An interlanguage is an idiolect that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) which preserves some features of their first language
(or L1), and can also overgeneralize some L2 writing and speaking
rules. These two characteristics of an interlanguage result in the
system's unique linguistic organization.
An interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can "fossilize",
or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. The
interlanguage rules are claimed to be shaped by several factors,
including L1-transfer, previous learning strategies, strategies of L2
acquisition (i.e., simplification), L2 communication strategies (i.e., circumlocution), and overgeneralization of L2 language patterns.
Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a dormant
psychological framework in the human brain that is activated when one
attempts to learn a second language. Interlanguage theory is often
credited to Larry Selinker, who coined the terms "interlanguage" and "fossilization." Uriel Weinreich
is credited with providing the foundational information that was the
basis of Selinker's research. Selinker (1972) noted that in a given
situation, the utterances produced by a learner are different from those
native speakers
would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This
comparison suggests the existence of a separate linguistic system. This
system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learner who
attempts to produce meaning in their L2 speech; it is not seen when that
same learner performs form-focused tasks, such as oral drills in a
classroom.
Interlanguage can be variable across different contexts; for
example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one domain than
in another.
To study the psychological processes involved one can compare the interlanguage utterances of the learner with two things:
Utterances in the native language (L1) to convey the same message produced by the learner.
Utterances in the target language (L2) to convey the same message, produced by a native speaker of that language.
It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to a learner's
underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics).
By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to
universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed
greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in second-language acquisition.
Background
Before the interlanguage hypothesis rose to prominence, the principal theory of second-language (L2) development was contrastive analysis.
This theory assumed that learners' errors were caused by the difference
between their L1 and L2. This approach was deficit-focused, in the
sense that speech errors were thought to arise randomly and should be
corrected.
A further assumption followed that a sufficiently thorough analysis of
the differences between learners' first and second languages could
predict all of the difficulties they would face.
This assumption was not based in rigorous analysis of learner language
but rather was often anecdotal, and researchers' claims were prone to confirmation bias.
Robert Lado
(1957) held that the claims of contrastive analysis should be viewed as
hypothetical unless and until they were based on systematic analyses of
learner speech data.
Around this time, second-language acquisition research shifted from
hypotheses of language learning and the development of language-teaching
materials to the systematic analysis of learner speech and writing with
the practice of error analysis.
Although this was initially done to validate the claims of contrastive
analysis, researchers found that many learner behaviours could not be
easily explained by transfer from learners' L1 to their L2.
The idea that language learners' linguistic systems were
different from both their L1 and L2 was developed independently at
around the same time by several different researchers. William Nemser called it an approximative system and Pit Corder called it transitional competence.
Variability
Interlanguage is claimed to be a language in its own right. Learner language varies
much more than native-speaker language. Selinker noted that in a given
situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from
those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the
same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system.
Interlanguage can be observed to be variable across different
contexts. For example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in
one discourse domain than in another.
Variability is observed when comparing the utterances of the learner
in conversation to form-focused tasks, such as memory-based oral drills
in a classroom. Spontaneous conversation is more likely to involve the
use of interlanguage. A learner may produce a target-like variant (e.g.
'I don't') in one context and a non-target like variant (e.g. 'me no')
in another. Scholars from different traditions have taken opposing views
on the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring a Chomskyan
perspective to second-language acquisition typically regard variability
as nothing more than performance errors, and not worthy of systematic
inquiry. On the other hand, those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic
orientation view variability as an inherent feature of the learner's
interlanguage. In these approaches, a learner's preference for one
linguistic variant over another can depend on social (contextual)
variables such as the status or role of the person the learner is
speaking to.
Preference can also be based on linguistic variables such as the
phonological environment or neighboring features marked for formality or
informality.
Variability in learner language distinguishes between "free
variation", which has not been shown to be systematically related to
accompanying linguistic or social features, and "systematic variation",
which has.
Free variation
Free
variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign
that it has not been fully acquired. The learner is still trying to
figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms. This type of
variability seems to be most common among beginning learners, and may be
entirely absent among the more advanced.
Systematic variation
Systematic
variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological,
and social context. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For
example, in earlier stages of acquisition, a learner will often display
systematic constraints on their ability to use the correct tense.
