Second Language Acquisition

This article presents some of the theories and research dominant in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). SLA is a diverse field that seeks to answer three main questions. These are 1) what happens during the acquisition of a second language; 2) how do learners learn second languages; and 3) what factors improve second language acquisition. Contributions to SLA come from many disciplines including linguistics, applied linguistics, cognitive science, psychology and education. Although there are multiple theories of SLA, no single theory exists to incorporate all the research.

Overview

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a discipline that is both young and diverse. Established as a field distinct from linguistics only since the 1960s, SLA research attempts to understand the processes that occur as individuals learn a second language (L2). Specifically, researchers seek to 1) document what happens during the acquisition of a second language; 2) explain how these languages are acquired; and 3) understand the factors that improve L2 acquisition.

SLA research is conducted in a number of academic arenas including psychology, linguistics, applied linguistics, cognitive science, neuroscience and education. Due to this diversity and to the fact that academic research is often separated in a way that experts in one field may not follow or build upon the research in another, many theories have been proposed to describe particular aspects of SLA, but no general agreed upon umbrella theory exits. Additionally, newcomers to the field will find a plethora of terminology originating in different fields that describes the same or similar SLA processes.

Further Insights

One of the most basic tasks of SLA research is to document what happens as individuals acquire an L2. This is important because in order for researchers to develop a theory about how language acquisition works, they need to know what processes, stages, and behaviors are common to all L2 learners. A key finding of this research focus is that all language learners exhibit similar stages of development and some stages occur in the same order. This is strong evidence that language acquisition is a developmental process. VanPatten and Williams in a discussion of SLA theories, list ten observations that researchers have widely reported. These include:

• Exposure to substantial amounts of input—the target language—is important.
• Learners learn language incidentally as they focus on the meaning of utterances.
• Learners eventually produce more language than that which they are exposed to as input.
• A learner's speech production develops in a predictable order.
• Learners can develop at different rates even when learning under the same conditions.
• Learners can be more competent in one area of language use than another (e.g., strong speaking skills but weak writing skills).
• Learners may or may not learn language even when the language is used frequently.
• A learner's first language may, but does not necessarily, have a major impact on the acquisition of the second language.
• Instructional effects are limited in such a way that even if a particular aspect of language is taught and practiced, it may not be what a student learns.
• Although producing language is important, the production of language has limits in terms of acquisition.
• From making observations, researchers move to the second basic task of SLA research, which is to explain how learners acquire language. In answering this question, researchers have examined internal cognitive processes as well as external socio-cultural factors.

A frequently posed question in SLA research is related to the relationship of first (L1) and L2 acquisition. Since many of the developmental stages that L2 learners exhibit—such as having a "silent period" in which the learner can comprehend language but not produce it—are similar to the stages children demonstrate as they learn their first language, researchers have theorized that the mechanisms employed in both processes must be the same or similar.

Generative Linguistics

Initially, SLA researchers turned to the field of generative linguistics where experts in the 1960s and 1970s were trying to solve a theoretical problem. In particular, they sought to understand why children could produce language with linguistic structures that were different and more advanced than the inputs they received. The prevailing answer at the time was developed by Chomsky, who said there must be an innate language acquisition device that all people have that allows children to understand grammar. This universal organizing principle was dubbed "Universal Grammar." It became a guiding principle in linguistics and SLA research as theorists sought to discover how individuals accessed this principle to create new utterances.

In the field of SLA, researchers attempted (and continue to attempt) to understand how L2 learners can access Universal Grammar. However, there are problems with the theory in that observational data indicates that many L2 learners never reach a state of native-like proficiency. To account for this, researchers have argued that there must be a specific period of time, a Critical Period, in which learners can acquire language to native-like proficiency. Much research has been done in an attempt to prove whether the Critical Period Hypothesis is valid and if it is, to identify when the period ends. Some researchers have placed the critical period in the first few years of life; others extend the period up to puberty.

Although the concept of a Universal Grammar continues to be controversial, brain-based research has determined that L1 and L2 language processes typically occur in the same areas of the brain. This suggests that acquisition of L1 and L2 share the same processes, yet there are differences in the amount of activation between L1 and L2. Generally, the use of a second language activates more neurons in the brain. This is an indicator, neuroscientists say, and that L2 processing is not as efficient as L1 processing. The degree of difference in the amount of neuronal activity between L1 and L2 use varies depending on the learner's age of acquisition. Learners who began acquiring an L2 at a younger age have levels of activation that are more similar to their L1 activations than learners who were older at the time of acquisition. This provides researchers with one possible biological explanation of why adults or late-learning L2 learners rarely use a second language with first-language proficiency.

