De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
Saltar a navegación Saltar a búsqueda
Este artículo trata sobre la adquisición natural de un segundo idioma. Para el aprendizaje en el aula, consulte Educación de idiomas .
Parte de una serie sobre
Lingüística
Lingüística general
La lingüística aplicada
Marcos teóricos
Temas
Portal Portal
  • v
  • t
  • mi

La adquisición de una segunda lengua ( SLA ), a veces denominada aprendizaje de una segunda lengua , también conocida como adquisición de L2 ( lengua 2 ) , es el proceso mediante el cual las personas aprenden una segunda lengua . La adquisición de un segundo idioma es también la disciplina científica dedicada al estudio de ese proceso. El campo de la adquisición de una segunda lengua es una subdisciplina de la lingüística aplicada, pero también recibe atención de investigación de una variedad de otras disciplinas, como la psicología y la educación .

Un tema central en la investigación de SLA es el de la interlengua : la idea de que el idioma que usan los estudiantes no es simplemente el resultado de las diferencias entre los idiomas que ya conocen y el idioma que están aprendiendo, sino un sistema lingüístico completo por derecho propio. , con sus propias reglas sistemáticas. Este interlenguaje se desarrolla gradualmente a medida que los alumnos se exponen al idioma de destino. El orden en el que los alumnos adquieren las características de su nuevo idioma se mantiene notablemente constante, incluso para alumnos con diferentes idiomas nativos e independientemente de si han recibido instrucción en el idioma. Sin embargo, los idiomas que los alumnos ya conocen pueden tener una influencia significativa en el proceso de aprendizaje de uno nuevo. Esta influencia se conoce como transferencia de idiomas .

El factor principal que impulsa el SLA parece ser la entrada de lenguaje que reciben los alumnos. Los estudiantes se vuelven más avanzados cuanto más tiempo están inmersos en el idioma que están aprendiendo y más tiempo pasan leyendo voluntariamente. La hipótesis de entrada desarrollada por el lingüista Stephen Krashen teoriza que la entrada comprensible sola es necesaria para la adquisición de un segundo idioma. Krashen hace una distinción entre la adquisición del lenguaje y el aprendizaje del lenguaje (la distinción entre la adquisición y el aprendizaje), [1]afirmando que la adquisición es un proceso subconsciente, mientras que el aprendizaje es consciente. Según esta hipótesis, el proceso de adquisición en L2 (Lengua 2) es el mismo que la adquisición de L1 (Lengua 1). El aprendizaje, por otro lado, se refiere al aprendizaje y análisis consciente del idioma que se está aprendiendo. [2] Krashen argumenta que las reglas del lenguaje aprendidas conscientemente juegan un papel limitado en el uso del lenguaje, sirviendo como un monitor que podría verificar la forma de la salida del segundo idioma, asumiendo que el alumno tiene tiempo, suficiente conocimiento e inclinación (la hipótesis del monitor). Trabajo posterior, por otros investigadores, sobre la hipótesis de interacción y la hipótesis de salida comprensible, ha sugerido que las oportunidades de producción e interacción también pueden ser necesarias para que los alumnos alcancen niveles más avanzados.

La investigación sobre cómo adquieren exactamente los estudiantes un nuevo idioma abarca varias áreas diferentes. El enfoque está dirigido a proporcionar pruebas de si las habilidades lingüísticas básicas son innatas (naturaleza), adquiridas (crianza) o una combinación de los dos atributos. Los enfoques cognitivos de la investigación de SLA se ocupan de los procesos cerebrales que sustentan la adquisición del lenguaje, por ejemplo, cómo el prestar atención al lenguaje afecta la capacidad de aprenderlo, o cómo la adquisición del lenguaje se relaciona con la memoria a corto y largo plazo. Los enfoques socioculturales rechazan la noción de que SLA es un fenómeno puramente psicológico e intentan explicarlo en un contexto social. Algunos factores sociales clave que influyen en el SLA son el nivel de inmersión, la conexión con la comunidad L2 y el género.Los enfoques lingüísticos consideran el lenguaje por separado de otros tipos de conocimiento e intentan utilizar los hallazgos del estudio más amplio de la lingüística para explicar el SLA. También hay una considerable cantidad de investigaciones sobre cómo el SLA puede verse afectado por factores individuales como la edad y las estrategias de aprendizaje. Un tema comúnmente discutido con respecto a la edad en SLA es elhipótesis del período crítico , que sugiere que los individuos pierden la capacidad de aprender completamente un idioma después de una edad particular en la niñez. Otro tema de interés en SLA son las diferencias entre estudiantes adultos y niños. Las estrategias de aprendizaje se clasifican comúnmente como estrategias de aprendizaje o comunicativas y se desarrollan para mejorar sus respectivas habilidades de adquisición. Los factores afectivos son factores emocionales que influyen en la capacidad de un individuo para aprender un nuevo idioma. Los factores afectivos comunes que influyen en la adquisición son la ansiedad, la personalidad, las actitudes sociales y la motivación.

Las personas también pueden perder un idioma a través de un proceso llamado desgaste de un segundo idioma . A menudo, esto se debe a la falta de uso o exposición a un idioma a lo largo del tiempo. La gravedad de la deserción depende de una variedad de factores, incluido el nivel de competencia , la edad, los factores sociales y la motivación en el momento de la adquisición. Por último, la investigación en el aula se ocupa del efecto que tiene la instrucción del idioma en la adquisición.

Definiciones [ editar ]

El segundo idioma se refiere a cualquier idioma aprendido además del primer idioma de una persona ; aunque el concepto se denomina adquisición de una segunda lengua, también puede incorporar el aprendizaje de una tercera, cuarta o subsiguientes lenguas. [3] La adquisición de una segunda lengua se refiere a lo que hacen los alumnos; no se refiere a prácticas en la enseñanza de idiomas , aunque la enseñanza puede afectar la adquisición. El término adquisición se usó originalmente para enfatizar la naturaleza inconsciente del proceso de aprendizaje, [nota 1], pero en los últimos años aprendizaje y adquisición se han convertido en gran parte en sinónimos.

SLA puede incorporar el aprendizaje de lenguas heredadas , [4] pero no suele incorporar el bilingüismo . La mayoría de los investigadores de SLA ven el bilingüismo como el resultado final del aprendizaje de un idioma, no el proceso en sí, y ven el término como una referencia a la fluidez similar a la nativa. Los escritores en campos como la educación y la psicología, sin embargo, a menudo usan el bilingüismo de manera vaga para referirse a todas las formas de multilingüismo . [5] El SLA tampoco debe contrastarse con la adquisición de un idioma extranjero ; más bien, el aprendizaje de segundas lenguas y el aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras implican los mismos procesos fundamentales en diferentes situaciones. [6]

Antecedentes de la investigación [ editar ]

La disciplina académica de la adquisición de un segundo idioma es una subdisciplina de la lingüística aplicada . Tiene una base amplia y es relativamente nueva. Además de las diversas ramas de la lingüística , la adquisición de una segunda lengua también está estrechamente relacionada con la psicología y la educación. Para separar la disciplina académica del proceso de aprendizaje en sí, los términos de investigación de segunda adquisición del lenguaje , estudios de segundo idioma , y un segundo idioma los estudios de adquisición también se utilizan.

