Subject SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Author/s: Dr. Jesus Arzamendi Dr. Ignacio Palacios Mr.

Philip Ball

Aim of the subject CHAPTER 1. Applied linguistics 1.1. The development of linguistics 1.2. Main features of the pragmatic paradigm 1.3. The field of applied linguistics 1.4. Fields of study in applied linguistics: introduction 1.5. Suggestions for further reading 1.6. Web reading CHAPTER 2. The acquisition and role of the first language 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Rules versus habits: behaviourism versus mentalism or cognitivism 2.2.1. Behaviourist theory 2.2.2. Nativist/Mentalist/Cognitive theories 2.2.3. Functional approaches, developmental or interactionist theory 2.3. Contrastive and error analysis 2.4. Interlanguage 2.5. L1 acquisition and L2 learning compared 2.6. Readings 2.7. Suggestions for further reading 2.8. Web reading CHAPTER 3. The learning of a second language 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Individual learning factors: an overview 3.3. Input and interaction 3.4. The role of formal instruction in the learning of a second language

3.5. Bilingualism and multilingualism 3.6. Suggestions for further reading 3.7. Web reading CHAPTER 4. Second Language Acquisition models: critical review 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Main models or theories of SLA 4.2.1. Sociolinguistic models 4.2.1.1. The acculturation model (Schumann 1978) 4.2.1.2. The nativisation model (Andersen 1979) 4.2.1.3. Accommodation theory (Giles and Byrne 1982) 4.2.2. Linguistic models 4.2.2.1. Discourse theory (Hatch 1978) 4.2.2.2. The variable competence model (Ellis 1984; Tarone 1983; Widdowson 1979; Bialystok 1978) 4.2.2.3. The universal hypothesis (Chomsky 1976, 1986) 4.2.2.4. Swain's Output thesis 4.2.3. Cognitive models 4.2.3.1. The monitor model (Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985) 4.2.3.2. Mc Laughlin's Information Processing Model (Mclaughlin 1978, 1990) 4.2.3.3. The multidimensional model and processing operations (Clahsen, Meisel, and Pienenmann, 1983) 4.2.3.4. A neurofunctional theory (Lamendella, 1979) 4.2.3.5. Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) (Rumelhart, McClelland and the PDP Research Group 1986) 4.3. Readings 4.4. Suggestions for further reading

4.5. Web reading Glossary Bibliography

Aim of the subject

Although languages have been learned since time immemorial we still have many unanswered questions about the process of second language learning. It is not completely clear, whether as learners or teachers, how it is that languages are learned. Despite the important developments that have taken place in the field of SLA since the 1970s much remains to be discovered. It is the purpose of this subject to present and explain in simple terms the basic issues connected with second language acquisition together with the implications that may be derived from them for our own personal teaching situation. We will start by exploring the domain of what is known as Applied Linguistics since language teaching and language learning are at present generally considered within this broad framework. Next, attention will be paid to the acquisition of the first language or L1, and a contrast will be drawn between this process and the learning of the second language or L2. Chapter 3 will mention in passing the factors that condition the learning of the L2, as this will be the main concern of the subject Individual factors in the learner's development; the concepts of input and interaction will also be examined here, together with the role of formal instruction. Finally, in Chapter 4 the most important theories which attempt to explain the second language acquisition process will be briefly explained. A series of tasks will alternate with the theoretical explanations to check your understanding of the main points. A list of readings will be found at the end of each chapter for further information. A glossary is also included in the final section to provide a quick reference for a series of concepts that may be new or which denote specific meanings in the context of second language acquisition. In the pages that follow, no distinction will be made between the terms acquisition and learning, although scholars such as Krashen (1982) believe that they should be regarded as different concepts. According to Krashen acquisition is an unconscious process closely associated with informal modes of learning, similar to how we picked up the L1; learning, however, is conscious and is connected more with how we become competent in the L2. However, there is a tendency now to use the two terms interchangeably. Development is also used as a synonym for the previous two terms and it is in Sharwood Smith's opinion: the best term as it focuses on the process itself, i.e. as something that 'happens' inside the learner or acquirer. (1994: 11) A second important set of terminologies also needs to be clarified before we embark on this subject. By second language or L2 we mean a language which is spoken together with the first language or mother tongue; this is the status of English, for example, in many African countries (South Africa, Kenya, Zambia) where it is an official language for a series of historical and/or political reasons, in combination with the native language(s). A second language situation is also that of a Mexican who goes to work in the United States. His/her native language is Spanish but s/he is learning English, the institutional language of the country which is widely used in all walks of life. In

contrast, we speak of a foreign language in a context similar to Latin America, where English is not an official language and access to it is only available through formal instruction, literary works, audio and video tapes, satellite TV and the internet. Multilingualism is of course on the rise, with the increased movement of labour around the globe, a phenomenon which has prompted the UK, for example, to adopt the term EAL (English as an additional language) to indicate that the scholastic language (English) may be the second or the third language that the pupil speaks. Second Language Acquisition (SLA), is, therefore, a neutral term in this subject, and it is used to refer to all these situations as well as to the general field of enquiry. Preliminary reflective task Take a second to reflect upon your views on the nature of language learning and the corresponding implications for language teaching. Below are twelve general statements about language learning. Think about whether you agree or disagree with these statements. (See 'Webography' for discussion after you have done the task). The pages that follow will also try to provide a definite reply to these controversial issues. Below are some general beliefs and principles about the learning of a foreign language. Read each statement and decide if you: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (4) disagree, (5) strongly disagree (3) neither agree nor disagree,

1. It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one. 1 2 3 4 5 2. People who are good at mathematics or science are not good at learning foreign languages. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language. 1 2 3 4 5 4. First Language Acquisition (FLA) and SLA are very different processes. 1 2 3 4 5 5. All students learn English in a similar way. 1 2 3 4 5 6. The learning of a second language is a linear process. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Affective states do not play an important role in L2 learning. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Students learn what they are taught. 1 2 3 4 5 9. The majority of the mistakes students make in the use of the second language are due to interference from their mother tongue. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Environment plays an important role in the learning of a second language. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Students' errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits. 1 2 3 4 5

Chapter 1 Applied linguistics 1.1. The development of linguistics

Before we take a look at what the field of Applied Linguistics comprises, it would be a good idea to situate the linguistic discipline historically. Where has the field come from? Who have been the key figures in the evolution of Linguistics in modern times? Which have been the main linguistic schools or trends in the 20th century and how have these been maintained or changed in the 21st? These are the questions that we will address first in this chapter. Although Applied Linguistics began to take shape as a discipline in the 1950s, the roots of linguistics as a real science and with complete independence from other disciplines go back to earlier this century. A key figure is Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss scholar who is generally considered to be the founder of modern linguistics and the father of the structuralist approach to linguistics. During the 19th century the study of language had tended to be diachronic (that is, language was studied historically, as an evolutionary phenomenon, over a period of time). Saussure was the first to suggest that linguistics also needed studies which were synchronic (or static). In other words, Saussure proposed that linguists should concern themselves with the state of a given language at the present time. In a celebrated series of lectures compiled in a Course in General Linguistics, Saussure proposed his famous distinction between langue and parole. Langue, he claimed, referred to language as a system, an abstract series of rules which were acquired by all speakers of the same language. By parole, on the other hand, is meant the individual, idiosyncratic utterances which are used by each member of a speech community. By offering the concept of langue as a stable, overarching body of linguistic knowledge, Saussure was effectively delineating a field for descriptive linguistic enquiry. In Saussure's words: In separating language [langue] from speaking [parole] we are at the same time separating: (1) what is social from what is individual; and (2) what is essential from what is accessory and more or less accidental. (1959:13) Apart from this distinction between langue and parole, we can refer to a series of basic concepts in the structuralist paradigm: linguistic sign, structure, level, and component. Sign Language is formed by a number of linguistic signs and each one of these possesses a value or a linguistic identity that derives from the relationships maintained with the rest of the signs within the system. The sign emerges as the result of an association of a concept (meaning) with an acoustic image (significant).

Figure 1.1: Structure of a linguistic sign.

Structure In close connection with the sign, we find the notion of structure, which is at the heart of Structuralism. The relationship existing between several elements is what is meant by "structure". The elements themselves are not the most important thing within a structure - rather the relationship existing between them is what is important. Level The concept of level is mainly used by the American branch of Structuralism whose main representative is Leonard Bloomfield, author of an extremely influential work entitled Language (1933). According to Bloomfield, language is formed by a series of levels that are in fact equivalent to a group of hierarchical subsystems. In the first years of Structuralism three main levels were distinguished: the phonetical, the morphological and the syntactic. Some years later the semantic level was added to this list and the morphological and syntactic were grouped into a single level known as morphosyntactic. Component The notion of component used by both the American and the European branches of Structuralism is used to characterise the phonetic and semantic levels of the language. Thus, the phonemes are units formed by a number of distinctive features (i.e. the consonant /p/ in English is bilabial, plosive and voiceless) and lexical items consist of several semantic elements which are usually referred to as semes. The word chair shares some features with armchair but these two lexical items also show some differences; both are pieces of furniture and are used to sit on, but chair also contrasts with armchair because the former tends not to have arms and is generally smaller in size. The analysis of the different constituents of the structures permits us to classify formal units in different classes or categories. Taking the sentence as starting point and as the superior unit, we may speak of classes of sentences, classes of clauses, word classes and in this way we come to the lowest level, morpheme classes. This brief account of the structuralist paradigm would not be complete if we did not mention the goal of both European and American structuralists: the analysis and description of languages. Structuralists defined themselves as descriptivists in contrast to the precriptivist attitudes of traditional grammar. The prescriptivist approach to language seeks to modify and even change the

linguistic behaviour of speakers by means of a series of rules and norms which state what is right and what is wrong. The descriptivist approach aims to describe language as a linguistic representation through systematic observation and collection of data. Most of the linguistic research conducted in this framework consists of the design and production of coherent and relevant descriptive systems as the result of the exhaustive analysis of data. Generativism As a reaction against the structuralist approach to Linguistics, we find the Generative paradigm which has its origin in the work of Noam Chomsky. Syntactic Structures, published in 1957, and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, published in 1965, are key texts in this paradigm. The generative paradigm is characterised by being in constant revision; in fact, new reformulations have been put forward in the last few years. In 1981 Chomsky presented a new theory known as GB or Government and Binding Theory and even more recently he refers to a system of Principles and Parameters. It would take a long time to explain in close detail the principles underpinning each of these theories. As with Structuralism we will concentrate on the most important features of the generative paradigm. These can be stated as follows: a) Idealisation, intuition and introspection A psychologist and mentalist conception of language, typical of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries, underlies this paradigm. Therefore, generativists are interested in formulating linguistic theories which may represent the idealisations of a prototypical speaker of the language who is perfectly acquainted with it. According to Chomsky, attention must be paid to the introspective evidence and to the native speaker's intuition. In other words, generativists believe that language is innate and the speaker of the language possesses an innate knowledge of it. It is the function of linguists to explain and systematise the language by means of a series of rules. b) The importance of rules If in the case of the structuralist approach, linguistic description is obtained by means of structures, levels and components, generative grammar is characterised by a focus on rules. What exactly do we mean by this? Take, for example, the sentence Mary wrote a letter. Look at the diagram on page 12. Here we see that such a sentence is formed by a noun phrase (Mary), which can be represented as NP, and a verb phrase (wrote a letter), which can be represented as VP. The verb phrase in its turn consists of a verb and a noun phrase and the noun phrase may be represented as consisting of a determiner (DET - a) plus a noun (N - letter).

