Chapter 4 – Linguistic environment & Input hypothesis

Chapter 4 of the book discusses various topics related to second language acquisition, including first language acquisition, bilingualism acquisition, heritage language acquisition, third language acquisition/multilingualism, linguistic environment, cognitive-interactionism, acculturation model, input hypothesis, comprehensible input, interaction and negotiation for meaning, and output and syntactic processing during production.

The chapter begins by discussing first language acquisition, which occurs naturally and unconsciously during childhood. It then moves on to bilingualism acquisition, where individuals acquire two languages either simultaneously or sequentially. The chapter also discusses heritage language acquisition, which occurs when an individual learns the language of their parents or grandparents but does not become fully proficient in it. Next, the chapter delves into third language acquisition and multilingualism, which involves learning a third or additional language. The chapter also discusses the linguistic environment and how learners are exposed to language in naturalistic settings, as well as in communicative classrooms.

The cognitive-interactionism approach to language acquisition is also explored in the chapter, which emphasizes the role of social interaction and cognitive processes in language learning. The chapter also discusses the acculturation model, which highlights the social and cultural factors that affect language learning. The input hypothesis, introduced by Krashen, proposes that language learning occurs through comprehensible input. The chapter further explains the concept of comprehensible input and its role in language acquisition. 

Interaction and negotiation for meaning is also explored in the chapter, which highlights how learners engage in making meaning and producing messages during interactions with interlocutors. The chapter also discusses output and syntactic processing during production, which involves the psycholinguistic demands of composing messages during language production. Overall, the chapter provides a comprehensive overview of various topics related to second language acquisition and highlights the importance of social interaction, cognitive processes, and linguistic environment in language learning.

Case study 3

Introduction

A language is a form of communication, but it is not the only means by which children communicate. Infants begin to communicate long before they acquire language in the traditional sense, using a variety of nonverbal means to signal their needs and desires. As Foster-Cohen (1999) noted, one of the earliest and most effective means of communication for infants is crying, which can signal hunger, discomfort, or a need for attention.

However, infants also use more pleasant means of communication to engage with their caregivers and the world around them. For example, smiling and cooing are common early communication behaviors that infants use to interact with others. While coos are not precisely like the speech sounds of language, they do demonstrate that infants are attuned to sounds and their potential significance. During the period from approximately four to seven months, infants use cooing sounds to experiment with aspects of language such as loudness and pitch (Foster-Cohen, 1999). This suggests that even at an early age, infants are actively exploring the sounds and patterns of language.

Other nonverbal communication behaviors that infants may use include gestures, such as pointing or reaching, and facial expressions, such as frowning or looking surprised. These behaviors can also be an important means of communicating needs and desires, even before infants have acquired the words to express themselves (Bates & Dick, 2002).

A language is a form of communication, but infants begin to communicate long before they acquire language in the traditional sense. Nonverbal behaviors such as crying, smiling, and cooing are important early means of communication for infants, allowing them to signal their needs and engage with the world around them.

First language acquisition

Learning a first language is an impressive feat that requires infants to acquire complex rules and structures. From the earliest stages of language acquisition, infants are faced with the task of figuring out the sound patterns, word meanings, and sentence structures of their language. They do this primarily through exposure to the language but also through social interaction and cognitive processes such as pattern recognition and rule formation (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996).

As infants progress through the stages of language development, they gradually gain the ability to produce words and sentences and to use language for a wide range of communicative functions. For example, they learn to ask for things they want (“more juice, please”), to describe events and experiences (“I saw a big dog”), and to engage in social interaction and play (“peek-a-boo!”). By the time they reach the end of the language-learning journey, typically around age 5 or 6, they have an intact linguistic system that allows them to understand and produce an almost infinite number of sentences, and to interact with others in a variety of contexts (Huttenlocher, Haight, Bryk, Seltzer, & Lyons, 1991).

Moreover, the acquisition of language has a profound impact on children’s cognitive and social development. Research has shown that language acquisition is closely linked to cognitive development, with language skills influencing other cognitive abilities such as memory, problem-solving, and attention (Bialystok, 2011). In addition, language acquisition is critical for social development, as language provides the means for children to communicate with others, form relationships, and participate in cultural practices (Vygotsky, 1978).

Learning a first language is a remarkable accomplishment involving a complex and ongoing process of acquiring the language’s sound patterns, word meanings, and sentence structures. By the end of this journey, children have an intact linguistic system that allows them to interact with others and express their needs. The acquisition of language has profound impacts on cognitive and social development, highlighting the importance of this accomplishment for human life.

First language acquisition refers to the process of learning a person’s native or first language from birth. It is a complex process that occurs naturally in humans, allowing them to communicate effectively with others in their community. First language acquisition occurs in stages and is influenced by various factors such as exposure, input, cognitive development, and social interaction.

Bilingualism acquisition

Bilingual acquisition refers to the process of acquiring two languages simultaneously during childhood. It is common for children to learn two languages at once if they are exposed to them in their environment, such as growing up in a bilingual family or attending a bilingual school. Bilingualism has many cognitive, social, and cultural benefits and is a valuable skill in today’s globalized world.

For example, a person who grew up speaking English and later learned Spanish as an adult may be considered a skilled adult bilingual if they have achieved a high level of proficiency in both languages and can use them interchangeably in various contexts. On the other hand, a person who is currently learning Spanish as a second language may not yet be considered a bilingual, as they are still in the process of acquiring the language and may not have reached the same level of proficiency as a skilled adult bilingual.

Research suggests that bilingual children can distinguish between their two languages as early as six months old and begin to produce words in both languages around the same time as monolingual children (Byers-Heinlein & Werker, 2013). However, bilingual children may have slightly smaller vocabularies in each language than monolingual children due to dividing their language learning efforts between two languages (Hoff et al., 2012).

