UNIVERSIDAD FASTA

FACULTAD DE CS. DE LA EDUCACIÓN

LICENCIATURA EN INGLÉS- CICLO DE LICENCIATURA

APPLIED LINGUISTICS
Unit 3
Second Language Acquisition
Section A

Silvia Morgavi
2021

1
Table of contents

Unit one
APPLIED LINGUISTICS

1.1 HISTORY

1.2 ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION

1.3 DICHOTOMIES RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINE

Unit two

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2.1 CDA: A DEFINITION

2.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF CDA

2.2.1 Macro vs. micro

2.2.2 Power as control

2.3 AREAS OF CDA

2.3.1 Gender
2.3.2 The media
2.3.3 Political discourse
2.3.4 Ethnicity

2.4 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

Unit three
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section A

2
 3.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

3.2 COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING – section B

3.2.1 Situational factors

3.2.2 Input

3.2.3 Learner differences

2.2.3.1 Personal factors
2.2.3.2 General factors

Unit four
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section B
4. COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING – section B

4.1. Learner processes

4.1.1 Other knowledge
4.1.2 Language processing
4.1.3 L2 knowledge

4.2. Output

Unit five
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section C

5.1 SLA APPROACHES

5.1.1 Cognition-oriented theories

5.1.1.1 Innatist theories
5.1.1.2 Cognitive theories

5.1.2 Context-oriented theories

5.2 FORMS OF INSTRUCTION

3
 5.2.1 Theoretical positions
5.2.2 Issues in formal instruction

5.3 TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ROLES

UNIT THREE
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - A

Second Language Acquisition is the branch of applied linguistics that looks into language learning
once the native language, or languages, have been acquired.

Before going deeper into the subject, some terms need to be clarified. As in most research in
the field, L2 refers to any language a learner learns after having incorporated his/her L1, no
matter how many languages he/she speaks. Also, no distinction is made in this module between
an L2 and a FL, the former acting as a cover term for a language learnt while living in the country
where the target language is spoken and for a language learnt where there is no contact with
the target language community. In cases where the distinction is necessary, it will be made. The
concepts of learning and acquisition are also taken as synonymous, unless a difference is
specified.

Finally, some words need to be said about the term language. In early SLA work, it usually meant
grammar and vocabulary, while in current work the distinction between knowledge and use is
important. Also, after the introduction of the concept of Communicative Competence, the
concept of language includes not only linguistic knowledge, but also discourse, pragmatic,
sociolinguistic and socio-cultural knowledge.

4
3.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

Interest in second language learning is not new. Although SLA began to gain standing as an
independent field during the 1970’s, work had been done in L2 learning via linguistics or first
language acquisition research (Cook 1993: 8). From that moment, SLA research has increased
dramatically, and has branched out into many subfields, each following its own theoretical
framework. Many researchers are still pedagogically motivated, while, on the other hand, much
research has departed from practical purposes and has become highly theoretical. Again, it is
impossible and purposeless to draw clear lines between these two extremes, because, as
Littlewood (2004: 502) clearly states, “such ‘non-applied’ research is also likely to improve the
basis for making practical decisions”. However, he warns as to the dangers of teachers trying to
apply theoretical research to their teaching practices without due consideration.

The first approaches to the study of L2 learning were derived from general learning principles,
within the field of behaviourist psychology, which dominated the scene between the 1940’s and
1950’s. The first two approaches that will be discussed in this section (Cook 1993) are based on
phrase structure syntax, which analyses sentences by segmenting them into smaller and smaller
units, until they cannot be segmented any further. These approaches are consistent with the
behaviourist view of learning that prevailed at that time, and which viewed learning as the
building of a system of habits acquired through stimulus-response.

Uriel Weinreich focused on how two language systems relate to each other in a person who is
bilingual, i.e. somebody who uses two languages alternatively, without any further specification
as to the definition of bilingualism. Weinreich proposes two key concepts: first, interference,
“instances of deviation from the norm of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals
as a result of their familiarity with more than one language” (in Cook 1993:8). Interference may
be present both in bilinguals’ knowledge of the language and in their actual speech, and across
all areas of language. The second key concept in Weinreich’s view is that of the link between the
two languages in an individual’s mind, in terms of how concepts and words are related. This
second key concept has been found flawed in that it restricts the focus to vocabulary, leaving

5
out other aspects of language. On the other hand, the notion of interference is recurrent in SLA
research.

While Weinreich’s work concentrates on knowledge of language, Robert Lado’s has a

pedagogical approach. He based his research on Contrastive Analysis, a detailed comparison of
L1 and L2. The basic notion in Lado’s work is that of transfer. “Individuals tend to transfer the
forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and
culture to the foreign language and culture” (in Cook 1993: 11). This predicts that transfer will
be negative when there is no correspondence between the two languages, while it will be
positive when language items are the same. Language teaching should, therefore, concentrate
on those areas in which both languages differ more, which are expected to cause most trouble.
Lado’s work has been criticised on the grounds that many of the difficulties predicted by it do
not actually come true and, at the same time, many of learners’ problems are not predicted by
Contrastive Analysis. However, the notion of transfer, just like that of interference, is still found
in current work on SLA.

At the end of the 1950’s, Noam Chomsky’s work on the acquisition of an L1 began to undermine
the then prevailing behaviourist approach to the study of language acquisition. Chomsky posited
that stimulus-response learning does not explain the creative aspect of language, i.e. the
possibility humans have of creating sentences they have never heard before. He also considered
that the child’s L1 is a developing system in its own right, not a defective version of adult speech.
This concept is known as the independent grammars assumption.

In later work, Chomsky introduced the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), also referred to as
the “black box”, a device in the mind which is specific to language (thus originating the mentalist
view of language learning), that analyses the input it encounters to construct a “generative
grammar”. Comparing the input children receive with their speech production, it is possible to
deduce how the process of acquisition develops. In this view, children alter their grammars by
testing their hypotheses until a final one is found, which corresponds to adult competence.

Nowadays, the notion of the LAD has been incorporated into the wider Universal Grammar
theory. On the other hand, the validity of hypothesis-testing in L1 learning is disputed because

6
of the fact that children seldom get the necessary negative feedback that would allow them to
test their hypotheses. Nevertheless, the independent grammars assumption and the
hypothesis-testing model are central elements of SLA.

The early 1970’s saw the beginnings of SLA as an independent field, as well as its branching out
into various sub-fields. One facilitating factor was the recognition that an L2 learner at times,
contrarily to what Contrastive Analysis predicted, uses neither the L1 nor the L2. The
independent grammars assumption therefore applies also to L2 learners, who develop an
approximate system that gradually nears the target language.

The term interlanguage (IL) was introduced by Larry Selinker to refer to the learner’s
independent language system. It differed from the approximate system in that the former,
according to Selinker, seldom reached target language standards. Selinker claims that IL depends
on five central processes, which are part of a general psychological structure: transfer (L1
features are projected onto the L2), overgeneralisation of L2 rules, transfer of training
(sometimes a teacher´s overuse of a language feature may discourage learners from the use of
other features), strategies of L2 learning (e.g. simplification of learners’ structures) and
communication strategies (e.g. learners’ omission of redundant grammatical items).

Criticism to Selinker’s IL mentions the fact that he is not clear about whether IL refers to the
learner’s knowledge of the L2 or to its actual use. The same applies to the five processes held
responsible for IL. Nevertheless, the notion of interlanguage was a major contribution to the
study of SLA, and has been further developed by later researchers.

At the same time, Pit Corder introduced a methodology for studying SLA known as Error Analysis.
Corder claims that mistakes, both in L1 and L2, are not really mistakes, but evidence of an
internal grammar. Corder also claims that errors are a means of testing hypotheses, in
accordance with Selinker’s IL. There are two methodological problems, recognised by Corder
himself. First, it may be extremely difficult to determine whether a mistake comes from
competence (error) or performance (mistake). The second problem concerns the nature of the
error. It is not always possible to discover the learner’s intended meaning from his/her speech,
and as this is a subjective process, it is prone to failure.

7
The following table summarises early SLA research:

Focus Theory / Hypothesis Researcher

L1 – L2 relation Interference
Weinreich
Bilingualism
Transfer Lado
Nature of L2 grammar Weinreich
Phrase-structure grammar
Lado
Interlanguage Selinker
Research methods Contrastive Analysis Lado
Error Analysis Corder

By this time, early SLA theories have abandoned habit-formation and the behaviourist school
which supported it, in favour of the mentalist school which propounded hypothesis-testing as a
means of building an interim grammar.

The 1980’s saw SLA gather momentum as many researchers followed in previous researchers’
footsteps, while others took different paths. Much work emanated from various language-
related disciplines, broadening the field as to goals, views and methodology. At present, SLA
offers a vast array of perspectives, from the most theoretical to the most practical. Such a variety
of approaches ensures debate and disagreement, reflecting the dynamic nature of the field.

8
Keeping up to date offers the language professional a way to make informed decisions regarding
their practice, and to open a field of interest and enquiry.

The next section will offer an introduction to the main elements of SLA, while a brief discussion
of current theories will be presented later.

3.2 COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

Different current approaches to SLA seek to explain language acquisition from different
perspectives, based on different theoretical stances. So far, no definite answers have been
advanced. This section explores a variety of elements that have been identified as crucial factors
in the process of acquisition. The following table, taken in part from Ellis (1985: 276), provides a
framework for examining the components of SLA.

Situational factors

Learner processes

Other
Input knowledge L2 output

L2 knowledge
Language
processing

Learner differences

3.2.1 Situational factors

9
Situational factors relate to the context of SLA, i.e. the environment in which learning takes
place, and affect both the nature of the input and the strategies used by learners.

Contexts of SLA can be broadly characterised as either naturalistic or instructed. Naturalistic

learning happens within a non-instructional community, in which the learner is exposed to the
target language at work or in social interaction, or at school where instruction is directed at
native speakers. This is typically the case of immigrants. On the other hand, instructed learning
normally happens in a language classroom, although with the new technologies, new ways of
learning are becoming more accessible, allowing for autonomous learning. This polarity is
mediated by in-between possibilities, like formal L2 instruction within the target language
community and immersion courses both abroad and at home.

According to Ellis (1985: 16), “One of the key issues in SLA research is the extent to which the
process of SLA is similar or different in the two environments.” Many people consider learning
in a naturalistic context more effective. According to Lightbown and Spada (1993), this may be
so because of the fact that most successful learners have had exposure to the target language
outside the classroom. Contrarily, other researchers, based on studies, make a claim in favour
of instruction, which they see as “potentially effective, provided it is relevant to the learners’
needs.” (Doughty 2005)

All learning contexts are significant in that they offer different learning opportunities. The
following comparison of natural acquisition and communicative instruction is based on
Lightbown and Spada (1993). (Traditional, grammar-based instruction, in which the focus is on
learning the target language instead of its communicative use will be left out of the comparison
since it has been shown not to be effective.)

Characteristics Natural acquisition Communicative instruction

10
 Limited, meaning emphasised over
Error correction Rare
form

Language is not
Grading of language Structural grading
structured

Time available for learning Ample Limited

Availability of native speakers

High ratio Limited
to learners

Variety of language and Introduced through “real life”

High
discourse types materials and activities.

Low. In early stages, there is

Pressure to speak High
emphasis on comprehension.

Available in many one-

on-one conversations,
not often in Totally available, from teacher,
Access to modified input
conversations where other learners, and materials.
there are many native
speakers.

It is evident that both input and interaction are likely to be different according to context. Both
the type of input learners receive and the kind of interaction in which they engage affect the
negotiation of meaning to a great extent. As will be seen later, negotiation of meaning is
considered to be a crucial element in the acquisition process. As regards discourse types, both
contexts may provide the same or similar types, but in different degrees. As Ellis (1985: 152)
summarises, “Considerable differences between natural and classroom environments arise,
particularly when the focus is on form in language lessons. These differences are not absolute;
they vary in degree according to the type of classroom and the type of teaching.”

11
Situational factors also include social ones. From a variationist perspective, Tarone (2010: 54)
studies how “social setting systematically influences both the kind of second language (L2) input
learners receive and their cognitive processing of it; the speech production of L2 learners; and
even, upon occasion, the stages in which learner language (or interlanguage) forms are
acquired.” In other words, contextual variables such as “the identity and role of interlocutors,
topic, and task, as well as contextual linguistic forms,” have a systematic impact on the “learner’s
perception, production, and acquisition of specific aspects of the second language system.”

Social settings influence the input provided in two basic ways. First, learners are likely to have
more contact with the particular variety of the target language used by their social setting. For
example, learners in an immersion programme are likely to have closer contact with academic
genres. On the other hand, learners in a classroom situation will lack exposure to vernacular
varieties. Second, the amount of input adjustment provided will vary according to the setting.
Tarone (2010), in accordance with Lightbown and Spada, reports that adjusted input is less likely
to be offered to learners in naturalistic contexts, while it is more available in classroom
situations.

Also, social settings influence negotiation of meaning, i.e. conversations involving interlocutors
in trying to overcome communication problems, by selecting salient topics, topic shifting,
checking of comprehension, requests for clarification, slower pace, repetition, etc. Negotiation
of meaning can be focused on form or meaning. Tarone (2010) reports on how learners with a
lower-proficiency level tend not to negotiate meaning with higher-proficiency learners, as the
latter are not usually willing to offer explanations. On the other hand, there is more negotiation
when the lower-proficiency learners are the senders of the message. “Social relationships
between learners strongly impacted key cognitive processes involved in the negotiation of
meaning…, disregard for an interlocutor who is less socially dominant or significant to the
learner may also cause a learner to ignore or discount that interlocutor’s corrective feedback on
their L2 form.”

This point is related to the fact that error detection does not depend only on psycholinguistic
factors, such as attention, but also on the social context, represented by the accuracy demands
of the task, who the listeners are, or whether there is an audience, to name a few. Also, error

12
correction is always value-laden, so noticing the mistake does not always result in uptake, since
the corrector (native speaker, teacher or peer) has to be accepted by the learner as having the
right to give the correction.

Social settings also make an impact on learners’ language production. Research shows that
learners adjust their interlanguage to the forms used by their interlocutors, according to
whether there is identification with the interlocutors or not. This issue is more clearly seen in
naturalistic settings, and is explored by Accommodation Theory (which, due to space restrictions
will not be dealt with here). Nevertheless, the mentioned phenomenon does occur in classroom
settings, albeit to a lesser degree. According to Tarone (2010), “In sociocultural theory, new IL
forms originate in collaborative dialogue with supportive others and gradually get internalized”.
In other words, new IL forms may develop in collaborative dialogue in a relaxed setting, a process
referred to as scaffolding.

For a more detailed account of contexts of SLA and their influence on learning processes, see
Ellis (1994).

3.2.2 Input

Situational factors go hand in hand with input. Also external to the learner, input is of vital
importance in SLA, as learning depends directly on it. Lightbown and Spada (1993: 122) define
input as “The language which the learner is exposed to (either written or spoken) in the
environment.” This positive evidence serves as the data which the learner uses to learn the
target language. However, not all input is processed by the learner, as it may have not been
understood, or attended to. The input that is understood and attended to, and therefore
processed, is referred to as intake. This distinction is a fundamental one, as it is intake that leads
to learning.

SLA cannot ignore L1 acquisition. Lightbown and Spada (1993: 16) refer to three different
general accounts of L1 acquisition which, despite not being contemporary with one another,

13
offer explanations for different aspects of children’s language development. The behaviourist
position, which posits that children learn by imitating their interlocutors and by receiving
feedback on their utterances, which in turn reinforces or corrects them, may explain how word
meanings and some language routines are learned. The innatist, or nativist, position minimises
the role of input by considering it a mere trigger which activates the internal mechanisms that
human beings are endowed with. According to this view, children are born with some kind of
“innately specified knowledge” (Gass 2005: 176) that helps in grammar formation, as the input
they receive does not provide all the information that is necessary for “the extraction of
abstractions” (2005: 175). Finally, the interactionist view, which claims that language acquisition
is the result of the interplay between the learner’s mental abilities and the linguistic
environment, may explain “how children relate form and meaning…, how they interact in
conversations, and how they use language appropriately” (Lightbown and Spada 1993:16). Thus,
in this view, language acquisition is the result of the interaction of input factors and innate
mechanisms.

Early studies of L1 acquisition have focused on the input received by children, sometimes called
motherese or caretaker speech. Child-directed speech is adapted to be made more
comprehensible, and it changes according to the developmental stages of children. It usually
contains shorter utterances, few subordinate and co-ordinate constructions, tutorial questions
(i.e. questions to which the interlocutor already knows the answer), and a high level of
redundancy. There are also adjustments in pitch, intonation and rhythm (Ellis 1985: 130). As
regards the functions of motherese, mothers do not pay much attention to the correctness of
their children’s speech, while they do concentrate on the social appropriateness and meaning.

Regarding the effects of simplified input, the available evidence suggests that the route 1 of
acquisition is not altered by differences in the linguistic environment. On the other hand, the
way mothers talk to their children has effects on the rate2 of learning. However, according to
Ellis (1985: 131), “the key features of the input appear to be interactional rather than formal.
That is, it is the mother’s choice of discourse function (e.g. commands rather than questions)

1
Route of acquisition: transitional states speakers/learners go through while acquiring L1/2 rules.
2
Rate of acquisition: speed at which speakers/learners develop L1/2 proficiency.

14
and the devices she uses to sustain the conversation (e.g. requests for clarifications, expansions,
acknowledgements) which provide the right kind of data to foster development. Research into
this type of modified speech led to a new consideration of the role of input, as more than simply
a factor that triggered innate mechanisms, which in turn led to an interactionist view of language
development.

Modified input is not restricted to child-directed language. Within the sphere of SLA, input is
present in natural and instructed settings. As regards natural linguistic environments, there are
two areas of special interest: foreigner talk (simplified talk used by native speakers (NS) to
address non-native speakers (NNS)), and the discourse involving conversations between NS and
NNS. Foreigner talk is to be seen as dynamic, in that it changes according to situational factors,
such as “the topic of conversation, the age of the participants…, and, in particular, the
proficiency of the learners.” (Ellis 1985: 133) Foreigner talk is similar to motherese in that both
contain simplifications within the grammar of the language. However, foreigner talk can also
contain some ungrammatical speech, if the NNS has a very low proficiency in the L2, or if the NS
considers himself/herself to be of a higher status.

Discourse studies have shown that input is not determined only by the native speaker. The
feedback the non-native speaker provides helps to delineate the nature of the subsequent input
provided by the NS. This is particularly noticeable in interaction between NS’s and older learners,
as it is more likely to have instances of negotiation of meaning, by means of requests for
clarification, echoing, repair strategies, and recasts (a corrected version of a NNS’ incorrect
utterance).

In sum, although the basic function of foreigner talk is to facilitate communication, it may
indirectly provide a teaching/learning opportunity, which is central to L2 acquisition.

Similar constructs are involved in instructed settings, as the type of language used by the teacher
and the type of interactions that take place in the classroom are conducive to learning. Ellis
(1985: 143), for example believes in the “rejection of language teaching method as the principal
determinant of successful learning.” Focusing on classroom interaction as the major factor
affecting SLA in instructed settings led to research into teacher talk and into the discourse

15
generated in the classroom. Teacher talk is characterised by having formal adjustments in syntax
(shorter utterances), in pronunciation (more accurate, standard pronunciation with lower-level
learners), and in lexis (using more general words). In contrast with foreigner talk, teacher talk
does not contain ungrammatical speech. Teacher talk involves the use of interactional
adjustments, some resembling those in motherese, like repetition, prompting, and expansions.
In the classroom, tutorial questions are much more frequent than in naturalistic settings.
Research reported by Ellis (1985: 145) notes that while comprehension checks are more
frequent in the classroom, confirmation checks and requests for clarification are not. The
analysis of the discourse produced in classrooms has shown that, in teacher-oriented teaching,
discourse typically consists of three stages, in which the teacher initiates interaction, the learner
responds, and the teacher gives feedback. Apart from reinforcing the teacher’s role as the sole
manager of the learning process, this type of distorted input may not be conducive to language
learning in all levels, as it does not give learners experience in, for example, how to initiate
interaction.

Ellis reports on four types of language use that have been identified in the classroom (Ellis
1985:147-148):

1. mechanical, where no exchange of meaning is involved;

2. meaningful, where language use is contextualized but still no real information is
conveyed;
3. pseudo-communicative, where information is exchanged, but in a way that would
be unlikely to occur outside the classroom; and
4. real communication, which consists of spontaneous natural speech.

This description of discourse in the classroom is complemented by Ellis’ framework (1985: 148),
in which he describes three pedagogical goals:

(1) core goals, which relate to the explicit pedagogic purpose of the lesson (e.g. to
teach specific aspects of the L2, …); (2) framework goals, which relate to the
organization requirements of the lesson (e.g. giving out materials, managing pupil

16
 behaviour); and (3) social goals, involving the use of language for more personal
purposes (e.g. imparting private information, quarrelling).

He also distinguishes types of address, that is, who functions as speaker, listener and hearer.
These aspects combine to produce a wide variety of classroom interactions, with different
patterns. For example, interactions with a framework goal usually include many directives, to
which the learners may respond non-verbally. The frequency of this type of interaction, which
may be profitable for lower level learners, may vary according to the type of classroom and level
of students. Thus, attention to interaction forms becomes of uppermost importance.

Although much of the current research into SLA shows that there may be a natural route for
acquisition, the interplay between input and interaction can affect it in several ways. According
to Ellis (1985), one of these is by providing learners with formulaic speech. Ready-made chunks
appear in routinised interactions, and may serve immediate communication purposes. Also,
they are raw material for analysis into component parts, which is a vital part of the learning
process. Frequency of occurrence may also affect the route of acquisition, as learners are likely
to learn first items from the language they are most frequently exposed to. A third issue
concerning input is the availability of comprehensible input. In Krashen’s view, stated in his SLA
theory, sometimes known as the Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1982), learners need to receive
input that contains samples of the language which, according to the natural order, are due to be
acquired next. This is what he calls i + 1. In order for learners to understand the input, it is a
prerequisite that they are focused on meaning, not on form. According to Long (in Ellis 1985:
157), input is rendered comprehensible by the fact that learners use the linguistic and extra-
linguistic contexts and their general knowledge to interpret language which they do not actually
know. Also, during interaction, some adjustments are usually made to aid comprehension. If
these conditions are met, acquisition will proceed automatically. However, there is
disagreement as to the validity of Krashen’s position. Ellis (1985: 158) explains that SLA can take
place “without two-way communication”, as when input is encountered when reading or
watching television or films. In this case, there are no interactional modifications. Another
problem with Krashen’s view is that “interactional modifications do not always result in
comprehensible input” (1985: 158). Finally, Krashen’s theory fails to recognise the role of
output. While output is considered a vital element in language acquisition (see section on

17
output), the only role allotted to it by Krashen is that of generator of more input (Krashen 1982:
60). Yet another problem is that not all input that is understood will be processed by the learner.
Intake, a necessary condition for SLA will therefore not always be present. Little is known about
how learners select from the input they receive, but it is believed that factors that may mould
intake are motivation, the internal processing mechanisms, and features of the input.

Input may also affect the rate of acquisition. The studies reported by Ellis (1985: 160-161) into
the effects of input and interaction in classroom environments have led him to suggest that the
following features are likely to aid rapid development:

1. A high quantity of input directed at the learner.

2. The learner’s perceived need to communicate in the L2.
3. Independent control of the propositional content by the learner (e.g. control
over topic choice).
4. Adherence to the ‘here-and-now’ principle, at least initially.
5. The performance of a range of speech acts by both native speaker/teacher and
the learner (i.e. the learner needs the opportunity to listen to and to produce
language used to perform different language functions.)
6. Exposure to a high quantity of directives.
7. Exposure to a high quantity of ‘extending’ utterances (e.g. requests for
clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and expansions.)
8. Opportunities for uninhibited ‘practice’ (which may provide opportunities to
experiment using ‘new’ forms).

In sum, it is clear that input is one of the vital elements in SLA. However, what is not so clear is
the amount of responsibility that it has, as opposed to the internal mechanisms. As Hatch (in
Ellis 1985: 162) states, “While social interaction may give the learner the ‘best’ data to work
with, the brain in turn must work out a fitting and relevant model of that input.”

3.2.3 Learner differences

18
In contrast with situational factors and input, which are external to the learner, there is another
construct that interacts with input and learner processes: learner differences. This area of SLA
has been motivated by the need to explain the striking variation in learning outcomes, especially
as regards rate of learning and levels of achievement.

Individual factors have proved to be difficult to define and classify. According to Ellis (1985), this
is due to the fact that qualities like aptitude or motivation cannot be directly observed. Also,
individual factors interact with one another affecting language learning. Those factors are in fact
clusters of behaviours, and there is no consensus among researchers as to their definitions.
However, Ellis proposes a distinction between personal and general factors. The first are “highly
idiosyncratic features of each individual’s approach to learning a L2” (1985: 100), while the
second are characteristics of all learners. General factors are of two types: modifiable (likely to
change during the learning process) and unmodifiable.

Both personal and general factors have social, cognitive and affective aspects. These aspects are
all present in the mentioned factors, in different degrees. Cognitive factors are related to the
problem-solving strategies used by the learner. Social aspects concern the relationship a learner
has with native speakers of the target language and with speakers of his/her own language.
Finally, affective factors are relative to the emotional responses caused by the learning process.

3.2.3.1 Personal factors

Group dynamics

Group dynamics, important in classroom settings, relate competitiveness and anxiety

experienced by learners. Bailey (in Ellis 1985: 101-102) presents a model of how the learner’s
self-image is affected by comparison with other learners, resulting in a successful or
unsuccessful self-image. If the learner has a positive self-image, then learning will be enhanced.
On the contrary, if the image is a negative one, this may result in facilitating or debilitating

19
anxiety. In the case of the former, the learner will try to improve L2. In the case of the latter,
learning may be impaired or even abandoned.

Attitudes to the teacher and course materials

In Ellis’ review of the topic (1985), learners appear to have very different views as to what makes
a good teacher. Some prefer teaching to be structured or predictable, others dislike having to
follow somebody else’s teaching plan. Something similar applies to coursebooks. In general,
adult learners prefer a variety of materials to a rigid use of the coursebook.

Individual learning techniques

Different learners make use of a wide variety of learning techniques. They may be classified into
techniques for studying the L2, such as preparing and memorising vocabulary lists, learning
words in context and reading to reinforce learning, and for obtaining L2 input, as in seeking
opportunities for communication with native speakers, or for exposure to the target language
through, for example, films.

3.2.3.2 General factors

This section will refer to the factors that have received most attention in SLA research.

Personality

Although personality is considered to be a crucial variable in success in language learning, the

available research does not provide conclusive results. According to Ellis, there is fairly
substantial support for the claim that extroverted learners “will do better in acquiring basic
interpersonal communication skills” (1994: 520), mainly by obtaining more input. However, “the
effects of extroversion/introversion may be situation-dependent”. He concludes that this may

20
be so because personality “becomes a major factor only in the acquisition of communicative
competence.” (1985: 121)

Intelligence and aptitude

There is no general consensus as to whether intelligence and language aptitude are separate
constructs or are two aspects of a single general language faculty. Even so, both have been found
to have an influence on L2 learning, especially when studied in the context of classroom learning.

For those scholars who consider intelligence separate from aptitude, intelligence refers to a
general reasoning ability, which underlies our use of academic skills. It does not refer to the
knowledge in our minds, but to our ability to learn. According to the studies reported by Ellis
(1985: 111), intelligence does not seem to be a “mayor determinant of L1 acquisition”, so it is
probably not so important in SLA in naturalistic contexts. As regards instructed SLA, intelligence
may influence the acquisition of some skills associated with formal study, like reading, grammar,
vocabulary and free writing, while its relation with the development of oral fluency skills is much
less certain. Also, the influence of intelligence is restricted to the rate and success of SLA, as
there is no evidence that it affects the route of acquisition.

On the other hand, language aptitude has been found to be a better predictor of L2 learning
than intelligence. Aptitude refers to “specific cognitive qualities needed for SLA” (Ellis 1985:
111), and following Carroll’s research (in Ellis 1994:496) four factors are identified:

1. Phonemic coding ability (the ability to code foreign sounds in a way that they can
be remembered later). This ability is seen as related to the ability to spell and to
handle sound-symbol relationships.
2. Grammatical sensitivity (the ability to recognize the grammatical functions of
words in sentences).
3. Inductive language learning ability (the ability to identify patterns of
correspondence and relationships involving form and meaning).

21
 4. Rote learning ability (the ability to form and remember associations between
stimuli). This ability is hypothesized to be involved in vocabulary learning.

It should be noted that aptitude has been studied mostly in relation to the linguistic aspect of
language learning, as opposed to the development of interpersonal communication. Also,
aptitude is not a prerequisite for SLA, but a capacity that “enhances the rate and ease of
learning.” (Ellis 1994: 495) In this respect, there is no evidence that aptitude has any effect on
the route of SLA, while, on the other hand, it can be expected to influence the rate of
development and have effects on ultimate success in SLA.

Cognitive and learning styles

The concept of learning styles comes from general psychology. On the whole, cognitive and
learning styles are relevant to SLA as, according to Dörnyei and Skehan, different learning styles
“may be equally valid and advantageous” (2005: 450), and it is possible for different styles to
make contributions to different domains. Also, as they appear to be less fixed than other factors
(like aptitude), learners may adapt their styles to meet the needs of particular situations.

Ellis (1985: 114) defines cognitive styles as the way in which people “perceive, conceptualize,
organize and recall information.” Dörnyei and Skehan make a distinction between cognitive and
learning styles: “The former can be defined as a predisposition to process information in a
characteristic manner while the latter can be defined as a typical preference for approaching
learning in general. The former, in other words, is more restricted to information-processing
preferences, while the latter embraces all aspects of learning.” (2005: 451)

As regards cognitive styles, a number of distinctions have been made in cognitive psychology,
but one that has attracted much attention in SLA is that of the contrast between field
independence (FI) and field dependence (FD). The following table shows the main characteristics
of FD and FI cognitive styles:

22
 Field dependence Field independence
Personal orientation Impersonal orientation
i.e. reliance on external frame of reference in i.e. reliance on internal frame of reference in
processing information processing information

Holistic Analytic
i.e perceives field as a whole; parts are fused with i.e perceives a field in terms of its component parts;
background parts are distinguished from background

Dependent Independent
i.e. the self-view is derived from others i.e. sense of separate identity

Socially sensitive Not so socially aware

i.e greater skill in interpersonal/social relationships i.e less skilled in interpersonal/social relationships

Based on Ellis (1985: 115)

As can be hypothesised from the table above, field independents may prefer to study alone, and
benefit from analysing linguistic material, while field dependents may work well in groups and
profit more from communicative language use.

There are, however, some points to clarify. First, the distinction should not be taken as
comprising two polarities, but poles on a cline, with individuals varying in their predispositions.
Second, according to some research reported by Ellis (1985: 115), the effects of cognitive style
may be related to age, in that field independence is “facilitative in the case of late adolescence
but not before.” Also, researchers disagree as to the usefulness of the FD/FI distinction in that
there have been problems both as to the definitions and measurements of the constructs. In all,
the results are not at all conclusive, but the research area is considered to be promising.

Other approaches to the study of learning styles include sensory preference. Reid (in Dörnyei
and Skehan 2005) distinguishes four perceptual learning modalities:

1. Visual (e.g. reading and studying charts)

23
 2. Auditory (preference towards listening)
3. Kinaesthetic (involving physical response)
4. Tactile (using their hands, as in building models)

According to this model, learners benefit from tasks that allow them to use their preferred
sensory styles.

Various other approaches are being studied in relation to their effects on SLA. For more info, see
Dörnyei and Skehan (2005) .

As a general conclusion, it can be said that learners vary a great deal in their preferred styles for
L2 learning, and that there is no “best” style. In Ellis’ words (1994: 508), it may be that learners
who “display flexibility are those who are most successful, but there is no real evidence yet for
such a conclusion.” Dörnyei and Skehan (2005: 454) conclude that the concepts of cognitive and
learning styles have not been clearly defined in the literature, and are sometimes conflated with
other factors. However, they argue that, while they may not “deserve high research priority, …
they have not been eliminated as potentially relevant second language linked measures.”

Motivation

The concept of motivation, which has attracted much attention within the field of SLA as being
considered one accurate predictor of L2 learning success, is not without difficulties. One of them
is related to the conceptualisation of the construct, another to the fact that motivation cannot
be directly observed, and therefore it has to be inferred from people’s behaviours (Ellis 1985:
116).

Dörnyei and Skehan (2005) describe motivation as concerning “the direction and magnitude of
human behavior, or, more specifically (i) the choice of a particular action, (ii) the persistence
with it, and (iii) the effort expended on it. In broad terms, motivation is responsible for why
people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard
they are going to pursue it.”

24
Given the array of potential determinants of motivation, different approaches to it focus on
different factors on which to base their studies. As a result, none of the current positions offer
a comprehensive view of all the factors that affect motivation.

One of the central approaches to motivation is that of Gardner, oriented towards the roles of
attitudes and motivation in SLA (in Dörnyei and Skehan 2005). His model includes the distinction
between integrative and instrumental orientations towards L2 learning. The first reflects a
positive disposition towards the L2 group and a desire to identify with its culture. The second
relates to functional goals, such as passing an examination, getting a better job, facilitating the
study of other subjects through the medium of the L2, etc. Although these two concepts are
widely known in the L2 field, there is still a wider concept in Gardner’s theory, the integrative
motive, which is made up of three main components: “(i) integrativeness, subsuming integrative
orientation, interest in foreign languages, and attitudes toward the L2 community; (ii) attitudes
toward the learning situation, comprising attitudes toward the teacher and the course; and (iii)
motivation, which according to Gardner is made up of motivational intensity, desire to learn the
language, and attitudes toward learning the language.” (in Dörnyei and Skehan 2005: 458)

Related to Gardner´s integrative motive is the notion of intrinsic motivation. This is understood
as an inherent interest in the learning process and tasks. This concept is of utmost importance
in SLA as it is possible to manipulate it in the classroom, in an attempt to arouse and sustain
students’ interest. Ellis (1994) reports on several ways to enhance learners’ motivation: by
providing opportunities for communication, by learners’ becoming self-directed (able to choose
their learning objectives and ways of achieving this, and to evaluate their own progress), by
presenting students with tasks that pose a reasonable challenge, by providing opportunities for
group work, and variety.

Another influential approach is that proposed by Heckhausen and Kuhl, known as Action Control
Theory (in Dörnyei and Skehan 2005: 461), which differentiates between the predecisional and
the postdecisional phases of motivation. The former refers to “the pre-actional stage of
deliberation associated with planning, goal setting, and intention formation” while the latter is
about “influences that come into force when action has started and therefore concern

25
motivational maintenance and control, perseverance, and overcoming various internal
obstacles to action.”

From a neurobiological perspective, Schumann’s approach tries to link the study of language
with cognitive science (in Dörnyei and Skehan 2005: 462). The key issue is stimulus appraisal,

which occurs in the brain along five dimensions: novelty (degree of

unexpectedness/familiarity); pleasantness (attractiveness); goal/need significance
(whether the stimulus is instrumental in satisfying needs or achieving goals); coping
potential (whether the individual expects to be able to cope with the event); and self-
and social image (whether the event is compatible with social norms and the
individual's self-concept). Thus, stimulus appraisal can be seen as a key process
underlying executive motivation.

From the points mentioned above there can be little doubt that motivation is a powerful factor
in SLA. According to Ellis (1985: 119), its effects can be seen on both the rate and success of L2
learning. What is not clear is whether it is motivation that produces successful learning, or vice
versa. Whatever the directionality, the key issue is that, as motivation is more susceptible to
change than other personal factors, teachers have a greater role in fostering it. This can be
achieved by a careful selection of activities that are relevant to the learners’ interests and needs,
and that are in accordance with their level, so as to prevent anxiety (if the task is too demanding)
and boredom (if the task does not pose a challenge), and by giving learners enough autonomy
so that they can gain more control over their own learning process.

Age

Age has been the most considered individual factor in SLA, and it is still the most controversial.

Although age does not present any difficulties as to measuring, it can hardly be separated from
other factors that inevitably interact with it, such as context of learning, length of stay (in the

26
case of immigrants), amount of instruction, age of onset, and ultimate attainment, to mention
a few.

In SLA research, it is widely agreed that in a naturalistic context, early starters tend to attain high
levels of language competence. In contrast, learners who start later in life, especially after the
end of adolescence, show a great variability in their levels of linguistic attainment (Ortega 2011:
176). Strozer (1994: 130) is clear about the effects of age:

all normal children are totally successful at acquiring the language of their
communities, while most adults who try do not succeed in developing a mastery of a
single foreign language. This sharp disparity … at first may strike us as paradoxical (the
greatest success is achieved by the least developed organisms, which are in fact less
capable at most things than adult organisms).

The current, and unresolved debate, concerns the explanations for the commonly agreed on
fact expressed above. One of the most influential biological explanations is the Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH), first advanced in the late 1960´s, and mostly associated with Eric Lenneberg.
The hypothesis holds that “language acquisition must occur before the onset of puberty in order
for language to develop fully.” (Johnson & Newport 1989:77) Lenneberg proposed a neurological
mechanism which might be responsible for the change in learning abilities: once the brain has
achieved adult values by puberty, it loses the plasticity needed for language acquisition. This
points to a sharp decline in the ability to acquire an L1. However, Johnson and Newport (1989)
mention two problems with Lenneberg’s formulation of the critical period hypothesis. First,
previous studies show that the decline in the ability to learn an L1 is not in fact as sharp as
claimed. Second, L1 acquisition by postpubescent learners, albeit lower in ultimate attainment,
is not altogether impossible. In conclusion, an extreme interpretation of the hypothesis should
be ruled out.

Johnson and Newport’s seminal study investigated whether the CPH applies to L2 as well. It
focuses on ultimate command of the grammar of the L2 with respect to the age of exposure to
that language. Subjects on this study were Chinese and Korean immigrants to the US, who

27
learned English as a second language. They varied in the age at which they moved to the US, and
had lived there for at least 3 years.

In order to make the distinction between L1 and L2 clear, the researchers outline two versions
of the critical period hypothesis. While the two versions make the same predictions for L1
acquisition, they differ as regards L2 learning. The exercise hypothesis (1989: 109) states that
“Early in life, humans have a superior capacity for acquiring languages. If the capacity is not
exercised during this time, it will disappear or decline with maturation. If the capacity is
exercised, however, further language learning abilities will remain intact throughout life.” This
version predicts that L2 learning should be the same in children and adults, or perhaps even
superior in adult learners, as they already possess language skills from their L1.

The maturational state hypothesis, on the other hand, claims that the superior capacity for
learning languages “disappears or declines with maturation” (1989: 109), and therefore predicts
that children are better at acquiring any language, L1 or L2.

The results of the study support the maturational state hypothesis: “Human beings appear to
have a special capacity for acquiring language in childhood, regardless of whether the language
is their first or second.” (1989: 109) As regards the decline in performance, the study did not
find a sudden drop in performance at the end of the critical period. Instead, it showed a gradual
decline from about age seven on until adulthood, with a marked drop around puberty. After
puberty, performance did not continue to decline with increasing age, but showed important
individual differences. From these findings, it can be concluded that learning an L2 after puberty
is not impossible, in spite of some deficiencies. Also, for adult learners, age is not a predictor of
performance.

The study also takes into account variables other than age, in order to investigate whether
experiential or attitudinal factors can affect the effects obtained for age of acquisition. As
regards the experiential variable, it was found that length of exposure did not alter performance
significantly beyond the first few years of exposure (in an immersion context). Attitudinal
factors, such as motivation, identification and self-consciousness, were also unable to explain
away the effects of age.

28
In sum, Johnson and Newport’s work seems to prove their claim that the critical period does
exist, although not in an extreme interpretation (some researchers refer to it as a sensitive
period), and that it applies to both first and second languages. Also, the existence of a critical
period does not rule out the benefits of exercise, allowing for the possibility of language
acquisition after puberty, in spite of its wide variety as regards outcomes. Thus, the two versions
of the hypothesis are not mutually exclusive.

Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2005: 420) classify current explanations for age effects into three
areas. According to these authors’ review of the literature on the topic,

biological explanations have addressed the brain's steady loss of flexibility or plasticity.
Even though little is known about the exact cerebral mechanisms that are responsible
for differential outcomes of language learning at different phases of life, there is enough
independent knowledge of changes in the brain taking place during the time when
language acquisition outcomes differ systematically to be suggestive of hypothesized
relations between the two.

Cerebral plasticity is related to the ability of neurons to make new and varied connections
depending on the stimulus, and also to the strengthening of those connections. Other biological
explanations include metabolic changes in the brain around puberty, thickening of the corpus
callosum and the process of lateralisation, that is, “the neurological capacity for understanding
and producing language, which initially involves both hemispheres of the brain,” and which “is
slowly concentrated in the left hemisphere for most people.” (Ellis 1985: 107)

As far as social/psychological explanations for the effects of age are concerned, these factors
are believed to have some influence on the process of L2 acquisition. However, their impact is
not as significant as that of age itself. For instance, “there is no direct evidence that children
would be inherently more motivated to learn the L2, or that they receive more input than
adults… In addition, several empirical studies … have shown that motivational factors cannot
account for the decrease in ultimate attainment with increasing” age of onset (Hyltenstam and
Abrahamsson (2005:421-422). In the case of adult learners, while age is still the dominant factor

29
affecting outcomes, the variability between highly successful learners and other L2 learners may
be considered the result of (a combination of) non-maturational variables such as motivation,
affective/attitudinal factors, input, type of instruction, verbal analytical ability, metalinguistic
awareness, and language aptitude.

Finally, Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson offer cognitive explanations, which seem to enjoy general
consensus as regards the fact that cognitive factors must have an influence on the process of L2
learning, although there is disagreement as to how they play their part. According to their review
(2005: 423), general problem-solving mechanisms, typical of older learners, may “counteract
the normal ‘direct’ processing of target language input” in children. This view is similar to
explanations linked to the UG (Universal Grammar)(see below) position, which can be viewed
from different perspectives. The fundamental difference hypothesis claims that adults are
different from children in that they no longer have access to the language acquisition device
(LAD), and therefore have to rely on general problem-solving mechanisms. The competition
hypothesis claims that adults have continued access to UG, and that the LAD competes with
general problem-solving processes, which eventually succeed. The less is more hypothesis states
that children’s limitations on cognitive capacity allow them to “focus on and store component
pieces of the input, while adults unsuccessfully try to analyze complex chunks of input
simultaneously.”

Nevertheless, these cognitive explanations are not without controversy, as they would predict
basic differences in learning processes between children and adults as regards the order and
sequence of acquisition, while the available evidence points to the fact that age does not affect
the route of acquisition. In other words, children, adolescents and adults follow the same stages
of development, irrespective of their age. On the other hand, rate and success appear to be
strongly influenced by the maturational factor. Ellis (1985: 106) gives the following summary of
the effects of age:

1. Starting age does not affect the route of SLA. Although there may be differences in
the acquisitional order, these are not the result of age.

30
 2. Starting age affects the rate of learning. Where grammar and vocabulary are
concerned, adolescent learners do better than either children or adults, when the
length of exposure is held constant.
3. Both number of years of exposure and starting age affect the level of success. The
number of years’ exposure contributes greatly to the overall communication
fluency of the learners, but starting age determines the levels of accuracy achieved,
particularly in pronunciation.

As regards the different areas of language acquisition, they do not seem to be affected alike.
Strozer (1994: 160) reports on adult acquisition of accent-free phonology, widely accepted as
the first loss brought about by age. Research shows that the critical period “relates more to the
peripherals of production and perception than to the central core of language… since there
seems to be no critical period for at least one aspect of language acquisition, namely, the growth
of the vocabulary, which is a lifelong process.”

In sum, maturation seems to be a major determinant for language acquisition, while non-
maturational factors seem to account for the variability between highly successful and non-
exceptional L2 learners of the same starting age. As regards social/psychological factors, they
seem to become more important with age, as they can compensate for the negative effects of
maturation.

Finally, it is necessary to look at instruction in relation to the influence of age on the SLA process.
In a naturalistic setting, younger learners usually have more overall time to learn. They also have
more opportunities to use the language without the strong pressure to speak correctly and
fluently that they may experience in a classroom setting. On the other hand, adolescent and
adults may develop a sense of frustration when they find themselves in situations in which they
are expected to express complex ideas and language.

Contrarily, in the case of instructed L2 learning, according to Lightbown and Spada (1993: 50),
“it may be more efficient to begin second language teaching later. In research on school learners
receiving a few hours of instruction per week, learners who start later (for example, at age 10,

31
11, or 12) catch up very quickly with those who began earlier.” However, they warn of the fact
that “One or two hours a week – even for seven or eight years – will not produce very advanced
second language speakers.” In spite of this, there may be an advantage in an early start with
appropriate teaching and a sufficient amount of time. Some characteristics need to be taken
into account when teaching children, such as their need to use their bodies when learning, their
need to develop a strong emotional attachment with their teachers, and their short attention
span, which calls for variety of activities. According to a study reported in Johnstone (2002: 12),
when children are around 6, they feel positive about learning a new language when they enjoy
their classroom activities. At around 9, children notice that they are learning, and feel pleasure
from this. As regards older learners, they benefit from the fact that they can make use of already
existing metalinguistic awareness from their L1. Also, they are more experienced in the
negotiation of meaning, and therefore will get better input.

Johnstone (2002: 13-14) provides a list of learner characteristics together with advantages and
disadvantages for different ages. “Given appropriate teaching conditions for learning, younger
learners may possess the following advantages over older beginners …

▪ they are likely to find it easier to acquire a good command of the sound system of the
language, not only the pronunciation of individual sounds but also patterns of
intonation;
▪ they are likely to be less ‘language anxious” than many older learners and hence be
more able to absorb language rather than block it out;
▪ they are likely to have more time available overall. If young beginners at age 5 are
compared with older beginners at age 10 then after one year the older group are likely
to be ahead. However, if both groups are compared at (say) age 14, the younger
beginners stand a better chance of being ahead, in part because of the greater amount
of time available overall;
▪ an earlier start enables productive links to be made between first and additional
languages, which can have important benefits for a child’s language awareness and
literacy;
▪ a range of acquisitional processes can come into play, e.g. largely intuitive
processes at an early age, complemented by more analytical processes later. This

32
 potentially allows the additional language to become more deeply embedded in
the person;
▪ there can be a positive influence on children’s general educational development
(e.g. cognitive, emotional, cultural) and on the formation of a multilingual and
intercultural identity.”

On the other hand, “Older learners may possess some or all of the following advantages over
younger beginners:

▪ they may be able to plot their new language to concepts about the world which
they already possess from their first language.
▪ they may be more experience in handling the discourse of conversations and other
language activities, and thus may be more adept at gaining feedback from native
speakers or teachers and in negotiating meaning…;
▪ they are likely to have acquired a wider range of strategies for learning, e.g. note-
taking, use of reference materials, searching for underlying pattern. This, allied to
their established literacy in their first language, may help them become more
efficient learners;
▪ they may have a clearer sense of why they are learning an additional language and
may therefore be able to work purposefully towards objectives of their own
choosing.”

To conclude, and taking into account the teaching practice, knowledge about the effects of age
should provide a basis for the design of teaching materials and methodologies,as well as
language policies. Teachers can be better equipped for evaluating materials, techniques and
practices in relation to their students and their needs. In Johnstone’s words (2002: 21), “given
suitable teaching, motivation and support, it is possible to make a success of language learning
at any age and stage, though older learners are less likely to approximate to the levels of a native
speaker.”

33
References
Cook, V. (1993) Linguistics and Second language Acquisition. Hampshire and London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Dörnyei, Z. and P. Skehan (2005) “Individual Differences in Second Language Learning” in
Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds. (2005) The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition. Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 442-471.
Doughty, C. (2005) “Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and Enhancement” in Doughty,
C. and M. Long, eds. (2005) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.
Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 201-234.
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of SLA. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. (2005) “Input and Interaction” in Doughty, C. and M. Long, eds. The Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition. Blackwell Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 175-
194.
Hyltenstam, K. and N, Abrahamsson (2005) “Maturational Constraints in SLA” in Doughty, C. and
M. Long, eds. (2005) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell
Reference Online: Blackwell Publishing. pp 406-435.

34
Johnson, J and E. Newport (1989) “Critical periods effects in second language learning: The
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a Second Language”
Cognitive Psychology 21: 60-99
Johnstone, R. (2002) Addressing ‘the Age Factor’: some Implications for Language Policy.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Internet edition
downloaded September 1st, 2011 from dkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice.pdf
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) “Key concepts in language learning and language education” in
Simpson, J. The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.
pp 155-170.
Lightbown, P. and N. Spada (1993) How languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (2004) “Second Language Learning” in Davies, A. and C. Elder, eds. (2004) The
Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Victoria: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp 501-524.
Ortega, L. (2011) “Second language acquisition” in Simpson, J. ed. The Routledge Handbook of
Applied Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge. pp 171-184.

Strozer, J. (1994) Language Acquisition After Puberty. Washington DC: Washington University
Press.
Tarone, E. (2010) “Social context and cognition in SLA: a variationist perspective” Downloaded
August 12th, 2011 from https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/items/.../303587.pdf -

35
36