According to the generativists, everything in the language can be explained by rules and the grammar of a language should generate wellformed utterances. One should bear in mind that the rules of a generative grammar are of a different nature from those typical of traditional grammar. A prescriptive traditional grammar adopts the form of a statement that warns us against what is incorrect, for instance, 'prepositions should not stand on their own at the end of a sentence: Constructions such as What are you looking at? are incorrect and should be avoided'. However, generative rules have very little to do with social correctness since they are objective descriptions of the grammatical patterns the sentences represent.

c) Explanation as the main objective of the linguistic study According to Chomsky, a linguistic theory should not only describe linguistic phenomena but should also be able to explain them. Linguistic theories should thus have an integral explanatory element. d) The existence of linguistic universals Generativists postulate that there exists a series of linguistic universals, that is, a number of features which are all common to all languages. Most natural languages, for example, possess ways and means to express negation; negation could then be regarded as a linguistic universal. Two types of linguistic universals have been suggested: formal and substantive. The former are related to the form of a grammar, that is, its components (syntax, semantics, phonology) as well as to the different types of rules; the latter, in contrast, have to do with the contents of those rules and syntactic categories such as, for example, the distinctive features in phonology and the structure of the verb phrase in syntax. By investigating linguistic universals, Chomsky and his associates maintained that Linguistics would thus help in the understanding of the nature of the human mind. e) The creative nature of language use Language is not simply viewed as a store of basic structures acquired by imitation and repetition. Language use is characterised by being creative. The users of the language are able to produce utterances that they have never heard before and this is due to the creative nature of language. In Chomsky's opinion, the notions of rule and creativity are not contradictory terms since any act of creativity is conducted within the framework of a rule.

f) The notions of deep, surface structure and transformation If the structuralist approach was mainly concerned with the phonological and morphological levels of the language, generativism focuses mainly on syntax since it is considered to be the central component of grammar. According to Chomsky, it is not enough for a linguistic description to indicate whether a particular sentence is right or wrong; it should also provide explanations about the speaker's ability to understand and generate new sentences. To do that, three main levels are at least required: - A surface structure, that is, a series of sentences we perceive. It is a concrete representation that would correspond to what we would hear if the sentence were spoken. - A deep structure or propositions that may undergo transformations when the speaker actually uses the language. The sentence is represented in an abstract way showing all the factors that govern how it should be interpreted. - Transformations or operations that go from the deep structure to the surface structure which allow us to see the connections between sentences that express the same meaning but use a different grammatical form. For example, the case of active sentences and their passive counterparts, e.g. Jill caught the ball vs. The ball was caught by Jill. g) Competence versus performance This differentiation is very closely connected with Saussure's distinction between langue and parole described above. Competence can be defined as the intuitive knowledge that every speaker possesses of the language. Consequently, Chomsky believed that Linguistics should be concerned with the study of competence. By performance is meant the act of interpreting or producing a speech act. Although some linguists believe that the terms langue and competence are interchangeable, it should be pointed out that langue differs from competence by having a social nature; Chomsky's label, on the contrary, reflects a purely psycholinguistic viewpoint. Pragmatics In the last two decades of the twentieth century several groups of scholars and linguists highlighted the limitations of the generative paradigm especially because very little attention was paid to the analysis of data. Generativism was particularly concerned with the grammar of an ideal speaker of the language disregarding the actual context and the functions of language. Applied linguists in general and language teachers more particularly began to feel the need for a systematic study of language use; a theory without excessive abstraction and

formalism and which could explain what the speakers actually do with the language. Serious weaknesses in the generative paradigm were identified by Dell Hymes, Searle, Beaugrande, Van Dijk, Stubbs, Grice and Austin. All of these theorists were interested in the study of language in use, that is, the analysis of the relationships existing between the language and the communicative contexts where this is used. Alcaraz (1990) claimed that all the linguistic research having language in use as its main objective may be classified under the paradigm of Pragmatics. This discipline focuses on the relationships existing between the linguistic sign and the users of the language within a particular context. The term 'Pragmatics' is at present understood in two different ways: - A branch of linguistics that is concerned with the way language is used in communication; in this respect it is closely related to Semantics since both are concerned with the meaning of language, although Pragmatics tends to deal more with the meaning of words and sentences within a particular context. - A linguistic trend with specific aims and research methods. Pragmatics as a linguistic trend aims at analysing the use of language using specific models and tools with a pluridisciplinary methodology.

1.2. Main features of the pragmatic paradigm

These can be summarised as follows: - Language is considered as discourse and text in contrast with structuralist and generativist principles that regarded language as a collection of sentences. - Language is mainly a means of communication whereas in the case of the two previous linguistic theories language was considered primarily as a system. - The use of language is more important than its forms. - The processes that take place in communicative acts are what really matter. The mental reality underpinning the verbal human behaviour typical of generativism as well as the features and characteristics of the superficial linguistic structures studied by Structuralism are now almost ignored. - In contrast with the utterances and sentences constructed artificially by generativists, the followers of the pragmatic trend make use of real and contextualised linguistic data. - Pragmatics takes into consideration the contributions of disciplines and sciences which are in one way or another connected with Linguistics and language in general. It stands out by being interdisciplinary. In this

respect it also opposes Generativism and Structuralism since these two are quite constrained in their scope, centring only on language and disregarding any kind of connection with other fields of knowledge. - Attention is specially paid to the usefulness and applicability of linguistic theories that may account for communicative competence. Reflective task 1.1. Explain the main difference between Structuralism, Generativism and Pragmatics as regards their main objectives and the units of analysis used.

1.3. The field of applied linguistics

In the last few years of the 20th century, a great deal of attention was devoted to the area of Applied Linguistics (henceforth to be written as 'AL') as opposed to "Theoretical Linguistics". According to Widdowson (1996:125) AL is: An area of enquiry which seeks to establish the relevance of theoretical studies of language to everyday problems in which language is implicated. Halliday in the preliminary pages to his Introduction to Functional Grammar (1994: xix) mentions the different applications of Linguistics; these range from research applications of a theoretical nature to quite practical tasks. In fact, 18 out of a total of 21 of these applications of linguistics have to do with AL, for example: - To understand how a child develops language and how language may be evolved; - To understand linguistic variation; - To understand the relation between language and culture/situation; - To help in the diagnosis and treatment of language pathologies; - To help translators; and - To help people learn a foreign language or their own native tongue. Overall, it is generally accepted that AL is in its essence a problem-oriented discipline, as opposed to "theory based" linguistics. Crystal defines it as follows: A branch of Linguistics where the primary concern is the application of linguistic theories, methods and findings to the elucidation of language problems which have arisen in other areas of experience. (1991: 22) Extending the above definitions, AL was said to cover three main areas:

1. The methods and results from one branch of science which are used to develop insights into another area of knowledge; translation studies can be included here. 2. The methods and results from a branch of science used to solve practical social problems; foreign language teaching or clinical linguistics can be here taken as examples. 3. The application itself; under this interpretation the teacher who teaches a group of students is actually involved in AL. In the light of this, AL stood out by being: - interdisciplinary (several disciplines are involved); - scientific (it does not work by intuition but with hard data and with scientific and tested methods); - educational (it seeks to inform pedagogy); and - a problem-solving activity (it attempts to find solutions for specific problems).

1.4. Fields of study in applied linguistics: introduction

Although the primary aim of AL may not be the development of theoretical linguistics, AL may still conduct research which properly speaking comes under the heading of theoretical linguistics. The major fields of study in AL can be identified as the following: - Language teaching and language learning, - Translation studies, - Clinical Linguistics (speech pathology), - Language planning and policy, and - Computational linguistics. The most developed branch of AL is the teaching and learning of second languages, to the extent that some authors have made use of these two terms interchangeably. Alternative expressions to that of Language Teaching are Language Didactics, Glottodidactics and Educational Linguistics. This branch of AL is concerned with both the teaching and the learning of second languages together with all the factors, elements and variables that determine and condition both processes. This includes issues such as teaching methods, syllabus design, materials production, testing and evaluation,

treatment of the four skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking), language planning, classroom language and classroom management, action research, CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning), etc. The discipline of Translation Studies does not really require a detailed definition as it is self-explanatory. It deals with the transfer of linguistic information from one language to another. Nowadays, it is generally considered within the framework of communication theory. The translator becomes the sender of a message which has been previously coded in the form of a text, the recipients are different from the ones intended and the sociocultural context may have also changed. Some approaches claim that there is no equivalence between the original text and its translated version. The latter is a derived text that has been manipulated to meet certain communicative objectives. In this case Theoretical Linguistics stands as a useful tool that may offer solutions to the problems found when processing information and producing texts in a translation project. Clinical Linguistics, also known as Speech Pathology, Linguistic Aphasiology or Psycholinguistic Aphasiology, presents biological models and hypotheses to explain the functioning of language in our brain. At the same time this discipline takes these models to the clinical domain and provides useful means for the diagnosis and treatment of language problems detected in individuals. Language planning generally refers to all the activities of intervention over linguistic practices. This includes language management as regards the role, function and status of the language or languages, if more than one, used by the community, the process of language standardisation, language policies on educational matters, etc. In Spain, an example might be the role played by the Generalitat (Local Government) in Catalonia in its shaping of linguistic policy for the use of the Catalan language. Computational linguistics is concerned with a series of aspects, factors and processes that are involved in the computation of language; it tries to develop theories and techniques that serve to process natural languages into machine language. On the one hand, this discipline has borrowed key notions and tools from Computer Sciences (i.e. the structure of the data bases), from Logic (i.e. some of the grammatical formalisms), from the Processing of Signs, apart from those derived from the linguistic field itself. On the other hand, Computational Linguistics has developed its own formalisms, especially in syntax and in the description of lexis, as well as its own theoretical concepts. Such concepts constitute the starting point for the development of a series of systems that carry out particular operations such as translation, transformation of a written text to spoken language, production of texts, etc. and they also serve as tools for the treatment of data, i.e. automatic syntactic analysis, word classes tagging, corpora coding, etc. Apart from these fairly specific fields, there are many linguists who also consider Ethnolinguistics, Sociolinguistics and Psycholinguistics as subjects within the scope of AL.

Ethnolinguistics studies language as the expression of a particular culture and in relation to communicative situations. It is also called Anthropological Linguistics. It is concerned with the connections existing between linguistics and a particular view of the world, the importance people give to language, the study of secret languages and the problems derived from the linguistic and social structures of different peoples. Sociolinguistics is concerned with the exploration of the inter-relationship between linguistic and social phenomena. Hudson (1981), for example, defines it as "the study of language in relation to society". Sociolinguistics deals among other things with the processes of language preservation, language change, attitudes to language, code-switching, relationships between language and social background, etc. It is thus primarily concerned with external factors and their effect of language learning. Finally, Psycholinguistics is centred on the study of language learning as a cognitive process, including the processes of First Language Acquisition (FLA) and SLA, neurolinguistics, etc. Put simply, it is concerned with what goes on inside the human mind during the process of acquiring language. It is thus primarily concerned with internal factors and their effect on language learning. Where is Applied Linguistics now, in the 21st century? According to Winiewski (2007): "As it can be seen there are many trends in applied linguistics, some interconnected, others not having too much in common. There are, however, some very general tendencies among applied linguists to put more effort into certain investigations such as languages of wider communication, corpus analysis, or critical applied linguistics ................. Corpus analysis takes both quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of language and applied linguists focus on the identification of patterns of language use depending on social context, audiences, genres and settings. Critical applied linguistics is interested in the social problems connected with language such as unemployment, illiteracy and peda-gogy". Reflective task 1.2. Here is a list of linguistic issues. Examine them carefully and decide whether they are more closely associated with Theoretical Linguistics (TL) or with Applied Linguistics (AL). If they belong to the latter, discuss the branch where they would best fit. E.g. The teaching of English to children with special needs. Answer: AL, language learning and language teaching.

1. The notion of ergativity in the English language. .................................................................................................... 2. The problems derived from the translation of proper names. .................................................................................................... 3. The problems associated with the standardization of minority languages in Latin America. .................................................................................................... 4. The importance of word order in English. .................................................................................................... 5. Disorders in the production of lexical units. .................................................................................................... 6. The automatic oral translation systems. .................................................................................................... 7. The importance of the age factor in the learning of foreign languages. .................................................................................................... 8. Special features of Yorkshire English as compared with standard British English. .................................................................................................... 9. Clinical description of aphasia. .................................................................................................... 10. Lexical revolution as an expression of nationalism in the Balkans. .................................................................................................... 11. The classification of the form to in to go as a word class. .................................................................................................... 12. Disorders of syntactic comprehension. ....................................................................................................

13. An analysis of the teacher's language in the EFL classroom. .................................................................................................... 14. The simulation of speech systems. .................................................................................................... 15. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. ....................................................................................................

1.5. Suggestions for further reading

[1] Alcaraz Var, E. (1990). Tres paradigmas de la investigacin lingstica. Alcoy: Marfil. [2] Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. [3] Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.pp. 88-107; 410-413. 2nd edition. [4] Fernndez Prez, M. (ed.). (1996). Avances en Lingstica Aplicada. Servicio de Publicaciones e Intercambio Cientfico de la Universidade de Santiago. Santiago. [5] Robins, R. H. (1980). General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. Longman. London. 3rd edition. [6] Scovel, T. (1998). Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [7] Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

1.6. Web reading

[1] Deep and surface structure (Extract from 'The Study of Language', George Yule, 1985). Link to webpage: http://books.google.es/books?id=EYIwLGr0XIC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=deep+and+surface+structure&source =bl&ots=-32XGH8JB4&sig=i_1TaoCsmh_LPFScGYOMoYmpDY&hl=en&ei=GI_-S6MCYP14AaM6qDxDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ve d=0CDIQ6AEwBjge#v=onepage&q=deep%2 [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5].

Chapter 2 The acquisition and role of the first language

2.1. Introduction
In this chapter we will consider the role of L1 in the learning of a second language. Firstly, we will review the main theories on L1 acquisition. Then, we will describe how the first language is present and manifested in second language learning. In the third and last part of the chapter we will compare and contrast between the processes of L1 and L2 learning.

2.2. Rules versus habits: behaviourism versus mentalism or cognitivism

Every individual, unless unfortunate enough to suffer from some disability, manages to learn his/her first language. How exactly does this almost miraculous process occur? Three main theories have been proposed to account for the acquisition of the first language or mother tongue: behaviourist, nativist and developmental. We will turn to each of these in detail.

2.2.1. Behaviourist theory

According to the behaviourists children come into the world as blank slates and are influenced by the environment. In their view, the learning of a language is based on the formation of a series of habits that children gradually acquire by imitation. Children imitate the sounds and words they hear around them. They first perceive a stimulus, and then they obtain a response from their parents or from the people around them which is encourages the formation of a habit. For example, a child feels the need to drink water and asks for it (stimulus). Somebody gives the child the water (response). With this association of ideas, reinforcement takes place as the child realises that when s/he says "water", s/he will get it. It was B.F. Skinner in his extremely influential work Verbal Behaviour, published in 1957, who formulated the notion of "operant conditioning" on which this theory is largely based. Stern (1983:315) defines an operant as follows:
An operant is defined as a form of behaviour in which the behaviour of the organism leads to a stimulus which presents rewards... Only the right operant is rewarded.

Behaviourist theory was based largely on the observation of how rats and other animals respond under experimental laboratory conditions, and the findings were generalised to refer to human beings. In the subject Methodological Approaches we have already examined the implications of behaviourist theory for language teaching methods.

2.2.2. Nativist/Mentalist/Cognitive theories

As mentioned above, behaviourist theories were tested mainly on animals. Chomsky (1959) believed that while the theory might work with animals it did not necessarily apply to people. In his view, children come into this world with very specific innate knowledge of the nature of language and of the world. Language develops in the child in the same way as other biological functions. The term nativist is derived from the fundamental assertion that language acquisition is innately determined, that we are born with a built-in device of some kind that predisposes us to language acquisition, that is, to a systematic perception of language around us, resulting in the construction of an internalised system of language. This is what Chomsky called the LAD - the metaphoric Language Acquisition Device. The LAD was thus hypothesised to be part of the child's inherited human character, and it consisted of three main components: - substantive universals, - formal universals, and - evaluation procedures. Thus, while learning his/her first language, the child is constantly forming hypotheses on the basis of linguistic information received, and then testing these hypotheses in speech and comprehension. Chomsky gradually abandoned the LAD concept, although it has remained a powerful metaphor in the circles of Applied Linguistics. He has gradually abandoned it in favour of a parameter-setting model of language acquisition called principles and parameters (see 'Webography') which is now considered to be the dominant form of mainstream generative linguistics. Within this framework, the goal of linguistics is to identify all of the principles and parameters that are universal to human language (called: Universal Grammar). As such, any attempt to explain the syntax of a particular language using a principle or parameter is cross-examined with the evidence available in other languages. This leads to a continual refinement of the theoretical machinery of generative linguistics in an attempt to account for as much syntactic variation in human language as possible.

2.2.3. Functional approaches, developmental or interactionist theory

This approach developed because it was clear that nativists did not account for an important facet of language: meaning. The idea of language as functional, as capable of creating individual meaning, seemed to be disregarded. This model tried to reconcile the previous two hypotheses by combining the role of the environment with the learner's innate knowledge of the language.

An extremely influential American linguist, Bloom, was instrumental in popularising a new view of first language learning. Bloom's research, along with that of Piaget, Bruner, Slobin, Halliday, and others, paved the way for a new wave of language study, this time centring on the cognitive prerequisites of linguistic behaviour. Piaget described overall development as the result of children's interaction with their environment, with a complementary interaction between their perceptual cognitive capacities and their linguistic experiences. Language development is explained in terms of the experience the child gains before he/she is capable of uttering the first word. What children learn about language is determined by what they already know about the world. The interactionists believe that language which is modified or adapted with the purpose of facilitating the learner's understanding is a crucial factor in the language acquisition process. In fact, interactionists have examined the speech addressed to children, which is known as motherese or caretaker talk, very carefully, in order to try to identify exactly what features of it seem to facilitate the learning of a further language. Reflective task 2.1. Reading 2.1. describes some of the problems involved in conducting research into motherese (also referred to as child directed speech in the article). Read the text and answer the following question: Lieven poses three questions on the first page of the article. Explain (very briefly) the main points she makes with regard to each one.

2.3. Contrastive and error analysis

While the interlanguage theory that will be studied in the next section is related to the cognitive theory of language learning, Contrastive Analysis (CA) and Error Analysis (EA) are connected with structural linguistics and with a behaviourist theory of learning. The framework provided by Contrastive Analysis (CA) had pedagogical aims in its origins, and it was initially formulated by Lado (1957) in his book Linguistics Across Cultures. According to CA, L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner's L1. CA was strongly criticised in the 1970s because of a series of empirical, theoretical and practical considerations: although a number of attempts were made to validate the CA approach, these showed that many of the errors predicted did not arise. As a result of this, the theory of CA was questioned. Gradually, the role of the first language was reappraised in two ways. Firstly, the CA approach was modified to take account of avoidance, the need for there to be a degree of similarity between the first and the second language items for interference to take place, and the multi-factorial nature of learner error. Secondly, the CA approach was incorporated into a cognitive framework by reinterpreting "interference" as "intercession", that is, as a strategy for communicating when there were insufficient L2 resources.

Error Analysis (EA) arose as a development of CA. This Behaviourist learning theory predicts that transfer will take place from the first to the second language. Transfer will be negative when there is proactive inhibition. In this case, errors will result. On the contrary, transfer will be positive when the first and the second language habits are the same. In this case no errors will be detected. Thus differences between the first and the second language create learning difficulties which bring about errors, while the similarities between the first and second language, in contrast, promote quick and easy learning. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) proposed the following taxonomy of learners' errors in order to systematise and thus investigate them.

CATEGORY Omissions Additions

DESCRIPTION Absence of an element in a grammatical sentence. Presence of an item that must not occur in a grammatical sentence.

EXAMPLE She not come (instead of She did not come) She were be very angry (instead of She was very angry) They drinked a lot of water (instead of They drank a lot of water) In the garden were playing the children (instead of The children were playing in the garden)

The use of an incorrect form of a Misinformation particular grammatical form, on occasions due to over-generalization. Misorderings The normal word-order is partially or totally distorted.

Table 1.1. A taxonomy of learner errors (Dulay, Burt and Krashen 1982).

The problem with the above typology of errors lies in the fact that on certain occasions when a learner makes an error it is difficult to say whether we are dealing with one or another category. Furthermore, several kinds of errors may be found simultaneously in a learner's output. From the above account, it is quite clear that the learner's L1 is an important factor in SLA; however, it is not the only one and it is not the most important. The L1 is a resource of knowledge learners use to internalise L2 linguistic data. The influence of the L1 is likely to be particularly noticeable in L2 phonology. Thus when we listen to a Spanish beginner speaking English, we clearly identify speech deviations from standard English pronunciation which may be explained by the presence of the Spanish sound system. Perhaps the most negative aspect of traditional CA was the assumption that the influence of the L1 in the learning of the L2 was fully negative. If SLA is considered to be a developmental process, then the L1 can be viewed as a contributing factor to this development, which in the course of time, will become more secondary.

2.4. Interlanguage
This term was first used by Selinker (1972) and it is closely connected with cognitive theories of language learning. Other alternative expressions are approximative systems (Nemser, 1971), idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence (Corder, 1971). The notion of interlanguage can be understood in two different ways: - The structured system which the learner constructs at any given stage in his learning development. - The series of interlocking systems which form what Corder called the learner's "built-in syllabus" (the interlanguage continuum). Interlanguage theory encouraged empirical research into SLA. This research initially took the form of error analysis which helped to demonstrate that many of the errors that L2 learners made were not traceable to the L1; there were other factors that could also provide an explanation for this. Research also helped to identify some of the processes that were responsible for interlanguage development as SLA research concentrated on identifying the developmental route along which learners passed.

In both FLA (First language Acquisition) and SLA it is possible to speak of a route or order of acquisition although certain differences have been identified between them. Apparently, all learners in both FLA and SLA follow a similar route of development although the rate of development, that is, the speed they go through each of the stages may vary from one individual to another. Acquisition research in the 1970s concentrated on the order of acquisition of a series of grammatical units or morphological features which were not restricted to English but also to other languages such as Spanish and German. Their main purpose was to identify an order of acquisition for the different languages in both a first and a second language situation. These studies are known in the second language field as the morpheme studies. In the case of FLA we can mention the surveys conducted by Brown (1973), de Villiers and de Villiers (1973), Klima and Bellugi (1966), and Clark and Clark (1977). Morpheme studies in SLA are numerous; those carried out by Dulay and Burt (1973), Larsen-Freeman (1976), Krashen (1977), and Krashen, Butler, Birnbaum and Robertson (1978) stand out.

The tables below present the order of L1 and L2 acquisition respectively in English morphemes as described by Clark and Clark (1977) and Krashen (1977).

MORPHEME 1 Present progressive -ing 2 Preposition 'in ' 3 Preposition 'on' 4 Plural - 's ' 5 Past irregular 6 Possessive -'s ' 7 Uncontractible copula 'be ' 8 Articles 'a '/'the ' 9 Past regular -ed 10 Third person regular -s

EXAMPLE He is sleeping. The pen is in the drawer. The book is on the table. The cats are running. They ate very little. That is Peter's car. Are they boys or girls? Pass me the sugar, please. I saw a man. They played football. She works at home.

11 Third person irregular e.g. has/does Has she got a lot of money? 12 Uncontractible auxiliary 'be ' 13 Contractible copula 'be ' 14 Contractible auxiliary 'be ' Are you reading? He's a doctor. They're driving very fast.

Table 1.2. The order of L1 acquisition of English morphemes.

STAGE 1

-ing plural copula auxiliary article irregular past

STAGE 2 STAGE 3

regular past STAGE 4 3rd person singular possessive -s

Table 1.3. The order of L2 acquisition of English morphemes.

Not only is there a route or order of acquisition of morphemes, but there is also a sequence of acquisition of the individual morphemes themselves. In other words, while learners (or native-speaker children) are busy acquiring, for example, the past tense in English, they go through several stages. The past tense is not learnt in one single jump.

Reflective task 2.2. Look at these utterances. Each group (a-d) corresponds to the hypothetical utterances made by a single L2 learner at different times while acquiring the past tense in English. Put the groups in order to reflect the sequence that this learner probably went through to acquire this morpheme. Justify your order. a) he went shops / she walked street / they visited friend b) he go shop / she walk street / they visit friend c) he goed shop / she walked street / they visited friend d) he went shops / she walk shop / they visit friend To see the comments on this task you will find the "Assessment " section of the subject (virtual campus). However, it should be pointed out that internal processing and innate mechanisms are not the whole story in SLA. There are also other factors which play an important role in this process.

2.5. L1 acquisition and L2 learning compared

SLA stands in contrast to FLA. SLA is the study of how learners learn an additional language after they have acquired their mother tongue. The study of language-learner language began with the study of FLA. SLA research has tended to follow in the footsteps of L1 acquisition research, both in its methodology and in many of the issues that it has dealt with. It is not surprising that a key issue has been the extent to which FLA and SLA are similar or different processes. There are obvious parallels between FLA and SLA but by no means should they be considered as completely similar. There is a series of factors which makes them clearly different. As McDonough explained, views on this matter are not at all conclusive: Positions have been defended which can be located all the way across the continuum from the idea that second language development is a recapitulation of the first in a new code, to the belief that the two are totally unrelated processes. How much notice you take of the first language work depends partly on how convincing you find the parallels between error patterns and acquisition orders in the two circumstances of language learning. (1981: 111) Let us explore then the points in common and the differences between the two processes:

a) Acquisition or learning order The order of acquisition varies from FLA to SLA learners. This means that first language learners do not go through the same stages in the learning of a language as second language learners. Thus articles, auxiliary "be" and copula are acquired earlier by L2 learners, while some other morphemes such as the irregular past form of verbs are acquired later. In both cases it is possible to speak of an order of acquisition which is more or less universal for all learners, that is, all learners, independently of their language backgrounds, follow a similar path in their learning process. Furthermore, second language learners already possess certain linguistic knowledge when they start learning the second language. This is an advantage but it may also be in some ways a disadvantage because of the language transfer factor mentioned above. b) Success in language learning This is something very obvious but not irrelevant. In the L1 learning process, all subjects, unless they suffer from brain damage which may produce language disorders such as speech impediments, normally succeed in gaining a command of the language after a certain period of time; in L2 learning this is not always the case. Moreover, second language learners may fossilize in their language progress, that is, they may reach a stage in which they do not make any progress or development. This is known as fossilization (Selinker, 1972). c) Objectives Learners' objectives are completely different. In the first language situation children feel a need to communicate with the people around them to establish a connection with the outside world and to satisfy their physical and psychological needs. In the second language situation, needs and interests will vary from one learner to another. In one case learners may want to learn the L2 to be able to communicate with others and make themselves understood, while in other cases the main objective may be the understanding of medical or economic texts, or the writing of reports of one type or another. d) The nature of input The input or the linguistic data the individual is exposed to and has access to is completely different in both situations. In L1 learning, input is received from parents, relatives, family, friends, etc. However, in L2 learning, apart from the fact that the quantity and the quality of input are completely different, learners obtain it through different sorts of channels (formal instruction, books, radio, TV, etc.).

e) Cognitive and affective factors Cognitive and affective factors play a more important role in SLA than in FLA. Attitudes and motivation are crucial factors in SLA, while they are almost secondary in FLA. So, for example, in FLA we cannot speak of motivation as such since it is in itself a natural process. The same is true of the role of other variables such as age, intelligence, cognitive style, personality, etc. f) Time devoted to the task of learning Language learners differ in the total amount of time they spend on the task. In the L1 situation learners, in fact, do not need to devote any time to language learning as this takes place spontaneously. In a second language situation this will vary according to the situation of the individual, number of class hours, opportunities for language practice and so on.
FEATURE Success/Result. FLA Learners achieve a more or less "perfect" command of the language. SLA It is very difficult to obtain a "perfect" command of the language.

Variation. Objectives.

Very little variation as regards progress Quite a lot of variation as regards and result. progress and level obtained. The main and final objective is to communicate. Not known. Not required. If done, it is with the purpose of developing learner's writing or spoken skills. Almost irrelevant. Wide in scope. More opportunities for practice. Different in both processes. The main and final objective(s) may vary from one learner to another. Students in certain phases of their learning may not progress and even backslide. Formal instruction favours learner's progress and it is required. Very important role. Limited and restricted opportunities for language practice.

Fossilization.

Formal instruction. Affective factors. Input. Acquisition order.

Table 1.4. A summary of the main differences between FLA and SLA.

2.6. Readings
[1] READING 2.1: Lieven, E. (1994). Language addressed to children: Linguistic and Cultural Aspects in Learning English: development and diversity. Mercer, N. and Swan, J. (eds.)(1996). Routledge. London.

2.7. Suggestions for further reading

[1] Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2] Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3] Lightbown, P. M. & SPADA, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press. Oxford. (Chapter 1).

2.8. Web reading

[1] Vivian Cook's quick and easy-to-read questioning of various L1 v L2 assumptions (Cook, V. 2000). Link to webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/L1%20and%20L2.htm [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5].

Chapter 3 The learning of a second language

3.1. Introduction
The learning of a second language is not the result of a single factor, but of several variables of different types: contextual (environment), plus individual or personal (age, cognitive style, intelligence, aptitude, attitudes and motivation, personality, affective factors, learning opportunities, type of instruction, etc.). The table that follows, adapted from Skehan (1989: 120), provides an overview of the influences on language learning.

Figure 3.1: Variables which influence language learning.

The diagram consists of five boxes which represent different types of variables in language learning. These may be divided into three independent variables (teaching, learner and context) and two dependent ones (learning and outcome) which are determined or conditioned by the previous ones. Each of these variables needs to be subdivided further as they are affected by several factors or elements. The first box, teaching, makes reference to the teaching conditions under which instruction is being conducted. Factors such as the type of methodology used, the syllabus selected, the teacher profile and the resources available will play a significant role. The second box is centred on the

learners and on all the variables that may directly affect them. These can be cognitive, such as intelligence, cognitive style or aptitude for language learning; they may also be affective, that is, attitudes and motivation towards learning. Physical and psychological factors such as age and personality will also influence the learner. The third box is related to the contextual conditions where language learning takes place. It is quite clear that language learning will not be of the same nature in a second language as in a foreign language situation; the opportunities for language use and practice will vary considerably from one to the other. In the middle of this lies the learning box. It is no doubt the most complex of all; it is located at the very centre because it is influenced by the previous three. It consists of two kinds of processes: unconscious and conscious. The former processes cannot be controlled directly by the learner and are determined to a high degree by the L1. The latter are monitored by the learner and they include the mechanisms used by the student in their learning. Finally, the box on the right shows the result of the whole learning process, that is, the proficiency level attained by the learner as well as several aspects of language performance, such as errors and external reactions to the language, the people and the culture that the target language represents. The complexity and multiple nature of the second language learning process may explain the large number of theories and models formulated for the explanation of this phenomenon. However, as we shall see in the next chapter, none of them has been thorough enough to provide a comprehensive analysis of the whole field.

3.2. Individual learning factors: an overview

As mentioned above, there is a set of variables involved in the learning process (L1, context etc.) which may be regarded as general for a group of learners; they may influence all of them in a similar way. However, there is another group of factors which are particular to the individual learner and which may explain the different proficiency levels obtained by learners. Something similar will apply to our teaching situation. There is a series of conditions which is shared by all the learners; however, we are all aware of the fact that in our groups of students, we are dealing with individual learners who have their own attitudes and possess their own personality and aptitude for language learning. This will in fact be the field of study covered in the subject Individual factors in the learner's development. Here we will mention key issues as an introduction to the topic. Nearly all the research into learner variables has involved either investigating their effect on the proficiency levels achieved by different learners, or describing how they affect an individual learner's response to the task of learning an L2. Neither proficiency nor learning response provides any insights into the route of acquisition. Research has demonstrated that individual factors play an important role in the rate and in the success of learning. However, the influence of these factors on the route of acquisition has not yet been proved.

Individual learning factors can be grouped as follows: - Affective: personality, attitudes, motivation, anxiety. - Cognitive: aptitude, learning or cognitive style, intelligence, learning strategies. - Other: age. As stated above, the role and importance of each of these factors in second language learning will be studied in greater depth in the corresponding subject.

3.3. Input and interaction

Input can be defined as the language information or data the learner is exposed to and has access to. Ellis (1985: 127) describes it as "the language that is addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner". The notion of input should not be confused with that of intake. Intake refers to that part of the input which is really processed and assimilated by the learner. This language processing and assimilation does not usually occur at the very moment we are told or taught something. This may explain why learners may be using new linguistic forms without being completely aware of it. This is quite common in the learning of vocabulary. So, for example, in the middle of a conversation we may introduce new words and expressions that we do not remember learning although we have been exposed to them at some time or another. Furthermore, the learning of a second language should not be regarded as a linear process. One should not think that a language is learned in chunks according to different, already established, degrees of difficulty, going from the most simple to the most complex. If teachers operate with syllabuses and with teaching units or lessons, it is mainly for pedagogical purposes rather than for learning requirements. The learning of a second language could be compared to a cycle; it is necessary to go back to areas already studied at some point to consolidate them. This explains the inclusion of consolidation or revision units in most modern textbooks. From what has been said so far, it is clear that we cannot discuss SLA without mentioning input. The nature of this input may vary according to the form of exposure (whether natural setting or formal instruction), and the medium used for its transmission (speech or writing). The latter are not mutually exclusive and we may have a combination of several types. Thus, for example, we may think of an average secondary school pupil in our country. This learner receives input from different sources: the teacher, textbook, readers, audio and video tapes, other students in the class, satellite TV, etc. A central topic in SLA has been the nature and role of this input. In fact, general SLA theories study and analyse this question from different perspectives. Behaviourism, for instance, stressed the importance of input. The whole process of SLA could be easily controlled by presenting the L2 in the right doses to the learner. The second language was then learned automatically by

forming a series of habits. Chomsky, however, questioned this theory and claimed that, on many occasions, there was no match between the kind of language to be observed in input and the actual language the learners produced; in other words, there was no direct correlation between input and output. Chomsky believed that learners actually processed the information they received through the LAD explained above, playing down the role of the linguistic environment. We might say that while the behaviourist theory tries to explain progress purely in terms of what is going on outside the learner, the nativists emphasise those factors internal to the learner. The third view, the interactionist, treats the acquisition of language as the result of the interaction between the learner's mental process and the linguistic environment. It tries to put the two previous models together. The learner's processing mechanisms both determine and are determined by the nature of input. Therefore, the quality of input affects and is affected by the action of these internal mechanisms. For this interactionist view of SLA, the important data are not just the utterances produced by the learner, but the discourse which learner and caretaker both construct and negotiate. Out of this interaction, it is claimed, learning will take place. There are still key questions that need to be answered in relation to the function of input in SLA. It is quite clear that simple exposure to linguistic information is not enough. We may, for example, devote a good number of hours to listening to the radio in Russian, but that does not mean that at the end of this long and tiring period we will be in a position to speak or even understand a few words of Russian. This suggests that input should be modified or adapted in some way so that actual learning may take place. In this respect Krashen (1985) asserts that for acquisition to occur, input should always be comprehensible and it should, in terms of its complexity, be slightly above the student's language level. The concept of input is also important because it has a great number of pedagogical implications as regards the methodology and even the type of syllabus to be used by the second language teacher. Interaction consists of the discourse jointly constructed by the learner and the interlocutor; input may then be the result of interaction. Input and interaction have been studied in natural settings and in classroom environments. In the case of natural settings, input has to be considered in terms of foreigner talk. This usually involves a number of formal and interactional adjustments in native speaker speech. Foreigner talk occurs because of the need to negotiate meaning and to simplify language. It may be the product of universal processes of simplification also found in FLA creoles and pidgins. Certain differences have been observed according to the nature of the speaker and interlocutors, that is, depending on whether the native speaker is a child or adult. Input and interaction in classrooms have been investigated by means of interactional analysis, the study of teacher talk, and discourse analysis. Studies on teacher talk reveal similar features to those found for foreigner talk, although ungrammatical modifications may be less common. Discourse analysis shows

that many classroom interactions follow an IRF (Initiate-Response-Feedback) pattern, which restricts the opportunity to negotiate meaning. However, other types of discourse appear when the L2 is used for general classroom organisation and for social purposes. Learner-centred teaching in subject or immersion classrooms, and CLIL-based programmes where the target language is vehicular, can lead to examples of interaction similar to those found in natural settings (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). In one of the few existing studies on the effects of input and interaction on comprehension, Pica, Young and Doughty (1987) found that modifications in interaction produced higher levels of comprehension than modifications in the nature of input. In this study a group of sixteen learners were asked to complete a certain task under two different conditions. Under the first condition, students had to listen to a text read by a native speaker; the grammar and vocabulary of the text had been previously adapted and simplified. Under the second condition, learners listened to the same passage but without any kind of modification or adaptation. Instead they were allowed to ask questions to clarify certain points of and about the text. The results revealed that learners who were given the opportunity to ask questions and check their comprehension of the text understood it much more than those learners who listened to a more simplified version but had no opportunity to interact while doing the task. In spite of this and other studies on the effects of input and interaction in SLA, we can say that there is little conclusive research showing whether input and interaction do affect SLA, what features of input and interaction are important, and what aspects of SLA are affected. Further investigation in this direction is thus required. According to Ellis (1985), an "optimal learning environment" should meet the following characteristics: - High quantity of input directed to the learner; - Learner perceives need to communicate in the L2; - Control over topic choice; - Adherence to the "here-and-now" principle, at least initially; - The learner needs the opportunity to listen to and to produce language used for different language functions; - Exposure to a high amount of directives (commands, orders); - Exposure to a high quantity of "extending utterances" (e.g. requests for clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and expansions); and - Opportunities for uninhibited "practice" opportunities to experiment using "new" forms). (which may provide

Everything seems to indicate that a learning setting rich in these features will lead to successful SLA, but as yet there is little empirical evidence.

3.4. The role of formal instruction in the learning of a second language

The role of formal instruction in second language learning has been a highly controversial issue. Some scholars, such as Newmark (1966), seem to believe that especially in a second language environment formal instruction does not play an important role since, in their view, it is more important for learners to spend their time engaging in conversation with native speakers in real-life situations. However, there seems to be almost general agreement on the significant role played by formal instruction in a foreign language situation as is the case in of the United States, for example. Having stated this, we are in a position to discuss this issue more profoundly and to try to answer the following two basic questions: - Does formal instruction aid SLA? - If so, what kinds of formal instruction facilitate SLA the most? Investigations dealing with the effects of formal instruction have consisted of comparative studies, aimed at establishing which of several types of instruction is the most effective. Morpheme studies and longitudinal studies of SLA both indicate that although formal instruction may develop L2 knowledge, this knowledge manifests itself in language use only where the learner is attending to form, not to meaning. It does not, therefore, except in relatively minor ways, affect the natural route of SLA, that is, the sequence order studied in the previous chapter. Thus it appears that the overall sequence of development is not affected by formal instruction, while the rate of development is clearly affected. As regards the role of formal instruction with respect to the rate of acquisition, the results are not at all conclusive, but in general they support the hypothesis that instruction aids the success of SLA. It is not clear, however, whether it is just formal instruction per se or associated factors such as motivation which are responsible for the observed effects. Three different positions attempt to explain classroom SLA. The non-interface position, associated with Krashen (1982). He distinguished between "acquired" and "learned" knowledge and argued that they were independent. According to this, formal instruction failed to influence the natural route of SLA, as this was said to be a reflection of acquisition. The interface position maintained among others by Stevick (1980) and Sharwood Smith (1981) defended the notion that "learned" or explicit knowledge could turn into "acquired" or implicit knowledge if there was enough practice.

The variability position (Tarone 1983; Bialystok 1982) saw acquisition and language use as closely related. Thus, different types of knowledge arose from and are required for performance of different language tasks.

3.5. Bilingualism and multilingualism

It often seems strange to talk of L1 and L2 from a monolingual perspective when in truth speakers of a single language are not the norm in the world but rather the exception. The term 'bilingual' is falling out of favour, particularly when applied to language learning or scholastic contexts, since it describes a condition that is modified by several variables and which is rarely identical or fixed. A multilingual person can basically communicate in more than one language. More specifically, the terms bilingual and trilingual are used to describe comparable situations in which two or three languages are involved. Multilingual speakers have acquired and maintained at least one language during childhood, as we have seen, the 'L1'. The first language (or the mother tongue) is acquired without formal education, by mechanisms heavily disputed. Children acquiring two languages in this way are called 'simultaneous bilinguals'. Even in the case of simultaneous bilinguals one language usually dominates over the other. This kind of bilingualism is most likely to occur when a child is raised by bilingual parents in a predominantly monolingual environment. It can also occur when the parents are monolingual but have raised their child or children in different countries. Due to globalisation and the greater movement of people in the labour market, children may be bilingual before they go to school, thence to learn an additional tongue which becomes their vehicular, scholastic language. Teaching in such contexts, where English is the target language, is now referred to as EAL (English as an Additional Language). In linguistics, first language acquisition is closely related to the concept of a "native speaker". According to a view widely held by linguists, a native speaker of a given language has in some respects a level of skill which a second (or subsequent) language learner can never reliably accomplish.. This view is problematic, particularly as many non-native speakers successfully engage with and in their non-native language societies, but may become culturally and linguistically important contributors (as, for example, writers, politicians and performing artists) in their non-native language. In recent years, linguistic research has focused attention on the use of widely known world languages such as 'English as a Lingua Franca' (ELF) or the shared common language of professional and commercial communities. In lingua franca situations, most speakers of the common language are functionally multilingual. Despite controversy over whether early introduction to another language is either beneficial or necessary, the tendency seems to be in favour of starting young (Cenoz 2009).

Cummins' research (1984 & 2000) concluded that the development of competence in the native language serves as a foundation of proficiency that can be transposed to the second language - the common underlying proficiency hypothesis (often referred to as 'CUP'). His work sought to overcome the perception propagated in the 1960s that learning two languages made for two competing aims. The belief was that the two languages were mutually exclusive and that learning a second required unlearning elements and dynamics of the first in order to accommodate the second (Hakuta, 1990). The evidence for this perspective relied on the fact that some errors in acquiring the second language were related to the rules of the first language (Hakuta, 1990). Another new development that has influenced the linguistic argument for bilingual literacy is the length of time necessary to acquire the second language. While previously children were believed to have the ability to learn a language within a year, today researchers believe that within and across academic settings, the time span is nearer to five years (Collier, 1992; Ramirez, 1992). An interesting outcome of studies during the early 1990s however confirmed that students who do successfully complete bilingual instruction perform better academically (Collier, 1992; Ramirez, 1992, Cenoz 2009). These students exhibit more cognitive elasticity including a better ability to analyse abstract visual patterns. Students who receive bidirectional bilingual instruction where equal proficiency in both languages is required perform at an even higher level. These views have influenced the spread of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) which is itself an offshoot of immersion education, and have led to a re-think in how we structure the input of languages in the curriculum. In an integrated curriculum, languages are no longer 'over there' as a separate domain. If a student can define (for example) in one of his/her languages, then he/she can probably do it in another. There is no need to treat this is a separate skill either across languages or across other subjects. In short, the term 'Second Language Acquisition' seems to fall short when faced with the complexity and variety of multilingualism, as do the separate notions of 'acquisition' and 'learning'.

Reflective task 3.1. Say whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Justify your answers. 1. For successful learning of a foreign language, learners should be exposed to uncontrolled input. 2. There is a direct correlation between what students are taught and what they learn. 3. All learners learn English in a similar way.

4. The distinction between the notions of input and intake may be misleading. 5. In the interaction process students only learn each other's mistakes. 6. Errors should be avoided by all means and learners should be immediately corrected. 7. Motivation is perhaps the most important factor in the learning of a second language. 8. It is questionable whether formal instruction actually helps second language learning. 9. The learning of a second language is mainly a conscious process. 10. Students' interaction through the use of communicative activities is not at all effective as we are dealing with an artificial situation.

3.6. Suggestions for further reading

[1] Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Longman. London. [2] Lightbown, P. (2006). How languages are learned. (Oxford University Press). [3] Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

3.7. Web reading

[1] The influence of bilingualism on multilingual acquisition (Cenoz, J. 1997). Link to webpage: http://www.google.es/search?hl=en&q=multilingual+learners+cenoz&aq= f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5].

Chapter 4 Second Language Acquisition models: critical review 4.1. Introduction

In this chapter we will review the most important theories of SLA. We will mainly follow Ellis (1985, 1994). Two main approaches to theory building can be distinguished: a) the "theory-then-research" approach, and b) the "research-then-theory" approach The first could be called deductive since we move from the general to the particular, while the second would be inductive as we conduct the research first, and then formulate a particular theory. More specifically, the first approach (deductive) involves 5 stages: 1. Develop an explicit theory; 2. Derive a testable hypothesis from the theory; 3. Conduct research to test the prediction; 4. Modify (or abandon) the theory if the prediction is not fulfilled; and 5. Test a new prediction if the theory is confirmed. The second approach mentioned (inductive), however, includes only four stages: 1. Select a phenomenon for investigation; 2. Study its main features; 3. Collect data and look for systematic patterns; and 4. Formalise significant patterns as rules describing natural events. As mentioned above, no model to our knowledge has been able to provide a comprehensive account of the factors that influence language learning. Some of them will stress the importance of social factors, others will pay more attention to learner factors while still others will concentrate almost exclusively on linguistic issues. An overview of the most significant of these theories is presented in the pages that follow.

4.2. Main models or theories of SLA

As we said at the beginning of this subject, explaining the process of SLA is not an easy task and, in fact, none of the existing theories has been able to provide a full and exhaustive account of all the variables intervening in the language learning process. It will be impossible to deal in detail with each and every single one of the large number of the SLA models proposed. However, with the purpose of systematising this broad area, it is possible to identify four main SLA model areas. These four areas should not be regarded as completely distinctive since there is some degree of overlap between them. We will be looking briefly at each of the models listed below later in this chapter, and in doing so we will again mainly follow Ellis (1985, 1994, 2009). - Sociolinguistic models These give primary importance to the role of environment and to the attitudes of the learners to the target language community. Schumann's Acculturation theory together with Andersen's Nativisation, and Giles and Byrne's Accommodation models can be classified under this heading. - Linguistic models These focus specifically on the language being learned. Here we can include Hatch's Discourse Theory, Ellis' Variable Competence Model and Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar. - Cognitive Models These maintain that learners construct internal representations of the language being learned. One may think of these internal representations as 'mental pictures' of the target language. Krashen's Monitor Theory, Lamedendella's Neurofunctional system, Pienenann's Multidimensional System, McLaughlin's Information Processing Scheme and Rumellhart's and McClelland's Parallel Distributed Processing Model (1986) can be considered as cognitive in nature.

4.2.1. Sociolinguistic models

4.2.1.1. The acculturation model (Schumann 1978)

This model was devised with the sole aim of explaining language acquisition by L2 immigrants in second language environments. It specifically excluded those settings where learners received formal instruction. It was Schumann (1978) who first coined the term "acculturation", by which he meant the process of adapting to a new culture. In his view, "second language acquisition is just one aspect of acculturation" and there exists a perfect match between the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target language group and the degree to which s/he acquires the second language. Acculturation implies social and psychological distance between the learner and the target language culture. Social variables govern whether the learning situation is "good" or "bad". On the other hand, psychological factors are affective in nature and they include:

a) language shock, b) culture shock, c) motivation, and d) ego boundaries. Schumann also describes the kind of learning which takes place. According to him, the first stages of SLA are characterized by the same features and processes which are responsible for the formation of pidgin languages, that is, languages with very basic grammatical structures. Schumann refers to this as the pidginisation process. When pidginisation persists, learning fossilises, that is, learners do not make any progress in their learning.
4.2.1.2. The nativisation model (Andersen 1979)

Andersen puts together some of Schumann's principles as well as his own emphasis on the learner's internal processing mechanisms. According to this model, SLA is the result of two general factors: nativisation and denativisation. Nativisation consists of assimilation; learners make input conform to their own internalised view of what constitutes the L2 system. They simplify the learning task by testing hypotheses based on their knowledge of the world and of the L1. Nativization is apparent in pidginisation and the early stages of both first and second language acquisition. Denativisation involves accommodation; learners adjust their internalised system to suit input by the use of a series of inferencing strategies which enable them to remodel their interlanguage system in accordance with the "external norm". It is important to point out that both nativisation and acculturation models try to account for the fact that second language learners do not reach native-like competence in the L2 in the same way as L1 learners. Social and psychological distance are held to be responsible.
4.2.1.3. Accommodation theory (Giles and Byrne 1982)

This theory has much in common with Schumann's model. Giles and Byrne are concerned with successful language acquisition in multilingual environments. They believe that it is the way in which the learner's social group (the "ingroup") defines itself in relation to the target language community (termed the "outgroup") that is important for SLA. For Giles and Byrne the intergroup relationships are dynamic and fluctuate according to the shifting views of identity held by each group in relation to the other. According to Giles and Byrne, as for Gardner and Lambert (1972), motivation is the primary determinant of L2 proficiency. They consider motivation to be a reflex of how individual learners define themselves in ethnic terms. This is governed by a series of key variables:

A High motivation, high level of proficiency

B Low motivation, low level of proficiency Strong identification. Makes negative comparison, i.e. ingroup seen as inferior.

KEY VARIABLES

1. Identification with in-group.

Weak identification

2. Inter-ethnic comparison.

Makes favourable or no comparison, i.e. in-group not seen as inferior.

3. Perception of ethnolinguistic vitality (whether the learner sees his/her group as holding a low or high status and as sharing or excluded from institutional power). 4. Perception of in-group boundaries (whether the learner sees his/her in-group as culturally & linguistically separate from the out-group or as culturally and linguistically related). 5. Identification with other social categories (whether the learner identifies with few or several other in-group social categories (religious, gender) & as a consequence whether s/he holds an adequate or inadequate status within their ingroup).

Low perception.

High perception.

Soft and open.

Hard and closed.

Strong identification, satisfactory in-group status.

Weak identification, inadequate in-group status.

As with Schumann's theory, this model of SLA only applies to second language environments and does not account for the developmental sequence. Of particular interest is Giles and Byrne's attention to linguistic output which attempts to explain the differences found between learners' use of 'ingroup speech markers'. If learners are positively motivated towards the target community, ingroup speech markers are scarcely noticeable, while the opposite is true if learners are negatively motivated towards the outgroup.

4.2.2. Linguistic models

4.2.2.1. Discourse theory (Hatch 1978)

According to this view, language development should be considered in terms of how the learner discovers the meaning potential of language by participating in communication. This is similar to Halliday's view on FLA.

The main principles of this model can be described as follows: 1. SLA follows a "natural" route in syntactic development. 2. Native speakers adjust their speech in order to negotiate meaning with non-native speakers. This means that negotiation of input is a key factor in SLA. 3. The conversational strategies used to negotiate meaning, and the resulting adjusted input influence the rate and route of SLA in a number of ways: - the learner learns the grammar of the L2 in the same order as the frequency order of the various features in the input; - the learner acquires commonly occurring formulas and then later analyses these into their component parts; - the learner is helped to construct sentences vertically; vertical structures are the learner utterances which are constructed by borrowing chunks from the preceding discourse and then adding elements of the learner's own. - The natural route to SLA is the result of learning how to hold conversations. This theory has been strongly criticised by those theorists who believe that successful language learning can actually be achieved without negotiation of input, as for example by self and independent study. As with the previous models, learner's cognitive processes are not considered.
4.2.2.2. The variable competence model (Ellis 1984; Tarone 1983; Widdowson 1979; Bialystok 1978)

This model is based on two main distinctions: a) The first refers to the process of language use, and b) The second is related to the product. This theory claims that the way a language is learned is really a reflection of the way it is used. The product of language is said to comprise a continuum of discourse types ranging from entirely unplanned (spontaneous, lacks preparation) to entirely planned (carefully thought out). The process of language is understood in terms of the distinction between the linguistic knowledge of rules (theoretical knowledge) and the ability to make use of this knowledge or procedures (procedural knowledge). Language users make the knowledge of linguistic rules work according to both the situational and the linguistic context. They actualise their abstract knowledge of sentences to create utterances in discourse. From this we gather that the product of language use is the result of either or both of the following:

- a variable competence, i.e. a heterogeneous rule system available to the learner. - variable application of procedures for actualising knowledge in discourse. Broadly speaking, the main features of this model can be summarised as follows: - There is a single knowledge store containing variable interlanguage rules according to how automatic and how analysed the rules are. - The learner possesses a capacity for language use which consists of primary and secondary discourse and cognitive processes. - L2 performance is variable as a result of whether primary processes employing analysed L2 rules are utilised in unplanned discourse, or secondary processes employing analysed L2 rules are used in planned discourse. - Development, that is, progress in language learning occurs as a result of - acquisition of new L2 rules through participation in various types of discourse, that is, new rules arise in the application of procedural knowledge; - activation of L2 rules which initially exist in either a non-automatic analysed form or in an automatic analysed form so that they can be used in unplanned discourse.
4.2.2.3. The universal hypothesis (Chomsky 1976, 1986)

The fundamental hypothesis in this model is that all languages have certain basic structures in common - these are called universals. The study of linguistic universals has contributed to explanations of SLA in two ways. First, it has been proposed that the linguistic properties of the Target Language (TL), that is, the language to be learned, may vary according to the degree of effort needed to acquire them; furthermore, the complexity of these language features is in its turn determined by their condition as universal, that is, common to all languages, or as language-specific. This means that those properties of the TL which are common to many or all languages are easy to learn in comparison to those properties that are found in few languages, or only in the target language. Second, linguistic universals can be used to predict which differences lead to difficulty and which ones do not. Thus, the study of linguistic universals has led to a reconsideration of transfer theory. Chomsky maintained that by studying a single language in depth, it would be possible to discover the highly abstract principles of grammar that constrain the form of any specific grammar. These principles are known as Universal Grammar (UG). Greenberg (1966) and Comrie (1984), following a similar direction to that of Chomsky's, tried to identify universals by examining a wide range of different languages with the purpose of discovering the features in common. They refer to these as typological universals.

UG is said to innate. It can be defined as the set of principles which apply to all languages and is composed of two types of universals: - substantive, which include distinctive phonetic features of which sounds are made, and syntactic categories such as noun, verb, subject, object. - formal, which are statements about what grammatical rules are possible. These universals are more abstract than the previous ones. Universals constitute constraints on the kind of grammar that a child can develop. Thus it has been claimed that it is impossible for a child acquiring the L1 to produce utterances which contravene UG - these 'impossible' utterances are known as "wild grammars" (Goodluck 1986). However, the mere presence of UG alone is not enough to explain how children achieve the complex task of FLA. As well as having the innate capacity of UG- a special 'language faculty'- children need input data in order to set the parameters of UG as it relates to their specific L1. Furthermore, the grammar of a language contains two parts: core and periphery. Core grammar is equivalent to the rules that the child discovers with the help of UG. Periphery grammar corresponds to the elements which are not constrained by UG. Core rules are unmarked since they accord with the general tendencies of language; in contrast, periphery rules are marked since they are exceptional in some way.
4.2.2.4. Swain's Output thesis

Along similar lines to Hatch's ideas, Merrill Swain's work brought about one of the great unresolved controversies in the field of Applied Linguistics, largely due to its apparent rejection of Krashen's main thesis. The Comprehensible Output thesis, developed by Swain, states that learning takes place when encountering a 'gap' in the linguistic knowledge of the L2. By noticing this gap the learner becomes aware of it and might be able to modify his output so that he learns something new about the language. Although Swain does not claim that comprehensible output is solely responsible for all or even most language acquisition, she does claim that under some conditions, CO facilitates second language learning in ways that differ from and enhance input due to the mental processes connected with the production of language. This hypothesis is closely related to the 'Noticing Hypothesis' (Schmidt 1990). Swain defines three functions of output: 1. The Noticing function: Learners encounter gaps between what they want to say and what they are able to say and so they notice what they do not know or only know partially in this language. 2. The Hypothesis-testing function: When a learner says something in the target language there is always a hypothesis behind the utterance e.g. about grammar. By uttering something, the learner tests a hypothesis and receives feedback from an interlocutor. This feedback enables him, if necessary, to reprocess his hypothesis. 3. The Metalinguistic function: Learners reflect on the language they learn and hereby the output enables them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge.

4.2.3. Cognitive models

4.2.3.1. The monitor model (Krashen 1981, 1982, 1985)

Once considered to be the most comprehensive of SLA theories, this consisted of 5 main hypotheses. 1. The Acquisition / Learning Hypothesis "Acquisition" occurs subconsciously as a result of participating in natural communication where the focus is on meaning. In contrast, "learning" occurs as a result of the conscious study of the formal properties of language. In storage, "acquired knowledge" is located in the left hemisphere of the brain in the language areas. "Learned" knowledge is metalinguistic in nature and it is also stored in the left hemisphere but not necessarily in the language areas; it is available for controlled processing (monitor). 2. The Natural Order Hypothesis Learners may follow a more or less invariant order in the acquisition of formal grammatical features. Grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable order. 3. The Monitor Hypothesis Learners edit their language performance by means of an internal Monitor which uses "learned" knowledge to do so. This can occur before or after the utterance is made, but not at the same moment. Krashen gives three conditions for the use of the Monitor: a) sufficient time; b) the focus must be on form and not on meaning; and c) the user must know the rule. 4. The Input Hypothesis "Acquisition" will take place only when the input the learner is exposed to is comprehensible. Comprehensible input is input which is a little beyond the current level of the learner's competence, which Krashen denominates i + 1. 5. The Affective Filter Hypothesis This hypothesis accounts for the role of affective factors in SLA. Krashen incorporates the Affective Filter formulated some years before by Dulay and Burt. The filter controls how much input the learner comes in contact with and how much of that input is transformed into intake. This means that learners with high motivation and self-confidence have low filters and obtain a great amount of input, whereas learners with low motivation and little self-confidence have

high filters and so receive little input. The Affective Filter influences the rate of development, but not the route of development. Apart from these five hypotheses just described, Krashen referred to other variables in SLA. - Aptitude relates only to learning while attitude is related to acquisition. - The first language does not interfere with SLA. On the contrary, the first language may be an asset and may be used as a performance strategy. - Krashen claims that "acquisition" follows a natural route. Thus there is no individual variation in the acquisition process itself. However, there is variation in the rate and the extent of acquisition as a result of the amount of comprehensible input received, and the strength of the Affective Filter. - Age influences SLA in several different ways. It affects the amount of comprehensible input that is obtained; younger learners may get more than older ones. Age also affects "learning" as older learners are better suited to studying language form and also to using "learned" knowledge in monitoring. Thirdly, age influences the affective state of the learner; after puberty the Affective Filter is likely to increase in strength. Finally, we should add that although Krashen's Monitor Model was important in its day, many of its basic tenets have since been questioned, especially the controversial distinction between acquisition and learning. Few SLA researchers today accept the distinction. Reading 4.1. gives an overview of Krashen's Monitor Model within the wider context of cognitive versus behaviourist views of language learning, thus pulling together information from this and the previous chapter. Reflective task 4.1. Why was Krashen's distinction between learning and acquisition controversial? Try to write a short paragraph which summarises the problems.
4.2.3.2. Mc Laughlin's Information Processing Model (Mclaughlin 1978, 1990)

McLaughlin draws heavily on information processing research in cognitive psychology. According to him, learners are only able to process part of the input they receive. In order to compensate for this, learners acquire certain skills through routinisation which helps them to lessen the burden on their information-processing capacity. Restructuring is also a central notion in McLaughlin's model. Through restructuring learners are able to expand their information-processing capacity and to introduce important changes into their interlanguage. These changes can be of two different types: - They may affect the way knowledge is represented in the mind.

- They may condition the strategies used by learners. McLaughlin insists on the idea that practice is important for restructuring although he is not specific on the details of how this happens. Nevertheless, one of the important contributions of this theory, according to Ellis (1994), is the reconciliation of implicit and explicit learning.
4.2.3.3. The multidimensional model and processing operations (Clahsen, Meisel, and Pienenmann, 1983)

This was developed by a group of researchers working on a project conducted in the 1970s known as ZISA - Zweitsprachrwerb Italienischer und Spanisher Arbeiter. A combination of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies was used and most of the results obtained were based on the exhaustive analysis of learner language. The main principles of this theory can be summarised as follows: - Learners go through several developmental stages in their learning of the second language. This can be extended to the field of Morphology. - Learners show individual variation both in their learning development and in their use of rules. - Developmental sequences or stages represent the systematic way in which learners overcome processing difficulties. - Individual learner variation is the product of the learner's approach to the learning task. Socio-psychological factors may play an important role in this respect. - Formal instruction will be effective if learners are really prepared for it, that is, if they have full command of the processing operations associated with the previous stage of acquisition. This model is organised around two main independent axes: a variational and a developmental one. The former reflects the stage of learning where the learner is while the latter shows the nature of the learner's interlanguage. Furthermore, Clahsen (1984), using German as a reference-point, distinguishes three language processing strategies in the learner's production of a particular word order rule. These three strategies are hierarchical, that is, the first cannot occur until the second is evident, and the latter cannot be used until the third and last one has been accessed. These can be described as follows: - Canonical Order Structure (COS) No changes from the prototypical word-order in the target language are detected. - Initialisation/Finalisation Strategy (IFS) Movements of the initial element to the end and vice versa are only found. In contrast, no changes within the internal structure occur. - Subordinate Clause Strategy (SCS)

Alterations are not identified within the structure of the subordinate clause but they are observed within the elements of the main clause. In a similar study, Johnston (1986) classified the processing operations for six different stages of learner's development. On this occasion, the results were based on a group of L2 learners of English in Australia. In stage one of Johnson's system, we observe that in this first stage learners have no knowledge of syntactic categories (formal grammar) as such, and formulas and chunks are used in utterances. However, by stage six in the learning process learners are able to move elements and to apply them to new structures. The previous theory, although extremely comprehensive, has been strongly criticised on the basis of two main issues: - It is quite difficult at times to draw a dividing line between developmental and variational features. - Attention is almost exclusively paid to learner production and very little is said about the role of the input, the learner's assimilation of that input and the mechanisms used to process it and to comprehend grammatical structures.
4.2.3.4. A neurofunctional theory (Lamendella, 1979)

This theory draws on neurolinguistic rather than on psycholinguistic research. The main feature of this model is that there is a close connection between language function and the actual anatomy of the brain. The neurofunctional explanation of SLA has considered the contribution of two areas of the brain: - the right as opposed to the left hemisphere; - those areas of the left hemisphere which clinical studies have shown to be closely associated with the comprehension and production of language. Neurofunctional accounts have focused on specific aspects of SLA: - age differences, - formulaic speech (the learning of chunks or ready-made structures), - fossilisation, and - pattern practice in the second language classroom. Right hemisphere processing is associated with holistic processing, as opposed to serial or analytic processing, which occurs in the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere may then be responsible for the storing and processing of formulaic speech. The right hemisphere may also be connected with pattern practice in the second language classroom.

The left hemisphere is related to the creative use of language, including syntactic and semantic processing, and the motor operations involved in the production of speech and writing. Lamendella has tried to formulate a comprehensive theory based on neurofunctional factors by making a distinction between Primary Language Acquisition and Secondary Language Acquisition. The second includes both foreign language learning and second language learning. Linked to these two types of language acquisition are different neurofunctional systems, each of which consists of a hierarchy of functions. Each system has a different overall role in information processing. Two systems are particularly important: - The communication hierarchy. This has responsibility for language and other forms of interpersonal communication. - The cognitive hierarchy. This controls a variety of cognitive information processing activities that are also part of language use. In this respect foreign language acquisition is marked by the use of the cognitive hierarchy. Lamendella concludes that SLA can be explained neurofunctionally with reference to (i) which neurofunctional system is used- the communicative or the cognitive- and (ii) which level within the chosen neurofunctional system is engaged.
4.2.3.5. Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) (Rumelhart, McClelland and the PDP Research Group 1986)

The principles and assumptions of this approach to SLA were mainly of a psychological nature and were based on several computer models that simulate language learning. In this respect it differed from previous theories which combined linguistic, sociological, neurological and some times psychological perspectives. The attention to this model was stimulated by recent research conducted by Rummelhart, McClelland and their associates. Their conception of 'knowledge' was quite innovatory since they believed that it is activated by the connections existing between different units that are stored in our brain. One unit activates other units in parallel and simultaneously on different levels rather than serially. The nature of these units may vary quite a lot. In some cases they may consist of hypotheses about the category and syntactic roles of words in a sentence while in others they may be equivalent to concrete actions. Independently of their character, they form a network of relationships which can be compared to the neural structure of the human brain. The role of input was also essential within this approach since it is the element that puts the different units into operation and facilitates the connections between them. In computer simulations the input in the form of selected sets of data is fed into the computers. Learning is regarded as a gradual process involving a series of stages. Furthermore, the innate nature of language learning is seriously questioned by this theory since acquisition may be highly conditioned by environmental factors. Finally, the proponents of this model maintained that the role of rules is rather secondary since computer models do not necessarily work according to them.

4.3. Readings
[1] READING 4.1: Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1993). Theories of second language learning. Chapter 2 in How Languages Are Learned. Oxford University Press.

4.4. Suggestions for further reading

[1] Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [2] Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [3] Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Longman. London. [4] McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning. Arnold. London. [5] White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge. University Press.

4.5. Web reading

[1] Article which discusses the Lexical Approach, and input v intake. Link to webpage: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/lexical-approach-2-what-doeslexical-approach-look [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [2] Chomsky's Universal Grammar hypothesis - summarised. Link to webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5].

Glossary
Acculturation Model/Modelo de Aculturacin Theory of SLA acquisition developed by Schumann. It considers L2 acquisition as a form of acculturation. Acculturation means the process of adapting to the new culture with the corresponding changes in the learners' attitudes to their own cultural values. Affective filter/Filtro afectivo Term used by Krashen to show the importance of affective factors in SLA. The filter controls how much input the learner comes in contact with and how much of that input is transformed into intake. This means that high-motivated and selfconfident learners have low filters and obtain a great amount of input, whereas low-motivated learners have high filters and so receive little input. The Affective Filter influences the rate of development, but not the route of development. Affective state/Estado afectivo The student's affective state is conditioned by a series of factors such as anxiety, motivation, attitudes, motivation, the desire to compete. This will directly condition the rate of L2 acquisition and academic achievement. Acquisition/Adquisicin Notion used by Krashen to refer to the unconscious, spontaneous and natural process of language assimilation and internalisation where the learner's attention is focused on meaning rather than on form. It contrasts with learning. Behaviourist Learning Theory/Teora Conductista de Aprendizaje This is a general learning theory as it applies to all kinds of learning. It is based on the idea that learning is acquired by the formation of habits. The learner receives stimuli which lead to responses; these, in their turn, are reinforced by rewards or corrected. Behaviourism emphasises the importance of environmental factors in the learning process as opposed to cognitivism, which pays special attention to mental and internal factors. Caretaker talk/Habla dirigida a los nios This refers to the language used by adults when addressing young children. This is characterised by a series of modifications or adaptations to make it easier for the children to understand. The modifications can be formal (the use of higher pitch, clearer pronunciation, slow pace) or/and interactional (the use of explanations, repetitions, examples, clarifications, etc.).

Contrastive Analysis/Anlisis Contrastivo Set of procedures for comparing and contrasting the linguistic system of two languages with the aim of identifying main similarities and differences. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis/ Hiptesis del Anlisis Contrastivo According to this hypothesis, errors in the L2 arise as the result of the differences existing between the learner's L1 and L2. Creole/Lengua criolla This is a pidgin language that has become the native language of a group of speakers. Broadly speaking, a creole is more linguistically complex than a pidgin. An example of an English-based creole is Jamaican creole. Developmental sequence/Secuencia de desarrollo SLA research has shown that the L2 learner goes through a series of stages in their learning: negatives, interrogatives, ing-forms, possessive, copula be, etc. Apparently, this sequence seems to be universal for all learners independent of their language background and it is not affected by their L1. EFL/ILE (Ingls como Lengua Extranjera) Abbreviation for English as a Foreign Language. ELF English as a Lingua Franca. Error/Error This is any deviation in learner language which has its origin in the lack of knowledge of the correct rule. A distinction is generally made between error and mistake. While the former is systematic, the latter is produced by factors such as lack of attention, tiredness, negligence and so on. Error analysis/Anlisis de errores Study and analysis of the errors made by learners with the aim of identifying, describing and explaining them in learner language. Error Analysis was specially developed in the 1960s and tried to show that many of the errors made by learners could not only be explained as a simple interference of their L1 since they reflected universal learning strategies. ESL/ISL (Ingls como Segunda Lengua) Abbreviation for English as a Second Language.

FLA/APL (Adquisicin de la Primera Lengua) Abbreviation for First Language Acquisition. It refers to the learning of the first language or mother tongue. Formal instruction/ Enseanza formal Formal instruction constraints with natural learning. It involves some attempt to focus learner's attention on specific aspects of the L2 so that they will learn them. Several types of formal instruction can be distinguished. The most common approaches are inductive (the leaner is given language input and is encouraged to come up with the rule) and deductive (full information is provided to the learner about a rule or item). Fossilisation/ Fosilizacin When learners fail to reach target-language competence, it is said that they fossilize because they do not make any progress in their learning. It is quite common that in the learning of a second language, certain pronunciation features, use of vocabulary and even grammar fossilize. It reflects the operation of several internal processes. Individual learner Aprendizaje (DIA) differences (IDs)/Diferencias Individuales de

Although there is a series of factors that are common to all learners, there are others that are individual to the learner, such as age, intelligence, affective factors, cognitive style, learning strategies, personality, aptitude, etc. Input/ Aducto o Entrada de datos Language information or data the learner is exposed and has access to. The learner may receive input from different sources (the teacher, textbook, readers, audio and video tapes, other students in the class, satellite TV) and it may adopt written or oral forms. It contrasts with output, that is, the language that is produced by the individual. Input Hypothesis/ Hiptesis del Aducto o Hiptesis de la Entrada de Datos This is one of the five hypotheses of Krashen's Monitor Model. According to this, acquisition will take place only when the input he learner is exposed to is a little beyond the current level of his competence, i.e. the i+ 1 level. Interaction/Interaccin Interaction consists of the discourse jointly constructed by the learner and the interlocutor in the classroom or outside the classroom.

Interactionist Learning Theory/Teora de Aprendizaje Interaccionista Learning theory that combines the contributions of the linguistic environment and the learner's internal mechanisms in explaining language acquisition. Interference/Interferencia According to behaviourist learning theory, most of the errors or deviation made by learners in their study of the second language are due to the negative influence of those aspects of the L1 which are different from the L2. Thus a Spanish learner of English may say "To me like(s) football" because in Spanish one says "A m me gusta el ftbol". Interlanguage/Interlengua Term coined by Selinker to refer to the systematic knowledge of the L2 which is independent of the learner's L1 and the target language. This construct is at present used with three different senses: (a) series of interlocking systems which characterise acquisition, (b) the system that is observed at a single stage of development, (c) a particular L1/L2 combination (for instance, Spanish/English, French/English). Language Acquisition Device (LAD)/Dispositivo de Adquisicin del Lenguaje (DAL) According to Chomsky, we are born with a built-in device of some kind that predisposes us to language acquisition, that is, to a systematic perception of language around us, resulting in the construction of an internalized system of language. Language transfer/Transferencia lingstica According to Odlin, language transfer is the influence that results from the similarities and differences existing between the L1 and the target language. This can be negative (interference) or positive (the similarity of certain features between the L1 and L2 facilitates second language learning). Learning/Aprendizaje According to Krashen, this constraints with acquisition and refers to the development of conscious knowledge of an L2 through conscious effort and formal study. Linguistic universals/Universales lingsticos According to Chomsky, there exist a series of features that are common to all or most world languages, e.g. negation can be regarded as a linguistic universal since in all languages there are ways and means of expressing negative forms.

