Second Language Acquisition

Second-language acquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 of 15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-language_acquisition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second-language acquisition, second-language learning, or L2 acquisition, is the process by

which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition (often abbreviated to SLA) is
also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language
acquisition is a subdiscipline of applied linguistics, but also receives research attention from a variety
of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.
A central theme in SLA research is that of interlanguage, the idea that the language that learners
use is not simply the result of differences between the languages that they already know and the
language that they are learning, but that it is a complete language system in its own right, with its
own systematic rules. This interlanguage gradually develops as learners are exposed to the target
language. The order in which learners acquire features of their new language stays remarkably
constant, even for learners with different native languages, and regardless of whether they have had
language instruction. However, languages that learners already know can have a significant
influence on the process of learning a new one. This influence is known as language transfer.
The primary factor driving second-language acquisition appears to be the language input that
learners receive. Learners become more advanced the longer they are immersed in the language
they are learning, and the more time they spend doing free, voluntary reading. The Monitor Model
goes as far as to state that input is all that is required for acquisition. However, subsequent work
such as the interaction hypothesis and the comprehensible output hypothesis has suggested that
opportunities for output and for interaction may also be necessary for learners to reach more
advanced levels.
Research on how exactly learners acquire a new language spans a number of different areas.
Cognitive approaches to SLA research deal with the processes in the brain that underpin language
acquisition, for example how paying attention to language affects the ability to learn it, or how
language acquisition is related to short-term and long-term memory. Sociocultural approaches reject
the notion that second-language acquisition is a purely psychological phenomenon, and attempt to
explain it in its social context. Linguistic approaches consider language separately from other kinds
of knowledge, and attempt to use findings from the wider study of linguistics to explain secondlanguage acquisition. There is also a considerable body of research about how second-language
acquisition can be affected by individual factors such as age and learning strategies. Finally,
classroom research deals with the effect that language instruction has on acquisition.
1 Definitions
2 Research background
3 Stages
4 Comparisons with first-language acquisition
5 Learner language
5.1 Interlanguage
5.2 Sequences of acquisition
5.3 Variability
2015/10/04 03:04 .
2 of 15
6 Language transfer
7 Input and interaction
8 Cognitive factors
9 Sociocultural factors
9.1 Sociocultural approaches
10 Linguistic factors
11 Individual variation
11.1 Age
11.2 Strategies
11.3 Affective factors
12 Classroom second-language acquisition
13 See also
14 Notes
15 References
16 Bibliography
Second language refers to any language learned in addition to a person's first language; although
the concept is named second-language acquisition, it can also incorporate the learning of third,
fourth, or subsequent languages.[1] Second-language acquisition refers to what learners do; it does
not refer to practices in language teaching, although teaching can affect acquisition. The term
acquisition was originally used to emphasize the non-conscious nature of the learning process,[note 1]
but in recent years learning and acquisition have become largely synonymous.
Second-language acquisition can incorporate heritage language learning,[2] but it does not usually
incorporate bilingualism. Most SLA researchers see bilingualism as being the end result of learning a
language, not the process itself, and see the term as referring to native-like fluency. Writers in fields
such as education and psychology, however, often use bilingualism loosely to refer to all forms of
multilingualism.[3] Second-language acquisition is also not to be contrasted with the acquisition of a
foreign language; rather, the learning of second languages and the learning of foreign languages
involve the same fundamental processes in different situations.[4]
The academic discipline of second-language acquisition is a subdiscipline of applied linguistics. It is

