Commonwealth of Australia

Copyright Act 1968

Notice for paragraph 49 (7A) (c) of the Copyright Act 1968

Warning
This material has been provided to you under section 49 of the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act)
for the purposes of research or study. The contents of the material may be subject to
copyright protection under the Act.
Further dealings by you with this material may be a copyright infringement. To determine
whether such a communication would be an infringement, it is necessary to have regard to the
criteria set out in Division 3 of Part III of the Act.

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned

(3rd ed., pp. 29-52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2 EXPLAINING SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING

Like the explanations for first language acquisition, somc second language
acquisition theories give primary importance to learners' innate capacity for
language acquisition. Others emphasize the role of the environment,
especially opportunities to interact with speakers who adapt their language
and in reraction patterns to meet learners' needs. Still others hJCus on
learners' engagement with the broader social context.

Contexts for language learning

A second language learner is different from a very young child acquiring a
first language. This is true ill lerms of both the learner's characteristics and
the environmellts in which first and second language acquisition typically
occur. Think about how the characteristics and learning conditions of the
following learners may differ: (I) a young child learning a first language;
a child learning a second language in day care or on rhe playground; (3)
adolescents taking a f(Heign language class in their own country; (4) an adult
immigrant with limircd or disrupted education working ill a second
language environment and having no opportunity ro go to language classes.
Now ask yourself the following questions about these different learners, and
complete the cbart in "Ethle 2.1.
I Do they already know at least onc language?

2 Arc they cognitivcly mature? Are they able to engage in problem solving,
deduction, and complex memory tasks?
3 How well developed is their 1l1etalinguistic awareness? Can tbey define a
word, say what sounds make up thar word, or stare a rule such as 'add an
-s to f()flll the plural'?

4 How extensive is their general knowledge of the world? Docs this know-
ledge enablc them to make good guesses about what a secolld language
interlocutor is probably saying?
Explaining second language Explaining second language learning

5 Are they likely to be anxious about making mistakes and concerned First
about sounding 'silly' when speaking the language? Second language
language
6 Does the learning environment allow them to be silent in the early stages
Young child Young child Adolescent Adult
oflearning, or are they expected to speak from the beginn ing? (at home) (playground) (classroom) (on the job)
7 Do they have plenty of time available for language learning, plenty of learner characteristics
contact with proficient speakers of the language? Another language
8 Do they frequently receive CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK when they make Cognitive maturity
errors in grammar or pronunciation, or do listeners usually overlook Metalinguistic awareness
these errors and pay attention to the meaning? World knowledge
9 Do they receive corrective fcedback when their meaning is not clear, Anxiety about speaking
when they use the wrong word, or when they say something [Link]- learning conditions
ate or impolite?
Freedom to be silent
10 Is MODIl1IED INPUT available? That is, do interlocutors adapt their Ample time ~~_~~~ .._. ~~~ ~
speech so that learners can understand (e.g., in terms of speed of delivery, Corrective feedback
complexity of grammatical structure, or vocabulary?) (grammar and pronunciation.)
Using the chart in 'Elble 2. 1, give your opinion about the presence o,r absence Corrective feedback
of learner characteristics and learning conditions for four types of learners. (meaning. word choice,
Use the following notation: politeness)
~ ~.~~~ ~ .<.- .---

+ usually Modified input

usuallvabsent
Photocopiable © Oxford University Press
sometimes present, someimes absent, or you're not Sllre
Then, compare your views with the discussion of learner characteristics and Table 2. I Contexts for ltmguage learning
learning conditions belQw.
On the other hand, some researchers have suggested that the use of these
Learner characteristics cognitive skills-so valuable for many kinds of tasks-can actually interfcre
with language acquisition. Their hypothesis is that successful lan?~Lage
By definition, aU second language learners, regardless of age, have already
acquisition draws on diHcrent mental abilities, abilities that arc. spectf,l~ to
acquired at least one language. This prior knowledge may be an advantage in
language learning. This view is related to the idea that there IS a cnttcal
the sense that they have an idea of how languages work. On the other hand,
period for language acquisition. It has been suggested that older learners
knowledge of other languages can lead learners to make incorrect guesses
draw on their problcm solving and metalinguistic abilities prccisely bccausc
about how the second language works, and this may result in errors that first
can no longer access the innate language acquisition ability they had as
language learners would not make.
young childrcn.
Very young language learners begin the task of first language acquisition
In addition to possible cognitive differences, there are also attitudinal and
without the cognitive maturity or metalinguistic awareness that older
cultural differences between children and adults. Most child learners are
second language learners have. Although young second language learners
willing to try to use the language-even when their proficiency is quite limited.
have begun to develop these characteristics, they will still have Elr to go in
Many adults and adolescents find it stressful when they are unable to express
these areas, as well as in the area of world knowledge, before reach the
themselves clearly and correctly. Nevertheless, even very young (pre-school)
levels already attained by adults and adolescents.
children diffcr in their willingness to speak a language they do not know well.
all the onc hand, cognitive maturity and metalinguistic awareness allow Some childrcn happily chatter in their new language; others prcf(~r ro
older learners to solve problems and engage in discussions about language. listen and participate silently in interaction with their peers.
32 Explflining second language learning

Learning conditions intuitive sense of what adjustments they need to make to help learners
understand. Ofcourse, some people arc much better at this than others. We
Younger learners, in an informal second language-learning environment, are
have all witnessed those painful conversations in which people seeIll to think
usually allowed to he silent until are ready to speak. They may al~o have
that they can make learners understand better if they simply talk louder!
opportunities to practise theif second language 'voice' in songs and games
Some Canadian friends told us of an experience they had in China. They
that allow them to blend their voices with those of other children. Older
were visiting some historic temples and wanted to get more information
learners are often forced to speak-to meet the requirements ora classroom
about them than they could glean from their guidebook. They asked their
or to carry out everyday [asks sLlch as shopping, medical visits, or job
guide sOl11e questions about the monuments. Unfortunately, their limited
interviews.
Chinese and his non-existelH English made it difficult for them to cxchanfc
Young children in informal settings are usually cxposed to the second information. The guide kept speaking louder and louder, but our frielll{s
language for many hours every day. Older learners, especially students in understood very little. Finally, in frustration, the guide concluded that it
language classrooms, are morc likely to receive only limited exposure to the would help if they could see the information-so he took a stick and began
second language. Classroom learners not only spend less time in contact writing in the sand--in Chinese characters!
with the language, they also tend to be exposed to a far smaller range of
discourse types. For example, classroom learners are often taught language
that is somewhat formal in comparison to the language as it is used in most
social settings. In many foreign language classes, teachers switch (0 their
students' first language for discipline or classroom management, thus
depriving learners of' opportlill ities to experience uses of the language in real
corn 111 unicati()!l.
As we saw in (~hapter 1, parenrs tend to respond to their children's language
in n:rms of its meaning rather than in terms of its grammatical accuracy.
Similarly, in second language learning outside of classrooms, errors that do
not interfere with meaning are usually overlooked. Most people would tec!
they were being impolite if they interrupted and corrected someone who was
trying to have a conversation with them. Nevertheless, interlocutors may
react to an error if they cannot understand what the speaker is trying to say.
Thus, errors of grammar and pronunciation may not be remarked 011, bur
the wrong word choice Illay receive comment from a puzzled interlocutor. III
a situation where a second language speaker appears to use inappropriate
language, interlocutors may feel uncomfortable, not knowing whether the
speaker intends to be rude or simply does not know the polite way to say
what is intended. In this case too, especially between adults, it is unlikely that
the second Iallgllage speaker would be told thaI something had gone wrong.
The only place where feedback on error is typically present with high A general theory of second language acqulsltJon needs to account f{)r
frequency is the language classroom. Even there, it is not always provided la:lgllage acquisition by learners with a of characteristics in a variny
consistently. or contexts. The emphasis in this chapter is on theories that have becn
One condition that appears to be common to learners of all ages-though proposed to explain the aspects of language acquisition that are common to
perhaps not in equal quality or quantity-is exposure to modified or all second language learners and contexts. We will look at how behaviourist
adapted input. This adjusted speecb style, called child-directed speech in and innatist explanations have been extended to accoullt f-(Jr second lanuu--
first language acquisition, has sometimes been called l'OREIGN ER TALK or age acquisition. We will also look at some theories from cognitive psy~h­
TE,\ClIER TALK in certain contexts of second language acquisition. Some
ology that have increasingly informed second language research in recent
people who interact regularly with language learners seem to have an years. These C()l;NITIVIST theories emphasize the way the mind perceives,
 explaining second ltmguage E>::plaining second language learn ing 3'5
34

rerams, organizes, and retrieves information. Finally, we will look at translation equivalent would be correct. Also, first language influence may
SOClOCUr:rURAL THEORY, a perspective that places second language become more apparent as more is learned about the second language,
acquisition in a larger social context. leading learners to see similarities that they had not perceived at an earlier
stage. All this suggests that the influence of the learner's first language may
not simply be a matter of the TRANSFER of habits, but a more subtle and
complex process of identifying points of similarity, the evidence in
Behaviourism support of some particular feature, and even (though not
As we saw in Chapter 1, behaviourist theory explained learning in terms of necessarily consciously) about whether a certain feature seems to 'belong' in
imitation, practice, reinforcement (or feedback on success), and habit the target language. By the 1970s, many researchers were convinced that
formation. Much of the early research within behaviourist theory was done behaviourism and the contrastive analysis hypothesis were inadequate
with laboratory animals, but the learning process was hypothesized to be the explanations for second language acquisition. Some of these criticisms arose
as a result of the growing influence ofinnatist views oflanguage acquisition.
same for humans.

Second language applications: Mimicry and

The innatist perspective: Universal Grammar
memorization
As we saw in Chapter 1, the rejection of behaviourism as an explanation for
Behaviourism had a powerful influence on second and foreign l<111;;U.";;'-' first language acquisition was partly triggered by Chomsky's critique of it.
teaching, especially in North America, between the 1940s and the 1970s. Chomsky argued that innate knowledge of the principles of Universal
Nelson Brooks (1960) and Robert Lado (1964) were two proponents of this Grammar (UG) permits all children to acquire the language of their
perspective whose influence was felt directly in the development of environment during a critical period of their development. While Chomsky
AUDlOLlNGUAL teaching materials and in teacher training. Classroom
did not make specific claims about the implications of his theory for second
activities emphasized mimicry and memorization, and students learned language Lydia White (2003a) and other have argued that
dialogues and sentence patterns by heart. Because language developmen{ Universal Grammar offers the best perspective from which to understand
was viewed as the formation of habits, it was assumed that a person learning second language acquisition. Others, for example Robert Bley Vroman
a second language would start off with the habits formed in the first language and Jacquelyn Schachter (1990) argue that, although LJ G is a good
and that these habits would interfere with the new ones needed for the framework for understanding fil:st language acquisition, it is not a good
second language. Thus, behaviourism was often linked to the CONTRASTIVE explanation for the acquisition of a second language, especially by learners
ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS which was developed by structural linguists who have the critical period. In their view, this means that seC<ll1d
in Europe and North America. According to the CAH, where tbe first language acquisition has to be explained by some other theory, perhaps one
language and the target language are similar, learners should acquire TARGET of the more general psychological theories described below.
LANGUAGE structures with ease; where there arc differences, learners should
have difficulty. However, researchers have found that learners do not make Vivian Cook (2003) and others point out that, even though many learners
all the errors predicted by the CArl. Instead, many of their actual errors are fail to achieve complete mastery of the target language, there is still a 'logical
not predictable on the basis of their first language. Adult second language problem' of second language acquisition. That is, we need to find an
learners produce sentences that sound more like a child's. Also, many of their explanation for the evidence that learners eventually know more about the
sentences would be ungrammatical if translated into their first language. language than could reasonably have learned if they had to depend
What is more, some characteristics of the simple structures they llse are very entirely on the input are exposed to. This suggests that knowledge of
similar across learners from a of backgrounds, even if their U G must be available to second language learners as well as to first language
first languages are different from each other and different from the target learners. Some of the theorists who hold this view claim that the nature Jnd
language. availability of UG are the same in first and second language acquisition.
Others argue that UG may be present and available to second language
In Chapter 4, we will see ample evidence that second language learners draw learners, but tbat its exact nature has been altered by the acquisition of other
011 what they already know. 110wever, we will also see that they are some- languages.
times reluctant to transfer certain first language patterns, even when the
 lIm!(Tu.'z(JP learning 37

Researchers working within the UG framework also differ in their Next, according to the monitor hypothesis, the acquired system initiates a
hypotheses abollt how f(mnal illstruction or the availability of feedback on speaker's utterances and is responsible fi)l' spontaneous language usc. The
their learning will affect learners' knowledge of the second language. Bonnie learned system acts as an editor or 'monitor', making minor changes and
Schwartz (1993), for example, concludes that such instruction and feedback polishing what the acquired system has produced. Such monitoring takes
change only the superficial appearance oflanguage performance and do not place only when the speaker/writer has plenty of time, is concerned about
really affect the underlying systematic knowledge of the new language. producing correct language, and has learned the relevant rules.
Rather, language acquisition is based all the availabilily of natural language
in the learner's environment. Lydia While (1991) and others who think that The natural order hypothesis was based on the finding that, as in first language
the nature of U G is altered by the acquisition of the first language suggest acquisition, second language acquisition unfolds in predictable sequences.
that second language learners may sometimes need explicit information The language features that arc easiest to state (and thus to Jearn) arc not
about what is not grammatical in the second language. Otherwise, they may necessarily the first to be acquired. h)r example, the rule for adding an -J to
assume that some structures of the first language have equivalents in the third person singular verbs in the present tense is easy to state, but even some
second language when, in fact, they do not. We will sec some examples of advanced second language speakers fail to apply it in spontaneous
language structures that arc influenced by the learner's first language in conversation (see Chapter 4).
Chapter 4 and some studies related to the effect of instruction and feedback The input hypothesis is that acquisition occurs when one is exposed to
in Chapter 6. language that is comprehensible and that contains i + 1. The 'i' represellts the
Researchers who study second language acquisition hom a UG perspective level of language al ready acquired, and the' + l' is a metaphor for language
an~ usually interested in the language competence of advanced learners- (words, grammatical f<mns, aspects of pronunciation) that is just a step
their complex knowledge of grammar-rather than in the simple language beyond that level.
of beginning learners. 'rhey are interested in whether the competence that The t:lCt that some people who arc exposed to large quantities or
underlies the PERFORMANCE or use of the second language resembles the comprehensible input do not necessarily acquire a language successfully is
competence underlying the language performance of native speakers. Thus, accounted r()r by Krashen's affective/ilter hypothesiJ. The 'affective filter' is a
their investigations often involve C RAMMA llCALITY J UD(;EM ENTS or other metaphorical barrier that prevents learners frolll acquiring language evell
lllethods to probe what learners know about the language rather than when appropriate input is available, 'Affect' refers to feelings, t1lotives, needs,
observations of speaking. By llsing sllch methods, they hope to gain insight attitudes, and emotional states. A learner who is (ense, anxiolls, 01 bored
into what learners actually know about the language rather than how they Illay 'filter out' input, making it unavailable for acquisition.
happen to usc it in a given situation.

Second language applications: Krashen's

'monitor model'
One model of second language acqUIsItIon that was influenced by
Chomsky's theory of first language acquisition was Stephen Krashen's
(1982) Monitor Model. He first described this model in the early 1970s, at a
time when there was growing dissatisfaction with language teaching
methods based on behaviourism. Krashen described his model in terms of
five hypotheses.
hrst, in the j~yp()thesis, Krashen contrasts these two
terms. We 'acquire' as we arc exposed to samples of the second language we
understand in much the same ",,'ay that children pick up their first
langllage-with no cOllSciou~ attention to language form. We 'learn' 011 the
other hand through conscious attention to form and rule learning.
hxplaining second language learning Explaining second language learning 39

Both psychologists and linguists challenged Krashen's modeL Linguist Lydia Information processing
White (1987) questioncd one of his hypotheses in a paper called 'Against
Comprehensible Input'. Psychologist Barry McLaughlin's 1978 article was Cognitive psychologists working in an information-processing model or
one of the first to raise the question of whether the five hypotheses could bc human learning and performance sec second language acquisition as tbe
tested by empirical research. For example, distinguishing between 'acquired' building up of knowledge that can eventually be called on automatically for
and 'learned' knowledge can lead to circular definitions (if it's acquired, it's speaking and understanding. Norman Segalowitz (2003) and others bave
fluent; if it's fluent, it's acquired) and to a reliance on intuition ratber than suggested that learners have to pay attention at first to any aspect of the
observable differences in behaviour. language that they are to trying to understand or produce. 'Pay attention' in
this context is accepted to mean using cognitive resources to process
In spite of lively criticism and debate, Krashen's ideas were very influential information. However, there is a limit to how much inf(Jrl11ation a learner
during a period when second language teaching was in transition from can pay attention to. Thus, learners at the earliest stages will use most of their
approaches that emphasized learning rules or memorizing dialogues to resources to understand the main words in a message. In that situation, they
approaches that emphasized using language with a focus on meaning. Since may not notice the grammatical morphemes attacbed to some of the words,
then, COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING, including IMMERSION especially those that do not substantially affect meaning. Gradually, through
and CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION, has been widely implemented, and experience and practice, infi:mnation that was new becomes easier to
Krashen's ideas have been a source of ideas for research in second language process, and learners become able to access it quickly and even automatically.
acquisition. Classroom research has confirmed that students can make a This frees them to pay attention to other aspects of the language tbat, in
great deal of progress through exposure to comprehensible input without turn, gradually become automatic.
direct instruction. Studies have also shown, however, tbat students may
reach a point from which they fail to make further progress on some features For proficient speakers, choosing words, pronouncing them, and stringing
of the second language unless they also have access to guided instruction them together with the appropriate grammatical markers is essentially
Chapter 6). Some insights from learning theories developed in psychology automatic. When proficient listeners hear a familiar word, even for a splil
help to explain why this may be so. second, they cannot help but understand it. Such automatic responses do
not use up tbe kind of resources needed for processing new information.
Thus, proficient language users can give theif full attention to the overall
meaning of a text or conversation, whereas learners use more of their
Current psychological theories: attention on processing the meaning of individual words. This helps to
explain why second language readers need more time to understand a text,
The cognitivistl developmental perspective
even if they eventually do fully comprehend it (Favreau and Segalowitz
Since the 19905, psychological theories have become increasingly central to 1983). The information processing model suggests that tbere is a limit to tbe
research in second language development. Some of these theories use the amount of focused mental activity we can engage in at one time.
computer as a metaphor for the mind, comparing language acquisition to
Note tbat the 'practice' needed for the development of automaticity is nm
the capacities of computers for storing, integrating, and retrieving informa-
something mechanical, and it is not limited to the production of language.
tion. Some draw on neurobiology, seeking to relate observed behaviour as
Exposure to, and comprehension of~ a language feature may also be counted
directly as possible to brai n activity.
as practice. In information processing, practice involves cognitive effort on
As in first language acquisition, cognitive and developmental psychologists the part of the learner, but it need not necessarily be available for the learner's
argue that tben~ is no need to hypothesize that humans have a language- introspection. It can occur below tbe level of awareness.
specific module in the brain Of that 'acquisition' and 'learning' are distinct
mental processes. In their view, general theories of learning can account for Similar 'information processing' approaches to second language acquisition
have been explored by other researchers. Drawing on J. R. Anderson's
the gradual development of complex syntax and for learners' inability to
(1995) work, Robert DeKeyser (1998, 20(1) and others have investigated
SpOIl taneously usc everything they know about a language at a given time: As
noted above, some linguists have also concluded that, while UG provides a second language acquisition as 'skill learning'. They suggest that most
learning, including language learning, starts with DECLARATIVE KNOW-·
plausible explanation for first language acquisition, something else is required
LEDGE, also referred to as knowledge that. The hypothesis is that, through
/()r second language acquisition since it so often falls short of full success.
practice, declarative knowledge may become PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE,
40 txp/flining second language IP,lYVIIVIfJ
Fxplaining second Ifmgw7ge 41

or knowledge how, in the same way that someone learns other skills like Connectionism
driving a car or skating. Indeed, once skills become proceduralized and
automatized, thinking about the declarative knowLedge while trying to As seen in the discussion of [Link] acquisition in Chapter 1,
perform tbe skill actually disrupts the smooth performance of it. In second connectionists, unlike inn<ltists, sec no need to hypothesilx the existence ora
language acquisition, the path from declarative to procedural knowledge is neurological module dedicated exclusively to language acquisition. Like
sometimes associated with the kind of learning that takes place in a most cogl1~tive psy~hologists, conllectionists attribute greater importance to
classroom, where rule learning is fotlowed by With enough the role 01 the ellVIWlllllCIH than to any specific innate knowledge in the
practice, procedural knowledge eclipses the declarative knowledge, which, learn~r, arguing that what is innate is simply the ability to learn, not any
in time, may be f()rgotten. hn this reason, fluellt speakers may not even specifically linguistic principles. Connectionists also attribute less
realize that they once possessed the declarative knowledge that set the importance to the kind of declarative knowledge that characterizes some
process in motion. theories of skill learning. As Nick Ellis (2002) explains, the emphasis is 011
the frequency with which learners encollnter linguistic features in
Sometimes changes in language behaviour do not seem to be explainable in the input and the frequency with which teatures occur together.
terms of a gradual build-up of fluency through practice. These changes have
been described ill terms of 'restructuring' (Lightbown 1985; McLaughlin Connectionists argue that learners gradually build up their knowledge of
1990). They seem to be based on some qualitative in the learner's l~nguagc through exposure to the thousands of instances of the linguistic
knowledge. Restructuring may account for what appear to sudden bursts features they evcntually hear. After hcaring language features in specific
of progress, when learners suddenly seem to 'put it all together', even though situational or linguistic contexts over and over again, learners develop a
they have not had any new instruction or apparently relevant exposure to the stronger and stronger network of 'connections' between these elements.
language. It Inay also explain apparent backsliding, when a systematic aspect Eventually, tbe presence orone situational or linguistic clement will activate
Dr a learner's language incorporates too much or incorporates the wrong the other(5) in the learner's mind. For example, learners might get suhjl'c(~
things. For example, when a learner finally masters tbe usc of the regular -ed verb agreement correct, not because they know a rule but because they have
ending to show past tense, irregular verbs that had previously been heard examples sllch as 'r say' ;1l1d 'he so often that each s~lhi(XI
'practised' correctly may he affected. Thus, after months of saying 'I saw a pronoun activates the corrcct verb /(JrI11. Connections like these may be ~ery
f1Im', the learner may say '{ seed' or even '1 sawed'. Such errors are not based strong because the clements have occurred together very rrequentl~ or the}'
Oil practice of those specific items but rather on their integration into a may be relatively weaker because there have hecn fewcr opporn;nities \0
general pattern. experience them together. Evidence I(H the con nectionist view comes from
the observation that much of the we nse in ordinary cOllversatioll is
Another concept from psychology oHcrs insight into how learners store and
pr~dict,al:lc, in some cases to thc point being formulaic. As suggested hy
retrieve language. According to 'transfer appropriate processing', informa-
NICk ElliS (200.3, and others, language is at least learned ill
tion is best retrieved in situations that arc similar to those in which it was
chunks larger than single words and not all sentences or phrases arc pllt
acquired (Blaxtoll 1989). This is because when we learn something our together olle word at a timc. .
Illemories also record something about the context in which it was learned
and even about. the way we learned it, for by reading or hearing it. As noted in Chapter 1, connectionist research has shown dJaI a lcarnill!..;
'1 () date, most of the research 011 transfer appropriate processing has been mechaniSJll, simulated by a computCf program, cannot only '\cam' what i\
done in laboratory experiments, f()r example, comparing tbe learning of hears hut can also gencralize, evell making overgcneralization errors. These
word lists under diHcrenr conditions. However, the hypothesis seems to oHer studies have so E1r dealt almost with the ofv()cabu by
a plausible way of explaining a widely observed phenomenon in second :ll1d w,unll::ltical morphemes, that is, aspects of lallguage that eve;l
language learning: knowledge that is acquired mainly in rule or drill lI111atlsts WIll grant may be acquired largely through InCIllOri/,<ltioll alld
activities lllay he easier to access on tests that resemble the learning activities simple generalil,ation. How this model of cUl11ulative learning call lead 10
rhan in communicative situations (Gatbonton and Segalowitz 1988, 2005). knowledge of complex syntactic structures is an il1lpon;nt are;] j{)r
On the other hand, if, during learning, the learner's cognitive resources arc cOlltinued research.
completely with a loclis on meaning in communicative activities,
retrieval of language features sllch as grammatical markers or word
order 011 a test of those features may be more difficu1t.
42 Explaining second language learning E~laining second language learning 43

The competition model it confusing to hear sentences such as 'II giocattolo guarda il bambino' (the toy
-is looking at-the boy), An Italian speaker, accustomed to more flexible
word order, focuses on the animacy of the two nouns and concludes that the
The competition model is closely related to the connectionist perspective. It
is also based on the hypothesis that language acquisition occurs without the most reasonable interpretation is that the boy is looking at the toy. According
necessity of a learner's focused attention or the need for any innate brain to the competition model, second language acquisition requires that learners
module that is specifically for language. Elizabeth Bates and Brian learn the relative importance of the different cues appropriate in the
MacWhinney (1981) described the competition model as an explanation for language they are learning (MacWhinney 1997).
language acquisition that takes into account not only language form but also
language meaning and language use. The competition model is proposed as Second language applications: Interacting, noticing,
an explanation for both first and second language acquisition. Through
exposure to thousands of examples of language associated with particular
and processing
meanings, learners come to understand how to use the 'cues' with which a A number of hypotheses, theories, and models for explaining second
language signals specific functions. For example, the relationship between language acquisition have been inspired by the cognitivist/developmental
words in a sentence may be signalled by word order, grammatical markers, perspective.
and the animacy of the nouns in the sentence. Most languages make use of
multiple cues, but they differ in the primacy of each. This becomes clear in a The interaction hypothesis
situation where the meaning of a sentence is not immediately obvious. What Evelyn Hatch (1978), Michael Long (1983,1996), leresa Pica (994) and
helps you figure out the meaning? English uses word order as the most Susan Gass (1997), among others, argue that conversational interaction is an
common indicator of the relationships between sentence components. Most essential, if not sufficient, condition for second language acquisition. These
English sentences have the order Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). That is, the researchers have studied the ways in which speakers modify their speech and
typical English sentence mentions the subject first, then the verb, then the their interaction patterns in order to help learners participate in a
object. Two- and three-year old English speaking children use cues of conversation or understand some information. Long (1983) agreed with
animacy and their knowledge of the way things work in the world to Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition.
interpret odd sentences. Thus, if they hear a string of words such as 'Box However, he focused more on the question of how input could be made
push boy', they will act it out by making a boy doll push a tiny box, focusing comprehensible. He argued that MODIFIED INTERACTION is the necessary
on the fact that the 'boy' is the natural agent of action in this situation. mechanism for making language comprehensible. That is, what learners
However, the S VO pattern is so strong in English that, before they are four need is not necessarily simplification of the linguistic forms but rather an
years old, children will give an SVO interpretation to such strings of words. opportunity to interact with other speakers, working together to reach
They will ignore the fact that boxes don't normally move on their own, and mutual comprehension. Through these interactions, interlocutors figure out
carefully demonstrate how the box pushes the boy. Word order patterns are what they need to do to keep the conversation going and make the input
stronger than animacy cues at this point. Furthermore, at this age, they may comprehensible. According to Long, there are no cases of beginner-level
attribute the SVO relationship to sentences in the passive voice. That is, learners acquiring a second language from native-speaker talk that has not
'The box was pushed by the boy' may be interpreted as 'The box pushed the been modified in some way.
boy.' Only later do they learn to pay attention to the grammatical markers
that distinguish the active voice sentence from the passive word order. fn the original (1983) formulation of the Interaction Hypothesis, Long
inferred that modified interaction is necessary for language acquisition,
Other languages, for example, Spanish and Italian, have more flexible word summarizing the relationship as follows:
order. As Brian MacWhinney (1997) explains, speakers of these languages,
even as adults, rely more on grammatical markers (for example, the 1 Interactional modification makes input comprehensible.
agreement of subject and verb, the case marking of pronouns) or on the 2 Comprehensible input promotes acquisition.
animacy of nouns to understand how sentence elements are related. When
English speakers are learning these languages, they may have difficulty Therefore,
suppressing their tendency to rely on word order as the basis for 3 Interactional modification promotes acquisition.
interpretation. For example, an English speaking learner ofItalian may find
Ex:plrlining second l{lngU(lge IP"~·n.'''''J Explaining second language teaming 45

Modified interaction docs not always involve linguistic simplification. It Brazil, and keeping a diary, he to realize that certain features of
may also include elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture, or the provision of language that had heen present in the environment for the whole time began
additional contextual cues. Some examples of these conversational modifica- to enter his own second language system only when he had noticed them,
tions are: either because they were brought to his attention in class or because some
other experience made them salient. Drawing on psychological learning
Comprehension checks-cHt)rts by the native speaker to ensure that the
theories, Schmidt hypothesized that second language learners could not
learner has understood (hH example, 'The bus leaves at 6:30. Do you
begin to acquire a language feature until they had become aware of it in the
understand?:) .
input. Susan Gass (1988) also described a learning process that begins when
2 Clarification requests-efforts by the learner to get the native speaker to learners notice something tbey hear or see in the second language that is
clarifY something that has not been understood (fof example, 'Could you different from what they expected or that fills a gap in their knowledge of the
repeat please?'). These requests from the learner lead to further language. The question of whether learners must be aware that they arc
modifications by the native "v,_a.n,'-L. 'noticing' something in the input is the object of considerable debate.
According to information processing theories, anything that uses up our
3 Self-repetition or paraphrase-the native speaker repeats his or her
mental 'processing space', even if we are not aware of it or attending to it 'on
sentence either partially or in its entirety (for example, 'She got lost on her
purpose', can contribute to learning. From the connectionist perspective,
way home from school. She was walking home from school. She got
the likelihood of acquisition is best predicted by the frequency with which
lost.').
something is available for processing, not by the learner's awareness of
Research has shown that conversational adjustments can aid compre- something in the input.
hension. Modification that takes place during interaction leads to better
These questions about the importance of awareness and attention have been
understanding than linguistic simplification or modification that is planned
the object of debate and research. Several researchers have ftHmd ways to
in advance. While some recent research has shown that specific kinds of
track learners' attention as they engage in second interaction or
interaction behaviours aid learning in terms ofinunediate production, more
activity. Alison Mackey, Susan Gass, and Kim McDonough (2000) have
research is needed on how access to modified interaction affects second
described techniques, for example, having learners see and bear themselves
language acquisition in the long term.
in videotaped interactions, to explore what they were thinking as they
In Long's (1996) revised version of the Interaction Hypothesis, more participated in conversations. Ron Leow (1997) developed crossword
emphasis is placed on the of corrective feedback during that learners had to solve while speaking aloud. Merrill Swain and
interaction. When communication is difficult, interlocutors must 'negotiate Lapkin (1998) recorded learners in pair work and kept track of the
for meaning', and this negotiation is seen as the opportunity for language ,a."F>''''''f''' features they mentioned. These research designs cannot tell us if
development. Merrill Swain (l985) extended this thinking when she learners noticed things they did not mention. However, they do make it
proposed 'the comprehensible output hypothesis'. She observed that it is possible to identifY some things that learners showed were aware of and
whcn learners must produce language that their imerlocutor can understand to compare these to performance on measures of their knowledge.
that they are most likely to see the limits of their second language ability and The extent to which learners' awareness of language features affects their
the nced to find better ways to cxpress their meaning. The demands of second language development will come up in our discussion of
producing comprehensible output, she hypothesized, 'push' learners aheall research on second language acquisition in the classroom in 6.
in thcir development.
Input processing
The noticing hypothesis In his research with American university students learning foreign
Richard Schmidt (1990, 2001) proposed the 'noticing hypothesis', languages, Bill VanPatten (2004) observed many cases of students misinter-
suggesting that nothing is learned unless it has been noticed. Noticing does preting sentences. For example, as predicted by the competition model,
not itself result in acquisition, but it is the essential starting point. when these English speakers heard sentences such as 'La sigue et sen 011 , tbey
it as 'She (subject pronoun) follows the man'. The correct
Schmidt's original proposal of tbe noticing hypothesis came from his own
is 'Her (object pronoun) follows the man' (subject of the
experience as a learner of Portuguese. After months of taking classes, living in
In other words, the correct English translation would be 'The
46 Explaining second language learning Explaining second language learning 47

man follows her'. In order to understand that, students need to learn that in
Spanish, a pronoun object precedes the verb and that it is essential to pay
The sociocultural perspective
attention to whether the pronoun is a subject or an object rather than to the As we saw in Chapter 1, Vygotsky's theory assumes that cognitive develop-
word order alone. (See the discussion of the competition model earlier in this ment, including language development, arises as a result of social inter-
chapter.) actions. Primary among these interactions are those between individuals.
Unlike the psychological theories that view thinking and speaking as related
VanPatten argued that the problem arose in part from the fact that learners
but independent processes, sociocultural theory views speaking and
have limited processing capacity and cannot pay attention to form and
thinking as tightly interwoven. Speaking (and writing) mediate thinking,
meaning at the same time. Not surprisingly, they tend to give priority to
which means that people can gain control over their mental processes as a
meaning. When the context in which they hear a sentence helps them make
consequence of internalizing what others say to them and what they say to
sense of it, they do not notice details of the language form. In Chapter 6 we
others. Learning is thought to occur when an individual interacts with an
will see how VanPatten developed instructional procedures that require
interlocutor within his or her zone of proximal development (ZPD)-that
learners to focus on the language itselfin order to interpret the meaning.
is, in a situation in which the learner is capable of performing at a higher level
Processability theory because there is support from an interlocutor.

JUrgen Meisel, Harald Clahsen, and Manfred Pienemann (1981) studied the In some ways, this apptoach may appear to restate some of the hypotheses
acquisition of German by a group of adult migrant workers who had little or encountered elsewhere in this chapter. People sometimes wonder whether the
no second language instruction. They analysed large samples of their speech Z P D is the same as Krashen's i+ 1. William Dunn and James Lantolf (1998)
and described the details of developmental sequences in their production of addressed this question in a review article, arguing that it is not possible to
simple and complex sentences. They concluded that the sequence of compare the two concepts because they depend on very different ideas about
development for features of syntax and morphology was affected by how how development occurs. The Z P D is a metaphorical location or 'site' in
easy these were to process. Ease of processing was found to depend to a large which learners co-construct knowledge in collaboration with an interlocutor.
extent on the position of those features in a sentence. Features that typically In Krashen's i+1 the input comes from outside the learner and the emphasis is
occurred at the beginning or end of a sentence were easier to process than on the comprehensibility of input that includes language structures that are
those that were in the middle. All learners acquired the features in the same just beyond the learner's current developmental leveL The emphasis in ZPD is
sequence, even though they progressed at different rates. They also found on development and how learners co-construct knowledge based on their
that some language features did not seem to be afFected by these constraints interaction with their interlocutor or in PRIVATE SPEECH.
and were used by learners who were at different developmental stages. These Vygotskyan theory has also been compared to the interaction hypothesis
were referred to as 'variational' features. because of the interlocutor's role in helping learners understand and be
Pienemann (1999, 2003) developed his processability theory on the basis of understood. These two perspectives differ primarily in the emphasis they
his continued research with learners of different languages in a variety of place on the internal cognitive processes. In the interaction hypothesis, the
settings, both instructional and informal. One important aspect of his emphasis is on the individual cognitive processes in the mind of the learner.
theory is the integration of developmental sequences with first language Interaction facilitates those cognitive processes by giving learners access to
influence. He argues that his theory explains a widely reported phenomenon the input they need to activate internal processes. In Vygotskyan theory,
in second language acquisition: learners do not simply transfer features from greater importance is attached to the conversations themselves, with
their first language at early stages of acquisition. Instead, they have to learning occurring through the social interaction. Sociocultural theory holds
develop a certain level of processing capacity in the second language before that people gain control of and reorganize their cognitive processes during
they can use their knowledge of the features that already exist in their first mediation as knowledge is internalized during social activity.
language. We will see many examples of this in Chapter 4.
Second language applications: Learning by talking
Extending Vygotskyan theory to second language acquisition, Jim Lantolf
(2000), Richard Donato (1994) and others are interested in showing how
second language learners acquire language when they collaborate and
48 Explaining second language learning Explaining second language learning 49

interact with other speakers. Traditionally, the ZPD has been understood to Theory into practice
involve an expert and a novice, however, recent work has broadened the term
to include novice/ novice or learner/learner interlocutors. An example of this In the end, what all theories oflanguage acquisition are intended to account
is in Communication task B in Chapter 5. In that excerpt the learners are for is the ability of human learners to acquire language within a variety of
struggling with French reflexive verbs as they try to construct a storyline social and instructional environments. All of the theories discussed in this
from pictures. That example is taken from the work of Merrill Swain and chapter and in Chapter 1 use metaphors to represent this invisible reality.
Sharon Lapkin (2002), who have investigated sociocultural explanations for Both linguists and psychologists draw some of their evidence from
second language learning in Canadian French immersion programmes. neurological research. At present, most of the research on specific brain
Their work has its origins in Swain's 'comprehensible output hypothesis' and activity during language processing must be based on indirect evidence.
the notion that the production of language pushes learners to process Advances in technology are rapidly increasing opportunities to observe brain
language more deeply. In preparing to speak or write, they must pay more activity more directly. Such research will eventually contribute to reinter-
attention to how meaning is expressed through language than they do for the pretations of research that, until now, can examine only observable
comprehension oflanguage. Swain (1985) first proposed the 'COMPREHEN- behaviour.
SIBLE OUTPUT HYPOTHESIS' in response to Krashen's comprehensible
Many claims from behaviourist theory were based on experiments with
input hypothesis, based on the observation that French immersion students animals learning a variety of responses to laboratory stimuli. Their applic-
were considerably weaker in their speaking and written production than in ability to the natural learning of languages by humans was strongly
their reading and listening comprehension (see Chapter 6). She advocated challenged by psychologists and linguists alike, primarily because of the
more opportunities for learners to engage in verbal production (i.e. 'output') inadequacy ofbehaviourist models to account for the complexity involved in
in French immersion classrooms. Since then, she and her colleagues have language learning.
carried out extensive research to investigate the effects of output on second
language learning. Newer psychological theories have often involved computer simulations or
controlled laboratory experiments where people learn specific sets of
Swain's (2000) early work on the output hypothesis was influenced by carefully chosen linguistic features, often in an invented language. Many
cognitive theory, but more recent work has been motivated by sociocultural linguists argue that this does not entitle psychologists to generalize to the
theory. Using the term 'collaborative dialogue', Swain and Lapkin and their complexities of the linguistic knowledge that learners eventually have.
colleagues have carried out a series of studies to determine how second
language learners co-construct linguistic knowledge while engaging in Linguists working from an innatist perspective draw much of their evidence
production tasks (i.e. speaking and writing) that simultaneously draw their from studies of the complexities of proficient speakers' language knowledge
attention to form and meaning. In Communication task B in Chapter 5, and performance and from analysis of their own intuitions about language.
learners were testing hypotheses about the correct forms to use, discussing Critics of this view argue that it is not enough to know what the final state of
them together and deciding what forms were best to express their meaning. knowledge is and that more attention should be paid to the developmental
Swain (2000) considers collaborative dialogues such as these as the context steps leading up to this level of mastery.
where 'language use and language learning can co-occur. It is language use Interactionists emphasize the role of modification in conversational inter-
mediating language learning. It is cognitive activity and it is social activity' actions. This perspective, as well as the sociocultural perspective, provides
(p.97). insights into the ways in which learners can gain access to new knowledge
Therefore, the difference between the sociocultural perspective and that of about the language when they have support from an interlocutor. Some
other researchers who also view interaction as important in second language critics of the interactionist position argue that much of what learners need to
acquisition is that sociocultural theorists assume that the cognitive processes know is not available in the input, and so they put greater emphasis on
begin as an external socially mediated activity and eventually become innate principles oflanguage that learners can draw on.
internalized. Other interactionist models assume that modified input and Researchers and educators who are hoping for language acquisition theories
interaction provide learners with the raw material for internal cognitive that give them insight into language teaching practice are often frustrated by
processes. the lack of agreement among the 'experts'. The complexities of second
language acquisition, like those of first language acquisition, represent
50 Explaining second language learning Explaining second language learning 51

puzzles that scientists will continue to work on for a long time. Research that Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
has theory development as its goal has important long-term significance for pp.113-44.
language teaching and learning, but agreement on a 'complete' theory of
language acquisition is probably, at best, a long way off. Even if such McLaughlin, B. and R. Heredia. 1996. 'Information-processing approaches
agreement were reached, there would still be questions about how the theory to research on second language acquisition and use' in W C. Ritchie and
should be interpreted for language teaching practice. Many teachers watch T. K. Bhatia (eds.): Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. New York:
theory development with interest, but must continue to teach and plan Academic Press. pp. 213-28.
lessons and assess students' performance in the absence of a comprehensive Mitchell, R. and F. Myles. 2004. Second Language Learning Theories 2nd
theory of second language learning. edn. London: Arnold.
A growing body of applied research draws on a wide range of theoretical Pienemann, M. 2003. 'Language processing capacity' in C. ]. Doughty and
orientations, sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes merely implied. This M. H. Long (eds): The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
research may provide information that is more helpful in guiding teachers' Blackwell. pp. 679-714.
reflections about pedagogy. In Chapters 5 and 6, we will examine language
acquisition research that has focused on learning in the classroom. First, Ritchie, W. C. and T. K. Bhatia. 1996. (eds.). Handbook of Second
however, we will review research on individual differences that influence Language Acquisition. New York: Academic Press.
learners' success in language acquisition (Chapter 3) and some detailed Robinson, P. (ed.). 2001. Cognition and Second Language Instruction.
descriptions oflearners' developing language knowledge and use (Chapter 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sources and suggestions for further reading
Towell, R. and R. Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to Second Language
Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh: Acquisition. Clevedon: lvIllltilingual Matters.
Edinburgh UniversilY Press.
VanPatten, B. (ed.). 2004. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and
Brooks, N. 1960. Language and Language Learning. New York: Harcourt. Commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Cook, V. 2003. 'The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and structure- White, L 2003b. 'On the nature of interlangllage representation' in C. J.
dependency in L2 users of English'. International Review of Applied Doughty and M. H. Long (eds.): The Handbook of Second Language
Linguistics 41 /3: 201-21. Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 20-42.
Doughty, C. J. and M. H. Long (cds.). 2003. The Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Oxford: BlackwelL
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learnel:
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlballm and Associates.
Krashen, S. D. ] 982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Lantolf, J. l~ (cd.). 2000. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language
Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MacWhinney, B. 1997. 'Second language acquisition and the competition
model' in A. M. B. de Groot and J. F. Kroll (cds.): Tutorials in Bilingualism: