Editing Second-language acquisition (section)

== Factors and approaches ==

=== Cognitive factors ===
Much modern research in second-language acquisition has taken a cognitive approach.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=5}} Cognitive research is concerned with the mental processes involved in language acquisition, and how they can explain the nature of learners' language knowledge. This area of research is based in the more general area of [[cognitive science]] and uses many concepts and models used in more general cognitive theories of learning. As such, cognitive theories view second-language acquisition as a special case of more general learning mechanisms in the brain. This puts them in direct contrast with linguistic theories, which posit that language acquisition uses a unique process different from other types of learning.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=71}}{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=405–406}}

{{anchor|Computational models}}The dominant model in cognitive approaches to second-language acquisition, and indeed in all second-language acquisition research, is the computational model.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=405–406}} The computational model involves three stages. In the first stage, learners retain certain features of the language input in short-term memory. (This retained input is known as ''intake''.) Then, learners convert some of this intake into second-language knowledge, which is stored in long-term memory. Finally, learners use this second-language knowledge to produce spoken output.{{sfn|Ellis|1997|p=35}} Cognitive theories attempt to codify both the nature of the mental representations of intake and language knowledge and the mental processes that underlie these stages.

In the early days of second-language acquisition research on [[interlanguage]] was seen as the basic representation of second-language knowledge; however, more recent research has taken several different approaches in characterizing the mental representation of language knowledge.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=408–410}} Some theories hypothesize that learner language is inherently variable,{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=410–415}} and there is the functionalist perspective that sees the acquisition of language as intimately tied to the function it provides.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=415–417}} Some researchers make the distinction between [[Implicit and explicit knowledge|''implicit'' and ''explicit'' knowledge]], and some between ''declarative'' and ''procedural'' language knowledge.{{sfn|Gass|Selinker|2008|pp=242–243}} There have also been approaches that argue for a ''dual-mode system'' in which some language knowledge is stored as rules and other language knowledge as items.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=431–433}}

{{See also|Implicit and explicit knowledge|}}

=== Sociocultural factors ===

From the early days of the discipline, researchers have also acknowledged that social aspects play an important role.{{sfn|Ellis|1997|p=37}} There have been many different approaches to the sociolinguistic study of second-language acquisition.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=280–281}} 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.{{sfn|Gass|Selinker|2008|pp=280–281}}

Ellis identifies three types of social structures that affect the acquisition of second languages: sociolinguistic settings, specific social factors, and situational factors.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=281}} Sociolinguistic 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.{{sfn|Siegel|2003|p=178}} Ellis also includes the distinction of whether the second language is learned in a natural or an educational setting.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=288}} 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.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=323}} Situational factors are those that 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.{{sfn|Gass|Selinker|2008|pp=268–269}}

A learner's sense of connection to their in-group, as well as to the community of the target language emphasizes the influence of the sociolinguistic setting, as well as social factors within the second-language acquisition process. [[Social identity theory|Social Identity Theory]] argues that an important factor for second language acquisition is the learner's perceived identity to the community of the language being learned, as well as how the community of the target language perceives the learner.{{sfn|Loewen|Reinders|2011}} 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 discourages 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 from the learner, limiting the learner's ability to learn the language.{{sfn|Loewen|Reinders|2011}} Whether or not bilingualism is valued by the culture or community of the learner is an important indicator of the motivation to learn a language.{{sfn|Vega|2008|pp=185–198}}

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.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=326–327}} Another sociolinguistic model is Gardner's [[socio-educational model]], which was designed to explain classroom language acquisition. Gardner's model focuses on the emotional aspects of SLA, arguing that positive motivation contributes to an individual's willingness to learn L2; furthermore, the goal of an individual to learn an L2 is based on the idea that the individual has a desire to be part of a culture, in other words, part of a (the targeted language) mono-linguistic community. Factors, such as [[Motivation in second-language learning|''integrativeness'']] and ''attitudes towards the learning situation'' drive motivation. The outcome of positive motivation is not only linguistic but non-linguistic, such that the learner has met the desired goal. Although there are many critics of Gardner's model, nonetheless many of these critics have been influenced by the merits that his model holds.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = A Critical Review on the Socio-educational Model of SLA|journal = Theory and Practice in Language Studies|date = 2015-03-24|issn = 1799-2591|pages = 605–612|volume = 5|issue = 3|doi = 10.17507/tpls.0503.21|first1 = Masumeh|last1 = Taie|first2 = Asghar|last2 = Afshari|doi-access = free|hdl = 10818/30256|hdl-access = free}}</ref>{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=330}} The [[inter-group model]] proposes "ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key construct for second-language acquisition.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=332}} [[Language socialization]] is an approach with the premise that "linguistic and cultural knowledge are ''constructed'' through each other",{{sfn|Watson-Gegeo|Nielsen|2003|p=157}} and saw increased attention after the year 2000.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=334}} Finally, Norton's theory of [[social identity (linguistics)|social identity]] is an attempt to codify the relationship between power, identity, and language acquisition.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=336}}

A unique approach to SLA is sociocultural theory. It was originally developed by [[Lev Vygotsky]] and his followers.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|pp=151–152}} Central to Vygotsky's theory is the concept of a [[zone of proximal development]] (ZPD). The ZPD notion states that social interaction with more advanced target language users allows one to learn a language at a higher level than if they were to learn a language independently.<ref>{{Cite book|title=How Languages are Learned|last1=Lightbown|first1=Patsy|last2=Spada|first2=Nina|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2011|isbn=978-0-19-442224-6}}</ref> Sociocultural theory has a fundamentally different set of assumptions to approaches to second-language acquisition based on the computational model.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=517–518}} Furthermore, although it is closely affiliated with other social approaches, it is a theory of mind and not of general social explanation of language acquisition. According to Ellis, "It is important to recognize... that this paradigm, despite the label 'sociocultural' does not seek to explain how learners acquire the cultural values of the L2 but rather how knowledge of an L2 is internalized through experiences of a sociocultural nature."{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=517–518}}

=== Linguistic factors ===

Linguistic approaches to explaining second-language acquisition spring from the wider study of linguistics. They differ from cognitive approaches and sociocultural approaches in that they consider linguistic knowledge to be unique and distinct from any other type of knowledge.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=71}}{{sfn|Ellis|2008|pp=405–406}} The linguistic research tradition in second-language acquisition has developed in relative isolation from the cognitive and sociocultural research traditions, and as of 2010 the influence from the wider field of linguistics was still strong.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=5}} Two main strands of research can be identified in the linguistic tradition: [[Generative second-language acquisition|generative approaches]] informed by [[universal grammar]], and typological approaches.{{sfn|Ellis|2008|p=557}}

[[Typological universals]] are principles that hold for all the world's languages. They are found empirically, by surveying different languages and deducing which aspects of them could be universal; these aspects are then checked against other languages to verify the findings. The [[interlanguage]]s of second-language learners have been shown to obey typological universals, and some researchers have suggested that typological universals may constrain interlanguage development.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=161}}

The theory of universal grammar was proposed by [[Noam Chomsky]] in the 1950s and has enjoyed considerable popularity in the field of linguistics. It focuses on describing the [[linguistic competence]] of an individual. He believed that children not only acquire language by learning descriptive rules of grammar; he claimed that children ''creatively'' play and form words as they learn language, creating meaning for the words, as opposed to the mechanism of memorizing language.{{sfn|Solé|1994|p=99}} The "universals" in universal grammar differ from typological universals in that they are a mental construct derived by researchers, whereas typological universals are readily verifiable by data from world languages.{{sfn|VanPatten|Benati|2010|p=161}}

Universal grammar theory can account for some of the observations of SLA research. For example, L2 users often display knowledge about their L2 that they have not been exposed to.{{sfn|VanPatten|Williams|2015|pp=36–37}} L2 users are often aware of ambiguous or ungrammatical L2 units that they have not learned from any external source, nor their pre-existing L1 knowledge. This unsourced knowledge suggests the existence of a universal grammar. Another piece of evidence that generative linguists tend to use is the [[poverty of the stimulus]], which states that children acquiring language lack sufficient data to fully acquire all facets of grammar in their language, causing a mismatch between input and output.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/GS345/White%20%282003%29.%20Second%20Language%20Acquisition%20and%20Universal%20Grammar.pdf|title=Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar|last=White|first=Lydia|date=2003|website=Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics}}</ref> The fact that children are only exposed to positive evidence yet have intuition about which word strings are ungrammatical may also be indicative of universal grammar. However, L2 learners have access to negative evidence as they are explicitly taught about ungrammaticality through corrections or grammar teaching.<ref name=":2" />

{{See also|Generative second-language acquisition|}}