4.

EXPLAINING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

1. Behaviourism (N. BROOKS, 1960; R. LADO, 1964)

a. development of audiolingual materials and teacher training.
b. 2nd language applications: mimicry and memorization (classroom activities)
i. Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): L1 structures will interfere with L2 (target
language) if both languages are similar BUT
ii. Unpredictable errors based on L1 (ungrammatical sentences if translated, production of
sentences which sound like a child’s), sometimes same characteristics as learners from
different L1.
iii. No transfer of correct L1 patterns until more is learned about L2
c. 1970s: seemed inadequate as innatism grew

2. Innatist perspective (universal grammar)

a. L. WHYTE (2003): UG best perspective to understand L2 acquisition
b. LEY- VROMAN (1983), SCHACHTER (1990): UG good framework for L1 acquisition, but not for L2
especially for learners who’ve passed the CP.
c. V. COOK (2003): learners eventually know more about L2 than what they are exposed to. UG still
applies to L2, or it’s been altered by L1 acquisition.
d. B. SCHWARTZ (1993) L2 acquisition based on availability of natural language in the learners’
environment (instruction and feedback don’t change the systematic knowledge of the language,
just the superficial appearance).
e. L. WHYTE (1991): learners need explicit info about what is not grammatical in L2 (equivalent
structures)
f. Grammaticality judgements to understand advanced L2 learners’ complex knowledge of grammar.
x
g. 2nd language applications: Monitor model (KRASHEN, 1982): influenced communicative language
teaching, including immersion and content-based instruction. Five hypotheses:
i. Acquisition-learning hypothesis: acquisition without conscious attention, learning through
conscious attention to form and rules.
ii. Monitor hypothesis: Acquired system used during spontaneous language use, learned
system monitors and edits.
iii. Natural order hypothesis (of predictable learning sequence): most noticeable features are
not necessarily the first to be acquired (3rd person sing -s).
iv. Comprehensible input hypothesis: exposure to i + 1 (level acquired + language a bit
beyond that)
v. Affective filter hypothesis: feelings and emotional states affect acquisition even when
input is available.

3. Congnitivist / developmental perspective:

a. Information processing model: the building up of knowledge that can eventually be called on
automatically. At first, learners have to pay attention to understand meaning, they spend more
time on each word. There is a limit to the amount of focused mental activity we can engage in at
one time. Practice involves production but also exposure to and comprehension of a language
feature.
o Skill learning (D. ANDERSON, R. DEKEYSER): L2 learning starts with declarative
knowledge (knowledge we are aware of having) and through practice is becomes
procedural knowledge (in classroom: from rule learning to practice). Thinking of
declarative knowledge while trying to perform the skill disrupts the performance of it
(bike, car)
o Restructuring (LIGHTBOWN, MCLAUGHIN): learner adjusts linguistic competence
without instruction. It might explain backsliding, when students get wrong what they
seemed to have already learned (-ed > seed, sawed; generalization in L1)
o Transfer appropriate processing (TAP): information is best retrieved in similar situations
to when it was acquired (BLAXTON, 1989) because we also record context (exercises in
tests easier than communicative situations, GATBONTON & SEGALOWITZ, 1988, 2005).
b. Usage- based learning; connectionism (environment): after hearing language features over and
over again, learners develop a stronger network of connections; eventually, the presence of one
situational or linguistic element will activate the other in the learner’s mind (subject verb
agreement). Language is learned in chunks rather than single words. Overgeneralization errors still
occur.
c. The competition model L2 acquisition requires that learners learn the relative importance of the
different cues appropriate in the language they’re learning (SVO in English, the box pushes the
boy)
d. 2nd language applications
i. The interaction hypothesis (HATCH, 1978, LONG 1996, PICA 1994, GASS 1997):
conversational interaction is an essential condition for L2 acquisition. Modified interaction
> comprehensible input > acquisition.
✓ Comprehension checks (do you understand?)
✓ Clarification requests, which lead to further modifications by native speaker
✓ Self-repetition or paraphrase by native speaker
• Importance of corrective feedback
• Comprehensible output hypothesis (SWAIN, 1985): production of comprehensible
output pushes learners ahead in their development.

ii. The noticing hypothesis (SCHMIDT, 1990, 2001): nothing is learned unless it’s been
noticed (essential starting point), maybe because it is different from expected or because
it fills a gap in their knowledge (GASS, 1988). Debate: is it necessary to be aware that they
are noticing something. [From connectionist perspective, it’s about the frequency with
which something is available for processing, not the learner’s awareness of something in
the input).

iii. Input processing (VANPATTEN, 2004) (la sigue el señor, pronoun object precedes the verb,
is it subject or object?, not word order). Learners have limited processing capacity, they
can’t pay attention to form and meaning at the same time, they prioritize meaning

iv. Processability theory (PIENEMANN 1999, 2003): learners don’t simply transfer features
from L1, they have to develop a certain level of processing capacity in L2 before they can
use their knowledge of the features that already exist in L1.
• Ease of processing depends largely on the position of features in a sentence
(beginning or end).
• Language features learned in specific sequence.

v. The role of practice (R. DEKEYSER, 1998): practice is effective if one practises the
behaviour that one wishes to learn.
• Practice converts declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge an then to
automatic performance (=fluency).
• Not mechanical practice, and not limited to production of language: listening
and reading are also essential.
• L. ORTEGA (2007):
✓ Practice should be interactive
✓ Practice should be meaningful
✓ There should be a focus on task-essential forms
• ACCESS (Automatization in Communicative Contexts of Essential Speech
Segments) by E. GATBONTON, N. SEGALOWITZ (1988, 2005) based on classroom
activities which require learners to use meaningful unit of language repeatedly in
contexts where there are genuine exchanges of meaning, to provide
opportunities for using these units frequently enough so that they become
automatic. Fluency frees more cognitive resources for learning new things

4. The sociocultural perspective: speaking and writing mediate thinking.

• Learning occurs when individual interacts with an interlocutor within their ZPD, situation in which
a learner can perform at a higher level because of the support (scaffolding) offered by an
interlocutor.
• VS KRASHEN’s i+1 (input from outside learner): Learners co-construct knowledge based on
interaction or private speech.
• VS VYGOTSKY’s (learning occurs through social interaction): knowledge is internalized during social
activity. People gain control of and reorganize their cognitive processes during mediation.
• Learning by talking (2nd language application): formerly, interaction included expert and novice.
Today, learner-learner interactions are included too.
o Collaborative dialogue (SWAIN, LAPKIN), where language use and learning can co-occur:
learners co-construct linguistic knowledge while engaging in production tasks.
Perspective Key Points Second Language Applications
- Development of audiolingual materials and teacher training.
- Focus on mimicry and memorization.
1. Behaviourism (N. Brooks, - Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): L1 structures interfere with - Classroom activities: mimicry and memorization.
1960; R. Lado, 1964) L2 if both languages are similar. - Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH): L1 interference in L2 learning.
Psychological perspective - Unpredictable errors based on L1. - Limited focus on transfer of correct L1 patterns.
- No transfer of correct L1 patterns until more L2 is learned.
- Decline in 1970s with rise of innatism.
- Monitor Model (Krashen, 1982): Influenced communicative language
teaching.
Five Hypotheses:
- Universal Grammar (UG) is key to understanding L2 acquisition.
1. Acquisition-learning hypothesis: unconscious acquisition vs
2. Innatist Perspective - UG applies to L2 but may be altered by L1.
conscious learning.
(Universal Grammar) - L2 acquisition based on natural language availability.
2. Monitor hypothesis: acquired system for spontaneous use.
Linguistic perspective - Learners need explicit info about non-grammatical L2 structures.
3. Natural order hypothesis: predictable sequence of acquisition.
- UG supports the structure of L2.
4. Input hypothesis: exposure to language slightly above current level.
5. Affective filter hypothesis: emotional state/motivation affects
acquisition.
- Interaction hypothesis (Hatch, 1978): conversational interaction is
essential.
- Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985): output pushes
- Focus on information processing and skill development. learners forward.
- Declarative knowledge (aware knowledge) becomes procedural - Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990): learners must notice language
3. Cognitive/Developmental
(automatic knowledge) through practice. to learn it.
Perspective
- Learners adjust linguistic competence without instruction - Input Processing (VanPatten, 2004): learners prioritize meaning over
Psychological perspective
(restructuring). form.
- Processing capacity limits and context matter in learning. - Processability Theory (Pienemann, 1999): learners need processing
capacity for L2 features.
- Practice (Dekeyser, 1998): practice leads to automatic performance
and fluency.
- Collaborative dialogue (Swain, Lapkin): learners co-construct
- Learning occurs through interaction within the Zone of Proximal
knowledge while performing tasks.
Development (ZPD).
4. Sociocultural Perspective - Learner-learner interactions are integral to language learning.
- Mediation and scaffolding by an interlocutor enhance learning.
- Social interaction helps reorganize cognitive processes during
- Knowledge is co-constructed through interaction or private speech.
mediation.