broad-based and relatively new. As well as the various branches of linguistics, second-language
acquisition is also closely related to psychology, cognitive psychology, and education. To separate
the academic discipline from the learning process itself, the terms second-language acquisition
research, second-language studies, and second-language acquisition studies are also used.
SLA research began as an interdisciplinary field, and because of this it is difficult to identify a precise
starting date.[5] However, two papers in particular are seen as instrumental to the development of the
modern study of SLA: Pit Corder's 1967 essay The Significance of Learners' Errors, and Larry
Selinker's 1972 article Interlanguage.[6] The field saw a great deal of development in the following
decades.[5] Since the 1980s, second-language acquisition has been studied from a variety of
2015/10/04 03:04 .
3 of 15
disciplinary perspectives, and theoretical perspectives. Significant approaches in the field today are:
systemic functional linguistics, sociocultural theory, cognitive linguistics, Noam Chomsky's universal
grammar, skill acquisition theory and connectionism.[6]
There has been much debate about exactly how language is learned, and many issues are still
unresolved. There are many theories of second-language acquisition, but none are accepted as a
complete explanation by all SLA researchers. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field of
second-language acquisition, this is not expected to happen in the foreseeable future.
Haynes divided the process of second-language acquisition into five stages: preproduction, early
production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency.[7] The first stage,
preproduction, is also known as the silent period. Learners at this stage have a receptive vocabulary
of up to 500 words, but they do not yet speak their second language.[7] Not all learners go through a
silent period. Some learners start speaking straight away, although their output may consist of
imitation rather than creative language use. Others may be required to speak from the start as part
of a language course. For learners that do go through a silent period, it may last around three to six
months.[8]
The second of Hayne's stages of acquisition is early production, during which learners are able to
speak in short phrases of one or two words. They can also memorize chunks of language, although
they may make mistakes when using them. Learners typically have both an active and receptive
vocabulary of around 1000 words. This stage normally lasts for around six months.[7]
The third stage is speech emergence. Learners' vocabularies increase to around 3000 words during
this stage, and they can communicate using simple questions and phrases. They may often make
grammatical errors. The stage after speech emergence is intermediate fluency. At this stage,
learners have a vocabulary of around 6000 words, and can use more complicated sentence
structures. They are also able to share their thoughts and opinions. Learners may make frequent
errors with more complicated sentence structures. The final stage is advanced fluency, which is
typically reached somewhere between five and ten years of learning the language. Learners at this
stage can function at a level close to native speakers.[7]
The time taken to reach a high level of proficiency can vary depending on the language learned. In
the case of native English speakers, some estimates were provided by the Foreign Service Institute
(FSI) of the U.S. Department of State, which compiled approximate learning expectations for a
number of languages for their professional staff (native English speakers who generally already
know other languages). Of the 63 languages analyzed, the five most difficult languages to reach
proficiency in speaking and reading, requiring 88 weeks (2200 class hours), are Arabic, Cantonese,
Mandarin, Japanese, and Korean. The Foreign Service Institute and the National Virtual Translation
Center both note that Japanese is typically more difficult to learn than other languages in this group.
[9][10]
Adults who learn a second language differ from children learning their first language in at least three
ways: children are still developing their brains whereas adults have conscious minds, and adults
2015/10/04 03:04 .
4 of 15
have at least a first language that orients their thinking and speaking. Although some adult secondlanguage learners reach very high levels of proficiency, pronunciation tends to be non-native. When
a second language learner's speech plateaus, it is known as fossilization.
Some errors that second-language learners make in their speech originate in their first language. For
example, Spanish speakers learning English may say "Is raining" rather than "It is raining", leaving
out the subject of the sentence. French speakers learning English, however, do not usually make
the same mistake. This is because pronominal and impersonal sentence subjects can be omitted (or
as in this case, are not used in the first place) in Spanish but not in French.[11] This kind of influence
of the first language on the second is known as negative language transfer.
Also, when people learn a second language, the way they speak their first language changes in
subtle ways. These changes can be with any aspect of language, from pronunciation and syntax to
gestures the learner makes and the things they tend to notice.[12] For example, French speakers
who spoke English as a second language pronounced the /t/ sound in French differently from
monolingual French speakers.[13] This kind of change in pronunciation has been found even at the
onset of second-language acquisition; for example, English speakers pronounced the English /p t k/
sounds, as well as English vowels, differently after they began to learn Korean.[14] These effects of
the second language on the first led Vivian Cook to propose the idea of multi-competence, which
sees the different languages a person speaks not as separate systems, but as related systems in
their mind.[15]
Learner language is the written or spoken language produced by a learner. It is also the main type of
data used in second-language acquisition research.[16] Much research in second-language
acquisition is concerned with the internal representations of a language in the mind of the learner,
and in how those representations change over time. It is not yet possible to inspect these
representations directly with brain scans or similar techniques, so SLA researchers are forced to
make inferences about these rules from learners' speech or writing.[17]
Interlanguage
Main article: Interlanguage
Originally, attempts to describe learner language were based on comparing different languages and
on analyzing learners' errors. However, these approaches weren't able to predict all the errors that
learners made when in the process of learning a second language. For example, Serbo-Croat
speakers learning English may say "What does Pat doing now?", although this is not a valid
sentence in either language.[18]
To explain this kind of systematic error, the idea of the interlanguage was developed.[19] An
interlanguage is an emerging language system in the mind of a second-language learner. A
learner's interlanguage is not a deficient version of the language being learned filled with random
errors, nor is it a language purely based on errors introduced from the learner's first language.
Rather, it is a language in its own right, with its own systematic rules.[20] It is possible to view most
aspects of language from an interlanguage perspective, including grammar, phonology, lexicon, and
pragmatics.
2015/10/04 03:04 .
5 of 15
There are three different processes that influence the creation of interlanguages:[18]
Language transfer. Learners fall back on their mother tongue to help create their language
system. Transfer can be positive, i.e. promote learning, or negative, i.e. lead to mistakes. In the
latter case, linguists also use the term interference error.
Overgeneralization. Learners use rules from the second language in roughly the same way that
children overgeneralise in their first language. For example, a learner may say "I goed home",
overgeneralizing the English rule of adding -ed to create past tense verb forms. English
children also produce forms like goed, sticked, bringed. German children equally overextend
regular past tense forms to irregular forms.
Simplification. Learners use a highly simplified form of language, similar to speech by children
or in pidgins. This may be related to linguistic universals.
The concept of interlanguage has become very widespread in SLA research, and is often a basic
assumption made by researchers.[20]
Sequences of acquisition
Main article: Order of acquisition
In the 1970s several studies investigated the order in which
learners acquired different grammatical structures.[note 2] These
studies showed that there was little change in this order among
learners with different first languages. Furthermore, it showed
that the order was the same for adults and children, and that it
did not even change if the learner had language lessons. This
supported the idea that there were factors other than language
transfer involved in learning second languages, and was a strong
confirmation of the concept of interlanguage.
However, the studies did not find that the orders were exactly the
same. Although there were remarkable similarities in the order in
which all learners learned second-language grammar, there were
still some differences among individuals and among learners with
different first languages. It is also difficult to tell when exactly a
grammatical structure has been learned, as learners may use
structures correctly in some situations but not in others. Thus it is
more accurate to speak of sequences of acquisition, in which
specific grammatical features in a language are acquired before
or after certain others but the overall order of acquisition is less
rigid. For example, if neither feature B nor feature D can be
acquired until feature A has been acquired and if feature C
cannot be acquired until feature B has been acquired but if the
acquisition of feature D does not require the possession of feature
B (or, therefore, of feature C), then both acquisition order (A, B, C,
D) and acquisition order (A, D, B, C) are possible.
1. Plural -s
Progressive
2.
-ing
Girls go.
Girls
going.
Copula forms of Girls are