While identifying the areas of the brain where L2 use takes place provides some insight into acquisition, it does not explain exactly how language is learned. Today's neurocognitive scientists provide a more specific model of acquisition based on the idea that learning occurs through the development of neural networks in the brain that form in response to external stimuli. To clarify this process, consider your knowledge of a simple object like a rock. Before you had ever seen a rock, your brain did not have a picture to attach to the concept of rock. Once you saw a rock, and you were told, "This is a rock," your brain created an association between the image of the rock and the word rock. The association was created in your brain by the connection of two neurons representing the image and the word. Along with these associations, your brain also created other associations such as size and rock, shape and rock, texture and rock, etc. As you learned more about this thing called rock, more and more neural pathways were created forming a complex, web-like network of associations for everything you know about rock. Now that these pathways are built, each time you encounter the concept of rock, the pathways are activated so that you may hear the word rock and an image of rock appears in your mind, along with specific information about different types of rocks, what you can do with rocks, etc. The speed at which you process information about rocks increases with the frequency with which you encounter the concept. If you become a geologist and deal with rocks every day, your brain will more quickly activate its neural networks related to rocks than if you become a computer scientist, work in an office, and never deal with rocks again.

Associative—Cognitive CREED Theory

The Associative-Cognitive CREED Theory, where CREED stands for construction-based, rational, exemplar-driving, emergent and dialectic, is based on this cognitive model of learning. In this theory, language knowledge is gained through communication and is represented in a series of "constructions" or associations between linguistic forms (e.g., words, parts of words) and their meanings, appropriate uses or discourse functions. Many of the constructions occur frequently and in particular patterns; thus, the brain is able to process them rapidly and soon learns to predict when a particular construction is likely to occur. Language learning from this perspective is rational because learners are constantly using the frequency, recency and context of language to understand what is uttered. It is exemplar-driven because learners are able to take commonly formed constructions and modify them to produce new constructions. (e.g., regular construction of the past tense is created by adding -Ed). It is also emergent and dynamic, for despite the regularities of language patterning, each brain develops its own understanding of language systems based on the type of input it receives.

Like other theories of SLA, the Associative-Cognitive CREED Theory attempts to explain why second and first language proficiencies are often different. The answer, according to this theory, is that the brain, when learning a first language has almost complete "plasticity," able to optimally adapt to first language inputs. L2 learners do not have this plasticity, and therefore, must overcome interference from L1 constructions. This leads to lower levels of proficiency in the L2. On the other hand, the theory suggests that the reason that L2 learners can learn new languages is that language learning is dialectic. If a skilled instructor can point out the learner's deficiencies and involve the learner in conscious-language processing, interference from L1 can be overcome.

Monitor Theory

While the cognitive science of SLA is becoming more concrete and more widely-available, the best known theory explaining how languages are learned may still be Krashen's Monitor Theory. This theory consists of five hypotheses and is based on the proposition discussed earlier that L1 and L2 processes must be similar.

The first hypothesis of the five is also the most influential. In the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen drew a distinction between learning and acquiring a language. Acquisition, he said, occurs unconsciously when individuals are communicating in natural settings with the intention of conveying or understanding meaning. In contrast, he said learning occurs through the explicit study of language rules, forms and patterns. Krashen's view that the knowledge gained through each of these processes must be stored separately and without connection is not supported by cognitive science as discussed above. However, the theory attempted to explain the observation that there were students who had learned languages in formal settings who were unable to use the language in natural settings, and there were students who had learned languages in natural settings who were unable to articulate the rules of the language. The distinction between acquisition and learning has been influential in the development of the communicative approach to teaching in which students focus on meaning instead of form and learn by interacting in the classroom. This pedagogical approach is widely prevalent in today's second language classrooms. Briefly, Krashen's other four hypotheses include:

• The Monitor Hypothesis which suggested that individuals have an internal monitor that observes one's own language use;
• The Natural Order Hypothesis that said there is a specific sequence that occurs when acquiring language that cannot be altered regardless of the order of instruction.
• The Input Hypothesis that said that in order for a language to be acquired, language input must be comprehensible or easy to understand; and
• The Affective Filter Hypothesis that learners have an internal filter through which they filter input. If they are comfortable in their environment, their filters will be low, and they will have access to more comprehensible input. If they are anxious, their filters will be high and they will not acquire as much language.

Monitor Theory has had widespread influence partly because it attempts to account for both the internal and external factors that influence L2 acquisition. As a culmination to this discussion of theories on how languages are learned, sociolinguistic and socio-cultural theories of language learning also apply.

Socio-Linguistic / Socio-Cultural Theories

In the 1960s and 1970s, linguists called for the study of language use within particular contexts, arguing that socio-cultural factors dictate what, where and how something can be said. Hymes coined the term communicative competence to describe an individual's ability to use language within particular contexts and cultures. Later, in the 1980s, Canale and Swain wrote a series of articles that suggested four domains of communicative competence including:

1. Grammatical Competence: This includes knowledge of vocabulary, word forms & derivations, syntax, sentence grammar, meaning and phonology.
2. Sociolinguistic Competence: Understanding when, where and how language can be used.
3. Discourse Competence: Understanding how to combine and create unified spoken and written texts.
4. Strategic Competence: The ability to cope when language is inadequate or the ability to enhance the effectiveness of one's communications.

In terms of SLA, sociolinguistic theories are important because it is now recognized that language use is culturally bound. Because the relationship between culture, language and thinking patterns is so strong, even if an L2 learner has a good grasp of vocabulary, syntax and grammar, he or she may still use language inappropriately due to cultural interference. Furthermore, socio-cultural theories challenge SLA educators and researchers to reconsider exactly what it means to learn a language. That is, according to these theories, languages emerge within a particular context and are sufficient for communicating within the context. The goal of a learner then should not be to learn a predetermined set of grammatical rules, but instead to learn a large array of fragments and patterns that will allow for communication within diverse contexts. This thread of discussion has been particularly dominant in discussions related to the spread of English around the world and the emergence of many localized varieties of World Englishes. Though these derivations may not be the same as standard American or British English, they allow users to communicate meaningfully and therefore should be accepted, linguists say, as viable products of acquisition.

The final task of SLA research is to identify the factors that improve second language acquisition. While research has identified multiple factors leading to relative degrees of performance, these factors are often grouped by whether they are characteristics of the individual learner, the L1 or L2 language, or the learning context.

Learner characteristics are defined as those related to the student's biological, biographical or environmental conditions that are unique to the learner. Learner characteristics include the learner's level of formal training and literacy in the first language, level of home support for L2 learning, and individual learning styles.

One of the most important learner characteristics is the age of the student. Older students who have greater cognitive maturity frequently outperform younger students in the rate at which they acquire an L2. Superiority in rate of acquisition holds throughout the initial stages of language learning. However, younger students generally attain higher levels of proficiency in the long-run. Indeed, Birdsong in an analysis of two dozen studies focusing on a diverse range of biographical factors including age of first exposure to L2, length of residence in L2 context, amount of formal training in L2 and exposure to L2 in content courses, found age of acquisition to be the strongest predictor of L2 proficiency outcomes. The later the age of acquisition, the greater the number of errors learners exhibited in morph syntax production, grammaticality judgments and nonnative pronunciation.

A second learner characteristic leading to relative degrees of success is the amount of motivation students have to learn the L2. Students who are intrinsically motivated to learn the L2 do so because they have an internal need to do well and perform competently. Extrinsically motivated students are more interested in the external rewards they will gain, such as a new job or the ability to pass a test. Whether or not one form of motivation is more effective than another may depend on cultural factors. Some cultural groups prefer more autonomy and are likely to be intrinsically motivated. On the other hand, some groups are conditioned to do well when authorities make choices and are more likely to respond to extrinsic motivators.

Language characteristics also account for differences in rates of acquisition. It takes more time to learn a language when the L1 and L2 are derived from different language families and have unrelated writing systems. Additionally, the status of the L2 in the community, and the presence of L1 or L2 dialects may affect acquisition.

Finally, variations in the contexts of learning can affect performance. Today, classrooms try to emulate natural contexts by using communicative approaches that emphasize interaction over form. Teachers frequently encourage interaction and negotiation for meaning, guided by the belief that interaction helps students 1) make their input comprehensible; 2) notice gaps between their interlanguage (internal construction of the L2) and the target language; and 3) modify their output to be understood. Teachers also offer various forms of corrective feedback. While such feedback has been somewhat controversial in communicative classrooms, where critics felt the correction might impede the natural communicative processes, recent research shows this is not the case. A meta-analysis by Russell and Spada found that corrective feedback has substantial, long-term effects on both systems. Loewen & Philip and Sheen also found benefits to corrective feedback in the form of recasts, a teacher's rephrasing of a student's incorrect utterances.

Terms & Concepts

Age of Acquisition: The age at which a student is immersed in an environment utilizing the second language.

Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis is the first of five hypotheses that comprise Krashen's Monitor Theory. This hypothesis draws a distinction between acquisition which Krashen says is an unconscious process that occurs in natural settings when learners focus on meaning and learning which he says occurs when learners consciously try to learn the forms and rules of the language.

Associative-Cognitive CREED Theory: The Associative-Cognitive CREED Theory is cognitive theory of second language acquisition that explains how language is represented in the brain as a series of constructions between linguistic forms and their meanings, uses and discourse functions.

Communicative Approach: The Communicative Approach is an approach to teaching language that utilizes real-world situations and interactions in order to encourage communication and negotiation for meaning among students.

Communicative Competence: Communicative Competence is the ability of an individual to understand and utilize language within a variety of contexts. Coined by the linguist Dell Hymes, the theory of communicative competence suggests that language is not just a system of grammar, but incorporates several sociolinguistic aspects of language as well.

Critical Period Hypothesis: The Critical Period Hypothesis is a theory that says there is a specific time period in which individuals can best learn languages. Disagreement exists as to when the critical period ends.

Generative Linguistics: Generative linguistics is a branch of linguistics that seeks to discover whether there is an innate, grammatical system that accounts for the human ability to organize and produce language.

Input: Input refers to the language that a language learner hears when acquiring an L2.

Universal Grammar: A term coined by Noam Chomsky to describe an innate language organizing system that some people believe all people must have.

World Englishes: A term to describe the multiple variations of English that have developed around the globe.

Bibliography

Ajideh, P., Rahimpour, M., Amini, D., & Farrokhi, F. (2013). Motivational strategies, task effectiveness and incidental acquisition of second language vocabulary. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 4, 1044-1052. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56(Suppl.), 9-49. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Cherciov, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of attitude on first language attrition and second language acquisition from a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17, 716-733. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Ellis, N. (2007). The Associative-Cognitive CREED. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition. (pp.77-95). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.). Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.

Keck, C., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research in language learning and teaching (pp. 91-131). Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing.

Krashen, S., Scarella, R., & Long, M. (Eds.). (1982). Child-adult differences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Lamb, Sydney. (1999). Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leung, C. (2005). Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 119-144. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Loewen, S., & Philip, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Munoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. In C. Munoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1-40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Reuda, R., & Chen, C. (2005). Assessing motivational factors in foreign language learning: Cultural variation in key constructs. Educational Assessment, 10, 209-229. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research in language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing.

Sheen, Younghee. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-393. Retrieved on April 15, 2007, from EBSCO .

The stages of language acquisition for ELLs. (2023, May 2). Continental. Retrieved September 24, 2024, from https://www.continentalpress.com/blog/language-acquisition-stages-ells/

Stowe, L. (2006). When does the neurological basis of first and second language processing differ? In J. H. Schumann (Series Ed.) & M. Gullberg & P. Indefrey (Vol. eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of second language acquisition: The Language Learning-Max Plank Institute for Psycholinguistics cognitive neuroscience series (pp. 305-319). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Early theories in second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition. (pp.17-35). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Introduction: The nature of theories. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition. (pp.1-16). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Walqui, A. (2000). Contextual factors in second language acquisition. Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved on April 15, 2007, from

White, L. (2007). Linguistic theory, Universal Grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition. (pp.37-55). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Williams, C. ESL Glossary. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from

Young-Scholten, M. (2013). Low-educated immigrants and the social relevance of second language acquisition research. Second Language Research, 29, 441-454. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Suggested Reading

Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language Learning, 56(Suppl.), 9-49. Retrieved April 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Gordon, T. (2007). Teaching young children a second language. Westport, CT: Praeger Publisher.

Lamb, Sydney. (1999). Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.