La investigación de SLA comenzó como un campo interdisciplinario; debido a esto, es difícil identificar una fecha de inicio precisa. [7] Sin embargo, dos artículos en particular se consideran fundamentales para el desarrollo del estudio moderno de SLA: el ensayo de Pit Corder de 1967 La importancia de los errores de los estudiantes y el artículo de 1972 Interlanguage de Larry Selinker . [8] El campo experimentó un gran desarrollo en las décadas siguientes. [7]Desde la década de 1980, SLA se ha estudiado desde una variedad de perspectivas disciplinarias y perspectivas teóricas. A principios de la década de 2000, algunas investigaciones sugirieron una equivalencia entre la adquisición de lenguajes humanos y la de lenguajes de computadora (por ejemplo, Java) por parte de niños en la ventana de edad de 5 a 11 años, aunque esto no ha sido ampliamente aceptado entre los educadores. [9] significativo se acerca en el campo hoy en día son lingüística sistémica funcional, la teoría sociocultural, lingüística cognitiva, Noam Chomsky 's gramática universal , la teoría de la adquisición de habilidades y conexionismo . [8]

Se ha debatido mucho sobre cómo se aprende exactamente el idioma y aún quedan muchos problemas sin resolver. Hay muchas teorías sobre la adquisición de un segundo idioma, pero ninguno es aceptado como una explicación completa por todos los investigadores de SLA. Debido a la naturaleza interdisciplinaria del campo de SLA, no se espera que esto suceda en el futuro previsible. Aunque se han hecho intentos para proporcionar un relato más unificado que intente unir la adquisición del primer idioma y la investigación del aprendizaje del segundo idioma. [10]

Etapas [ editar ]

Stephen Krashen divide el proceso de adquisición de un segundo idioma en cinco etapas: preproducción, producción temprana, aparición del habla, fluidez intermedia y fluidez avanzada. [11] [12] La primera etapa, la preproducción, también se conoce como el período silencioso . Los estudiantes en esta etapa tienen un vocabulario receptivo de hasta 500 palabras, pero aún no hablan su segundo idioma. [12] No todos los alumnos pasan por un período de silencio. Algunos alumnos comienzan a hablar de inmediato, aunque su resultado puede consistir en la imitación en lugar del uso creativo del lenguaje. A otros se les puede solicitar que hablen desde el principio como parte de un curso de idiomas. Para los estudiantes que pasan por un período de silencio, puede durar entre tres y seis meses. [13]

La segunda de las etapas de adquisición de Krashen es la producción temprana, durante la cual los alumnos pueden hablar en frases cortas de una o dos palabras. También pueden memorizar fragmentos de lenguaje, aunque pueden cometer errores al usarlos. Los estudiantes suelen tener un vocabulario activo y receptivo de alrededor de 1000 palabras. Esta etapa normalmente dura alrededor de seis meses. [12]

La tercera etapa es la emergencia del habla. El vocabulario de los estudiantes aumenta a alrededor de 3000 palabras durante esta etapa, y pueden comunicarse usando preguntas y frases simples. A menudo pueden cometer errores gramaticales.

La cuarta etapa es la fluidez intermedia. En esta etapa, los estudiantes tienen un vocabulario de alrededor de 6000 palabras y pueden usar estructuras de oraciones más complicadas. También pueden compartir sus pensamientos y opiniones. Los alumnos pueden cometer errores frecuentes con estructuras de oraciones más complicadas.

La etapa final es la fluidez avanzada, que generalmente se alcanza entre cinco y diez años de aprendizaje del idioma. Los estudiantes en esta etapa pueden funcionar a un nivel cercano al de los hablantes nativos. [12]

Krashen también ha desarrollado una serie de hipótesis que discuten la naturaleza de los procesos de pensamiento de los estudiantes de una segunda lengua y el desarrollo de la autoconciencia durante la adquisición de una segunda lengua. Las más destacadas de estas hipótesis son la teoría del monitor y la hipótesis del filtro afectivo. [14]

Dificultad del idioma y tiempo de aprendizaje [ editar ]

El tiempo necesario para alcanzar un alto nivel de competencia puede variar según el idioma aprendido. En el caso de los hablantes nativos de inglés, algunas estimaciones fueron proporcionadas por el Foreign Service Institute (FSI) del Departamento de Estado de los EE. UU. , Que compiló las expectativas de aprendizaje aproximadas para una serie de idiomas para su personal profesional (hablantes nativos de inglés que generalmente ya conocen otros idiomas). idiomas). [15] Los idiomas de categoría I incluyen, por ejemplo, italiano y sueco (24 semanas o 600 horas lectivas) y francés (30 semanas o 750 horas lectivas). Los idiomas de Categoría II incluyen alemán, criollo haitiano, indonesio, malayo, swahili (aproximadamente 36 semanas o 900 horas de clase). Idiomas Categoría III incluyen muchos idiomas como finlandés, polaco, ruso, tagalo, vietnamita y muchos otros (aproximadamente 44 semanas, 1100 horas de clase).

De los 63 idiomas analizados, los cinco idiomas más difíciles de alcanzar el dominio del habla y la lectura, que requieren 88 semanas (2200 horas de clase, idiomas de categoría IV ), son el árabe , el cantonés , el mandarín , el japonés y el coreano . El Instituto del Servicio Exterior y el Centro Nacional de Traducción Virtual señalan que el japonés suele ser más difícil de aprender que otros idiomas de este grupo. [dieciséis]

Hay otras clasificaciones de dificultad lingüística como la del Centro de Idiomas del Servicio Diplomático del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Reino Unido, que enumera los idiomas difíciles en la Clase I (cantonés, japonés, coreano, mandarín); los idiomas más fáciles están en la clase V (por ejemplo, afrikáans, bislama, catalán, francés, español, sueco). [17]

La hipótesis del cuello de botella [ editar ]

La hipótesis del cuello de botella se esfuerza por identificar los componentes de la gramática que son más fáciles o más difíciles de adquirir que otros. Argumenta que la morfología funcional es el cuello de botella de la adquisición del lenguaje, lo que significa que es más difícil que otros dominios lingüísticos como la sintaxis, la semántica y la fonología porque combina características sintácticas, semánticas y fonológicas que afectan el significado de una oración. [18] Por ejemplo, el conocimiento de la formación del tiempo pasado en inglés requiere tanto patrones fonológicos como los alomorfos al final del verbo como formas verbales irregulares. La adquisición de artículos también es difícil para los hablantes de idiomas L1 sin artículos, como el coreano y el ruso. Un estudio comparó los juicios de los alumnos sobre una característica sintáctica, V2y una propiedad morfológica, la concordancia entre sujeto y verbo , utilizando una tarea de juicio de aceptabilidad . Los investigadores encontraron que, si bien los hablantes de noruego que son estudiantes intermedios y avanzados de inglés podían evaluar con éxito la gramaticalidad de V2, tenían significativamente más dificultades con la concordancia entre el sujeto y el verbo, lo que predice la hipótesis del cuello de botella. [19]

Dejando a un lado las razones cognitivas y científicas de la importancia de esta teoría, la hipótesis del cuello de botella también puede ser de beneficio práctico, ya que los educadores pueden maximizar su tiempo y centrarse en problemas difíciles en los entornos de clase de SLA en lugar de poner atención en conceptos que se pueden comprender con relativa facilidad.

La hipótesis de los efectos acumulativos [ editar ]

Esta hipótesis afirma que la adquisición de una segunda lengua puede imponer dificultades adicionales a los niños con una discapacidad específica del lenguaje.(SLI), cuyo retraso en el lenguaje se prolonga en sus años escolares debido a déficits en la memoria verbal y los mecanismos de procesamiento en comparación con los niños con desarrollo típico (DT). La investigación existente sobre personas con SLI y bilingüismo ha sido limitada y, por lo tanto, se necesitan datos que muestren cómo apoyar el desarrollo bilingüe en niños con SLI. “Acumulativo” se refiere a la combinación de los efectos de los déficits internos en el aprendizaje del idioma y las complicaciones externas en la entrada y la experiencia causadas por el bilingüismo, que a su vez podrían abrumar al alumno con el SLI. La teoría predice que los niños bilingües con SLI estarán en desventaja, quedando atrás tanto de sus compañeros monolingües con SLI como de sus compañeros bilingües con TD. ParadisEl estudio longitudinal examinó la adquisición de morfología tensa a lo largo del tiempo en niños con TEL que están aprendiendo inglés como segundo idioma. [20] El estudio encontró que el perfil de adquisición para niños con SLI es similar al reportado para monolingües con SLI y TD, mostrando inconsistencias con CEH. Esto ha proporcionado evidencia de que SLA no dañará negativamente a los niños con SLI y, de hecho, podría ser beneficioso.

