by UIC Digital Collections

Second Language Acquisition

Second language acquisition is the process by which people learn languages besides their mother tongue (s). The term second language is used, any language whose acquisition starts after early childhood (including what may be the third or subsequent language to be learned) to describe. Learning the language is often referred to as the "target language" or "L2", compared to the first language, "L1". Second language acquisition can "SLA" or L2A be abbreviated, for "L2 acquisition".

The term "language learning" was often used by Stephen Krashen contrasted it with formal and non-constructive "learning." Today, most scholars "Language Learning and language acquisition" interchangeably, provided they are not directly addressed Krashen work. However, "second language" or "SLA" has established itself as the preferred term for this scientific discipline.

Although SLA is often viewed as part of applied linguistics, it is typically concerned with language and learning processes themselves, while Applied Linguistics can focus more on the experiences of learners, especially in the classroom. In addition, SLA has mostly naturalistic acquisition, which examined the learners acquire a language with little formal education or apprenticeship.

Describing learner language

Through the descriptive study of learner language, SLA researchers seek a better understanding of language learning without recourse to factors outside learner language. Researchers can adopt a learner interlanguage perspective, exploring the language as a linguistic system, or they may study how learner language compares the target language. The research is centered on the question: What are the unique features of the language learner? Much of the research focuses on English as L2 concentrated because of the large number of people around the world learning and teaching it.

Troubleshooting

The field of error analysis in SLA was founded in the 1970s by SP Corder and his colleagues. A widely available survey, see Chapter 8 of Brown, 2000. Error analysis was influenced an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach of behaviorism by the applied linguists tried to use the formal differences between the first and second language learners to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis is not able to predict a large majority of the error, though his was more valuable aspects have been included in the study of language transfer. An important result of the error analysis, are that many students make mistakes learners faulty conclusions about the rules of the new language produced.

Analysts error between errors that are systematic, and errors that can not be distinguished. Often try to develop a typology of errors. Errors can be allocated for basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. You can by apparent how they are divided: open error such as "I am angry," are evidently torn out of context, while hidden defects are evident only in context. Closely related is the classification for domain names, the width of the frame, the analyst must consider and the extent, breadth of expression that will be modified to correct the error must be related. Error can also search for the level of language can be assigned: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may vary according to the degree to which they interfere with communication assessed: global error to make a statement difficult to understand, while the local error does not. In the example above, "I am angry," a local error would be because the meaning is obvious.

From the start, error analysis was fraught with methodological problems. In particular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to determine reliably what kind of errors a learner makes. Also, error analysis only deal effectively with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with students receiving (listening and reading). In addition, it can not for learners use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply not a form with which to control them uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still used for certain questions in the SLA, the search for an overarching theory of learner error has been largely abandoned to investigate. In the mid-1970s drew Corder and others on a more comprehensive approach to language, known as interlanguage learners.

Error analysis is closely related to the degree of error handling used in foreign language teaching. Today is the study of errors especially relevant to focus on form teaching methodology.

Interlanguage

Interlanguage scholarship to understand language learners on their own terms, as a natural language with its own consistent set of rules. Interlanguage scholars reject, at least for heuristic purposes, the view of the language learner as an imperfect version of the target language. Interlanguage is perhaps best viewed as an attitude towards language learning and not as a discipline. For the same reason, interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible, a perspective, the interlanguage of L2 learners' knowledge of sound systems (interlanguage phonology) and language-use norms among learners (interlanguage pragmatics), respectively.

By describing the ways in which language learners corresponds to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".

Development patterns

Ellis (1994) distinguish between "order" on the model, in which acquired different language features and "sequence" to denote the pattern by which acquired a particular language feature point.

Order of acquisition

Researchers have found a very common procedure for acquiring a first language structures by children, and that has drawn much interest from SLA scholars. Considerable efforts have been made in order to test claims of the "identity hypothesis", whereby the first language and second language acquisition, the same model set. This was not confirmed, probably because it is the second language learners' cognitive and affective conditions of so much more advanced. However, do jobs similar to the acquisition in SLA often those in first language acquisition found, and may share common neurological causes.

