Chapter 2 – The History of Second Language Acquisition

Chapter 2 covers a range of topics related to second language acquisition (SLA), including its history, various theories of SLA, the impact of social and cultural factors, the role of technology, and the benefits of bilingualism. The chapter starts with a brief history of SLA and an overview of behaviorist, cognitive, and social-cultural theories of SLA. It also discusses the role of neuroscience and psycholinguistics in understanding how language is learned.

The chapter explores the concept of transfer and the role of the first language (L1) in SLA, as well as contrastive analysis and error analysis as tools for understanding learners’ linguistic difficulties. It also examines the impact of culture on SLA, including learners’ attitudes toward the target language and the choice of language. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the impact of technology on SLA, including the development of language learning software, e-learning, and the use of mobile devices for language learning. Additionally, the benefits of bilingualism are discussed, such as cognitive and metalinguistic advantages and improved academic achievement.

The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the various factors that impact SLA. The problem-solving activity can involve designing an instructional intervention that integrates technology and cultural factors to enhance the SLA of a specific group of learners. The intervention can be informed by the theories and concepts discussed in the chapter, such as the role of social-cultural factors and the benefits of bilingualism, and can be evaluated through various measures, such as learners’ language proficiency and attitudes towards language learning.

Guiding questions for discussion

1. What are your goals for learning a second language, and how do you plan to achieve them?
2. How do you think cultural factors can impact second language acquisition, and what are some examples?
3. What are some potential benefits of bilingualism, and how might they apply to your personal and professional life?
4. How do you prefer to learn a new language, and why? What strategies have been most effective for you in the past?
5. What are some challenges you have faced when learning a second language, and how have you overcome them?

A case study

Case Study: Improving Second Language Learning in the Classroom

Background: You are a language teacher who has noticed that some of your students are struggling to learn English as a second language. You have tried various teaching methods, but you still see some students struggling. You are looking for ways to improve second language learning in the classroom.

Problem: Your students are having difficulty with reading and writing in English. They often make errors in grammar, vocabulary, and syntax. They also struggle with understanding and interpreting English texts.

Objectives: Your objective is to find effective strategies to help your students improve their reading and writing skills in English.

Introduction

The history of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is a rich and complex field that has evolved over the years, encompassing different theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and research areas. This essay will provide a brief overview of the history of SLA, highlighting key figures and theories that have shaped the field.

The study of SLA has its roots in behaviorist theories of learning, which dominated the field in the mid-twentieth century. Behaviorists view language acquisition as a process of habit formation by reinforcing correct responses and punishing incorrect ones. One of the most influential behaviorist theorists was B.F. Skinner, who proposed that language learning was a result of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1957). However, behaviorist theories were criticized for their oversimplified view of language acquisition, and the field moved towards cognitive approaches in the 1970s (Ellis, 1997).

Cognitive theories of SLA emphasize the role of mental processes in language acquisition, such as memory, attention, and problem-solving. One of the most influential cognitive theorists in the field was Stephen Krashen, who proposed the Input Hypothesis in the 1980s (Krashen, 1981). This theory posits that language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence, or “i+1.” Krashen argued that conscious learning, or the acquisition of explicit knowledge about language rules, played a minor role in language acquisition compared to unconscious acquisition through exposure to comprehensible input.

In the 1990s, SLA researchers began to incorporate insights from sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology into their work, emphasizing the importance of social and cultural factors in language acquisition. Researchers like James Lantolf and Michael Long proposed a theory of sociocultural SLA, which emphasized the role of social interaction in language learning (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). This theory posits that learners acquire language through participation in social activities and interactions with more competent speakers rather than simply through exposure to input.

In recent years, SLA researchers have also begun to incorporate insights from neuroscience and psycholinguistics into their work, exploring the neural underpinnings of language acquisition and processing (Ullman, 2004). This interdisciplinary approach has led to the development of new theories and methodologies for studying SLA, such as the use of brain imaging techniques to investigate the neural mechanisms of language learning.

The field of SLA has undergone significant changes over the years, moving from behaviorist theories of habit formation to cognitive and sociocultural approaches that emphasize the role of mental processes and social interaction in language acquisition. More recently, the field has incorporated insights from neuroscience and psycholinguistics, leading to new theories and methodologies for studying SLA.

Behaviorist theories of learning

The behaviorist theories of learning were influential in the early study of SLA. According to these theories, language acquisition occurs through the reinforcement of correct responses and the punishment of incorrect ones (Skinner, 1957). Behaviorists view language learning as a process of habit formation, where learners acquire new language patterns by repeating correct responses and avoiding incorrect ones.

B.F. Skinner was one of the most influential behaviorist theorists in the field of SLA. He proposed that language learning was a result of operant conditioning, a process in which behavior is shaped through rewards and punishments (Skinner, 1957). Skinner argued that language learning could be accelerated through the use of operant conditioning techniques, such as shaping and chaining, which involve reinforcing small steps toward the target behavior.

However, behaviorist theories were criticized for their oversimplified view of language acquisition. Critics argued that behaviorism failed to account for the creative aspects of language use and the role of cognitive processes in language learning (Ellis, 1997). Moreover, behaviorist theories could not explain how learners could produce novel language structures that they had never heard before.

As a result of these criticisms, the field of SLA moved towards cognitive approaches in the 1970s. Cognitive theories of SLA emphasize the role of mental processes in language acquisition, such as memory, attention, and problem-solving (Ellis, 1997). Cognitive theorists argued that language acquisition was not just a matter of habit formation but also involved the learner’s active construction of linguistic knowledge.

In brief, the behaviorist theories of learning dominated the early study of SLA, with B.F. Skinner being one of the most influential behaviorist theorists in the field. However, behaviorist theories were criticized for their oversimplified view of language acquisition, leading the field to move towards cognitive approaches in the 1970s.

Cognitive theories of SLA

Cognitive theories of SLA focus on the mental processes involved in language acquisition. These theories emphasize that learners actively construct their own understanding of language by processing input, making connections with existing knowledge, and engaging in problem-solving (Ellis, 1997). According to cognitive theories, language acquisition is a complex, dynamic process involving various cognitive processes.

Stephen Krashen is one of the most influential cognitive theorists in the field of SLA. Krashen proposed the Input Hypothesis in the 1980s, which suggests that language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence, or “i+1” (Krashen, 1981). Krashen argued that language learners acquire language unconsciously through exposure to input that is comprehensible but slightly beyond their current level of linguistic competence.

For example, if a learner has a basic understanding of English and is exposed to English input that contains new vocabulary and structures that are just slightly beyond their current level of understanding, they are more likely to acquire the new language structures. However, if the input is too difficult or too easy, learning will not occur. Krashen emphasized the importance of input that is comprehensible and interesting to the learner.

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis is one of the most influential theories in the field of SLA. The theory has been supported by research findings, which suggest that input that is slightly beyond the learner’s current level of understanding is important for language acquisition (Izumi, 2002).

In short, cognitive theories of SLA emphasize the role of mental processes in language acquisition, such as memory, attention, and problem-solving. Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis is one of the most influential theories in the field of SLA. It suggests that language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to input slightly beyond their current level of competence.

Social and cultural factors in language acquisition

In the 1990s, there was a shift in the field of Second Language Acquisition towards a greater emphasis on social and cultural factors that influence language learning. This shift was fueled by sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology insights, which demonstrated the importance of social and cultural contexts in shaping language use and learning.

James Lantolf and Michael Long were prominent figures in this sociocultural turn in SLA research. They proposed a theory of sociocultural SLA, which emphasized the role of social interaction in language learning (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). This theory posits that language learning occurs through participation in social activities and interactions with more competent speakers rather than simply through exposure to input.

For example, a learner who is new to a community may be able to understand and produce basic phrases in the language through exposure to input. However, to acquire more complex language structures, the learner needs to engage in social interactions with more competent speakers who can provide feedback, correction, and guidance. Such interactions can occur in a variety of contexts, including classrooms, workplaces, and social settings.

Sociocultural SLA theory also highlights the importance of context in language learning. Learners may need to navigate different social roles and relationships in different contexts, and this can influence the ways in which they use language. For example, a learner may use different language styles and registers when speaking with friends compared to when speaking with a teacher or a supervisor.

The sociocultural turn in SLA research has highlighted the importance of social and cultural factors in language learning. The theory of sociocultural SLA has generated a wealth of research on the role of social interaction, context, and identity in language learning, and it continues to shape the field of SLA today.

Neuroscience and psycholinguistics in SLA

In recent years, the field of Second Language Acquisition has become increasingly interdisciplinary, with researchers incorporating insights from neuroscience and psycholinguistics into their work. This approach has led to new theories and methodologies for studying SLA and has provided valuable insights into the neural underpinnings of language acquisition and processing.

One influential researcher in this area is Michael Ullman, who has proposed a neurocognitive theory of language learning (Ullman, 2004). This theory posits that language acquisition is supported by a specialized neural system distinct from other cognitive systems and is sensitive to the statistical regularities of language input. Ullman argues that this neural system is particularly important for the acquisition of grammar and other structural aspects of language.

To investigate the neural mechanisms of language learning, researchers have used a variety of brain imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and event-related potentials (ERPs). These techniques allow researchers to observe changes in brain activity associated with different stages of language learning, such as the processing of new vocabulary or the acquisition of grammar rules.

For example, one study used fMRI to investigate the neural mechanisms of second language vocabulary acquisition (Kepinska et al., 2017). The study found that learners who were exposed to a new set of words showed increased activation in the brain regions associated with semantic processing, such as the left inferior frontal gyrus and the middle temporal gyrus. This suggests that learners were integrating new words into their existing semantic knowledge.

Another study used ERPs to investigate the processing of grammatical structures in a second language (Hopp & Lemmerth, 2018). The study found that learners who had acquired a second language showed different neural responses to grammatical violations compared to native speakers of the language. This suggests that the neural mechanisms underlying language processing may differ between native and non-native speakers.

Overall, the incorporation of insights from neuroscience and psycholinguistics has opened up new avenues for studying SLA, and has provided valuable insights into the neural mechanisms of language acquisition and processing.

Transfer and the role of the L1

Transfer and the role of the first language (L1) are important concepts in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. Transfer refers to the influence of the learner’s L1 on their acquisition and use of a second language (L2). The role of the L1 in SLA has been a topic of debate among researchers, with some arguing that the L1 can have a negative impact on L2 acquisition, while others argue that the L1 can be a useful resource for learners.

One perspective is that the L1 can have a negative impact on L2 acquisition, particularly in cases where the L1 and L2 are typologically different. For example, if a learner’s L1 has a different word order than the L2 they are learning, they may have difficulty acquiring the correct word order in the L2 (Odlin, 1989). This is known as negative transfer, or interference.

On the other hand, some researchers have argued that the L1 can be a useful resource for learners, particularly in cases where the L1 and L2 are similar. This is known as positive transfer, or facilitation. For example, if a learner’s L1 is Spanish and they are learning French, they may be able to use their knowledge of Spanish to help them learn French vocabulary and grammar (Ringbom, 1987).

Another perspective is that the role of the L1 in SLA is more complex than simply positive or negative transfer. Instead, researchers argue that the L1 can serve as a resource for learners, but that learners must also learn to adapt their L1 knowledge to the L2 context (Cook, 2001). This is known as language transfer, which includes both positive and negative transfer.

Overall, the role of the L1 in SLA is complex and context-dependent. While there is evidence of both positive and negative transfer, researchers suggest that the L1 can be a useful resource for learners if they are able to adapt their L1 knowledge to the L2 context.

Negative transfer

Negative transfer, or interference, is one perspective on the role of the L1 in SLA. According to this perspective, the L1 can have a negative impact on the acquisition of the L2, particularly if the two languages are typologically different. For example, if the learner’s L1 has a different word order than the L2 they are learning, they may have difficulty acquiring the correct word order in the L2.

Odlin (1989) provides several examples of negative transfer. For instance, a Japanese speaker learning English might have difficulty acquiring the correct English word order for questions because the word order in Japanese is different. In Japanese, the word order for a yes-no question is the same as for a statement, but in English, it is inverted (e.g., “Do you like pizza?” vs. “You like pizza.”). Similarly, a Spanish speaker learning English might have difficulty with the use of articles (a, an, the) because Spanish does not have articles.

Negative transfer can also occur at the level of pronunciation. For example, a speaker of a tone language, such as Mandarin Chinese, might have difficulty distinguishing between English sounds that are similar in pitch, such as /b/ and /p/ (Flege, 1995).

Negative transfer is one way in which the L1 can influence L2 acquisition. Learners who experience negative transfer may need additional support to overcome these difficulties, such as explicit instruction on the differences between their L1 and L2.

Positive transfer

Positive transfer, or facilitation, is another perspective on the role of the L1 in SLA. According to this perspective, the L1 can be a useful resource for learners, particularly if the L1 and L2 are similar. For example, if a learner’s L1 is Spanish and they are learning French, they may be able to use their knowledge of Spanish to help them learn French vocabulary and grammar.

Ringbom (1987) provides several examples of positive transfer. For instance, a Swedish speaker learning German might find it easier to learn German noun genders because Swedish also has noun genders. Similarly, a speaker of a Romance language, such as Italian, might find it easier to learn another Romance language, such as Portuguese, because the two languages share many similarities in vocabulary and grammar.

Positive transfer can also occur at the level of pronunciation. For example, a speaker of a language that has similar vowel sounds to the L2 may find it easier to pronounce the vowels correctly in the L2 (Bongaerts, van Summeren, Planken, & Schils, 1997).

The positive transfer is one way in which the L1 can influence L2 acquisition. Learners who experience positive transfer may be able to use their L1 knowledge to help them learn the L2 more effectively.

L1 as a resource for learners

The concept of language transfer posits that the influence of the L1 on L2 acquisition is more complex than just positive or negative transfer. According to Cook (2001), language transfer can be either positive or negative depending on how L1 knowledge is used in the L2 context. Positive transfer occurs when L1 knowledge facilitates the acquisition of the L2, while negative transfer occurs when L1 knowledge interferes with L2 acquisition. However, transfer can also involve both positive and negative aspects simultaneously, and may depend on factors such as language proficiency, context, and the specific features of the L1 and L2.

For instance, research suggests that the use of the L1 can help learners acquire the L2, but only if it is used strategically and selectively (Serratrice & Kuchah, 2018). Positive transfer can occur when learners use L1 knowledge to make predictions about L2 input, to clarify L2 meanings, or to compare L1 and L2 structures. In contrast, negative transfer may occur when learners transfer L1 patterns that are not applicable to the L2, resulting in errors in the L2.

For example, a Spanish speaker learning English may transfer the Spanish word order to English sentences, resulting in errors such as “I have hungry” instead of “I am hungry.” However, the same Spanish speaker may also transfer their knowledge of cognates between Spanish and English, helping them to learn English vocabulary more easily.

The role of the L1 in SLA is complex and involves a range of transfer effects that are not always straightforwardly positive or negative. Understanding the nature of transfer, and how learners can strategically use their L1 knowledge to acquire the L2, is an important area of research in SLA.

Contrastive analysis

Contrastive analysis is an approach to SLA that seeks to identify and compare the similarities and differences between the learner’s L1 and the L2 they are learning. The goal is to predict the areas where learners may have difficulty transferring their L1 knowledge to the L2 and to design instructional materials that address these difficulties (Lado, 1957).

For example, in the case of an English-speaking learner who is learning Spanish, a contrastive analysis might reveal that the word order in Spanish sentences is different from that in English. As a result, the learner may need to be explicitly taught the correct word order in Spanish sentences to avoid negative transfer from their English L1.

However, contrastive analysis has been criticized for oversimplifying the complex process of language acquisition and for ignoring the role of individual differences among learners (Ellis, 1997). Critics argue that learners may have different learning strategies and motivations that go beyond their L1 and that contrastive analysis may not fully account for these factors.

Critics of contrastive analysis argue that the approach oversimplifies the process of language acquisition by focusing solely on the similarities and differences between the L1 and L2. Some researchers have argued that learners have different learning styles and preferences that can influence their language acquisition, such as their cognitive abilities, motivation, and attitudes towards the L2 (Dörnyei, 2005). These individual differences can also affect the effectiveness of contrastive analysis as a tool for language teaching and learning.

For example, some learners may have a preference for deductive learning, in which they learn language rules explicitly, while others may prefer inductive learning, in which they discover language rules through exposure to examples (Ellis, 2005). Contrastive analysis may be more effective for learners who prefer deductive learning, as it provides explicit comparisons between the L1 and L2. However, for learners who prefer inductive learning, contrastive analysis may not be as effective, as it may not allow them to discover the language rules on their own.

Additionally, some researchers have argued that contrastive analysis may not fully account for the cultural and sociolinguistic factors that can influence language acquisition. For example, learners may have different pragmatic and discourse conventions in their L1 and L2, which can affect their ability to use the L2 appropriately in social interactions (Kasper & Rose, 2002).

While contrastive analysis can provide useful insights into the similarities and differences between the L1 and L2, it should be used alongside other approaches that take into account individual differences and sociocultural factors in language acquisition. Nevertheless, contrastive analysis has been influential in the development of language teaching materials and continues to be used in some contexts (Odlin, 2005).

Error analysis

Error analysis is an approach in SLA that aims to identify and analyze the errors made by learners in their L2 production. This approach assumes that errors are not random and can reveal systematic patterns in the learners’ acquisition of the L2 (Corder, 1967). By analyzing the errors made by learners, researchers can gain insights into the learners’ underlying linguistic knowledge and the processes involved in L2 acquisition.

For example, a study by Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) analyzed the errors made by Korean learners of English in their written production. The study found that the learners made errors in areas such as word order, tense, and prepositions, which reflected their L1 transfer. However, the study also found that the learners made errors that could not be attributed to their L1, such as overgeneralization of English plural forms. This suggested that the learners had not fully acquired the L2 grammar and were still in the process of learning.

Another example is a study by Dörnyei and Kormos (2000), which analyzed the errors made by Hungarian learners of English in their oral production. The study found that the learners made errors related to the pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary of English, which indicated their struggle with both the phonological and morphosyntactic aspects of the language. The study also found that the learners made more errors when they were engaged in complex communication tasks, suggesting that task complexity may have an impact on L2 production.

Critics of error analysis argue that it focuses too much on errors and may not fully account for the learners’ successful language use (Ellis, 1997). They also argue that errors may not always reflect the learners’ underlying linguistic knowledge and that other factors, such as attention and memory, may influence the learners’ production (Skehan, 1998). Nonetheless, error analysis remains a valuable tool for SLA research, particularly in identifying areas of difficulty for learners and in designing instructional interventions to address those difficulties.

Critics of error analysis argue that it has several limitations and may not provide a complete picture of language acquisition. They argue that errors may not necessarily reflect the learners’ underlying linguistic knowledge and that other factors, such as attention, memory, and social context, may influence the learners’ production (Skehan, 1998).

For example, a learner may make an error in a particular grammatical structure not because they lack knowledge of that structure but because they are distracted or not paying attention at that moment. Similarly, a learner may produce correct language forms in some contexts but make errors in others due to the different social or communicative demands of those contexts.

Despite these limitations, error analysis has been a useful tool for identifying the types of errors made by learners and the patterns of error production. This information can be used to design instructional interventions that address the specific difficulties faced by learners (Corder, 1973). For example, if learners consistently make errors in the use of past tense verbs, instructors may design activities that focus on the appropriate use of past tense in context.

The Impact of Culture on the Second Language Acquisition

Culture has played a significant role in second language acquisition (SLA) history. Various researchers have explored the relationship between culture and language acquisition, and its influence has been documented throughout history. Cultural factors have impacted SLA in numerous ways, such as in the choice of language, the language learning context, and the learners’ attitudes toward the target language (TL).

Cultural factors have a significant impact on the choice of language among learners. In recent years, English has become the world’s most widely learned second language due to its global status as a lingua franca (Crystal, 2003). The popularity of English is not only due to its usefulness in international communication but also due to the cultural influence of English-speaking countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. The spread of British and American culture through media, technology, and international trade has contributed to the global popularity of English as a second language (Crystal, 2003).

For instance, the colonial period saw the spread of European languages such as English, French, and Spanish to different parts of the world as a result of colonization. Cultural, economic, and political factors influenced the spread of these languages. The spread of English, for example, was driven by the British Empire’s global expansion, which made English a dominant language in different parts of the world (Kramsch, 2014).

Furthermore, cultural factors also impact the language learning context. For instance, in some cultures, language learning may be viewed as a social activity, and learners may prefer to learn in group settings or through social interactions (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). On the other hand, in some cultures, language learning may be viewed as an individual activity, and learners may prefer self-directed learning or private lessons (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000).

Moreover, the socio-political context of language learning is also shaped by cultural factors. In many parts of the world, the language of instruction is influenced by the dominant language of the colonizers or the ruling elites. For example, in some African countries, the colonial language, such as English or French, is the language of instruction in schools, while indigenous languages are often ignored (Oyètádé, 2008).

Moreover, cultural factors also affect learners’ attitudes toward the target language. For instance, cultural stereotypes and prejudices can influence learners’ attitudes toward a particular language. For example, some countries may have negative attitudes towards certain languages, such as French or German, due to historical or political factors (Dornyei, 2005). These negative attitudes can impact learners’ motivation and willingness to learn the language.

Culture also plays a crucial role in shaping learners’ attitudes toward the TL. Learners’ attitudes toward the TL can be influenced by factors such as their cultural background, perceptions of the target culture, and motivations for learning the language (Dörnyei, 2014). For example, a learner who is interested in the culture of the TL may have a more positive attitude toward the language and may be more motivated to learn it.

Culture has profoundly impacted the history of SLA, from the spread of languages during colonialism to the choice of language in the education system and learners’ attitudes towards the TL. The interaction between culture and SLA is complex and multifaceted, and further research is needed to explore the full extent of its influence.

The Impact of Technology on the Second Language Acquisition

Technology has significantly impacted the history of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), from the development of language teaching software and online language courses to the use of mobile devices and social media for language learning. The use of technology in SLA has opened up new opportunities for learners to access language input and interact with speakers of the target language, regardless of their geographic location.

Learning software

The development of language teaching and learning software has revolutionized language learning, providing learners with new ways to access language instruction, practice, and feedback. In the early 2000s, the emergence of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) programs allowed learners to engage with language content and interact with multimedia resources on their own, outside of traditional classroom settings (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Since then, a wide range of language learning software has been developed, including mobile apps, online courses, and virtual reality platforms.

One example of technology’s impact on SLA is the development of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) programs, which use interactive software to provide learners with opportunities to practice grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Another example is the use of online language courses, which offer learners flexible and personalized learning experiences that can be accessed from anywhere with an internet connection (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).

Another example of language teaching software is Rosetta Stone, a language learning program that uses a combination of images, text, and speech recognition technology to teach learners a new language. Another example is Duolingo, a mobile app that provides learners with gamified language instruction and feedback. These programs have become popular due to their accessibility, flexibility, and personalized instruction, as learners can learn at their own pace and receive immediate feedback on their performance.

Moreover, the development of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) has further enhanced language learning software. ITS programs use artificial intelligence algorithms to tailor instruction to the learner’s needs, providing targeted feedback and scaffolding to support the learners’ language development (Nye, Graesser, & Hu, 2014). These programs are designed to adapt to the learners’ level of proficiency, track their progress, and provide personalized instruction and feedback.

Language teaching and learning software has expanded the possibilities for language learning beyond the traditional classroom setting, providing learners with accessible and personalized language instruction. However, it is important to note that these programs should not replace the importance of social interaction and communication with native speakers for language acquisition.

Online learning/ Elearning

The development of online learning, also known as eLearning, has revolutionized how language learning occurs. E-learning involves using technology to deliver language instruction, including video conferencing, online forums, and virtual classrooms. This mode of instruction has several advantages, including flexibility, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. Learners can access course materials and interact with instructors and other learners from anywhere in the world, making language learning more accessible to a wider range of learners.

One example of an e-learning platform for language learning is Duolingo, which provides a gamified approach to language learning through an app-based interface. Another example is Rosetta Stone, which offers immersive language learning programs through a combination of software and online resources.

Several studies have examined the effectiveness of e-learning for language learning, with mixed results. Some studies have found that e-learning can be as effective as traditional classroom-based instruction (e.g., Stockwell, 2008), while others have found that e-learning may be less effective for certain types of learners or language skills (e.g., Colpaert, 2006).

Despite the mixed results, e-learning continues to play an important role in language learning, particularly in providing learners with additional opportunities for practice and interaction outside of the classroom setting. As technology continues to advance, it is likely that e-learning will become an even more integral part of language learning in the future.

Mobile devices

Mobile devices have become increasingly popular for second language acquisition (SLA) due to the ubiquity and portability of these devices. Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) refers to the use of mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets to support language learning (Stockwell & Hubbard, 2013). MALL has the potential to provide learners with opportunities for authentic language use, individualized learning experiences, and just-in-time learning (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008).

One example of the use of mobile devices for SLA is the Duolingo app, which provides gamified language learning activities and has been found to be effective in promoting language learning (Vesselinov & Grego, 2012). Another example is the use of mobile devices to facilitate language exchange, where learners can connect with native speakers of the target language for conversation practice through apps such as HelloTalk and Tandem.

MALL has also been used to support language learning in specific contexts, such as medical communication (Wu & Wu, 2017) and refugee integration (Levy & Stockwell, 2016). Mobile devices have also been found to promote learner autonomy and self-regulation in language learning (Chinnery, 2006).

However, the effectiveness of MALL for SLA is still an area of active research, and the impact of factors such as learner motivation, device ownership, and access to network connectivity on MALL use and learning outcomes are still being explored (Chen & Li, 2019).

Social media

Social media has emerged as a popular tool for language learners to engage with the target language outside of the classroom. Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, offer learners the opportunity to connect with speakers of the target language, access authentic materials, and practice language skills in a real-world context (Lomicka & Lord, 2011).

One way social media is used for language learning is through online language exchange programs, where learners are paired with a native speaker of the target language to practice their speaking and listening skills. For example, websites like italki and Tandem facilitate language exchanges between learners around the world.Social media also provides learners with access to authentic materials, such as news articles, podcasts, and videos, which can help learners improve their reading and listening skills. In addition, social media can serve as a platform for language learners to produce and share their own content, such as blog posts, vlogs, and podcasts, which can help them develop their writing and speaking skills (Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008).

Furthermore, social media platforms offer opportunities for learners to engage with the target culture and develop intercultural competence. For example, learners can follow social media accounts of target language speakers, join online communities, and participate in virtual events, which can expose them to different perspectives and ways of life (Lomicka & Lord, 2011).

Social media has the potential to provide language learners with a rich and engaging language learning experience outside of the classroom. However, educators need to provide guidance on using social media for language learning effectively and ensure that learners are accessing reliable and appropriate content.

The Benefits of Bilingualism in Second Language Acquisition

Bilingualism has been found to have numerous benefits for second language acquisition (SLA). For instance, research has shown that bilingual individuals have better cognitive and metalinguistic skills than monolinguals (Bialystok, 2001). They are also more adept at switching between languages and have better working memory and executive function (Bialystok, 2017). These skills may aid in the acquisition of a second language by enhancing learners’ ability to process and retain new linguistic information.

One of the primary benefits of bilingualism is improved cognitive function, which has been demonstrated through numerous studies. For example, Bialystok (2001) found that bilingual children outperformed monolingual children on tasks that required attentional control, cognitive flexibility, and analytical reasoning.

Another benefit of bilingualism in SLA is metalinguistic awareness, which is the ability to reflect on and analyze language structures. Bialystok and Ryan (1985) found that bilingual children could recognize grammatical errors and comprehend sentence structures better than monolingual children. Regarding metalinguistic awareness, bilingual individuals have been found to better understand language structure, including syntax and morphology (Bialystok, 1988). For instance, bilingual children have been shown to have a better understanding of grammatical gender and verb inflections in both of their languages (Serratrice & Sorace, 2009). This enhanced metalinguistic awareness may transfer to improved language learning abilities, as bilingual individuals may be more sensitive to the underlying structures of language.

In addition, bilingualism has been shown to facilitate language learning by promoting cross-linguistic transfer. For example, Kroll and Stewart (1994) found that bilinguals were able to transfer knowledge of grammatical structures and vocabulary from their L1 to their L2, leading to faster and more accurate acquisition of the L2.

Being bilingual can provide learners with cultural and social advantages in several ways. For instance, bilingual individuals are often able to navigate different cultural contexts and communicate with people from diverse backgrounds, which can lead to greater cultural understanding and empathy (Grosjean, 2010). In addition, bilingualism can facilitate intercultural communication and lead to more diverse and inclusive social networks (Grosjean, 2010).

Research has also shown that bilingualism can provide educational and professional advantages. Bilingual individuals may have better job prospects and higher earning potential compared to monolinguals (Serratrice & Sorace, 2009). Moreover, being bilingual may also enhance academic performance, such as in literacy and numeracy skills (Cummins, 2001).

Furthermore, bilingualism has been linked to cognitive flexibility and the ability to switch between tasks or solve problems more efficiently (Bialystok, Craik, & Freedman, 2007). Bilingual individuals have been found to be better at multitasking and managing conflicting information (Bialystok, Craik, & Freedman, 2007).

Research has shown that bilingualism can have positive effects on academic achievement. For instance, a study by Thomas and Collier (2002) found that bilingual students in the United States outperformed their monolingual peers on standardized tests in both their L1 and L2. Similarly, a meta-analysis by Adesope, Lavin, Thompson, and Ungerleider (2010) found that bilingualism was positively associated with cognitive outcomes such as improved problem-solving skills, enhanced creativity, and higher academic achievement. Another study by Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer, and Pierce (2010) found that bilingualism was associated with better reading comprehension skills among English language learners.

Problem-solving 2

Problem: A language school wants to improve the second language acquisition process for their students. They want to implement the use of technology and social media to enhance language learning. However, they are unsure which technologies and platforms would be the most effective.

Work in a group, discuss, and provide some kinds of technologies and platforms for this school. Provide reasons and explanations for each.

Questions to help review the lesson

1. What is second language acquisition (SLA), and why is it important?
2. What are the main theories of SLA?
3. How does the contrastive analysis approach work, and what are some of its criticisms?
4. What is error analysis, and what are some of its limitations?
5. How do cultural factors impact SLA, and can you give some examples?
6. How has technology impacted SLA, and what are some of the examples of language teaching and learning software?
7. What are the benefits of bilingualism in SLA, and can you give some examples?
8. How does being bilingual impact cognitive and metalinguistic skills?
9. What is the critical period hypothesis, and what does it suggest about the relationship between age and SLA?
10. What is the role of motivation in SLA, and how can teachers help motivate their learners?
11. What are the advantages and disadvantages of immersion programs for SLA?
12. How can language learning strategies help learners improve their SLA?
13. How can teachers assess their students’ language proficiency and progress in SLA?
14. What are some effective instructional strategies for teaching grammar in SLA?
15. How can teachers create a supportive and inclusive classroom environment for diverse learners in SLA?

References

Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207-245.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Freedman, M. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45(2), 459-464. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.009

Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 447-465.

Chen, C., & Li, L. (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(6), 691-704.

Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9-16.

Corder, S. P. (1973). Introducing applied linguistics. Penguin.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.

Colpaert, J. (2006). The place of CALL in language teaching and learning. System, 34(3), 371-382.

Cummins, J. (2001). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of second language acquisition. Routledge.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: Questions and answers. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 1-21.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and Language Pedagogy: Ethnic Assumptions and Classroom Practice. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 543-560.

Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in cross-language research (pp. 233-277). Timonium, MD: York Press.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kepinska, O., de Rover, M., Caspers, J., Schiller, N. O., & Goebel, R. (2017). Neural mechanisms of vocabulary acquisition in adults: Evidence from second language learning. Neuropsychologia, 98, 53-64.

Kramsch, C. (2014). Culture in language learning and teaching. Routledge.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Mobile-assisted language learning. In S. Knapp & J. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 332-357). De Gruyter Mouton.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Harvard University Press.

Hopp, H., & Lemmerth, N. (2018). How native-like is non-native language processing? A study of event-related potentials in German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(4), 751-768.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541-577.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2016). CALL and the refugee crisis: Supporting language learning and integration. ReCALL, 28(3), 243-249.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Routledge.

Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 475-483.

Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2011). Social networking technologies applications for language learning. Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning, 197-214.

Marian, V., & Shook, A. (2012). The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, 2012, 13. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583091/

Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Multilingual Matters.

Nye, B. D., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2014). AutoTutor and affective autotutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 4(4), 1-38.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge University Press.

Odlin, T. (2005). Cross-linguistic influence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 431-446). Routledge.

Oyètádé, B. (2008). African languages in school education in Africa. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 159-171). Springer.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second Language Learning as Participation and the (Re)Construction of Selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 155-178). Oxford University Press.

Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters.

Serratrice, L., & Kuchah, K. (2018). Code-switching and translanguaging in bilingualism: A critical review of concepts and definitions. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(6), 663-682.

Serratrice, L., & Sorace, A. (2009). The use of acceptability judgments in language acquisition research: A case study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 720-766. doi: 10.1080/01690960802169777

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. The International Research Foundation for English Language Education (TIRF) Perspectives, 2(2), 5-16.

Stockwell, G. (2008). Is there a role for technology in CALL? : A review of the literature. System, 36(2), 294-307.

Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). “Bridging activities,” new media literacies, and advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 558-572.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1-2), 231-270.

Vesselinov, R., & Grego, J. (2012). Duolingo effectiveness study. Duolingo, Inc. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/duolingo-papers/other/Duolingo_Effectiveness_Study.pdf

Wu, T. J., & Wu, Y. C. (2017). Enhancing medical communication skills using a mobile application for Chinese-speaking international medical students. Computers & Education, 113, 15-30.

Chapter 2 covers a range of topics related to second language acquisition (SLA), including its history, various theories of SLA, the impact of social and cultural factors, the role of technology, and the benefits of bilingualism. The chapter starts with a brief history of SLA and an overview of behaviorist, cognitive, and social-cultural theories of…