Comparaciones con la adquisición del primer idioma [ editar ]

Los adultos que aprenden un segundo idioma se diferencian de los niños que aprenden su primer idioma en al menos tres formas: los niños todavía están desarrollando sus cerebros, mientras que los adultos tienen mentes maduras y los adultos tienen al menos un primer idioma que orienta su pensamiento y habla. Aunque algunos estudiantes adultos de un segundo idioma alcanzan niveles muy altos de competencia, la pronunciación tiende a ser no nativa. Esta falta de pronunciación nativa en estudiantes adultos se explica por la hipótesis del período crítico . Cuando el habla de un alumno se estanca, se conoce como fosilización.

Algunos errores que cometen los estudiantes de un segundo idioma en su habla se originan en su primer idioma. Por ejemplo, los hispanohablantes que están aprendiendo inglés pueden decir "Está lloviendo" en lugar de "Está lloviendo", omitiendo el tema de la oración. Este tipo de influencia del primer idioma sobre el segundo se conoce como transferencia lingüística negativa . Los francófonos que aprenden inglés, sin embargo, no suelen cometer el mismo error de omitir "eso" en "Está lloviendo". Esto se debe a que los sujetos de las oraciones pronominales e impersonales pueden omitirse (o, como en este caso, no se usan en primer lugar) en español pero no en francés. [21]El francófono que sabe utilizar un sujeto de oración pronominal cuando habla inglés es un ejemplo de transferencia lingüística positiva . No todos los errores ocurren de la misma manera; incluso dos personas con el mismo idioma nativo que aprenden el mismo segundo idioma todavía tienen el potencial de utilizar diferentes partes de su idioma nativo. Asimismo, estos mismos dos individuos pueden desarrollar una fluidez casi nativa en diferentes formas de gramática. [22]

Además, cuando las personas aprenden un segundo idioma, la forma en que hablan su primer idioma cambia de manera sutil. Estos cambios pueden ocurrir con cualquier aspecto del lenguaje, desde la pronunciación y la sintaxis hasta los gestos que hace el alumno y las características del lenguaje que tienden a notar. [23] Por ejemplo, los francófonos que hablaban inglés como segundo idioma pronunciaban el sonido / t / en francés de manera diferente a los francófonos monolingües. [24] Este tipo de cambio en la pronunciación se ha encontrado incluso al inicio de la adquisición de una segunda lengua; por ejemplo, los hablantes de inglés pronunciaron los sonidos / ptk / en inglés, así como las vocales en inglés, de manera diferente después de que comenzaron a aprender coreano. [25] Estos efectos del segundo idioma en el primero llevaron a Vivian Cookpara proponer la idea de la competencia múltiple , que ve los diferentes idiomas que habla una persona no como sistemas separados, sino como sistemas relacionados en su mente. [26]

Idioma del alumno [ editar ]

El idioma del alumno es el lenguaje escrito o hablado producido por un alumno. También es el principal tipo de datos que se utilizan en la investigación sobre la adquisición de una segunda lengua. [27] Gran parte de la investigación sobre la adquisición de una segunda lengua se ocupa de la representación interna de una lengua en la mente del alumno y de cómo esas representaciones cambian con el tiempo. Todavía no es posible inspeccionar estas representaciones directamente con escáneres cerebrales o técnicas similares, por lo que los investigadores de SLA se ven obligados a hacer inferencias sobre estas reglas a partir del habla o la escritura de los alumnos. [28]

Interlengua [ editar ]

Artículo principal: interlengua

Originalmente, los intentos de describir el idioma del alumno se basaban en la comparación de diferentes idiomas y en el análisis de los errores de los alumnos . Sin embargo, estos enfoques no pudieron predecir todos los errores que cometieron los estudiantes durante el proceso de aprendizaje de un segundo idioma. Por ejemplo, los hablantes de serbocroata que están aprendiendo inglés pueden decir "¿Qué está haciendo Pat ahora?", Aunque esta no es una oración válida en ninguno de los dos idiomas. [29] Además, Yip descubrió que los verbos ergativos en inglés suelen ser pasivizados incorrectamente por los estudiantes de inglés de L2 cuyo primer idioma es el mandarín. [30]Por ejemplo, incluso los estudiantes avanzados pueden formar expresiones como "¿qué pasó?" a pesar de que esta construcción no tiene una fuente obvia ni en L1 ni en L2. Esto podría deberse a que los hablantes de L2 interpretan las ergativas como transitivas , ya que son los únicos tipos de verbos que permiten la pasivización en inglés.

Para explicar este tipo de error sistemático, se desarrolló la idea del interlenguaje . [31] Un interlenguaje es un sistema de lenguaje emergente en la mente de un estudiante de un segundo idioma. El interlenguaje de un alumno no es una versión deficiente del idioma que se aprende llena de errores aleatorios, ni es un idioma basado puramente en errores introducidos desde el primer idioma del alumno. Más bien, es un lenguaje por derecho propio, con sus propias reglas sistemáticas. [32] Es posible ver la mayoría de los aspectos del lenguaje desde una perspectiva interlengua, incluida la gramática , la fonología , el léxico y la pragmática .

Hay tres procesos diferentes que influyen en la creación de interlenguajes: [29]

  • Transferencia de idiomas . Los alumnos recurren a su lengua materna para ayudar a crear su sistema lingüístico. La transferencia puede ser positiva, es decir, promover el aprendizaje, o negativa, es decir, llevar a errores. En el último caso, los lingüistas también utilizan el término error de interferencia.
  • Sobregeneralización . Los estudiantes usan las reglas del segundo idioma aproximadamente de la misma manera que los niños generalizan en exceso en su primer idioma. Por ejemplo, un alumno puede decir "I goed home", generalizando en exceso la regla en inglés de agregar -ed para crear formas verbales en tiempo pasado. Los niños ingleses también producen formas como goed, sticked, bringed. Los niños alemanes extienden igualmente las formas regulares del tiempo pasado a formas irregulares.
  • Simplificación . Los alumnos utilizan una forma de lenguaje muy simplificada, similar al habla de los niños o en pidgins . Esto puede estar relacionado con los universales lingüísticos .

El concepto de interlenguaje se ha generalizado mucho en la investigación de SLA y, a menudo, es una suposición básica hecha por los investigadores. [32]

Secuencias en la adquisición de la morfología flexional inglesa [ editar ]

1.Plural -sLas chicas van .
2.Progresivo -ingChicas yendo .
3.Formas de cópula de serLas chicas están aquí .
4.Formas auxiliares de serLas chicas se van .
5.
Artículos definidos e indefinidos el y un		Las chicas se van .
6.Tiempo pasado irregularLas chicas se fueron .
7.Tercera persona -sLa chica se va .
8.Posesivos ' sEl libro de la niña .
Un orden típico de adquisición del inglés, según el libro de Vivian Cook de 2008, Aprendizaje de un segundo idioma y enseñanza de idiomas . [33]
Artículo principal: Orden de adquisición

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 (feature B and D depend on A) and feature C depends on B, but D does not depend on B (or, therefore, on C), then acquisition orders (A, B, C, D) and (A, D, B, C) are possible, as they are both valid topological orderings.