be
here.
Auxiliary forms Girls are
4.
of be
going.
Definite and
indefinite
The girls
5.
articles the and go.
a
3.
Irregular past
tense
The girls
went.
7. Third person -s
The girl
goes.
8. Possessive 's
The girl's
book.
6.
A typical order of acquisition for

English, according to Vivian Cook's
2008 book Second Language
Learning and Language
Teaching.[21]
Variability
Although second-language acquisition proceeds in discrete sequences, it does not progress from
2015/10/04 03:04 .
6 of 15
one step of a sequence to the next in an orderly fashion. There can be considerable variability in
features of learners' interlanguage while progressing from one stage to the next.[22] For example, in
one study by Rod Ellis a learner used both "No look my card" and "Don't look my card" while playing
a game of bingo.[23] A small fraction of variation in interlanguage is free variation, when the learner
uses two forms interchangeably. However, most variation is systemic variation, variation which
depends on the context of utterances the learner makes.[22] Forms can vary depending on linguistic
context, such as whether the subject of a sentence is a pronoun or a noun; they can vary depending
on social context, such as using formal expressions with superiors and informal expressions with
friends; and also, they can vary depending on psycholinguistic context, or in other words, on
whether learners have the chance to plan what they are going to say.[22] The causes of variability are
a matter of great debate among SLA researchers.[23]
Main article: Language transfer

