6 Burning Questions about Second Language Acquisition, Answered

Q1: How and why is acquiring a second language unlike acquiring a first language?

Unravelling the complexities that underlie the phenomenon of acquiring a second language (L2) in contrast to a first language (L1) unveils remarkable distinctions that can be attributed to (1) the order of acquisition and (2) the implicit versus explicit learning strategies.

A critical factor distinguishing these linguistic journeys is the sequence in which learners grasp specific structures and linguistic forms. As proposed in the processability theory (Pienemann, 1998) L1 learners demonstrate striking consistency in the order of morphosyntactic development irrespective of their demographic or cultural backgrounds. This implies that certain universal processes dictate their ability to assemble essential elements of their native language (Saffran et al., 1996). Conversely, L2 acquisition entails a more variable progression wherein factors such as exposure, proficiency level, and target language typological proximity contribute actively to one's trajectory (Ortega, 2013).

Another vital aspect of divergence lies in the importance of implicit versus explicit learning. Implicit learning constitutes an integral component of L1 acquisition, where children absorb grammatical patterns and structural nuances unconsciously through natural and interactive contexts (R. Ellis, 2005; Reber, 1967). However, for L2 learners, expedited access to explicit instruction – such as formal language courses – greatly aids in mastery by facilitating a conscious understanding of grammar rules and fostering metalinguistic awareness (DeKeyser, 2003). While the debate around whether adult L2 learners can indeed rely solely on implicit learning remains unresolved (Hulstijn, 2005), it is evident that incorporating explicit learning strategies significantly enhances proficiency.

Word Count:237

Q2: To what extent can SLA be considered either an innate or emergent process?

A profound insight into the initial state of L2 learning reveals that one's existing L1 knowledge might shape their propensity to grasp subsequent languages (Cook, 2003). This could potentially refute the "innate hypothesis" – endorsers of which cite the existence of a universal grammar – but attests to the notion that SLA constitutes an emergent process partially reliant upon linguistic background.

Furthermore, the representation of language knowledge procured during SLA exceeds mere structural aspects and encompasses diverse features such as pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and discourse competence (Bachman, 1990; Canale & Swain, 1980). These manifold dimensions imply that SLA is not just an innate mechanism but a sophisticated interplay between various cerebral and external influences.

Moreover, factors such as frequency, salience, and contingency play pivotal roles in shaping SLA outcomes. Frequent exposure to linguistic forms refines comprehension (N. Ellis & Collins, 2009); salient features enhance awareness (Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001); and input-output contingencies foster connectivity between form and meaning (N. Ellis et al., 2015). Thus, these cross-disciplinary forces elucidate that SLA is an emergent process engendered through experience as much as instinct.

In conclusion, while the innateness of SLA remains contested amid theoretical discussions and empirical findings alike, understanding it as an emergent process can enlighten its multifaceted nature – one encompassing cognitive faculties while profoundly shaped by environmental variables.

Word Count: 213

Q3: What do you consider ‘ultimate attainment’ of SLA in terms of L2 development, and to what extent do you believe such attainment to be possible?

The notion of 'ultimate attainment' in SLA pertains to the optimal linguistic proficiency that learners can achieve in their target language. Examining this concept through the lenses of interlanguage and competence types enables a comprehensive understanding that deviates from stereotypical native speakerism – a perspective limiting L2 success to a replication of native-like abilities.

Instead, an elevated standpoint on ultimate attainment encompasses distinct competencies enveloping linguistic, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic skills (Celce-Murcia et al., 1995). This approach rejects the perpetual quest for native-like competence, opting for more context-sensitive goals, whether for academic or professional purposes.

Consequently, embracing the bilingual and multilingual spectrum allows for an enriched perspective on L2 development. Bilingual individuals attain a unique phonetic, grammatical, and communicative repertoire, displaying cross-linguistic distinctions (Grosjean, 1989).

Moreover, fossilisation – characterised by linguistic stagnation at a specific developmental stage – may not necessarily signify a failure to achieve ultimate attainment if it is reconceptualised within individuals' communicative needs (Han, 2004). Additionally, the role of L1 transfer plays a pertinent part in moulding interlanguage systems, affecting pronunciation and syntax during the L2 learning journey (Odlin, 2003).

Lastly, social variables, including motivation and identity negotiation, significantly influence one's potential for ultimate attainment (Norton, 2013). Formulating learner-centric goals tailored to personal aspirations can result in more vibrant and functionally pragmatic benchmarks.

In conclusion, transcending native speakerism ideals by considering broader competencies fosters a more inclusive conceptualisation of 'ultimate attainment,' thereby emphasising the importance of sociocultural facets shaping SLA.

Word Count: 239

Q4: To what extent is SLA a social rather than an individual process?

While the process of SLA intrinsically involves individual cognitive development, its entwined social dimensions warrant further exploration. By examining facets such as interactions, sociocultural views, and micro/macro-social factors, we can ascertain to what extent SLA transcends the confines of individual learning.

A pivotal element underscoring the sociability of SLA burgeons from the impact of interaction. Engaging in communicative exchanges fostered by diverse contexts allows learners to negotiate meaning, bridge contextual gaps, and actively hone their linguistic prowess (Long, 1996). Moreover, these exchanges facilitate scaffolding and tap into Vygotsky and Cole's (1978) conception of the zone of proximal development – a space where learners advance with collaborative guidance from more proficient interlocutors.

Sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives further accentuate SLA's social nature by shedding light on its embedment within a broader linguistic ecosystem. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) expound upon this dynamic interplay by advocating for language acquisition as a process inherently linked to cultural practices, norms, and associated identities.

Finally, both microsocial and macrosocial factors wield immeasurable influence over SLA trajectories. Microsocial forces include peer support, teacher-student rapport, and classroom ethos that nurture L2 development; conversely, macrosocial elements such as national language policies and global socio-political climates also contribute to shaping individuals' linguistic journeys (Talmy, 2011).

In summation, while individual cognitive faculties indisputably form the bedrock of second language acquisition, acknowledging the profound contributions of social aspects in tandem reinforces our understanding that SLA embodies an intricate balance between personal growth and collective participation.

Word Count: 241

Q5: To what extent do all L2 learners have the same experiences during the SLA process?

A holistic account of the SLA process demands a thorough recognition of the uniqueness inherent in each L2 learner's journey, as opposed to perceiving it as a uniform experience. With myriad learner-internal and learner-external factors shaping individual trajectories, the notion of uniformity becomes implausible.

Among the consequential learner-internal factors, learning styles and strategies uniquely determine how individuals process and organise linguistic information (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990). Building upon Gardner's (1985) theory of multiple intelligences, learners capitalise on their strengths – whether visual, auditory or kinesthetic – to optimise outcomes. Furthermore, variations in motivation, aptitude, and age significantly influence L2 progress (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Robinson, 2005; Singleton & Ryan, 2004). Gender too plays a role in SLA as social stereotypes and expectations affect participation and language use (Litosseliti & Sunderland, 2002). Finally, learners' first languages underlie cross-linguistic transfer, impacting phonology, syntax, and semantics during L2 development (Odlin, 2003).

In tandem with internal dynamics are crucial learner-external variables. The national and global status of L1 or L2 could sway attainment opportunities by affecting access to resources or the perceived value of mastering particular languages (Graddol, 2004). Additionally, learning circumstances – whether formally in classrooms or informally through exposure – mould unique experiences characterised by distinct pedagogical techniques and social interactions. Institutional forces may also exert influence through curricular objectives and administrative constraints (Nunan, 1999).

Ultimately, L2 learners' experiences during SLA are shaped by a confluence of fluctuating internal predispositions and external influences, debunking any notion of similarity across individual journeys.

Word Count: 245

Q6: To what extent is SLA a linear or dynamic process?

A complex interplay of factors, including learner-internal variables, dynamic systems, and external influences, illustrates the fluidity and multifaceted qualities of SLA. Evolving learner-internal variables critically shape this process. For instance, L2 motivation may fluctuate as proficiencies advance or situational demands vary (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Furthermore, age affects SLA with differing implications depending on cognitive maturation and life stages (Singleton & Ryan, 2004).

Such dynamic nature of SLA is illuminated by complex dynamic systems theory (CDST), asserting that it emerges from the interconnectedness of various components within a nonlinear framework (Freeman & Cameron, 2008). According to CDST, interlanguage development itself follows a tangled trajectory shaped by unpredictability and change rather than linearity (De Bot et al., 2007).

Also instrumental in accentuating SLA's dynamism is the impact of migration and technology. The global diaspora exposes individuals to diverse language communities, propelling emergent multilingualism (Vertovec, 2007). Likewise, advancements in digital technologies expand access to innovative communication platforms and facilitate professional mobility across linguistic landscapes (Blake, 2013).

Effects stemming from instruction and interaction are critical catalysts in this non-linear progression. Pedagogical variations enhance learning experiences with variable gains, ultimately conditioning learners' journeys (Spada & Lightbown, 1999). Lastly, the importance of variability or variance within SLA further exemplifies its dynamic essence as learners exhibit unique patterns of development influenced by factors including typological proximity and language learning objectives (Ortega, 2013).

Word Count: 226

References

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. OUP Oxford.

Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave New Digital Classroom: Technology and Foreign Language Learning, Second Edition. Georgetown University Press.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.5070/L462005216

Cook, V. (2003). Effects of the Second Language on the First. Multilingual Matters.

De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and Explicit Learning. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 312–348). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11

Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult Language Learning Styles and Strategies in an Intensive Training Setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/327627

Ellis, N., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and Second Language Acquisition: The Roles of Frequency, Form, and Function Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.x

Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., Römer, U., O’Donnell, M., & Wulff, S. (2015). Learner corpora and formulaic language in SLA. Cambridge University Press. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/139810

Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of a Second Language: A Psychometric Study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096

Freeman, D. L., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research Methodology on Language Development from a Complex Systems Perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Arnold.

Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “Natural Order of L2 Morpheme Acquisition” in English: A Meta-analysis of Multiple Determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147

Graddol, D. (2004). The Future of Language. Science, 303(5662), 1329–1331. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1096546

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5

Han, Z. (2004). Fossilization in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and Empirical Issues in the Study oof Implicit and Explicit Second-Language Learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050084

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2006. https://redined.educacion.gob.es/xmlui/handle/11162/64896

Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J. (2002). Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis. John Benjamins Publishing.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1571980075392115840

Norton, B. (2013). Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation. In Identity and Language Learning. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090563

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 7625 Empire Dr.

Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-Linguistic Influence. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 436–486). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch15

Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability theory. John Benjamins Publishing.

Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(6), 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80149-X

Robinson, P. (2005). Aptitude and Second Language Acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 46–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000036

Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926

Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Multilingual Matters.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Instruction, First Language Influence, and Developmental Readiness in Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00002

Talmy, P. A. D., Steven. (2011). Language Socialization Approaches to Second Language Acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.