Learnability and teachability[edit]

Learnability has emerged as a theory explaining developmental sequences that crucially depend on learning principles, which are viewed as fundamental mechanisms of language acquisition within learnability theory.[34] Some examples of learning principles include the uniqueness principle and the subset principle. The uniqueness principle refers to learners' preference for one-to-one mapping between form and meaning, while the subset principle posits that learners are conservative in that they begin with the narrowest hypothesis space that is compatible with available data. Both of these principles have been used to explain children's ability to evaluate grammaticality in spite of the lack of explicit negative evidence. They have also been used to explain errors in SLA, as the creation of supersets could signal over-generalization, causing acceptance or production of ungrammatical sentences.[30]

Pienemann's teachability hypothesis is based on the idea that there is a hierarchy on stages of acquisition and instruction in SLA should be compatible to learners' current acquisitional status.[35] Recognizing learners' developmental stages is important as it enables teachers to predict and classify learning errors. This hypothesis predicts that L2 acquisition can only be promoted when learners are ready to acquire given items in a natural context. One goal of learnability theory is to figure out which linguistic phenomena are susceptible to fossilization, wherein some L2 learners continue to make errors in spite of the presence of relevant input.

Variability[edit]

Although second-language acquisition proceeds in discrete sequences, it does not progress from 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.[36] 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.[37] A small fraction of variation in interlanguage is free variation, when the learner uses two forms interchangeably. However, most variation is systemic variation, variation that depends on the context of utterances the learner makes.[36] 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.[36] The causes of variability are a matter of great debate among SLA researchers.[37]

Language transfer[edit]

Main articles: Language transfer and Crosslinguistic influence

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 target-language input they encounter, and their cognitive processes.[38] Language transfer is not always from the learner’s native language; it can also be from a second language, or a third.[38] Neither is it limited to any particular domain of language; language transfer can occur in grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, discourse, and reading.[39]

Language transfer often occurs when learners sense a similarity between a feature of a language they already know and a 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.[38] Learners may also decline to use some language forms at all if they are perceived as being too distant from their first language.[38]

Language transfer has been the subject of several studies, and many aspects of it remain unexplained.[38] Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain language transfer, but there is no single widely accepted explanation of why it occurs.[40]

Some linguists prefer to use cross-linguistic influence to describe this phenomenon. Studies on bilingual children find bidirectional cross-linguistic influence; for example, Nicoladis (2012) reported that bilingual children aged 3 to 4 produce French-like periphrastic constructions e.g. "the hat of the dog" and ungrammatical English-like reversed possessive structures e.g. "chien chapeau" (dog hat) significantly more than their monolingual peers.[41] Though periphrastic constructions are expected as they are grammatical in both English and French, reversed possessives in French are ungrammatical and thus unexpected.

In a study exploring cross-linguistic influence in word order by comparing Dutch-English bilingual and English monolingual children, Unsworth found that bilingual children were more likely to accept incorrect V2 word orders in English than monolinguals with both auxiliary and main verbs. Dominance was a predictor of this phenomenon; Dutch-dominant children showed less sensitivity to word order than English-dominant ones, though this effect was small and there was individual variation.[42]

Language dominance[edit]

The term language dominance can be defined in terms of differences in frequency of use and differences in proficiency in bilinguals.[43] How basic or advanced a speaker's L2 level will be is determined by a complex range of environmental, individual and other factors. Language dominance may change over time through the process of language attrition, in which some L2 skills begin to match or even overtake those of L1.[44] Research suggests a correlation between amount of language exposure and cross-linguistic influence; language dominance is considered to have an impact on the direction of transfer.[43][45] One study found that transfer is asymmetrical and predicted by dominance, as Cantonese dominant children showed clear syntactic transfer in many areas of grammar from Cantonese to English but not vice versa.[43] MLU, mean length of utterance, is a common measurement of linguistic productivity and language dominance in children.

Input and interaction[edit]

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.[46][47] Krashen pointed to studies showing that the length of time a person stays in a foreign country is closely linked with their 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.[48][49] Input is also the mechanism by which people learn languages according to the universal grammar model.[50]

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.[51]

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.[52] 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.[53] These processes have been codified in the theory of comprehensible output.[54]

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.[55]

Factors and approaches to SLA[edit]

Cognitive factors[edit]

Much modern research in second-language acquisition has taken a cognitive approach.[56] 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.[57][58]

The dominant model in cognitive approaches to second-language acquisition, and indeed in all second-language acquisition research, is the computational model.[58] 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.[59] Cognitive theories attempt to codify both the nature of the mental representations of intake and language knowledge, and the mental processes that 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.[60] There are theories that hypothesize that learner language is inherently variable,[61] and there is the functionalist perspective that sees acquisition of language as intimately tied to the function it provides.[62] Some researchers make the distinction between implicit and explicit language knowledge, and some between declarative and procedural language knowledge.[63] There have also been approaches that argue for a dual-mode system in which some language knowledge is stored as rules, and other language knowledge as items.[64]

The mental processes that underlie second-language acquisition can be broken down into micro-processes and macro-processes. Micro-processes include attention;[65] working memory;[66] integration and restructuring. Restructuring is the process by which learners change their interlanguage systems;[67] and monitoring is the conscious attending of learners to their own language output.[68] Macro-processes include the distinction between intentional learning and incidental learning; and also the distinction between explicit and implicit learning.[69] Some of the notable cognitive theories of second-language acquisition include the nativization model, the multidimensional model[70] and processability theory, emergentist models, the competition model, and skill-acquisition theories.[71]

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.[72] Communication strategies are conscious strategies that learners employ to get around any instances of communication breakdown they may experience. Their effect on second-language acquisition is unclear, with some researchers claiming they help it, and others claiming the opposite.[73]

An important idea in recent cognitive approaches is the way that learning itself changes over development. For example, connectionist models that explain L1 language phenomena in different languages (e.g., Japanese, English [74]) can also be used to develop L2 models by first training on the L1 (e.g., Korean) and then training on the L2 (e.g. English).[75] By using different learning rates for syntax and lexical learning that change over development, the model can explain sensitive period effects and differences in the effect of language exposure on different types of learners.

Sociocultural factors[edit]

From the early days of the discipline researchers have also acknowledged that social aspects play an important role.[76] There have been many different approaches to sociolinguistic study of second-language 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".[77] 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.[78]

Ellis identifies three types of social structure that affect acquisition of second languages: sociolinguistic setting, specific social factors, and situational factors.[79] Sociolinguistic 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.[80] Ellis also includes the distinction of whether the second language is learned in a natural or an educational setting.[81] 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.[82] Situational factors are those that 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.[83]

Immersion programs provide a sociolinguistic setting that facilitates second-language acquisition. Immersion programs are educational programs where children are instructed in an L2 language.[84] Although the language of instruction is the L2 language, the curriculum parallels that of non-immersion programs and clear support exists in the L1 language, as the teachers are all bilingual. The goal of these programs is to develop a high level of proficiency in both the L1 and L2 languages. Students in immersion programs have been shown to have greater levels of proficiency in their second language than students who receive second language education only as a subject in school.[84] This is especially true in terms of their receptive skills. Also, students who join immersion programs earlier generally have greater second-language proficiency than their peers who join later. However, students who join later have been shown to gain native-like proficiency. Although immersion students' receptive skills are especially strong, their productive skills may suffer if they spend the majority of their time listening to instruction only. Grammatical skills and the ability to have precise vocabulary are particular areas of struggle. It is argued that immersion is necessary, but not sufficient for the development of native-like proficiency in a second language.[84] Opportunities to engage in sustained conversation, and assignments that encourage syntactical, as well as semantic development help develop the productive skills necessary for bilingual proficiency.[84]