One important difference between first-language acquisition and second-language acquisition is that
the process of second-language acquisition is influenced by languages that the learner already
knows. This influence is known as language transfer.[note 3] Language transfer is a complex
phenomenon resulting from interaction between learners prior linguistic knowledge, the targetlanguage input they encounter, and their cognitive processes.[24] Language transfer is not always
from the learners native language; it can also be from a second language, or a third.[24] Neither is it
limited to any particular domain of language; language transfer can occur in grammar,
pronunciation, vocabulary, discourse, and reading.[25]
One situation in which language transfer often occurs is when learners sense a similarity between a
feature of a language that they already know and a corresponding feature of the interlanguage they
have developed. If this happens, the acquisition of more complicated language forms may be
delayed in favor of simpler language forms that resemble those of the language the learner is
familiar with.[24] Learners may also decline to use some language forms at all if they are perceived
as being too distant from their first language.[24]
Language transfer has been the subject of several studies, and many aspects of it remain
unexplained.[24] Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain language transfer, but there is
no single widely accepted explanation of why it occurs.[26]
The primary factor affecting language acquisition appears to be the input that the learner receives.
Stephen Krashen took a very strong position on the importance of input, asserting that
comprehensible input is all that is necessary for second-language acquisition.[27][28] Krashen
pointed to studies showing that the length of time a person stays in a foreign country is closely
linked with his level of language acquisition. Further evidence for input comes from studies on
reading: large amounts of free voluntary reading have a significant positive effect on learners'
vocabulary, grammar, and writing.[29][30] Input is also the mechanism by which people learn
languages according to the universal grammar model.[31]
2015/10/04 03:04 .
7 of 15
The type of input may also be important. One tenet of Krashen's theory is that input should not be
grammatically sequenced. He claims that such sequencing, as found in language classrooms where
lessons involve practicing a "structure of the day", is not necessary, and may even be harmful.[32]
While input is of vital importance, Krashen's assertion that only input matters in second-language
acquisition has been contradicted by more recent research. For example, students enrolled in
French-language immersion programs in Canada still produced non-native-like grammar when they
spoke, even though they had years of meaning-focused lessons and their listening skills were
statistically native-level.[33] Output appears to play an important role, and among other things, can
help provide learners with feedback, make them concentrate on the form of what they are saying,
and help them to automatize their language knowledge.[34] These processes have been codified in
the theory of comprehensible output.[35]
Researchers have also pointed to interaction in the second language as being important for
acquisition. According to Long's interaction hypothesis the conditions for acquisition are especially
good when interacting in the second language; specifically, conditions are good when a breakdown
in communication occurs and learners must negotiate for meaning. The modifications to speech
arising from interactions like this help make input more comprehensible, provide feedback to the
learner, and push learners to modify their speech.[36]
Much modern research in second-language acquisition has taken a cognitive approach.[37] Cognitive
research is concerned with the mental processes involved in language acquisition, and how they can
explain the nature of learners' language knowledge. This area of research is based in the more
general area of cognitive science, and uses many concepts and models used in more general
cognitive theories of learning. As such, cognitive theories view second-language acquisition as a
special case of more general learning mechanisms in the brain. This puts them in direct contrast
with linguistic theories, which posit that language acquisition uses a unique process different from
other types of learning.[38][39]
The dominant model in cognitive approaches to second-language acquisition, and indeed in all
second-language acquisition research, is the computational model.[39] The computational model
involves three stages. In the first stage, learners retain certain features of the language input in
short-term memory. (This retained input is known as intake.) Then, learners convert some of this
intake into second-language knowledge, which is stored in long-term memory. Finally, learners use
this second-language knowledge to produce spoken output.[40] Cognitive theories attempt to codify
both the nature of the mental representations of intake and language knowledge, and the mental
processes which underlie these stages.
In the early days of second-language acquisition research on interlanguage was seen as the basic
representation of second-language knowledge; however, more recent research has taken a number
of different approaches in characterizing the mental representation of language knowledge.[41] There
are theories that hypothesize that learner language is inherently variable,[42] and there is the
functionalist perspective that sees acquisition of language as intimately tied to the function it
provides.[43] Some researchers make the distinction between implicit and explicit language
knowledge, and some between declarative and procedural language knowledge.[44] There have also
2015/10/04 03:04 .
8 of 15
been approaches that argue for a dual-mode system in which some language knowledge is stored
as rules, and other language knowledge as items.[45]
The mental processes that underlie second-language acquisition can be broken down into microprocesses and macro-processes. Micro-processes include attention;[46] working memory;[47]
integration and restructuring. Restructuring is the process by which learners change their
interlanguage systems;[48] and monitoring is the conscious attending of learners to their own
language output.[49] Macro-processes include the distinction between intentional learning and
incidental learning; and also the distinction between explicit and implicit learning.[50] Some of the
notable cognitive theories of second-language acquisition include the nativization model, the
multidimensional model and processability theory, emergentist models, the competition model, and
skill-acquisition theories.[51]
Other cognitive approaches have looked at learners' speech production, particularly learners' speech
planning and communication strategies. Speech planning can have an effect on learners' spoken
output, and research in this area has focused on how planning affects three aspects of speech:
complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Of these three, planning effects on fluency has had the most
research attention.[52] Communication strategies are conscious strategies that learners employ to get
around any instances of communication breakdown they may experience. Their effect on secondlanguage acquisition is unclear, with some researchers claiming they help it, and others claiming the
opposite.[53]
From the early days of the discipline researchers have also acknowledged that social aspects play
an important role.[54] There have been many different approaches to sociolinguistic study of secondlanguage acquisition, and indeed, according to Rod Ellis, this plurality has meant that
"sociolinguistic SLA is replete with a bewildering set of terms referring to the social aspects of L2
acquisition".[55] Common to each of these approaches, however, is a rejection of language as a
purely psychological phenomenon; instead, sociolinguistic research views the social context in which
language is learned as essential for a proper understanding of the acquisition process.[56]
Ellis identifies three types of social structure which can affect the acquisition of second languages:
sociolinguistic setting, specific social factors, and situational factors.[57] Socialinguistic setting refers
to the role of the second language in society, such as whether it is spoken by a majority or a minority
of the population, whether its use is widespread or restricted to a few functional roles, or whether the
society is predominantly bilingual or monolingual.[58] Ellis also includes the distinction of whether the
second language is learned in a natural or an educational setting.[59] Specific social factors that can
affect second-language acquisition include age, gender, social class, and ethnic identity, with ethnic
identity being the one that has received most research attention.[60] Situational factors are those
which vary between each social interaction. For example, a learner may use more polite language
when talking to someone of higher social status, but more informal language when talking with
friends.[61]
There have been several models developed to explain social effects on language acquisition.
Schumann's Acculturation Model proposes that learners' rate of development and ultimate level of
language achievement is a function of the "social distance" and the "psychological distance"
2015/10/04 03:04 .
9 of 15
between learners and the second-language community. In Schumann's model the social factors are
most important, but the degree to which learners are comfortable with learning the second language
also plays a role.[62] Another sociolinguistic model is Gardner's socio-educational model, which was
designed to explain classroom language acquisition.[63] The inter-group model proposes
"ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key construct for second-language acquisition.[64] Language
socialization is an approach with the premise that "linguistic and cultural knowledge are constructed
through each other",[65] and saw increased attention after the year 2000.[66] Finally, Norton's theory
of social identity is an attempt to codify the relationship between power, identity, and language
acquisition.[67]
Sociocultural approaches
A unique approach to SLA is Sociocultural theory. It was originally developed by Lev Vygotsky and
his followers.[68] Sociocultural theory has a fundamentally different set of assumptions to
approaches to second-language acquisition based on the computational model.[69] Furthermore,
although it is closely affiliated with other social approaches, it is a theory of mind and not of general
social explanations of language acquisition. According to Ellis, "It is important to recognize... that this
paradigm, despite the label 'sociocultural' does not seek to explain how learners acquire the cultural
values of the L2 but rather how knowledge of an L2 is internalized through experiences of a
sociocultural nature."[69]
Linguistic approaches to explaining second-language acquisition spring from the wider study of
linguistics. They differ from cognitive approaches and sociocultural approaches in that they consider
language knowledge to be unique and distinct from any other type of knowledge.[38][39] The
linguistic research tradition in second-language acquisition has developed in relative isolation from
the cognitive and sociocultural research traditions, and as of 2010 the influence from the wider field
of linguistics was still strong.[37] Two main strands of research can be identified in the linguistic
tradition: approaches informed by universal grammar, and typological approaches.[70]
Typological universals are principles that hold for all the world's languages. They are found
empirically, by surveying different languages and deducing which aspects of them could be
universal; these aspects are then checked against other languages to verify the findings. The
interlanguages of second-language learners have been shown to obey typological universals, and
some researchers have suggested that typological universals may constrain interlanguage
development.[71]
The theory of universal grammar was proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s, and has enjoyed
considerable popularity in the field of linguistics. It focuses on describing the linguistic competence
of an individual, as opposed to mechanisms of learning. It consists of a set of principles, which are
universal and constant, and a set of parameters, which can be set differently for different
languages.[72] The "universals" in universal grammar differ from typological universals in that they
are a mental construct derived by researchers, whereas typological universals are readily verifiable
by data from world languages.[71] It is widely accepted among researchers in the universal grammar
framework that all first-language learners have access to universal grammar; this is not the case for
second-language learners, however, and much research in the context of second-language
2015/10/04 03:04 .
10 of 15
acquisition has focused on what level of access learners may have.[72]
Main article: Individual variation in second-language acquisition

