Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed)

by Rod Ellis

  The fact that the age of onset influences ultimate achievement in an L2 has been used to justify introducing foreign languages in the elementary school rather than waiting—as is traditional—until the secondary school. There is, however, no clear justification for such an educational decision. The advantage of starting early only applies if learners have intense exposure to the L2. This cannot be achieved by a few hours of classroom instruction each week. Also, the research has shown that adolescent learners initially learn more rapidly than child learners. Thus—in a context where learners are reliant on the classroom—starting later may still be preferable. Studies that have investigated the relative benefits of starting at the elementary level have failed to show it results in higher levels of proficiency than starting later.

  Psychological factors influence all aspects of L2 acquisition

  In Chapter 3, I examined a number of psychological factors that contribute to individual differences in L2 learning. I elected to focus on two of these factors—language aptitude and motivation—as these have been shown to be especially influential and have attracted the most attention in SLA. As with age, there is a long history of research investigating both factors.

  Both language aptitude and motivation are complex constructs, reflecting again the complex nature of L2 acquisition. Language aptitude is composed of different cognitive abilities—phonemic coding ability, language analytical ability, and rote-learning ability. More recently working memory—i.e. the memory system that stores and processes information making links with long-term memory—has also been incorporated into models of language aptitude. Motivation is comprised of the learner’s motivational orientation—i.e. the reasons a learner has for needing or wanting to learn an L2—behavioural motivation—i.e. the effort a learner makes to learn the L2, persistence with the learning task, and the impact the immediate context has on these—and attributional motivation—i.e. the effect that the learner’s evaluation of his/her progress has on subsequent learning behaviour. Whereas language aptitude is generally seen as a relatively stable factor, not unduly influenced by learning experiences, motivation is increasingly viewed as dynamic, changing not just from day to day, but also moment by moment.

  Initially, research that investigated these two factors was correlational in nature. That is, measures of language aptitude and motivation were obtained by means of tests—for example, the Modern Language Aptitude Test—and questionnaires—for example, the Attitude Motivation Test Battery—and their relationship to measures of L2 achievement, or proficiency, investigated. Both factors were found to account for up to 35% of the variance in achievement/proficiency scores. In other words, learners with a strong aptitude and motivation were more likely to learn quickly and achieve higher levels of L2 proficiency.

  More recent research on language aptitude has attempted to show how it influences the process of L2 acquisition. In so doing, researchers have sought to bring research on language aptitude into line with mainstream SLA. Skehan (2002), for example, proposed a model of language aptitude that links the different components to different stages in the process of language acquisition. The model proposes that phonemic coding ability and working memory are important for noticing, while language analytical ability contributes to the restructuring that occurs during L2 development. Researchers have also addressed the role that language aptitude plays in implicit and explicit learning, although no firm conclusions have yet been reached. It seems likely that different components of aptitude are involved in these two types of learning—phonological short-term memory in implicit learning, and language analytical ability in explicit learning.

  A major shift has also occurred in how motivation is conceptualized. Initially it was seen as a state, measurable by means of a questionnaire. Currently it is seen as a process as in Dörnyei and Otto’s (1998) Process Model of Motivation. In line with social accounts of L2 learning, researchers have re-conceptualized motivation as a highly situated phenomenon, influenced by the specific settings that learners find themselves in. This has led to an emphasis on qualitative case studies of individual learners in place of the earlier quantitative, survey-based studies. Many years ago, McNamara (1973) argued that ‘the really important part of motivation lies in the act of communication’ itself. This observation has now been taken up in current research, linking the study of motivation to another major stream in SLA—the interaction approach.

  Social interaction plays a crucial role in L2 acquisition

  No matter whether acquisition takes place inside or outside the classroom, social interaction plays a central role. Allwright (1984) argued that interaction is ‘the fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy’ because ‘everything that happens in the classroom happens through a process of live person-to-person interaction’ (p. 156). Similarly, in naturalistic settings, the major source of data for learning is that obtained through interaction with other speakers of the languages. Early on, Hatch (1978) observed ‘one learns how to do conversations, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of this interaction syntactic structures are developed’ (p. 252).

  The importance attached to interaction in SLA is reflected in what Gass and Mackey (2007) called the interaction approach (see Chapter 7). This approach grew out of Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis and Long’s (1983b) Interaction Hypothesis. Krashen argued that acquisition takes place naturally as long as learners have access to comprehensible input. Long took up this idea and developed it further by proposing that one of the main ways in which input is made comprehensible is through the negotiation of meaning when learners experience a communication problem. Swain (1985) hypothesized that comprehensible output also plays a role as it forces learners to engage in syntactic processing in order to make their meaning clear. Pica (1992) developed a framework that incorporated these various hypotheses by proposing that interaction provides learners with comprehensible input; helps them segment the input into its component parts; provides them with feedback on their use of the L2; and pushes them to modify their output by making it more target-like.

  These theoretical perspectives have informed a wealth of research investigating both the nature of the interactions involving learners and the specific ways in which these interactions facilitate acquisition. They have shown that interactionally-modified input, corrective feedback, and interactionally-modified output all contribute to L2 development. Influenced in particular by Schmidt’s (2001) Noticing Hypothesis—which claims that ‘people learn about the things they attend to and do not learn much from the things they do not attend to’ (p. 30)—researchers demonstrated that interaction works for acquisition because it induces noticing of linguistic forms in the input and output that interaction affords. In other words, learners learn from interaction because it activates cognitive processes, such as noticing and noticing-the-gap—i.e. the difference between an erroneous and a target linguistic form—required for acquisition to take place. These theoretical constructs have led to pedagogic proposals, in particular task-based language teaching and focus-on-form, where the emphasis is placed on providing opportunities for classroom learners to engage in meaning-focused activities while their attention is drawn to features in the input and output that arise in the interactions the activities generate.

  The importance of work on interaction for language pedagogy is perhaps most clearly seen in the research that has investigated corrective feedback. This is a topic that has always been of interest to SLA researchers and has a long history. Much of the recent research is experimental in nature, investigating the effects of different types of feedback—for example input-providing strategies, such as recasts, and output-prompting strategies, such as elicitation or metalinguistic comments. The research has shown that the corrective feedback that occurs in meaning-focused interaction helps acquisition—especially when the correction is made salient to learners. For older learners, corrective feedback may be essential to help them overcome entrenched interlanguage forms.

  While emphasizing the imp
ortance of interaction, we need to also recognize that not all learning is dependent on the opportunity to interact in the L2. Learning can also occur through exposure to non-interactive input—for example, through extensive reading. There is plenty of evidence to show that such input—especially if pre-modified to make it comprehensible to the learner or if specific linguistic features are made salient through input enhancement—can lead to acquisition.

  L2 acquisition is a cognitive phenomenon

  The interaction approach is founded on a cognitivist view of L2 acquisition. It is premised on what Block (2003) called the input-output model: that is, the input made available through interaction and the output that it triggers activate the internal cognitive processes involved in acquisition. Acquisition, then, is conceived as essentially a mental phenomenon. SLA has drawn increasingly on theories and research in cognitive psychology (see Chapter 9). Two theories in particular have been influential in SLA—Reber’s theory of implicit and explicit learning and Anderson’s Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT) Model.

  Drawing on Reber’s research, N. Ellis (1994) proposed that implicit learning and explicit learning are fundamentally different. Implicit learning is learning that takes place without intention and without awareness—i.e. learners cannot report what their language behaviour shows they must have learned. This is because the implicit L2 system is connectionist in nature: it does not consist of ‘rules’, but of an elaborate network of associations of linguistic elements of different sizes. It is emergent—its development is driven by the learners’ ongoing experiences of language in use and their unconscious tallying and analysis of the linguistic forms they are exposed to. Rule-like behaviour emerges gradually as learners unpack formulaic sequences and discover how to use and combine the linguistic elements that comprise them. Implicit knowledge, then, is largely exemplar-based, and this allows for rapid and easy communication. In contrast, explicit learning is intentional and thus takes place with awareness—i.e. learners can report what they have learned. The explicit knowledge that results is metalinguistic in nature. In the case of grammar, it consists of ‘rules’ that learners can draw one when formulating utterances and when monitoring their output. However, whereas implicit knowledge can be processed automatically, explicit knowledge requires controlled processing and is not readily available in spontaneous face-to-face communication. Thus, if learners wish to develop effective communicative skills in an L2 they need implicit L2 knowledge.

  Anderson’s model is based on a distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge, which—broadly speaking—matches the explicit/implicit distinction. However, whereas N. Ellis views the two types of knowledge as distinct, Anderson sees them as connected. Learning commences with forming declarative representations—i.e. ‘rules’ in the case of language learning—which are gradually restructured into procedural representations that allow for automatic language use. Anderson’s theory underlies skill-learning theory (DeKeyser 1998). This claims that L2 learning begins with declarative rules which learners use as crutches during practice—especially communicative practice—until the rules are subsequently proceduralized.

  Cognitive theories of SLA draw on two other important constructs imported from cognitive psychology—attention and working memory. The importance of attention in L2 acquisition owes much to the work of Schmidt. He saw what he called noticing as a conscious process of attending to exemplars of linguistic features in the input. Noticing, however, does not guarantee learning—as learners may fail to store what they have attended to in long-term learning—but it makes learning possible. Attention takes place in the learner’s working memory, which is seen as limited in capacity. This explains why learners often fail to attend to L2 features in the input or fail to access knowledge stored in long-term memory in their output. Attention is selective. It is influenced by the learner’s L1 and it is governed by input-processing principles (VanPatten 1996) that account for why some grammatical features (e.g. verb + -ed; passive voice) go unnoticed and so are typically learned late. It follows, therefore, that one way of enhancing learning is by helping learners to attend consciously to such features. This can occur incidentally—for example, through communicative interaction that induces a focus-on-form—or intentionally, through structured input activities that force attention onto problematic forms.

