easier for
completely novel L2 categories to become established; Sharwood Smith and
Truscott cite here the example of L1 English speakers acquiring classifiers
in L2 Chinese (2014, p. 233). They acknowledge a number of well-known
L2 acquisitional challenges, especially in the area of functional morphology
(including Inflection, Tense and Case). To understand these challenges, and
the long-term variability and apparent fossilization which can characterize
382  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
L2 performance, they suggest that answers may be found “in the ways that
well-established L1 co-indexing influences syntactic and conceptual pro-
cessing of L2 input, since the syntax-semantics mappings that do or do not
get formed for the L2 are a direct consequence of this processing” (p. 223).
They view APT as compatible with the proposals of researchers such as Lar-
diere (2009) and VanPatten (1996).
The initial aim of MOGUL is to provide a transition theory (APT) com-
patible with the type of linguistic architecture proposed by UG theorists,
and we have briefly reviewed these ideas here. The framework also deals
with other dimensions of language knowledge and multilingual develop-
ment in line with the larger MOGUL perspective on the mind, including
the contributions of consciousness and explicit knowledge, of the emotions
and of non-linguistic knowledge to language growth in a wider sense. How-
ever, space does not allow for discussion of these aspects of MOGUL here,
and we conclude with a brief commentary on applications of MOGUL by
other researchers.

10.2.3 An Application of MOGUL

The main aim of Sharwood Smith and Truscott in developing MOGUL has
been to integrate existing interdisciplinary findings and proposals regard-
ing linguistic knowledge and processing into a single theoretically coherent
framework which they anticipate can be tested through subsequent empiri-
cal research. Some generativist researchers are now referencing MOGUL
(for example Amaral & Roeper, 2014; Foster-Cohen, 2017; Whong, 2011),
and here we discuss a recent example of a MOGUL-related empirical study.
Our example study, by Marsden, Whong, and Gil (2018), concerns the
learning of the English quantifier any by a group of L1 speakers of Najdi
(Saudi) Arabic. The quantifier any is an existential polarity item (contrasting
with some) which has been much studied in theoretical linguistics, but has
received little attention in L2 research. Its possible and impossible uses are
exemplified in sentences 1–8 below. As can be seen, any can be used in ques-
tions (1), under the scope of negation (3), as complement of a semantically
negative verb (5) and under the scope of a semantically negative adverb (7).

1. Do you want any cake?/Does anyone want any cake?

2. *Jenny wants any cake. (Cf. Jenny wants some cake.)
3. Jenny doesn’t want any cake.
4. *Anyone doesn’t want (a/the/any) cake.
5. Jenny denies that she ate any cake.
6. *Jenny thinks that she ate any cake.
7. Jenny hardly ate any cake.
8. *Jenny probably ate any cake.
(Marsden et al., 2018, p. 94)
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 383
Detailed theoretical linguistic accounts of any differ, but the authors sum-
marize that any can be selected “under the scope of a semantic negation
licensor” (p. 113), which checks or co-indexes with a semantic licensing
feature attaching to any itself. Najdi Arabic possesses a similar existential
polarity item Ɂayy, which is similarly distributed to English any, except that
it is allowed with semantically non-negative adverbs:

Ihtemal     anaho    ra’a     ʔayy     ahad   bel’ams.
probably  that.3SGM  saw.3SGM  any  one  yesterday
“*He probably saw anyone yesterday”.

The researchers wanted to examine the acquisition of any, and the possible
role of instruction in supporting this. First of all, they carried out an exten-
sive analysis of English language textbooks and of corpora, to determine
which aspects of any are regularly taught and encountered in input by L2
learners. They found that textbooks typically teach that any is to be used in
negative sentences containing not, and in questions. Instruction therefore
deals with contexts like (1) and (3) above, but not with (5) and (7), nor are
learners explicitly taught that contexts such as (4) or (8) are ungrammati-
cal in English. Marsden et al. stress that while any is relatively common in
English input, this learning route is providing positive evidence only; i.e. no
negative evidence is provided regarding the ungrammaticality of the starred
items. They set out to investigate (a) whether the unobservable properties of
any are acquired, and (b) whether instruction has any noticeable influence
on what is learned.
The participants in the empirical study were university students, divided
into three L2 proficiency groups on the basis of an English cloze test. The
participants took a paced acceptability judgement test, in which they rated
sentences such as 1–8 as acceptable/unacceptable, on a 4-point scale (with a
“don’t know” option in addition). The test was presented on computer and
paced so as to minimize access to explicit knowledge; it included 32 relevant
items as well as fillers. At the end of the test, the participants were asked to
state any rule(s) they knew governing any, if they recalled them. Eighty-six L2
participants completed the test in full, and their results were analysed. (An L1
English control group of 15 students also took the test, to confirm its validity.)
Marsden et al. conducted a range of statistical analyses, which are not
reviewed in detail here.The different proficiency groups performed at differ-
ent levels on the judgement test, suggesting that knowledge of any develops
in line with general proficiency. Out of the 86 participants, a small number
(15, mainly from the high proficiency group) achieved consistently high
scores, demonstrating to the researchers’ satisfaction that complete acquisi-
tion of the properties of any is possible.
Regarding the influence of instruction, the participants generally per-
formed best on the grammatical items where relevant instruction had been
384  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
received (though hardly any of them could state any relevant rule explicitly).
The researchers explain this finding in terms of MOGUL, arguing that class-
room practice and associated processing have developed a general learned
schema located outside the language module, associating any with ques-
tions and negative clauses. However, performance was consistently less good
on the ungrammatical items, regardless of whether instruction had been
received or not.
Regarding uninstructed acquisition (that is to say, Acquisition by Process-
ing, in MOGUL terms), the researchers view the data for sentences of type
(8) as highly significant, i.e. the co-indexing of any with semantically nega-
tive adverbs only. The L1 does not have this restriction, and there is little or
no negative evidence available in L2 input and instruction.Yet the advanced
group showed improved accuracy on this sentence type, and 15 individu-
als performed with full accuracy. Marsden et al. explain this in terms of the
availability, in the relevant MOGUL stores, of the relevant semantic licens-
ing feature(s). The successful learners succeeded in assembling the features
which allow any only under the scope of a semantic negation licensor. They
also explain the learners’ continuing difficulty with any in subject position
(i.e. in rejecting sentences such as (4)) in terms of competition between the
licensing condition derived from the core language module (roughly, “use
any only when licensed”) and the schema derived from instruction (“use any
with negatives”).
Marsden et al. stress the tentative nature of their conclusions, but their
study nonetheless illustrates the potential usefulness of MOGUL for
researchers in the UG tradition, in two respects: they draw on MOGUL
as a transition theory to explain the changing performances of their par-
ticipants at different proficiency levels, and they also draw on MOGUL to
explore the relationship between instructed/learned knowledge outside the
language module, and the products of ongoing processing within the mod-
ule. This is a promising initiative, though it remains to be seen how quickly
hypotheses associated with MOGUL will be tested and further developed
by larger research groups.

10.3 Dynamic Systems Theory (DST)

10.3.1  Overview of DST

In 1997, Diane Larsen-Freeman published a significant article drawing the
attention of L2 researchers to “chaos/complexity science”, as a possible new
way of thinking about the workings of language in general, and SLA in par-
ticular. Complexity theory has developed in the natural sciences and math-
ematics, as an approach to modelling phenomena and systems with very
large numbers of interacting variables on differing physical scales and dif-
fering timescales—such as climate, or the spread of epidemic disease. In that
early paper, Larsen-Freeman described such “complex nonlinear systems” as
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 385
having 10 characteristics: they are “dynamic, complex, non-linear, chaotic,
unpredictable, sensitive to initial conditions, open, self-organizing, feedback-
sensitive, and adaptive” (1997, p. 142). Since that time she has continued to
advocate the relevance of complexity theory to modelling and research-
ing L2 development (see, for example, de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011;
Larsen-Freeman, 2012, 2015; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Another
group of researchers based at Gröningen in the Netherlands has made simi-
lar proposals using the alternative label of Dynamic Systems Theory (DST:
de Bot, Lowie, Thorne, & Verspoor, 2013; de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007;
Lowie & Verspoor, 2015); the combined label Complex Dynamic Systems
Theory (CDST) has also been proposed, acknowledging the close relation-
ship between the two theoretical positions (de Bot, 2017). The Gröningen
group has developed a range of research tools for analyzing and representing
L2 development in ways which highlight its dynamic and variable nature
over time (Lowie, 2017; Verspoor, de Bot, & Lowie, 2011), and increasing
numbers of empirical L2 studies are being published employing these tech-
niques, some of which will be discussed below.
In a recent overview, Larsen-Freeman (2017, pp. 15–17) offers an outline
of what she sees currently as the “basic, relevant characteristics” of complex
systems. The first of these is emergence, i.e. the idea that higher order patterns
and structures arise from the interaction of simpler components with each
other and with the local environment. To take an example from biology,
termites do not build their nest according to any master plan, yet out of the
individual repetitive actions of thousands of termites, an elaborate structure
is produced. As far as language is concerned, this characteristic clearly asso-
ciates DST proponents with usage-based perspectives in which language
itself lacks any innate foundation, and linguistic components and structures
emerge from experience of interaction (Chapter 4). Emerging patterns in
dynamic systems may act as attractors, absorbing previous ones (Hiver, 2015);
they may go through periods of relative stability, but they are also liable to
radical change. For example, fossilized learner language may be viewed as
a settled attractor state in L2 development (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011,
p. 15); N. C. Ellis has similarly suggested that the Basic Variety described
here in Chapter 7 could be viewed as a temporarily stable L2 attractor state
(2008). Complex systems are self-organizing, yet they are also open systems
which can absorb and expend varied elements; so, for example, one language
may quite easily adopt and integrate vocabulary from another. This means
in turn that complex systems are adaptive, and responsive to novelty and to
environmental change. The components of the complex system are intercon-
nected, to each other and to their context, both spatially and over time; they
can operate on different (nested) scales, and over differing timescales (so that
language knowledge, for example, may evolve during a short face-to-face
exchange, but also over the scale of a whole lifetime). Finally, Larsen-Free-
man (2017) highlights again that complex systems are non-linear, and include
expectations for non-predictable events. For example, in nature, the fall of
386  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
a pebble will usually have few major consequences, but may occasionally—
and unpredictably—trigger a major avalanche. In language learning, a par-
ticular interactional experience may have long-term motivational conse-
quences. In complexity theory therefore, the relations between cause and
effect are conceptualized very differently from classic Newtonian science.
To these general ideas, some more detail can be added about the pos-
sible relationships among components within complex dynamic systems,
and their consequences for the development of an L2 system. Within L2
development, there are obviously many different subsystems (phonology,
lexis, syntax and so on). For DST proponents these subsystems are intercon-
nected, but the connections may take different forms. Some of them may
develop at the same time (supportive or connected growers), while others may
be competitors or precursors of one another (Schmid, Verspoor, & MacWhin-
ney, 2011, p. 48;Van Geert, 2008). These relationships may evolve over time
in a non-linear way, so that different subsystems may be strongly related
at some points in development, yet unrelated at other times. And finally it
cannot be assumed that individual learners will develop their L2 system in
parallel ways; from a DST perspective, variability is normal, both within the
developmental trajectory of the individual learner, and between individuals
(van Dijk,Verspoor, & Lowie, 2011). This leads DST researchers to question,
for example, claims about the regularity of acquisition orders for linguis-
tic subsystems such as English negation, discussed elsewhere in this book
(Lowie & Verspoor, 2015; Verspoor, Lowie, & van Dijk, 2008). Variability is
also seen as related to development—thus a period of heightened variability
in learner performance may indicate a moment of transition from one more
settled attractor state to another, more complex one (Spoelman & Verspoor,
2010, p. 535).

10.3.2 Research Approaches for DST

The proponents of complexity theory and DST are very aware of the chal-
lenges presented by this integrative way of viewing language development
for longstanding L2 research practices. As we have seen throughout the book,
much psycholinguistically oriented SLA research has traditionally involved
the development of hypotheses about relationships between particular
variables (grounded in some larger theory or model of L2 development).
Researchers therefore expend much effort in defining and isolating particu-
lar variables, and designing experiments to test that relationship, while as far
as possible holding other elements in the research setting constant. We have
discussed many examples of research designs in which a prediction is made
about the impact of a particular variable on L2 development. An experimen-
tal treatment is offered to one group of L2 learners, in which they encounter
the relevant variable, while a second (control) group receives a similar learn-
ing experience, but minus the specific treatment. In experimental research
of this kind, it is assumed that sufficiently homogeneous learner groups can
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 387
be identified, and treatments can be made sufficiently similar, for the impact
of particular variables on learning to be isolated. Most attention is given to
group results, predictions are said to be fulfilled or falsified, and generaliza-
tions are made about the applicability of the findings to other learner groups.
It should be clear already that the assumptions of DST are largely incom-
patible with this approach to research. If everything is dynamically con-
nected to everything else, and small individual events may trigger large
changes in the system in unpredictable ways, classic experimental designs
must be questioned:

With a non-linear system, it is possible for no effect to follow a treat-

ment, or conversely, for an effect to show up that was not caused by the
experimental treatment, but rather was due to some earlier experience
or contextual factor. In other words, predicting simple, proximate, lin-
ear causality is not part of the research enterprise governing dynamic
systems.
(de Bot & Larsen-Freeman, 2011, pp. 19–20)

For some DST researchers, prediction and the testing of hypotheses may be
replaced instead by the concept of retrodiction (de Bot & Larsen-Freeman,
2011, p. 20; Dörnyei, 2014), i.e. the effort to explain an outcome retroac-
tively by examining prior sequences of events. (A natural science example
would be the case of volcanic eruptions: modern science is still unable to
predict precisely where and when these will occur, but much is learned
following an eruption by examining the sequence of events which led up
to it.) Chan, Dörnyei, and Henry (2015) provide an example of the use of
retrodiction in empirical research on L2 motivation.
DST researchers have made a range of proposals for empirical L2 research
along lines more compatible with their assumptions. They accept that it
will be necessary to delimit subsystems or “problem spaces” (Cameron &
Larsen-Freeman, 2007) within the total L2 experience, as a manageable
focus for empirical investigation. Whatever the chosen research domain,
these researchers’ basic view is that “the most appropriate method . . . will
have to involve nonlinear analyses of longitudinal case studies, focusing on
variability, trends and interactions over time” (Lowie, 2017, p. 125).The most
useful datasets will be highly dense, as well as longitudinal; that is to say, they
will have many data collection points. For example, to understand variability
in L2 development, and to trace the evolving relationships between different
L2 subsystems over time, it will be important to track the development of
individuals instead of/in addition to that of groups. Quantitative as well as
qualitative methods may be used, but these are likely to involve a range of
alternative statistical procedures, ranging from modelling trends in individual
learner variability to exploring relationships between pairs of L2 subsystems,
and the dynamic modelling through simulations of the evolving relation-
ships between a number of L2 subsystems over time. A range of proposals
388  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
for statistical procedures are fully described in Verspoor et al. (2011), and
some of them will be illustrated in the studies discussed below. A further set
of methodological proposals has been made by researchers working on L2
motivation within a DST framework (Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry, 2015;
MacIntyre, MacKay, Ross, & Abel, 2017). Like the work of the Gröningen
group on L2 development, these motivation researchers argue for develop-
ment of longitudinal case studies with many repeated data collection points;
the data considered relevant takes varied forms, ranging from questionnaire
data and test scores to stimulated recall data, interviews and retrospective
narratives of learning experiences.

10.3.3 Empirical DST Research: A Proficiency (CAF) Study

Verspoor and associates have conducted a number of investigations of
variability in L2 development, using a longitudinal case study approach
(Chan, Verspoor, & Vahtrick, 2015; Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010; van Dijk,
Verspoor, & Lowie, 2011; Verspoor et al., 2008). These studies adopt a
Complexity—Accuracy—Fluency (CAF) view of L2 proficiency, as
described in Chapter 1 (Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012), and focus on
the variable development of one or more proficiency strands, and the
relationships among them.
Thus, for example, Spoelman and Verspoor (2010) report a case study of
a Dutch beginner learner of L2 Finnish. The learner was a university stu-
dent (of linguistics) aged 19 at the beginning of the study. The researchers
obtained 54 academic written texts in Finnish produced by this learner dur-
ing her studies, over a period of 3 years. They took a transcribed sample of
100 words from each of these texts, and conducted computer-aided analyses
on this sample. They tracked the development of aspects of L2 accuracy and
of complexity, and the relationship between them, throughout the learner
corpus. They made a starting assumption that these two subsystems would
compete for the learner’s attentional resources, especially in the early stages
of L2 development.
Finnish is a language with rich morphology and in particular a complex
case system, in which Noun Phrases are marked as Nominative, Accusative,
Genitive, Locative etc. So, for example, the noun karhu “bear” is marked as
Accusative case in example (a) below, and as Partitive case in example (b):

(a) (b)
Ammu-i-n karhu-n. Ammu-i-n karhu-a.
Shoot-Past-1Sg bear-Acc Sg shoot-Past-1Sg bear-Part Sg
“I shot the (a) bear”. “I shot at the (a) bear”.

The accuracy analysis focused on the learner’s developing control of this

case system, and an overall accuracy rate for case marking was calculated for
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 389
each text. The complexity analysis was undertaken at different levels (indi-
vidual words, NPs and sentences). Word level complexity was operational-
ized in terms of the number of morphemes per word; thus, in examples
(a) and (b) above, each sentence consists of a three-morpheme and a two-
morpheme word (or five morphemes per sentence). A word complexity
ratio was devised for each text by calculating the relationship between mean
total words and mean total morphemes per sentence. Similarly, NP level
complexity was operationalized in terms of the number of words per NP;
mean NP length was calculated for each text and used as the NP complex-
ity ratio. For sentence level complexity, the numbers of simple, complex and
compound sentences were counted, and the mean number of dependent
clauses per sentence was calculated for each text.
Figure 10.6 is a Min-Max Graph typical of DST visualizations of lon-
gitudinal descriptive data, which shows the evolution of accuracy scores
for case. The zig-zag line shows individual scores for each data collection
point (case usage within a 100-word text extract). In order to visualize
clearly any changes in learner variability with respect to accuracy over
time, the authors have also calculated moving averages for minimum and
maximum accuracy scores (averaging these scores over a “moving win-
dow” of five data collection points).These moving averages are represented
by the upper and lower lines on the graph; obviously the changing distance
between them reflects the evolving extent of variability of accurate case
usage in the learner’s productions. The graph shows that variability is great
to begin with, diminishes after Text 11 and again after Text 28 (and seems
to stabilize at that point).
Figure 10.7 from the same study shows the evolution of complexity at
morpheme, word and sentence level; individual scores are shown for each

Figure 10.6 Moving Min-Max Graph Showing the Development of Case Accuracy over
Time
Source: Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010, p. 541.
390  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL

Figure 10.7 Development of Complexity on (a) the Morphological Level, (b) the Noun
Phrase Level and (c) the Sentence Level
Source: Spoelman & Verspoor, 2010, p. 542.

element measured within each of these subsystems. The authors comment

that these graphs show the same broad overall trend in the development of
complexity, with multi-morpheme words, longer NPs and more complex
sentence types being used increasingly over time, and settling into a fairly
stable state by the end of the project.
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 391
To explore relationships between the individual elements within
each subsystem, and also between the subsystems, the researchers ran
numerous correlations and tested these for significance using Monte
Carlo simulations (for details see Verspoor et al., 2011, pp. 170–172).
Regarding relationships between the different complexity subsystems,
the researchers found strong positive relationships between word and
NP level complexity ratios, and also between word and sentence level
complexity ratios; they describe these relationships as examples of “con-
nected growers”. On the other hand, a significant negative relationship
was found overall between NP and sentence level complexity ratios. The
researchers considered the possibility that this competitive relationship
was a straightforward result of increasing embedding (others have fre-
quently suggested that nominalization is an embedding strategy favoured
by sophisticated writers: Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998). How-
ever, closer inspection of the data showed that this competition between
NP and sentence level complexity first appeared around Text 8 (when the
participant started to vary the sentence types she wrote), and disappeared
again around Text 48, that is, in the most advanced texts, which displayed
a relatively stable attractor state of non-competition. Finally, the research-
ers identified points in the developmental trajectory of several elements
where increased variability preceded a “jump” to a higher level, more sta-
ble state. This was the case, for example, with the case study student’s use
of NPs containing more than three words, which shifted to a significantly
higher level between Texts 44 and 45.
Overall, Spoelman and Verspoor (2010) interpret their findings as show-
ing that the development of L2 proficiency, conceptualized as CAF, can be
understood as the longitudinal interaction of a number of subsystems, which
display the variability, the changes of state and the changing relations among
different elements characteristic of dynamic systems. Similar arguments are
made in other empirical studies by Verspoor and her associates, referenced at
the start of this section.

