Talk:Second-language acquisition

• Kohnert, Kathryn (2008). "Primary language impairments in bilingual children and adults." In Altarriba, J.; Heredia, R. R.. An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 295-313. ISBN: 13:978-0-8058-5135-9
• Gass, Susan. & Glew, Margo. (2008). Second language acquisition and bilingualism. In Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R., An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. pp.265-294. ISBN: 13:978-0-8058-5135-9
• Long, Michael. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp.43-74. ISBN:0-8058-3580-6
• Pinter, Annamaria. (2011). Children learning second languages.Research and practice in applied linguistics. Basingstoke, UK: Palsgrave Macmillan: Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, UK. ISBN: 978-1-4039-1185-8
• Schrauf, Robert, W. (2008). Bilingualism and aging. In Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R., An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. pp. 105-127. ISBN: 13:978-0-8058-5135-9
• Nicoladis, Elena. (2008). Bilingualism and language cognitive development. In Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R., An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. pp. 167-181. ISBN: 13:978-0-8058-5135-9
• Seliger, H. (1989). Deterioration and creativity in childhood bilingualism. In Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Obler, Loraine, K., Bilingualism Across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, and Loss. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 173-184. ISBN0-521-35225-8.
• Sharwood Smith, Michael, A. Crosslinguistic influence in language loss. In Hyltenstam, Kenneth & Obler, Loraine, K., Bilingualism Across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity, and Loss. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 185-201. ISBN0-521-35225-8.

• Bialystok, Ellen & Hakuta, Kenji. (1994). In other words: The science and psychology of second-language acquisition. New York, NY: BasicBooks. pp. 124-159. ISBN:0-456-07565-7
• Pinter, Annamaria. (2011). Children learning second languages.Research and practice in applied linguistics. Basingstoke, UK: Palsgrave Macmillan: Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, UK. ISBN: 978-1-4039-1185-8
• Tokowicz, Natasha. (2015). Lexical processing and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. pp. 57-74. ISBN: 978-0-415-87755-8
• Vega, Luis, A. (2008). Social psychological approaches to bilingualism. In Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R., An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. pp.185-198. ISBN: 13:978-0-8058-5135-9

The issue of age was first addressed with the critical period hypothesis.[note 4] The strict version of this hypothesis states that there is a cut-off age at about 12, after which learners lose the ability to fully learn a language. However, the exact age marking the end of the critical period is debated, and ranges from age 6 to 13, with many arguing that it is around the onset of puberty [1]. This strict version has since been rejected for second-language acquisition, as some adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency. However, in general, adult learners of a second-language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that children display, despite often progressing faster in the initial stages. This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect language learning.

Children that acquire two languages from birth are called simultaneous bilinguals. In these cases, both languages are spoken to the children by their parents or caregivers and they grow up knowing the two languages. These children generally reach linguistic milestones at the same time as their monolingual peers [2]. Children who do not learn two languages from infancy, but learn one language from birth, and another at some point during childhood, are referred to as sequential bilinguals. It is often assumed that a sequential bilingual's first language will be his or her most proficient language. However, this is not always the case. Over time and experience, a child's second language may become his or her strongest. This is especially likely to happen if a child's first language is a minority language spoken at home, and the child's second language is the majority language learned at school or in the community before the age of five. Proficiency for both simultaneous and sequential bilinguals is dependent upon the child's opportunities to engage in meaningful conversations in a variety of contexts.

Often simultaneous bilinguals are more proficient in their languages than sequential bilinguals. One argument for this is that simultaneous bilinguals develop more distinct representations of their languages, especially with regards to phonological and semantic levels of processing [1]. This would cause learners to have more differentiation between the languages, leading them to be able to recognize the subtle differences between the languages that less proficient learners would struggle to recognize. Learning a language earlier in life would help develop these distinct representations of language, as the learner's first language would be less established. Conversely, learning a language later in life would lead to more similar semantic representations [1].

Although child learners more often acquire native-like proficiency, older child and adult learners often progress faster in the initial stages of learning. [3]. Older child and adult learners are quicker at acquiring the initial grammar knowledge than child learners, however, with enough time and exposure to the language, children surpass their older peers. Once surpassed, older learners often display clear language deficiencies compared to child learners. The exact language deficiencies that occur past a certain age are not unanimously agreed upon. Some believe that only pronunciation is affected, while others believe other abilities are affected as well. However, some differences that are generally agreed upon include older learners having a noticeable accent, a smaller vocabulary, and making several linguistic errors.

One explanation for this difference in proficiency between older learners and younger learners involves Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar is a debated theory that suggests that people have innate knowledge of universal linguistic principles that are present from birth [4]. These principles guide children as they learn a language, but its parameters vary from language to language [5]. The theory assumes that, while Universal Grammar remains into adulthood, the ability to reset the parameters set for each language is lost, making it more difficult to learn a new language proficiently [4] . Since adults have an already established native language, the language acquisition process is much different for them, than young learners. The rules and principles that guide the use of the learners' native language plays a role in the way the second language is developed [5]. Some nonbiological explanations for second-language acquisition age differences include variations in social and psychological factors, such as motivation; the learner's linguistic environment; and the level of exposure. Even with less advantageous nonbiological influences, many child learners will attain a greater level of proficiency than adult learners with more advantageous nonbiological influences [3]. ' Jump up ^ Loewen, S., and Reinders, H. (2001). ISBN: 978-0-230-23018-7 Jump up ^ Kohnert, K. (2008). Primary Language Impairments in Bilingual Children and Adults. ^ Jump up to: a b Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ^ Jump up to: a b Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. ^ Jump up to: a b Gass, S. & Glew, M. (2008). Second language acquisition and bilingualism. In Altarriba, J. & Heredia, R. R., An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. ISBN: 13:978-0-8058-5135-9

From the early days of the discipline researchers have also acknowledged that social aspects play an important role.[54] There have been many different approaches to sociolinguistic study of second-language acquisition, and indeed, according to Rod Ellis, this plurality has meant that "sociolinguistic SLA is replete with a bewildering set of terms referring to the social aspects of L2 acquisition".[55] Common to each of these approaches, however, is a rejection of language as a purely psychological phenomenon; instead, sociolinguistic research views the social context in which language is learned as essential for a proper understanding of the acquisition process.[56]

Ellis identifies three types of social structure which can affect the acquisition of second languages: sociolinguistic setting, specific social factors, and situational factors.[57] Socialinguistic setting refers to the role of the second language in society, such as whether it is spoken by a majority or a minority of the population, whether its use is widespread or restricted to a few functional roles, or whether the society is predominantly bilingual or monolingual.[58] Ellis also includes the distinction of whether the second language is learned in a natural or an educational setting.[59] Specific social factors that can affect second-language acquisition include age, gender, social class, and ethnic identity, with ethnic identity being the one that has received most research attention.[60] Situational factors are those which vary between each social interaction. For example, a learner may use more polite language when talking to someone of higher social status, but more informal language when talking with friends.[61]

Immersion programs provide a sociolinguistic setting that facilitates second-language acquisition. Immersion programs are educational programs where children are instructed in an L2 language [1]. Although the language of instruction is the L2 language, the curriculum parallels that of non-immersion programs and clear support exists in the L1 language, as the teachers are all bilingual. The goal of these programs is to develop a high level of proficiency in both the L1 and L2 languages. Students in immersion programs have been shown to have greater levels of proficiency in their second language than students who receive second language education only as a subject in school [1]. This is especially true in terms of their receptive skills. Also, students who join immersion programs earlier generally have greater second-language proficiency than their peers who join later. However, students that join later have been shown to gain native-like proficiency. Although immersion students' receptive skills are especially strong, their productive skills may suffer if they spend the majority of their time listening to instruction only. Grammatical skills and the ability to have precise vocabulary are particular areas of struggle. It is argued that immersion is necessary, but not sufficient for the development of native-like proficiency in a second language [1]. Opportunities to engage in sustained conversation, and assignments that encourage syntactical, as well as semantic development will help develop the productive skills necessary for bilingual proficiency [1].

A learner's sense of connection to their in-group, as well as to the community of the target language emphasize the influence of the sociolinguistic setting, as well as social factors within the second-language acquisition process. Social Identity Theory argues that an important factor for second language acquisition is the learner's perceived identity in relation to the community of the language being learned, as well as how the community of the target language perceives the learner [2]. Whether or not a learner feels a sense of connection to the community or culture of the target language helps determine their social distance from the target culture. A smaller social distance is likely to encourage learners to acquire the second language, as their investment in the learning process is greater. Conversely, a greater social distance will discourage attempts to acquire the target language. However, negative views not only come from the learner, but the community of the target language might feel greater social distance to the learner, limiting the learner's ability to learn the language [2]. Whether or not bilingualism is valued by the culture or community of the learner is an important indicator for the motivation to learn a language [3].

There have been several models developed to explain social effects on language acquisition. Schumann's Acculturation Model proposes that learners' rate of development and ultimate level of language achievement is a function of the "social distance" and the "psychological distance" between learners and the second-language community. In Schumann's model the social factors are most important, but the degree to which learners are comfortable with learning the second language also plays a role.[62] Another sociolinguistic model is Gardner's socio-educational model, which was designed to explain classroom language acquisition.[63] The inter-group model proposes "ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key construct for second-language acquisition.[64] Language socialization is an approach with the premise that "linguistic and cultural knowledge are constructed through each other",[65] and saw increased attention after the year 2000.[66] Finally, Norton's theory of social identity is an attempt to codify the relationship between power, identity, and language acquisition.[67]

Attrition is the loss of proficiency in a language caused by a lack of exposure to or use of a language [1]. It is a natural part of the language experience as it exists within a dynamic environment[2]. As the environment changes, the language adapts. One way in which it does this is by using L1 as a tool to navigate the periods of change associated with acquisition and attrition. A learner's L2 is not suddenly lost with disuse, but its communicative functions are slowly replaced by those of the L1[2]. Similar to second-language acquisition, second-language attrition occurs in stages. However, according to the regression hypothesis, the stages of attrition occur in reverse order of acquisition. With acquisition, receptive skills develop first, and then productive skills, and with attrition, productive skills are lost first, and then receptive skills[2].