Most students begin their adoption process with a "silent period" in which it has very little to talk to if at all. For some, this is a period of language shock, in which the learner actively rejects the incomprehensible input of the new language. Research has shown that many "silent" students engage in private speech (sometimes called "self-talk"). While seemingly silent, they are rehearsing important survival phrases and lexical chunks. This memorized phrases are then employed in the aftermath of formulaic language. Whether voluntary or forced, have no other learners rest and pass directly to formulaic speech. This speech, which are used in a handful of routines to the basic objectives are achieved, often shows few deviations of L2 morphosyntax. There is finally a way to experimental phase of the acquisition, in which the semantics and grammar simplifies the target language and begin the learner, a true interlanguage construct.

The nature of the transition between formulaic and simplified speech is disputed. Some, including Krashen, have argued that there is no cognitive relationship between the two, and that the transition is abrupt. Thinkers of modern theories of the lexicon influences have preferred, even native speech as highly formulaic point of view and interpretation of the transition as a process of gradually developing a broader repertoire of songs and a deeper understanding of the rules that govern them. Some studies have supported both views, and it is likely that the relationship depends to a large part of the learning styles of each learner.

A flood of studies found in the 1970s to test whether a single order of morpheme acquisition could be shown. Most of these studies showed fairly consistent orders of acquisition for selected morphemes. For example, learners of the English cluster of features, including the suffix "-ing" are found in the plural, and the copula consistently preceded by others such as the articles, supplies, and third-person singular. However, these studies were often not paid sufficient attention to over-exploitation of the characteristics (idiosyncratic uses outside of what is obligatory contexts in the L2) and sporadic criticism, but inconsistent use of the feature. Recent research, preferably on the acquisition of each linguistic feature as a gradual and complex process to be seen. For this reason, most scholarship since the 1980s focused on the sequence, rather than the order of acquisition feature.

Order of acquisition

A number of studies have considered in the order of acquisition of pronouns by learners of various Indo-European languages. These are reviewed by Ellis (1994), p. 96-99. They show that the learner by omitting pronouns or start with them indiscriminately: for example, with "I" refer to all agents. Students will acquire then a single feature of pronouns, often people, followed by number, and finally to sex. Little evidence of interference from the first language was found, it appears that students use the pronoun base entirely on their conclusions target language structure.

Studies on the acquisition of word order in German have shown that most learners in a word, to begin on the basis of their native language. This shows that certain aspects of interlanguage syntax influenced by first language learners, although some do not.

Research on the order of acquisition of words is fully reviewed by Nation (2001). Kasper and Rose (2002) have thoroughly researched the impact of the acquisition of pragmatic features. In both areas, have consistent patterns emerged and were the target of considerable theorizing.

Variability

Valid even though the interlanguage perspective may be, the language learner views as a language in its own right, the language varies much more than native language in a seemingly chaotic manner. A student can be very smooth, grammatical language issue in a particular context and can not be interpreted in a different lingo. Scientists have taken from different traditions opposing views about the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring a perspective to Chomskyan SLA generally regard variability as nothing more than "failures" and not worthy of systematic investigation. On the other hand, those who from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic approach orientation view variability as an important indicator of how the situation affects language learners to use. Of course, the research on the variability of those who have done it suggests to be appropriate.

Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation", which will take place, even within the same situation, and "systematic variation, which correlates with situational changes. Of course, the line between the two is often the subject of dispute.

Free variation, variation without identifiable pattern is itself highly variable from one learner to another. In part, it can show different learning styles and communicative strategies. Lerner, the high-risk for communication strategies and have a different cognitive style oriented rather show a substantial free variation, as they experiment freely with different shapes.

Free variation in the use of a language is usually a sign that it has not taken fully acquired. The student is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of alternative forms. This type of variability seems to be most common in beginning students and can be absent in the more advanced.

Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological, social context. Linguistic factors are usually very local. For example, the pronunciation of a difficult phoneme depend on whether the beginning or end is to find a syllable.

Social factors may cause a change in the registers or the familiarity of the interlocutor. Theoretically, in accordance with communication accommodation, the students their language either converge or diverge with adaptation, in their conversation partner's use.

The most important psychological factor is taken as a rule of planning. As numerous studies have shown more have more time to plan the learner, the more regular and more complex production is likely. Thus, students produce much more target-like forms in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, as in conversation where the language they produce almost no planning at all must.

Emotional factors also play an important role in the systematic variation. For example, the learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal test) shows much less target-like forms, as it in a comfortable environment. This shows clearly play interacts with social factors and attitudes to the party theme and an important role.

Learner-external factors

The study of learner external factors in SLA is primarily concerned with the question: How can students get information about the target language? Study on the impact of different types of input and focuses on the impact of social context.

Social impacts

The process of language learning can be very stressful, and the impact of positive or negative attitudes from the surrounding society can be critical. One aspect that has received particular attention is the relationship of gender to language performance. Studies of many cultures have shown that women enjoy, on the whole an advantage over men. Some have suggested it is linked to gender roles. Doman (2006), in a journal devoted to issues of cultural impact on SLA, "Questions abound, what defines SLA to extend as far as his limitations, and what are the attributes and contributions of the research. So there is a large amount of heterogeneity in the whole concept of the SLA. Some researchers tend to ignore certain aspects of the field, while others consider the same aspects piece by piece. "

Community can be learned attitude towards the language is also a profound impact on SLA. Where the community has an overall negative view of the target language and its speakers, or a negative view of their relationship with them, learning is usually much more difficult. This finding was confirmed by research in numerous contexts. A frequently cited example of the difficulty of Navajo children learning English as a second language is facing.

Other common factors include the social attitudes of the parents to study the language and the nature of group dynamics in foreign language teaching.

Early attitudes can strengthen motivation and ease with language in general, especially with early exposure to the language

Receipt and recording

Learners' most immediate source of information about the target language is the target language itself. When they come into direct contact with the target language, this is known as "input". If the language learner in a way that help to process learning, this is a "resource".

Generally take the amount of input learners is one of the most important factors for their learning. It must be at a level that is understandable to them to be. In his monitor theory, Krashen advanced the notion that language input should be limited to the "L +1" level, only what the learner can fully understand, this input is understandable, but it contains structures that are not yet fully understood. This was on the basis that there is no clear definition of L +1, and that other factors may affect a structural difficulties (such as interest or presentation), whether input has been criticized for actually switched on in reception. The concept has been quantified, but in vocabulary acquisition research; Nation (2001) look at different studies that about 98% of the words in the text before should be fine for extensive reading shows known to be effective.

Much of the research has taken the input extension, the manner in which input, so that direct learners' attention can be changed to linguistically important areas. Input extension could read bold words or marginal notes in a text. Research is closely connected with the research on educational effects, and relatively diverse.

Interaction

Long's interaction hypothesis suggests that language acquisition greatly facilitated by the use of the target language in interaction. In particular, the negotiation of meaning demonstrated a large contribution to the acquisition of vocabulary (Long, 1990). In a review of essential literature on the subject, nation (2000), the value of negotiation refers to the generative use of words, the use of words in new contexts that stimulate a deeper understanding of their meaning.

In the 1980s, Canadian researchers extended SLA Merrill Swain hypothesis that a meaningful output is input as necessary to language learning as meaningful. However, most studies show little or no correlation between learning and levels of production. Today, most scholars are fighting that small amounts of useful starting important to language learning, but also because the experience in the production language to a more efficient processing of leads.

Educational effects

The study on the impact of teaching in second language acquisition is intended to measure or evaluate systematically the effectiveness of language teaching practices. Such studies have been undertaken for every level of language, from phonetics to pragmatics, and for almost all of the latest teaching methods. It is therefore impossible, summarized their results here. However, some general questions raised.

Research has shown that many traditional language teaching techniques are extremely inefficient. But now a broad consensus of the scholars agree that SLA can help formal instruction in the language learning.

Another important issue is the effectiveness of explicit teaching: language teaching can have a constructive effect on the students advanced input? Because explicit statement normally has in the first language, many have argued that there simply learners of input and opportunities starved for practice. Research on this has on different levels of language provided quite different results. Above all, do debate no significant response to explicit teaching. Other traditional areas of explicit teaching, such as grammar and vocabulary, have led decidedly mixed results. The positive Effect of explicit instruction at this level seems to help students be limited notice important aspects of the input. Interestingly, the higher-level aspects of language and discourse competence as sociopragmatic continued strong effects shown in explicit statement. Research has also shown a clear influence of age on the effectiveness of explicit instruction: the younger the students are, the less they benefit show.

However, research has repeatedly shown that early exposure to a second language increases a child's ability to learn language, even their first language.

Learner-internal factors

The study of learner-internal factors in SLA is primarily concerned with the question: How can learners gain competence in the target language? In other words, efficient input and guidance in dealing with internal resources which learners process this input to produce a controlled interlanguage given?

The critical period research to date

Main article: Critical Period Hypothesis

How do children acquire language (L1) and the relevance of this to foreign language (L2) learning has long been controversial. Although evidence for L2 learning ability decreasing with age is controversial, is a common notion that children learn easily L2S, while older learners rarely achieve fluency. This assumption is based on "critical period" (CP) ideas. A CP by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 for L1 acquisition popular, but interest now surrounds age effects on second language acquisition (SLA). SLA theories explain learning processes and suggest causal factors for a possible CP for SLA, especially trying to explain apparent differences in language abilities of children and adults with different learning paths and sort them by psychological mechanisms. Research examines these ideas and hypotheses, but the results are different: some demonstrate pre-pubescent children acquire language easily, and some older students have the advantage of focus, while others of the existence of a CP for SLA. Recent studies (eg Mayberry and Lock, 2003) have recognized that certain aspects of SLA may be affected by age, while others remain intact. The aim of this study is to investigate whether capacity for vocabulary acquisition decreases with age.

A review of SLA theories and their explanations for age-related differences is needed before empirical studies. The reductionist theories are those of Penfield and Roberts (1959) and Lenneberg (1967), the L1 and brain damage studies stem; children affected suffer before puberty recover normally and (re-) develop normal language, whereas adults only rarely recover fully and they will not match again verbal skills beyond the point, five months after impairment. Both theories agree that children have a neurological advantage in learning languages, and that puberty correlates with a turning point capability. They claim that language acquisition occurs primarily, possibly exclusively in childhood, the brain loses plasticity after a certain age. There will be stiff and rigid, and loses the ability to adapt and redesign, rendering language (re) learn.

Cases of deaf and feral children provide evidence for a biologically determined CP for L1. Feral children are those not the language of childhood and youth, as brought to you in the wilderness, isolation and / or confinement suspended. A classic example is 'genius', that social interaction was deprived from birth to thirteen years discovered (post-pubertal).

Such studies are problematic, however, isolation can be considered in the overall slowdown and emotional disorders, the conclusions about linguistic skills may lead confused. Studies of deaf children learn American Sign Language (ASL) have fewer methodological weaknesses. Newport and Supalla (1987) studied ASL acquisition in deaf children of different ages of exposure, few were exposed to ASL from birth, the majority of them first learned it in school.

The results showed a linear decrease in performance with increasing age of exposure;. Threatened ASL from birth performed best, and "late learners worst case, all production and comprehension tests your study thus provides direct evidence for language learning ability increases with age, but it does not work on CP's Lennerberg Add hypothesis, as even the oldest children, the "late learners who were exposed to four years of ASL, and therefore had not reached puberty, the planned end of the KP.

Other work has provided the biological approach in question, Krashen (1975) re-analyzed clinical data used as evidence and found cerebral specialization occurs much earlier than Lenneberg calculated. Thus, if a CP exists, it does not coincide with lateralisation.

Although it does not describe an optimal age for SLA, implies the hypothesis that younger children can languages easier to learn than older learners, as adults must reactivate principles developed during L1 learning and forge an SLA path: children can learn any language as long as The principles are still active and they are exposed to sufficient language samples (Pinker, 1995).

However, there are problems with the extrapolation of the UG theory SLA: L2 learners go through several phases of the types of utterance that can not hear similar to their L1 or L2 them. Other factors include the cognitive maturity of most L2 learners, that they have different motivation for learning the language and you speak a language fluently.

Other directions of research

The empirical research has tried for the variables of SLA theories in detail and give an insight into L2 learning processes that can be applied in educational environments. Recent studies have followed SLA two main directions: one focuses on pairings of L1 and L2, which make the L2 acquisition particularly difficult, and the other investigates certain aspects of language that can be restricted maturationally. Flege, Mackay and Piske (2002) looked at bilingual dominance of two explanations of L2 performance differences between bilingual and monolingual assess-L2 speakers, ie a defined maturationally CP or interlingual interference.

Flege, Mackay and Piske examined whether the age of the participants learned English dominance affected the Italian-English bilingual, and found the early English bilinguals (L2) were dominant and the late Italian bilinguals (L1) is dominant. Further analysis showed that dominant Italian Bilingual detectable foreign accent when speaking English, but had already bi-lingual (English dominant) had no accents in both languages. This suggests that while interlingual interference are not essential, its origins, and bilingual dominance may be related to a CP.

Sebastian-Galles, Echeverría and Bosch (2005) also studied two languages and the importance of early language training exposure. They looked vocabulary of the processing and presentation in Spanish-Catalan bilinguals exposed to two languages simultaneously from birth compared to those who had learned the L2 and later were either Spanish or Catalan-dominant. The results showed that "two languages from birth," had much more difficulty to distinguish from non-Catalan dictionary words with different vowels as a specific Catalan-dominants have (measured by reaction time).

These difficulties are in a phase around age 8 months when bilingual children are sensitive to vowel contrasts attributed, though the language they hear the most. This relates to how words represented later in their dictionaries, highlighting this as a critical period in language acquisition, and show that initial language exposure shapes linguistic processing for life. Sebastian-Galles et al (2005) also show the importance of phonology for L2 learning because they believe learning a L2 once the L1 phonology is already internalized, may reduce individual skills to new sounds that distinguish appear in the L2.

Most studies into age effects on specific aspects of SLA have focused on grammar, with the common conclusion that there is very limited by age, the more so as a semantic function. B. Harley (1986) compared achievement of French students in early and late immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better control of the French verb system and syntax. However, when comparing early immersion students (mean age 6.917 years) with age-native speakers identify common problem areas, including third-person plural and polite "vous" adapted forms. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is usually acquired later, perhaps because it is knowledge and abstract reasoning (B. Harley, 1986) requires.

Harley also measured as possible achievement and found the two age groups made similar errors in syntax and lexical choice, often confusing L1 with the French. Die allgemeine Schlussfolgerung aus diesen Untersuchungen ist, dass verschiedene im Alter von Lernenden die verschiedenen Aspekte der Sprache zu erwerben mit unterschiedlichem Schwierigkeitsgrad. Einige Unterschiede in der grammatischen Leistung zur Reifung (besprochen in B. Harley, 1986) zugeschrieben wird, begann jedoch alle Teilnehmer Eintauchen Programme vor der Pubertät und so waren zu jung für eine starke kritische Periode Hypothese direkt getestet werden.

Mayberry und Lock (2003) die Frage, ob Alter sowohl L1-und L2-Erwerb zurückhält. Sie untersuchten grammatischen Fähigkeiten der gehörlosen und hörenden Erwachsenen, die ihre anfänglichen sprachlichen Exposition entweder in der frühen Kindheit oder später war. Sie fanden heraus, dass auf den L2-grammatische Aufgaben, diejenigen, die schon die verbale erworben oder unterzeichnet L1 Anfang Leben zeigte nahezu native Performance und diejenigen, die keine Erfahrung hatte früh L1 (dh taub geboren und Eltern nicht wissen, Gebärdensprache) durchgeführt schwach. Mayberry und Lock vorzeitig abgeschlossen L1 Exposition ist entscheidend für die Bildung des lebenslangen Lernens Fähigkeiten, unabhängig von der Art der Exposition (verbal oder Gebärdensprache). Dies entspricht Chomskys UG besagt, dass während Spracherwerb Grundsätze sind immer noch aktiv ist, sind von entscheidender Bedeutung für das Lernen einer L2 ist es leicht, eine Sprache, und die Grundsätze über L1 Erwerb entwickelt lernen Staaten.

Scherag, Demuth, Rösler, Neville und Röder (2004) auch darauf hin, lernen manche syntaktischen und lexikalischen Verarbeitung Funktionen zugreifen kann durch Reifung begrenzt werden, während semantischen Funktionen relativ unbeeinflusst von Alter sind. Sie untersuchten die Wirkung von SLA spät auf das Sprachverständnis von deutschen Einwanderern in die USA und amerikanische Einwanderer nach Deutschland. Sie fanden, dass englischen Muttersprachlern, die gelernt haben Deutsch als Erwachsene wurden über bestimmte grammatische Aufgaben benachteiligt, während bei nahezu nativer Stockwerken im lexikalischen Aufgaben durchführen. Diese Ergebnisse sind mit der Arbeit von Hahne konsistent (2001, zitiert in Scherag et al, 2004).

Eine Studie, die speziell erwähnt semantischen Funktionen Akquisition ist, dass der Weber-Fox und Neville (1996). Ihre Ergebnisse zeigten, dass Chinesisch-Englisch zweisprachig, die Englische nach der Pubertät ausgesetzt waren, Wortschatz, um eine höhere Kompetenzstufe als syntaktische Aspekte der Sprache gelernt. Aber sie berichten, dass das Urteil Genauigkeiten bei der Aufdeckung von semantischen Anomalien bei Patienten, die auf Englisch nach sechzehn Jahren ausgesetzt waren verändert wurden, wurden aber in geringerem Maße betroffen als grammatische wurden Aspekte der Sprache. Es wurde spekuliert (Neville und Bavelier, 2001, und Scherag et al, 2004), die semantische Aspekte der Sprache auf assoziativen Lernens Mechanismen, die lebenslanges Lernen ermöglichen, während syntaktische Aspekte auf rechnerische Mechanismen, die nur durch beruhen, sind gegründet gebaut während bestimmter Zeiträume Alter. Consequently, it is reasoned, semantic functions are easier to access during comprehension of an L2 and therefore dominate the process: if these are ambiguous, understanding of syntactic information is not facilitated. These suppositions would help explain the results of Scherag et al's (2004) study.

Some researchers have focused exclusively on practical applications of SLA research. Asher (1972) insists teenagers and adults rarely successfully learn an L2, and attributes this to teaching strategies. He presents an L2 teaching strategy based on infants' L1 acquisition, which promotes listening as central in language learning: listening precedes, and generates a 'readiness' for, speaking, assumptions supported by Carroll (1960). Asher shows that in L2 acquisition, in this case German, listening fluency is achieved in around half the usual time if the teaching is based on L1 acquisition, and that learners taught in this way still develop reading and writing proficiency comparable with those whose training emphasises literacy skills.

Similarly Horwitz (1986) summarises findings of SLA research, and applies to L2 teaching some principles of L2 acquisition honed from a vast body of relevant literature. Like Asher, Horwitz highlights the importance of naturalistic experience in L2, promoting listening and reading practice and stressing involvement in life-like conversations. She explicitly suggests teaching practices based on these principles; '[m]uch class time should be devoted to the development of listening and reading abilities', and '[t]eachers should assess student interests and supply appropriate…materials' (Horwitz, 1986, p.685-686). The 'audio-lingual' teaching practices used in the present study are based on principles explicated by Asher and Horwitz; listening featured heavily, closely followed by reading and speaking practice. The vocabulary items taught were deemed relevant for all learners, regardless of age, and, according to Pfeffer (1964), they are among the most commonly used nouns in everyday German language.

Cognitive approaches

A great deal of research and speculation has taken place on the cognitive processes underlying SLA. Ellen Bialystok has modelled the process of acquisition in terms of gaining increasing attentional control over language use. In other words, as the processes of word selection and utterance construction become increasingly automatic, learners' language ability also improves.

Language transfer

Main article: Language transfer

Language transfer typically refers to the learner's trying to apply rules and forms of the first language into the second language. The term can also include the transfer of features from one additional language to another (such as from a second to a third language), although this is less common.

Contrastive analysis, discussed above, sought to predict all learner errors based on language transfer. As subsequent research in error analysis and interlanguage structure showed, this project was flawed: most errors are not due to transfer, but to faulty inferences about the rules of the target language.

Transfer is an important factor in language learning at all levels. Typically learners begin by transferring sounds (phonetic transfer) and meanings (semantic transfer), as well as various rules including word order and pragmatics. As learners progress and gain more experience with the target language, the role of transfer typically diminishes.

In the UG-based framework (see Linguistic universals below), "language transfer" specifically refers to the linguistic parameter settings defined by the language universal. Thus, "language transfer" is defined as the initial state of second language acquisition rather than its developmental stage.

Linguistic universals

Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development. A number of studies have supported this claim, although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm conclusions difficult.

A key question about the relationship of UG and SLA is: is the language acquisition device posited by Chomsky and his followers still accessible to learners of a second language? Research suggests that it becomes inaccessible at a certain age (see Critical Period Hypothesis), and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching (see pedagogical effects above, and age below). In other words, although all of language is governed by UG, older learners might have great difficulty in gaining access to the target language's underlying rules from positive input alone.

Individual variation

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

Language aptitude

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

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

Age

Main article: Critical Period Hypothesis

It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learn a second language than are adults. However, in general second language research has failed to support the Critical Period Hypothesis in its strong form, which argues that full language acquisition is impossible beyond a certain age.

Strategy use

The effective use of strategies has been shown to be critical to successful language learning, so much so that Canale and Swain (1980) included "strategic competence" among the four components of communicative competence. Research here has also shown significant pedagogical effects. This has given rise to "strategies-based instruction."

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

Learners from different cultures use strategies in different ways, as a research tradition led by Rebecca Oxford has demonstrated. Related to this are differences in strategy use between male and female learners. Numerous studies have shown that female learners typically use strategies more widely and intensively than males; this may be related to the statistical advantage which female learners enjoy in language learning.

[edit] Affective factors

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

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

Fear

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

Socio-Cultural Factors

Second language acquisition is defined as the learning and adopting of a language that is not your native language. Once you have acquired a foreign language, you have mastered that language.

Second language acquisition may be more difficult for some people due to certain social factors. One highly studied social factor impeding language development is the issue of extraverts versus introverts.

Studies have shown that extraverts (or unreserved and outgoing people) acquire a second language better than introverts (or shy people).

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

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

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

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

Motivation

Main article: Motivation in second language learning

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

Some research has shown that motivation correlates strongly with proficiency, indicating both that successful learners are motivated and that success improves motivation. Thus motivation is not fixed, but is strongly affected by feedback from the environment. Accordingly, the study of motivation in SLA has also examined many of the external factors discussed above, such as the effect of instructional techniques on motivation. An accessible summary of this research can be found in Dörnyei (2001).

In their research on Willingness to communicate, MacIntyre et al (1998) have shown that motivation is not the final construct before learners engage in communication. In fact, learners may be highly motivated yet remain unwilling to communicate.

Concepts of ability

Numerous notions have been used to describe learners' ability in the target language. The first such influential concept was the competence-performance distinction introduced by Chomsky. This distinguishes competence, a person's idealized knowledge of language rules, from performance, the imperfect realization of these rules. Thus, a person may be interrupted and not finish a sentence, but still know how to make a complete sentence. Although this distinction has become fundamental to most work in linguistics today, it has not proven adequate by itself to describe the complex nature of learners' developing ability.

The notion of communicative competence was first raised by Dell Hymes in 1967, reacting against the perceived inadequacy of Chomsky's distinction between linguistic competence, and has proven extremely popular in SLA research. It broadens the notion of the kind of rules that competence can include. Whereas Chomsky treated competence as primarily grammatical, communicative competence embraces all of the forms of knowledge that learners must have in order to communicate effectively.

A closely related concept is proficiency. Proficiency is usually distinguished from competence, which refers to knowledge: "proficiency refers to the learner's ability to use this knowledge in different tasks" (Ellis, 1994, p. 720). Because any test of competence is a task of some sort, it may be argued that all measures of competence are in effect measuring some form of proficiency.

Both proficiency and competence are internally complex; they do not reflect a single attribute, but many different forms of knowledge in complex interrelationship. Research, such as much of that discussed here, requires some unitary concept of ability, but it has been clearly shown that different aspects of language ability progress at vary different rates. For example, Kasper and Rose (2002) review numerous studies of the complex relationship between grammatical and pragmatic proficiency. The measurement of language ability, although necessary for both research and teaching, is inevitably problematic.

References

Canale, M. and M. Swain (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1-47.

MacIntyre, PD, Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, KA (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (4), 545-562.

Dewaele, J. and Furnham, A. "Personality and Individual Differences." Personality and Speech Production: A Pilot Study of Second Language Learners 28 (2000): 355-365

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., and Stern, H. "The Good Language Learner: A Report." Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (1975)

Bachelor of: English Language Translation and Linguistic Searcher at King Abdulaziz University.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.