There is considerable variation in the rate at which people learn second languages, and in the
language level that they ultimately reach. Some learners learn quickly and reach a near-native level
of competence, but others learn slowly and get stuck at relatively early stages of acquisition, despite
living in the country where the language is spoken for several years. The reason for this disparity
was first addressed with the study of language learning aptitude in the 1950s, and later with the
good language learner studies in the 1970s. More recently research has focused on a number of
different factors that affect individuals' language learning, in particular strategy use, social and
societal influences, personality, motivation, and anxiety. The relationship between age and the ability
to learn languages has also been a subject of long-standing debate.
Age
The issue of age was first addressed with the critical period hypothesis.[note 4] The strict version of
this hypothesis states that there is a cut-off age at about 12, after which learners lose the ability to
fully learn a language. This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition,
as adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general
fluency. However, in general, adult learners of a second-language rarely achieve the native-like
fluency that children display, despite often progressing faster in the initial stages. This has led to
speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect language learning.
Strategies
There has been considerable attention paid to the strategies which learners use when learning a
second language. Strategies have been found to be of critical importance, so much so that strategic
competence has been suggested as a major component of communicative competence.[73]
Strategies are commonly divided into learning strategies and communicative strategies, although
there are other ways of categorizing them. Learning strategies are techniques used to improve
learning, such as mnemonics or using a dictionary. Communicative strategies are strategies a
learner uses to convey meaning even when she doesn't have access to the correct form, such as
using pro-forms like thing, or using non-verbal means such as gestures.
Affective factors
The learner's attitude to the learning process has also been identified as being critically important to
second-language acquisition. Anxiety in language-learning situations has been almost unanimously
shown to be detrimental to successful learning. A related factor, personality, has also received
attention. There has been discussion about the effects of extravert and introvert personalities.
However, one study has found that there were no significant differences between extraverts and
introverts on the way they achieve success in a second language.[74]
Social attitudes such as gender roles and community views toward language learning have also
proven critical. Language learning can be severely hampered by cultural attitudes, with a frequently
2015/10/04 03:04 .
11 of 15
cited example being the difficulty of Navajo children in learning English. Also, the motivation of the
individual learner is of vital importance to the success of language learning. Studies have
consistently shown that intrinsic motivation, or a genuine interest in the language itself, is more
effective over the long term than extrinsic motivation, as in learning a language for a reward such as
high grades or praise.
Main article: Second-language acquisition classroom research

