Second Language Acquisition: Core Concepts, Key Issues, Second Language Acquisition Theories, Research, and Advanced Inquiry
This post aims to enable students to:
Demonstrate advanced understanding of SLA theories and models
Critically evaluate cognitive, social, and instructional factors in SLA
Apply SLA research to pedagogical and research contexts
Design and conduct independent SLA research at the university level
Part I: Foundations and Core Concepts of SLA
1: Basic Concepts in Second Language Acquisition
What Is Second Language Acquisition?
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies how people learn languages beyond their first language
Concerned with:
Processes (how learning happens)
Outcomes (what learners ultimately know)
Conditions (why learners differ)
Distinction between:
Second language (societal language)
Foreign language (limited social use)
Key clarification
SLA is not:
A teaching method
A list of classroom techniques
SLA is:
A scientific field investigating mental, social, and instructional mechanisms
Question: Is SLA about how to teach or how languages are learned?
Scope and Goals of SLA
Scope of Second Language Acquisition
SLA investigates:
Linguistic development
Phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics
Learner variability
Why two learners exposed to the same input develop differently
Developmental sequences
Predictable stages across learners
Ultimate attainment
Why most learners fall short of native-like competence
Goals of SLA Research
To describe L2 development
To explain why acquisition happens the way it does
To predict learning outcomes under different conditions
To inform language teaching (indirectly)
Important:
SLA does not promise “best methods”
Pedagogy is an application, not the core mission
Epistemological Concerns in SLA
Epistemology: How Does SLA Claim Knowledge?
SLA asks:
What counts as evidence?
How do we know acquisition has occurred?
Competing Epistemological Positions
Rationalist tradition
Knowledge partly innate
Language constrained by internal structures
Empiricist tradition
Knowledge emerges from experience
Learning driven by input and usage
Social-constructivist tradition
Knowledge co-constructed through interaction
Point: These epistemological tensions explain why SLA theories disagree so strongly.
Key Issues in Second Language Acquisition
The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition
Learners acquire:
Knowledge that goes beyond input
Rules they were never explicitly taught
Known as:
Poverty of the stimulus
Core Unresolved Issues in SLA
Can adult learners achieve native-like competence?
Is grammar learned or acquired?
How important is input vs instruction?
What limits acquisition:
Age?
Cognition?
Social context?
Reflection: Which of these problems do you think is still unresolved, and why?
Acquisition vs Learning Debate
Historical Roots
Originates in:
Chomskyan linguistics
Krashen’s Monitor Model
Acquisition:
Implicit
Subconscious
Similar to child language learning
Learning:
Explicit
Conscious
Rule-based
Contemporary Perspectives
Many researchers now reject a strict binary
Prefer:
Implicit vs explicit knowledge
Declarative vs procedural memory
Ongoing debate:
Can explicit knowledge become implicit?
This debate remains central to grammar instruction research
SLA as an Interdisciplinary Field
Why SLA Cannot Be a Single-Discipline Field
Language learning involves:
Mind
Brain
Society
Classroom
Therefore, SLA draws from multiple disciplines.
Feeder Disciplines of SLA
Linguistics
Provides:
Models of grammatical structure
Description of target language systems
Raises questions of:
Learnability
Constraints on grammar
Psychology
Cognitive processes:
Memory
Attention
Processing
Learning mechanisms:
Automatization
Restructuring
Education
Classroom research
Instructional effects
Feedback and intervention studies
Sociology
Identity and power
Access to language communities
Social meaning of language use
Neuroscience
Brain representation of L2
Neuroplasticity
Age effects and critical periods
SLA exists at the intersection of mind, brain, society, and language.
Recap & Takeaway
Key Messages
SLA is a theoretical and empirical discipline
Its central problems are still unresolved
Disagreement is productive, not a weakness
Understanding foundations is essential before studying theories
Language Acquisition and Learning
Nature of human language
Implicit and explicit knowledge
Consciousness, awareness, and learning
Skill acquisition perspectives
2- Language Acquisition and Learning
From “What is SLA?” to “What is Language Learning?”
Question: What exactly is being acquired when a language is acquired?
Focus shifts from external input to internal knowledge systems
If language were just vocabulary and rules, learning would be easy. But it isn’t.
The Nature of Human Language
Language as a Unique Human Faculty
Key properties of human language:
Rule-governed yet creative
Finite means, infinite use
Allows speakers to produce and understand novel sentences
Core Linguistic Characteristics
Arbitrariness: no natural link between form and meaning
Productivity: endless sentence formation
Discreteness: categorical units (sounds, words, rules)
Systematicity: interconnected subsystems (phonology, syntax, semantics)
Language as Knowledge, Not Behavior
Language competence ≠ language performance
SLA studies:
Mental representation of language
Not just observable behavior
Key implication:
Memorization ≠ acquisition
Implicit and Explicit Knowledge
What Is Implicit Knowledge?
Unconscious
Automatic
Used fluently in real-time communication
Difficult to verbalize
Examples:
Native speaker intuitions
Grammaticality judgments without explanation
What Is Explicit Knowledge?
Conscious and verbalizable
Rule-based
Often learned through instruction
Examples:
Grammar rules
Metalinguistic explanations
Implicit vs Explicit Knowledge in SLA
Central question:
Can explicit knowledge become implicit?
Dividing positions:
Non-interface: no conversion possible
Weak interface: conversion under certain conditions
Strong interface: practice converts knowledge
This debate underpins grammar instruction research
Consciousness, Awareness, and Learning
What Is Consciousness in SLA?
Consciousness ≠ full awareness
Exists on a continuum:
Noticing
Understanding
Metalinguistic reflection
The Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt)
Learners must notice linguistic features for acquisition
Mere exposure is not enough
Attention is a necessary condition, not sufficient
Awareness and Learning
Types of awareness:
Perceptual awareness (noticing forms)
Conceptual awareness (understanding rules)
Metalinguistic awareness (explaining rules)
Ongoing debate:
Is awareness required for grammar acquisition?
Vocabulary vs grammar differences
Learning Without Awareness?
Evidence for Implicit Learning
Artificial grammar learning studies
Learners show sensitivity to patterns they cannot explain
Supports emergentist and usage-based theories
Limits of Unconscious Learning
Complex morphosyntax often requires attention
Adults differ from children in learning mechanisms
Insight: Awareness may facilitate, not guarantee acquisition
Skill Acquisition Theory
Language as a Skill
Language learning compared to:
Playing piano
Driving
Learning moves from:
Knowledge → performance
Stages of Skill Acquisition
Declarative Stage
Explicit rules
Slow, error-prone performance
Procedural Stage
Rules applied more efficiently
Automatic Stage
Fluent, rapid, unconscious use
Practice and Automatization
Practice leads to:
Faster processing
Reduced attentional demands
Repetition alone is insufficient:
Quality and meaningful use matter
Criticism: Does not fully explain creative language use
Synthesis and Transition
Integrating the Chapter
Language is:
A mental system
Not just learned facts
SLA must explain:
Implicit knowledge development
Role of awareness
Skill-like progression
Key Takeaways
Acquisition ≠ learning, but they interact
Implicit knowledge is the ultimate goal
Consciousness plays a facilitating role
Skill acquisition offers a powerful, but incomplete, model
First Language Acquisition
Core properties of first language acquisition
Developmental stages and mechanisms
Role of input and interaction in L1 acquisition
Constraints on L1 development
3 – First Language Acquisition
Why Study First Language Acquisition in SLA?
Relevance of L1 Acquisition to SLA
First language acquisition (FLA) is the baseline for understanding language learning
Reveals:
What humans can acquire without instruction
What may be biologically constrained
SLA theories often ask:
How is L2 acquisition similar to or different from L1 acquisition?
To understand what goes wrong—or differently—in L2 acquisition, we must first know what goes right in L1 acquisition.
Core Properties of First Language Acquisition
Universality of L1 Acquisition
All typically developing children acquire language
Occurs:
Rapidly
Uniformly
Without formal instruction
Robustness of L1 Acquisition
Acquisition proceeds despite:
Incomplete input
Noise and errors
Children do not require correction for grammar learning
Creativity in Child Language
Children produce:
Novel utterances
Forms they have never heard before
Indicates rule-based learning, not imitation
Uniform Outcomes
Children converge on:
The same grammatical system
Regardless of individual intelligence or instruction
Key implication:
L1 acquisition is biologically guided, not merely learned behavior
Developmental Stages and Mechanisms
Pre-linguistic Stage
Crying, cooing, babbling
Babbling reflects:
Universal phonetic patterns
Later shaped by ambient language
One-Word (Holophrastic) Stage
Single words used to express full meanings
Evidence of:
Semantic intention
Pragmatic competence
Two-Word Stage
Emergence of syntactic relations
Absence of function words and inflections
Indicates early grammatical structuring
Telegraphic Speech
Content words dominate
Functional morphology still developing
Syntax largely intact
Morphosyntactic Development
Gradual acquisition of:
Tense
Agreement
Case
Order of acquisition is predictable
Point: Children pass through stages, not random learning
Role of Input and Interaction in L1 Acquisition
Nature of Input to Children
Input is:
Simplified
Meaningful
Contextually grounded
Known as child-directed speech (CDS)
Characteristics of Child-Directed Speech
Slower rate
Exaggerated intonation
Shorter sentences
High frequency of questions
Is Input Sufficient?
Poverty of the stimulus argument:
Input lacks negative evidence
Yet children avoid ungrammatical forms
Suggests internal constraints
Role of Interaction
Interaction supports:
Vocabulary growth
Pragmatic development
Caregivers rarely correct grammar explicitly
Interaction facilitates learning but does not explain grammar acquisition alone
Mechanisms Underlying L1 Acquisition
Imitation and Reinforcement
Limited role:
Children do not imitate consistently
Reinforcement focuses on meaning, not form
Hypothesis Testing
Children form and revise grammatical hypotheses
Errors reflect:
Rule formation, not failure
Innateness and Universal Grammar
Children acquire:
Abstract rules
Without explicit teaching
Supports existence of innate linguistic constraints
Bridge to SLA:
Question becomes:
Are these mechanisms still available in adulthood?
Constraints on L1 Development
Biological Constraints
Critical period for L1 acquisition
Cases of deprivation show:
Permanent grammatical deficits
Cognitive Constraints
Working memory limitations shape early language
Gradual increase in complexity
Environmental Constraints
Extreme deprivation affects development
Normal variation does not prevent acquisition
Key insight:
L1 acquisition is resilient but not invulnerable
Synthesis and Transition
Summary of Key Insights
L1 acquisition is:
Universal
Stage-like
Internally constrained
Input and interaction are necessary but insufficient
Implications for SLA
Adult L2 learners:
Rarely achieve native-like competence
Show fossilization
Raises central SLA questions:
What changes after childhood?
What constraints remain active?
4: Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition
Why Compare L1 and L2 Acquisition?
L1 acquisition provides the benchmark
L2 acquisition shows:
Variability
Incompleteness
Fossilization
Core question:
If humans can acquire one language effortlessly, why is the second so difficult?
Clarification:
The goal is not to show L2 failure
The goal is to identify constraints and conditions
Similarities Between L1 and L2 Acquisition
Developmental Nature of Both Processes
Both involve:
Gradual development
Systematic change over time
Learners pass through stages, not random learning
Rule-Governed Behavior
Learners produce:
Creative utterances
Errors reflecting internal rules
Errors are developmental, not signs of ignorance
Role of Input
Input is essential in both L1 and L2
No acquisition occurs without exposure
Universal Developmental Patterns
Some grammatical features emerge in predictable orders
Suggests:
Internal constraints operate in both L1 and L2
Insight: L2 learners are not just imitators or translators
Differences Between L1 and L2 Acquisition
Age of Onset
L1:
Acquired in early childhood
L2:
Often acquired after critical developmental windows
Ultimate Attainment
L1:
Near-uniform native competence
L2:
Wide range of outcomes
Native-like attainment is rare
Speed and Effort
L1:
Rapid, effortless
L2:
Slow, effortful, variable
Fossilization
Persistent non-native forms in L2
Absent in normal L1 acquisition
Major conclusion: L2 acquisition is qualitatively different, not just slower
Ultimate Attainment and Variability
What Is Ultimate Attainment?
The final state of linguistic competence
Measured across:
Phonology
Morphosyntax
Lexicon
Pragmatics
Variability in L2 Outcomes
Two learners:
Same input
Same classroom
Very different proficiency
Sources of Variability
Age of onset
Cognitive differences
Motivation and identity
Amount and quality of input
Instructional history
Contrast:
Variability is exceptional in L1
Variability is normal in L2
Neurolinguistic and Cognitive Contrasts
Brain Organization in L1 and L2
L1:
Highly automatized neural networks
L2:
Greater reliance on controlled processing
Neuroplasticity and Age
Childhood brain:
Highly plastic
Adult brain:
Less flexible but still adaptable
Cognitive Processing Differences
L1 processing:
Fast
Automatic
L2 processing:
Slower
Attention-demanding
Important nuance:
Difference is degree, not absolute capacity
The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition
Defining the Logical Problem
Learners acquire:
Knowledge beyond available input
Input:
Incomplete
No negative evidence
Yet learners avoid impossible grammars
Poverty of the Stimulus
Core argument:
Input alone cannot explain acquisition
Supports:
Innate constraints
Universal Grammar
L1 vs L2 and the Logical Problem
In L1:
Problem is solved uniformly
In L2:
Solution is partial or inconsistent
Central SLA question:
Do adult learners still have access to the same innate mechanisms?
Synthesis and Forward Link
Key Takeaways
L1 and L2 share:
Developmental patterns
Rule-based learning
They differ in:
Outcomes
Variability
Neurological processing
Why This Comparison Matters
Frames debates on:
Critical Period Hypothesis
Universal Grammar in SLA
Role of instruction
Part II: Factors Affecting Second Language Acquisition
5: Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition
Cognition in SLA
Why Cognitive Factors Matter
SLA is fundamentally a mental process
Learners differ even with:
Same teacher
Same syllabus
Same input
Cognitive factors explain why exposure alone is insufficient
Core claim: SLA is constrained by how the human mind processes, stores, and retrieves language.
Attention, Noticing, and Awareness
Attention in SLA
Attention refers to selective allocation of cognitive resources
Learners cannot process all input simultaneously
Attention determines:
What becomes intake
What remains unnoticed
The Noticing Hypothesis
Learners must notice linguistic features for acquisition
Noticing ≠ understanding
Awareness can be:
Low-level (form detection)
High-level (rule awareness)
Evidence Supporting Noticing
Input enhancement studies
Corrective feedback effects
Learner reports and introspective data
Debate:
Is noticing necessary or just facilitative?
Working Memory and Processing Capacity
What Is Working Memory?
Limited-capacity system for:
Holding
Manipulating information
Central to real-time language use
Working Memory in L2 Processing
Supports:
Sentence parsing
Morphological agreement
Lexical retrieval
Higher working memory → better performance in:
Grammar
Reading comprehension
Speaking fluency
Individual Differences
Learners vary significantly in:
Memory span
Processing speed
Explains:
Uneven L2 development
Instructional sensitivity
Implication:
One-size-fits-all pedagogy is cognitively unrealistic
Automatization and Restructuring
From Controlled to Automatic Processing
Early L2 use:
Slow
Attention-demanding
Advanced L2 use:
Fast
Automatic
Automatization
Repeated meaningful practice leads to:
Faster access
Reduced cognitive effort
Frees attentional resources for:
Meaning
Discourse-level planning
Restructuring
Sudden reorganization of internal knowledge
Explains:
U-shaped learning
Temporary regressions
Important:
Automatization ≠ fossilization
Automatization strengthens existing representations
Cognitive Load and L2 Learning
Cognitive Load Theory
Learning is constrained by:
Limited processing capacity
Types of cognitive load:
Intrinsic (task complexity)
Extraneous (poor design)
Germane (learning-relevant effort)
Cognitive Load in L2 Tasks
Complex grammar + new vocabulary = overload
High load reduces noticing and uptake
Managing Cognitive Load
Task sequencing:
Simple → complex
Modality:
Visual + auditory support
Chunking and scaffolding
Teaching insight:
Too much difficulty blocks learning; too little blocks development
Integrating Cognitive Factors
Interactions Among Cognitive Variables
Attention interacts with:
Working memory
Cognitive load
Automatization reduces:
Load
Attentional demands
Restructuring reshapes internal grammar
Cognitive Constraints on SLA
SLA is:
Possible
But not limitless
Cognitive architecture shapes:
Rate
Outcome
Variability
Synthesis and Transition
Key Takeaways
Attention filters input
Working memory limits processing
Automatization enables fluency
Cognitive load constrains learning
Implications for SLA Theory
Challenges:
Pure input-only explanations
Supports:
Processing-based theories
Usage-based models
6: Social Factors in Second Language Acquisition
Why Social Factors Matter in SLA
Beyond Cognition: The Social Turn in SLA
Early SLA focused on:
Internal mental mechanisms
Social perspectives emphasize:
Context
Interaction
Power relations
Core claim: Language acquisition is not only something that happens in the mind, but also something that happens between people.
Social Context and Access to Input
Social Context in SLA
Input is:
Socially distributed
Unequally accessible
Not all learners receive the same:
Quantity
Quality
Variety of input
Access vs. Exposure
Access depends on:
Social networks
Institutional positioning
Gatekeeping practices
Social Stratification and Input
Migrants vs. international students
Workplace vs. classroom input
Native-speaker norms as social constructs
Key insight:
Input is filtered through social opportunity structures
Identity, Power, and Ideology
Learner Identity
Identity is:
Dynamic
Multiple
Negotiated through interaction
Language learning reshapes:
Self-concept
Social positioning
Power Relations in SLA
Language as symbolic capital
Accent discrimination
Legitimate vs. illegitimate speakers
Ideology and Language Norms
Native-speaker ideology
Standard language ideology
Monolingual bias in SLA research
Critical perspective: SLA outcomes reflect social inequality, not just learner deficits
Language Socialization in SLA
What Is Language Socialization?
Language learning as:
Social participation
Cultural apprenticeship
Learners acquire:
Linguistic forms
Interactional norms
Cultural values
Mechanisms of Language Socialization
Modeling
Corrective practices
Ritualized interaction
Institutional discourse
SLA Through Socialization
Classrooms as communities of practice
Learning through participation, not instruction alone
Alignment with sociocultural theory
Difference from input theories:
Focus on who interacts with learners and how
Acculturation and Pidginization Theory
Acculturation Theory
SLA success depends on:
Social distance
Psychological distance
Greater distance → reduced acquisition
Factors Influencing Acculturation
Attitudes toward L2 community
Motivation and identity alignment
Cultural openness vs. resistance
Pidginization
Reduced input leads to:
Simplified linguistic systems
Fossilization as a social outcome
Seen in:
Migrant worker contexts
Lingua franca environments
Critiques:
Overgeneralization
Limited empirical support
Underestimates learner agency
Integration and Critical Evaluation
Integrating Social and Cognitive Perspectives
Social context shapes:
Attention
Motivation
Processing opportunities
Cognition mediates:
What social input becomes learning
Methodological Implications
Need for:
Ethnography
Longitudinal studies
Narrative inquiry
Insight:
SLA requires theoretical pluralism
Conclusion and Forward Link
Key Takeaways
SLA is socially embedded
Access to input is unequal
Identity and power shape learning trajectories
Social distance influences outcomes
Individual Differences in SLA
Aptitude and language learning ability
Motivation, attitudes, and investment
Anxiety, affect, and personality variables
Learning styles and learner strategies
7. Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Why Individual Differences Matter
Key Idea
SLA is not a uniform process; it is filtered through the learner.
Core Points
Even in identical classrooms:
Some learners become fluent
Others fossilize early
IDs explain:
Rate of acquisition
Ultimate attainment
Strategy choice
Classroom participation
Historical Shift
Early SLA (1960s–70s): input and grammar-focused
Modern SLA: learner-centered
Individual Differences bridge:
Cognitive science
Psychology
Sociolinguistics
Discussion: Why do some learners succeed despite poor teaching while others fail despite good teaching?
Language Aptitude and Learning Ability
Defining Language Aptitude
Language aptitude = relatively stable cognitive abilities that predict success in language learning.
Not the same as:
Intelligence
Motivation
Effort
Classic Components (Carroll & Sapon)
Phonemic coding ability
Grammatical sensitivity
Inductive language learning ability
Memory for language material
Major Aptitude Tests
MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test)
DLAB
Hi-LAB
Contemporary Views
Aptitude is multi-component, not fixed
Different aptitudes for:
Explicit learning
Implicit learning
Classroom vs naturalistic settings
Aptitude–Treatment Interaction
Explicit instruction benefits high analytical learners
Implicit exposure benefits procedural learners
Insight
Aptitude predicts how, not whether, a learner can succeed.
Motivation, Attitudes, and Investment
Traditional Motivation Models
Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model
Integrative motivation (desire to join L2 community)
Instrumental motivation (practical goals)
Limitations:
Less applicable in global English contexts
Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System
Three components:
Ideal L2 Self – who the learner wants to become
Ought-to L2 Self – social expectations
L2 Learning Experience – classroom environment
Key Strength
Explains sustained motivation
Links identity and future self-images
Investment (Norton)
Motivation ≠ Investment
Learners may be motivated but silenced by power relations
Investment connects:
Identity
Access
Symbolic capital
Example
A migrant learner:
Motivated
But excluded from interaction → low proficiency gains
Anxiety, Affect, and Personality Variables
Foreign Language Anxiety
Defined by Horwitz:
Communication apprehension
Fear of negative evaluation
Test anxiety
Effects on SLA
Reduces working memory capacity
Raises affective filter
Leads to avoidance strategies
Affective Filter Hypothesis
High anxiety → less input intake
Emotional states mediate cognition
Personality Variables
Common traits studied:
Introversion vs extroversion
Risk-taking
Empathy
Research Findings:
No “ideal personality”
Context matters more than traits
Key Insight
Personality influences participation, not competence directly.
Learning Styles and Learner Strategies
Learning Styles: A Cautious View
Styles often cited:
Visual / auditory / kinesthetic
Field-dependent vs field-independent
Problems:
Weak empirical evidence
Risk of labeling learners
Modern SLA stance:
Focus on strategic flexibility, not fixed styles
Learner Strategies (Oxford)
Cognitive Strategies
Repetition
Inferencing
Summarizing
Metacognitive Strategies
Planning
Monitoring
Evaluating
Social and Affective Strategies
Asking for clarification
Managing anxiety
Strategic Competence
Successful learners:
Use more strategies
Use them more flexibly
Match strategies to tasks
Pedagogical Implications
Teaching Implications
One-size-fits-all instruction is ineffective
Instruction should:
Offer multiple pathways
Balance explicit and implicit learning
Reduce affective barriers
Assessment Implications
Avoid equating silence with incompetence
Use diverse assessment modes
Learner Autonomy
Teach learners how to learn
Strategy training improves long-term outcomes
Critical Evaluation and Synthesis
Key Takeaways
Individual differences:
Interact dynamically
Are context-sensitive
Are not deterministic
Central Argument
SLA success emerges from the interaction of cognition, affect, identity, and environment—not from any single variable.
Part III: Theories of Second Language Acquisition
8: The Monitor Model (Stephen Krashen)
Historical and Theoretical Context
Why Krashen Matters
Late 1970s–1980s: reaction against:
Audiolingualism
Grammar-translation
Shift from:
Teaching methods → acquisition processes
Popularized SLA beyond linguistics
Intellectual Influences
Chomskyan linguistics
Naturalistic acquisition studies
Child language research
Central Claim
Language is acquired, not learned, and acquisition occurs through exposure to comprehensible input.
Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis
Core Distinction
Acquisition
Subconscious process
Similar to L1 acquisition
Leads to intuitive language use
Learning
Conscious knowledge of rules
Formal instruction
Results in explicit knowledge
Key Claims
Learned knowledge cannot become acquired
The two systems are separate and independent
Classroom Implications
Grammar teaching has limited value
Focus should be on meaningful input
Critical Questions
Can explicit knowledge ever become implicit?
Is the acquisition–learning distinction psychologically real?
Monitor Hypothesis
Definition
The “monitor” is the conscious grammar editor
It checks output after it is produced
Conditions for Monitor Use
Sufficient time
Focus on form
Knowledge of the rule
Types of Monitor Users
Over-users: hesitant, accuracy-obsessed
Under-users: fluent but error-prone
Optimal users: balanced
Empirical Observations
Monitor use is rare in spontaneous speech
More common in writing and planned output
Natural Order Hypothesis
Core Claim
Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order
Instruction does not change this order
Evidence
Morpheme studies (Dulay & Burt)
Similar acquisition sequences across learners
Implications
Teaching grammar out of sequence is ineffective
Errors are developmental, not failures
Limitations
Orders vary across:
Learners
Languages
Tasks
Explains what is acquired, not how
Input Hypothesis
Central Formula
i + 1
i = current level
+1 = next stage
Nature of Input
Comprehensible
Meaning-focused
Slightly beyond current competence
What Input Does
Triggers acquisition automatically
No need for output or correction
Sources of Input
Teacher talk
Reading
Listening
Interaction (minimally emphasized)
Strong Claim
Speaking emerges as a result of acquisition; it does not cause acquisition.
Affective Filter Hypothesis
Components of the Filter
Motivation
Anxiety
Self-confidence
Mechanism
High affective filter → input blocked
Low affective filter → acquisition proceeds
Pedagogical Impact
Supportive classroom climate
Error tolerance
Reduced pressure to perform
Critique
Metaphorical, not mechanistic
Difficult to operationalize empirically
Empirical Evaluation and Critiques
Major Strengths
Shifted SLA toward meaning
Influenced:
Communicative Language Teaching
Extensive reading
Immersion programs
Major Criticisms
Lack of Falsifiability
Hypotheses are difficult to test
Concepts like “acquisition” are undefined
Weak Empirical Support
Limited evidence for strict acquisition–learning separation
Input alone insufficient for full grammatical development
Neglect of Output
Later research (Swain):
Output promotes noticing
Forces syntactic processing
Over-Simplification
Underestimates:
Cognitive processes
Role of instruction
Interactional feedback
Krashen in Contemporary SLA
Enduring Contributions
Centrality of input
Affective dimensions of learning
Meaning before form
Where SLA Has Moved On
Interaction Hypothesis
Skill Acquisition Theory
Usage-based models
Balanced View
Krashen explains why exposure matters, but not how acquisition unfolds internally.
Pedagogical Synthesis
What Teachers Can Take
Prioritize rich input
Lower affective barriers
Avoid overcorrection
What Teachers Should Add
Guided output
Form-focused instruction
Interaction and feedback
9: Interlanguage Theory
Introduction to Interlanguage
Definition
Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972):
The dynamic, learner-constructed linguistic system
Intermediate between L1 and L2
Rule-governed, evolving, but distinct from both native languages
Evolution of the Concept
Early SLA: error-focused
Selinker: errors are systematic, developmental, and informative
Later refinements:
Fossilization (Selinker & Lamendella)
Dynamic systems theory perspective
Why Interlanguage Matters
Moves focus from “deficits” → learner system as creative
Explains variability and predictable patterns
Discussion Question:
Is a learner’s interlanguage a “broken” version of the target language or a language in its own right?
Developmental Sequences
Stage-Like Development
SLA often progresses through predictable sequences
Examples:
English: progressive -ing → plural -s → auxiliary verbs
Developmental order may not match explicit instruction
Evidence for Sequences
Longitudinal studies (Dulay & Burt, 1973)
Cross-linguistic consistency in certain morphemes
U-Shaped Learning
Initial correct use → error → recovery
Reflects internal rule restructuring
Key Insight
Interlanguage is systematic, not random
Overgeneralization
What It Is
Applying a rule too broadly
Example: “goed” instead of “went”
Cognitive Basis
Learners form hypotheses about target language rules
Overgeneralization shows rule-based learning, not failure
Pedagogical Implications
Errors are teachable moments
Focus on understanding rule formation rather than punishment
Language Transfer and Transfer of Training
Language Transfer
Influence of L1 on L2 (positive and negative)
Examples:
Word order: Spanish L1 → English L2
Phonology, syntax, pragmatics
Transfer of Training
Influence of instructional methods
Example:
Overemphasis on drills → fossilized errors
Interaction Between Transfer and Interlanguage
Transfer explains some systematic errors
Interlanguage develops beyond transfer effects
Strategies of Second Language Learning & Communication
Strategies of L2 Learning
Learner-initiated cognitive strategies:
Repetition, summarization, note-taking
Metacognitive strategies:
Planning, monitoring, evaluating
Strategies of L2 Communication
Negotiation for meaning
Circumlocution when vocabulary is lacking
Non-verbal support (gestures, miming)
Key Insight
Strategies shape interlanguage development
Successful learners actively manage their own systems
Stabilization and Fossilization
Stabilization
Interlanguage may reach a stable state
Learner continues to produce the same forms consistently
Does not guarantee native-like accuracy
Fossilization
Permanent cessation of development in certain areas
Often occurs despite exposure, instruction, or motivation
Influenced by:
Age
Social identity
Attitudes
Input quality
Pedagogical Implications
Awareness of fossilization allows:
Targeted intervention
Strategy instruction
Realistic goal-setting
Synthesis and Forward Link
Key Takeaways
Interlanguage is dynamic, rule-governed, and systematic
Developmental sequences reflect universal and language-specific patterns
Overgeneralization, transfer, and strategies drive and shape learning
Fossilization explains limits of ultimate attainment
Part IV: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Biological Approaches
10: Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Nativist Foundations of SLA
Nativism in Linguistics
Rooted in Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (1965, 1981)
Core claim: humans are biologically equipped with a language faculty
Language learning is not just imitation or habit formation
SLA as a Nativist Question
Key SLA issues:
How much L2 knowledge comes from innate linguistic structures?
Can adults access the same UG principles as children?
Relevance
Provides a cognitive and theoretical benchmark
Frames debates about:
Critical period
Interlanguage grammar
Error patterns
Universal Grammar in First and Second Language Acquisition
UG in L1 Acquisition
L1 acquisition occurs effortlessly in children
Rapid acquisition despite:
Limited input (poverty of the stimulus)
UG constrains:
Possible grammars
Parameter settings
UG in SLA
Hypotheses:
Full Access: L2 learners can set parameters like children
Partial Access: Some UG principles inaccessible
No Access: L2 learning relies entirely on general cognition
Evidence from L2 Morphosyntax
Example: English questions (auxiliary inversion)
Example: Null subjects in L2 Spanish
Some learners reach native-like competence → suggests UG-guided learning
Cross-Linguistic Influence
UG explains why:
Some errors are systematic
L1 interference is limited to parameter differences
Access to UG in Adult SLA
The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) Revisited
L2 acquisition declines after childhood
Suggests UG accessibility decreases with age
Full vs Partial Access Debate
Full Access: adults can reset parameters but slower due to cognitive load
Partial Access: adults rely more on transfer and instruction
Evidence:
Some adult learners acquire complex morphology
Others fossilize → limits of UG use
Interface Hypothesis
UG governs syntax, not syntax-pragmatics interface
Explains:
Persistent errors in adults despite exposure
Empirical Evidence and Counterarguments
Supporting Evidence for UG in SLA
Consistent morpheme orders in L2 acquisition
Overgeneralization patterns
Cross-linguistic similarities in interlanguage
Rapid acquisition in immersion contexts
Counterarguments
Cognitive and usage-based models:
Connectionism
Input processing
Evidence:
Instruction and interaction shape acquisition
Many L2 learners achieve target-like competence without UG recourse
Critiques of UG Approach
Falsifiability issues
Hard to measure UG access directly
Adult SLA shows high variability inconsistent with strict UG predictions
Synthesis and Theoretical Implications
Current Consensus
UG may provide constraints on possible grammars
L2 learners’ ultimate attainment is mediated by age, input, cognitive resources
UG may be partially accessible in adults
SLA is a complex interplay of innate and experiential factors
Pedagogical Implications
UG-informed teaching:
Awareness of parameter settings
Focus on structures that align with universal constraints
Limits: cannot rely solely on innate grammar
Key Takeaways
UG provides a theoretical scaffold for SLA research
Adult learners may have limited but nonzero access to UG
Critical period, input quality, and cognitive constraints shape SLA
Ongoing debate: UG vs. usage-based theories → productive tension in research
11: Principles and Parameters Theory
Introduction: Principles and Parameters Framework
Background
Developed by Chomsky (1981, 1986) as part of UG theory
UG consists of:
Principles: universal, invariant rules across languages
Parameters: language-specific switches set by input
Relevance to SLA
L2 learners must:
Recognize which parameters differ from L1
Reset these parameters based on L2 input
Example
Null subject parameter:
English: [+non-null] → requires overt subjects
Spanish: [-non-null] → allows null subjects
L2 learners must reset parameter to acquire correct syntax
Parameter Resetting in SLA
Definition
Parameter resetting: the process by which a learner changes L1 parameter settings to match L2 input
Mechanism
Input triggers hypothesis formation
Overgeneralization occurs when:
Parameter is incorrectly applied
E.g., using null subjects in English
Evidence
Cross-linguistic morpheme studies
Learner corpora showing systematic errors
Longitudinal observation of parameter acquisition
Limitations
Some adult learners do not fully reset parameters → fossilization
Parameter resetting interacts with:
Age
Input frequency
Cognitive constraints
Projection Principle
Definition
Syntax must project lexical properties to syntactic structure
Determines which structures are grammatical
Example:
Verb subcategorization frames (English: “give NP NP” vs. “donate NP to NP”)
Role in SLA
L2 learners must learn both:
Lexical items
Syntactic frames
Misprojection leads to interlanguage errors
Implications for SLA Research
Predicts where errors are likely:
Verb argument structure
Subject-verb agreement
Supports generative accounts of systematic learner errors
Interfaces and Learnability Constraints
Interfaces in SLA
Syntax–semantics interface: mapping meaning onto structure
Syntax–pragmatics interface: context-sensitive rules (e.g., question formation, null subjects)
Errors often occur at interface points, not at core syntax
Learnability Constraints
UG provides limits on possible grammars
L2 learners cannot acquire:
Structures violating universal principles
Explains why some errors never occur
Practical Examples
English negation: learners rarely omit negation entirely → principle preserved
Parameter-driven errors more common in morphosyntax
Pedagogical and Research Implications
Theoretical Implications
Supports nativist perspective on SLA
Explains predictable error patterns and developmental sequences
Accounts for interlanguage variability
Pedagogical Implications
Awareness of parameter differences helps:
Design input that highlights target structures
Predict learner difficulties
Focus instruction on interface issues
Key Takeaways
P&P framework divides UG into fixed principles + switchable parameters
Parameter resetting explains L2 developmental patterns
Projection principle links lexical and syntactic knowledge
Interface and learnability constraints predict possible vs impossible errors
12: Emergentist and Cognitive Approaches
Introduction: From Nativist to Emergentist Approaches
Background
Emergentist approaches:
Contrasts with nativist/UG perspectives
Emphasize input, cognition, and pattern extraction
SLA emerges from interaction between learner and environment
Core Question
How can learners acquire complex linguistic systems from limited, variable input without innate grammar?
Relevance
Explains gradual development
Accounts for frequency effects, variability, and individual differences
Language Learning Through Association
Basic Principle
Learners associate forms with meanings through repeated exposure
Errors are temporary hypotheses about patterns
Mechanisms
Pairing linguistic cues with communicative context
Cross-situational learning: linking words to referents
Analogical reasoning: generalizing patterns
Empirical Evidence
Child and adult learners track form–meaning co-occurrences
Example: plural -s in English emerges from repeated exposure to noun–plural contexts
Pedagogical Implications
Emphasize rich, frequent, meaningful input
Contextualized exposure aids pattern recognition
Statistical Learning
Definition
Learners unconsciously track probabilities of forms and sequences
Example: transitional probabilities in speech segmentation
Evidence
Saffran et al. (1996): infants detect word boundaries using statistical regularities
Adults also use distributional information in L2 acquisition
SLA Applications
Frequency effects explain why:
High-frequency morphemes are acquired earlier
Rare structures are learned slowly
Helps explain overgeneralization and variability
Connectionism and Neural Network Models
Core Idea
Language learning modeled as network of nodes and connections
Learning = strengthening or weakening connections based on exposure
Key Features
No innate grammar required
Patterns emerge from input statistics and usage frequency
Errors are temporary system instability
Computational Models
Rumelhart & McClelland (1986): past tense acquisition
Neural networks simulate:
Rule-like generalizations
U-shaped learning curves
Variability across learners
Pedagogical Implications
Emphasize repetition, exposure, and meaningful practice
Focus on frequency, patterns, and analogy rather than explicit rules
Usage-Based Approaches
Core Principles
Language structure emerges from use
Grammar is entrenched patterns of usage
Cognitive processes underlie acquisition:
Attention
Memory
Analogy
Examples
Multi-word expressions learned as chunks
Constructions acquire productivity through repeated experience
Cross-linguistic transfer can be explained as pattern mapping
Strengths
Explains gradual acquisition and variability
Accounts for frequency effects and emergent patterns
Compatible with cognitive neuroscience evidence
Limitations
Less explicit about universal constraints
Cannot fully explain rapid, complex syntax acquisition in adults
Struggles with parameter-setting phenomena in UG
Synthesis and Key Takeaways
Emergentist SLA: Core Messages
SLA arises from interaction between input, cognition, and memory
Learning is gradual, probabilistic, and usage-driven
Errors are hypothesis-testing phenomena
Cognitive and input factors interact dynamically with individual differences
Pedagogical Implications
Provide rich, varied, frequent input
Focus on patterns, not isolated rules
Encourage active engagement, exposure, and interaction
13: Processability Theory (PT)
Introduction: Theoretical Foundations
Background
Developed by Pienemann (1998)
Connects cognitive processing capacity with L2 grammatical development
L2 acquisition constrained by what learners can process in real time
Core Principles
Language production depends on incremental processing abilities
Learners acquire structures in a predictable developmental sequence
Grammar emerges in line with processing complexity
Relevance
Provides predictive power for L2 development
Integrates cognitive psychology and SLA
Processing Constraints on L2 Development
Key Idea
Learners can only produce structures that are processable given their current cognitive capacity
Learning occurs as processing routines develop
Levels of Processing
Morpho-phonological processing: simple inflections (-s, -ed)
Syntactic processing: word order, agreement
Sentence-level processing: subordination, embedding
Implications
Errors reflect limitations in processing capacity, not lack of knowledge
Predicts which structures can appear at each stage
Developmental Stages of Grammar Acquisition
PT Developmental Sequence (English Example)
Lexical retrieval – nouns, verbs, content words
Inflectional morphology – plural -s, past -ed
Finite verb forms / agreement – auxiliary + main verb
Constituent order / syntactic frames – subject-verb-object
Subordination / embedding – relative clauses, conditionals
Characteristics
Stage sequence is universal across learners
Structures are acquired incrementally, not simultaneously
Learners may plateau at certain stages if processing cannot support more complex forms
Pedagogical Implications
Teaching should align with learner’s current processing stage
Avoid overwhelming learners with structures beyond their processable capacity
Cross-Linguistic Evidence
Evidence Supporting PT
Pienemann’s studies across languages:
German L2, English L2, Turkish L2, Spanish L2
Similar developmental sequences observed regardless of L1 background
Implications of Cross-Linguistic Findings
Suggests processing constraints are universal
Predictable patterns allow teachers to anticipate typical errors
Supports developmentally sequenced syllabus design
Limitations and Critiques
Focus on production over comprehension
Less attention to social factors and motivation
Some structures influenced by frequency and exposure, not processing alone
Integration with Other Theories
PT and Other SLA Approaches
Nativist theories: complements UG by explaining processing limitations
Connectionist/usage-based approaches: aligns with cognitive emergence of patterns
Krashen / Input Hypothesis: input drives acquisition, but PT predicts what learners can process
Classroom Relevance
Supports staged grammar instruction
Prioritize structures learnable given processing stage
Avoid forcing high-complexity forms prematurely
Key Takeaways
PT links processing ability with developmental grammar acquisition
Predicts order of structure acquisition across languages
Provides practical guidance for curriculum design and error prediction
Bridges cognitive, linguistic, and pedagogical perspectives
Part V: Input, Interaction, and Classroom SLA
14: Input and Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Input in SLA
Why Input Matters
Input is the raw data of language acquisition
Supports:
Vocabulary growth
Grammar development
Pronunciation and pragmatic skills
Historical Context
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (i + 1)
Early SLA research emphasized exposure over formal instruction
Key Question
How much input, and what type of input, is needed for effective SLA?
Nature and Types of Input
Types of Input
Comprehensible Input: language slightly beyond current competence
Modified Input: simplified for learners (teacher talk, scaffolding)
Authentic Input: naturally occurring language (media, conversation)
Enhanced Input: features made salient (bolding, repetition, gestures)
Input Characteristics
Quantity: amount of exposure
Quality: clarity, complexity, meaningfulness
Interactional: includes negotiation for meaning, feedback
Examples
Reading vs. listening input
Classroom vs. immersion settings
Discussion Question
Which type of input is most effective for adult learners in formal classrooms?
Necessity and Sufficiency of Input
Necessity
SLA cannot occur without exposure to the L2
Input provides evidence of language patterns and rules
Sufficiency
Input alone may not be enough for full acquisition
Output, interaction, and feedback also contribute (Swain, 1995)
Implications for Instruction
Pure exposure is insufficient for:
Subtle syntactic distinctions
Pragmatic norms
Instruction should balance input with meaningful practice
Input Frequency, Salience, and Enhancement
Input Frequency
Frequent forms are acquired earlier and more reliably
Rare forms may require explicit instruction or repeated exposure
Input Salience
Linguistic features must be noticeable to be acquired
Salience can be enhanced by:
Repetition
Visual highlighting
Gestural cues
Input Enhancement Techniques
Textual: bolding, underlining
Auditory: stress, intonation
Interactional: emphasis in conversation
Pedagogical Implications
Teachers can design input-rich activities
Scaffold learning using enhanced input
Comprehensible Input Revisited
Krashen’s i + 1 Reconsidered
Input slightly beyond current level → pushes development
Comprehensible input does not guarantee acquisition alone
Empirical Support
Longitudinal and immersion studies confirm input exposure matters
Interaction facilitates noticing and hypothesis testing
Critiques
Overemphasis on passive exposure
Neglects output and interactional feedback
Frequency and salience also moderate acquisition success
Key Takeaways
Input is necessary but not always sufficient for SLA
Effective input is: frequent, salient, comprehensible, meaningful
Classroom teaching should integrate:
Authentic and modified input
Input enhancement
Opportunities for interaction and output
15: Interaction and Output in Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Why Interaction Matters
Interaction as Input-Enhanced Learning
Interaction provides real-time, contextualized input
Facilitates noticing, hypothesis testing, and error correction
Historical Context
Long (1980s, 1990s): Interaction Hypothesis
Swain (1985, 1995): Output Hypothesis
Key Question
How does communicative interaction transform input into learnable language?
Interaction Hypothesis
Definition
SLA is facilitated through interaction
Learners modify input and output to maintain communication
Components of Interaction
Comprehensible input: input adjusted to learner level
Negotiation of meaning: resolving misunderstandings
Modified interaction: repetitions, clarification requests, paraphrasing
Evidence
Classroom and immersion studies show:
Learners acquire structures they interactively encounter
Learner-learner and learner-teacher interaction both effective
Negotiation of Meaning
What It Is
Process where learners clarify or confirm understanding
Examples:
“Sorry, I don’t understand, can you repeat?”
Reformulations, simplifications
Functions in SLA
Forces learners to notice gaps in their knowledge
Provides opportunities for input modification
Encourages focus on form during meaning-focused tasks
Types of Negotiation
Interactional adjustments: repair sequences
Task-based adjustments: problem-solving tasks requiring clarification
Feedback and Modified Output
Role of Feedback
Corrective feedback provides knowledge of results
Types:
Explicit correction
Recasts (implicit reformulation)
Clarification requests
Modified Output
Learners produce revised forms after feedback
Output helps consolidate linguistic rules
Classroom Implications
Teachers should provide timely, targeted feedback
Promote peer interaction to expand modified output opportunities
Output Hypothesis and Pushed Output
Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985, 1995)
Producing language promotes grammatical and lexical development
Three functions:
Noticing/triggering function: recognize gaps in knowledge
Hypothesis-testing function: try out new forms
Metalinguistic function: reflect on language structure
Pushed Output
Learners are pushed beyond current competence
Can lead to language restructuring and development
Task design can encourage pushed output:
Story retelling
Role-play
Problem-solving tasks
Empirical Support
Studies: learners producing output show greater uptake of target forms
Interaction + pushed output = accelerated interlanguage development
Key Takeaways
Interaction is crucial for SLA, providing input, feedback, and negotiation opportunities
Negotiation of meaning promotes noticing gaps and acquisition
Feedback and modified output consolidate learner knowledge
Output Hypothesis: production is not optional; it pushes learners beyond current competence
Classroom practice: design tasks that elicit meaningful, challenging output
16: Classroom Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Classroom SLA
Why Classroom SLA Matters
Formal instruction is the primary L2 context for many learners
Classroom interactions shape:
Input exposure
Noticing opportunities
Output and negotiation of meaning
Key Questions
How do classroom interactions facilitate SLA?
What roles do teachers and peers play in input, feedback, and collaborative learning?
Classroom Discourse and Interactional Patterns
Interaction Patterns
Teacher-fronted talk vs learner-centered interaction
IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) patterns common in classrooms
Effects on language learning:
Limited learner output in traditional IRF → less practice
Extended negotiation → higher acquisition potential
Classroom Discourse Analysis
Turns, adjacency pairs, repair sequences
Interactional scaffolding promotes noticing gaps in interlanguage
Examples from English L2 classrooms:
Teacher reformulation
Peer clarification
Pedagogical Implications
Design activities that maximize learner talk time
Balance teacher guidance with student-centered interaction
Teacher Talk and Learner Participation
Teacher Talk
Functions: input provision, feedback, scaffolding, and task facilitation
Types:
Simplified speech
Recasts and clarification requests
Meta-linguistic explanations
Learner Participation
Active participation = more opportunities for output, noticing, and hypothesis testing
Engagement influenced by:
Motivation and affective factors
Task design and classroom climate
Evidence from Research
Higher learner talk correlates with faster acquisition of target forms
Teacher questions that elicit extended responses → promote pushed output
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
Core Principles of TBLT
Tasks as central units of planning and instruction
Emphasis on meaningful language use rather than rote drills
Examples of tasks:
Information-gap tasks
Role plays
Problem-solving activities
SLA Mechanisms in TBLT
Tasks provide:
Comprehensible input
Negotiation of meaning
Opportunities for pushed output
Aligns with Interaction Hypothesis and Output Hypothesis
Evidence
Task-based classrooms show higher uptake of:
Morphosyntax
Functional language
Pragmatic competence
Peer Interaction and Collaborative Learning
Peer Interaction
Learners negotiate meaning with peers → scaffolding each other
Benefits:
Low-anxiety environment
More opportunities for output
Peer corrective feedback
Collaborative Learning
Small-group or pair work promotes:
Shared problem-solving
Mutual scaffolding of interlanguage development
Development of strategic competence
Practical Classroom Applications
Design pair/group tasks to maximize negotiation, feedback, and attention to form
Rotate roles: speaker, listener, and observer
Key Takeaways
Classroom SLA is shaped by interaction, teacher talk, tasks, and peer collaboration
Active learner participation enhances noticing, output, and interlanguage development
TBLT and collaborative learning align with interactionist and cognitive SLA principles
Effective classroom design requires:
Balanced teacher guidance
Opportunities for negotiation and pushed output
Tasks matched to learner proficiency and processing capacity
17: Formal Instruction and Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Formal Instruction in SLA
Definition
Formal instruction: planned, structured teaching targeting L2 knowledge and skills
Emphasizes grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and communicative competence
Historical Context
Contrast with naturalistic acquisition (immersion, input-driven)
Instruction can accelerate acquisition, particularly for complex or less salient forms
Key Question
Can formal instruction produce nativelike proficiency, and under what conditions?
Role of Instruction in Grammar Development
Functions of Instruction
Facilitates noticing of target forms
Provides structured input beyond what learners encounter naturally
Allows practice and consolidation through guided exercises
Evidence from Research
Meta-analyses show instruction is most effective for:
Morphosyntactic development
Rule-based structures
Less frequent or complex linguistic features
Interaction with Individual Differences
Learner aptitude, motivation, and working memory influence instructional outcomes
Instruction is not a substitute for meaningful input and interaction
Explicit vs. Implicit Instruction
Explicit Instruction
Direct explanation of rules
Advantages: rapid learning of target forms, clarity
Limitations: may not promote automatic processing or fluency
Implicit Instruction
Exposure and practice without formal explanation
Advantages: closer to natural acquisition, promotes implicit knowledge
Limitations: slower, may require extensive input
Comparative Evidence
Explicit instruction aids initial acquisition
Implicit instruction better supports automatization and long-term retention
Hybrid approaches often most effective
Focus on Form vs. Focus on Forms
Focus on Forms (FoFs)
Traditional grammar-based approach
Treats forms in isolation
Risks neglecting meaningful communication and context
Focus on Form (FoF)
Grammar taught within communicative context
Example: task-based activities highlighting target forms during meaning-focused tasks
Promotes noticing and application without disrupting communication
Evidence
FoF leads to better uptake and retention of target structures
FoFs can help explicitly weaker learners but may not encourage flexible use
Timing, Sequencing, and Intensity of Instruction
Timing
Early instruction: provides scaffolding for initial interlanguage development
Delayed instruction: can be effective for complex forms if learners are developmentally ready
Sequencing
Align instruction with developmental readiness (e.g., Processability Theory stages)
Gradually increase complexity and integrate form-focused tasks
Intensity
Frequent, spaced practice enhances acquisition
Overly intense instruction can overload working memory, reducing effectiveness
Pedagogical Implications
Balanced schedule: frequent but manageable doses
Align tasks with learner processing capacity and proficiency stage
Combine explicit instruction with meaningful interaction
Key Takeaways
Formal instruction is beneficial, but not sufficient alone for SLA
Explicit and implicit instruction serve complementary roles
Focus on Form (FoF) is generally more effective than isolated Focus on Forms
Timing, sequencing, and intensity must align with learner development and cognitive capacity
Part VI: Development, Errors, and Lexical Acquisition
18: Error Analysis and Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Understanding Errors in SLA
Why Study Errors?
Errors provide insight into learner interlanguage
Reflect learning processes, developmental stages, and L1 influence
Essential for designing effective instruction and feedback strategies
Key Question
Are errors failures or windows into the learning process?
Errors vs. Mistakes
Distinction
Mistakes:
Performance slips
Correctable by the learner
Often caused by fatigue, distraction, or temporary processing failure
Errors:
Systematic, rule-governed deviations
Reflect underlying interlanguage
Require instruction, feedback, or further exposure to resolve
Examples
| Type | Example | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Mistake | “He go to school yesterday” (momentary lapse) | Learner can self-correct |
| Error | “He go to school yesterday” consistently | Reflects incomplete knowledge of past tense |
Sources of Learner Errors
Interlanguage Development
Learners form hypotheses about target language rules
Errors result from testing these hypotheses
L1 Influence (Transfer)
Positive transfer: correct use due to similarity
Negative transfer: errors due to L1 interference
Example: Spanish L1 learner → “I have 20 years” (literal translation)
Overgeneralization
Applying learned rules too broadly
Example: “goed” instead of “went”
Occurs when internalized rules are extended beyond their scope
Other Sources
Input limitations: insufficient exposure
Cognitive factors: working memory, processing capacity
Sociolinguistic and pragmatic factors: misunderstanding conventions
Developmental and Transfer Errors
Developmental Errors
Linked to stages of interlanguage development
Predictable sequences based on Processability Theory, Universal Grammar, or emergentist patterns
Examples:
English L2: omission of third-person -s before full mastery
Article errors in early stages (“I read book”)
Transfer Errors
Arise from first language influence
Positive transfer → facilitative learning
Negative transfer → persistent interlanguage errors
Examples:
Word order transfer: “She yesterday went to market” (German L1)
Lexical calques: “make a photo” (French L1)
Interaction of Developmental & Transfer Errors
Often co-occur and require careful analysis to diagnose
Implications for error correction and task design
Pedagogical Implications of Error Analysis
Informing Instruction
Identify frequent or systematic errors
Align instruction with learner developmental stage
Feedback Strategies
Explicit correction vs. recasts
Encouraging self-correction and noticing
Curriculum Design
Focus on high-frequency, problematic structures
Sequence tasks based on error patterns and interlanguage development
Promoting Learner Autonomy
Encourage reflection on errors
Use error logs, peer feedback, and guided practice
Key Takeaways
Errors are systematic and informative, while mistakes are occasional lapses
Sources: interlanguage development, L1 transfer, overgeneralization, input limitations
Error analysis informs instruction, feedback, and task sequencing
Understanding errors enhances classroom SLA effectiveness
19: Lexical Development in Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: What It Means to Know a Word
Dimensions of Word Knowledge
Form: spoken and written recognition
Meaning: conceptual and referential knowledge
Use: collocations, grammar, and pragmatics
Levels of Knowledge
Receptive vs. productive vocabulary
Partial vs. full mastery (e.g., recognition vs. spontaneous use)
Key Question
How does knowing a word differ from simply being exposed to it?
The Bilingual Mental Lexicon
Structure of the Mental Lexicon
Words stored in form-meaning pairs
Links between L1 and L2 representations
Models:
Separate lexicons with connections (RHM – Revised Hierarchical Model)
Integrated lexicon: shared semantic networks
Lexical Access in L2
Retrieval influenced by:
Frequency of exposure
Contextual richness
Semantic associations
Implications
Early L2 learners rely more on L1 mediation
Advanced learners access conceptual networks directly in L2
Incidental vs. Intentional Vocabulary Learning
Incidental Learning
Occurs without deliberate effort, e.g., reading or listening
Highly dependent on input quantity, frequency, and context
Often leads to breadth of knowledge but less depth
Intentional Learning
Focused, goal-directed study of words
Strategies: flashcards, spaced repetition, explicit teaching
Promotes lexical depth and precise use
Integration
Most effective learning combines incidental exposure + intentional practice
Task-based learning and reading aloud can facilitate both types
Lexical Depth, Breadth, and Frequency Effects
Lexical Breadth
Number of words known (size of vocabulary)
Correlates with reading comprehension and general proficiency
Lexical Depth
Richness of knowledge about a word:
Multiple meanings
Collocations
Register and pragmatics
Frequency Effects
High-frequency words acquired earlier and more robustly
Low-frequency words require targeted instruction or repeated exposure
Implications for curriculum: focus on core vocabulary first
Vocabulary Size Thresholds for Proficiency
Thresholds
Receptive vocabulary: ~2,000–3,000 word families → basic comprehension
Active/proficient vocabulary: 8,000–9,000 word families → advanced reading and academic proficiency
Vocabulary size predicts reading comprehension, listening, and academic success
Implications for SLA
Early focus on high-frequency words
Progressive instruction for low-frequency, academic, and technical vocabulary
Lexical learning strategies must consider proficiency stage and task demands
Key Takeaways
Knowing a word = form + meaning + use
L2 words are organized in a dynamic bilingual mental lexicon
Vocabulary can be acquired incidentally or intentionally, ideally in combination
Lexical depth, breadth, and frequency effects determine learnability and retention
Vocabulary thresholds provide benchmarks for L2 proficiency and curriculum design
Part VII: Advanced and Emerging Perspectives (PhD-Level Extensions)
Chapter 20:Age Effects and the Critical Period Hypothesis in SLA
Introduction: Age and SLA
Why Age Matters
Age of onset (AoO) is a strong predictor of ultimate attainment in L2
Phonology, syntax, and pragmatics show differential sensitivity to age
Historical Context
Lenneberg (1967): Critical period for first language acquisition
Applied to L2 learning → younger learners often achieve native-like pronunciation
Key Question
Is there a fixed biological window for SLA, or is age effect gradient and domain-specific?
Biological and Neurological Perspectives
Neural Plasticity
Younger brains exhibit higher synaptic plasticity
Lateralization and myelination affect language processing efficiency
Critical periods may reflect sensitive windows for phonological mapping
Cognitive Development Interactions
Executive function, working memory, and metalinguistic awareness vary with age
Adults may compensate with explicit learning strategies
Neuroimaging Evidence
fMRI and ERP studies show age-dependent activation patterns
Younger learners: more native-like cortical organization
Older learners: more reliance on prefrontal executive areas
Age of Onset, Rate, and Ultimate Attainment
Age of Onset (AoO)
Early AoO → faster acquisition, especially in phonology and prosody
Late AoO → slower rate but can achieve functional competence
Rate of Learning
Children may learn more slowly initially in some contexts due to cognitive development constraints
Adults often learn grammar rules faster but with limited ultimate attainment
Ultimate Attainment
Native-like accent almost exclusively in early learners (<12 years)
Morphosyntactic proficiency less sensitive but still shows gradual decline with age
Individual differences (motivation, aptitude, exposure) moderate outcomes
Phonology vs. Morphosyntax
Phonology
Most age-sensitive domain
Early exposure critical for native-like pronunciation
Late learners may retain foreign accent despite grammatical competence
Morphosyntax
Less sensitive to age but still shows gradual decline in ultimate attainment
Adults may achieve high proficiency through explicit instruction and practice
Domain-Specific Critical Periods
Suggests multiple, overlapping sensitive periods rather than a single critical period
Phonology, morphology, and pragmatics differ in neuroplasticity windows
Re-evaluating the Critical Period Hypothesis
Supporting Evidence
Cross-linguistic studies: younger learners outperform older learners in accent and intonation
Longitudinal and immersion studies confirm age-related phonological advantage
Challenges and Counterarguments
Adults can achieve near-native morphosyntactic competence
Age effects may be gradual rather than categorical
Social, cognitive, and instructional factors interact with AoO
Current Consensus
CPH is better conceptualized as a sensitive period hypothesis
Age interacts with domain, input quality, motivation, and cognitive strategies
Key Takeaways
Age of onset influences rate, ultimate attainment, and domain-specific proficiency
Phonology is most sensitive, morphosyntax less so
Biological plasticity declines gradually; sensitive periods are gradual and domain-specific
Instruction and motivation can mitigate age-related limitations
21: Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Sociocultural Theory and SLA
Historical Context
Based on Lev Vygotsky (1930s)
Emphasizes social interaction as the source of cognitive development
Key insight: learning precedes development
SCT in SLA
L2 learning is a socially mediated activity
Focus shifts from individual cognitive processing to interaction and collaboration
Key Question
How does interaction with more capable peers or teachers facilitate second language development?
Vygotskian Foundations
Social Origins of Cognition
Cognitive functions develop first interpersonally, then intrapersonally
Language is both a tool of communication and tool of thought
Mediation
Learning mediated through tools (language, gestures, symbols)
L2 acquisition involves cultural and linguistic tools shaping mental representations
Internalization
Process by which external social interaction becomes internal cognitive function
Example: repeated dialogue → internal self-talk → enhanced L2 proficiency
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Definition
ZPD: difference between what a learner can do independently vs. with guidance
L2 learning occurs optimally within this zone
Application to SLA
Scaffolded tasks help learners reach beyond current competence
Examples:
Teacher modeling new structures
Peer assistance during problem-solving tasks
Guided group discussions
Assessment Implications
Evaluate potential development, not just current performance
ZPD informs task difficulty, peer pairing, and instructional strategies
Scaffolding and Collaborative Dialogue
Scaffolding
Temporary support provided to bridge gaps in knowledge
Can be explicit (teacher guidance) or implicit (peer prompts, task design)
Gradually removed as learner competence increases
Collaborative Dialogue
Interaction is not incidental but central to learning
Learners co-construct meaning, negotiate linguistic forms, and internalize language
Examples:
Think-pair-share tasks
Problem-solving discussions
Peer review and feedback
Implications for Task Design
Use group work and interactive tasks that maximize participation
Ensure tasks fall within the learner’s ZPD
Promote joint attention, negotiation, and explanation
Empirical Evidence and Applications
Research Findings
Learners with more scaffolding demonstrate faster acquisition of complex structures
Peer collaboration enhances lexical development, syntax, and pragmatic competence
Classroom studies support guided interaction as a key driver of L2 internalization
Practical Classroom Implications
Teachers act as mediators, not just transmitters
Group and pair activities maximize collaborative dialogue
Gradual reduction of support fosters learner autonomy
Key Takeaways
Sociocultural theory positions interaction as central to L2 development
Mediation and internalization transform social interaction into cognitive competence
ZPD guides task selection, scaffolding, and collaborative learning
Effective classroom SLA requires structured, interactive, and socially mediated tasks
22: Neurolinguistic Approaches to Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: Neurolinguistics and SLA
What is Neurolinguistics?
Study of the neural basis of language processing
SLA viewed through brain mechanisms, plasticity, and cognitive networks
Relevance to SLA
Explains age effects, individual differences, and ultimate attainment
Connects biological and cognitive perspectives
Key Questions
How does bilingualism affect brain organization?
Can neuroplasticity account for adult L2 learning?
What do ERP/fMRI studies reveal about processing and representation?
Brain Organization and Bilingualism
Hemispheric Specialization
L1 typically processed in left hemisphere
L2 representation depends on age of acquisition and proficiency
Brain Areas Involved in SLA
Broca’s area: syntax and production
Wernicke’s area: comprehension
Supramarginal gyrus & angular gyrus: lexical and phonological processing
Prefrontal cortex: executive control, attention, and working memory
Neural Representation in Bilinguals
Early bilinguals: overlapping neural regions for L1 and L2
Late bilinguals: additional or alternative recruitment of frontal/executive areas
Implication: adult L2 learning involves more conscious cognitive control
Neuroplasticity and L2 Learning
Definition
Neuroplasticity: brain’s ability to reorganize in response to experience
L2 Learning and Plasticity
Sensitive periods for phonology vs. syntax
Adults: plasticity allows L2 learning but may require more effort
Intensive exposure → structural and functional neural changes
Factors Influencing Neuroplasticity
Age of onset
Input intensity and quality
Motivation, working memory, and cognitive strategies
L1-L2 similarity
Evidence from Studies
Gray matter density increases in language-related cortical areas
Functional changes observed in connectivity between frontal and temporal areas
ERP and fMRI Studies in SLA
Event-Related Potentials (ERP)
Measures electrical brain activity in response to stimuli
Reveals timing of L2 processing
Key findings:
N400: semantic processing
P600: syntactic reanalysis and repair
Early learners often show native-like ERP patterns
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
Measures blood flow changes reflecting neural activation
Findings:
L2 recruits similar regions as L1 in early learners
Late learners show expanded networks including executive areas
Task demands (comprehension vs. production) affect activation patterns
Pedagogical Implications
Evidence supports explicit instruction and extensive input for adult learners
Highlights importance of intensive practice and interaction for neuroplastic adaptation
Key Takeaways
SLA involves dynamic interactions between neural systems and experience
Brain organization varies with age, proficiency, and L1-L2 similarity
Neuroplasticity enables L2 learning across the lifespan, but effort and exposure requirements differ
ERP and fMRI studies provide fine-grained insights into L2 processing and inform evidence-based pedagogy
23: Usage-Based and Dynamic Systems Theory in SLA
Introduction: Emergent Perspectives in SLA
Background
Traditional SLA theories often focus on rule-based, stage-like development
Usage-based and dynamic approaches emphasize patterns, interaction, and variability
Focus shifts from static competence to dynamic, evolving interlanguage
Key Questions
How does language usage shape acquisition?
Can SLA development be non-linear and context-sensitive?
Frequency, Entrenchment, and Emergence
Frequency Effects
High-frequency forms are acquired faster and more robustly
Example: “going to” vs. less frequent future forms
Entrenchment
Repeated exposure strengthens mental representations and retrieval
Supports automaticity and fluency
Emergence
Language patterns emerge from usage and repeated input
Grammar is not pre-specified but constructed through patterns of use
Emphasizes connectionist and probabilistic learning
Pedagogical Implications
Provide frequent, meaningful exposure
Focus on pattern-rich input rather than isolated rules
Variability and Non-linear Development
Sources of Variability
Learner differences (aptitude, motivation, cognitive capacity)
Input variation (frequency, quality, context)
Social interaction and negotiation of meaning
Non-linear Development
L2 acquisition does not always follow predictable stages
Periods of rapid progress, plateaus, and regressions
Emergence of new forms can occur unexpectedly or suddenly
Evidence
Longitudinal studies show oscillating interlanguage patterns
Individual learners show idiosyncratic developmental trajectories
Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) in SLA
Key Concepts
Language development = complex, self-organizing system
Components interact dynamically:
Phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon
Cognitive, social, and affective factors
DST Principles
Attractors: stable patterns in interlanguage
Perturbations: disruptions leading to reorganization
Emergence: new structures arising from interactions of components
Applications to SLA Research
Explains individual differences and variability
Predicts sensitivity to input and context
Encourages longitudinal, fine-grained analyses rather than static testing
Pedagogical Implications
Emphasize adaptable and responsive instruction
Provide rich, varied input and interaction opportunities
Recognize that progress is non-linear and requires sustained engagement
Integration with Other SLA Theories
Usage-based approaches complement emergentist, cognitive, and sociocultural frameworks
Patterns observed in input, interaction, and classroom dynamics are consistent with DST principles
Bridges micro-level learning processes with macro-level social and cognitive factors
Key Takeaways
Language emerges from use, frequency, and entrenchment
SLA development is variable, dynamic, and non-linear
Dynamic Systems Theory provides a framework to model complex L2 development
Instruction should be pattern-rich, flexible, and responsive to learner variability
Part VIII: SLA Research, Methodology, and Pedagogical Implications
24: Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition
Introduction: The Role of Research in SLA
Importance of SLA Research
Validates theories and pedagogical approaches
Informs curriculum design and teaching strategies
Contributes to understanding learner variability, input, and interaction
Key Questions
How do we investigate causal relationships in SLA?
How can research findings inform classroom practice?
Experimental, Longitudinal, and Corpus-Based Research
Experimental Research
Lab-based or field experiments
Manipulates variables to test cause-effect relationships
Example: testing the effect of input enhancement on grammatical acquisition
Longitudinal Research
Follows learners over time to study developmental trajectories
Provides insight into interlanguage evolution, fossilization, and variability
Corpus-Based Research
Uses large authentic language datasets
Analyzes frequency, collocations, and usage patterns
Example: examining learner vs. native corpora for lexical or grammatical differences
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
Quantitative Approaches
Collect numerical data: test scores, reaction times, frequency counts
Statistical analysis: ANOVA, regression, effect sizes
Strengths: objectivity, generalizability
Limitations: may miss contextual and subjective factors
Qualitative Approaches
Collect observational, interview, and textual data
Analysis: thematic coding, discourse analysis, case studies
Strengths: depth, insight into learner cognition, motivation, and interaction
Limitations: less generalizable, more subjective
Mixed-Methods Approaches
Combines quantitative and qualitative techniques
Provides complementary perspectives
Example: classroom intervention study measuring test scores + learner reflections
Classroom-Based SLA Research
Action Research
Teachers systematically investigate their own classroom practices
Steps: observe → plan → implement → reflect
Example: testing task-based language teaching effectiveness
Observational Studies
Analyze classroom discourse, interaction, and participation
Techniques: video recordings, transcript coding, interaction analysis
Intervention Studies
Evaluate pedagogical strategies or input manipulations
Compare experimental vs. control groups or pre-post intervention outcomes
Implications for Teaching
Direct link between research findings and instructional practice
Encourages evidence-based teaching
Ethics in SLA Research
Core Ethical Principles
Informed consent: participants must understand study purpose and procedures
Confidentiality: protect learner identities
Non-maleficence: avoid harm or undue stress
Integrity: honest data collection and reporting
Specific Considerations in SLA
Vulnerable populations (children, refugees, language minorities)
Classroom research: avoid disruption or bias
Reporting findings responsibly to avoid misinterpretation
Key Takeaways
SLA research employs experimental, longitudinal, corpus-based, and classroom-based designs
Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods provide complementary insights
Classroom-based research links theory and practice
Ethical principles ensure validity, reliability, and participant protection
25: Pedagogical Implications of SLA Research
Introduction: Bridging Theory and Practice
Importance of Bridging SLA and Teaching
SLA research generates insights on input, interaction, and individual differences
Pedagogy must translate these findings into actionable classroom strategies
Key Questions
Which SLA findings are directly applicable?
Where is theoretical knowledge limited by classroom realities?
Evidence-Based Language Teaching
Definition
Instruction informed by empirical SLA research
Integrates linguistic theory, cognitive psychology, and classroom studies
Input and Interaction
Comprehensible input → essential for acquisition (Krashen, Long)
Interaction and negotiation of meaning → facilitate noticing and output
Task-based activities promote authentic communication
Individual Differences
Tailor instruction to aptitude, motivation, and learning styles
Scaffolding supports learners in the Zone of Proximal Development
Lexical and Grammatical Development
Focus on high-frequency forms first
Combine incidental learning through reading/listening with intentional practice
Error analysis informs targeted feedback
Instructional Approaches Supported by SLA Research
Explicit vs. Implicit Instruction
Explicit grammar instruction accelerates initial understanding
Implicit instruction supports long-term acquisition and automatization
Combined approach often most effective
Task-Based and Communicative Approaches
Promote meaning-focused interaction
Allow learners to practice, negotiate, and internalize language
Usage-Based and Dynamic Perspectives
Repeated exposure → entrenchment of frequent forms
Flexible, adaptive tasks → accommodate non-linear development
Technology-Enhanced Instruction
Computer-mediated communication, corpora, and adaptive tools can enhance input and feedback
Supports individualized learning paths
Limits of Pedagogical Application
Contextual Constraints
Classroom time, resources, and class size limit perfect application
Cultural and institutional expectations may conflict with SLA-informed practices
Individual Differences
Motivation, aptitude, and affective factors mean one-size-fits-all approaches fail
Teachers must diagnose learner needs and adapt methods
Research-Practice Gap
Some SLA findings are theoretical or lab-based and may not directly transfer
Teachers must critically evaluate relevance and feasibility
Practical Strategies for SLA-Informed Teaching
Use high-frequency, meaningful input in varied contexts
Design interaction-rich tasks to encourage negotiation of meaning
Incorporate scaffolding and feedback tailored to ZPD
Combine incidental and intentional learning activities
Monitor learner errors for targeted instruction
Recognize non-linear progress and adjust expectations
Key Takeaways
SLA research provides principled guidance for teaching but must be adapted to context
Evidence-based instruction integrates input, interaction, cognition, and individual differences
Awareness of limits and variability ensures realistic and effective pedagogy
Teachers act as mediators between theory and practice, fostering learner autonomy and engagement
26: Synthesis, Critical Evaluation, and Future Directions in SLA
Introduction: Integrating SLA Perspectives
SLA as a Multidimensional Field
Combines cognition, social interaction, and neurological factors
No single theory explains all aspects of L2 acquisition
Key Questions
How can we reconcile nativist vs. emergentist theories?
What role do age, input, interaction, and individual differences play in a unified framework?
Objectives of Integration
Bridge experimental, classroom, and observational research
Offer a comprehensive framework for both research and pedagogy
Cognitive, Social, and Biological Perspectives
Cognitive Perspectives
Focus on working memory, attention, noticing, and information processing
Explicit vs. implicit learning, skill acquisition, and interlanguage restructuring
Social Perspectives
Sociocultural theory: interaction, ZPD, scaffolding, and collaborative learning
Acculturation, motivation, identity, and learner investment
Biological Perspectives
Critical period effects, neuroplasticity, brain organization
ERP/fMRI evidence showing age- and proficiency-dependent processing patterns
Integrative Insight
SLA is a dynamic system: cognitive, social, and neural components interact
Explains individual variability, non-linear development, and domain-specific sensitivity
Critical Evaluation of SLA Research and Theories
Current Debates
Nativist vs. emergentist accounts: UG access vs. statistical learning
Role of age: strict critical period vs. sensitive period
Input vs. interaction: sufficiency, quality, and output effects
Explicit instruction: necessary for L2 development vs. overestimated effectiveness
Unresolved Issues
Mechanisms of interlanguage fossilization
Interactions between affective factors, motivation, and cognitive capacity
Transfer effects in multilingual contexts
Domain-specific differences: phonology, syntax, pragmatics
Methodological Challenges
Longitudinal studies vs. cross-sectional designs
Ecological validity vs. experimental control
Replication issues and small sample sizes
Directions for Future SLA Research
Cognitive and Neurolinguistic Directions
Longitudinal neuroimaging studies tracking interlanguage development
Fine-grained analysis of working memory, attention, and executive control
Social and Sociocultural Directions
Investigating peer-mediated learning, identity, and language socialization
Cross-cultural and multilingual contexts
Dynamic Systems and Usage-Based Research
Modeling non-linear and variable developmental trajectories
Exploring frequency, entrenchment, and pattern emergence
Pedagogical Research
Bridging laboratory findings and classroom implementation
Task-based, interaction-rich, and technology-enhanced interventions
Evidence-based teaching in diverse L2 environments
Implications for Research
SLA research is multi-level and interdisciplinary
Future studies should combine:
Experimental rigor
Classroom relevance
Cognitive, social, and biological measures
Encourage mixed-methods and longitudinal designs
Emphasize replication, ecological validity, and data transparency
Key Takeaways
SLA is a complex, dynamic, and multi-faceted field
Integration of cognitive, social, and biological perspectives is critical
Many debates remain unresolved, offering rich opportunities for PhD research
Future studies should aim to inform both theory and pedagogy
Studies in Second Language Acquisition (SSLA)
Core SLA Journals
Studies in Second Language Acquisition (SSLA) — Cambridge University Press
Second Language Research (SLR) — SAGE
Language Learning — Wiley
The Modern Language Journal (MLJ) — Wiley
Applied Psycholinguistics — Cambridge University Press
Journal of Second Language Studies — John Benjamins
Language Acquisition — Taylor & Francis
Language Teaching Research — SAGE
IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching — De Gruyter
Language Learning & Technology — University of Hawai‘i (open access)
TESOL Quarterly — Wiley
System — Elsevier
International Journal of Applied Linguistics — Wiley
Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL
ALIA journals
Applied Linguistics — Oxford University Press
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL) — Cambridge University Press
Lingua
Pragmatics, Grammar and Meaning in SLA
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism — John Benjamins
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition — Cambridge University Press
Language Teaching — Cambridge University Press
Foreign Language Annals — Wiley
Languages (MDPI) — Especially SLA and pedagogy special issues
The Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (JSLAT) — the University of Arizona
Second Language Research (SLR) — Theory-driven, empirical SLA research
Journal of Second Language Studies — Broader coverage, newer venue
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
Second Language Writing — Specialised focus on L2 writing research
Recommended Readings
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 19(4), 689–698.
Abutalebi, J., & Green∗, D. W. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production: Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and cognitive processes, 23(4), 557–582.
Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. John Wiley & Sons.
Birdsong, D. (2006). Age and second language acquisition and processing: A selective overview. Language learning, 56, 9–49.
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics. International journal of applied linguistics, 17(2), 226–240.
CAMPILLOS, A. B. R. (2010). Dörnyei, Z.(2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN-13: 978–0–19–442258–1. 336 páginas. Edición en inglés. marcoELE. Revista de Didáctica Español Lengua Extranjera, (11), 1–10.
Carroll, J. B., & Sapon, S. M. (1959). Modern language aptitude test (MLAT). New York: Psychology Corporation.
Corder, S. P. (2015). The significance of learners’ errors. In Error analysis (pp. 19–27). Routledge.
Chomsky, N. (1993). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures (№9). Walter de Gruyter.
Cook, V., & Cook, V. J. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Macmillan.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2005). Second language acquisition: An advanced resource book. Psychology Press.
De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language learning, 46(3), 529–555.
De Costa, P. I. (2007). JP Lantolf and SL Thorne: Sociocultural Theory and The Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press, 2006. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 477–480.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33456, 33–56.
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA review, 19(1), 42–68.
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. The Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge University Press, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011–4211 (paperback: ISBN-0–521–62551–3; hardcover: ISBN-0–521–62390–1)..
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2008). The handbook of second language acquisition. John Wiley & Sons.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1973). Should we teach children syntax?. Language learning, 23(2), 245–258.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.
Foster–Cohen, S. (1999). SLA and first language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 3–21.
Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. Physiological reviews, 91(4), 1357–1392.
Gass, S. M. (2013). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. Routledge.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Routledge.
Green, D. W., & Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of cognitive psychology, 25(5), 515–530.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Herschensohn, J. R., & Young-Scholten, M. (2013). The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Hummel, K. M. (2021). Introducing second language acquisition: Perspectives and practices.
James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. Routledge.
Johnson, M. (2008). A philosophy of second language acquisition. Yale University Press.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive psychology, 21(1), 60–99.
Juffs, A. (2011). Second language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 277–286.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. Second Language Learning, 3(7), 19–39.
Krashen, S. (1992). The input hypothesis: An update. Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art, 12(3), 409–431.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of memory and language, 33(2), 149–174.
Kroll, J. F., & Mendoza, G. A. (2022). Bilingualism: a cognitive and neural view of dual language experience. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology.
KROLL¹, J. F., & MA, F. (2020). 13 The Bilingual Lexicon. The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 294.
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 221–240). Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M. E., & Thorne, S. L. (2020). Sociocultural theory and L2 development. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 223–247). Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language learning, 54(3), 399–436.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67.
Ling, S. C. Y., Kasim, Z. M., Jalaluddin, I., & Yann, W. L. (2024). A REVIEW OF STUDIES ON ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF GENERATIVE LINGUISTICS. Journal of Language and Communication, 11(2), 145–164.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of second language acquisition.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned (Revised Edition) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (2017). Problems in second language acquisition. Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Gass, M. S. (2005). Second Language Research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaulm Associates. Inc. SA.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. (No Title).
MacWhinney, B., Kroll, J. F., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 4967, 50–70.
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories. Routledge.
Nation, I. S., & Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language (Vol. 10, pp. 126–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417–528.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. (No Title).
Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 62–76.
Ortega, L. (2014). Second language learning explained? SLA across 10 contemporary theories. In Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 259–286). Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.
Perani, D., & Abutalebi, J. (2005). The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current opinion in neurobiology, 15(2), 202–206.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory (Vol. 15). John Benjamins Publishing.
PINE, J. M. (2005). TOMASELLO, M., Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Pp. 388. Hardback,£ 29.95. ISBN 0–674–01030–2. Journal of Child Language, 32(3), 697–702.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language learning, 64(4), 878–912.
Putnam, M. (2017). Feature reassembly as constraint satisfaction. The Linguistic Review, 34(3), 533–567.
Robinson, P. (2012). Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes, and aptitude test development. In New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 57–75). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Robinson, P. (1998). State of the art: SLA theory and second language syllabus design. The Language Teacher, 22(4), 7–14.
Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning.
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1985). On learning the past tenses of English verbs (No. ICS8507).
Saengboon, S. (2004). Second language acquisition (SLA) and English language teaching (ELT). PASAA, 35(1), 11–34.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual review of applied linguistics, 13, 206–226.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge university press.
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Language Learning.
Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63.
Selinker, L. (2015). Interlanguage. In Error analysis (pp. 31–54). Routledge.
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second language research, 12(1), 40–72.
Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The age factor. Multilingual Matters.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2019). Second language acquisition. In An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 111–127). Routledge.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language teaching research, 4(3), 251–274.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97(1), 97–114.
Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied linguistics, 4(2), 142–164.
Tarone, E. E. (1990). On variation in interlanguage: A response to Gregg. Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 392–400.
VanPatten, B., & Benati, A. G. (2015). Key terms in second language acquisition.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard University Press.
White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition.