10.3.4 Empirical DST Research:The L2 Motivational Self System

For another example of empirical DST-inspired research, we turn to work
on L2 motivation. As described in Chapter 1, L2 motivation is increasingly
understood as a dynamic and flexible construct, and this is clearly the case for
the L2 motivational self system proposed by Dörnyei (2009, 2014). This L2
self system has a number of components which drive learners’ choices, effort
and persistence; these include the imagined “ideal L2 self ”, the “ought-to
L2 self ” (a sense of responsibility to outside pressures such as institutional
requirements) and the “language learning experience” (attitudes to learning
settings and processes).
A number of motivation researchers using L2 self system theory have
therefore adopted the DST paradigm to guide their empirical research,
and a selection of their work can be found in the edited volume of
392  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
Dörnyei et al. (2015). Like the studies of L2 development illustrated in
the last section, these generally take the form of longitudinal case stud-
ies, with dense datasets. The range of research methods used is quite
varied. For example, a study by Piniel and Csizér (2015) used mainly
quantitative methods to investigate the evolving relationship between
the L2 self, anxiety and self-efficacy, among 21 university students (all
L2 English majors), following a course in academic writing, over the
course of one semester (14 weeks). An initial questionnaire documented
the participants’ general dispositions concerning motivation, anxiety and
self-efficacy; unsurprisingly, this group generally started with a strongly
developed L2 ideal self, and relatively low writing anxiety. A shorter ver-
sion of the same questionnaire was then administered repeatedly, to track
any changes in these dispositions over time. Findings were modelled
statistically using latent growth curve modelling and longitudinal clus-
tering among other techniques (see Piniel & Csizér, 2015, pp. 172–174
for details).
The authors of this study caution that the number of participants was
rather small for the application of some of their chosen statistical tech-
niques. However, they did detect some differences in the behaviour of dif-
ferent motivation traits (for example, the L2 ideal self remained generally
stable, while the ought-to self showed non-linear change over time). The
cluster analysis revealed the existence of a subgroup of five participants
with higher (and more variable) writing anxiety than the rest, and this
group also showed significantly more variability over time on the different
elements of the L2 self system than did other students. Finally, the authors
explored relationships among the different variables as they evolved over
time. The main finding of interest was an early competitive relationship
between the ought-to and the ideal L2 self, which became a supportive
relationship towards the end of the study, an attractor state in which the
students “have begun to internalize the expectations of the course” (Pin-
iel & Csizér, 2015, p. 183).
A study by Henry (2015) provides an example of a DST study of L2
motivation which employs qualitative rather than quantitative meth-
ods. The “problem space” explored in this study is the learning of an L3
(French) at a non-beginner level, in the context of the first year of the
Swedish upper secondary school. In this study, the researcher extended his
view of the system to be investigated, to include not only the development
of students’ individual motivation but also some contextual factors which
might be significant for this. The two factors chosen were (a) students’
attitudes towards their first foreign language (L2 English), commonly used
among young people in Sweden as a language of leisure, as well as a class-
room subject; and (b) the fact that students who were successful in passing
advanced L3 assessments could earn extra credits towards their high school
graduation score. (All students had to study an L3, but the extra credits
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 393
were only available if they continued to study a previously learned lan-
guage, rather than starting a new L3.)
With the assistance of the class teacher, and information from an initial
motivation questionnaire, the researcher identified six case study students, to
exemplify three initial profiles:

Profile 1: Higher aptitude and ability; focused learning behaviours; lower

anxiety (two students).
Profile 2: Higher aptitude and ability; focused learning behaviours; higher
anxiety (two students).
Profile 3: Lower aptitude and ability; less focused learning behaviours;
higher anxiety (two students).

The French lessons were observed regularly throughout the year, and the
case study students were interviewed individually on several occasions, always
at the end of a lesson observation, and including some discussion of their
motivation and engagement throughout that particular lesson, with visuali-
zations reflected in the drawing of an informal graph. They also completed
other pencil and paper exercises to stimulate more extended reflections; for
example, at the end of the year they were asked to draw a graph reflecting
their changing levels of motivation over the whole period. At this point, the
two “Profile 2” students opted to drop L3 French and take up another L3 (at
beginner level) in their final high school year.
Henry provides an extended qualitative account of the findings from
this study, demonstrating the influence on students’ short-term motivation
of engagement with the tasks set by the teacher, and with their seatmates
and study partners. He shows how the students make regular comparisons
between their motivations to learn L3 French and L2 English, usually in
favour of the latter:

One thing I have thought about is that if you speak English so well,
because . . . well, it feels unnecessary to learn French . . . because English
is of course an international language. It is.You can speak to everybody.
(Freya, Profile 1 student, p. 330)

They also regularly comment on competing pressures from other curricu-

lum areas:

There is an awful lot to do in school right now. So it feels as if you pri-

oritize French last of all. Because it feels that you don’t know enough.
So then you do the other stuff first, to get it out of the way, and then
there’s no time left for French. And then . . . it takes a long time to learn
a language. [. . .] In history you learn something and then you know it.
(Siri, Profile 3 student, p. 328)
394  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
Given the instrumental role of assessment in students’ motivations to study
advanced French, the researcher paid particular attention to the short-term
motivational impact of test results. For most students, receiving test results
had a perturbing effect, and for the students who failed the test, the “repel-
lent” impact was dramatic in the short term (for example, on getting her
disappointing results Siri disengaged completely from lesson activities for
the rest of the lesson). However, most students quickly recovered their prior
motivational state, apart from Tim (Profile 2), who decided at this point to
give up French when he could, in spite of getting a reasonable grade, and
showed generally unmotivated behaviour for the remaining weeks of the
course.
Finally, Henry discusses the motivational trajectory of Cilla (Profile 2).
Initially, he views her as settled in a self attractor state (the ought-to L3 self):
“[French] is not so important. Now it’s just about getting my credits and
so on. No, I don’t think I am going to have any use for it” (2015, p. 333).
However, over the winter break, Cilla’s parents offered her the opportunity
to go to France for a language course the following summer, and this had
a perturbing effect: “I like French more now than I did before [. . .] it feels
that things have settled a little, that I am not so much behind” (2015, p. 334).
Indeed, at this point she opted to continue with L3 French the following
year: “I want to complete French properly, so that I can get up to a decent
level actually” (p. 336). However, she was already considering going to Scot-
land rather than France in the summer; following this change of plan, her
temporarily increased motivation for French fell back to its lower, ought-
to attractor state, and in Year 2 she switched out of L3 French in favour of
(beginner) L3 German. For Henry, the DST emphasis on “time and change”
(p. 339) in case studies such as these allows for new insights into the fluc-
tuation of motivation on different timescales, and on interactions between
contextual factors and individual motivational states.

10.4 Conclusion
The two frameworks discussed here are very different, and it does not make
sense to evaluate them as we have evaluated the related sets of theories
discussed in previous chapters. Nobody seriously engaged with research
on language and on language acquisition doubts the complex and inter-
disciplinary nature of the subject, with its linguistic, psychological, neuro-
physiological, social and cultural dimensions, and at some future time, all of
these strands must be satisfactorily connected. On the whole, however, L2
studies have evolved over recent decades through increasing specialization
and proliferation of theories (and have made progress in many domains by
doing so). It is useful to be confronted regularly by serious attempts to draw
an integrated “big picture”, even if parts of this must remain speculative
and incomplete. The challenges presented by “big picture” frameworks for
empirical researchers are very evident, as it is difficult if not impossible to
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 395
test the various dimensions of these models simultaneously. We suspect that
most will continue for the present along more specialized routes. However,
L2 research can only benefit if these ambitious unifying proposals push us to
reflect critically on our own niche in the research ecosystem, and to remain
open to all possible transdisciplinary connections.

References
Amaral, L., & Roeper, T. (2014). Multiple grammars and second language representation.
Second Language Research, 30, 3–36.
Cameron, L. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 226–240.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Chan, L., Dörnyei, Z., & Henry, A. (2015). Learner archetypes and signature dynamics in
the language classroom: A retrodictive qualitative modelling approach to studying L2
motivation. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in
language learning (pp. 238–259). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Chan, H.,Verspoor, M., & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus
writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65, 298–325.
de Bot, K. (2017). Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In
L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development (pp. 51–58).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language develop-
ment from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. Verspoor, K. De Bot, & W.
Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques
(pp. 5–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. L., & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic systems theory as a
comprehensive theory of second language development. In M. D. P. García Mayo, M.
J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second
language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to
second language acquisition. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: “Qualitative retrodictive
modelling” in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80–91.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language
learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual
world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use,
language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 232–249.
Ellis, N. C. (2014). Cognitive and social language usage. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 36, 397–402.
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno &
S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–73).
Berlin: De Gruyter Inc.
396  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
Foster-Cohen, S. (2017). Making the most of MOGUL: Reflections on interlanguage
in childhood language disorders. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 55, 349–364.
Henry, A. (2015). The dynamics of L3 motivation: A longitudinal interview/observation-
based study. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in
language learning (pp. 315–342). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Moti-
vational dynamics in language learning (pp. 20–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and profi-
ciency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition.
EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 191–203.
Hulstijn, J. H.,Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., . . . Talmy,
S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second
language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 361–421.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!” Language Learn-
ing, 46, 713–749.
Lantolf, J. P. (2014). A bridge not needed: The sociocultural perspective. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 36, 368–374.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second lan-
guage acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 18, 140–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complexity theory. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Rout-
ledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 73–87). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Complexity theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 227–244). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega &
Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane
Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lowie,W. (2017). Lost in state space? Methodological considerations in complex dynamic
theory approaches to second language development research. In L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han
(Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman
(pp. 123–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lowie,W., & Verspoor, M. (2015).Variability and variation in second language acquisition
orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88.
MacIntyre, P. D., MacKay, E., Ross, J., & Abel, E. (2017). The emerging need for methods
appropriate to study dynamic systems: Individual differences in motivational dynamics.
In L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebra-
tion of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 97–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marsden, H., Whong, M., & Gil, K.-H. (2018). What’s in the textbook and what’s in the
mind: Polarity item “any” in learner English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40,
91–118.
 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL 397
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand.
In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Piniel, K., & Csizér, K. (2015). Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy during
the course of an academic writing seminar. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry
(Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 164–194). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B. (2013). On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity:The case for
different SLA theories. In M. D. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Mar-
tínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 243–256).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmid, M. S., Verspoor, M., & MacWhinney, B. (2011). Coding and extracting data. In
M.Verspoor, K. De Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language develop-
ment: Methods and techniques (pp. 39–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2008). MOGUL and crosslinguistic influence.
In D. Gabryś-Barker (Ed.), Morphosyntactic issues in second language acquisition studies
(pp. 63–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shirai,Y., & Juffs, A. (2017). Introduction: Convergence and divergence in functional and
formal approaches to SLA. Second Language Research, 33, 3–12.
Spoelman, M., & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and
complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics,
31, 532–553.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness in SLA: A modular perspective. Second Language
Research, 31, 413–434.
Truscott, J. (2017). Modularity, working memory, and second language acquisition:
A research program. Second Language Research, 33, 313–323.
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular per-
spective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1–20.
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2016). Representation, processing and code-switch-
ing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 903–916.
van Dijk, M.,Verspoor, M., & Lowie,W. (2011).Variability and DST. In M.Verspoor, K. de
Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and
techniques (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisi-
tion: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 179–199.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Verspoor, M. H., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to second lan-
guage development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in L2 development from a
dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231.
398  Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on SLL
Whong, M. (2011). Language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writ-
ing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, Hawaii: Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Yang, C. D. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8,
451–456.
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of
language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neurosci-
ence & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives:Two parallel
SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
11 Conclusion

11.1 One Theory or Many?

Having come to the end of our survey of current trends in L2 research, we are
left with a continuing impression of great diversity. Different research groups
are pursuing theoretical agendas which centre on very different parts of the
total language learning process; while many place the modelling of learner
grammars at the heart of the enterprise, others focus on language processing,
or on L2 interaction and socialization. Rather than a process of theory reduc-
tion and consolidation, of the kind proposed by Long and others, we find that
additional theoretical perspectives (such as emergentism, skill acquisition the-
ory or sociocultural theory) have developed and expanded without displacing
longer-established ones (such as Universal Grammar [UG]). On the whole,
grand synthesizing theories which try to encompass all aspects of L2 learning
in a single model have not yet gained general support, though the examples
we discuss in Chapter 10 (the Douglas Fir framework, MOGUL and Dynamic
Systems Theory) show researchers’ continuing interest in this possibility. But
there is a noticeable awareness within particular traditions of other parallel
research strands working on similar phenomena, and willingness to “borrow”
particular constructs and methods, without grand theorizing. The increasing
interest of UG researchers in language processing, the interest among interac-
tionist researchers in cognitive phenomena such as working memory, and the
use of conversation analysis tools and constructs in sociocultural research are
illustrative examples. There is also acknowledgement that different traditions
may be working on essentially the same phenomena, and will benefit from a
comparative approach. (For examples of such comparative thinking, see Orte-
ga’s discussion of L2 negation research, 2014, and Rothman and Slabakova’s
discussion of verb argument research, 2018.)

11.2 Main Achievements of Second Language

Learning Research
Drawing on the wealth of studies now available in the L2 literature, what
are the most significant developments which can be noted in L2 theorizing
in its many forms?
400  Conclusion
To take a historical perspective, UG is no longer the single most domi-
nant research tradition in the field. However, we agree with Slabakova, Leal,
and Liskin-Gasparro (2015) that “reports of UG’s demise have been greatly
exaggerated” (p. 265). The continuing application of UG to the modelling
of L2 competence has led to an increasingly sophisticated and complex
range of proposals about the possible contents of an innate language mod-
ule (or modules) and the implications of access to this for L2. The interac-
tion between formal linguistic modules (such as syntax or phonology) and
other modules involved in language (such as discourse or pragmatics) has
received increasing attention. Drawing in particular on the Feature Reas-
sembly hypothesis, the UG approach to second language acquisition (SLA)
continues to provide sharp linguistic descriptions of learner language, and
has helped to better document linguistic progression of L2 learners, and
made increasingly precise proposals regarding cross-linguistic influence and
the reasons for continuing performance difficulties in L2. UG researchers
have considerably broadened their range of research methods to include
neurolinguistic tools such as measurement of Event-Related Potentials and
fMRI imaging, and have expanded the range of populations being stud-
ied to include heritage speakers and multilingual speakers, including those
experiencing attrition of their L1. Frameworks such as MOGUL set out to
integrate a UG-based property theory with a processing-based transition
theory.
From a cognitive perspective, the main evolutionary developments have
been fuller documentation of the relationship between input characteris-
tics and learner language, a clearer picture of how human memory influ-
ences L2 acquisition, and the linking of online processing constraints with
both the structure of language and L2 acquisition. We have access to fuller
and more principled accounts of the impact of the L1 on L2 perception,
attention, processing and representation. In addition, emergentists are now
engaging with the acquisition and structure of complex morphosyntac-
tic phenomena (more traditionally investigated through UG perspectives).
Under the umbrella term of “emergentism”, identifiable sub-perspectives
are found, including developing research agendas on associative, connection-
ist, construction and statistical learning. As far as grammar learning itself is
concerned, connectionist models offer a much more radical challenge to
traditional linguistic thinking, abandoning the paraphernalia of abstract rules
and predefined symbolic representations, and suggesting that a network of
much more primitive probabilistic links can underlie language learning and
performance. These claims still require further extension to a wider range
of language structures, including those that are sparse in natural input and
cannot be accounted for by the L1, and further clarification is needed about
the initial knowledge that is fed into the models. While it seems clear that
implicit learning is possible, exactly how structure and system are extracted
from constructions, of any kind, remains contentious among different cogni-
tive theories. Skill Acquisition Theory (Chapter 5) makes positive proposals
 Conclusion 401
on how attention, explicit knowledge and practice may contribute to build-
ing initial representations in different memory systems, as well as how flu-
ency develops and individual differences can affect learning. However, these
memory-based approaches have not established a clear property theory,
and cannot yet make precise predictions about how different memory sys-
tems may work for different kinds of linguistic features or representations
or how existing L1 representations may influence these learning systems.
There is also increasing awareness of the need to determine the nature of the
relationship—whether it is uni- or bi-directional—between working mem-
ory functions and L2 learning.
Descriptively, recent work in the functionalist tradition has added substan-
tially to our understanding of the course of L2 development, and especially
the key role played by pragmatics and lexis in interlanguage communica-
tion, particularly in the early stages. The Learner Variety proposals have
remained influential, and have been applied to new learner groups (includ-
ing instructed learners); the original European Science Foundation database
continues to be used as a valuable multilingual learner corpus by a range of
researchers, functionalists and others. Research on tense and aspect (some
of it grounded in other learner corpora) has explored in depth the relations
between meaning and form, from a variety of perspectives. More broadly,
“thinking for speaking” research is illuminating relations between bilingual
and multilingual competence and the conceptual system.
We have also learned much from recent research about the contexts
within which L2 learning takes place, and the kinds of interactions in which
learners become engaged, and there is now a substantial research agenda
linking interactional engagement and L2 learning itself. In their different
ways, the interactionist, sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives all
address this issue. Together they have shown us how learners’ engagement in
L2 interaction is systematically influenced by power relations and other cul-
tural factors.This work is given added impetus by the increasing inclusion of
transnational migrants, heritage speakers and lingua franca users as research
participants. On the other hand, we have seen that the character of social
contexts and networks is not inalterably fixed, but can be renegotiated as
learners build new identities and develop personal agency. Both interaction-
ist and sociocultural research, in their different ways, show how the ongoing
character of L2 interaction can systematically affect the learning opportuni-
ties it makes available, and provide increasing demonstrations of how learn-
ers actually use these opportunities. Studies of informal L2 development in
complex multilingual environments, and through practices such as translan-
guaging, offer fuller insight into learners’ goals for their personal, sociocul-
tural and linguistic identities. Longitudinal approaches to research, including
classroom and community ethnographies, and applications of conversational
analysis to longitudinal corpora of naturalistic interaction in particular, are
providing much more detailed qualitative insights into the development of
interactional L2 competence.
402  Conclusion
11.3 Future Directions for Second Language
Learning Research
Despite appeals for transdisciplinary integration, for the immediate future
it seems that L2 learning will mostly be treated as a modular phenomenon,
with different research programmes retaining their autonomy and individual
impetus, and addressing different aspects. However, it seems likely that the
whole field will need to respond to certain broad social shifts. For example,
in every research tradition, increasing attention is being paid to multilingual-
ism as a central phenomenon, whether it is being addressed from linguistic,
psycholinguistic or sociocultural perspectives, and through the investigation
of a broader range of multilingual populations, such as heritage speakers or
attriters. This is doubtless a response to the growing language diversity char-
acteristic of an increasingly mobile world. Similarly, in ageing societies, inter-
est is growing in language phenomena associated with old age, whether it
be change in the nature of learning capacities and language loss, or the pro-
tective effect claimed for bilingual processing on wider cognitive functions.
Informal language learning is greatly facilitated by the internet (and online
communication also blurs traditional distinctions between speech and writ-
ing); yet studying online incidental learning presents significant new meth-
odological challenges. And, finally, the longstanding central place of English
as the most desired language to learn has left its own mark on linguistic
theory as well as on SLA (where we study a huge range of populations,
from instructed learners in elementary school, through adolescents learning
English through leisure activities, up to advanced learners needing English
for academic and professional purposes). However, the changing balance of
global social, political and economic forces must bring greater attention to a
wider range of languages, and there is already evidence of a greater volume
of L2 research concerned with Asian languages, for example. Responding to
these broad social trends will present interesting challenges to property and
transition theories of all traditions.
Regarding its philosophical orientation, the fundamental assumptions of
L2 research have primarily been those of rationalist “modern” science. In
recent years, the “social turn” has to some extent promoted more socially
engaged forms of L2 research, on the one hand, and postmodern interpreta-
tions of L2 use and learning, on the other. Postmodernism offers a relativist
critique of “attempts to see human activity as part of a grand scheme, driven
by notions of progressive improvement of any kind” (Brumfit, 1997, p. 23).
As far as language is concerned, it highlights problems of textuality, and the
complex relationship between language and any sort of external reality; “we
are positioned by the requirements of the discourse we think we adopt, and
our metaphors of adoption hide the fact that it adopts us” (Brumfit, 1997,
p. 25).The postmodern concept of intertextuality—the idea that all language
use is a patchwork of borrowings from previous users—has been argued to
be of central importance for L2 learning (Hall, 1995; Song & Kellogg, 2011).
 Conclusion 403
So far, the critical and postmodern commentary on SLA has not dis-
lodged modernist assumptions from the mainstream. Nonetheless, the social
turn of SLA in the 2000s is bringing about some ideological shifts in the
field, as is clear from examples like the Douglas Fir framework introduced in
Chapter 10, with its authors’ collective push for “transdisciplinarity” but also
for increased social responsibility and commitment to addressing the “press-
ing needs” of people who “learn to live—and in fact do live—with more
than one language at various points in their lives, with regard to their educa-
tion, their multilingual and multiliterate development, social integration, and
performance across diverse contexts” (Douglas Fir, 2016, p. 20).

11.4 How to Do Research
One clear development in research into L2 learning theories are changes in
the ways that we do research. Critically, these developments don’t just affect
superficial characteristics of how research is carried out, but they profoundly
influence the claims that we can make about theory and its practical sig-
nificance. We have witnessed over the last decade upheaval not just in terms
of technological developments (such as the increasing availability of online
learner corpora and automated search tools, or the wider availability of hard-
ware like eye-tracking equipment and EEGs that measure electrical signals
in the brain), but also an intense introspection about how we plan, conduct
and report research.
To illustrate the significance of these developments for theorizing, two
questions that this book has raised (and all previous editions and other books
like it) are (1) whether the rate of theoretical proliferation is desirable, and,
relatedly, (2) the extent to which theories are being developed in sound
ways. One way of improving theory development (including defining, test-
ing, refining or rejecting that theory) is to ensure systematicity and rigour.
Researchers are coming to realize that these can only be achieved via a
more collaborative, transparent and synthetic ethic in doing research. Moves
in these directions are emerging in a number of ways, such as large-scale
replication efforts; syntheses of bodies of research; improved standards for
methodological reporting; a wider range of statistical procedures for quanti-
tative research; infrastructure to support more collaborative, transparent and
systematic effort (IRIS, www-iris-database.org, Mackey & Marsden, 2016; The
Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/); and publication routes, such as
Registered Reports, which shift evaluation of research away from after the
data has been collected and analyses to before data collection, so as to address
proactively quality issues in the research process (Marsden, Morgan-Short,
Trofimovich, & Ellis, 2018).
One key challenge facing quantitative research into L2 theories is the
extent to which findings from individual studies are reproducible. That is,
if the same study, or a very similar one, is carried out again, to what extent
are the same patterns of results found? Marsden, Morgan-Short, Thompson,
404  Conclusion
and Abugaber (2018) found that less than 1 in 400 published studies in L2
research have been overt attempts to replicate previous research, and that
replication efforts have generally been opaque and unsystematic. In the field
of psychology, similar concerns led to large collaborative efforts to replicate
sets of studies, using highly transparent methods to improve systematicity
and scrutiny. In L2 research, multi-site replication efforts are emerging (see
Morgan-Short et al., 2018), as well as calls for other large-scale, collabo-
rative efforts using online data collection platforms (MacWhinney, 2017).
These efforts can, among other things, increase our confidence in findings
by increasing the numbers of learners and contexts we base our conclusions
upon.
Transparency is intrinsically tied to sound theory building and testing. All
of the ideas discussed in this book, such as sensitivity to L2 morphosyntax,
working memory capacity, pragmatic competence or sociolinguistic varia-
tion, require some consensus over how these constructs are operationalized
(implemented in practice) by researchers. To this end, making the materials
used to measure learning, and the data itself, fully transparent is absolutely
essential, to ensure that we as consumers of research know how compa-
rable individual studies really are. Unfortunately, even though such trans-
parency can lead to more systematic theory testing and increased scrutiny,
we have some way to go as a field. Materials used in L2 research, such as
elicitation techniques or data, are not usually available for other researchers
to see (Marsden, Thompson, & Plonsky, 2018; Derrick, 2016). This means
that future researchers wishing to extend prior studies must either recreate
materials (thus introducing unplanned variability into their study) or work
directly with the initial study’s authors (introducing potential bias).
In addition to considering how we collect our evidence for L2 theo-
ries, researchers in quantitative traditions are also considering more varied
approaches to analyzing their data. These approaches are helping researchers
examine some of the key concepts that we have discussed in this book, such
as variation between individual learners and language development over
time. Powerful statistical techniques (in addition to well-articulated theories
to test, of course) are needed if we are to ascertain the combined and indi-
vidual explanatory power of all the variables now believed to influence L2
learning (Norris, Ross, & Schoonen, 2015; Plonsky, 2015).
Concern is also growing about the historical reliance in quantitative L2
research on null hypothesis significance testing, using procedures such as
t-tests, ANOVAs and correlations. In this approach to deciding whether to
confirm or reject a theory, a finding is claimed to be “significant” if the like-
lihood of repeating that finding is calculated to be above an (arbitrary) level
of chance, such as 95%. In some cases, this can lead to argumentation such as
“yes, the L1 influences L2 learning” versus “there is no L1 influence on L2
learning”. Such dichotomous reasoning is unlikely to serve the best interests
of theory development.
 Conclusion 405
As we hope is shown in the relevant chapters of this book, given the com-
plexity and range of factors involved in L2 theories, more nuanced interpre-
tations can be useful.These demand expanding our reasoning, to include, for
example, statistical procedures that:

• can show the magnitude of differences or the strength of relations in par-

ticular contexts (such as effect sizes);
• can provide more confidence for accepting the “null hypothesis” of
“no difference”, such as that provided by Bayesian logic (Dienes, 2014,
Gudmestad, House & Geeslin, 2013; Morgan-Short et al., 2018; Norou-
zian, de Miranda, & Plonsky, 2018);
• document and take account of the (potentially random) effects of vari-
ation between individuals and in the stimuli that we use for eliciting
language, using techniques such as mixed effects regression models
(Linck & Cunnings, 2015; Murakami, 2016; Plonsky & Oswald, 2017).

In sum, there is an increasing acknowledgement that methodological con-

siderations are not mere “tools” (Plonsky, 2014). As Byrnes (2013, p. 825)
pointed out:

Methodological issues inherently merit a certain level of attention inas-

much as they assure the quality of our work. But it appears that at this
point in the development of applied linguistics, they demand a kind of
professional scrutiny that goes directly to the core of what we do and
what we know and what we can tell our publics that we know—and
not only how we do it.

In line with this, numerous research syntheses are enriching our understand-
ing of how we gather evidence for learning theories. Several examples have
appeared, in substantive domains such as interactionist SLA (Plonsky & Gass,
2011); large corpora of learner productions (Paquot & Plonsky, 2017); com-
puter-mediated interaction (Ziegler, 2016); and online processing (Marsden
et al., 2018). We envisage that these efforts will continue to be fundamental
for determining the robustness and value of L2 theories. For a comprehen-
sive and ongoing bibliography of research syntheses, see https://lukeplonsky.
wordpress.com/bibliographies/meta-analysis/. For critical discussion of different
approaches to research synthesis, see Han (2015).

11.5 Second Language Learning Research

and Language Education
We noted in Chapter 2 that theorizing about L2 learning has its historic
roots in reform movements connected to the practical business of language
teaching (Howatt, 2004). Since the 1970s, however, as we have clearly seen,
406  Conclusion
it has become a much more autonomous field of enquiry, with an independ-
ent, “scientific” rationale.
But what kind of connections should this now relatively independent
research field maintain with its language teaching origins? From time to
time, it has been argued that the findings of L2 research should guide the
practices of classroom teachers; the recommendations which flowed from
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, in the form of the “Natural Approach” to lan-
guage pedagogy, were an early example (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). Other
examples which we encountered briefly earlier are the Teachability Hypoth-
esis advanced by Pienemann, who suggests that new L2 items might most
effectively be taught in sequences which imitate empirically documented
developmental sequences, and VanPatten’s Processing Instruction, which
suggests that “forcing” learners to use morphosyntax to interpret meaning
is necessary for learning to proceed. Skill Acquisition Theory is an obvious
source of ideas concerning the role, frequency and nature of practice in the
language classroom, and interactionist research has been directly concerned
with the effectiveness of classroom feedback.
R. Ellis (2008) reviews a number of well-known difficulties with taking a
top-down, rationalist approach to linking research-derived theory and class-
room practice. The findings of SLA research are not sufficiently secure, clear
and uncontested, across broad enough domains and contexts, to provide
straightforward prescriptive guidance for the teacher (nor, perhaps, will they
ever be so). They are not generally presented and disseminated in ways that
are accessible and meaningful to teachers; the agenda of SLA research does
not necessarily centre on the issues which teachers are most conscious of as
problematic. But most importantly, teaching is an art as well as a science, and
irreducibly so, because of the constantly varying nature of the classroom as
a learning community. There can be no “one best method”, however much
research evidence supports it, which applies at all times and in all situations,
with every type of learner. Instead, teachers interpret the changing dynam-
ics of the learning context from moment to moment, and take what seem
to them to be appropriate contingent actions, in light of largely implicit,
automatized pedagogical knowledge. This has been built up over time very
largely from their own previous experience, and usually derives only to a
much more limited extent from study or from organized training.
However, L2 research offers a rich variety of concepts and descriptive
accounts, which can help teachers reflect upon, interpret and make bet-
ter sense of their own classroom experiences, and significantly broaden the
range of pedagogical choices open to them. For example, L2 research has
produced descriptive accounts of the course of interlanguage development,
which show that particular groups of learners follow relatively predictable
routes of learning, but that such routes are not linear, including consider-
able variability and phases of restructuring and apparent regression. Such
accounts have helped teachers to understand patterns of learner error and
its inevitability, and, more generally, to accept the indirect nature of the
 Conclusion 407
relationship between what is taught and what is learned. Similarly, in the
recent literature, discussions about the role of explicit knowledge about lan-
guage, individual learner differences (reviewed in Chapter 5), concept-based
instruction (Chapter 7), recasts and negative evidence in learning (Chap-
ter 6), scaffolding and microgenesis (Chapter 8) or language socialization
(Chapter 9) have great potential to stimulate teacher reflections on the dis-
course choices available to them when enacting their own role as L2 guide
and interlocutor.
Of course, the growing subfield of research on “instructed SLA” (Loewen,
2015; Loewen & Sato, 2017), now diversified by research in task-based learn-
ing (Ahmadian & García Mayo, 2017; Long, 2015), in cognitive linguistics
(Chapter 7) and in concept-based instruction (Chapter 8), plays a special role
in addressing concerns somewhat closer to those of the classroom teacher, and
may offer opportunities for more direct involvement of teachers as research
partners. But even instructed SLA research is not identical with problem-solv-
ing and development in classroom language pedagogy, and does not ensure a
shared agenda between teachers and researchers.There is a continuing need for
dialogue between the practical theories of classroom educators, and the more
decontextualized and abstract ideas deriving from programmes of research.
Researchers thus have a continuing responsibility to make their findings and
their interpretations of them as intelligible as possible to a wider professional
audience with other preoccupations (Marsden & Kasprowicz, 2017).We hope
that this book will make a useful contribution to this dialogue.

References
Ahmadian, M. J., & García Mayo, M. D. P. (Eds.). (2017). Recent perspectives on task-based
language learning and teaching. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.
Brumfit, C. J. (1997).Theoretical practice: Applied linguistics as pure and practical science.
AILA Review, 12, 18–30.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the Editor. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 105–108.
Derrick, D. J. (2016). Instrument reporting practices in second language research. TESOL
Quarterly, 50, 132–153.
Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 781.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual
world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Gudmestad, A., House, L., & Geeslin, K. L. (2013). What a Bayesian analysis can do for
SLA: New tools for the sociolinguistic study of subject expression in L2 Spanish. Lan-
guage Learning, 63, 371–399.
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of
face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 206–232.
Han, Z.-H. (2015). Striving for complementarity between narrative and meta-analytic
reviews Applied Linguistics, 36, 409–415.
408  Conclusion
Howatt, A. P. R. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom.
Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Linck, J., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in
second language research. Language Learning, 65, 185–207.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden,
MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Mackey, A., & Marsden, E. (Eds.). (2016). Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS
repository of instruments for research into second languages. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Marsden, E., & Kasprowicz, R. E. (2017). Foreign language educators’ exposure to
research: Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. The
Modern Language Journal, 101, 613–642.
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in
second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for
the field. Language Learning, 68, 321–391.
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K.,Trofimovich, P., & Ellis, N. (2018). Introducing registered
reports at language learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic
in the language sciences [Editorial]. Language Learning, 68, 309–320.
Marsden, E., Thompson, S., & Plonsky, L. (2018). Self-paced reading in second language
research: A methodological synthesis and recommendations for the field. Applied Psy-
cholinguistics, 39, 861–904.
MacWhinney, B. (2017). A shared platform for studying second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 67(S1), 255–276.
Morgan-Short, K., Marsden, E., Heil, J., Issa II, B. I., Leow, R. P., Mikhaylova, A., . . .
Szudarski, P. (2018). Multisite replication in second language acquisition research:
Attention to form during listening and reading comprehension. Language Learning,
68, 392–437.
Murakami, A. (2016). Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second lan-
guage development: The case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning,
66, 834–871.
Norris, J. M., Ross, S. J., & Schoonen, R. (Eds.). (2015). Improving and extending quan-
titative reasoning in second language research [Special issue]. Language Learning, 65.
Norouzian, R., de Miranda, M. A., & Plonsky, L. (2018). The Bayesian revolution in sec-
ond language research: An applied approach. Language Learning, 68, 1032-1075.
Ortega, L. (2014).Trying out theories of interlanguage: Description and explanation over
40 years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty
years later (pp. 173–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in
learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3, 61–94.
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodo-
logical synthesis and call for reform. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 450–470.
Plonsky, L. (Ed.). (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New
York, NY: Routledge.
 Conclusion 409
Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. M. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and out-
comes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2017). Multiple regression as a flexible alternative to ANOVA
in L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 579–592.
Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in
modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–442.
Slabakova, R., Leal, T., & Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2015). Rumors of UG’s demise have been
greatly exaggerated. Applied Linguistics, 36, 265–269.
Song, S., & Kellogg, D. (2011). Word meaning as a palimpsest: A defense of sociocultural
theory. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 589–604.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction:
A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.
Glossary