A learner's sense of connection to their in-group, as well as to the community of the target language emphasize the influence of the sociolinguistic setting, as well as social factors within the second-language acquisition process. Social Identity Theory argues that an important factor for second language acquisition is the learner's perceived identity in relation to the community of the language being learned, as well as how the community of the target language perceives the learner.[85] Whether or not a learner feels a sense of connection to the community or culture of the target language helps determine their social distance from the target culture. A smaller social distance is likely to encourage learners to acquire the second language, as their investment in the learning process is greater. Conversely, a greater social distance discourages attempts to acquire the target language. However, negative views not only come from the learner, but the community of the target language might feel greater social distance to the learner, limiting the learner's ability to learn the language.[85] Whether or not bilingualism is valued by the culture or community of the learner is an important indicator for the motivation to learn a language.[86]

Gender, as a social factor, also influences SLA. Females have been found to have higher motivation and more positive attitudes than males for second-language acquisition. However, females are also more likely to present higher levels of anxiety, which may inhibit their ability to efficiently learn a new language.[87]

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" 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.[88] Another sociolinguistic model is Gardner's socio-educational model, which was designed to explain classroom language acquisition. Gardner's model focuses on the emotional aspects of SLA, arguing that positive motivation contributes to an individuals willingness to learn L2; furthermore, the goal of an individual to learn a L2 is based on the idea that the individual has a desire to be part of a culture, in other words, part of a (the targeted language) mono-linguistic community. Factors, such as integrativeness and attitudes towards the learning situation drive motivation. The outcome of positive motivation is not only linguistic, but non-linguistic, such that the learner has met the desired goal. Although there are many critics of Gardner's model, nonetheless many of these critics have been influenced by the merits that his model holds.[89] [90] The inter-group model proposes "ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key construct for second-language acquisition.[91] Language socialization is an approach with the premise that "linguistic and cultural knowledge are constructed through each other",[92] and saw increased attention after the year 2000.[93] Finally, Norton's theory of social identity is an attempt to codify the relationship between power, identity, and language acquisition.[94]

A unique approach to SLA is Sociocultural theory. It was originally developed by Lev Vygotsky and his followers.[95] Central to Vygotsky's theory is the concept of a zone of proximal development (ZPD). The ZPD notion states that social interaction with more advanced target language users allows one to learn language at a higher level than if they were to learn language independently.[96] Sociocultural theory has a fundamentally different set of assumptions to approaches to second-language acquisition based on the computational model.[97] 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."[97]

Linguistic factors[edit]

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 linguistic knowledge to be unique and distinct from any other type of knowledge.[57][58] 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.[56] Two main strands of research can be identified in the linguistic tradition: generative approaches informed by universal grammar, and typological approaches.[98]

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.[99]

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. He believed that children not only acquire language by learning descriptive rules of grammar; he claimed that children creatively play and form words as they learn language, creating meaning of these words, as opposed to the mechanism of memorizing language.[100] 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.[101] 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.[99] 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 acquisition has focused on what level of access learners may have.[101] there is ongoing debate among generative linguists surrounding whether L2-users have full or partial access to universal grammar. This can be seen through acceptability judgment tests. For example, one study found that during a comprehension task, while English L1 speakers learning Spanish may accept the imperfect aspect in appropriate conditions, even at higher levels of proficiency, they do not reject the use of the Preterite tense in continuous and habitual contexts.[102]

Universal grammar theory can account for some of the observations of SLA research. For example, L2-users often display knowledge about their L2 that they have not been exposed to.[103] L2-users are often aware of ambiguous or ungrammatical L2 units that they have not learned from any external source, nor from their pre-existing L1 knowledge. This unsourced knowledge suggests the existence of a universal grammar. Another piece of evidence that generative linguists tend to use is the poverty of the stimulus, which states that children acquiring language lack sufficient data to fully acquire all facets of grammar in their language, causing a mismatch between input and output.[104] The fact that children are only exposed to positive evidence yet have intuition about which word strings are ungrammatical may also be indicative of universal grammar. However, L2 learners have access to negative evidence as they are explicitly taught about ungrammaticality through corrections or grammar teaching.[104]

Individual variation[edit]

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[edit]

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. However, the exact age marking the end of the critical period is debated, and ranges from age 6 to 13, with many arguing that it is around the onset of puberty.[85] This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult and adolescent learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency faster than young children. However, in general, adolescent and adult learners of a second-language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that children who acquire both languages from birth 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.

Children who acquire two languages from birth are called simultaneous bilinguals. In these cases, both languages are spoken to the children by their parents or caregivers and they grow up knowing the two languages. These children generally reach linguistic milestones at the same time as their monolingual peers.[105] Children who do not learn two languages from infancy, but learn one language from birth, and another at some point during childhood, are referred to as sequential bilinguals. People often assume that a sequential bilingual's first language is their most proficient language, but this is not always the case. Over time and experience, a child's second language may become his or her strongest.[105] This is especially likely to happen if a child's first language is a minority language spoken at home, and the child's second language is the majority language learned at school or in the community before the age of five. Proficiency for both simultaneous and sequential bilinguals is dependent upon the child's opportunities to engage in meaningful conversations in a variety of contexts.[105]

Often simultaneous bilinguals are more proficient in their languages than sequential bilinguals. One argument for this is that simultaneous bilinguals develop more distinct representations of their languages, especially with regards to phonological and semantic levels of processing.[106] This would cause learners to have more differentiation between the languages, leading them to be able to recognize the subtle differences between the languages that less proficient learners would struggle to recognize. Learning a language earlier in life would help develop these distinct representations of language, as the learner's first language would be less established. Conversely, learning a language later in life would lead to more similar semantic representations.[106]

Although child learners more often acquire native-like proficiency, older child and adult learners often progress faster in the initial stages of learning.[107] Older child and adult learners are quicker at acquiring the initial grammar knowledge than child learners, however, with enough time and exposure to the language, children surpass their older peers. Once surpassed, older learners often display clear language deficiencies compared to child learners. This has been attributed to having a solid grasp on the first language or mother tongue they were first immersed into. Having this cognitive ability already developed can aid the process of learning a second language since there is a better understanding of how language works.[108] For this same reason interaction with family and further development of the first language is encouraged along with positive reinforcement. The exact language deficiencies that occur past a certain age are not unanimously agreed upon. Some believe that only pronunciation is affected, while others believe other abilities are affected as well. However, some differences that are generally agreed upon include older learners having a noticeable accent, a smaller vocabulary, and making several linguistic errors.

One explanation for this difference in proficiency between older learners and younger learners involves Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar is a debated theory that suggests that people have innate knowledge of universal linguistic principles that is present from birth.[107] These principles guide children as they learn a language, but its parameters vary from language to language.[109] The theory assumes that, while Universal Grammar remains into adulthood, the ability to reset the parameters set for each language is lost, making it more difficult to learn a new language proficiently.[107] Since older learners would already have an established native language, the language acquisition process is much different for them, than young learners. The rules and principles that guide the use of the learners' native language plays a role in the way the second language is developed.[109]

Some nonbiological explanations for second-language acquisition age differences include variations in social and psychological factors, such as motivation; the learner's linguistic environment; and the level of exposure. Even with less advantageous nonbiological influences, many young children attain a greater level of proficiency in their second language than older learners with more advantageous nonbiological influences.[107]

Strategies[edit]

Considerable attention has been paid to the strategies learners use to learn 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.[110] 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 he or she doesn't have access to the correct form, such as using pro-forms like thing, or using non-verbal means such as gestures. If learning strategies and communicative strategies are used properly language acquisition is successful. Some points to keep in mind while learning an additional language are: providing information that is of interest to the student, offering opportunities for the student to share their knowledge and teaching appropriate techniques for the uses of the learning resources available.[111]

Another strategy may include intentional ways to acquire or improve their second language skills. Adult immigrants and/or second language learners seeking to acquire a second language can engage in different activities to receive and share knowledge as well as improve their learning; some of these include:

  • incidental or informal learning (media resources, family/friend interactions, work interactions)
  • purposeful learning (self-study, taking language classes)
  • pursuing formal education [112]

Affective factors[edit]

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. Anxiety interferes with the mental processing of language because the demands of anxiety-related thoughts create competition for mental resources. This results in less available storage and energy for tasks required for language processing.[113] Not only this, but anxiety is also usually accompanied by self-deprecating thoughts and fear of failure, which can be detrimental to an individual's ability to learn a new language.[87] Learning a new language provides a unique situation that may even produce a specific type of anxiety, called language anxiety, that affects the quality of acquisition.[114] Also, anxiety may be detrimental for SLA because it can influence a learner's ability to attend to, concentrate on, and encode language information.[87] It may affect speed and accuracy of learning. Further, the apprehension created as a result of anxiety inhibits the learner's ability to retrieve and produce the correct information.