They may say "Last year we travel to the ocean" rather than "Last year
we travelled to the ocean." They also tend to make more mistakes when
the word following a tensed
word begins with a consonant (e.g., burned bacon). But they will show
higher accuracy when the word following the tensed word begins with a
nonconsonant (e.g., burned eggs).
Other factors
Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. In accordance with communication accommodation theory,
learners may adapt their speech to either converge with, or diverge
from, their interlocutor's usage. For example, they may deliberately
choose to address a non-target form like "me no" to an English teacher
in order to assert identity with a non-mainstream ethnic group.
The most important psychological factor is usually regarded as
attention to form, which is related to planning time. The more time that
learners have to plan, the more target-like their production may be.
Thus, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a
writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in
conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at
all. The impact of alphabetic literacy level on an L2 learner's ability
to pay attention to form is as yet unclear.
Affective factors
also play an important role in systematic variation. For example,
learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce
fewer target-like forms than they would in a comfortable setting. This
clearly interacts with social factors, and attitudes toward the
interlocutor and topic also play important roles.
Stages of development
Individuals learning a second language may not always hear spoken L2 words as separate units.
Some words might blend together and become a single unit in the
learner's L2 system. The blended words are called "prefabricated
patterns" or "chunks". These chunks are often not immediately obvious to
the learner or anyone that listens to them speak, but may be noticed as
the learner's L2 system becomes more developed and they use the chunk
in a context where it does not apply. For example, if an English learner
hears sentences beginning with "do you", they may associate it with
being an indicator of a question but not as two separate words. To them,
the word is "doyou". They may happen to say "What do you doing?"
instead of "What are you doing?" Eventually the learner will learn to
break the chunk up in to its component words and use them correctly.
When learners experience significant restructuring in their L2
systems, they sometimes show a U-shaped learning pattern. For instance, a
group of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate
usage of the "-ing" present progressive morpheme, to incorrectly
omitting it, and finally, back to correct usage. Occasionally the period of incorrect usage is seen as a learning regression.
However, it is likely that when the learners first acquired the new
"-ing" morpheme or "chunk", they were not aware of all of the rules that
apply to its use. As their knowledge of tense in English expanded, this
disrupted their correct usage of the morpheme. They eventually returned
to correct usage when they gained greater understanding of the tense
rules in English. These data provide evidence that the learners were
initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words
containing the present progressive "-ing" morpheme. However, in the
second stage their systems contained the rule that they should use the
bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule
for the use of "-ing". Finally, they learned the rule for appropriate
use of "-ing".
The "chunking" method enables a learner to practice speaking
their L2 before they correctly break the chunk up in to its component
parts. According to interlanguage theory, this seeming progression and
regression of language learning is an important and positive
manifestation of the learner's developing understanding of the grammar
of the target language.
Fossilization
An interlanguage can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its
developmental stages. Fossilization is the process of 'freezing' of the
transition between the L1 and L2, and is regarded as the final stage of
interlanguage development. It can occur even in motivated learners who
are continuously exposed to their L2 or have adequate learning support.
Reasons for this phenomenon may be due to complacency or inability to
overcome the obstacles to acquiring native proficiency in the L2.
Fossilization occurs often in adult language learners. It can also occur
when a learner succeeds in conveying messages with their current L2
knowledge. The need to correct the form/structure is therefore not
present. The learner fossilizes the form instead of correcting it.
Linguistic universals
Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on second-language acquisition
(SLA) theory. In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition
has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages
of development.
Interlanguage UG differs from native UG in that interlanguage UGs
vary greatly in mental representations from one L2 user to another.
This variability arises from differing relative influences on the
interlanguage UG, such as existing L1 knowledge and UG constraints. An
example of a UG constraint is an "island constraint," where the wh-phrase
in a question has a finite number of possible positions. Island
constraints are based on the concept that there are certain syntactical
domains within a sentence that act as phrase boundaries. It is theorized
that the same constraints that act on a native UG are also often
present in an interlanguage UG.
Versus creoles and pidgins
The concept of interlanguage is closely related to other types of language, especially creoles and pidgins.
Each of these languages has its own grammar and phonology. The
difference is mostly one of variability, as a learner's interlanguage is
spoken only by the learner and changes frequently as they become more
proficient in the language. In contrast, creoles and pidgins are
generally the product of groups of people in contact with another
language, and therefore may be more stable.