  Cognitive SLA has been characterized as ‘mainstream’. That is, cognitive accounts of L2 learning have tended to dominate in SLA. However, there has always been interest in social aspects of L2 acquisition and from the 1990s these have attracted increasing interest from researchers.

  L2 acquisition is also a social phenomenon

  Concern for the social factors that influence L2 development—especially the rate of learning and ultimate achievement—was evident from an early period in SLA as, for example, in Schumann’s (1978a) claims about the influence of the social distance between the learner and the target language community. Firth and Wagner’s (1997) critique of cognitive SLA, however, set out the case for viewing L2 learning as pre-eminently social in nature. This led to what has been called ‘a social turn’ in SLA (Block 2003).

  The fundamental claim of the social turn is that L2 acquisition is embedded in the social world that learners inhabit and that they themselves help to construct. Whereas Schumann saw factors such as social dominance and the cohesiveness and size of the L2 group as determining learners’ access to the L2 and their motivation to learn and thereby influencing learning, social-turn researchers saw learning itself as a social activity that learners actively shape through their own agency. They saw learning as local and highly situated and emphasized the importance of investigating learners within specific social contexts. Researchers focused on investigating learning-as-participation rather than on learning-as-acquisition. That is, L2 learning was conceptualized as happening within social interaction rather than through it. It was seen as an external rather than an internal phenomenon. Learners learn to become members of a community-of-practice through speaking the language. Socialization and language learning go hand in hand.

  In Chapter 9, I reviewed a number of social turn theories—presented as alternatives to cognitive theories of L2 acquisition. Of these theories, by far the most influential is sociocultural SLA, which also has the longest history in SLA. Like other social theories, it emphasizes learning-as-process rather than learning-as-product. Drawing on Vygotsky’s work, it treats development as potentially always open to external influence rather than cognitively predetermined. Thus, the key concept is mediation—the process by which culturally-determined artefacts are deployed to regulate activity. The primary artefact is social interaction. Interaction with both ‘experts’—for example, teachers or native speakers of a language—and ‘novices’—for example, other learners—enables learners to understand and produce linguistic forms that they have not yet internalized. Through the other-regulation afforded by interaction, self-regulation develops: that is, the linguistic forms are internalized and made available for independent use. It should be clear that sociocultural theory is, in fact, not just a social theory, but a cognitive one as well. It accounts for how external language—the starting point—becomes internal. In this respect, sociocultural theory affords a much more complete account of L2 acquisition that most of the other social turn theories which address only learning-as-participation.

  The social turn has had a major impact on SLA. It has led to research that focuses on individual learners in their own social contexts, rather than on groups of learners in laboratory contexts. By its concern for how interactional competence develops, it has shifted the focus of SLA away from linguistic competence. It has also introduced a methodology—conversation analysis—that provides a powerful resource for investigating learning-as-participation and has expanded our understanding of how learning takes place in social interaction. The social turn rightly emphasizes that learners have agency; they are not just subject to input, but can insist on the right to speak and so actively sh
ape their learning experiences. It has shown us the importance of social identity in L2 learning and that the learners’ social identities are actively constructed through the process of learning. No account of L2 acquisition is complete without a social perspective.

  Instruction helps acquisition

  In Chapter 10 and Chapter 11, I examined research that has investigated the effects of instruction on acquisition. For many learners, the classroom provides the only opportunity for learning an L2. Thus, it is important to understand whether instruction benefits L2 learning and what kind of instruction benefits it the most.

  I distinguished two broad types of instruction: explicit instruction directs attention to target language forms and caters to intentional learning and provides learners with explicit information about target language features; implicit instruction attracts attention to linguistic forms while learners are engaged in performing communicative activities and caters to incidental learning. Both types aim to develop the procedural knowledge that enables learners to communicate effectively in the L2.

  Different types of explicit instruction draw on different theories of L2 learning, but, in the main, they are based on a strong-interface position: that is, they assume that declarative knowledge can be transformed into procedural knowledge by providing explicit information about a target feature, together with opportunities for practice. They differ in terms of how the explicit information is provided (i.e. by means of simplified descriptions based on a pedagogical grammar or by detailed descriptions including ‘scientific concepts’); when the explicit information is to be provided (i.e. before or during the practice activities); and also the nature of the practice activities (i.e. whether these are input-based or output-based and—in the case of the latter—whether they involve controlled or free-production). There is plenty of evidence to show that explicit instruction ‘works’, in the sense that it leads to improved accuracy in the use of target features—especially when learners can access their declarative knowledge through controlled processing. There is, however, less clarity about the relative effectiveness of different types of explicit instruction, especially if the criterion of effectiveness is the learners’ ability to use the target feature accurately in free production.