While considerable SLA research has been devoted to language learning in a natural setting, there
have also been efforts made to investigate second-language acquisition in the classroom. This kind
of research has a significant overlap with language education, and it is mainly concerned with the
effect that instruction has on the learner. It also explores what teachers do, the classroom context,
the dynamics of classroom communication. It is both qualitative and quantitative research.
The research has been wide-ranging. There have been attempts made to systematically measure
the effectiveness of language teaching practices for every level of language, from phonetics to
pragmatics, and for almost every current teaching methodology. This research has indicated that
many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient.[75] cited in Ellis 1994 It is
generally agreed that pedagogy restricted to teaching grammar rules and vocabulary lists does not
give students the ability to use the L2 with accuracy and fluency. Rather, to become proficient in the
second language, the learner must be given opportunities to use it for communicative purposes.
[76][77]
Another area of research has been on the effects of corrective feedback in assisting learners.This
has been shown to vary depending on the technique used to make the correction, and the overall
focus of the classroom, whether on formal accuracy or on communication of meaningful content.
[78][79][80] There is also considerable interest in supplementing published research with approaches
that engage language teachers in action research on learner language in their own classrooms.[81]
As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced by their students, they can
refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize interlanguage development.[82]
Main article: Outline of second-language acquisition

Bilingualism (neurology)
International auxiliary language
Language learning aptitude
Language acquisition
Language complexity
List of common misconceptions about language learning
List of language acquisition researchers
Native-language identification
Psycholinguistics
Second-language attrition
Sociolinguistics
2015/10/04 03:04 .
12 of 15
1. Krashen (1982) made a sharp distinction between learning and acquisition, using learning to refer to the
conscious aspects of the language learning process and acquisition to refer to the subconscious aspects.
This strict separation of learning and acquisition is widely regarded as an oversimplification by researchers
today, but his hypotheses were very influential and the name has stuck.
2. These studies were based on work by Brown (1973) on child first-language acquisition. The first such
studies on child second-language acquisition were carried out by Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974a, 1974b,
1975). Bailey, Madden & Krashen (1974) investigated the order of acquisition among adult secondlanguage learners. See Krashen (1977) for a review of these studies.
3. The term language transfer is not without controversy, however. Sharwood Smith and Kellerman preferred
the term crosslinguistic influence to language transfer. They argued that cross-linguistic influence was
neutral regarding different theories of language acquisition, whereas language transfer was not. Sharwood
Smith & Kellerman 1986, cited in Ellis 2008, p. 350.
4. The critical period hypothesis was formulated for first-language acquisition by Penfield & Roberts (1959)
and popularized by Lenneberg (1967).
1. Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 7.

2. Gass & Selinker 2008,
pp. 2124.
pp. 2425.
4. Ellis 1997, p. 3.
6. VanPatten & Benati 2010,
pp. 25.
7. Haynes 2007, pp. 2935.
8. Ellis 2008, pp. 7375.
9. "Language Learning Difficulty
for English Speakers".
Zidbits. Retrieved 10 June
2012.
10. "What's the Hardest
Language to Learn?". Live
Science. Livescience.
Retrieved 10 June 2010.
11. Cook 2008, p. 13.
12. Cook 2008, p. 232.
13. Flege 1987.
14. Chang 2012.
15. Cook 2008, p. 15.
16. Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 4.
17. Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 6.
18. Mason, Timothy. "Didactics

7 : Critique of Krashen III.
Natural Order Hypothesis
(2) :Interlanguage". Lecture in
the didactics of English,
Universit of Versailles St.
Quentin, a course run from
1993 to 2002. Retrieved
2011-02-10.
19. Selinker 1972.
21. Cook 2008, pp. 2627.
22. Ellis 1997, pp. 2529.
p. 166.
24. Lightbown & Spada 2006,
pp. 9396.
25. Ellis 2008, p. 350.
26. Ellis 2008, p. 397.
27. Krashen 1981a.
28. Krashen 1994.
29. Elley 1991.
30. Krashen 2004.
31. Cook 2008, p. 215.
32. Krashen 1981b, pp. 5455.
33. Swain 1991.
34. Skehan 1998.
35. Swain 1995.
36. Long 1996.
p. 5.
p. 71.
39. Ellis 2008, pp. 405406.
40. Ellis 1997, p. 35.