Second-language acquisition (SLA), second-language learning or L2 (language 2) acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language.
Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted
to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is a
subdiscipline of applied linguistics, but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.
A central theme in SLA research is that of interlanguage,
the idea that the language that learners use is not simply the result
of differences between the languages that they already know and the
language that they are learning, but that it is a complete language
system in its own right, with its own systematic rules. This
interlanguage gradually develops as learners are exposed to the targeted
language. The order in which learners acquire features of their new
language stays remarkably constant, even for learners with different
native languages and regardless of whether they have had language
instruction. However, languages that learners already know can have a
significant influence on the process of learning a new one. This
influence is known as language transfer.
The primary factor driving SLA appears to be the language input
that learners receive. Learners become more advanced the longer they are
immersed in the language they are learning and the more time they spend
doing free voluntary reading. The input hypothesis developed by linguist Stephen Krashen
theorizes that comprehensible input alone is necessary for second
language acquisition. Krashen makes a distinction between language
acquisition and language learning (the acquisition–learning
distinction),
claiming that acquisition is a subconscious process, whereas learning
is a conscious one. According to this hypothesis, the acquisition
process in L2 (Language 2) is the same as L1 (Language 1) acquisition.
Learning, on the other hand, refers to conscious learning and analysis
of the language being learned.
Krashen argues that consciously learned language rules play a limited
role in language use, serving as a monitor that could check second
language output for form assuming the learner has time, sufficient
knowledge and inclination (the monitor hypothesis). Subsequent work, by
other researchers, on the interaction hypothesis and the comprehensible output hypothesis,
has suggested that opportunities for output and for interaction may
also be necessary for learners to reach more advanced levels.
Research on how exactly learners acquire a new language spans a
number of different areas. Focus is directed toward providing proof of
whether basic linguistic skills are innate (nature), acquired (nurture)
or a combination of the two attributes. Cognitive approaches to SLA
research deal with the processes in the brain that underpin language
acquisition, for example how paying attention to language affects the
ability to learn it, or how language acquisition is related to
short-term and long-term memory. Sociocultural approaches reject the
notion that SLA is a purely psychological phenomenon, and attempt to
explain it in a social context. Some key social factors that influence
SLA are the level of immersion, connection to the L2 community and
gender. Linguistic approaches consider language separately from other
kinds of knowledge and attempt to use findings from the wider study of
linguistics to explain SLA. There is also a considerable body of
research about how SLA can be affected by individual factors such as age
and learning strategies. A commonly discussed topic regarding age in
SLA is the critical period hypothesis,
which suggests that individuals lose the ability to fully learn a
language after a particular age in childhood. Another topic of interest
in SLA is the differences between adult and child learners. Learning
strategies are commonly categorized as learning or communicative
strategies and are developed to improve their respective acquisition
skills. Affective factors are emotional factors that influence an
individual's ability to learn a new language. Common affective factors
that influence acquisition are anxiety, personality, social attitudes
and motivation.
Individuals may also lose a language through a process called second-language attrition.
This is often caused by lack of use or exposure to a language over
time. The severity of attrition depends on a variety of factors
including level of proficiency,
age, social factors, and motivation at the time of acquisition.
Finally, classroom research deals with the effect that language
instruction has on acquisition.
Definitions
Second language refers to any language learned in addition to a person's first language; although the concept is named second-language acquisition, it can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth, or subsequent languages. Second-language acquisition refers to what learners do; it does not refer to practices in language teaching, although teaching can affect acquisition. The term acquisition was originally used to emphasize the non-conscious nature of the learning process, but in recent years learning and acquisition have become largely synonymous.
SLA can incorporate heritage language learning, but it does not usually incorporate bilingualism.
Most SLA researchers see bilingualism as being the end result of
learning a language, not the process itself, and see the term as
referring to native-like fluency. Writers in fields such as education
and psychology, however, often use bilingualism loosely to refer to all
forms of multilingualism. SLA is also not to be contrasted with the acquisition of a foreign language;
rather, the learning of second languages and the learning of foreign
languages involve the same fundamental processes in different
situations.
Research background
The academic discipline of second-language acquisition is a subdiscipline of applied linguistics. It is broad-based and relatively new. As well as the various branches of linguistics, second-language acquisition is also closely related to psychology, cognitive psychology, and education. To separate the academic discipline from the learning process itself, the terms second-language acquisition research, second-language studies, and second-language acquisition studies are also used.