A related factor, personality, has also received attention. There has been discussion about the effects of extravert and introvert personalities. Extraverted qualities may help learners seek out opportunities and people to assist with L2 learning, whereas introverts may find it more difficult to seek out such opportunities for interaction.[85] However, it has also been suggested that, while extraverts might experience greater fluency, introverts are likely to make fewer linguistic errors. Further, while extraversion might be beneficial through its encouragement of learning autonomously, it may also present challenges as learners may find reflective and time-management skills to be difficult.[115] 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.[116]

Other personality factors, such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness influence self-regulation, which helps L2 learners engage, process meaning, and adapt their thoughts, feelings, and actions to benefit the acquisition process.[115] SLA research has shown conscientiousness to be associated with time-management skills, metacognition, analytic learning, and persistence; agreeableness to effort; and openness to elaborative learning, intelligence, and metacognition. Both genetics and the learner's environment impact the personality of the learner, either facilitating or hindering an individual's ability to learn.

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 cited example being the difficulty of Navajo children in learning English[citation needed].

Also, the motivation of the individual learner is of vital importance to the success of language learning. Motivation is influenced by goal salience, valence, and self-efficacy.[117] In this context, goal salience is the importance of the L2 learner's goal, as well as how often the goal is pursued; valence is the value the L2 learner places on SLA, determined by desire to learn and attitudes about learning the L2; and self-efficacy is the learner's own belief that he or she is capable of achieving the linguistic goal.[117] 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. However, motivation is dynamic and, as a L2 learner's fluency develops, their extrinsic motivation may evolve to become more intrinsic.[117] Learner motivation can develop through contact with the L2 community and culture, as learners often desire to communicate and identify with individuals in the L2 community. Further, a supportive learning environment facilitates motivation through the increase in self-confidence and autonomy.[117] Learners in a supportive environment are more often willing to take on challenging tasks, thus encouraging L2 development.

Attrition[edit]

Main article: Second-language attrition

Attrition is the loss of proficiency in a language caused by a lack of exposure to or use of a language.[85] It is a natural part of the language experience as it exists within a dynamic environment.[118] As the environment changes, the language adapts. One way it does this is by using L1 as a tool to navigate the periods of change associated with acquisition and attrition. A learner's L2 is not suddenly lost with disuse, but its communicative functions are slowly replaced by those of the L1.[118]

Similar to second-language acquisition, second-language attrition occurs in stages. However, according to the regression hypothesis, the stages of attrition occur in reverse order of acquisition. With acquisition, receptive skills develop first, and then productive skills, and with attrition, productive skills are lost first, and then receptive skills.[118]

Age, proficiency level, and social factors play a role in the way attrition occurs.[118] Most often younger children are quicker than adults to lose their L2 when it is left unused. However, if a child has established a high level of proficiency, it may take them several years to lose the language. Proficiency level seems to play the largest role in the extent of attrition. For very proficient individuals, there is a period of time where very little, if any, attrition is observed. For some, residual learning might even occur, which is the apparent improvement within the L2.[118] Within the first five years of language disuse, the total percentage of language knowledge lost is less for a proficient individual than for someone less proficient. A cognitive psychological explanation for this suggests that a higher level of proficiency involves the use of schemas, or mental representations for linguistic structures. Schemas involve deeper mental processes for mental retrieval that are resistant to attrition. As a result, information that is tied to this system is less likely to experience less extreme attrition than information that is not.[118] Finally, social factors may play an indirect role in attrition. In particular, motivation and attitude influence the process. Higher levels of motivation, and a positive attitude toward the language and the corresponding community may lessen attrition. This is likely due to the higher level of competence achieved in L2 when the learner is motivated and has a positive attitude.[118]

Classroom second-language acquisition[edit]

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.[119] 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.[120][121]

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.[122][123][124] 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.[125] As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced by their students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize interlanguage development.[126]

If one wishes to acquire a language in a classroom setting only, one needs to consider the category language one wishes to acquire; the category of the desired language will determine how many hours or weeks to devote to study.

There are three main categories of languages. Category I languages are “cognate languages” like French, Spanish, and Swedish; category II languages are Finnish, Russian, and Vietnamese; category III languages are Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. As such, the languages are categorized by their similarity to English. Respectively, category I languages require 24 weeks or 600 classroom hours to achieve proficiency; category II languages require 44 weeks or 1,100 hours; category III languages require 88 weeks or 2,200 hours .[127]

Moreover, one can achieve proficiency in a foreign language in a classroom setting so long as one acknowledges the time commitment necessary.

See also[edit]

Main article: Outline of second-language acquisition
  • Bilingualism (neurology)
  • Dynamic approach to second language development
  • 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
  • Theories of second-language acquisition
  • Vocabulary learning

Notes[edit]

  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 second-language 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).

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Stephen Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition (Assimilação Natural - o Construtivismo no Ensino de Línguas)". www.sk.com.br. Archived from the original on 22 November 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
  2. ^ Solé 1994, p. 100.
  3. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 7.
  4. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 21–24.
  5. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 24–25.
  6. ^ Ellis 1997, p. 3.
  7. ^ a b Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 1.
  8. ^ a b VanPatten & Benati 2010, pp. 2–5.
  9. ^ Koerner, Brendan I. (October 2013). "Readin', Writin' & Ruby On Rails: Let's Teach Our Kids To Code". Wired: 30.
  10. ^ Janciauskas, Marius; Chang, Franklin (2017-07-26). "Input and Age-Dependent Variation in Second Language Learning: A Connectionist Account". Cognitive Science. 42: 519–554. doi:10.1111/cogs.12519. ISSN 0364-0213. PMC 6001481. PMID 28744901.
  11. ^ ASCD. "The Stages of Second Language Acquisition". www.ascd.org. Archived from the original on 28 March 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
  12. ^ a b c d Haynes 2007, pp. 29–35.
  13. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 73–75.
  14. ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-03-07. Retrieved 2014-06-02.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  15. ^ FSI’s Experience with Language Learning
  16. ^ "What's the Hardest Language to Learn?". Zidbits. Archived from the original on 11 June 2012. Retrieved 10 June 2012.
  17. ^ Bay Language Academy: The British Foreign Office Diplomatic Service Language Centre
  18. ^ Slabakova, Roumyana. "The Bottleneck Hypothesis updated". lald.63.16sla. Retrieved 2020-04-24.
  19. ^ Jensen, Isabel Nadine; Slabakova, Roumyana; Westergaard, Marit; Lundquist, Björn (2019-02-28). "The Bottleneck Hypothesis in L2 acquisition: L1 Norwegian learners' knowledge of syntax and morphology in L2 English". Second Language Research. 36 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1177/0267658318825067. hdl:10037/18039. ISSN 0267-6583. S2CID 151194074.
  20. ^ Paradis, Johanne; Jia, Ruiting; Arppe, Antti (July 2017). "The acquisition of tense morphology over time by English second language children with specific language impairment: Testing the cumulative effects hypothesis". Applied Psycholinguistics. 38 (4): 881–908. doi:10.1017/S0142716416000485. ISSN 0142-7164.
  21. ^ Cook 2008, p. 13.
  22. ^ Monika S. Schmid (2014) The Debate on Maturational Constraints in Bilingual Development: A Perspective from First-Language Attrition, Language Acquisition, 21:4, 386-410, DOI: 10.1080/10489223.2014.892947
  23. ^ Cook 2008, p. 232.
  24. ^ Flege 1987.
  25. ^ Chang 2012.
  26. ^ Cook 2008, p. 15.
  27. ^ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 4.
  28. ^ Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p. 6.
  29. ^ a b Mason, Timothy. "Didactics – 7 : Critique of Krashen III. Natural Order Hypothesis (2) :Interlanguage". Lecture in the didactics of English, Université of Versailles St. Quentin, a course run from 1993 to 2002. Archived from the original on 2012-01-10. Retrieved 2011-02-10.
  30. ^ a b Yip, Virginia (Aug 1990). "Interlanguage Ergative Constructions and Learnability" (PDF). CUHK Papers in Linguistics, No. 2. p45-68.
  31. ^ Selinker 1972.
  32. ^ a b Gass & Selinker 2008, p. 14.
  33. ^ Cook 2008, pp. 26–27.
  34. ^ Parker, Kate (May 1989). "Learnability Theory and the Acquisition of Syntax" (PDF). University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 49-78.
  35. ^ Pienemann, Manfred (1989). "Is Language Teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses". Applied Linguistics. 10 (1): 52–79. doi:10.1093/applin/10.1.52.
  36. ^ a b c Ellis 1997, pp. 25–29.
  37. ^ a b VanPatten & Benati 2010, p. 166.
  38. ^ a b c d e Lightbown & Spada 2006, pp. 93–96.
  39. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 350.
  40. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 397.
  41. ^ Nicoladis, Elena (April 2012). "Cross-linguistic influence in French–English bilingual children's possessive constructions*". Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 15 (2): 320–328. doi:10.1017/S1366728911000101. ISSN 1469-1841.
  42. ^ Bosch, Jasmijn Esther|Unsworth. "Cross-linguistic influence in word order". lab.18103.bos. Retrieved 2020-04-24.
  43. ^ a b c Yip, Virginia; Matthews, Stephen (2006-04-01). "Assessing Language Dominance in Bilingual Acquisition: A Case for Mean Length Utterance Differentials". Language Assessment Quarterly. 3 (2): 97–116. doi:10.1207/s15434311laq0302_2. hdl:10722/57395. ISSN 1543-4303. S2CID 144171787.
  44. ^ Schmid, Monika S.; Yılmaz, Gülsen (2018-08-20). "Predictors of Language Dominance: An Integrated Analysis of First Language Attrition and Second Language Acquisition in Late Bilinguals". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 1306. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01306. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 6110303. PMID 30177893.
  45. ^ Unsworth, Sharon (May 2016). "Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or both?*". Journal of Child Language. 43 (3): 608–634. doi:10.1017/S030500091500080X. ISSN 0305-0009. PMID 26915919.
  46. ^ Krashen 1981a.
  47. ^ Krashen 1994.
  48. ^ Elley 1991.
  49. ^ Krashen 2004.
  50. ^ Cook 2008, p. 215.
  51. ^ Krashen 1981b, pp. 54–55.
  52. ^ Swain 1991.
  53. ^ Skehan 1998.
  54. ^ Swain 1995.
  55. ^ Long 1996.
  56. ^ a b VanPatten & Benati 2010, p. 5.
  57. ^ a b VanPatten & Benati 2010, p. 71.
  58. ^ a b c Ellis 2008, pp. 405–406.
  59. ^ Ellis 1997, p. 35.
  60. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 408–410.
  61. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 410–415.
  62. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 415–417.
  63. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 242–243.
  64. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 431–433.
  65. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 248–249.
  66. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 250–253.
  67. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 443–445.
  68. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 253–255.
  69. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 445–452.
  70. ^ "Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition". www.tesl-ej.org. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
  71. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 445–482.
  72. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 488–492.
  73. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 511.
  74. ^ Chang, Franklin (2009-10-01). "Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English". Journal of Memory and Language. 61 (3): 374–397. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.006. ISSN 0749-596X.
  75. ^ Janciauskas, Marius; Chang, Franklin (2018). "Input and Age-Dependent Variation in Second Language Learning: A Connectionist Account". Cognitive Science. 42 (S2): 519–554. doi:10.1111/cogs.12519. ISSN 1551-6709. PMC 6001481. PMID 28744901.
  76. ^ Ellis 1997, p. 37.
  77. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 280–281.
  78. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 280–281.
  79. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 281.
  80. ^ Siegel 2003, p. 178.
  81. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 288.
  82. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 323.
  83. ^ Gass & Selinker 2008, pp. 268–269.
  84. ^ a b c d Pinter 2011, pp. 80–82.
  85. ^ a b c d e Loewen & Reinders 2011.
  86. ^ Vega 2008, pp. 185–198.
  87. ^ a b c Piechurska-Kuciel 2011.
  88. ^ Ellis 2008, pp. 326–327.
  89. ^ Taie, Masumeh; Afshari, Asghar (2015-03-24). "A Critical Review on the Socio-educational Model of SLA". Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 5 (3): 605–612. doi:10.17507/tpls.0503.21. ISSN 1799-2591.
  90. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 330.
  91. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 332.
  92. ^ Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen 2003, p. 157.
  93. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 334.
  94. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 336.
  95. ^ VanPatten & Benati 2010, pp. 151–152.
  96. ^ Lightbown, Patsy; Spada, Nina (2011). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442224-6.
  97. ^ a b Ellis 2008, pp. 517–518.
  98. ^ Ellis 2008, p. 557.
  99. ^ a b VanPatten & Benati 2010, p. 161.
  100. ^ Solé 1994, p. 99.
  101. ^ a b VanPatten & Benati 2010, pp. 162–163.
  102. ^ Domínguez, Laura; Arche, María J; Myles, Florence (2017-04-11). "Spanish Imperfect revisited: Exploring L1 influence in the reassembly of imperfective features onto new L2 forms". Second Language Research. 33 (4): 431–457. doi:10.1177/0267658317701991. ISSN 0267-6583.
  103. ^ VanPatten & Williams 2015, pp. 36–37.
  104. ^ a b White, Lydia (2003). "Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar" (PDF). Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.
  105. ^ a b c Kohnert 2008.
  106. ^ a b Tokowicz, Natasha (2015). Lexical Processing and Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 57–74. ISBN 978-0-415-87755-8.
  107. ^ a b c d Long 2007.
  108. ^ Clifford, Vanessa; Rhodes, Anthea; Paxton, Georgia (2014). "Learning difficulties or learning English difficulties? Additional language acquisition: An update for paediatricians". Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 50 (3): 175–181. doi:10.1111/jpc.12396. PMID 24134139.
  109. ^ a b Gass & Glew 2008.
  110. ^ Canale & Swain 1980.
  111. ^ Flynn, Naomi (2007). "Good practice for pupils learning English as an additional language: Lessons from effective literacy teachers in inner-city primary schools". Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. 7 (2): 184. doi:10.1177/1468798407079286. S2CID 145437243.
  112. ^ Adamuti-Trache, Maria (2012). "Language Acquisition Among Adult Immigrants in Canada: The Effect of Premigration Language". Adult Education Quarterly. 63 (2): 115. doi:10.1177/0741713612442804. S2CID 145756906.
  113. ^ Ashcraft & Kirk 2001.
  114. ^ MacIntyre & Gardner 1991.
  115. ^ a b Studenska 2011.
  116. ^ Erton 2010.
  117. ^ a b c d Piasecka 2011.
  118. ^ a b c d e f g Hansen 1999, pp. 3–10.
  119. ^ Lightbown 1990.
  120. ^ Doughty & Williams 1998.
  121. ^ Ellis 2002.
  122. ^ Lightbown & Spada 1990.
  123. ^ Lyster & Ranta 1997.
  124. ^ Lyster & Mori 2006.
  125. ^ Allwright & Hanks 2009.
  126. ^ Tarone & Swierzbin 2009.
  127. ^ Jackson & Kaplan 1999.

Bibliography[edit]

  • 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): 165–180. doi:10.2307/1423026. JSTOR 1423026. PMID 1621879.
  • Ashcraft, M. H.; Kirk, E. P. (2001). "The relationships among working memory, math anxiety and performance". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 130 (2): 224–237. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224.
  • Bailey, N.; Madden, C.; Krashen, S. D. (1974). "Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning?". Language Learning. 24 (2): 235–243. 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 (1): 190–214. 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): 1–47. 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): 249–268. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.007.
  • Cook, Vivian (2016). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-71377-1.
  • DeKeyser, Robert (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar". In Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42–63. 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): 245–258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x.
  • Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974). "Natural sequences in child second language acquisition". Language Learning. 24: 37–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x.
  • Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974). "You can't learn without goofing". In Richards, Jack (ed.). Error Analysis. New York: Longman. pp. 95–123. ISBN 978-0-582-55044-5.
  • Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1975). "Creative construction in second language learning and teaching". In Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (eds.). 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 4–9, 1975. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp. 21–32. OCLC 1980255.
  • Elley, W. B. (1991). "Acquiring Literacy in a Second Language: the Effect of Book-Based Programs". Language Learning. 41 (3): 375–411. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00611.x.
  • Ellis, N. C. (1998). "Emergentism, Connectionism and Language Learning" (PDF). Language Learning. 48 (4): 631–664. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.473.5374. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00063. Retrieved 2011-03-01.[permanent dead link]
  • Ellis, Rod (1993). "Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus". TESOL Quarterly. 27 (1): 91–113. doi:10.2307/3586953. JSTOR 3586953.
  • Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-437189-6.
  • 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): 223–236. doi:10.1017/s0272263102002073.
  • Ellis, Rod; Barkhuizen, Patrick (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-431634-7.
  • Ellis, Rod (2009). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-442257-4.
  • Erton, I. (2010). "Relations between personality traits, language learning styles and success in foreign language achievement". Hacettepe University Journal of Education. 38: 115–126.
  • 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: 47–65. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30537-6. Retrieved 2011-02-09.
  • Gass, S.; Glew, M. (2008). "Second language acquisition and bilingualism". In Altarriba, J.; Heredia, R. (eds.). An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-0-8058-5135-9.
  • Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-8058-5497-8. Retrieved 2010-11-17 – via Google Books.
  • Hansen, Lynne (1999). Second Language Attrition in Japanese Contexts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512304-3.
  • Harley, B. (1989). "Functional Grammar in French Immersion: A Classroom Experiment". Applied Linguistics. 10 (3): 331–360. 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.
  • Kohnert, K. (2008). "Primary Language Impairments in Bilingual Children and Adults". In Altarriba, J.; Heredia, R. (eds.). An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 295–320. ISBN 978-0-8058-5135-9.
  • Krashen, Stephen (1977). "Some issues relating to the monitor model". In Brown, H; Yorio, Carlos; Crymes, Ruth (eds.). 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. 144–158. OCLC 4037133.
  • Krashen, Stephen (1981a). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-08-025338-1. Archived from the original on October 19, 2008.
  • Krashen, Stephen (1981b). "The "fundamental pedagogical principle" in second language teaching". Studia Linguistica. 35 (1–2): 50–70. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.1981.tb00701.x.
  • Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-08-028628-0. Archived from the original on March 12, 2012.
  • Krashen, Stephen (1994). "The input hypothesis and its rivals". In Ellis, Nick (ed.). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press. pp. 45–77. 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 978-0-89874-700-3.
  • Lightbown, Patsy (1990). "Chapter 6: Process-product research on second language learning in classrooms". In Harley, Birgit (ed.). The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 82–92. 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): 429–48. 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.
  • Loewen, Shawn; Reinders, Hayo (2011). Key Concepts in Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23018-7.
  • Long, M. (1996). "The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition". In Ritchie, William; Bhatia, Tej (eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 413–468. ISBN 978-0-12-589042-7.
  • Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lyster, R.; Ranta, L. (1997). "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19: 37–66. doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034.
  • Lyster, R.; Mori, H. (2006). "Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 28 (2): 269–300. doi:10.1017/s0272263106060128.
  • MacIntyre, Peter D.; Gardner, R. C. (1991). "Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties and to processing in native and foreign language". Language Learning. 41 (4): 513–534. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00691.x.
  • MacWhinney, Brian (1987). "Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism" (PDF). Applied Psycholinguistics. 8 (4): 315–327. doi:10.1017/S0142716400000357. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2005). "Extending the Competition Model". International Journal of Bilingualism. 9: 69–05. doi:10.1177/13670069050090010501. S2CID 143600103.
  • Paradis, M. (1994). "Neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA". In Ellis, Nick (ed.). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press. pp. 393–420. ISBN 978-0-12-237475-3.
  • Penfield, Wilder; Roberts, Lamar (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-08039-0.
  • Piasecka, L. (2011). "Current views on foreign language reading motivation". In Arabski, Janusz; Wojtaszek, Adam (eds.). Individual Learner Differences in SLA. North York, ON: Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-1-84769-434-8.
  • Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2011). "A Study of Gender-Related Levels of Processing Anxieties over Three Years of Secondary Grammar School Instruction". In Arabski, Janusz; Wojtaszek, Adam (eds.). Individual Learner Differences in SLA. North York, ON: Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-1-84769-434-8.
  • Pinter, Annamaria (2011). Children Learning Second Languages. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-1185-8.
  • 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): 509–542. doi:10.1017/s0272263198004033.
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). "Attention". In Robinson, Peter (ed.). Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–32. ISBN 978-0-521-80288-8.
  • Selinker, L. (1972). "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied Linguistics. 10 (1–4): 209–241. doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209.
  • Siegel, Jeff (2003). "Social Context". In Doughty, Catherine; Long, Michael (eds.). 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.
  • Solé, Yolanda Russinovich (1994). "The Input Hypothesis and the Bilingual Learner". The Bilingual Review. 19 (2): 99–110. JSTOR 25745211.(registration required)
  • Studenska, A. (2011). "Personality and parenting styles as predictors of self-regulation in foreign language learning". In Arabski, Janusz; Wojtaszek, Adam (eds.). Individual Learner Differences in SLA. North York (ON): Multilingual Matters. ISBN 978-1-84769-434-8.
  • Swain, Merrill (1991). "French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one". In Freed, Barbara (ed.). Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath. pp. 91–103. ISBN 978-0-669-24263-8.
  • Swain, Merrill (1995). "Three functions of output in second language learning". In Cook, Guy (ed.). Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 125–144. 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.
  • Tokowicz, Natasha (2015). Lexical Processing and Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-87755-8.
  • VanPatten, Bill; Williams, Jessica, eds. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-82421-7.
  • VanPatten, Bill; Benati, Alessandro G. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-9914-1.
  • Vega, Luis, A (2008). Social Psychological Approaches to Bilingualism. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 978-0-8058-5135-9.
  • Watson-Gegeo, Karen Ann; Nielsen, Sarah (2003). "Language Socialization in SLA". In Doughty, Catherine; Long, Michael (eds.). 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: 1–27. doi:10.1093/applin/24.1.1.