Age, proficiency level, and social factors play a role in the way attrition occurs[2] Most often younger children are quicker than adults to lose their L2 when it is left unused. However if a child has established a high level of proficiency, it may take him or her several years to lose the language. Proficiency level seems to play the largest role in the extent of attrition. For very proficient individuals, there is a period of time where very little, if any, attrition is observed. For some, residual learning might even occur, which is the apparent improvement within the L2[2]. Within the first five years of language disuse, the total percentage of language knowledge lost will be less for a proficient individual than for someone less proficient. A cognitive psychological explanation for this suggests that a higher level of proficiency involves the use of schemas, or mental representations for linguistic structures. Schemas involve deeper mental processes for mental retrieval that are resistant to attrition. As a result, information that is tied to this system is less likely to experience less extreme attrition than information that is not[2]. Finally, social factors may play an indirect role in attrition. In particular, motivation and attitude influence the process. Higher levels of motivation, and a positive attitude toward the language and the corresponding community may lessen attrition. This is likely due to the higher level of competence achieved in L2 when the learner is motivated and has a positive attitude[2]. '

The learner's attitude to the learning process has also been identified as being critically important to second-language acquisition. Anxiety in language-learning situations has been almost unanimously shown to be detrimental to successful learning. Anxiety interferes with the mental processing of language because the demands of anxiety-related thoughts create competition for mental resources. This results in less available storage and energy for tasks required for language processing^[1]. Not only this, but anxiety is also usually accompanied by self-deprecating thoughts and fear of failure, which can be detrimental for an individual's ability to learn a new language^[2]. Learning a new language provides a unique situation which may even produce a specific type of anxiety, called language anxiety, that affects the quality of acquisition^[3]. Also, anxiety may be detrimental for SLA because it can influence a learner's ability to attend to, concentrate on, and encode language information^[2]. It may affect speed and accuracy of learning. Further, the apprehension created as a result of anxiety inhibits the learner's ability to retrieve and produce the correct information.

A related factor, personality, has also received attention. There has been discussion about the effects of extravert and introvert personalities. Extraverted qualities may help learners seek out opportunities and people to assist with L2 learning, whereas introverts may find it more difficult to seek out such opportunities for interaction^[4]. However, it has also been suggested that, while extraverts might experience greater fluency, introverts are are likely to make fewer linguistic errors. Further, while extraversion might be beneficial through its encouragement of learning autonomously, it may also present challenges as learners may find reflective and time-management skills to be difficult^[5]. However, one study has found that there were no significant differences between extraverts and introverts on the way they achieve success in a second language.^[75]

Other personality factors, such as conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness influence self-regulation, which helps L2 learners engage, process meaning, and adapt their thoughts, feelings, and actions to benefit the acquisition process^[5]. SLA research has shown conscientiousness to be associated with time-management skills, metacognition, analytic learning, and persistence; agreeableness to effort; and openness to elaborative learning, intelligence, and metacognition. Both genetics and the learner's environment impact the personality of the learner, either facilitating or hindering an individual's ability to learn.

Social attitudes such as gender roles and community views toward language learning have also proven critical. Language learning can be severely hampered by cultural attitudes, with a frequently cited example being the difficulty of Navajo children in learning English^[75].

Motivation of the individual learner is also of vital importance to the success of language learning. Motivation is influenced by goal salience, valence, and self-efficacy^[6]. In this context, goal salience is the importance of the L2 learner's goal, as well as how often the goal is pursued; valence is the value the L2 learner places on SLA, determined by desire to learn and attitudes about learning the L2; and self-efficacy is the learner's own belief that he or she is capable of achieving the linguistic goal^[6]. Studies have consistently shown that intrinsic motivation, or a genuine interest in the language itself, is more effective over the long term than extrinsic motivation, as in learning a language for a reward such as high grades or praise^[75]. However, motivation is dynamic and, as a L2 learner's fluency develops, their extrinsic motivation may evolve to become more intrinsic^[6]. Learner motivation can develop through contact with the L2 community and culture, as learners often desire to communicate and identify with individuals in the L2 community. Further, a supportive learning environment facilitates motivation through the increase in self-confidence and autonomy^[6]. Learners in a supportive environment are more often willing to take on challenging tasks, thus encouraging L2 development.