SLA research began as an interdisciplinary field, and because of this, it is difficult to identify a precise starting date.
However, two papers in particular, are seen as instrumental to the
development of the modern study of SLA: Pit Corder's 1967 essay The Significance of Learners' Errors, and Larry Selinker's 1972 article Interlanguage. The field saw a great deal of development in the following decades.
Since the 1980s, SLA has been studied from a variety of disciplinary
perspectives, and theoretical perspectives. In the early 2000s, some
research suggested an equivalence between the acquisition of human
languages and that of computer languages (e.g. Java) by children in the 5
to 11 year age window, though this has not been widely accepted among
educators. Significant approaches in the field today are: systemic functional linguistics, sociocultural theory, cognitive linguistics, Noam Chomsky's universal grammar, skill acquisition theory and connectionism.
There has been much debate about exactly how language is learned,
and many issues are still unresolved. There are many theories of
second-language acquisition, but none are accepted as a complete
explanation by all SLA researchers. Due to the interdisciplinary nature
of the field of SLA, this is not expected to happen in the foreseeable
future. Although attempts have been made to provide a more unified
account that tries to bridge first language acquisition and second
language learning research.
Stages
Stephen
Krashen divides the process of second-language acquisition into five
stages: preproduction, early production, speech emergence, intermediate
fluency, and advanced fluency. The first stage, preproduction, is also known as the silent period. Learners at this stage have a receptive vocabulary of up to 500 words, but they do not yet speak their second language.
Not all learners go through a silent period. Some learners start
speaking straight away, although their output may consist of imitation
rather than creative language use. Others may be required to speak from
the start as part of a language course. For learners that do go through a
silent period, it may last around three to six months.
The second of Krashen's stages of acquisition is early
production, during which learners are able to speak in short phrases of
one or two words. They can also memorize chunks of language, although
they may make mistakes when using them. Learners typically have both an
active and receptive vocabulary of around 1000 words. This stage
normally lasts for around six months.
The third stage is speech emergence. Learners' vocabularies
increase to around 3000 words during this stage, and they can
communicate using simple questions and phrases. They may often make
grammatical errors.
The fourth stage is intermediate fluency. At this stage, learners
have a vocabulary of around 6000 words, and can use more complicated
sentence structures. They are also able to share their thoughts and
opinions. Learners may make frequent errors with more complicated
sentence structures.
The final stage is advanced fluency, which is typically reached
somewhere between five and ten years of learning the language. Learners
at this stage can function at a level close to native speakers.
Krashen has also developed a number of hypotheses discussing the
nature of second language learners' thought processes and the
development of self-awareness during second language acquisition. The
most prominent of these hypotheses are Monitor Theory and the Affective
Filter hypothesis.
Language difficulty and learning time
The
time taken to reach a high level of proficiency can vary depending on
the language learned. In the case of native English speakers, some
estimates were provided by the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the U.S. Department of State,
which compiled approximate learning expectations for a number of
languages for their professional staff (native English speakers who
generally already know other languages). Category I Languages include e.g. Italian and Swedish (24 weeks or 600 class hours) and French (30 weeks or 750 class hours). Category II Languages include German, Haitian Creole, Indonesian, Malay, Swahili (approx. 36 weeks or 900 class hours). Category III Languages
include a lot of languages like Finnish, Polish, Russian, Tagalog,
Vietnamese and many others (approx. 44 weeks, 1100 class hours).
Of the 63 languages analyzed, the five most difficult languages
to reach proficiency in speaking and reading, requiring 88 weeks (2200
class hours, Category IV Languages), are Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese, and Korean. The Foreign Service Institute and the National Virtual Translation Center both note that Japanese is typically more difficult to learn than other languages in this group.
There are other rankings of language difficulty as the one by The British Foreign Office Diplomatic Service Language Centre
which lists the difficult languages in Class I
(Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin); the easier languages are in
Class V (e.g. Afrikaans, Bislama, Catalan, French, Spanish, Swedish).
The bottleneck hypothesis
The bottleneck hypothesis
strives to identify components of grammar that are easier or more
difficult to acquire than others. It argues that functional morphology
is the bottleneck of language acquisition, meaning that it is more
difficult than other linguistic domains such as syntax, semantics and
phonology because it combines syntactic, semantic and phonological
features that affect the meaning of a sentence.
For example, knowledge of the formation of the past tense in English
requires both phonological patterns such as allomorphs at the end of the
verb and irregular verb forms. Article acquisition is also difficult
for L1 speakers of languages without articles, such as Korean and
Russian. One study compared learner judgments of a syntactic feature, V2, and a morphological property, subject-verb agreement, using an acceptability judgment task.
Researchers found that while Norwegian speakers who are intermediate
and advanced learners of English could successfully assess the
grammaticality of V2, they had significantly more difficulty with
subject-verb agreement, which is predicted by the bottleneck hypothesis.
Among cognitive and scientific reasons for the importance of this
theory, it can also be of practical benefit as educators can maximise
their time and effort focusing on difficult problems in SLA classroom
settings, rather than placing attention on concepts that can be grasped
with relative ease.
The cumulative effects hypothesis
This hypothesis claims that second-language acquisition may impose extra difficulties on children with specific language impairment
(SLI), whose language delay extends into their school years due to
deficits in verbal memory and processing mechanisms in comparison to
children with typical development (TD). Existing research on individuals
with SLI and bilingualism has been limited and thus there is a need for
data showing how to support bilingual development in children with SLI.
“Cumulative” refers to the combination of the effects of both internal
deficits in language learning and external complications in input and
experience caused by bilingualism, which could in turn overwhelm the
learner with SLI. The theory predicts that bilingual children with SLI
will be disadvantaged, falling behind both their monolingual peers with
SLI and bilingual peers with TD. Paradis'
longitudinal study examined the acquisition of tense morphology over
time in children with SLI who are learning English as a second language.
The study found that the acquisition profile for children with SLI is
similar to those reported for monolinguals with SLI and TD, showing
inconsistencies with CEH. This has provided evidence that SLA will not
negatively harm children with SLI and could in fact be beneficial.
Comparisons with first-language acquisition
Adults who learn a second language differ from children learning their first language
in at least three ways: children are still developing their brains
whereas adults have mature minds, and adults have at least a first
language that orients their thinking and speaking. Although some adult
second-language learners reach very high levels of proficiency,
pronunciation tends to be non-native. This lack of native pronunciation
in adult learners is explained by the critical period hypothesis. When a learner's speech plateaus, it is known as fossilization.
Some errors that second-language learners make in their speech originate in their first language. For example, Spanish speakers learning English may say "Is raining" rather than "It is raining", leaving out the subject of the sentence. This kind of influence of the first language on the second is known as negativelanguage transfer. French
speakers learning English, however, do not usually make the same
mistake of leaving out "it" in "It is raining." This is because pronominal and impersonal sentence subjects can be omitted (or as in this case, are not used in the first place) in Spanish but not in French. The French speaker knowing to use a pronominal sentence subject when speaking English is an example of positive
language transfer. Not all errors occur in the same ways; even two
individuals with the same native language learning the same second
language still have the potential to utilize different parts of their
native language. Likewise, these same two individuals may develop
near-native fluency in different forms of grammar.
Also, when people learn a second language, the way they speak
their first language changes in subtle ways. These changes can be with
any aspect of language, from pronunciation and syntax to the gestures
the learner makes and the language features they tend to notice.
For example, French speakers who spoke English as a second language
pronounced the /t/ sound in French differently from monolingual French
speakers.
This kind of change in pronunciation has been found even at the onset
of second-language acquisition; for example, English speakers pronounced
the English /p t k/ sounds, as well as English vowels, differently
after they began to learn Korean. These effects of the second language on the first led Vivian Cook to propose the idea of multi-competence, which sees the different languages a person speaks not as separate systems, but as related systems in their mind.
Learner language
Learner language
is the written or spoken language produced by a learner. It is also the
main type of data used in second-language acquisition research.
Much research in second-language acquisition is concerned with the
internal representation of a language in the mind of the learner, and in
how those representations change over time. It is not yet possible to
inspect these representations directly with brain scans or similar
techniques, so SLA researchers are forced to make inferences about these
rules from learners' speech or writing.
Interlanguage
Originally, attempts to describe learner language were based on comparing different languages and on analyzing learners' errors.
However, these approaches weren't able to predict all the errors that
learners made when in the process of learning a second language. For
example, Serbo-Croat speakers learning English may say "What does Pat
doing now?", although this is not a valid sentence in either language. Additionally, Yip found that ergative verbs in English are regularly mis-passivized by L2 learners of English whose first language is Mandarin.
For instance, even advanced learners may form utterances such as "what
was happened?" despite the fact that this construction has no obvious
source in neither L1 nor L2. This could be because L2 speakers interpret
ergatives as transitive, as these are the only types of verbs that allow passivization in English.
To explain this kind of systematic error, the idea of the interlanguage was developed.
An interlanguage is an emerging language system in the mind of a
second-language learner. A learner's interlanguage is not a deficient
version of the language being learned filled with random errors, nor is
it a language purely based on errors introduced from the learner's first
language. Rather, it is a language in its own right, with its own
systematic rules. It is possible to view most aspects of language from an interlanguage perspective, including grammar, phonology, lexicon, and pragmatics.
There are three different processes that influence the creation of interlanguages:
Language transfer.
Learners fall back on their mother tongue to help create their language
system. Transfer can be positive, i.e. promote learning, or negative,
i.e. lead to mistakes. In the latter case, linguists also use the term
interference error.
Overgeneralization. Learners use rules from the second
language in roughly the same way that children overgeneralise in their
first language. For example, a learner may say "I goed home",
overgeneralizing the English rule of adding -ed to create past
tense verb forms. English children also produce forms like goed,
sticked, bringed. German children equally overextend regular past tense
forms to irregular forms.
Simplification. Learners use a highly simplified form of language, similar to speech by children or in pidgins. This may be related to linguistic universals.
The concept of interlanguage has become very widespread in SLA research, and is often a basic assumption made by researchers.
Sequences in the acquisition of English inflectional morphology
1.
Plural -s
Girls go.
2.
Progressive -ing
Girls going.
3.
Copula forms of be
Girls are here.
4.
Auxiliary forms of be
Girls are going.
5.
Definite and indefinite articles the and a
The girls go.
6.
Irregular past tense
The girls went.
7.
Third person -s
The girl goes.
8.
Possessive 's
The girl's book.
A typical order of acquisition for English, according to Vivian Cook's 2008 book Second Language Learning and Language Teaching.
In the 1970s, several studies investigated the order in which learners acquired different grammatical structures.
These studies showed that there was little change in this order among
learners with different first languages. Furthermore, it showed that the
order was the same for adults and children, and that it did not even
change if the learner had language lessons. This supported the idea that
there were factors other than language transfer involved in learning
second languages, and was a strong confirmation of the concept of
interlanguage.
However, the studies did not find that the orders were exactly
the same. Although there were remarkable similarities in the order in
which all learners learned second-language grammar, there were still
some differences among individuals and among learners with different
first languages. It is also difficult to tell when exactly a grammatical
structure has been learned, as learners may use structures correctly in
some situations but not in others. Thus it is more accurate to speak of
sequences of acquisition, in which specific grammatical features
in a language are acquired before or after certain others but the
overall order of acquisition is less rigid. For example, if neither
feature B nor feature D can be acquired until feature A has been
acquired and if feature C cannot be acquired until feature B has been
acquired but if the acquisition of feature D does not require the
possession of feature B (or, therefore, of feature C), then both
acquisition order (A, B, C, D) and acquisition order (A, D, B, C) are
possible.
Learnability and teachability
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.
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.
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.
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
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. 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. 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.
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. The causes of variability are a matter of great debate among SLA researchers.
Language transfer
One important difference between first-language acquisition and
second-language acquisition is that the process of second-language
acquisition is influenced by languages that the learner already knows.
This influence is known as language transfer.
Language transfer is a complex phenomenon resulting from interaction
between learners’ prior linguistic knowledge, the target-language input
they encounter, and their cognitive processes. Language transfer is not always from the learner’s native language; it can also be from a second language, or a third.
Neither is it limited to any particular domain of language; language
transfer can occur in grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, discourse, and
reading.
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.
Learners may also decline to use some language forms at all if they are
perceived as being too distant from their first language.
Language transfer has been the subject of several studies, and many aspects of it remain unexplained.
Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain language transfer, but
there is no single widely accepted explanation of why it occurs.
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.
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.
Language dominance
The
term language dominance can be defined in terms of differences in
frequency of use and differences in proficiency in bilinguals.
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.
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.
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. MLU, mean length of utterance, is a common measurement of linguistic productivity and language dominance in children.
Input and interaction
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.
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. Input is also the mechanism by which people learn languages according to the universal grammar model.
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.
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.
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. These processes have been codified in the theory of comprehensible output.
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.
Factors and approaches to SLA
Cognitive factors
Much modern research in second-language acquisition has taken a cognitive approach.
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.
The dominant model in
cognitive approaches to second-language acquisition, and indeed in all
second-language acquisition research, is the computational model.
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.
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. There are theories that hypothesize that learner language is inherently variable, and there is the functionalist perspective that sees acquisition of language as intimately tied to the function it provides. Some researchers make the distinction between implicit and explicit language knowledge, and some between declarative and procedural language knowledge. 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.
The mental processes that underlie second-language acquisition
can be broken down into micro-processes and macro-processes.
Micro-processes include attention; working memory; integration and restructuring. Restructuring is the process by which learners change their interlanguage systems; and monitoring is the conscious attending of learners to their own language output.
Macro-processes include the distinction between intentional learning
and incidental learning; and also the distinction between explicit and
implicit learning. Some of the notable cognitive theories of second-language acquisition include the nativization model, the multidimensional model and processability theory, emergentist models, the competition model, and skill-acquisition theories.
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.
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.
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 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).
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
From the early days of the discipline researchers have also acknowledged that social aspects play an important role.
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".
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.
Ellis identifies three types of social structure that affect
acquisition of second languages: sociolinguistic setting, specific
social factors, and situational factors.
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. Ellis also includes the distinction of whether the second language is learned in a natural or an educational setting.
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.
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.
Immersion programs provide a sociolinguistic setting that
facilitates second-language acquisition. Immersion programs are
educational programs where children are instructed in an L2 language.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. The inter-group model proposes "ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key construct for second-language acquisition. Language socialization is an approach with the premise that "linguistic and cultural knowledge are constructed through each other", and saw increased attention after the year 2000. Finally, Norton's theory of social identity is an attempt to codify the relationship between power, identity, and language acquisition.
A unique approach to SLA is Sociocultural theory. It was originally developed by Lev Vygotsky and his followers. 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.
Sociocultural theory has a fundamentally different set of assumptions
to approaches to second-language acquisition based on the computational
model.
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."
Linguistic factors
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. 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. Two main strands of research can be identified in the linguistic tradition: generative approaches informed by universal grammar, and typological approaches.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Individual variation
There is considerable variation in the rate at which people learn
second languages, and in the language level that they ultimately reach.
Some learners learn quickly and reach a near-native level of competence,
but others learn slowly and get stuck
at relatively early stages of acquisition, despite living in the
country where the language is spoken for several years. The reason for
this disparity was first addressed with the study of language learning aptitude in the 1950s, and later with the good language learner studies
in the 1970s. More recently research has focused on a number of
different factors that affect individuals' language learning, in
particular strategy use, social and societal influences, personality,
motivation, and anxiety. The relationship between age and the ability to
learn languages has also been a subject of long-standing debate.
Age
The issue of age was first addressed with the critical period hypothesis.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Although child learners more often acquire native-like
proficiency, older child and adult learners often progress faster in the
initial stages of learning.
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.
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. These principles guide children as they learn a language, but its parameters vary from language to language.
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.
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.
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.
Strategies
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. 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.
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
Affective factors
The
learner's attitude to the learning process has also been identified as
being critically important to second-language acquisition. Anxiety
in language-learning situations has been almost unanimously shown to be
detrimental to successful learning. 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.
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.
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.
Also, anxiety may be detrimental for SLA because it can influence a
learner's ability to attend to, concentrate on, and encode language
information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. Learners in a supportive environment are more often willing to take on challenging tasks, thus encouraging L2 development.
Attrition
Attrition is the loss of proficiency in a language caused by a lack of exposure to or use of a language. It is a natural part of the language experience as it exists within a dynamic environment.
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.
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.
Age, proficiency level, and social factors play a role in the way attrition occurs.
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.
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.
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.
Classroom second-language acquisition
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. 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.
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.
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.
As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced
by their students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to
maximize interlanguage development.
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 2,2000 hours.
Moreover, one can achieve proficiency in a foreign language in a
classroom setting so long as one acknowledges the time commitment
necessary.