41. Ellis 2008, pp. 408410.
42. Ellis 2008, pp. 410415.
43. Ellis 2008, pp. 415417.
pp. 242243.
45. Ellis 2008, pp. 431433.
pp. 248249.
pp. 250253.
48. Ellis 2008, pp. 443445.
pp. 253255.
50. Ellis 2008, pp. 445452.
51. Ellis 2008, pp. 445482.
52. Ellis 2008, pp. 488492.
53. Ellis 2008, p. 511.
54. Ellis 1997, p. 37.
55. Ellis 2008, pp. 280281.
pp. 280281.
57. Ellis 2008, p. 281.
58. Siegel 2003, p. 178.
59. Ellis 2008, p. 288.
60. Ellis 2008, p. 323.
pp. 268269.
62. Ellis 2008, pp. 326327.
63. Ellis 2008, p. 330.
64. Ellis 2008, p. 332.
65. Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen
2003, p. 157.
66. Ellis 2008, p. 334.
2015/10/04 03:04 .
13 of 15
67. Ellis 2008, p. 336.

pp. 151152.
69. Ellis 2008, pp. 517518.
70. Ellis 2008, p. 557.
p. 161.
pp. 162163.
73. Canale & Swain 1980.

74. Erton, I. (2010). Relations
between personality traits,
language learning styles and
success in foreign language
achievement. Hacettepe
University Journal of
Education, 38, 155126.
75. Lightbown 1990.

76. Doughty & Williams 1998.
77. Ellis 2002.
78. Lightbown & Spada 1990.
79. Lyster & Ranta 1997.
80. Lyster & Mori 2006.
81. Allwright & Hanks 2009.
82. Tarone & Swierzbin 2009.
Allwright, Dick; Hanks, Judith (2009). The Developing Language Learning: An Introduction to Exploratory
Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-8531-6.
Anderson, J. R. (1992). "Automaticity and the ACT* theory". American Journal of Psychology 105 (2):
165180. doi:10.2307/1423026. JSTOR 1423026. PMID 1621879.
Bailey, N.; Madden, C.; Krashen, S. D. (1974). "Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language
learning?". Language Learning 24 (2): 235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00505.x.
Bates, E.; MacWhinney, B. (1981). "Second-Language Acquisition from a Functionalist Perspective:
Pragmatic, Semantic, and Perceptual Strategies". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379: 190.
Bibcode:1981NYASA.379..190B. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42009.x.
Brown, Roger (1973). A First Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-30325-6.
Canale, M.; Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing". Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 147. doi:10.1093/applin/1.1.1.
Chang, Charles B. (2012). "Rapid and multifaceted effects of second-language learning on first-language
speech production". Journal of Phonetics 40 (2): 249268. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.007.
Cook, Vivian (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold.
ISBN 978-0-340-95876-6.
DeKeyser, Robert (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing
second language grammar". In Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica. Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 4263.
ISBN 978-0-521-62390-2.
Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica, eds. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-62390-2.
Dulay, H. C.; Burt, M. K. (1973). "Should we teach children syntax?". Language Learning 23 (2): 245.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x.
Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974). "Natural sequences in child second language acquisition". Language
Learning 24: 3753. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x.
Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974). "You can't learn without goofing". In Richards, Jack. Error Analysis. New
York: Longman. pp. 95123. ISBN 978-0-582-55044-5.
Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1975). "Creative construction in second language learning and teaching". In
Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina. On TESOL '75: New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching, and
Bilingual Education: Selected Papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles, California,
March 49, 1975. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp. 2132.
OCLC 1980255.
Elley, W. B. (1991). "Acquiring Literacy in a Second Language: the Effect of Book-Based Programs".
Language Learning 41 (3): 375411. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00611.x.
Ellis, N. C. (1998). "Emergentism, Connectionism and Language Learning" (PDF). Language Learning 48
(4): 631664. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00063. Retrieved 2011-03-01.
Ellis, Rod (1993). "Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus". TESOL Quarterly 27 (1):
91113. doi:10.2307/3586953. JSTOR 3586953.
Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-437189-1.
2015/10/04 03:04 .
14 of 15
Ellis, Rod (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford, New
York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-437212-1.
Ellis, Rod (2002). "Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?". Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 223236. doi:10.1017/s0272263102002073.
Ellis, Rod; Barkhuizen, Patrick (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-431634-7.
Ellis, Rod (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-442257-4.
Flege, James Emil (1987). "The production of "new" and "similar" phones in a foreign language: evidence
for the effect of equivalence classification" (PDF). Journal of Phonetics 15: 4765. Retrieved 2011-02-09.
Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York,
NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8.
Harley, B. (1989). "Functional Grammar in French Immersion: A Classroom Experiment". Applied
Linguistics 10 (3): 331360. doi:10.1093/applin/10.3.331.
Haynes, Judie (2007). Getting Started With English Language Learners: How Educators Can Meet the
Challenge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
ISBN 978-1-4166-0519-5.
Krashen, Stephen (1977). "Some issues relating to the monitor model". In Brown, H; Yorio, Carlos;
Crymes, Ruth. Teaching and learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice:
On TESOL '77: Selected Papers from the Eleventh Annual Convention of Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Miami, Florida, April 26 May 1, 1977. Washington, DC: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp. 144158. OCLC 4037133.
Krashen, Stephen (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York:
Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-025338-5. Retrieved 2011-02-28.
Krashen, Stephen (1981). "The "fundamental pedagogical principle" in second language teaching" (PDF).
Studia Linguistica 35: 5070. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.1981.tb00701.x. Retrieved 2011-03-24.
Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
ISBN 0-08-028628-3. Retrieved 2010-11-25.
Krashen, Stephen (1994). "The input hypothesis and its rivals". In Ellis, Nick. Implicit and Explicit Learning
of Languages. London: Academic Press. pp. 4577. ISBN 978-0-12-237475-3.
Krashen, Stephen (2004). The Power of Reading, Second Edition. Littleton: Libraries Unlimited.
ISBN 978-1-59158-169-7.
Lenneberg, Eric (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. ISBN 0-89874-700-7.
Lightbown, Patsy (1990). "Chapter 6: Process-product research on second language learning in
classrooms". In Harley, Birgit. The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 8292. ISBN 978-0-521-38410-0.
Lightbown, Patsy; Spada, Nina (1990). "Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative
Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12
(4): 42948. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009517.
Lightbown, Patsy M.; Spada, Nina (2006). How Languages Are Learned (3rd ed.). Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442224-6.
Long, M. (1996). "The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition". In Ritchie, William;
Bhatia, Tej. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 413468.
ISBN 978-0-12-589042-7.
Lyster, R.; Ranta, L. (1997). "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 3766.
doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034.
Lyster, R.; Mori, H. (2006). "Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance". Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 28: 269300. doi:10.1017/s0272263106060128.
MacWhinney, Brian (1987). "Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism" (PDF). Applied
Psycholinguistics 8 (4): 315327. doi:10.1017/S0142716400000357. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). "Extending the Competition Model". International Journal of Bilingualism 9:
6905. doi:10.1177/13670069050090010501.
2015/10/04 03:04 .
15 of 15
Paradis, M. (1994). "Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism
and SLA". In Ellis, Nick. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press.
pp. 393420. ISBN 978-0-12-237475-3.
Penfield, Wilder; Roberts, Lamar (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University
Press. ISBN 0-691-08039-9.
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-437084-4.
Rounds, P. L.; Kanagy, R. (1998). "Acquiring linguistic cues to identify AGENT: Evidence from children
learning Japanese as a second language". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20 (4): 509542.
doi:10.1017/s0272263198004033.
Schmidt, R. (2001). "Attention". In Robinson, Peter. Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 132. ISBN 978-0-521-80288-8.
Selinker, L. (1972). "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209241.
doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209.
Siegel, Jeff (2003). "Social Context". In Doughty, Catherine; Long, Michael. The handbook of second
language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-21754-1.
Skehan, Peter (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-437217-6.
Swain, Merrill (1991). "French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one". In Freed, Barbara.
Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath. pp. 91103.
ISBN 978-0-669-24263-8.
Swain, Merrill (1995). "Three functions of output in second language learning". In Cook, Guy. Principle &
Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp. 125144. ISBN 978-0-19-442147-8.
Tarone, Elaine; Bigelow, Martha; Hansen, Kit (2009). Literacy and Second Language Oracy. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442300-7.
Tarone, Elaine; Swierzbin, Bonnie (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-442291-8.
VanPatten, Bill; Benati, Alessandro G. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. London:
Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-9914-1.
Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann; Nielsen, Sarah (2003). "Language Socialization in SLA". In Doughty,
Catherine; Long, Michael. The handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
ISBN 978-0-631-21754-1.
Yuan, F.; Ellis, R. (2003). "The Effects of Pre-Task Planning and On-Line Planning on Fluency, Complexity
and Accuracy in L2 Monologic Oral Production". Applied Linguistics 24: 1. doi:10.1093/applin/24.1.1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second-language_acquisition&

oldid=683799771"
Categories: Applied linguistics Bilingualism Language acquisition Language comparison
Language education Second-language acquisition
This page was last modified on 2 October 2015, at 15:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms
may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is
a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
2015/10/04 03:04 .

Second Language Acquisition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second Language Acquisition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second Language Acquisition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second-language acquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia