by Rod Ellis
There is a good reason for a dual-mode system. As Skehan pointed out, memory is organized for convenience of use and to take account of the fact that learners’ capacity for processing information is limited. When they need to communicate rapidly and fluently, learners will draw substantially on the exemplar-based system which is capacious and easily accessed. However, when they need to communicate complex ideas concisely and accurately, they will resort to the rule-based system. Skehan argued that L2 learners need to build both systems and proposed that this could be achieved by manipulating the conditions under which they were required to use the L2. For example, if learners are given time to plan before they perform a task, they will be able to draw on their rule-based knowledge but if they have to perform the task straight off they will more likely draw on their exemplar-based knowledge.
L2 acquisition as skill-learning
Skill-learning theory also originated in cognitive psychology. It draws on a similar distinction to the implicit/explicit distinction but proposes a very different relationship between them. Anderson’s (1993) ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (i.e. the representation of facts) and procedural knowledge (i.e. the representation of actions in particular situations). The theory proposes that declarative knowledge can be transformed into proceduralized knowledge through practice (DeKeyser 1998). Applied to language learning, this process involves (1) developing an explicit representation of a linguistic feature; (2) practising the use of the feature using the explicit representation as an aid to performance; and (3) proceduralizing the feature and automatizing its use. Thus there is a progression from conscious, controlled processing to unconscious, automatic use. To give a simple example, learners might first learn a rule for plural -s (declarative knowledge) and construct an ‘if-then procedure’ i.e. ‘if the noun refers to more than one, add -s’ (procedural knowledge), and then automatize the use of this procedure (automatic knowledge). At this point, there is no longer any need for the declarative rule which consequently might be forgotten through disuse.
The transformation from declarative to proceduralized/automatic knowledge of a linguistic feature requires practice. DeKeyser (2007) defined ‘practice’ broadly as ‘specific activities in the second language, engaged in systematically, deliberately, with the goal of developing knowledge of and skills in the second language’ (p. 1). He argued that ‘good practice needs to involve real operating conditions as soon as possible, which means comprehending and expressing real thoughts, and this necessarily involves a variety of structures, some of which will be much further along the declarative-procedural-automatic path than others’ (p. 292). DeKeyser also claimed that the development of procedural knowledge was more likely to occur when the cognitive operations involved in the practice activity matched those in a natural communicative context.
Thus, an integral premise of skill-acquisition theory is the importance of transfer appropriate processing. DeKeyser (2007) noted that practice leads to qualitative changes in the learner’s knowledge system over time but only ‘in the basic cognitive mechanisms used to execute the same task’ (p. 99): in other words, learning would be restricted to the situations and conditions of use that mirrored the operating conditions which figured in the practice provided. Two key points follow from this. First, for a feature to become automatic for use in natural communication learners need to experience practising it under communicative conditions; controlled, mechanical practice will not suffice. Second, acquisition is domain-specific and thus proceeds separately for comprehension and production; learning to process a feature receptively will not enable the learner to use it in production and vice versa.
Skill-learning theory differs from theories based on the distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge, in particular with regard to the nature of the interface between the two types of knowledge. Skill-learning theory assumes a more or less direct interface between the two types of knowledge (i.e. declarative knowledge can transform into procedural knowledge providing there is sufficient practice of the right kind). In contrast, implicit/explicit theories see the two types of knowledge as disassociated and only indirectly related (i.e. explicit knowledge does not transform into implicit knowledge, but can facilitate the processes involved in implicit learning).
Skill-learning theory may account for the main way in which adult learners learn an L2. However, it is difficult to accept that the acquisition of all L2 features—even by adults—begins with declarative knowledge. There would appear to be little room for any implicit learning in skill-learning theory. However, the theory has proved influential in language pedagogy as it supports the idea that language can be taught by systematically presenting and practising discrete linguistic features.
In Chapter 8, we will examine the various constructs and theories borrowed from cognitive psychology.
The social turn in L2 acquisition
SLA, as I have described it so far, was primarily cognitive-interactionist in orientation: that is to say, the underlying view was that learning takes place inside the learner’s head as a result of processing input and output through interaction. Block (2003) noted ‘until the mid-1990s explicit calls for an interdisciplinary, socially informed SLA were notable by their absence’ (p. 3). Although this was not entirely true, Block was correct in pointing to the relative neglect of the social context in SLA.
In fact, the earliest attempt to theorize the role of social factors (apart from the work on variability in learner language) was Schumann’s (1978a) Acculturation Model. Schumann proposed that factors governing the social distance between the L2 learner and the target-language community influenced the likelihood of the learner acculturating (i.e. becoming a member of the target-language community) and thus the speed at which learning takes place. For example, if the L2 learner was a member of a relatively large and self-contained community of learners speaking the same first language, the learner would be likely to experience limited contact with L2 speakers and so learning would be slow. Schumann’s view of how social factors affect L2 acquisition was deterministic in nature. In the Acculturation Model, social factors were simply grafted on to the underlying cognitive-interactionist model of learning.
The case for including a fuller social perspective was convincingly made by Firth and Wagner (1997), who proposed what is known as social-interactionist SLA. They argued that cognitive accounts of L2 acquisition were ‘individualistic and mechanistic’ and that to achieve a better balance it was necessary to consider the contextual dimensions of language use. They were especially critical of the way in which SLA researchers characterized the subject of their enquiry as a ‘learner’ or a ‘non-native speaker’, ignoring the host of other social identities (for example, ‘parent’, ‘worker’, ‘husband’, ‘friend’) which might influence the use and acquisition of an L2. They argued, too, that mainstream SLA had largely focused on classroom settings and on interactions between learners and native speakers whereas many learning contexts were multilingual in nature in which learners were more likely to interact with other learners than with native speakers. They pointed out the importance of people’s local agendas and the social and institutional factors that were instantiated in the interactions they participated in. Thus, in Firth and Wagner’s social-interactionist SLA, learners were not just subject to social factors, as in Schumann’s Acculturation Theory, but could also influence the social world they inhabited.
The importance of social identity in shaping learners’ opportunities for learning is most fully argued in Norton’s (2000) Social Identity Theory. This is concerned with the relationship between power, identity, and language learning. Norton saw social identity as multiple, contradictory, and dynamic. To obtain the ‘right to speak’ learners need to be able to see themselves as legitimate speakers of the L2, not as defective communicators. They have to be prepared to challenge the subservient social identity that native speakers often thrust upon them and assert the right to communicate. Norton illustrated her theory in resear
ch on adult female immigrants to Canada. In some cases, these women were successful in establishing a social identity that afforded them opportunities to speak on equal terms; in other cases they were not successful and withdrew from contact with native speakers.
However, missing from both of these social accounts is any explanation of how social context and identity influences L2 acquisition. Firth and Wagner focused on L2 use as manifested in the social interactions that learners participate in. Norton focused on social identity. In both cases, the emphasis is on the opportunities for learning but not on learning itself. The theories explain how ‘affordances’ for learning are created, but they offer no explanation of how these affordances lead to actual learning. This led Long (1997) to insist that critics of cognitive SLA should offer some evidence to show that social identity and a broader view of social context make a difference to how an L2 is acquired. Revisiting their 1997 paper, Firth and Wagner (2007) acknowledged the need for this and there has been some headway made in achieving it, especially in research in sociocultural SLA.
Sociocultural SLA
Sociocultural accounts of L2 acquisition had been around for some time but made little impact on SLA until the 1990s. A special issue of The Modern Language Journal published in 1994 was devoted to sociocultural studies of L2 learners. This served as the impetus for a steady growth of interest in sociocultural theory in SLA, which shows no signs of diminishing today.
Sociocultural SLA draws on the work of the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky (1986), who argued that learning arises when an expert (for example, a teacher) interacts with a novice (i.e. a learner) to enable the novice to learn a new concept. When this happens, the expert and the novice jointly construct a zone of proximal development (ZPD). For example, a learner may be incapable of independently producing a target-like negative construction (for example, ‘Marcelle did not come’) resorting instead to a developmentally simpler negative form (‘Marcelle no coming’). But the help provided by a skilled interlocutor can enable the learner to produce the target construction:
A Marcelle no coming.
B He didn’t come yesterday?
A Yeah, he didn’t come.
On the face of it, this looks like an example of the negotiation of meaning but sociocultural theory views what is going on in such interactions very differently from the Interaction Hypothesis. Whereas the Interaction Hypothesis sees such exchanges as providing learners with ‘data’—which they then process internally—sociocultural theory sees them as examples of ‘learning’ taking place ‘in flight’. That is, learning is initially accomplished socially in (not through) interaction. Later, ‘development’ takes place when the learner internalizes the new form. At this time, self-regulation has been achieved and the learner is now capable of producing the form without any external assistance.
Central to sociocultural SLA, is the idea of mediation (Lantolf 2000). In cognitive SLA, to show that learning has occurred it is necessary to show that the learner is able to produce a structure like ‘Marcelle did not come’ independently. In sociocultural theory, however, learning is also evident when it can be shown that the extent of the mediation needed to construct a ZPD reduces from one time to another. In this example:
A Marcelle no coming.
B Yesterday?
A Yeah, he didn’t come.
the learner is now able to self-correct without the other speaker providing the target form. As in the first example, a ZPD is created but in this case it requires less assistance. Sociocultural theory, then, is premised on a very different view of what language learning entails.
Sociocultural theory has informed the work of a number of researchers in recent years. Much of the research, however, is somewhat limited as it has tended to simply describe the various types of mediation that arise in social interactions with learners without demonstrating that either ‘learning’ (i.e. the initial production of a target feature) or ‘development’ (i.e. movement towards self-regulation) has taken place. An exception, however, is the work of Swain. Swain and her co-researchers (for example, Swain and Lapkin 1995) asked learners to participate collaboratively in performing various kinds of tasks. Their interactions were recorded, transcribed, and language-related episodes identified. These were sequences of interaction where the learners explicitly discussed some language point that they found problematic. Swain then examined whether the collaborative work undertaken when performing the initial task enabled the learners to use those forms that had figured in the language-related episodes independently in a later, new task. Later, Swain (2006) referred to the talk-about-language in these language-related episodes as languaging. Her research suggests that this assists both learning (i.e. initial use) and development (i.e. internalization)—at least in the case of adult learners who have already acquired some proficiency in the L2.
Social aspects of L2 acquisition, including sociocultural theory, are discussed in Chapter 9.
Emergentism
Emergentism constitutes an appropriate way of rounding up this brief history of SLA because it is an all-embracing theory, incorporating both cognitive and social dimensions of learning. According to N. Ellis (1998), there is no need to posit a language acquisition device to explain how language acquisition (first or second) takes place as claimed by Chomsky. Like Skill-Learning Theory, emergentism assumes that learning a language is like learning any other skill and that all that is needed to explain it is a simple learning mechanism that can handle the information available from a massively complex environment.
Emergentism informs a number of theories of L2 acquisition. One of these is Complexity Theory:
Complexity theory seeks to explain complex, dynamic, open, adaptive, self-organizing, non-linear systems … It sees complex behavior as arising from interactions among many components – a bottom-up process based on the contributions of each, which are subject to change over time.
(Larsen-Freeman 2011: 52).
By ‘complex’, Larsen-Freeman refers to the fact that an L2 system is influenced by a range of different factors—both social and cognitive in nature—which affect learning in different ways and at different times. A complex system is ‘dynamic’ and ‘open’ in the sense that it is constantly changing. Complexity Theory rejects the notion of a ‘final state’ in any language system (including the native speaker’s) and, in accordance with connectionist views of language, claims that small changes are forever ongoing. A system is always in movement and never reaches complete equilibrium although there may be periods of relative stability. From the perspective of Complexity Theory, then, there is no such thing as fossilization. A complex system is ‘adaptive’ because it is responsive to the linguistic environment; grammar is ‘a by-product of communication’. By ‘self-organizing’, Larsen-Freeman was referring to the fact that change in one part of the system can trigger changes in other parts. Finally, a language system does not develop in linear ways; different parts of the system develop at different rates. However, while it is not possible to predict the precise pattern of development of a complex system, stable patterns do emerge from time to time. There are attractor states—regions of the system that achieve prominence at one time or another. The transitional stages evident in sequences of acquisition that we considered earlier can be viewed as attractor states emerging in the process of acquisition. The theory also emphasizes the active role played by the learner. As Larsen-Freeman put it ‘intentionality and agency are important’ (p. 58). Complexity Theory, then, incorporates many of the proposals of both cognitive SLA and social SLA. Learners have choices. Interaction is central, but learners can shape the interactions they participate in and what they consciously choose to learn. Complexity Theory is considered in Chapter 8.
Summary
In this historical survey of SLA, we can see a number of ways in which the field has developed. Much of the early research was descriptive in nature, focusing on identifying the key features of learner language and how these change over time. This le
d to a re-evaluation of the role of the L1 in L2 acquisition and also to an interest in the linguistic environment (i.e. input and interaction) and how this influenced learning. Increasingly, descriptive research gave way to theoretically driven research based on a cognitive-interactionist view of L2 acquisition. This served as a basis for investigating specific hypotheses relating to such constructs as the negotiation of meaning, noticing, implicit/explicit learning, the dual-mode system, and skill-learning. At this point, acquisition was viewed as something that took place inside the learner’s head and social factors were only of interest in terms of the ‘data’ they made available for ‘input crunching’. In the 1990s, however, a reaction set in and the case for a constitutive role for social factors in L2 acquisition was advanced. Learners were not just to be seen as defective communicators and they had agency. According to sociocultural SLA, learning takes place externally in the social interactions that learners participate in. Finally theories began to appear that sought to integrate cognitive and social perspectives on L2 acquisition.
SLA had now reached a point where there was no clear consensus about how L2 acquisition took place. There are competing theories giving rise to a large body of empirical research that have often produced conflicting results. The complexity of SLA as a field of enquiry was mirrored in the aptly named Complexity Theory—an all-encompassing theory that insisted there were no simple answers to the key question ‘How do learners acquire a second language?’ Readers of this book, therefore, must be prepared to grapple with this complexity. They should look for ‘insights’ rather than definite ‘answers’ and then come to their own informed conclusions about how a second language is acquired.