L1/L1 (Lengua 1) Abbreviation for first language or mother tongue. L2/L2 (Lengua 2) Abbreviation for second language. Mentalist theories of language learning/Teoras mentalistas de aprendizaje Language learning theories that emphasise the importance of the learner's innate mental capacities for acquiring a language. According to this theory, in their minds learners possess a series of principles that are activated by means of the input they are exposed to. Monitor/Monitor Learner's capacity to control their own learning. At times learners self-correct when they realize that they have made a mistake. This Monitor (with a capital 'M') gives its name to Krashen's learning theory and it refers to the ways used by learners to edit linguistic forms produced by means of 'acquired' knowledge. Morpheme studies/Estudios de morfemas Acquisition research in the 1970's concentrated on the order of acquisition of a series of grammatical units or morphological features which were not restricted to English but also to other languages such as Spanish and German. Their main purpose was to identify an order of acquisition for the different languages in both a first and a second language situation. These studies are known in the second language field as the morpheme studies. Negotiation of meaning/Negociacin de significado In the communication process both speaker and interlocutor are forced to introduce comprehension checks, clarifications, paraphrases to solve possible problems of understanding and breakdown. According to the interactionalist learning theory, negotiation of meaning is indispensable for learning to take place. Over-generalization/Sobregeneralizacin L1 and L2 learners tend to apply a particular rule to cases in which this rule does not apply, e.g. the use of conduc in Spanish instead of conduje, or in English bringed instead of the irregular form brought. Proficiency/Competencia en el uso de la lengua This refers to the student's skill in the use of the language as regards their command and understanding of the written and spoken language. It contrasts

with the term 'competence' which denotes the learner's theoretical and passive knowledge of the target language. Protocol/Protocolo Protocols are very commonly used for the investigation of language learning strategies and they usually consist of the subjects' reflection upon one area or factor of their language learning. In many cases these thoughts are recorded by means of audio or video cassettes so that they can be studied in more detail. Reference group/Grupo de referencia This generally represents the target language group with which learners wish to identify in natural L2 settings. Self-report/Autoinforme Teachers or learners reflect upon their learning or teaching, and write their views on a report form. Self-reports are commonly used as research and selfassessment instruments. Silent period/Perodo de silencio All learners and children, in particular, may go through a period during which they do not try to say anything in the L2 although they may be internalizing the new language by listening to others speak it. SLA/ASL (Adquisicin de una Segunda Lengua) Abbreviation for Second Language Acquisition which generally includes both second and foreign language learning. Speech Accommodation Theory/Teora de Adaptacin del Discurso This is a social-psychological model of language use proposed by Giles to account for the dynamic nature of variation within the course of conversation. Speakers may converge, that is, they may try to adapt their speech to that of the addressee, or they may diverge by doing just the opposite, making their speech different from the style of their interlocutor. The speakers' attitudes towards their audience determine and condition speech accommodation. Teacher talk/Habla del profesor This refers to the type of language used by teachers in the classroom. This is characterised by a series of simplifications and adaptations to the learners' language level to ensure mutual understanding. TEFL/EILE (Enseanza del Ingls como Lengua Extranjera)

Abbreviation for Teaching of English as a Foreign Language, more commonly used in the UK. TESOL/EIHOL (Enseanza del Ingls a Hablantes de Otras Lenguas) Abbreviation for Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages, more commonly used in the USA. TESL/EISL (Enseanza del Ingls como Segunda Lengua) Abbreviation for the Teaching of English as a Second Language. Universal Grammar (UG)/Gramtica Universal (GU) Theory that tries to account for the L1 grammatical competence of all adults, independent of their mother tongue. According to this, all speakers possess knowledge of a set of principles that govern all languages as well as a series of parameters that may vary across languages, but always within certain limits. This theory was proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s and has been more recently redefined in his Model of Government and Binding. Variable Competence Model/Modelo de Competencia Variable This theory claims that the way a language is learned is really a reflection of the way it is used, and it tries to account for the variability found in the learner's language. For further terminological and conceptual information, the following references may be consulted: [1] Alcaraz Var, E. and Martnez Linares, M. A. (1997). Diccionario de lingstica moderna. Ariel. Barcelona. [2] Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Longman. London. (There is a recent Spanish translation of this dictionary in Ariel, by Carmen Muoz and Carmen Prez Vidal). [3] Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. (Glossary, pp. 692-729).

Bibliography
[1] Andersen, R. (1979). Expanding Schumann's Pidginisation Hypothesis. Language Learning 29: 105-19. [2] Andersen, R. (1984). Second Language: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Newbury House. Rowley, Mass. [3] Bialystok, E. (1978). A Theoretical Model of Second Language Learning. Language Learning 28: 69-84. [4] Bialystok, E. (1982). On the Relationship between Knowing and Using Forms. Applied Linguistics 3: 181-206. [5] Brown, H., C. Yorio, & R. Crymes. (1977) (eds.). On TESOL '77. TESOL. Washington D.C. [6] Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: the Early Stages. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass. [7] Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [8] Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Verbal Behaviour by B.F. Skinner. Language 35: 26-58. [9] Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on Language. Temple Smith. London. [10] Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger. New York. [11] Clahsen, H. (1984). The Acquisition of German Word-Order: A Test Case for Cognitive Approaches to L2 Development in Andersen (ed.). [12] Clahsen, H., J. Meisel & M. Pienemann. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: der Spracherwerb auslndischer Arbeiter. Gunter Narr: Tbingen. [13] Clark, H. & E. Clark. (1977). Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. New York. [14] Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. Oxford University Press USA. [15] Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncractic Dialects and Error Analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9: 149-59. [16] Crystal, D. (1991). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Basil Blackwell. Oxford. (3rd. ed.).

[17] De Bot, et al. (2006). Second Language Acquisition. An Advanced Resource Book. Routledge Applied Linguistics. [18] De Saussure, F. (1959). Course in General Linguistics. C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (Eds.) Philosophical Library. [19] De Villiers, J. & P. De Villiers. (1973). A Cross-sectional Study of the Development of Grammatical Morphemes in Child Speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1: 299-310. [20] Doughty C. & Long M. (2005). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Wiley-Blackwell. [21] Dulay, H. & M. Burt. (1973). Should We Teach Children Syntax? Language Learning 23: 245-58. [22] Dulay, H., M. Burt & S. Krashen. (1982). Language Two. Oxford University Press. New York. [23] Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom Second Language Development. Pergamon. Oxford. [24] Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [25] Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [26] Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [27] Ellis, R. et al. (2009). Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (Second Language Acquisition). Multilingual Matters. [28] Gardner, R. & W. Lambert. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Newbury House. Rowley, Mass. [29] Gass, S. (2008). Second Language Acquisition, An Introductory Course. Routledge. [30] Giles, H. & J. Byrne. (1982). An Intergroup Approach to Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Multicultural and Multilingual Development 3: 17-40. [31] Gingras, R. (ed.) (1978). Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Center for Applied Linguistics. Arlington, VA. [32] Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold. London. (2nd ed.).

[33] Hatch, E. (ed.) (1978). Second Language Acquisition. Newbury House. Rowley, Mass. [34] Hudson, R. (1981). Sociolinguistics. Penguin. London. [35] Johnston, M. (1986). Second Language Acquisition Research in the Adult Migrant Education Program in Johnston & Pienenmann. [36] Johnston, M. & M. Pienenmann. (1986). Second Language Acquisition: A Classroom Perspective. New South Wales Migrant Education Service. [37] Klima, E. & V. Bellugi. (1966). Syntactic Regularities in the Speech of Children in Lyons and Wales (eds.) 1990. [38] Krashen, S. (1977). Some Issues Relating to the Monitor Model in H. Brown et al. (eds.) 1977. [39] Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Pergamon. Oxford. [40] Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon. Oxford. [41] Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman. London. [42] Krashen, S., Butler, J., Birnbaum, R., & Robertson, J. (1978). Two Studies in Language Acquisition and Language Learning. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 39/40: 73-92. [43] Lamendella, J. T. (1979). Neurolinguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 373-91. [44] Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An Explanation for the Morpheme Acquisition Order of Second Language Learners. In Language Learning 26: 125-34. [45] Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1993 & 2006). How languages are learned. (Oxford University Press). [46] Lyons, J. & Wales, R. (eds.). (1979). Psycholinguistic Papers. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. [47] McDonough, S. H. (1981). Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. Allen and Unwin. London. [48] McLaughlin, B. (1978). Second Language Acquisition in Childhood. Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, N. J. [49] McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11: 113-28.

[50] Mitchell, R. (2004). Second language learning theories. Hodder Arnold. [51] Nemser, W. (1971). Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics 9: 115-23. [52] Newmark, L. (1966). How not to Interfere in Language Learning. International Journal of American Linguistics 32: 77-87. [53] Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. (Hodder). [54] Pica, T., Young, R. & Doughty, C. (1987). The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 21: 737-59. [55] Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. (Harper Collins). [56] Rumellhart, D., McClelland, J. & THE PDP RESEARCH GROUP (eds.) (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructures of Cognition, Vol 2. Psychological and Biological Models. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass. [57] Saville-Troike, M. (2005). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. [58] Schumann, J. (1978). The Acculturation Model for Second Language Acquisition in Gingras (ed.). [59] Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-31. [60] Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the Second Language Learner. Applied Linguistics 2: 159-69. [61] Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. Arnold. London. [62] Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal Behaviour. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York. [63] Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [64] Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching Languages: a Way and Ways. Newbury House. Rowley, Mass. [65] Tarone, E. (1983). On the Variability of Interlanguage Systems. Applied Linguistics 4: 143-63. [66] Van Patten, B. & Benati, A. (2010). Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. Continuum.

[67] Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [68] Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Oxford. [69] Yule, G. (1985). The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press. Webography [1] Acquisition and Learning - a discussion. Link to webpage: http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLecture s/L5_Acquisition_Learning.htm [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [2] Article which discusses the Lexical Approach, and input v intake. Link to webpage: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/lexicalapproach-2-what-does-lexical-approach-look [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [3] Brief discussion of new trends in Applied Linguitics. Link to webpage: http://www.tlumaczenia-angielski.info/linguistics/appliedlinguistics.htm [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [4] Chomsky's 'Principles and parameters - his replacement of the 'LAD'. Link to webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_and_parameters [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [5] Discusses Cummin's ideas, particularly CUPs. Link to webpage: http://www.azusausd.k12.ca.us/bilingual/CLAD1Concepts.htm [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [6] Discussion on Lightbown's questions from Page 7 ('Aim of the Subject'). Link to webpage: http://books.google.es/books?id=fv6YHmA0moEC&lpg=PA25&ots=qtdl3uZy3&dq=%22Affective%20states%20do%20not%20play%20an%20important%20r ole%20in%20L2%20learning%22&hl=en&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=%22Affectiv e%20states%20do%20not%20play%20an%20important%20role%20in%2[Read : August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [7] Excellent, easy to read breakdown of Pragmatics and its various branches. Link to webpage: http://www.teachit.co.uk/armoore/lang/pragmatics.htm#written [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [8] Good article on Cognitivism. Link to webpage: http://purwarno-linguistics.blogspot.com/2005/12/cognitiveapproach-mentalist-approach.html [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5].

[9] Krashen's famous lecture on input and acquisition (YouTube). Link to webpage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K11o19YNvk&feature=related [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5]. [10] Vivian Cook's quick and easy-to-read questioning of various L1 v L2 assumptions. Link to webpage: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/L1%20and%20L2.htm [Read: August 25, 2010, GMT-5].