acculturation  Process in which members of one cultural group adopt

characteristics of another group
affect  Term used in psychology and psycholinguistics to refer to emotion
or feeling
agency  The capacity of an individual to make choices, take control, self-
regulate and thereby pursue personal goals
animacy  A feature attaching to nouns and/or pronouns in many lan-
guages to distinguish living from non-living referents
anthropological linguistics  Branch of linguistics that studies the rela-
tionship between culture, cognition and language
appropriation  Term used by sociocultural theorists to describe the learn-
ing or internalization by an individual of socially constructed knowledge
aspect  A feature attaching to verbs in many languages to indicate the
speaker perspective on the event being described, for example whether
it is completed (I ran) or ongoing (I was running)
attention  See “noticing”
attrition  Changes in L1 resulting from limited use over a long period and
cross-linguistic influence from other language(s)
automaticity  Fluency in the processing of proceduralized knowledge of
language, which is outside conscious control
behaviourism  General theory of learning current in the mid 20th cen-
tury that stressed processes of habit formation and shaping of behaviour
through stimulus and response
bilingualism  Knowledge of two languages
CAF framework  A model of L2 proficiency with multiple components:
structural and lexical complexity, accuracy and fluency
clarification request  Type of conversational move, a request from a hearer
to a speaker to reformulate an utterance that has not been understood
clefting  Grammatical construction that brings a particular element into
focus, by use of an additional it-clause or wh-clause, e.g. What I need is
a job
codeswitching  Using two or more languages or language varieties con-
currently in conversation
 Glossary 411
cognitive linguistics  Branch of linguistics that views formal aspects of
language as deriving from underlying semantic concepts and shaped by
language use
communicative approach  Approach to language teaching that stresses
meaning-based activities and learning experiences
communicative competence  Expanded view of language competence
that incorporates knowledge of appropriacy and discourse as well as
sentence level grammar, phonology and semantics
community of practice  A temporary community formed to carry out a
joint activity or work towards a goal, e.g. in a service encounter
competence  Internal linguistic system which enables the individual to
produce and comprehend novel utterances in a language
Competition Model  An emergentist model of language acquisition
where learners become sensitive to the contribution of different (com-
peting) language features in the interpretation of meaning
complementizer  Called “subordinating conjunctions” in traditional gram-
mar, a class of words that introduce complement clauses, e.g. whether, if
complexification  Process whereby the grammars of pidgin languages
acquire the full range of features of natural languages
Complexity Theory  A theory that stresses dynamic and changing rela-
tionships among elements of a system, at an individual level, recently
influential as a usage-based theory of language
comprehension check  Type of conversational move, a check by a
speaker that they have been understood by their hearer/interlocutor(s)
concept-based instruction  Teaching approach which centres on the
development of students’ understanding of key semantic concepts
underlying grammatical constructions
confirmation check  Type of conversational move, a check by a hearer
that they have understood the speaker’s utterance correctly
connectionism  A cognitive theory that views language as a set of
nodes with weighted links between them; learning takes place through
repeated activation of particular pathways through the network
construction  In language processing, a conventionalized form-meaning
mapping of any kind (abstract or concrete), which becomes schematized
over time in users’ minds
Contrastive Analysis  1950s approach which compared structures in pairs
of languages on the assumption that similar structures would be easy to
learn and contrasting structures would be difficult to learn
control group  In classic experimental design, the group of participants
who serve as one type of comparison group for those receiving some
experimental treatment
conversation analysis  An approach to the study of conversational inter-
action which focuses on the local production of understanding through
analysis of, e.g., turntaking, preference organization and repair
corpus analysis  Analysis of a body of language, spoken or written
412  Glossary
correlation  A statistical technique that analyses the degree of association
between two variables or sets of data.
creativity  The ability to use a linguistic system to produce and compre-
hend novel utterances
creolization  Process whereby contact/pidgin languages become full-
blown natural languages
Critical Period Hypothesis  A hypothesis claiming that the innate lan-
guage faculty guiding L1 acquisition is no longer available after a certain
age, making L2 learning fundamentally different
cross-linguistic influence  Ways in which different language systems
may interact and influence each other in the mind
cross-sectional research  Research approach where groups of learners
at different proficiency levels or ages are compared to shed light on
developmental processes
declarative knowledge  Knowledge of information represented in mem-
ory, usually, though not always, with awareness (e.g. explicit or metalin-
guistic knowledge)
definiteness  A property of a noun phrase that indicates whether a refer-
ent can be uniquely identified by speaker and hearer
determiner  A class of words (such as articles or demonstratives) that
establishes the type of reference of a noun or noun phrase, e.g. whether
it is definite/indefinite
developmental order  A documented sequence for the learning of a par-
ticular structure (e.g. English negation)
discourse  A stretch of talk or written text that includes a coherent
sequence of utterances or sentences
ditransitive  A verb that has both a direct object and an indirect object,
e.g. give someone something
double stimulation  A research approach used in sociocultural theory
where participants are presented with a problem to solve plus a potential
tool, and their creative response is studied
durativity  A characteristic of verbs that denote actions or states lasting for
a period of time
dynamic assessment  A form of assessment favoured in sociocultural
theory, which includes a learning phase and observes learner develop-
ment in real time
dynamicity  A characteristic of verbs that denote actions but not states
Dynamic Systems Theory  See “Complexity Theory”
effect size  A type of statistical measure (e.g. Cohen’s d) that estimates the
strength (magnitude) of a relationship as a standardized unit, commonly
used in meta-analyses by averaging effect sizes from different studies
elicitation  Collection of data (such as language samples) from research
participants through specially designed tasks (e.g. Bilingual Syntax
Measure)
 Glossary 413
elicited imitation  A research technique where participants repeat a set
of target sentences
emergentism  A family of theories of language acquisition that rejects the
existence of a specific language faculty and claims that language structure
emerges and is shaped through language use in meaning-rich environments
end state  The L2 learner’s interlanguage system, once learning processes
have ceased and the system has stabilized; also described as “ultimate
attainment”
Error Analysis  1970s approach to second language acquisition which
analysed learners’ L2 errors in order to understand interlanguage devel-
opment, independent of assumptions about L1 influence
Event-Related Potentials (ERPs)  Measurements of the brain’s electro-
physiological response during a specific event, such as comprehension of
a particular language structure, used to study language processing
experimental group  In classic experimental design, the participant
group that experiences a defined “treatment” or condition; their learn-
ing/performance is measured against that of a control and/or compari-
son group
experimental study  A research design which tests a hypothesis by ran-
domly assigning participants to different experiences so as to compare
learning/performance outcomes
explicit knowledge  Language knowledge which is accessible to aware-
ness and can usually be expressed in words
eye-tracking  Research procedure investigating language processing, in
which movement of the eyes is recorded while participants read a text
or simultaneously hear language and look at pictures; interpretation and
sensitivity to the language are observed through particular eye move-
ments, such as backtracking or pausing
face  The public self-image, feelings and wants that speakers project and
negotiate in social interaction
feature  See “functional features”
feature checking  An operation within the Minimalist Program during
which the syntax “checks” that all features in a sentence are compatible
with one another, e.g. that number and gender features on a noun and
its determiner are the same
feedback  The response of interlocutors to formal features of speech, e.g.
recasting or correction
fluency  A measure of speech production that takes account of production
features such as speech rate, pausing and false starts/reformulations
focus  A part of an utterance which contributes new information about an
established “topic”; may also be termed “comment”
foreign language anxiety  Label given by social psychologists to feelings
of nervousness and unease when learning/using a new language
formulaic sequence  A phrase or sentence that is acquired and used as an
unanalysed whole, not creatively constructed
414  Glossary
fossilization  Stabilization of the interlanguage system, in a form diver-
gent from the target language system
frequency  Rate of occurrence of features, words and structures in L2
input, of central importance for acquisition, in cognitive accounts
functional categories  Term used in generative linguistics for “gram-
matical” words such as determiners and complementizers, and also for
abstract categories such as tense and agreement
functional features  Properties of functional categories that vary from
language to language, e.g. the category “determiner” in French has both
gender and number features, whereas English only has number features
functionalist perspective  Branch of linguistics that assumes that both
language form and language learning are driven by communicative need
functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)  A research pro-
cedure used to investigate language processing which measures brain
activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow
generative linguistics  Branch of linguistics that assumes the existence
of an innate language faculty which can generate all, and only, those
sentences of a language that are grammatical
Government and Binding theory  A generativist theory of syntax
developed by Chomsky in the 1980s and grounded in the Principles
and Parameters approach
grammatical gender  A feature of some languages that attaches to nouns,
divides them into two or three classes (“masculine”, “feminine” etc.)
and requires agreement, e.g. French la porte (the FEM door), le chat (the
MASC cat)
head  The main element of a phrase; e.g. the noun is the head of the Noun
Phrase
heritage language  A minority language learned bilingually in the home
and where development is affected by cross-linguistic influence from
another (majority) language
honorific  A morphological feature that encodes the relative social status
of participants in a speech event
hypothesis-testing  An approach to research that tests a specific question
or proposal
identity  The self-concept of the L2 learner
immersion  Teaching approach that provides L2 learners with all or part
of their general education through the medium of L2
imperfective aspect  Verb forms signalling that, from the speaker per-
spective, the event described is ongoing/incomplete, e.g. I was crossing
the river
implicit knowledge  Knowledge of which the learner has no awareness
individual differences  Characteristics of L2 learners that may influence
their rate of L2 learning and/or their ultimate success, e.g. language
aptitude, working memory, motivation or personality
information processing  A cognitive theory, applied to L2 acquisi-
tion, which considers that learning is driven by the way in which the
 Glossary 415
human mind processes, stores, restructures, rehearses and accesses new
information
Initial State  Term used by generativists to describe the starting point
for language learning, comprising L1 knowledge and—perhaps—full or
partial access to Universal Grammar
inner speech  Term used by sociocultural theorists to describe the use
of language to regulate inner thought, without any audible speech
production
input  The language in the learner’s environment
Input Hypothesis  Claim that the only requirement for L2 acquisition is
access to comprehensible L2 input
Input Processing Theory  Theory which claims that learners must make
a form-meaning connection for L2 acquisition to take place and pro-
poses why this does not always happen
interactional competence  The capacity of the individual to use their
L2 knowledge in ways that are responsive to the social and discourse
setting
Interaction Hypothesis  Claim that L2 interaction, including negotia-
tion of meaning to increase comprehensible input, is a central require-
ment for L2 acquisition
interfaces  Term used by generativists to describe interactions between
different modules of the linguistic system (syntax, phonology etc.), the
sensory-motor system and the conceptual-intentional system
interlanguage  Term proposed in the 1970s to capture a view of learner
language as a developing system in its own right, rather than a debased
form of the target language; a continuing central concept in L2 learning
research
interlocutor  A partner in linguistic interaction of any kind, e.g. in face-
to-face conversation or internet communication
investment  A reworking of the construct of motivation, emphasizing
socially constructed and dynamic aspects of the relationship of L2 learn-
ers with the target language
judgement test  A research procedure in which participants are asked to
judge whether sentences are grammatical, acceptable and/or appropriate
Language Acquisition Device  The learning mechanism proposed by
early proponents of the idea of an innate language faculty
language anxiety  See “foreign language anxiety”
language aptitude  The potential talent of an individual for L2 learning,
including sub-skills such as the ability to detect grammatical patterns
language faculty  See “modularity”
language modules  See “modularity”
language socialization  The view that language is learned through social
interaction, which inducts the learner simultaneously into the social
roles indexed through language form
language transfer  Influence of one language system on another, usually
that of L1 on L2
416  Glossary
languaging  Term used by some sociocultural theorists for L1 private
speech used to monitor and scaffold L2 production
latent growth curve modelling  Statistical technique deriving from
structural equation modelling which estimates the trajectory of growth
over a period of time
learner corpus  A large body of naturalistic texts produced by L2 learners
and available for computer-aided analysis
learning strategies  The learner’s own goal-directed activities which aim
at building L2 proficiency
lemma  Abstract conceptual form of a word held in the mental word store
(the “lexicon”), which represents word meaning and potential gram-
matical connections
lexical categories  Term used in generativist linguistics for content
words/open class words such as nouns, verbs and adjectives
lexicon, lexis  The mental word store
lingua franca  A language used for communication by a range of L2
speakers who do not share a common L1; currently English has a pre-
eminent global lingua franca role
linguistic corpora  Very large collections of spoken and/or written texts
in a given language, which inform, for example, descriptive grammars
and dictionaries through computer-aided analysis
linguistic variable  Term used in quantitative sociolinguistics for a socially
marked linguistic form that indexes, e.g., formality/informality
locative  Grammatical argument or grammatical case that indicates loca-
tion or position
logistic regression  A statistical technique which explores relationships
between one or more predictor variables and a dichotomous outcome
variable (e.g. whether or not a learner chooses to study a language)
longitudinal research  Research approach where participants are tracked
over a period of time to study their development
long-term memory  Long-term mental information store, accessed
through working memory
mediation  A central concept for sociocultural theory, capturing the view
that human mental activity relies on an array of cultural and symbolic
tools (such as language)
Merge  A structure-building operation in the Minimalist Program when
two syntactic objects are combined to form a new unit
meta-analysis  Research approach where related studies are systematically
drawn together to extract a smaller set of overall findings
metalinguistic feedback  Type of feedback on learner output that draws
attention to matters of form, e.g. to grammatical concepts or rules
metalinguistic knowledge  A learner’s explicit understanding of lan-
guage form, structure or system which they can talk about
microgenesis  Term used by sociocultural theorists to describe short-
term learning/development
 Glossary 417
Minimalist Program  Line of enquiry within generative linguistics devel-
oped by Chomsky from the 1990s onwards, aiming at maximal economy
modified output  Learner adjustments to their L2 outputs in response to
feedback, elicitations etc., seen as evidence of noticing and development
modularity  Belief that the human mind comprises a number of distinct
modules, of which language is one, and that the language module in
turn comprises a number of modules (syntax, phonology etc.)
Monte Carlo simulation  Statistical technique which simulates variabil-
ity through repeated random sampling
morpheme studies  Studies of the order of emergence of particular Eng-
lish L2 morphemes, conducted in the 1970s among learners from dif-
ferent L1 backgrounds
morphology  Study of internal word structure and the role of grammati-
cal morphemes (inflections) in representing categories such as tense and
agreement
morphosyntax  Study of internal word structure (morphology) and how
words combine to form phrases and sentences (syntax)
motivation  Social psychological concept to do with the desire to achieve
a goal (e.g. to learn a language), the effort actually expended and the
satisfaction derived from the task
motivational self system  View that motivation is structured in terms
of one or more imagined “selves” including the “ideal L2 self ” and the
“ought-to” self
multicompetence  Claim that multilingualism involves development of a
merged competence in which any languages known mutually influence
each other
Move α (move alpha)  Term used by generativists to describe movement
of a syntactic unit from its normal place in the sentence in order to
perform a certain function, e.g. to ask a question
multilingualism  Knowledge of several languages
N-bar structure  The proposal in earlier versions of Universal Grammar
that noun phrases may contain intermediate constituents projected from
a head noun
negative evidence  Information in the input which indicates what is not
possible in the language; also used to refer to a gap between the inter-
language form the learner may have and the target form
negotiation of meaning  Exchange in which interlocutors collaborate to
repair comprehension problems
non-word repetition task  Test of working memory in which partici-
pants repeat nonsense words, reflecting the capacity of short-term pho-
nological memory
noticing  Paying attention to a language stimulus (e.g. a “new” L2 word or
structure), registering that it has occurred in input
online processing  In language processing, activity which takes place in
real time, typically measured with psycholinguistic techniques
418  Glossary
ontogenesis  Term used by sociocultural theorists to describe learning/
development over the human lifespan
optionality  Phenomenon of instability in interlanguage grammars, where
a rule or structure is employed inconsistently
other-regulation  Term used by sociocultural theorists to describe the man-
agement of an individual’s learning by another person/through interaction
output  All language produced by the learner
Output Hypothesis  Claim that L2 output is necessary for learning, as a
driver of full grammar processing and hypothesis-testing
parameters  See “Principles and Parameters model”
parataxis  Linkage of ideas and construction of utterances through prag-
matic rather than syntactic means
parsing  Decoding of the input to arrive at a meaning, usually including a
syntactic analysis (typically at a subconscious level)
pattern drilling  Teaching approach inspired by behaviourist learning
theory where learners rehearse sentence patterns in oral exercises
perfective aspect  Verb forms signalling that, from the speaker’s perspec-
tive, the event described is bounded/complete, e.g. I crossed the river
performance  Production and comprehension of novel utterances in real
time (“online”), enabled by drawing on the learners’ linguistic system
(“competence”)
phonological memory  A specialized domain within (working) mem-
ory that stores and rehearses phonological material for short periods and
facilitates speech processing
phonology  Study of the inventory of meaning-bearing sounds and how
they combine in particular languages (consonants and vowels)
phrase  A group of words centring on a head word (e.g. a noun or verb)
that acts as a building block within a clause or sentence
phylogenesis  Term used by sociocultural theorists to describe learning
over the course of human evolution
pidginization  The view that informal (uninstructed) second language
learning has parallels to the development of pidgin languages
pidgin languages  Contact languages with reduced syntax and vocabu-
lary that do not have native speakers, but arise for limited instrumental
purposes in contexts of trade and/or conquest
polysemy  The capacity for a word or phrase to have multiple meanings
(though often related to each other), e.g. mouse = (a) small animal with
a tail; and (b) a small mobile tool used to navigate a computer interface
positive evidence  Language data available to learners as input which tells
learners what is permitted/acceptable in the language, but does not tell
them what is not permitted
postmodernism  A philosophical stance which sees “reality” as con-
structed in the mind, is suspicious of grand narratives and views “truth”
as relative to individual experience
 Glossary 419
posttest  A test administered following some treatment, to measure learn-
ing outcomes (e.g. gains in L2 proficiency), often used in experimental
research designs
Poverty of the Stimulus  The claim that some language forms are learned
even where evidence about them is limited or absent in the input, often
used to argue that language is not learnable from positive (or negative)
evidence and a language-specific faculty must exist in the brain
pragmalinguistics  Study of the linguistic resources required to perform
communicative acts and convey interpersonal meaning
pragmatics  A domain of linguistics that studies how aspects of the dis-
course context contribute to utterance meaning
prediction  In language processing, the ability to anticipate upcoming lan-
guage and/or meaning when trying to comprehend the input
prefabricated chunk  See “formulaic sequence”
pretest  A test administered prior to some treatment, to measure starting
levels of performance, often used in experimental research designs
priming  Claim that a language form which has been recently encoun-
tered or activated will be produced or recognized more easily in the
future
Principles and Parameters model  A version of generativist linguistic
theory that defines the syntax of all natural languages in terms of a
number of universal principles (e.g. structure dependency), plus param-
eters that offer a limited amount of choice (e.g. phrase structure may be
“head-first” vs “head-last”)
private speech  Speech which is audible but addressed to the self and used
to regulate behaviours such as problem-solving
procedural knowledge  Knowledge involved when carrying out a task
or performing an activity or skill, usually with reduced or different
demands on attention compared to declarative knowledge
processing  Parsing and extracting meaning from the L2 input stream,
in real time and typically thought to be below the level of conscious
awareness
processing constraints  Restrictions on parsing of L2 input, deriving
from memory limitations, from the current state of interlanguage or
from the L1
prompts  Type of feedback on learner output that encourages the learner
to produce a revised utterance
property theory  Theory that sets out to model language structure
prototype  A typical, high-frequency example of a particular lexical cat-
egory or construction that may be learned and used as an exemplar
prototypicality  Quality attaching to typical, high-frequency examples of
particular categories
psycholinguistics  Branch of linguistics which is concerned with the psy-
chological processes involved in learning, storing and using language
420  Glossary
quasi-experiment  Research design similar to the classic experiment, but
where the experimental and control groups are not randomly assigned,
e.g. two existing classes
rate of learning  The speed with which learners acquire L2 proficiency
rationalist position  Philosophical standpoint that values reason as a
source of knowledge, in addition to/in contrast to sensory experience
reaction time  The speed with which a research participant makes a
response, measured in milliseconds, often used in online processing and
priming research
reading span task  A test of working memory capacity, often used to
reflect participants’ capacity to compute syntactic and discourse rela-
tions in reading
recast  An interlocutor’s reformulation of their partner’s non-target-like
utterance, in which the meaning is retained but language form is changed
recursion  The embedding of phrases or clauses within others of the same
type, allowing the creation of long and novel sentences
reformulation  A revision of an utterance in which the meaning is
retained but the form is changed
repair  Solving communication difficulties and achieving shared meaning
representation  A mental representation of linguistic knowledge, in work-
ing memory or another memory store
representational deficit  Belief that not all features of Universal Gram-
mar are available to guide the development of L2 syntax
research synthesis  The drawing together of previous research to extract
common themes, usually from empirical studies, often in a systematic
and replicable way
revitalization  Initiatives to codify, teach and promote the use of a declin-
ing language
rheme  That part of a sentence that comments on the theme or topic, i.e.
which adds new information about it
route of learning  Developmental sequence observed across different
learners
saliency  The idea that physical characteristics of language make certain
features more accessible than others, as perceived by the learners
scaffolding  Provision of temporary and graduated support for learners
undertaking a new task, through dialogue with “experts” or peers
self-paced reading  Research procedure investigating language process-
ing, where participants are presented with a text, by segments of sen-
tences or word by word, on a computer screen and have to press a
button for the next word to appear; a slowdown in pace indicates pro-
cessing difficulty
self-regulation  Term used by sociocultural theorists to describe self-
management of learning, perhaps through use of private speech
self-repair  The repair of communication problems by the author of the
problem, e.g. by the learner
 Glossary 421
semantics  The study of meaning, sometimes conceptualized as a separate
“level” of language
short-term memory  A temporary store of representations within the brain
sociocultural theory  General theory of learning associated with the
Russian social psychologist Lev Vygotsky
sociolinguistic marker  A language feature given positive/negative social
value by a speech community
sociolinguistics  The study of language in use within its social context
sociopragmatics  Study of social factors affecting the interpretation of
communicative acts, such as power relations, degree of intimacy and
extent of social imposition attaching, e.g., to requests
specificity  A property of a word or phrase that indicates whether a
speaker has a specific known referent in mind
Specific Language Impairment (SLI)  Language impairment in chil-
dren without associated cognitive delays
speech act  The communicative function associated with a single utter-
ance, e.g. requesting, advising or warning
speech community  A social group who share a common set of norms
and expectations regarding the use of language
speech event  A social activity with distinctive communicative goals, which
may involve a particular speech style or register, e.g. a job interview
stage of acquisition/development  A cluster of interlanguage structures
which occur at roughly the same time during development, observed
across different learners
standard deviation  Statistical measure of variability around a mean in a
set of data
statistical learning  Claim that that learners unconsciously compute the
likelihood that a particular language item will occur in specific contexts,
based on their ongoing analysis of input
statistical significance  A calculation based on probability that a certain
observation is reliable at a specific level, often set at a 95% likelihood of
being found again
stimulated recall  A research technique to elicit recollections of a par-
ticular event in which the participant is provided with a stimulus (e.g. a
video of themselves in a conversation) to prompt their memory
structural equation modelling  Statistical analysis technique that com-
bines factor analysis and multiple regression analysis to analyse structural
relationships
structuralism  View of language as a self-contained and contrasting set of
relations among abstract elements, developed by the early 20th century
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure
subjunctive mood  Verb mood used to express hypothetical, counter-
factual or unreal situations and points of view
subordination  Relation between clauses within complex sentences,
where a main clause is accompanied by one or more dependent clauses
422  Glossary
syntax  The study of how words combine to form phrases, clauses and
sentences in a language
systematicity  Regularities in a learner’s use of language
systematic review  Survey and collation of previous research in a clearly
defined, transparent and replicable way
systemic functional linguistics  Meaning-based approach to language
analysis associated with the British linguist Michael Halliday
task-based learning  Language teaching approach that engages learners
in problem-solving tasks and activities, and introduces new language
relevant to successful task completion
telicity  A characteristic of verbs where the actions referred to have an end
point, e.g. enter a room
temporality  The concept of time, reflected in formal linguistic categories
such as verb tense and temporal adverbs
theme  The topic of a sentence, the entity being talked about
think-aloud  Research technique aiming to access online processing, in
which learners comment verbally on an activity as they undertake it
token  An actual occurrence in a running text that represents a more
abstract lexical entity (lemmas); e.g. eats and ate are both tokens of the
verb type eat
topic  The entity or actor about whom a statement or “comment” is made
in a given sentence
transition theory  A theory that explains how knowledge changes over
time and learning develops
translanguaging  Style of language use where speakers draw on all of
their multilingual resources in an integrated way
transnational migration  Complex migration patterns and mobility
associated with globalization
treatment  An approach to teaching or a learning condition, often deliv-
ered as part of an experiment
treatment group  See “experimental group”
types  Distinct underlying lexical entities within a language; e.g. eat and go
are verb types in English
ultimate attainment  See “end state”
Universal Grammar  Theory of language that assumes all natural lan-
guages share a set of underlying principles and constraints, and derive
from an innate language faculty
uptake  When a reformulation provided by an interlocutor is subsequently
used by a learner
Varbrul  Multivariate statistical package used in sociolinguistics to predict
the occurrence of sociolinguistic markers on the basis of contextual
factors
variability  See “optionality”
variable  Term for a construct or measure, often used in statistical analyses
visual world test  In language processing, participants view images, and
eye movements are tracked as they respond to auditory input
 Glossary 423
voice, active  Syntactic structure that places the agent of an action as the
subject of the sentence, e.g. John opened the door
voice, middle  Syntactic structure that places the patient of an action as
the subject of an active intransitive sentence, e.g. the door opened (also
known as “unaccusative”)
voice, passive  Syntactic structure that places the patient of an action as
the subject of the sentence, e.g. the door was opened by John
wild grammars  Learner varieties that do not follow the constraints of
natural languages
Williams syndrome  Developmental disorder which affects a range of
cognitive capacities but typically leaves language unimpaired
willingness to communicate  A personality trait which captures learn-
ers’ relative readiness to engage in interaction, and so may affect L2
learning opportunity
working memory  The brain system involved in temporarily storing and
rehearsing information, as well as integrating it into ongoing cognitive
processes
Zone of Proximal Development  Term from sociocultural theory used
to describe learners’ potential to solve problems just beyond their current
level, under guidance
Subject Index

acculturation theory 57, 65 134 – 135; statistical learning 14,

Acquisition by Processing Theory (APT) 136 – 138, 143, 145 – 146
380 – 382; see also MOGUL attention 19, 53 – 54, 142, 144, 170,
Acquisition–Learning Hypothesis 2, 178 – 179, 186 – 189, 212, 222, 226 – 227;
52 – 53 attentional control 178, 191, 193 – 194;
acquisition stage see developmental attentional resources 178 – 179, 181,
sequences/stages 189, 190, 309, 388; attention blocking
activity theory xv, 69, 292 – 293, 297 – 299, 134 – 135, 189, 212; and sociocultural
317, 320 theory 291, 295, 300, 305, 309; see also
affect 25 – 26, 326, 336; affective particle noticing
341; affective stance 340; affective attitudes, language 24, 56, 392 – 394
strategies 24; affective system attractor state 385, 391 – 392, 394
(MOGUL) 376 attrition of L1 110 – 111
Affective Filter Hypothesis 52, 56 audiolingualism 55, 63
African-American speech 328 – 330, 361 autobiographical narrative 361
age effects 14, 17, 22, 61; age and automatization 58, 152, 168, 170 – 171,
sociolinguistic variation 335 – 336; in 178 – 180, 181 – 183, 190; in
cognitive approaches 132, 139, 141, sociocultural theory 305, 309
156, 167 – 168, 170 – 172, 174 – 175, 190, automatized knowledge 168, 178, 179,
197 – 198; in generativist approaches 180 – 181; see also implicit knowledge
106 – 107, 110, 112 – 113; in L1 Autonomous Induction theory 71, 140
acquisition 43, 44, 84, 86, 89, 96, 266, awareness 129, 143 – 145, 167 – 168,
336; old age 402; see also Critical Period 175 – 179, 182 – 184, 186 – 188, 190,
Hypothesis 192, 226 – 227; of appropriacy 274, 309,
agency, learner 27, 39, 61, 313, 337, 349, 332 – 333; of error 222; of metaphor
353 – 357, 361 – 363, 375 265; in sociocultural theory 310, 312
animacy 94, 133, 144, 152
anxiety: classroom 23, 26; language 25 – 26, Basic Variety 251 – 253, 254 – 255, 272, 385;
176, 192, 229, 392 – 393 utterance organization 251 – 252; see also
appropriation 294, 312, 317, 361 learner varieties
Arabic language 256, 300 – 301, 328, behaviourist learning theory 11, 14, 19,
382 – 383 22, 40 – 43, 55
articles, definite/indefinite 114, 130 – 132, bilingualism 111, 335, 362; cognitive
139, 147 – 148, 175, 245 – 246 effects of 193 – 195; in infants 1
artificial languages 144, 171, 182 Bilingual Syntax Measure 48, 49
Aspect Hypothesis 259 – 263, 279 biological foundation of language 72 – 73,
associative learning 130, 133 – 137, 156, 88 – 89
157; construction learning 14, 134, brain: and language representation
140 – 143, 146, 153, 400; overshadowing 13, 56, 86 – 89, 102, 128, 168; and
 Subject Index  425
measurement of activity 109, 144, and performance 7 – 8, 85;
156 – 157; multilingual brain 72 – 73; and see also communicative competence;
processing 85, 138, 151, 156 – 157, 174 interactional competence
Burmese language 100 Competition Model 133
complementizers 70, 93
Cantonese language 115, 359 – 361 complexity–accuracy–fluency (CAF) 10,
CHILDES project 8 388 – 391
child language see L1 acquisition complexity theory see Dynamic Systems
Chinese language 96, 105, 108, 132, 135, Theory
189, 314 – 315, 320, 332, 333, 361, comprehensible input 55 – 56, 58, 187,
363, 381 209, 233
Chomskyan linguistics see generative comprehension checks 212
linguistics; Universal grammar computer-mediated communication
chunk use see formulaic expressions 229 – 231, 270, 298
clarification requests 59, 211 – 212, concept-based instruction xv, 310 – 315
217 – 219, 224 confirmation checks 59, 211 – 212
classroom–based learning 2, 15, 16, 23, connectionism 14, 129; see also statistical
27, 47, 52 – 53, 157, 182 – 184, 188 – 189, learning
221 – 222, 226, 253 – 255; classroom conscious awareness see noticing
communities of practice 349 – 351; conscious learning 2, 54; see also explicit
classroom discourse/interaction knowledge, explicit learning
131, 217 – 222, 332 – 333, 344 – 346, consciousness 143 – 144, 168, 170, 174,
348; classroom L2 socialization 334, 288, 291, 382; consciousness–raising
337 – 342; and motivation 25 – 26; and 223; fringe consciousness 143
sociocultural theory 289 – 290, 295 – 297, constructionism/constructionist learning
298 – 299, 302 – 307, 311 – 317, 320 see emergentism
clefting 9, 253 construction learning 14, 134, 140 – 143,
codeswitching 243, 343, 359 146, 153
Coefficient of Variation 180; see also Continuity Hypothesis 173
automatization Contrastive Analysis 42, 47
Cognition Hypothesis 189 conversation analysis (CA) 271 – 272, 326,
cognitive approaches to language learning 342 – 348
13 – 14, 17, 23, 39, 58, 60, 128 – 129, corpus linguistics 8, 10, 16; classroom
154 – 158; see also emergentism; explicit corpora 253 – 254, 344, 348; learner
knowledge; information processing; corpora 130 – 131, 141, 258, 346, 388
Skill Acquisition theory creativity 7, 16 – 17, 42, 211
cognitive deficits 87 – 88 creolization 57, 65
cognitive linguistics 10, 27, 263 – 269, 311, Critical Period Hypothesis 22, 89, 107,
319 – 320 112 – 113, 115
communication strategies 343, 359; cross-linguistic influence 1, 11, 17 – 19,
request strategies 234, 272 – 276 54, 60 – 62, 110, 118, 246; in cognitive
communicative activity/events 181, 183, approaches 130, 155, 197; in cognitive
228, 253, 319, 336 linguistics 264 – 269; in generative
communicative approach 22, 55 linguistics 110, 118; see also L1
communicative competence 9, 12, 348 influence
communicative functions see speech acts culture 11, 287, 293; and links with
communicative intentions/goals/needs language 334, 348, 361
242, 253, 169, 269, 276, 278 – 279, Czech language 145, 158
293, 300
communities of practice 6, 326, 342, Danish language 266, 268 – 269
348 – 355 declarative and procedural memory
competence 10 – 11, 25, 55, 90, 117, 337, systems (DP model) 169 – 172,
400; multicompetence 11, 110, 401; 173, 190
426  Subject Index
declarative knowledge 168, 170, 176, 256, 257, 261, 264, 267; in MOGUL
178 – 184, 196 – 198, 217, 311 382 – 383; in sociocultural theory 294,
declarative memory 151, 170 – 174, 299 – 300, 305 – 307; in sociolinguistic
190, 197 approaches 327, 330 – 331, 348,
default past tense hypothesis 261, 262 350 – 353, 354 – 355, 358, 359 – 361
determiners 83, 92 – 93, 95, 131, 144, 151, entrenchment 132, 134, 152
219 – 220; see also articles, definite/ environmental language 58, 212
indefinite Error Analysis 47 – 48, 65
developmental sequences/stages 1, 15 – 16, errors 14 – 15, 18, 40, 47 – 48, 176; and
18, 48 – 52, 54 – 55, 104, 214, 234, 272, automatized knowledge 178, 181, 182;
314; in functional approaches 255 – 257, error correction 53, 176, 183, 296,
259, 272 – 273; in L1 acquisition 43 – 46, 308; in L1 45; prediction errors 134,
86, 88 – 89, 101 – 102, 103 – 104; in 138 – 140, 157, 158; see also feedback,
MOGUL 381; in Processability Theory corrective
129, 147 – 150, 213 – 214, 223 – 225, ethnicity 27, 356, 365
231 – 232, 314 – 315; in Skill Acquisition ethnography of communication 69,
Theory 178 – 182; in Ullman’s DP 348, 363
model 171 – 172; see also Basic Variety; European Science Foundation (ESF)
morpheme studies project 250 – 253, 256, 261, 278 – 279,
Discourse Completion Task 271 358 – 359
distributional bias 152; Distributional Bias Event–Related Potentials (ERPs) 109,
Hypothesis 261 144, 170, 173
ditransitive 141 explicit knowledge 5, 117, 143, 170,
double stimulation 291, 297 175 – 186, 217, 382 – 383; explicit
Dutch language 18 – 19, 102, 132, learning 2, 61, 172, 174 – 175, 177, 183;
266, 268 see also Skill Acquisition Theory
dynamic assessment 315 – 317, 318 eye-tracking 62, 109, 184
Dynamic Systems Theory 26, 110,
384 – 394 Failed Functional Features
Hypothesis 115
effect sizes 215, 405 features, morphosyntactic/functional
Efficiency-Driven Processor (EDP) 146, 9, 83, 90, 93 – 94, 101, 105 – 107, 176,
150 – 154 233 – 235, 319, 378 – 379; feature
egocentrism 292 checking 96; feature (re)assembly
emergentism 9, 14, 129 – 146, 154 – 157 83 – 85, 90, 92 – 93, 94, 108, 110, 116,
emotion 22, 56, 352 – 353, 356, 375, 376, 384; feature selection/activation 85, 90,
382; see also affect 93, 103, 105, 114 – 116; interpretable
end state 17, 107 features 94; in Processability Theory
English as a lingua franca (ELF) 11, 21, 147, 149; tense and agreement features
360 – 362, 393; lingua franca speakers 96; uninterpretable features 94, 115
11, 17, 25, 62 feedback, corrective 20, 61; in Dynamic
English language 47, 86 – 87, 91 – 93, Systems Theory 385; in interactionist
94 – 95, 96 – 97, 98 – 100, 259, 262 – 263, approach 210, 212, 216 – 226,
264, 266, 270, 328 – 330, 379, 383; in 227 – 228, 229 – 230; peer feedback
cognitive approaches 130 – 132, 134, 298; in sociocultural theory 302 – 307,
136, 141, 148 – 149, 153 – 154, 170, 316 – 377; see also errors, error
171, 176 – 177; in Dynamic Systems correction
Theory 386, 392; in generative theory Fijian language 100
104 – 105, 106 – 107, 108, 112, 113 – 115; finite utterance organization (FUO) see
in interactionist approaches 213 – 214, Basic Variety
215 – 216, 219 – 222, 223 – 226, 227 – 228, Finnish language 250, 388 – 391
231 – 232; L1 acquisition of 44 – 46, first language acquisition see L1
87, 96, 100 – 101; L2 acquisition of acquisition
15, 18, 47, 48 – 52, 53; in meaning- first language influence see L1 influence
based approaches 245 – 249, 250 – 251, fluency 10, 53 – 54, 182 – 183, 388 – 391
 Subject Index  427
fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance grammar see syntax/syntacticization;
Imaging) 72, 109 Universal Grammar
focus 244, 252; focalization devices 253 grammaticality judgement tests 8,
focus on form 53 – 54, 183; incidental 117 – 118, 176, 184, 383
focus on form 188
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety habits (in behaviourist theory) 11, 14, 18,
Scale 26 19, 40 – 41
formulaic expressions 16 – 17, 170, 243, head (direction) parameter 94 – 96,
249, 345 100 – 102, 103 – 105, 111 – 112, 113;
fossilization 17, 181, 381 – 382, 385 head-first and head-last languages 95,
French language 47, 92 – 93, 94, 96 – 97, 103 – 104, 113
103, 105, 107, 266, 268; L1 acquisition heritage languages/speakers 110 – 111, 362
of 101, 103 – 104; L2 acquisition of 15, history of second language learning
18, 24 – 25, 41 – 42, 47, 105, 112, 133, research 39 – 66
185, 192, 217 – 218, 297, 309 – 310, Hmong language 245 – 246
312 – 313, 331 – 333, 346 – 347, 358 – 359, honorifics 270
361 – 362, 392 – 394
frequency 129, 130 – 131, 155, 157 – 158, identity 356; cultural identity 361, 362;
196; and the Aspect Hypothesis 279; in learner (L2) identity 20, 25, 27, 235,
associative learning 134 – 137, 139; of 355 – 361, 375; multilingual/plurilingual
attention 188; in construction learning identity 17, 25, 26 – 27, 375; student
140 – 142; of corrective feedback 213; in identity 340, 362
efficiency–driven processing 150, 152, immersion programmes 59, 67, 222 – 223,
153 – 154; and fossilization 181 – 182; 331 – 333
in L1 acquisition 143; of practice 185, implicit knowledge 53, 168, 174 – 176,
198; in sociolinguistic variation 327, 177, 179 – 180, 181, 184 – 185; implicit
332, 336 calculation/ tallying 141, 147, 156,
functional categories 82 – 84, 90, 92 – 96, 187; implicit learning 2, 14, 61, 129,
378 – 379 134, 137, 143 – 146, 147, 170, 174, 178,
functionalism 9, 60, 242 – 275; form- 181; implicit perception 187; implicit
function mappings 16, 83, 133, prediction 136; implicit processing/
134 – 136, 146, 155, 175, 188, 196, computation 157, 187
257 – 259, 262 – 263; form-to-function incomplete success 17
analysis 245 – 246; and L2 socialization infinite utterance organization (IUO) see
334 – 335; language functions 13, 14, Basic Variety
342 – 343; and pragmatics 244 – 245, Inflection Phrase (IP) 93, 96 – 97, 99, 101
246 – 249, 259; propositional encoding informal language learning 2, 49, 52 – 53,
249; and sociocultural theory 319; 55, 62, 145, 209, 269, 346 – 347,
see also Aspect Hypothesis; systemic 351 – 355; in functionalist approach
functional grammar; temporality; 243 – 253; informal learning online 334,
thinking for speaking hypothesis 359 – 361, 362 – 363; in L2 socialization
fundamental difference hypothesis 67 342; in sociocultural theory 293 – 294,
future time reference see temporality 300 – 302, 314; and sociolinguistic
variation 331, 333
gender, grammatical 85, 92, 103, 131, 139, information gap 183, 213
144 – 145, 219 information processing 58, 86, 169, 175,
gender, human 27, 144, 270, 328, 336 178 – 179; and learning strategies 23 – 24,
generative (Chomskyan) linguistics 9, 183 – 184; see also Skill Acquisition
10, 39, 42 – 43, 57 – 58, 81 – 119; see also Theory
Universal Grammar Initial State 83, 90, 106
German language 15, 92, 102, 144, innate mechanisms for language learning
254 – 255; L2 acquisition of 41, 49, 112, 11 – 13; in cognitive theory 134, 151,
171, 175, 176, 243 – 245 155, 157; in generative theory 43, 58,
Gilbertese language 100 86 – 90, 143, 376, 378 – 380
Governing Category parameter 96, 115 inner speech see private speech
428  Subject Index
Input Hypothesis 55 – 56, 58 – 59 151, 168 – 172; distinction between
Input Processing theory 227, 235, 279 implicit and explicit 2, 53, 61, 168 – 169,
instructed second language acquisition 175 – 176
(ISLA) 62 knowledge about language see
interactional competence 276, 343 – 348, metalinguistic knowledge
353, 365 Korean language 114 – 115, 132, 267; L2
interaction in L2 learning 17, 20 – 21, acquisition of 108, 267, 270
52, 61, 187, 198, 209 – 235, 249,
343, 374 – 375; and Autonomous L1 acquisition 8, 12 – 13, 16, 43 – 46,
Induction theory 71; and Dynamic 48; differences with L2 acquisition
Systems Theory 385 – 386; Interaction 106, 114, 116; and emergentism/
Hypothesis 58 – 59, 209 – 210, 211 – 212; construction-based learning 14, 142,
and L2 socialization 337 – 340, 351, 152 – 153, 293; similarities with L2
358 – 359, 364; between languages 1, 11, acquisition 49, 52, 64, 113 – 114; and
110 – 111; online interaction 359 – 361, Universal Grammar 86 – 87, 88 – 89,
362 – 363; social/conversational 98 – 102, 143
interaction 5, 60, 133, 157, 249, 286, L1 influence 14 – 15, 17 – 19, 54, 60, 404;
288 – 291, 296, 335, 342 – 348; and in behaviourism 41, 63; in cognitive
sociocultural theory 296, 300, 302, approaches 17, 129, 131 – 133, 135,
307, 312, 315 – 317; sociopragmatics of 142, 153, 154, 158, 173 – 174, 189, 192,
interaction 269, 270, 271, 275 – 276; 401; and feedback 216; in generative
see also conversation analysis; linguistics 19, 70, 71, 104, 106,
interrogatives, in classroom interaction; 113 – 115, 262 – 263, 382; in learner
peer interaction varieties 247, 249, 252 – 253, 254 – 255;
Interface Hypothesis 108 and “thinking for speaking” 267 – 269,
interlanguage 10, 15, 18, 20, 48, 57, 277 – 278
242 – 246, 277 – 278; and tense-aspect Language Acquisition Device (LAD) 55,
morphology 256 – 257; and variability 56, 57, 83
327 – 333, 381; see also developmental language aptitude 22 – 23, 168, 174,
sequences/stages 176, 195
internal mechanisms see innate language attitudes 24, 56, 392 – 393
mechanisms for language learning language education 27, 40, 53, 216, 287,
internet communication see online 331 – 332, 361 – 362; and behaviourism
interaction 41 – 42; and contrastive analysis 47;
Interpretability Hypothesis 115 and focus on form(s) 183; and second
interrogatives/question forms 15, 49, language research 264, 405 – 407; and
102, 142, 382 – 384; in classroom sociocultural theory 310 – 311, 315 – 317
interaction 317, 339 – 340, 341 – 342, language learning strategies 23 – 24,
344 – 345; in L1 acquisition 43, 45, 152; 183 – 184, 300; peer support strategies
in Processability Theory 148 – 149; in 307 – 309; writing strategies 298, 309
usage–based theory 348; and word language play 294
order 91 – 92, 93, 97, 105, 143 language processing see processing
investment 357, 361 – 365 language related episodes (LREs) 309
Italian language 94, 107, 133, 189; L2 language socialization theory 317,
acquisition of 107 – 108, 227 – 228 333 – 337; L2 socialization 61, 270,
273 – 274, 337 – 342, 349, 351 – 352,
Japanese language 92, 95, 100, 104, 364 – 365; multilingual socialization
113, 266; L2 acquisition of 108, 270, 336 – 337, 342
295 – 297, 307 – 309, 340 – 342, 353 – 354, language teaching see language education
362 – 363 language transfer see cross-linguistic
influence
Kaluli language 336 languaging 289, 297, 311 – 312
knowledge: distinction between Lao language 245 – 246
declarative and procedural 14, 58, Latin 135, 189
 Subject Index  429
Learner varieties 243, 249 – 255, in generative linguistics 83, 105, 107, 109,
277, 278 116, 118; in L2 socialization 334, 338
lexical categories see Universal Grammar morphosyntax 3, 7; in cognitive approaches
Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) 147 132, 145, 156, 172 – 174, 188 – 189;
lexis see vocabulary learning in generative linguistics 117, 118; in
linguistics see cognitive linguistics; corpus interactionist approaches 216, 230
linguistics; generative linguistics; motivation 24 – 25, 26, 56, 102, 299, 333,
sociolinguistics 362; in Dynamic Systems Theory
literacy 288; academic literacy 352, 362; 387, 388, 391 – 394; integrative and
online literacy 74; as predictor of L2 instrumental 24 – 25; L2 motivational
aptitude 23, 26 self system 25, 356, 391 – 394
long-term memory 23, 58, 190 – 191 Move α see Universal Grammar
multicompetence see competence
marker (morphosyntax) 44, 93, 148, multilingualism 10 – 11, 18, 40, 75, 375;
175, 245; discourse marker 246 – 247; multilingual community/context 12,
sociolinguistic marker/variable (see 21, 62, 337, 342, 349, 362; multilingual
sociolinguistics) mind 110, 193, 197, 379; multilingual
meaning-based perspectives 242 – 287 practice 60, 326, 336; multilingual
mediation 287 – 288, 300 – 310, 375; peer speakers 17, 18, 110 – 111, 356, 362,
mediation 307 – 310; teacher mediation 375; see also identity
302 – 307, 315 – 317 multi-propositional utterances 248
memory/memory system 16, 23, 58;
in cognitive approaches 137, 143, naturalistic language learning see informal
156, 167 – 169, 177, 185; in MOGUL language learning
376 – 381; see also declarative and Natural Order Hypothesis 52, 54 – 55
procedural memory; long-term nature-nurture debate 11 – 12
memory; short-term memory; working negation 15, 16, 97, 254 – 255, 327,
memory 382 – 384, 399
meta-analysis 62, 405 negative evidence 20, 137, 383 – 384; and
metalinguistic knowledge 61, 167, 168, corrective feedback 222 – 225, 226; and
176 – 177, 223, 311; metalinguistic the Interaction Hypothesis 210, 212,
feedback 217 – 218, 222, 303, 307 216, 222
metaphor 263, 277 negotiation of meaning 20, 59, 209,
microgenesis 290 – 291, 302, 304 – 305 210, 213 – 216; in online interaction
migrants 48 – 49, 57, 245 – 249, 250 – 253, 229 – 231, 233, 302
336 – 340, 344 – 345, 354 – 355, nominal utterance organization (NUO)
356 – 360, 362 see Basic Variety
Minimalist Program 82 – 84, 90, 94, 115 noticing 186 – 188, 210, 216 – 217,
Minimal Trees approach 70, 114 222 – 223, 226 – 231; Noticing
modality 243 Hypothesis 187 – 188
Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) Null Subject Parameter 107
22, 171
modularity 116, 156; see also MOGUL online/digital interaction 20, 21,
MOGUL (Modular On–Line Growth 61, 229 – 231, 288, 299 – 300, 349;
and Use of Language) 197, 376 – 382 gaming 334, 349, 362 – 363; and self–
Monitor Model 48, 52 – 56; Monitor socialization 337, 359 – 361
Hypothesis 53 – 54; self–monitoring 226 online processing see processing
morpheme studies 48 – 52; morpheme ontogenesis 291
acquisition orders 54, 132, 314 operating principles 46, 58
morphology 6, 15; in Basic Variety optionality 16, 106 – 107; see also variability
250 – 252; in cognitive approaches 132, order of acquisition 49, 52; see also
133, 144, 173, 192; in Dynamic Systems developmental sequences/stages
Theory 388; in functionalist approaches output 53, 55; in cognitive approaches
243 – 244, 246, 248, 255 – 257, 259 – 262; 177; in functionalist approaches 278;
430  Subject Index
in generative linguistics 83, 378; in prediction 47, 102, 261 – 262; prediction
interactionist approaches 213, 215, errors 134, 138 – 140, 184; surprisal 138,
229 – 230; Output Hypothesis 19, 174, 184
58 – 59, 210, 222 – 226; see also utterances prefabrication see formulaic expressions
overshadowing 134, 135 prepositions 44, 151, 265, 303
priming 129, 137, 169, 185
parameters see Universal Grammar Principles and Parameters model see
parataxis/syntacticization 246 – 248, 277 Universal Grammar
parsing 55, 140, 158 private speech 291 – 292, 293 – 297
passive sentences/voice 92, 152, 297 procedural knowledge 14, 58, 168, 178,
past tense see verb morphology 181, 183; proceduralization 178 – 183,
past time reference see temporality 196 – 198, 217
peer interaction 211, 223, 231, 235, procedural memory 151, 156, 169 – 172,
272 – 273, 341 – 342, 350 – 351, 353 – 354; 173 – 174, 195, 197
in sociocultural theory 288 – 290, 298, Processability theory 55, 129, 139,
300, 307 – 310 146 – 150, 197, 314 – 315
performance 7 – 9, 19 – 20, 53, 54; in processing 21, 46; information processing
cognitive theory 171, 179, 180, 14, 24, 58, 86, 178 – 189; in Input
188 – 190, 194; in universal grammar Hypothesis 55; in Interaction
85, 117 Hypothesis 212, 234 – 235; in Output
phonological short–term memory see Hypothesis 59, 222 – 223; processing
memory system and Working Memory 190 – 195;
phonology 3, 6, 7, 85, 118, 151, 247 – 249, processing constraints 16, 86, 108 – 109,
381, 386 129, 135, 189; processing instruction
phrase structure 14, 89, 95 – 96, 101 27, 62, 188 – 189; processing of L2
phylogenesis 291 60, 62, 85, 106, 109 – 110, 129, 133,
pidgin languages/pidginization 46, 169 – 175; shallow processing 173;
52, 252 see also Autonomous Induction
Polish language 253 – 255 theory; declarative and procedural
Portuguese language 186 – 187 memory; Efficiency-Driven Processor;
positioning 61, 357 Input Processing theory; MOGUL;
positive evidence 20, 210, 222, 303, 383 processability theory; usage-based
postmodernism 5, 402 – 403 theory
poststructuralism 6, 27, 356 – 357 pro-drop language 107 – 108
Poverty of the Stimulus 111, 137, 376 prompts 217 – 226, 289, 307 – 309,
power relations 27, 271 – 272, 312 – 313, 316 – 317, 335 – 336
349 – 350, 357, 374 – 375 pronouns 47, 91, 103 – 104, 107 – 108,
practice 24, 311, 315; in behaviourism 111, 137, 142, 243, 252 – 254, 309 – 310,
19, 40 – 42, 63; in cognitive approaches 312 – 313, 332, 335 – 336; reflexive
20, 170 – 171, 175, 178 – 180, 182 – 183, pronouns 43, 87, 96, 109, 151
185 – 186; in interactionist approaches property theory 3, 81, 129, 155, 376
74, 219; language/literacy practices 74, propositions 44, 151, 246 – 249, 277
76, 249, 326, 335 – 337, 362 – 363; power prototypes/prototypicality 140 – 143, 147,
law of 179; social practice 1, 26 – 28, 261 – 262, 279
62, 288, 349, 354 – 356, 364; see also psycholinguistics 21 – 22, 26, 85, 226;
classroom–based learning; communities psycholinguistic methodologies
of practice 109, 386
pragmalinguistics 269 – 270, 272, 275 psychology 40 – 41, 42, 376; cognitive
pragmatics 6, 12; L2 pragmatics 7, 111, psychology 14, 25, 39, 58, 134,
116, 118, 173, 269 – 272; Pragmatic 168 – 169, 185; psychological variables
Expansion 272; pragmatic mode 50; social psychology 21, 22, 24 – 25,
of expression 244 – 249, 256, 57, 59, 356; Soviet psychology
258 – 259; requests 272 – 276; see also 286, 291
sociopragmatic competence Punjabi 250 – 251, 350
 Subject Index  431
reading span 191, 194 sociocultural theory 27, 188, 198,
recasts 217 – 222, 225 – 228, 231 – 232, 234 – 235, 269, 286 – 320; see also activity
342, 343 theory; dynamic assessment; mediation;
redundancy, communicative 130, 196 microgenesis; ontogenesis; phylogenesis;
regulation 288; other– 288, 303 – 305; self– regulation; Zone of Proximal
288, 293 – 294, 302 – 306 Development (ZPD)
relative clauses 49, 111, 151, 249 sociolinguistics 9, 10, 326 – 327, 342, 373,
repair 218, 222, 229 – 232, 308; in 401; sociolinguistic perspectives on L2
conversation analysis 342 – 343, 345 17, 20 – 21, 57, 61, 326 – 364
representation(s) 7, 227, 267, 400 – 401; sociolinguistic variation 8, 270, 309 – 310,
in cognitive approaches 137 – 139, 326 – 330; sociolinguistic marker/
147, 150 – 151, 169 – 171, 178, variable 328; sociolinguistic variation
180 – 193; in generative linguistics 82, in L2 development 270, 273 – 274,
84 – 85, 114; in MOGUL 378 – 381; 326 – 328, 330 – 333, 363 – 364
Representational Deficit Hypothesis sociopragmatic competence 270,
84 – 85, 109, 110, 115 272, 364
requests see pragmatics Spanish language 47, 107, 137, 168, 259,
Russian language 108, 111, 114 266 – 267, 270; L2 acquisition of 107,
111, 139, 148 – 149, 189, 215 – 216,
saliency 130 – 131, 148, 150, 174, 177, 229 – 231, 257 – 259, 260 – 263,
247, 279 268 – 269, 272 – 274, 311 – 312,
Satellite–Framed languages 265 – 268 316 – 317, 327 – 328, 331
scaffolding 248, 256, 288 – 289 Specific Language Impairment (SLI) 88
second language learning research: future speech acts 211, 242 – 244, 269, 271 – 272,
directions 402 – 405; and language 334 – 335, 336
education 405 – 407 speech community 21, 57, 328, 348
self-paced reading 109, 156, 176 – 177, speech events 348, 364
179, 184 – 185 speech production model 226 – 227
self-report procedures 188, 358 stages of development see developmental
semantics 6, 9, 116, 118, 138 – 139, sequences/stages
141, 376; semantic complexity Standard English 245
130; semantic concepts/features/ statistical learning 14, 136 – 137, 145 – 146
properties/information 83, 94, 130, stimulated recall 227 – 228, 230 – 232
133, 173, 260, 262, 297, 311 – 312; strong/weak Infl parameter 92 – 93,
semantic interfaces 140, 382; semantic 96 – 97, 101 – 102, 105
processing 59, 172, 223 – 224; semantic structuralist linguistics 7, 9, 40, 42
propositions 247; semantic relations/ structure-dependency principle 90 – 92,
constraints 46, 252, 331; semantic 93, 103, 152
scope 131, 383; see also cognitive subjacency principle 113
linguistics; thinking for speaking subjunctive mood 258 – 259, 311 – 312
hypothesis surprisal see prediction
Shallow Structure Hypothesis 169, Swedish language 111; L2 acquisition of
173 – 174 250, 337 – 340
short-term memory 58, 67; phonological syntax/syntacticization 6, 7, 23, 49,
short-term memory 190 – 191, 194 54, 59; in cognitive approaches 137,
simple recurrent network (SRN) 136 139, 140 – 141, 142 – 143, 145 – 146,
situated L2 learning 5, 326, 343, 348 – 355 148 – 149, 150, 169 – 171, 173 – 174, 196;
Skill Acquisition Theory 167, 169, in functional approaches 244 – 249;
178 – 186, 196 – 198, 217 in generative linguistics 83, 85, 94,
social class 27, 328 – 329, 332, 356 96, 98, 100, 106 – 109, 114, 116; in
social identity see identity interactionist approaches 212, 223;
socialization see language socialization in MOGUL 376 – 379, 382; see also
theory morphology
social turn 26, 39 – 40, 62, 317, 326, 334 systematicity 14 – 16
432  Subject Index
systemic functional grammar 9, approaches to language learning;
276 – 277, 333 emergentism
Systemic Theoretical Instruction utterances 7, 14 – 16, 42 – 45, 53, 55; in
310 – 311, 314 – 315, 317 functionalist approaches 243 – 250,
254 – 256, 272 – 278; in generative
task-based learning 27, 407 approach 96, 104; in interactionist
Teachability Hypothesis 67, 148, 406 approaches 216 – 217, 222 – 226;
temporality 189, 250, 255 – 257; future in sociocultural theory 294 – 296,
time reference 243, 250, 257 – 259, 327, 307 – 309; in sociolinguistic approaches
331; past time reference 133, 247, 249, 336, 342 – 343; utterance organization
278, 327 (see Basic Variety)
theme-rheme 244
theory, nature of 2 – 7 V2 parameter see Universal Grammar
theory of mind 300 Varbrul 69, 328 – 333
think-aloud technique 188 variability 10 – 11, 244, 327; in Dynamic
thinking for speaking hypothesis Systems Theory 386 – 391; in L1
263 – 269, 277 – 278 acquisition 16; in L2 development 14,
time talk see temporality 16, 54, 132, 149, 168, 171, 210, 231,
topic 107 – 108, 244 – 246, 252 – 253; 246, 305, 363 – 364; in L2 processing
topicalization 314 – 315, 320 180, 181, 381 – 382; in motivation
Trade-Off Hypothesis 189 392; in type frequency 142; see also
transition theories 3, 6, 13, 60, 116 – 117, sociolinguistic variation
129, 167, 376, 382 verb-argument constructions (VACs)
translanguaging 62, 343, 361, 401 140 – 143
transnational group/community 17, Verb-Framed languages 266
21, 62, 110, 334, 336 – 337, 351 – 354, verb morphology 109, 135, 145, 256 – 257;
360 – 361, 362 (non)finiteness 15, 94, 96 – 97, 101 – 102,
Turkish language 100, 266; L2 acquisition 138, 251 – 253, 255; modal auxiliaries
of 108 93; past tense 45, 93, 107, 109, 132, 135,
typology/typological universals 185, 247, 303 – 305, 327 – 328, 330 – 331,
66, 154 379; third person 44, 53, 93, 107, 109,
130, 168, 176, 178, 310; verb-raising
Unified Competition Model 133 105; see also Aspect Hypothesis; verb-
Universal Grammar 12, 58, 81 – 119, 140, argument constructions
373; functional categories 82 – 83, 90, Verb Movement parameter 97, 102, 105
92 – 94, 96 – 97, 106, 113 – 114, 116, vicarious responses 296
378 – 379; Government and Binding VILLA project 253 – 255
58, 82; lexical categories 82 – 83, 92, 93, vocabulary learning 7, 12, 28, 64, 71; in
101, 114, 378; Lexical Parameterization cognitive approaches 170, 174, 186,
Hypothesis 94; and L1 acquisition 192; in cognitive linguistics 263 – 264;
98 – 102; and L2 acquisition 102 – 116; in interactionist approaches 210, 212,
Merge 90 – 91, 94, 100; Minimalist 213 – 216, 230, 233; in sociocultural
Program 58, 82 – 83, 89 – 90, 94; Move theory 298 – 302, 309, 320; in
α 92, 94; parameters/ parametric sociolinguistic approaches 334, 346, 363
variation 58, 82 – 85, 90, 93, 94, voice, active/middle/passive 297
101 – 103, 105, 111 – 112, 113 – 114, 140;
principles 7, 82 – 83, 85, 90, 96, 102, Williams syndrome 87
103, 112, 115, 143, 279; Principles and willingness to communicate (WTC) 25 – 26
Parameters model 58, 90;V2 parameter working memory (WM) 23, 61, 62, 309,
102; see also features, morphosyntactic/ 378; in cognitive approaches 150 – 154,
functional; generative (Chomskyan) 156 – 157, 174, 178, 181, 189 – 198; in
linguistics; structure-dependency interactionist approaches 211, 228,
principle 231 – 232, 235
uptake 70, 213, 227
usage-based theory 14, 60, 129, 293, 300, Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
348, 373 – 375, 385 see also cognitive 289 – 290, 293, 300 – 310
Name Index

Abbuhl, R. 210 Bak, T. 193

Abel, E. 388 Baker, M. 95
Abrahamsson, N. 107, 112 Ballinger, S. 211, 235
Abugaber, D. xiv, 403 – 404 Baralt, M. 211, 212, 228, 229 – 230, 231
Abutalebi, J. 193 Bardovi-Harlig, K. 7, 75, 242, 247, 249,
Adams, R. 211, 231 255 – 257, 261, 269 – 270, 278 – 279
Aguado-Orea, J. 154 Barkhuizen, G. xiv
Ahmadian, M. J. 407 Barron, A. 269
Aitchison, J. 43, 88 Bartke, S. 87
Akiyama,Y. 210, 229 Barton, D. 349
Alexopoulou, T. 132 Basnight-Brown, D.M. 178
Alfi-Shabtay, I. 174 Baten, K. 148, 149
Al-Gahtani, S. 271, 274 – 276 Bates, E. 147
Al-Hoorie, A. H. 25 Batstone, R. 305
Aljaafreh, A. 302 – 305, 316, 319 Bayley, R. 69, 261, 326, 328, 330 – 331,
Allwright, D. 216 334
Altarriba, J. 178, 191 Bayram, F. 85
Altmann, G. T. M. 139 Beckett, T. G. 286
Álvarez, A. 290 Behney, J. xiv, 48, 130
Amaral, L. 382 Belikova, A. 115
Ambridge, B. 12, 102, 134, 137 Bell, N. 188
Ammar, A. 212, 219 – 222, 226 Bell, P. 177
Andersen, R.W. 58, 66, 259 – 261 Bellugi, U. 44, 87
Anderson, J.R. 14, 178 Benati, A. 76, 109
Anderson, M. 138 Benazzo, S. 253
Anderson, T. 355 Benson, P. xiv, 17, 349, 353 – 354
Andringa, S. 176, 184 Beretta, A. 27
Appel, G. 286 Berger, E. 343, 345, 346 – 348
Arche, M. 260 – 263 Berkes, É. 18
Archibald, J. 71, 118 Berko, J. 45
Athanasopoulos, P. 267 Berman, R. A. 266
Atkinson, D. xiv Berwick, R. C. 13, 90, 94, 373
Au, J. 194 Bettoni, C. 147, 148
Audring, A. 140 Bhatia, T. K. xiv
Auer, P. 140 Bialystok, E. 65, 193 – 195
Avery, N. 173 Biber, D. 8, 16
Bidgood, A. 137
Baddeley, A.D. 23, 64, 190 – 191 Bird, S. 186
Bailey, N. 49, 65 Birdsong, D. 71, 107
434  Name Index
Bischoff, S. T. 242 Carpenter, H. 171
Bishop, D. 87 Carpenter, P. 191
Black, E. 269 Carroll, J. B. 22
Black, R. W. 74, 334 Carroll, S. 71, 140, 154, 376
Blackledge, A. 27 Carson, L. 298 – 299
Bley-Vroman, R. 67, 85, 112, 173 Carter, B. 5, 6
Block, D. 17, 26, 39, 326, 356 – 357 Carter, Rita 88
Bloomfield, L. 40 Carter, Ron 8
Blum-Kulka, S. 271 – 272 Cazden, C. 44
Blyth, C. S. 349 Cekaite, A. 337 – 340
Bock, J. K. 137, 138 Cepeda, N. J. 185
Boeckx, C. 95 Chambers, C. G. 139
Boers, F. 263,  265 Chamot, A.V. 14, 23, 58, 183
Bolander, B. 356 Chan, C. 85, 115
Bolhuis, J. J. 13, 90, 373 Chan, H. 388
Bonilla, C. 149 Chan, L. 387
Borges Mota, M. xiv, 191 Chang, C. 195
Bosch, P. 191 Chang, F. 137 – 138
Bowden, H. W. 194 Chater, N. 150
Bowerman, M. 268 Chaudron, C. 117, 216
Bowles, A. 195 Chen, C. 174
Bowles, M. 188 Chen, H.-Y. 183, 189
Boyd, J.K. 137, 140 Chen, L. 174
Bozalek,V. 292 Cheng, T. P. 343
Braine, M. 45 – 46 Chik, A. xiv, 349, 362 – 363
Bremer, K. 279, 358 – 359 Choi, S. 267
Bresnan, J. 147 Choi, S. H. 114
Brill, K. A. 171 Chomsky, N. xiv, 6 – 7, 11 – 13, 42 – 43,
Broeder, P. 279, 358 63 – 64, 81 – 83, 85, 89 – 90, 94, 373
Brooks, L. 297 Christiansen, M. H. 136, 143, 145 – 146,
Brooks, P. J. 145 – 146, 173, 177 150, 157, 190
Brown, D. 211, 216, 218 – 219, 233 Chun, D. M. 229
Brown, H. 180 Cintrón-Valentín, M. 189
Brown, L. 270 Clahsen, H. 66, 173
Brown, P. 268 Clark, A. 138
Brown, R. 43 – 44, 48 – 49, 52, 64, 130 Clark, E. 104
Brumfit, C.J. 402 Clark,V. 137
Brunak, J. 300 Cleeremans, A. 136
Bruner, J. 287, 289 Clément, R. 26
Bryfonski, L. 27 Cohen, A. 69
Bunting, M. F. 191 Cohen, J. 215
Burt, M. 39, 47 – 49, 57, 64 – 66 Colantoni, J. 7
Buyl, A. 148, 150 Cole, M. 287
Bylund, E. 267 Collentine, J. 192
Byrnes, H. 277 – 278, 405 Collins, L. 131 – 132, 140
Bywater, T. 192 Comajoan Colomé, L. 261
Conrad, S. 8
Cadierno, T. 69, 140, 264, 267 – 269, 348 Conti-Ramsden, G. 142
Cameron, L. 385, 387 Conway, A. R. A. 190 – 191
Cameron, R. 326 Conway, C. 136
Canale, M. 9 Cook, L. 192
Cardoso, W. 131 Cook,V. xiv, 40, 68, 92, 94 – 95
Carlson, G. N. 139 Cooker, L. 17
 Name Index  435
Cooper, E. 138 Donato, R. 289
Cope, J. 25 – 26 Donnelly, S. 146, 157, 190
Corder, S. P. 47, 64, 243 Dörnyei, Z. 22 – 23, 25 – 26, 73, 88, 356,
Coxhead, A. 8, 299 387 – 388, 391 – 392
Crago, M.B. 88 Doughty, C. 59, 72, 183, 195, 209
Crain, S. 13, 90, 373 Douglas Fir Group 26, 27, 373 – 375,
Crawford, W. J. 211 399, 403
Creese, A. 348 Duff, P. A. xiv, 11, 20, 27, 69, 317,
Crowther, D. 8, 177 333 – 334, 337, 349, 351 – 353, 355 – 357
Cruse, A. 269 Duff, S. C. 143
Csizér, K. 392 Dugarova, E. 108
Cunnings, I. 85, 109, 405 Dulay, H. 39, 41 – 42, 47 – 51, 57, 64 – 66
Curcic, M. 184 Dunning, D. L. 194
Curtiss, S. 89 Duran, C. S. 334, 336 – 337
Durand, M. 255
Dabrowska, E. 146 Dussias, P. E. 192
Dale, P.S. 23 Dyson, B. 148
Daller, H. 7
Dang, T. N.Y. 8 Eberhard, K. M. 139
Daniels, H. 287, 289, 292 Eckert, P. 348 – 349
Davies, B. 357 Eckman, F. 7
Davin, K. J. 286, 316 – 317 Edmonds, A. 331
Deák, G. O. 12 Edwards, A. 292
de Bot, K. 39, 223, 266, 385 – 387 Egi, T. 210, 225, 228
De Clercq, B. 10 Eguren, L. 83, 90, 94, 95
De Costa, P. xiv, 3, 298 Ehrenhofer, L. 138, 140
de Guerrero, M. C. M. 294 Eisenbeiss, S. 268
Dehaene, S. 143, 186 Ellis, N. C. 12, 14, 17, 72, 74, 76, 130 – 131,
de Jong, N. 181 – 182, 185 134 – 136, 138, 140 – 142, 147, 155 – 156,
DeKeyser, R. 17, 20, 73, 107, 130 – 132, 187, 189, 192, 212, 234, 264, 375,
144, 167 – 168, 174, 176, 178 – 181, 183, 385, 403
186, 188, 190, 195 Ellis, R. xiv, 15, 22, 27, 44, 47, 49, 144,
de la Fuente, M. J. 215 – 216 167, 176 – 177, 183, 210, 217, 222, 225,
Dell, G. S. 138 235, 305, 406
Del Río, P. 290 Elman, J. 134
Demberg,V. 138 Emslie, H. 191
De Miranda, M. A. 405 Engeström,Y. 291 – 293, 298
Derrick, D. J. 404 Engle, R. W. 190
Derwing, T. M. 7 Erlam, R. 305
Deters, P. xiv, 27, 76, 349 Escudero, P. 7
de Villiers, J. 48, 85, 90, 102 Eskildsen, S. W. 140, 348, 364
de Villiers, P.A. 48 Ettlinger, M. 136
Dewaele, J.M. 22, 331 Eubank, L. 89
Di Biase, B. 147, 148 Evans, J. 147
Dienes, Z. 136, 143, 405 Evans,V. 263
Dietrich, R. 250, 253, 255
Dimitrakopoulou, M. 85, 115 Fafulas, S. 327 – 328
Dimroth, C. 242 – 243, 250, 252 – 254 Fain, E. 300
Di Sciullo, A.-M. 85 Faraneh, M. 88
Dittmar, N. 59, 65, 243 – 245 Faretta-Stutenberg, M. 136, 171
Doherty, L. 334, 337 Fasel Lauzon,V. 343
Domínguez, L. 83, 85, 94, 108, 110, Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. 272 – 275
260 – 263 Felser, C. 109, 173, 192
436  Name Index
Fernald, A. 139, 174 Gilquin, G. 8
Fernandez-Soriano, O. 83 Gindis, B. 315
Ferreira-Junior, F. 14, 141 Giroir, S. 349
Filiaci, F. 108 Givón, T. 9, 65, 68, 242, 244 – 246, 249
Filip, H. 139 Gobet, F. 154
Firth, A. 5, 70, 343 Godfroid, A. 176, 180
Firth, J. R. 6, 8 Goldberg, A.E. 137, 140
Fisher, S. 88 Goldschneider, J. 130 – 132
Flecken, M. 139 Gomez-Laich, M. P. 312
Florian, M. 22 González Alonso, J. 85, 109, 157
Flynn, S. 18, 58, 66, 70, 104, 113 Goo, J. 215 – 216, 219, 231, 233
Fodor, J.A. 12 Goodman, J. 147
Fogle, L. W. 334 Goodwin, M. H. 336
Foley, W.A. 333 Gopnik, M. 88
Foster-Cohen, S. 12, 382 Gordon, P. 141
Foucart, A. 140 Graddol, D. 21
Franceschina, F. 85, 115 Granena, G. 22, 146, 167, 191, 195
Francis, G. 8 Granger, S. 8
Frauenfelder, U. 104 Green, D. 193
Frawley, W. 59, 294 Green, M 263
Freed, B. 192 Gregg, K. 3, 6, 53, 89
Freudenthal, D. 154 Greve, A. 138
Friederici, A. 88 Grey, S. 146
Friedline, B. E. 299 – 301 Gries, S. 142
Fries, C. 40, 42, 63 Griffin, Z. M. 137
Fröhlich, M. 23 Grondin, N. 106
Fromkin,V. 6 Grundy, J. G. 193 – 194
Fukui, N. 92 Grüter, T. 139, 174
Fulga, A. 137 Guasti, M. 95, 101 – 102
Fuller, J. M. 326 Gudmestad, A. 327, 331, 405
Gullberg, M. 174, 266 – 268
Gagliardi, A. 101 Gurzynski-Weiss, L. 210, 211, 212, 228,
Gallagher, T. 292 229 – 230, 235
Gal’perin, P. 310 – 311 Gutiérrez, X. 8, 176
Gambi, C. 140
Gánem-Gutiérrez, A. 176 Hakansson, G. 148
Ganschow, L. 26 Hall, J. K. 402
Gao, X. xiv, 27, 76 Halliday, M. 8, 9, 242
García, L. 277 Hamada, M. 192
García Mayo, M. D. P. 407 Hamann, C. 104
García-Sánchez, I. 334, 356 Hambrick, D. Z. 190
Gardner, R.C. 24 – 25, 59, 64 Hamrick, P. 167, 169, 171 – 172
Garfinkel, H. 342 Han, Z.-H. xiv, 15, 17, 48, 75, 188,
Gaskell, M. G. 180, 185 243, 405
Gass, S.M. xiv, 3, 8, 18, 39, 48 – 49, 59, 67, Hanan, R. E. 175
69, 130, 177, 188, 193 – 194, 209 – 210, Harlaar, N. 23
213, 227, 233, 235, 405 Harré, R. 357
Gathercole, S.E. 191, 194 Harrington, M. 109, 191 – 192, 194
Gedera, D. S. P. 292 Harris, K. 344
Gee, J. P. 349 Harris, R. 192
Geeslin, K. L. 327 – 328, 405 Hatch, E. M. 232, 286, 294, 300 – 302
Gibbes, M. 298 – 299 Hattori, H. 115
Gil, K. 81, 382 – 384 Haverkort, M. 174
Gilbers, S. 118 Havik, E. 174
 Name Index  437
Hawkins, R. xiv, 3, 12, 14, 72, 74, Hyltenstam, K. 66, 107, 112
81, 84 – 85, 94, 96 – 98, 100 – 101, Hymes, D. 9, 348
103 – 104, 106, 111 – 112, 115,
117, 376 Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. 263, 265,
Hayashi,Y. 194 268 – 269
Haznedar, B. 106 Iberri-Shea, G. 210
Heath, S.B. 334, 336 Ikeda, M. 26
Heine, A. 118 Ilnyckyj, R. 355
Heller, M. 11, 361 – 362 Inagaki, S. 391
Hellermann, J. 74, 343, 344 – 346, 349, Indefrey, P. 173 – 174
364, 365 Inhelder, B. 42
Henderson, K. 357 Ionin, T. 8, 113 – 114, 117
Henderson, L. 185 Isabelli, C. A. 133
Hendriks, H. 18, 269 Isurin, L. 191
Henery, A. 312 – 313, 318 Itoh, H. 294
Henry, A. 25, 387, 388, 392 – 394 Iwashita, N. 211
Henson, R. 138 Izumi, S. 210, 212, 223, 226 – 227
Heredia, R. 178
Heritage, J. 342 Jackendoff, R. 13, 140, 376
Hernández-Chávez, E. 47 Jackson, C. N. 133, 174
Herreweghe, M.V. 148 Jackson, D. 167
Herschensohn, J. xiv, 71, 81, 94, 96 – 97, Jackson, S. R. 195
106 – 107, 192 Jaeggi, S. 194
Hickmann, M. 253 Jaekel, N. 22
Hijazo-Gascón, A. 264, 268 – 269 James, E. 185
Hitch, G. 64, 190 Jany, C. 242
Holmberg, A. 95 Jarrold, C. 191
Holme, R. 40 Jefferson, G. 342
Holmes, J. 194, 326 – 327 Jegerski, J. 173
Hooper, J. 15, 16 Jenkins, J. 11, 17
Hopp, H. 118, 139 Jenkins, L. 88
Horst, M. 131 Jeon, K.S. 210, 216
Horwitz, E. K. 25 – 26 Jessner, U. 18
Houck, N. 54 Jiang, N. 174
House, J. 271 Johnson, J. 68, 71, 112
House, L. 405 John-Steiner,V. P. 292
Housen, A. 10, 130, 150, 176, 183 Johnston, M. 213 – 214, 231
Howard, K.M. 335 – 336, 342 Jones, R. L. 137
Howard, M. 331, 333 Jordan, G. 3, 5 – 6, 373
Howatt, A.P.R. 40, 405 Joseph, K. L. 142
Howe, C. 287, 288 Juffs, A. 109, 118, 191 – 192, 194,
Huang, C.-T. J. 90, 94 299 – 301, 373
Huang, H.-T. 210 Jung, S. 150
Huebner, T. 59, 65, 245 – 246, 249 Just, M. 191
Huettig, F. 140
Hufeisen, B. 18 Kaan, E. 140
Hugdahl, K. 191 Kachisnke, I. 176 – 177
Hulk, F. 118 Kaltsa, M. 111
Hulstijn, J. H. xiv, 3, 6, 10, 54, 144, 146, Kamide,Y. 139
180, 298, 373 Kane, M. J. 190, 191
Hulstijn, W. 54 Kang,Y.-S. 298
Hunston, S. 8 Kanwit, M. 257 – 259, 327 – 328, 331
Hurst, J. 88 Kartchava, E. 226
Hyams, N. 6 Karuzis,V. 195
438  Name Index
Kasper, G. xiv, 5, 7, 72, 269 – 271, Lado, R. 40 – 41, 63 – 64
342 – 343 Lai, C. 88
Kasprowicz, R. E. 27, 175, 407 Lakoff, G. 9, 263
Kaula, A. 138 Laleko, O. 108
Kayi-Aydar, H. 357 Lam, W.S.E. 74, 349, 359 – 361
Keating, G. 173 Lambert, C. 10
Keck, C.M. 210, 215 – 216 Lambert, W.E. 64
Kellogg, D. 320, 402 Langacker, R.W. 9, 242, 263
Kempe,V. 145, 146, 177 Lantolf, J. xiv, 5, 59, 69, 73, 267, 286 – 294,
Kessler, J. L. 147 – 148 298, 300, 302 – 307, 310 – 311, 314 – 316,
Khomijani Farahani, A. A. 210 318 – 320, 373, 375
Kidd, E. 134, 146, 157, 190 Lapkin, S. 172, 223, 297, 309 – 310, 319
Kim, C.-H. 150 Lardiere, D. xiv, 19, 71, 74, 81, 83 – 85, 90,
Kim, E.Y. 270 93 – 94, 106 – 107, 112, 116, 382
Kim, H.-Y. 391 Larsen-Freeman, D. 10, 11, 57, 70, 136,
Kim, J. 176 384 – 387
Kim, K. 150 Laufer, B. 298
Kim,Y. 231 – 232 Lave, J. 348 – 349
King, K. A. 334 Leal, T. 400
Kinginger, C. 331 Lee, C. 349
Kinnear, P. 286 Lee, D. 115
Kisselev, O. 302 Lee, I. 298
Kita, S. 266 Lee, J. 193 – 194, 294, 297, 298
Klein, W. 18, 68, 141, 243, 250 – 253, Lee, M. 150, 153
257, 261 Lee, O.-S. 150
Klima, E. 44 Lee, S.-Y. 153
Klingberg, T. 194 Lee,Y.-A. 343
Knouzi, I. 297 Legatto, J. J. 26
Kobayashi, T. 194 Lei, X. 298
Koda, K. 192 Lemée, I. 331
Koeth, J. T. 191, 195 Lemmerth, N. 139
Koike, D. A. 349 Lenneberg, E. 64, 71, 88
Kopecka, A. 268 Lenzing, A. 147 – 149
Köpke, B. 110 Leontiev, A.N. 292, 297
Kormos, J. 10, 131 Leow, R.P. 186
Kotz, S. A. 118 Leung, J. H.-C. 145
Kövecses, Z. 263 Leung,Y.I. xiv, 81
Kozulin, A. 315 Levelt, W. 226
Kramsch 299 Lew-Williams, C. 139, 174
Krashen, S. 2, 13, 19, 27, 39, 49, 52 – 58, 60, Li, M. 181
65 – 67, 76, 132, 209, 406 Li, P. 174, 348
