Introduction
Second language acquisition (SLA) refers to the process by which people learn a second language in addition to their native language after early childhood. It is distinct from foreign language learning, which takes place in an environment where the target language is not natively spoken. SLA research examines the naturalistic processes through which language is acquired, not the ways that language can be explicitly taught in a classroom setting. This paper will provide an overview of key topics and findings in SLA research, with a focus on language learning processes and factors that influence them.
Language Learning Processes
Some of the major processes and theories that have been examined in SLA research include:
Interlanguage: This refers to a learner’s developing system of knowledge about the target language at any given time. An interlanguage incorporates features of both the native language and target language and passes through developmental “stages” as learning progresses. Errors made by learners are seen as a natural part of the learning process rather than lack of competence.
Monitor Model: This theory proposed by Stephen Krashen argues that adult second language acquisition involves two independent processes – acquistion, which is subconscious and similar to first language development, and learning, which is a conscious process of formal instruction and monitoring. The extent to which conscious monitoring takes place is dependent on variables like motivation, confidence, focus on form. Over-monitoring can hinder acquisition.
Input Hypothesis: Another of Krashen’s theories is that acquisition happens through comprehensible input that is challenging but accessible, through natural communication rather than conscious learning. The focus should be on meaning rather than forcing production too early. The “i+1” concept refers to input that is just beyond the learner’s current level.
Zone of Proximal Development: Lev Vygotsky’s theory that acquisition is optimal when learners receive assistance operating just beyond their independent capability. With assistance from teachers or more capable peers, learners can accomplish more than they could achieve alone.
Output Hypothesis: Swain’s hypothesis built on Krashen’s input hypothesis, arguing that output (speech production) plays an important role in noticing gaps, testing hypotheses, and developing fluency. Output pushes learners to higher levels of language processing than input alone.
Cognitive Theories: Theories based on information processing approaches how learners intake, store, retrieve and produce language based on limited cognitive capacities. Also examined are the influence of working memory, automaticity, and existing linguistic systems on SLA.
Individual Difference Factors
A wide range of individual difference variables have been found to influence SLA to varying degrees:
Age: Younger learners typically acquire language more easily and with native-like pronunciation and grammar. Puberty is thought to mark a decline in abilities, though older learners still succeed with sufficient exposure and motivation.
Language Aptitude: General language-learning abilities like phonetic coding ability, grammar sensitivity, and inductive language learning ability predict how quickly and fully a person can acquire language forms and meanings.
Motivation/Attitudes: Integrative motivation (liking the L2 community) versus instrumental motivation (for education/jobs) affects willingness to seek comprehensible input and practice output. Self-confidence and goals also influence motivation.
Personality: More extraverted, open, agreeable, and conscientious learners may find social interaction and practice easier and be more engaged in class. Neuroticism inhibits risk-taking needed for practice.
Learning Styles: Preference for visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic styles affect optimum teaching methods and areas of strength. Field dependence/independence impacts ability to generalize and use context to aid acquisition.
Aptitude for Phonology: Ability to perceive and produce new sounds depends on issues like strength of native phoneme system interference and phonetic coding ability.
Native Language Factors: Typological distance between L1 and L2 influences ease of transfer, while similar syntax and phonology ease certain aspects of learning. Orthographic depth impacts writing development.
Exposure/Environment: Amount of engagement with the L2 through authentic communication, reading, media etc. and degree of L2 use in daily life drive acquisition forward. Full immersion maximizes input and practice.
Personality: A number of personality factors such as extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism have also been linked to achievement and participation levels in SLA.
Pedagogical Implications
Despite ongoing research, there remains much to understand about the complex processes of SLA. Several implications for language teaching pedagogy have emerged based on current understanding:
Focus on meaningful communicative practice over isolated grammar teaching. Provide optimal “i+1” level input and output practice opportunities.
Create low-anxiety environments where students are not afraid to negotiate meaning and try out the L2. Errors should be viewed as a natural part of learning.
Use a variety of engaging, multi-sensory tasks and materials tailored to different learning styles. Alternate between whole-class, small-group, pair and individual work.
Explicit attention to form is useful, but should not outweigh meaningful communication. Focus on a few key structures rather than broad, superficial coverage.
Develop learner autonomy through strategies training. Promote intrinsic motivation by linking content to personal goals and interests.
Assess learner aptitudes and needs to personalize instruction and support weaker areas. Provide multiple modalities of instruction and practice.
Use the learner’s L1 judiciously as a scaffold, especially for very beginners or complex topics. Avoid over-reliance on L1 that precludes L2 output practice.
Overall, SLA research aims to better understand the learning process itself in order to continually refine pedagogical approaches that optimize students’ developmental journeys to L2 mastery. While questions remain, classroom practice continues to evolve based on empirical evidence from the field.
Andrew Stroud