The bilingual acquisition can also affect language development in different ways depending on the child’s age and the context of language exposure. For instance, children who are simultaneously exposed to two languages from birth tend to have better language skills in both languages than children who start learning a second language later in life (Genesee et al., 2006). Additionally, bilingual children may code-switch or mix words from both languages within a sentence or conversation, which is a normal and natural aspect of bilingual language use (Grosjean, 1985). The bilingual acquisition is a complex and fascinating process that has both cognitive and cultural benefits. It is important to support bilingual children in their language development and encourage them to use both languages.

The concept of bilingualism has different interpretations across fields. In second language acquisition (SLA) research, the term bilingualism is typically reserved for individuals who have attained a high level of proficiency in both languages and can function as native speakers in both (Grosjean, 2010). Therefore, someone who is truly bilingual would have the same level of competence and fluency in both languages. However, in fields such as psychology and education, the term bilingualism is more broadly defined and can refer to individuals who have varying degrees of proficiency in both languages, including those who are not fully fluent in both languages (Grosjean, 2010).

Due to the focus on the acquisition process in SLA research, researchers are more interested in studying individuals who are in the process of acquiring a second language rather than those who have already acquired two languages at a native-like level (Birdsong, 2018). Therefore, researchers in SLA might focus on the language development of advanced learners or near-native speakers. For example, a study by DeKeyser (2000) examined the language development of advanced English learners and found that they showed evidence of interlanguage influence from their first language in their second language production. Another study by Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995) examined the speech production of near-native English speakers who learned English as a second language and found that their first language still affected their speech production.

Being bilingual can provide numerous advantages in different domains. One of the most obvious advantages is the ability to communicate with a wider range of people, including family members, friends, colleagues, and clients who speak different languages. For instance, if a family emigrates to a new country where a different language is spoken, children who become fluent in the new language might struggle to communicate with their parents who did not learn the language. Bilingualism can bridge this communication gap, enabling family members to communicate more effectively and maintain stronger bonds (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998).

Moreover, bilingualism can provide cultural and economic advantages. Bilingual individuals often better understand cultural differences and can navigate different cultural norms and practices with greater ease (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998). In the globalized world, knowing multiple languages and cultures can be a significant asset in various professions, including business, diplomacy, and international relations. For example, bilingual individuals may be able to secure more job opportunities and command higher salaries due to their language skills and cultural awareness.

Finally, bilingualism has been linked to cognitive advantages such as better problem-solving skills, enhanced creativity, and improved attentional control (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998). Studies have shown that bilingual individuals have the better executive function, the set of cognitive processes responsible for planning, problem-solving, and decision-making. For example, bilingual individuals have been found to be better at multitasking, switching between tasks, and inhibiting irrelevant information (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2012).

Metalinguistic awareness is a significant cognitive advantage of bilingualism, which allows an individual to think about and manipulate language as an object of inquiry. For instance, bilingual children are more proficient than monolingual children in judging grammatical accuracy (Bialystok, 2001a, 2001b). In a study by Bialystok (1987), bilingual and monolingual children’s abilities to count words were compared, reflecting knowledge of what a word is and knowledge of the relationship between word and sentence meanings. The findings revealed that bilingual children outperformed monolinguals in separating out individual words from meaningful sentences, focusing on only the form or meaning of a word under highly distracting conditions, and re-assigning a familiar name to a different object (Bialystok, 1987).

Furthermore, bilinguals tend to have better abilities in areas that require selective attention because they need to focus on one language and suppress the other (Bialystok, 2001a, 2001b). As a result, bilinguals develop enhanced attention and cognitive control skills that transfer to non-linguistic domains (Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2008). For instance, bilinguals have been found to be better at problem-solving, divergent thinking, and creative thinking (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998).

Bilingualism provides a range of advantages, including communicative, cultural/economic, and cognitive advantages. Bilinguals’ metalinguistic awareness, selective attention, and cognitive control skills have been found to transfer to non-linguistic domains and can enhance performance in various cognitive tasks.

Heritage language acquisition

Heritage language acquisition refers to the process by which individuals acquire the language of their family or community, which may be different from the dominant language of the society in which they live. This can occur in immigrant families, where children are exposed to a language other than the majority language spoken in the country of residence, or in families where the language spoken at home differs from that spoken in the wider community.

Research has shown that heritage language acquisition can be complex, and is often influenced by a range of factors including language use patterns in the home, exposure to the heritage language outside of the home, attitudes towards the heritage language and culture, and educational policies and practices (Valdés & Figueroa, 1994; Kagan & Carreira, 2014).

One challenge facing heritage language learners is the potential for language loss or attrition, where they may lose proficiency in their heritage language over time, particularly if they do not have opportunities to use the language regularly (Montrul, 2016). However, there are also potential benefits to heritage language acquisition, including maintaining a connection to one’s culture and family, and potentially greater opportunities for intercultural communication and understanding.

Examples of heritage language acquisition can be found in many different communities, including Spanish-speaking families in the United States, where children may grow up speaking Spanish at home but attend school in English, or in immigrant families in Canada, where parents may speak a language other than English or French, the official languages of the country.

For example, Valdés (2001b) notes that heritage language speakers may include individuals born and raised in a country where the heritage language is spoken, as well as those born and raised in a different country where the heritage language is not commonly used. In addition, heritage language speakers may include individuals who have varying degrees of proficiency in the heritage language, ranging from basic conversational ability to near-native fluency.

One common characteristic of heritage language speakers is that they have a personal connection to the language, often through their family or cultural background. This connection may motivate them to maintain or improve their proficiency in the heritage language, even if they primarily use another language in their daily lives.

Research on heritage language acquisition has focused on understanding the factors that influence heritage language maintenance and development. Some factors that have been identified include the age at which individuals were first exposed to the heritage language, their proficiency in the language, and the extent to which they use the language in their daily lives (Valdés, 2001a).

Heritage learners may have a different knowledge base of the heritage language than non-heritage learners due to their exposure to the language in their environment. For example, a heritage learner of Spanish may have a more intuitive understanding of the language’s grammar and syntax, but may lack knowledge of formal rules and terminology.

Montrul (2004) found that heritage speakers of Spanish in the United States had a different proficiency level in the language than non-heritage learners. The study found that heritage speakers had better command of certain aspects of the language, such as oral fluency and pronunciation, but had lower proficiency in areas such as grammatical accuracy and knowledge of formal language rules.

Similarly, Polinsky (2000) found that heritage speakers of Russian in the United States had better knowledge of certain aspects of the language, such as verb morphology and vocabulary, than non-heritage learners. However, they also showed greater variability in their proficiency levels, indicating that their language knowledge was less standardized than that of non-heritage learners. In another study, Nagasawa (1995) found that heritage speakers of Japanese in the United States had different patterns of language acquisition than non-heritage learners. For example, they tended to learn kanji (Chinese characters used in Japanese writing) earlier and had different pronunciation patterns.

Heritage learners are a diverse group with varying experiences and knowledge of their heritage language. Their unique language learning experiences can have implications for language teaching and learning strategies.

Third language acquisition/multilingualism

Watch this video clip of TED about “The secrets of learning a new language | Lýdia Machová“

Third language acquisition or multilingualism refers to the process of acquiring proficiency in a language other than one’s first or second language. Multilingualism is an increasingly common phenomenon in today’s globalized world, where people are more likely to be exposed to multiple languages and cultures throughout their lives. Some individuals may acquire a third language through formal education, while others may learn it through immersion in a multilingual environment.

Research has shown that multilingualism can have numerous cognitive, social, and educational benefits. For example, studies have shown that multilingual individuals have greater cognitive flexibility and metalinguistic awareness than monolinguals (e.g., Bialystok, 2007; Marian & Shook, 2012). They may also have better problem-solving skills and an increased ability to inhibit irrelevant information (Bialystok, 2015). Moreover, multilingualism can enhance social and cultural understanding, allowing individuals to better appreciate and communicate with individuals from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Examples of multilingualism can be found all over the world, particularly in regions where multiple languages are spoken. For instance, in many parts of Europe, it is common for individuals to speak multiple languages due to the proximity and interconnectedness of different countries. In India, many individuals may speak three or more languages, including regional languages and English, due to the country’s diverse linguistic landscape. Additionally, in countries such as Canada and the United States, where there are many immigrants and multilingual communities, individuals may acquire a third language through exposure to different languages in their communities.

In terms of third language acquisition, research has shown that the process can be influenced by various factors, such as language similarity, proficiency in the first two languages, and motivation to learn the new language (Grosjean, 2010). Some studies have suggested that multilingual individuals may have an advantage in learning a third language, as they have already developed certain cognitive and linguistic skills that can be transferred to the new language (Cook, 2008). However, the process of acquiring a third language can also present challenges, such as interference from previous languages and the need to balance multiple language systems.

Multilingual acquisition refers to the process of learning and acquiring proficiency in multiple languages, while multilingualism refers to the ability to speak and use multiple languages. These phenomena involve various factors and processes that are associated with second language acquisition and bilingualism, such as language transfer, language learning strategies, motivation, and social and cultural factors. However, multilingual acquisition and multilingualism are also characterized by unique and complex factors and effects, such as the interaction and interdependence among the languages being learned and used.

For example, the concept of language transfer or cross-linguistic influence, which refers to the influence of one language on the acquisition and use of another language, can be more complex in multilingual acquisition. When an individual is learning multiple languages simultaneously or sequentially, the languages may interact and influence each other in different ways, leading to various language transfer phenomena. For instance, the presence of a third language may affect the way a learner processes and produces the other languages, such as the transfer of grammatical structures or the use of vocabulary from the third language to the other languages (Cenoz, Hufeisen & Jessner, 2001).

Another factor that is specific to multilingualism is the phenomenon of language contact, which occurs when two or more languages come into contact and influence each other in various ways. Language contact can lead to the emergence of new linguistic features, such as code-switching, borrowing, or pidginization, and can also affect the language proficiency and use of the individuals involved (Thomason & Kaufman, 1988).

Furthermore, multilingualism can have different effects on cognitive and socio-cultural factors, such as identity, worldview, and intercultural competence. For instance, multilingualism can affect the way an individual perceives and understands the world, as well as their sense of self and belonging (Block, 2007). Multilingualism can also enhance intercultural competence, as it involves exposure to different cultures and worldviews, which can foster tolerance, empathy, and understanding of cultural diversity (Byram, 1997).

Sociolinguistic factors play an important role in third language acquisition. For instance, the purpose of learning a third language can significantly affect the learning process. In some industries or professions, such as business and technology, English has become the virtual lingua franca, which means that people from different linguistic backgrounds use it for basic communication (Dewaele & Wei, 2013). In other cases, such as in certain regions of the United States, Spanish has become a necessary language for communication.

From a psycholinguistic perspective, the organization of the lexicon differs for multilingual speakers. Research suggests that a multilingual speaker’s lexical organization differs from that of a monolingual speaker, as the former has to manage multiple languages and switch between them (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002). This can result in interference from one language to another and code-switching, which is the use of two or more languages in a single conversation.

Cross-linguistic influences also impact third language acquisition. Learners of a third language have multiple linguistic resources to draw on, such as their first and second languages. The level of proficiency in each language and the linguistic closeness of the languages in question can determine the degree of cross-linguistic influence. For example, a learner who is fluent in Spanish and French may have an easier time learning Italian, which shares similarities with both languages, than learning Mandarin, which is linguistically distant from both languages.

Multilingual acquisition and multilingualism are complex phenomena that involve various factors and processes, such as language transfer, language contact, and socio-cultural and cognitive factors. These phenomena have important implications for language education, as they highlight the need for a more holistic and dynamic approach to language learning and teaching that considers the learners’ multiple languages and cultural backgrounds.

Linguistics environment

The linguistic environment plays a critical role in shaping the language acquisition process. Children’s early exposure to language input, including the frequency and quality of linguistic input, affects the development of their language skills (Hoff, 2013). Research has shown that infants and young children can discriminate between speech sounds from different languages, but as they become exposed to their native language, their ability to discriminate between non-native sounds decreases (Kuhl et al., 2006). The quality and quantity of language input, social context, and exposure to multiple languages can all influence the development of children’s language skills.

The linguistic environment also plays a role in the acquisition of vocabulary. Children acquire new words through both direct and indirect exposure to language. Direct exposure involves hearing words used in context and receiving explicit explanations of their meanings, while indirect exposure involves hearing words used in passing or reading them in books (Hart & Risley, 1995).

In addition to exposure to language, the linguistic environment also includes the social context in which language is used. The way language is used in different social situations and by different speakers can affect children’s language acquisition. For example, children may learn to use different registers of language, such as formal and informal language, depending on the social context (Gumperz, 1982). Children also learn to adjust their language use based on the listener’s needs and level of comprehension (Clark, 1977).

The linguistic environment is especially important in bilingual and multilingual contexts. Research has shown that children who are exposed to multiple languages from an early age are able to learn and use those languages proficiently (Genesee, 2015). However, the amount and quality of exposure to each language can affect the development of each language (Paradis, 2010). For example, if a child is exposed to one language more frequently than the other, they may become more proficient in that language.

Language acquisition research has consistently highlighted the significance of the linguistic environment in shaping language learning outcomes. Kuhl et al. (2006) highlight the importance of social interaction in language acquisition, with infants being able to detect the social nature of communication from an early age. The seminal work of Hart and Risley (1995) emphasized the impact of language exposure on children’s language development, with children from lower socio-economic backgrounds being exposed to less rich linguistic input than children from higher socio-economic backgrounds.

Gumperz (1982) also notes the importance of social context in language learning, highlighting how communication is affected by social variables such as class, ethnicity, and gender. Clark (1977) argues that language use is not only a cognitive process but also a social one, with the social context in which language is used shaping its structure and use.

Genesee (2015) notes that bilingualism is not just about knowing two languages but also being able to use them appropriately in different social contexts. Similarly, Paradis (2010) highlights the role of the social environment in shaping bilingual children’s language development, with the richness of linguistic input being particularly important in the early stages of language acquisition.

Research has consistently shown that the linguistic environment plays a critical role in language acquisition, with social interaction and the quality and quantity of linguistic input being particularly important. Understanding the role of the environment is thus crucial for gaining insights into how people learn additional languages (Kuhl et al., 2006; Hart & Risley, 1995; Gumperz, 1982; Clark, 1977; Genesee, 2015; Paradis, 2010).

While exposure to a rich linguistic environment is important for language acquisition, learners also need to actively engage with the language and have a positive attitude towards the learning process. Without these factors, language acquisition may not be successful.

Cognitive-interactionism

Cognitive-interactionism is a theoretical perspective that has been widely used to explain how individuals learn an additional language. According to this perspective, the processes and outcomes of language learning are the result of the interaction of multiple internal and external factors (MacWhinney, 2012). Jean Piaget, a prominent developmental psychologist, was one of the earliest proponents of cognitive-interactionism, and his work has heavily influenced research in the field of second language acquisition (Piaget, 1974).

In the context of language learning, cognitive-interactionism suggests that language acquisition is a complex process that involves the interaction of various cognitive processes, such as memory, attention, and perception, with social and environmental factors, such as the learner’s motivation, social context, and the linguistic input that they receive (Ellis, 2015).

Research based on this perspective has demonstrated that language learners actively engage with the linguistic input that they receive and use cognitive processes to process and understand the language (Gass & Mackey, 2015). Additionally, cognitive-interactionism highlights the importance of social interaction in language learning, as learners engage in communicative exchanges that provide them with the opportunity to receive and produce language in meaningful contexts (Swain, 1985).

Schmidt’s theory (1990) of noticing is based on the idea that learning a second language requires not only exposure to the language but also active engagement with it. Schmidt (1990) argued that learners need to notice the linguistic features of the input in order to acquire them, and this noticing involves paying attention and engaging with the language. This idea is supported by other researchers who have found that learners who are more aware of the structure and patterns in the input are more successful in acquiring the language (Ellis, 1994; Robinson, 1995).

Furthermore, Krashen’s (1982) theory of second language acquisition emphasizes the importance of a positive affective filter, which includes attitudes, motivation, and self-confidence. According to Krashen, learners who have a positive attitude towards the language and feel motivated and confident are more likely to engage with the input and process it effectively, leading to successful acquisition.

During the 1980s, cognitive-interactionist researchers focused on the role of the environment in second language acquisition (SLA) and identified four key ingredients for successful language learning: attitudes, input, interaction, and output. However, it was not until the 1990s that attention was recognized as the fifth essential ingredient in the process of SLA (Gass & Selinker, 2008).

According to Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis, language acquisition occurs when learners consciously notice the features of the input they receive (Schmidt, 1990). This noticing leads to the development of an internal representation of the language that can then be used for output, such as speaking or writing (Schmidt, 1994). Thus, attention plays a critical role in language acquisition by allowing learners to notice and process the linguistic input they encounter (Gass & Selinker, 2008).

In addition, cognitive-interactionist researchers have also emphasized the importance of learner motivation and engagement in the language learning process. According to Dörnyei’s Motivational Self System, learners need to have a strong desire to learn the language, believe in their own ability to learn, and have a positive attitude towards the language and the learning process (Dörnyei, 2009).

The cognitive-interactionist perspective on SLA emphasizes the critical role of the environment in language learning, including the importance of attitudes, input, interaction, output, and attention. By understanding these factors, language learners and educators can create optimal conditions for language acquisition to occur.

Acculturation Model

The acculturation model is a sociolinguistic framework that proposes that language learning is closely linked with a learner’s degree of cultural integration into the community of the target language (Schumann, 1978). The model suggests that language learning is not just a cognitive process, but it is also a social and psychological process that is influenced by the learner’s attitudes, motivation, and cultural background.

The acculturation model posits that learners who are more integrated into the target language community tend to have higher levels of language proficiency, while those who are less integrated tend to have lower levels of proficiency. The model also suggests that learners who experience high levels of discrimination or prejudice may experience more difficulty in language learning and may have lower levels of proficiency (Schumann, 1978). Schumann (1978) argued that the acculturation model helps to explain some of the variability in second language acquisition outcomes, as learners who are more integrated into the target language community tend to have more exposure to the language and more opportunities to practice using the language. The model also emphasizes the importance of social and psychological factors in language learning, which may be overlooked in more traditional cognitive approaches.

One study that used the acculturation model to investigate language learning was conducted by Schumann and Schumann (1977). They studied the English language learning of immigrants in the United States and found that learners who reported more positive attitudes toward the target language community tended to have higher levels of proficiency, while those who reported more negative attitudes tended to have lower levels of proficiency.

The acculturation model provides a useful framework for understanding the social and psychological factors that influence language learning outcomes. However, it is important to note that the model has been subject to criticism and has been revised and refined over the years (e.g., Schumann, 2001).

Acculturation as a Predictive Explanation for L2 Learning Success

The acculturation model proposes that social and cultural factors play a crucial role in second language (L2) acquisition and that language learning success is influenced by the degree to which learners acculturate to the target language community (Schumann, 1978). According to this model, language learners’ motivation, attitudes, and identity are shaped by the degree of contact they have with the target language community and the extent to which they adopt its values and norms.

Schumann and Schumann (1977) introduced the concept of “social distance” to describe the degree of separation or similarity between the learner’s culture and the target culture. They argued that the closer the social distance between the learner’s culture and the target culture, the greater the likelihood of successful language learning. Social distance factors include not only linguistic and cultural differences but also social and psychological factors, such as stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.

Schumann’s Acculturation Model predicts that the level of success of second language (L2) learning is influenced by the learner’s acculturation, or the degree to which the learner is integrated into the target language community (Schumann, 1978). According to Schumann, a great social distance between the L1 and L2 groups, and an individual’s negative attitudes towards the target language and its speakers, can create a “bad learning situation” that hinders language development (Schumann & Schumann, 1977). Schumann also proposed that acculturation is a gradual process and that the more acculturated a learner becomes, the more successful their language learning outcomes will be (Schumann, 2001). He argued that learners more integrated into the target language community are more likely to have access to a rich linguistic environment and receive more feedback on their language use, which can facilitate language learning.

Research studies have provided some evidence to support the Acculturation Model. For instance, studies have found that learners who have more social contacts with native speakers of the target language tend to have better language proficiency (Dörnyei & Kálmán, 1996; Pellegrino, 2007). However, other studies have questioned the predictive power of the Acculturation Model, suggesting that social and cultural factors may interact with other variables to affect language learning outcomes (Block, 2003).

Schumann (2001) further developed the acculturation model by proposing that the degree of acculturation to the target language community can be predicted by the level of functional load, or the frequency and importance of a linguistic feature in the target language. He argued that learners will acculturate to the target language community to the extent that they perceive the linguistic features as functional and important for communication.

Research has shown support for the acculturation model in various contexts, including immigrant communities (Schumann, 1978), study abroad programs (DuFon & Churchill, 2006), and bilingual education (García, 2009). However, some researchers have also criticized the model for oversimplifying language acquisition’s complex and dynamic nature and the role of individual differences and cognitive factors (Block, 2007).

A case study 4

Case Study: The Importance of Comprehensible Input in L2 Learning

You are a language teacher in a language school in a foreign country. Your student, a beginner in the target language, has been struggling to understand the lessons and make progress in learning the language. You suspect that the student is not getting enough comprehensible input, which is crucial for L2 learning.

You decide to conduct a case study to explore the importance of comprehensible input in L2 learning.

Input

Input is a crucial factor in second language acquisition. Krashen’s (1985) input hypothesis posits that language acquisition occurs through the process of comprehensible input, that is, the learners must understand the input they receive in order for learning to take place. According to Krashen, language input must be at the learners’ level of comprehension but also slightly beyond it, in order to facilitate the learners’ progress in acquiring the language.

Similarly, Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis emphasizes the importance of input that is not only comprehensible but also noticeable. According to Schmidt, learners must attend to the language features they are learning in the input, in order to internalize them and make them part of their own linguistic system.

Research has shown that the quality and quantity of language input play a significant role in the development of learners’ language proficiency (Hart & Risley, 1995; Kuhl et al., 2006). For example, Hart and Risley (1995) found that the number of words addressed to young children in their home environment correlated with their language development, with children from lower-income families receiving fewer words and showing slower language growth than children from higher-income families.

Additionally, the type of input can vary depending on the goals of the learner. Input for comprehension and input for learning are two distinct types of input that can support different aspects of language acquisition (Gass & Mackey, 2007). Input for comprehension is focused on providing meaning-based input that is tailored to the learners’ level of comprehension. Input for learning, on the other hand, is focused on providing input that highlights specific linguistic features or structures that learners need to acquire.

Input is a crucial component of language acquisition, and its quality and quantity can have significant effects on learners’ language development. Providing comprehensible and noticeable input, tailored to the learners’ needs and goals, can facilitate their progress in acquiring a new language.

Input hypothesis

The input hypothesis, proposed by Stephen Krashen in the 1980s, suggests that language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to language input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence. The hypothesis emphasizes the importance of comprehensible input in language learning, and argues that learners must be exposed to language that is both meaningful and comprehensible in order to acquire the language naturally.

Despite its widespread popularity, the input hypothesis has been the subject of much debate and criticism within the field of SLA. Some researchers have questioned the validity of the hypothesis, arguing that there is little empirical evidence to support it (Ellis, 1998). Others have suggested that the hypothesis oversimplifies the complex process of language acquisition and fails to account for the many individual differences and factors that can influence language learning (Long, 1983).

Despite these criticisms, the input hypothesis remains an influential and widely-discussed theory in the field of SLA. Many researchers have built on Krashen’s original ideas, exploring the relationship between input and language acquisition in more depth and investigating the various factors that can affect the comprehensibility of input (VanPatten & Williams, 2015).

One implication of the input hypothesis is the importance of providing learners with ample opportunities to interact with and receive feedback on their language production. Krashen himself has emphasized the value of communicative language teaching approaches, which emphasize meaningful communication and the development of communicative competence in the target language (Krashen, 1982).

The input hypothesis continues to be an important area of inquiry in SLA research, inspiring continued debate and exploration into the complex process of language acquisition.

Comprehensible input

Krashen’s input hypothesis proposes that comprehensible input is the most important factor in language acquisition (Krashen, 1985). According to Krashen, comprehensible input is defined as language that is understood by the learner, but still contains linguistic data that is slightly above their current level. This concept is closely linked to Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development, which refers to the difference between what a learner can do on their own and what they can do with assistance.

Krashen argues that if learners are exposed to language that is too difficult or too easy, they will not learn as effectively as they would if the language is at the appropriate level of difficulty. Therefore, he suggests that language input should be just slightly above the learners’ current level of competence to ensure that they can understand it, but still have opportunities to learn new language forms and structures.

Research has supported the idea that comprehensible input is important for language acquisition. For example, studies have shown that learners who receive more input tend to have better language skills than those who receive less input (Ellis, 2003; VanPatten, 1996). In addition, studies have shown that when learners are provided with input that is slightly above their current level of competence, they tend to make more progress in their language development (Swain, 1985).

The concept of comprehensible input has important implications for language teaching. It suggests that teachers should provide learners with language input that is at an appropriate level of difficulty, and that they should make sure that learners are able to understand the language that they are exposed to. By doing so, teachers can help to ensure that learners are able to acquire new language forms and structures and make progress in their language development.

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis suggests that comprehensible input is a necessary condition for language acquisition. He defined comprehensible input as language that is slightly beyond the learner’s current level of competence, but can still be understood with the help of contextual clues. Comprehensible input is considered as the single most important source of L2 learning as it allows learners to acquire new linguistic forms in a natural way (Krashen, 1985).

Learners can obtain comprehensible input mainly through listening to oral messages directed towards them and by reading written texts in their surroundings such as books, personal letters, and street signs (Krashen, 1985). For example, a learner can acquire new vocabulary and grammar structures while reading a book or listening to a native speaker discussing a topic of personal interest. Krashen emphasized that the input should be personally relevant for the learner to process it effectively for meaning.

Krashen argued that when learners process the input for meaning, they naturally learn grammar rules without conscious effort (Krashen, 1982). He proposed that grammar learning is a natural process that occurs when learners focus on meaning, and not on form. This means that learners do not need explicit instruction on grammar rules to acquire a language, but they need to be exposed to comprehensible input that is relevant to their needs and interests.

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis assumes that L2 learning is similar to L1 learning, and that learners acquire language through exposure to comprehensible input. This means that learners process language that contains something to be learned and that is slightly above their current level of proficiency (Krashen, 1985). The assumption is that when learners process input for meaning, they will naturally acquire grammar and other language features. However, some researchers have noted that comprehension and acquisition are two separate processes (Sharwood Smith, 1986) and that learners may comprehend more than they acquire or acquire more than they comprehend (Doughty, 1991; Loschky, 1994).

Krashen’s theory suggests that L2 learners should be provided with language input that is slightly beyond their current level of proficiency, but still comprehensible. This idea has implications for language instruction, as teachers should strive to provide learners with language input that is challenging yet understandable, and that can support the acquisition of new language forms and structures.

According to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, comprehensible input is a necessary condition for language acquisition, and learners can obtain it through listening to oral messages and reading written texts. When learners process this input for meaning, they naturally learn grammar rules without conscious effort. (Krashen, 1982, 1985).

Interaction and Negotiation for Meaning

Interaction and negotiation for meaning play a crucial role in second language acquisition. Through interaction, learners are exposed to authentic language use, while negotiation for meaning allows them to acquire the linguistic forms and structures required for effective communication in the target language. According to the interactionist perspective, second language acquisition is facilitated when learners are engaged in face-to-face interaction with speakers of the target language (Long, 1996). Interactionist theories emphasize the role of negotiation for meaning in language acquisition, arguing that it helps learners to acquire the necessary linguistic forms and functions required for effective communication in the target language (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993).

Negotiation for meaning refers to the interactional process by which learners and interlocutors work together to resolve communication problems (Long, 1996). In this process, learners encounter a gap between their current linguistic knowledge and the input they receive, leading them to seek clarification or confirmation from the interlocutor. Through this negotiation, the learners are exposed to new linguistic forms and structures, which they can then incorporate into their own language system.

Research has shown that negotiated interaction leads to improved language proficiency, particularly in the areas of grammar and vocabulary (Mackey & Goo, 2007). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that learners who engage in negotiation for meaning tend to display greater motivation and confidence in their language learning (Pica et al., 1993).

Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis proposed that interaction and negotiation for meaning are crucial for second language acquisition (SLA) (Long, 1981). According to Long, interaction provides learners with opportunities to notice gaps in their linguistic knowledge and to receive feedback from their interlocutors, which facilitates their language development (Long, 1996). In the Interaction Hypothesis, Long argued that comprehensible input alone is not sufficient for SLA, and that learners also need opportunities for interaction and negotiation in order to acquire the language (Long, 1983).

Long’s Interaction Hypothesis was initially tested with college-level ESL learners who were paired with English native-speaking pre-service and in-service teachers of ESL (Long & Porter, 1985). The study found that learners who received more opportunities for interaction and negotiation for meaning showed greater improvement in their grammatical accuracy than learners who received less interactional input. This led Long to conclude that interactional opportunities are an important source of input for SLA.

Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis proposes that interaction and negotiation for meaning play a crucial role in second language acquisition (SLA) (Long, 1983). Long suggests that the most effective way for learners to obtain comprehensible input is through interaction with interlocutors who can modify their language use to make it more comprehensible to the learners. He argues that interactional modifications can provide learners with input that is slightly beyond their current level, leading to language learning.

According to Long (1996), interactional modifications are initiated by a variety of moves made by either interlocutor in response to comprehension problems. These can include clarification requests, confirmation checks, and comprehension checks, among others. These negotiation episodes allow the interlocutors to work together to make meaning more comprehensible for each other, leading to enhanced language learning opportunities.

Studies have shown that interaction and negotiation for meaning can indeed facilitate second language acquisition. For example, Varonis and Gass (1985) found that negotiation for meaning led to improved comprehension and retention of target vocabulary. In another study, Pica et al. (1989) found that interactional modifications in French immersion classrooms led to improved accuracy in grammar and vocabulary use.

In addition to Long’s Interaction Hypothesis, other researchers have also investigated the role of interaction and negotiation for meaning in SLA, and many studies have found evidence supporting the importance of these processes for language development (e.g. Pica, 1994; Gass & Varonis, 1994; Mackey & Philp, 1998).

Output

Output, or the act of producing language, plays a crucial role in language acquisition. According to the output hypothesis, proposed by Swain (1985, 1995), learners need to produce language in order to move from a state of acquisition to a state of learning. In other words, the process of producing language helps learners to consolidate their knowledge of the language and to identify gaps in their understanding.

Swain argues that when learners produce language, they engage in a process of “noticing the gap,” which means that they become aware of any discrepancies between what they intended to say and what they actually said. This noticing process can lead to a focus on form, where learners pay attention to the linguistic features of the language they are using, and this can in turn lead to language learning.

Output can take many different forms, including speaking, writing, and even gestures. In a classroom setting, output can be encouraged through activities such as pair work, group work, and role-plays, which provide opportunities for learners to use the language in a meaningful way. However, it is important to note that output is not always necessary for language acquisition to take place, and some researchers have argued that output is not as important as input (e.g. Krashen, 1985).

While the role of output in language acquisition is still a topic of debate among researchers, it is clear that the process of producing language can provide valuable opportunities for learners to notice gaps in their understanding and to engage in the process of language learning.

Output and Syntactic Processing during Production

According to Krashen, the natural order hypothesis suggests that acquisition occurs in a predictable order, regardless of the instructional setting, but the order of acquisition is not the same as the order of teaching. Krashen also suggested that production is not necessary for acquisition, but it is important for the development of fluency (Krashen, 1981).

However, some researchers have proposed that production is not only important for the development of fluency, but also for the development of accuracy in the target language. Skehan (1998), for example, argued that the act of production can help learners identify gaps in their knowledge and prompt them to focus on the specific linguistic forms that they need to improve.

In addition, research has shown that syntactic processing during production is influenced by a variety of factors, including working memory capacity, attention, and the complexity of the linguistic structure being produced (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) suggested that there are two main processing routes during language production: one route involves pre-planned structures that are retrieved from memory, and the other route involves generating new structures on the fly.

Furthermore, research on language output has also highlighted the importance of feedback in the language learning process. In particular, corrective feedback can help learners notice errors and subsequently modify their output (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

While comprehensible input is often considered the most important factor for language acquisition, output and syntactic processing during production are also important components of the language learning process. The act of producing language can help learners identify gaps in their knowledge and prompt them to focus on specific linguistic forms, and feedback can help learners notice errors and improve their accuracy.

In the context of language acquisition, output refers to learners’ attempts to produce language themselves. According to the Output Hypothesis, proposed by Merrill Swain in the 1980s, learners can benefit from the opportunity to produce language because it allows them to notice gaps in their knowledge and to focus on improving their accuracy and fluency. Output can take many forms, such as speaking, writing, and even gesturing or drawing to convey meaning.

When learners produce language, they must engage in syntactic processing, or the mental processing required to generate grammatically correct sentences. This includes selecting and ordering words, using appropriate verb tense and agreement, and following the rules of syntax to ensure that the sentence is coherent and meaningful. In the process of producing language, learners may encounter errors or gaps in their knowledge, which can then be corrected through feedback or reflection.

Output can be facilitated through various activities, such as role-plays, discussions, and writing tasks. These activities provide learners with opportunities to practice using the language in a meaningful way, and to receive feedback on their performance. As Swain notes, “production in interaction offers the learner a dual opportunity to notice the gap and, with the help of interlocutors, to attempt to fill it” (Swain, 1985, p. 248).

While the role of input in language acquisition is widely acknowledged, the Output Hypothesis emphasizes the importance of learners actively using the language in order to promote language learning. As such, output has become an important component of communicative language teaching, which seeks to provide learners with opportunities to develop both their receptive and productive language skills.

Swain’s argument about the importance of output in language acquisition is supported by a number of studies. For example, a study by Pica et al. (1989) found that learners who engaged in more output during interaction with native speakers of the target language showed greater improvement in their proficiency levels than learners who engaged in less output. Another study by Izumi (2002) found that learners who engaged in output-focused tasks showed greater improvement in their accuracy and complexity of their grammatical structures than learners who engaged in input-focused tasks.

Swain’s argument is also supported by studies on the role of feedback in language acquisition. For example, a study by Lyster and Ranta (1997) found that learners who received corrective feedback on their output during interaction with native speakers of the target language showed greater improvement in their accuracy than learners who did not receive corrective feedback.

The evidence suggests that output plays an important role in language acquisition, particularly in the development of syntactic processing skills. Encouraging learners to engage in output-focused activities, such as role-plays and discussions, can help to promote the development of these skills and support their overall language development.

Problem-solving 4

Problem: You are a language teacher with a student struggling with acquiring a second language. Despite attending classes regularly, the student is unable to communicate effectively and is falling behind in their coursework. What steps would you take to help this student overcome their difficulties in language acquisition?

Questions for reviewing this chapter

1. What is first language acquisition and how does it differ from second language acquisition?
2. What are some factors that can affect bilingualism acquisition?
3. What is Heritage language acquisition and why is it important?
4. How does the Acculturation Model explain second language acquisition?
5. What is the Input Hypothesis and how does it relate to language acquisition?
6. What is Comprehensible Input and why is it important for language acquisition?
7. What is Interaction and Negotiation for Meaning and how does it support language learning?
8. How does the Cognitive-interactionist approach differ from other language acquisition theories?
9. What is Third language acquisition/multilingualism and how does it differ from bilingualism?
10. What is the role of the linguistic environment in language acquisition?
11. What is Output and how does it support language acquisition?
12. How does Syntactic Processing during Production support language acquisition?

References

Baker, C., & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 229-235.

Bates, E., & Dick, F. (2002). Language, gesture, and the developing brain. Developmental Psychobiology, 40(3), 293-310.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(4), 240-250.

Baker, C., & Prys Jones, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (1987). Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second Language Research, 3(2), 154-166.

Bialystok, E. (2001a). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E. (2001b). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 169-181.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 859-873.

Birdsong, D. (2018). Second Language Acquisition and Ultimate Attainment. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 839-867). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bloom, L. (1993). The transition from infancy to language: Acquiring the power of expression. Cambridge University Press.

Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 863-876.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh University Press.

Byers-Heinlein, K., & Werker, J. F. (2013). Lexicon structure and the disambiguation of novel words: Evidence from bilingual infants. Cognition, 128(3), 407-416.

Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 210-223.

Bialystok, E. (2015). Bilingualism and the development of executive function: The role of attention. Child Development Perspectives, 9(2), 117-121.

Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. Continuum International Publishing Group. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.

Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.). (2001). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (Vol. 145). Multilingual Matters.

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. Hodder Education.

Clark, E. V. (1977). The lexical acquisition of English. MIT press.

Clark, E. V. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Goswami, U. (2001). Early phonological development and the acquisition of literacy. In M. J.

DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers’ voices. Science, 208(4448), 1174-1176.

DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499-533.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9-42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z., & Kálmán, C. (1996). Motivation and foreign language acquisition. Language Teaching, 29(3), 117-135.

DuFon, M. A., & Churchill, E. (2006). Language learners in study abroad contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 58-73.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(4), 431-469.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1998). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 52(1), 36-42.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford University Press.

Flege, J. E., Munro, M. J., & MacKay, I. R. (1995). Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in a second language. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(5), 3125-3134.

Foster-Cohen, S. (1999). Early communication: From birth to four years. Psychology Press.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. Routledge.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition, 357-383.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism, and translanguaging in the 21st century. In N. Hornberger & S. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Education (pp. 276-297). Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2006). Dual language development and disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Genesee, F. (2015). Bilingual first language acquisition. In The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 144-162). Wiley-Blackwell.

Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(6), 467-477.

Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingualism: A short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39(1), 1-27.

Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 236-248.

Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 541–577.

Kagan, O., & Carreira, M. (2014). The handbook of heritage language education: From innovation to program building. Routledge.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.

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

Kuhl, P. K. (2010). Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67(5), 713-727.

Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F. M., & Liu, H. M. (2006). Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(29), 13238-13243.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259-278.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.

Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(2), 284-305.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.

MacWhinney, B. (2012). The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain. In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 144-160). Routledge.

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 338-356.

Montrul, S. (2016). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge University Press.

Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125-142.

Nagasawa, S. (1995). The acquisition of Japanese as a heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(4), 439-472.

O’Grady, W., Archibald, J., Aronoff, M., & Rees-Miller, J. (2019). Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction (7th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Oller, D. K. (2000). The emergence of the speech capacity. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ota, M., & Saji, N. (2006). Differences in early vocalization between Japanese and American infants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(5), 3045-3051.

Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment. In Applied Psycholinguistics and Multilingualism (pp. 249-269). Springer.

Pellegrino, A. (2007). Acculturation and L2 acquisition: The case of immigrant students in a Montreal secondary school. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 6(3), 171-193.

Piaget, J. (1974). Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge. Penguin Books.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63-90.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.

Polinsky, M. (2000). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. In A. Roca (Ed.), Research on Old and New World Spanish (pp. 227-250). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283-331.

Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926-1928.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension and learning. In G. B. Flores d’Arcais & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics (pp. 233-255). John Benjamins.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.

Schumann, J. H. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Schumann, J. H., & Schumann, A. (1977). The effect of two languages on language acquisition. In G. H. Elder Jr & J. E. Patthey-Chavez (Eds.), Working papers on bilingualism. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: Department of Linguistics.

Schumann, J. H. (2001). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In M. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 227–246). San Diego: Academic Press.

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

Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 162-181). Blackwell Publishers.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.

Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.

Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Valdés, G. (2001a). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37-77). Center for Applied Linguistics.

Valdés, G. (2001b). Heritage language learners: A new field emerging. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 37-55). Longman.

VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Chapter 4 of the book discusses various topics related to second language acquisition, including first language acquisition, bilingualism acquisition, heritage language acquisition, third language acquisition/multilingualism, linguistic environment, cognitive-interactionism, acculturation model, input hypothesis, comprehensible input, interaction and negotiation for meaning, and output and syntactic processing during production. The chapter begins by discussing first language acquisition, which…