Kristen, S. 344 Li, S. xiv, 23, 195, 211
Kroll, J.F. 7, 11, 193, 195 Li, X. 332 – 333
Kubanyiova, M. 25 Lidz, J. 101
Kubota, R. 17 Liebner, M. 148
Kuiken, F. 10, 118, 388 Lieven, E. 12, 13, 16, 102, 134, 142
Kupisch, T. 81 Lightbown, P.M. 87, 226
Kuribara, C. 136, 145 Lillo-Martin, D. 87
Kurtz, L. 302 Lim, H. 180
Kwak, H.-Y. 150, 153 Lin, H. J. 194
Kyratzis, A. 336 Lin, M.-C. A. 349
Lin, W.-C. 210
Labov, W. 69, 328 Linck, J. A. 22, 191 – 195, 405
Lado, B. 194 Lindstromberg, S. 263,  265
 Name Index  439
Liou, H.-C. 210 Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 9
Liskin-Gasparro, J. 400 May, S. xiv, 334
Liszka, S. 115 McCafferty, S. 294, 298
Littleton, K. 287, 289, 310 McCarthy, M. 8
Liu, X. 143, 187 McConnell-Ginet, S. 348 – 349
Liu,Y. 174 McDonough, K. 137, 141 – 142, 146, 210,
Li Wei xiv, 1 211, 223 – 225, 227 – 228
Lochtman, K. 148 McEnery, T. 8
Loewen, S. xiv, 27, 76, 176, 183, 210, 222, McKay, T. H. 27
231, 407 McLaughlin, B. 14, 53, 54, 58, 67, 178
Long, A.Y. 327, 328 McManus, K. 10, 180, 185
Long, M. H. 5, 9, 20, 27, 57, 58 – 59, 65, McNeill, A. xiv, 191
72, 209 – 212, 216, 309, 407 Meara, P. 7
Long, M. R. 193 Mehotcheva, T. 24
Longa,V. 88 Meisel, J. 13, 15, 17, 66, 85, 90, 102, 112
Lorenzo, G. 88 Mendikoetxea, A. 83
Loschky, L. 192 Mentzoni, R. A. 143
Lovatt, P. 192 Mercer, N. 287 – 289, 310
Lovelett, J. 169 Mercer, S. 22
Lowie, W. 385 – 388 Meunier, F. 8
Lucas, C. 326 Meurers, D. 8
Ludvigsen, S. R. 292 Meyer, A. 22, 171
Luk, Z.P. 131 – 132 Miettinen, R. 292
Lum, J. 167 Miller, E. R. xiv, 5, 17, 27, 76, 357, 373
Lyster, R. 20, 70, 74, 210, 216, 217 – 219, Miller, R. 287
222, 233 Milroy, L. 351
Milton, J. 7
Ma, F. 7, 11 Mirkovic, J. 139
MacIntyre, P.D. 24 – 26, 388 Misyak, J. B. 136, 145
MacKay, E. 388 Mitchell, D. A. 298
Mackey, A. xiv, 3, 76, 188, 210, 211, 212, Mitchell, R. 10, 15, 16, 260
213 – 216, 219, 223, 225, 226, 227 – 228, Miyake, A. 189, 191
231, 232 – 233, 235, 403 Mogford, K. 87
MacLachlan, A. 113 Monaghan, P. 143
MacWhinney, B. xiv, 8, 13, 129, 133 – 134, Montrul, S. 18, 75, 110 – 111
144, 174, 196, 386, 404 Moore, L. C. 334, 336
Madden, C. 49, 65, 67 Morgan, J. 87
Mai, Z. 108 Morgan-Short, K. xiv, 136, 171, 183,
Majid, A. 265 403 – 404
Maldonado, S.B. 113 Mori, J. 342
Malt, B. C. 265 Moro, A. 81
Mani, N. 140 Mougeon, F. 331, 333
Marquis, J. 88 Mougeon, R. 331 – 333
Marsden, E. xiv, 8, 27, 76, 144, 145, 173, Moyer, A. 7, 18
175, 177, 180, 183, 185, 187, 189, Moyer, M. G. xiv
403 – 405, 407 Muñoz, C. 22
Marsden, H. 81, 382 – 384 Munro, M. J. 7
Martin, C.D. 139 Murakami, A. 132, 405
Martin, K. I. 192 Myles, F. 8, 15 – 16, 106, 249, 260 – 263
Martin, M. 193
Martínez, R. A. 357 Nabei, T. 222
Masgoret, A.-M. 24 Nadasdi, T. 331
Masuda, K. 174 Naiman, N. 23
Mateus, S. G. 357 Nakamura, D. 141
440  Name Index
Narasimhan, B. 268 Pashler, H. 185
Nassaji, H. 233, 305, 318, 320 Pavlenko, A. 1, 27, 361, 365
Nation, P. 7 Pawlak, M. 211
Nazimova, K. 334, 356 Payant, C. 231 – 232
Negueruela, E. 311 – 312 Pearson, P. 231 – 232
Nekrasova-Becker, T. 141, 142 Peck, N. 192
Nemati, M. 210 Pekarek Doehler, S. 5, 20, 343 – 348
Neubauer, K. 173 Perdue, C. 18, 68, 141, 250 – 253
Newmark, L. 63 Perfetti, C. A. 182
Newport, E. 68, 71, 112 Pfänder, S. 140
Newson, M. xiv, 92, 94, 95 Phakiti, A. xiv, 3
Nicholas, H. 226 Phillips, C. 138, 140
Nicoladis, E. 1 Philp, J. 221, 228 – 229, 235
Nielsen, S. 337 Piaget, J. 42, 292
Niemeier, S. 264 Piatelli-Palmarini, M. 42
Noels, K. A. 26 Pica, T. 59, 209, 211 – 212
Norman, E. 143 Pickering, M. 140
Norouzian, R. 405 Pienemann, M. 55, 66, 67, 70, 129,
Norris, J. xiv, 10, 71, 183, 404 146 – 150, 154, 155, 197, 213, 214, 231,
Norton, B. 27, 72, 349, 354 – 358, 365 314 – 315, 406
Nota, A. 118 Pierce, A. 101
Novokshanova, E. 174 Piñar, P. 192
Noyau, C. 250, 253 Pine, J. M. 137, 142, 154
Pinel, P. 88
O’Brien, I. 192 Piniel, K. 392
Ochs, E. 333 – 336 Pinker, S. 45
O’Donnell, M. 12, 14, 17, 76, 140 – 141 Pliatsikas, C. 109, 157
Ogden, D. C. 17 Plomin, R. 23
O’Grady, L. 87 Plonsky, L. xiv, 3, 8, 48, 75, 76, 173, 177,
O’Grady, W. 134, 146, 150 – 154, 155, 156, 184, 210, 216, 219, 233, 404, 405
157, 169, 189, 197 Poarch, G. J. 194
Ohta, A.S. 72, 286, 295 – 297, 307 – 309, Pochon-Berger, E. 20, 343, 348
320, 340 – 342 Poehner, M.E. xiv, 286, 288, 290, 311,
O’Keefe, A. 8 315 – 316, 319
Oliver, R. 211, 213 Polinsky, M. 108, 111
Olson, D.R. 288 Polio, C. 210
O’Malley, J.M. 14, 23, 58, 183 Potts, D. 349
Onnis, L. 136 Pozzan, L. 139
Ortega, L. xiv, 5, 10, 15, 18, 39, 40, 71, 75, Preston, D. 328 – 330
140, 183, 373, 399 Prévost, P. 106
Osthus, P. 191 Price, M. C. 143
Oswald, F. L. 405 Prieto-Botana, G. 188
Oxford, R. 23 – 24 Punamäki, R.-L. 292
Özçelik, Ö. 108, 118 Pyun, D. O. 298
Özyürek, A. 266
Quirk, E. 139
Pallotti, G. 10
Palmer, D. K. 357 Rabagliati, H. 140
Paoli, S. 85 Radford, A. 96, 101
Paquot, M. 405 Rai, M. 192
Paradis, J. 88, 106 Rampton, B. 27
Paradis, M. xiv, 72, 88, 169 – 170, 180 Rankin, T. 86, 117
Park, E. S. 188 Ranta, E. 70, 217 – 219
Park, J.-H. 298 Rassaei, E. 210
 Name Index  441
Rast, R. 253 Sachs, R. 211
Rastelli, S. 76, 109 Sacks, H. 342, 346
Ravid, D. 174 Sagarra, N. 135, 147, 191, 192
Rebuschat, P. xiv, 8, 14, 76, 145, 146, Saito, K. 20, 74, 210, 216, 219, 222, 229
176, 187 Salaberry, M.R. 257, 260 – 263
Reder, S. 344, 348 Sannino, A. 291
Regan,V. 331, 333 Sanz, C. 183, 194
Rehner, K. 327, 331, 333 Sato, C. 65, 246 – 249, 278, 279
Reich, A. 245 Sato, M. xiv, 20, 27, 76, 173, 183, 210, 211,
Reinhardt, J. 334 216, 235, 407
Renaud, C. 106 Sauro, S. 349, 356
Reppen, R. 8, 16 Saville-Troike, M. 348
Reuter, M. S. 88 Scarcella, R. 53 – 54
Révész, A. 145, 194, 231 Schachter, J. 67, 114 – 115
Rice, M. 88 Schafer, A. 139
Richards, J. 47, 65 Schecter, S. R. 334
Riches, N. 146 Schegloff, E.A. 342
Ringböm, H. 18 Schepens, J. J. 19, 132
Rispoli, M. 9 Schieffelin, B. 333 – 336
Ritchie, W.C. xiv Schmid, M. S. 24, 74, 110, 118, 386
Ritter, M. 22 Schmidt, R. 68, 147, 156, 177,
Rivers, W.M. 40 186 – 187, 188
Rizzi, L. 104 Schmidt-Kassow, M. 118
Robenalt, C. 137 Schmitt, N. 7
Roberts, C. 279, 358 Schneider, S. 178
Roberts, I. 83, 90, 94, 95 Schoonen, R. xiv, 180, 404
Roberts, L. 22, 109, 157, 171, 174, 192 Schreiber, B. R. 356
Robertson, J. 54 Schreuder, R. 174
Robinson, P. xiv, 134, 144, 183, 187, 188, Schumann, J. 56 – 57, 59, 65, 327
189, 264 Schurig, M. 22
Rodman, R. 6 Schwartz, B. 70, 84 – 85, 106, 111, 112,
Roebuck, R. F. 298 113, 140
Roehr, K. 176, 177, 182, 190, 192 Schwieter, J. W. 193
Roeper, T. xiv, 7, 85, 90, 102, 382 Scott, R. 143
Roever, C. 211, 214, 215, 269, Sealey, A. 5 – 6
270 – 276 Sebba, M. 57
Rogers, J. 145, 177, 186 Segalowitz, N. 10, 180, 192
Rogers,V. 105 Sekerina, I. 173
Rogoff, B. 287, 288 Selinker, L. 10, 15, 17, 39, 48, 57, 64, 243
Rohde, H. 139 Sepehrinia, S. 210, 216, 234
Rohrer, D. 185 – 186 Serafini, E. J. 23
Romaine, S. 327, 331 Serratrice, L. 1, 85, 106, 108, 142
Römer, U. 12, 14, 17, 76, 140 Serroul, A. 25
Roncaglia-Denissen, M. P. 118 Shah, P. 189, 191
Rose, K. 7, 72, 269, 270 – 271 Shanks, D. 136
Ross, G. 289 Sharwood Smith, M. 3, 13, 14, 17, 39, 73,
Ross, J. 388 85, 128, 154, 191, 376 – 382
Ross, S. xiv, 404 Sheen,Y. 210, 222, 235 – 236
Rothman, J. 5, 84, 85, 86, 90, 94, 108, 109, Shehadeh, A. 210
111, 157, 216, 373, 399 Shi, M. 174
Rowland, C. F. 134, 137, 142 Shiffrin, R.M. 178
Russell, J. 219 Shintani, N. 144, 183, 188
Ryan, S. 22, 23, 25 Shirai,Y. 58, 131, 255, 259 – 261, 373
Ryshina-Pankova, M. 277 Shiu, L.-J. 176, 177
442  Name Index
Shively, R. L. 269, 270, 273 – 274 Tagliamonte, S.A. 328, 331
Shu, H. 174 Taguchi, N. xiv, 7, 269 – 270, 271
Siegmuller, J. 87 Tajfel 356
Silva, R. 173 Talmy, L. 9, 263, 265 – 266
Silva-Corvalán, C. 110 – 111 Talmy, S. 6, 333, 334, 342, 357
Simoens, H. 130 Tanenhaus, M. K. 139
Simonot, M. 279, 358 Tare, M. 195
Simpson-Vlach, R. 17 Tarone, E. xiv, 15, 39, 48, 69, 75, 243, 328
Sinclair, J. 16 Terrell, T. 177, 406
Singleton, D. 22 Theakston, A. 134, 142
Skehan, P. 10, 22, 23, 59, 68, 189 Thomas, M. xiv, 39, 81, 113
Skinner, B.F. 11, 13, 40, 42, 63 Thompson, S. xiv, 173, 403 – 404
Slabakova, R. xiv, 14, 58, 81, 83, 84, 86, Thordardottir, E. 147
90, 94, 108, 111, 112, 116, 399, 400 Thorndike, E. 40
Slobin, D. 43, 46, 58, 266, 268 Thorne, S. 73, 74, 286, 287, 288, 291, 292,
Smirnov, N. 349 293, 294, 298, 299, 300, 307, 310, 311,
Smith, B. 356 315, 319, 334, 356, 385
Smith, N. 13, 87, 89 Timmer, K. 193 – 194
Snape, N. 81 Todesco, A. 23
Snyder, W. 102 Tokowicz, N. 144, 174, 193
Sokolik, M. 69 Tolentino, L. 174
Solovyeva, K. 180 Tomasello, M. 13, 16, 140, 157, 293,
Song, S. 320, 402 300, 319
Sorace, A. 83, 85, 106, 108, 117, 193 Tomita,Y. 176, 183
Spada, N. 87, 176, 177, 183, 219 – 222, 226 Toohey, K. 350 – 351, 355, 357
Sparks, R. 23, 26 Towell, R. 14, 101, 104, 117, 118, 376
Speas, M. 92 Towse, J. N. 191
Speciale, G. 192 Toyoshige, T. 194
Spinner, P. xiv, 8, 130, 150, 177 Tracy-Ventura, N. 10, 210, 260
Spoelman, M. 388 – 391 Trahey, M. 97
Spolsky, B. 3 – 5, 374 Tran-Chi-Chau 47
Sprouse, R. 70, 84, 85, 106, 111, 112, 113, Travis, L. 113
118, 140 Treffers-Daller, J. 7
Stafford, C. A. 194, 231 Trentman, E. 328
Stam, G.A. 18, 267 Trofimovich, P. 131, 137, 141, 146, 212,
Starfield, S. xiv, 3 231, 403
Starosciak, K. 255 Trude, A. 193
Starren, M. 253 Truscott, J. 3, 17, 20, 73, 128 – 129, 154,
St Clair, M. 143 167, 168 – 169, 174, 183, 216, 376 – 382
Steele, J. 7 Tsai, N. 194
Stefanowitsch, A. 137 Tsimpli, I. 13, 85, 87, 111, 115
Steinman, L. 286 Tusting, K. 349
Stone, A. 289 Tyler, A. 75, 140, 263 – 265, 278, 319
Storch, N. 310, 320
Street, J. 146 Ullman, M. 14, 72, 151, 167, 169 – 171,
Stubbs, M. 6, 8 174, 181, 190
Sunderman, G. 193 Umino, T. 349, 353 – 354
Suzuki, W. 297 Unsworth, S. 86, 117
Suzuki,Y. 176, 179 – 180, 174, 186 Ushioda, E. 25, 356
Swain, M. 9, 19, 59, 67, 172, 210,
222 – 223, 233, 286, 289, 297 – 298, 305, Vafee, P. 176 – 177, 184
307, 309, 310, 311, 318, 319, 320, 349 Vahtrick, L. 388
Sweetser, E. 264 Vainikka, A. 70, 84, 106, 114
Sykes, J. M. 74, 270, 334 van Bergen, G. 139
 Name Index  443
van Compernolle, R. A. 269, 286, Wells, G. 287, 288, 300, 307
309 – 310, 312 – 313, 318, 331 Wen, Z. xiv, 191, 194, 195
van den Bos, E. 136 Wenger, E. 348 – 349
VanDen Noort, M. 191 Wertsch, J. 287
Vandergriff, I. 349 Westergaard, M. 143
van der Lely, H. 88 White, J. 131
van der Slik, F. 19, 132 White, L. 58, 68, 70, 74, 81, 83, 84, 85,
van Dijk, M. 386, 388 87, 90, 93, 97, 105, 106, 108, 112, 113,
Vanek, N. 18, 269 114, 115
VanGaya, E. 355 Whong, M. 81, 382 – 384
Van Geert, P. 128, 386 Williams, G. 333
van Gelderen, A. 180 Williams, J. 3, 6, 15, 39, 183
Van Hoek, K. 87 Williams, J.N. 14, 136, 144 – 145, 146, 175,
van Hout, R. 19, 118, 132, 174 187, 188, 190, 191, 192
Van Lier, L. 27 Williams, L. 309 – 310
VanPatten, B. 3, 5, 6, 15, 27, 39, 69, 147, Williams, M. 22, 25 – 26
172 – 173, 188, 216, 227, 279, 373, Williams, P. J. 292
382, 406 Willis, C. 191
van Schijndel, M. 138 Wilson, N. 326 – 327
Vargha-Khadem, F. 88 Winke, P. 231
Varonis, E.M. 59, 209 Winsler, A. 292
Vasseur, M.-T. 279, 358 Wixted, J. T. 185
Vatz, K. 195 Wolfe-Quintero, K. 391
Vedder, I. 10, 388 Wolff, D. 231
Vega-Mendoza, M. 193 Woll, B. 87
Vendler, Z. 259 Wong, P. C. M. 136, 171
Verspoor, M.H. 128, 264, 385, 386, Wood, D. 289
388 – 391 Wray, A. 16
Vickers, C.H. 351 Wulff, S. 14, 17
Villoria, N. 301
Virkkunen, J. 291 Yalçın, Ş. 177
Viswanathan, M. 193 Yamashita,Y. 153
Vitanova, xiv, 27, 76 Yang, C. 13, 90, 373
Vogels, J. 138 Yang,Y. 217
Volterra,V. 266 Yanguas, I. 210
Vul, E. 185 Yashima, T. 26
Vygotsky, L.S. 59, 69, 286 – 293, 307, Year, J. 141
310, 315 Yilmaz,Y. 167
Young, R. 59, 209, 327
Wagner, J. xiv, 5, 70, 342 – 343, 348 Young-Scholten, M. xiv, 70, 84, 106, 114
Walter, C. 191, 192 Yu, S. 298
Wa-Mbaleka, S. 210 Yuan, B. 105, 108
Wang, R. 355
Wang, X. 174 Zappa-Hollman, S. 351 – 353, 355
Wardhaugh, R. 326 Zarcone, A. 138
Watorek, M. 253, 255 Zhang, X. 314 – 315, 318, 320
Watson, J. 40 Zhao, J. 174
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. 337 Zhu, W. 298
Wayland, R. P. 298 Zhu,Y. 114
Webb, S. 7, 8 Ziegler, N. 210, 211, 229, 405
Weber, A. 312 Zinchenko,V.P. 292
Weighall, A. 185 Zobl, H. 104
Weismer, S. E. 147 Zubizarreta, M. L. 113
Weiss, D. J. 192 Zuengler, J. 5, 373