Chapter 5 – Development of learner language

Chapter 5 focuses on the cognitive approach to language learning and the various perspectives that fall under it. The chapter begins by discussing the general cognitive approach and how it differs from the behaviorist approach. It then explores the development of learner language from the perspectives of cognitivists, with a focus on the role of mental processes such as attention, memory, and problem-solving in language acquisition.

The chapter also covers three different approaches to language instruction: formula-based learning, informal linguistics, and formal linguistics. Formula-based learning emphasizes the importance of memorizing fixed patterns and chunks of language, while informal linguistics focuses on learning language through natural communication and exposure to meaningful input. Formal linguistics, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of learning grammar rules and analyzing language at a structural level. In addition, the chapter discusses the concept of interlanguages, which are the transitional linguistic systems that learners develop as they acquire a second language. The chapter explores the four interlanguage processes: simplification, overgeneralization, restructuring, and U-shaped behavior.

The development of syntax is also covered in this chapter, with a focus on markedness and the acquisition of L2 relativization. The chapter then examines the value of grammar instruction, including its impact on accuracy and the rate of learning. Finally, the chapter concludes by discussing the importance of learner readiness in language instruction, including factors such as motivation, age, and language learning aptitude.

Problem-solving 5

You are an ESL teacher who has noticed that one of your students, a teenage boy from Japan, is struggling with the use of relative clauses in English. He frequently makes errors in constructing them and seems to have difficulty understanding their purpose and structure. Now, your job is to help him improve his understanding and use of relative clauses.

Introduction

Learner language is a significant area of study in second language acquisition (SLA) research. It refers to the linguistic output of learners who are acquiring a second language (L2) or a foreign language. The development of learner language has been studied for several decades, and many scholars have proposed different theories to explain the process of acquiring an L2. The study of learner language is a complex and multifaceted area of research within second language acquisition (SLA). Researchers have proposed various approaches to studying learner language, with two prominent ones being the general cognitive approach and the informal and formal linguistics approach.

General Cognitive Approach

The general cognitive approach to studying learner language focuses on the cognitive processes involved in L2 acquisition. This approach views language as a complex cognitive system that involves various mental processes, such as attention, memory, and processing speed (Robinson, 2015). The general cognitive approach aims to identify the underlying cognitive mechanisms that facilitate or hinder L2 acquisition, and to develop theories that can explain the observed patterns of learner language. This approach is often associated with the use of quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis and experimental designs.

One example of the general cognitive approach is the use of cognitive models to explain the process of L2 acquisition. For instance, the Competition Model (MacWhinney, 2005) proposes that L2 learners develop two separate systems for their L1 and L2, which compete for cognitive resources during language processing. This model suggests that the amount of cognitive resources available for L2 processing is influenced by factors such as language proficiency, age of acquisition, and task demands. The general cognitive approach has also been used to study factors such as working memory, attention, and processing speed and their role in L2 acquisition (e.g., Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Development of Learner Language under Cognitivists’ Perspectives

Cognitivist explanations for the development of learner language emphasize the role of cognitive processes, such as memory and attention, in the acquisition of a second language. According to this perspective, language acquisition involves the development of complex mental representations of the L2, which are influenced by the learner’s existing cognitive structures and processes (Robinson, 2001).

One key concept in cognitivist learner language explanations is cognitive load. Cognitive load refers to the amount of mental effort required to process information in working memory (Sweller, 1988). According to cognitive load theory, learners have a limited capacity for processing information in working memory, and this capacity can be overloaded by excessive or irrelevant information (Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998).

Cognitivist explanations also emphasize the role of attention in language acquisition. According to these accounts, attention plays a crucial role in selecting and processing information in the L2 input, and in determining which aspects of the input are most salient and likely to be acquired (DeKeyser, 2007). Another key concept in cognitivist explanations of learner language is that of transfer. Transfer refers to the influence of the learner’s existing linguistic knowledge and cognitive structures on the acquisition of the L2 (Odlin, 1989). For example, learners may transfer grammatical rules or vocabulary from their L1 to the L2, which can result in errors or fossilization.

Cognitivist explanations of learner language have been supported by a large body of empirical research, including studies using neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) (Ullman, 2005). These studies have provided evidence for the involvement of cognitive processes such as working memory and attention in language acquisition. Cognitivist explanations for the development of learner language emphasize the role of cognitive processes such as memory and attention, as well as the influence of the learner’s existing linguistic knowledge and cognitive structures on the acquisition of the L2.

Usage-based emergentist theories are a family of cognitivist explanations for the development of learner language that focuses on how language is learned through experience and exposure to the input (Robinson & Ellis, 2008b). Although no unified theory exists within this family, these theories share several tenets that set them apart from other approaches. Firstly, grammar learning is viewed as an inductive process that is driven by experience rather than rule-based or deductive (Robinson & Ellis, 2008a). Secondly, frequency and salience in the input and the learner’s cognitive processes of attention and categorization are considered critical to language learning (Ellis, 2006a, 2006b). Thirdly, the contemporary cognitivist-emergentist perspectives accord variability unprecedented importance, as variability is believed to be a significant property of systems and a manifestation of development (Verspoor et al., 2008). Finally, these theories recognize that a single factor or cause cannot explain learner language development but is the result of the simultaneous interaction of multiple forces (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008).

Empirical evidence supports the view that language learning is an emergent process that depends on various factors and does not follow a linear and predictable path. For instance, studies have shown that language development is influenced by factors such as the quantity and quality of input, frequency and salience of the input, the learner’s motivation, cognitive processes, and interactional opportunities (Ellis, 2015). Moreover, research has demonstrated that variability is a crucial component of language learning and that learners’ language use is characterized by a high degree of variation and creativity (Verspoor et al., 2008).

Usage-based emergentist theories offer a valuable perspective on how learner language develops. These theories provide a comprehensive account of how learners acquire language by emphasizing the role of experience, frequency, salience, variability, and the interaction of multiple factors. Furthermore, they offer insights into the dynamic and creative nature of language learning, highlighting the importance of variability and individual differences in the acquisition process.

Formula-based learning

Formulaic language is a type of language that is fixed in form, meaning, and usage. It includes idioms, collocations, phrasal verbs, and other lexical chunks that are commonly used in speech and writing. Research has shown that formulaic language plays a crucial role in second language acquisition (SLA) and can contribute significantly to the development of fluency and accuracy in L2 use (Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, & Maynard, 2008; Wray, 2002).

Formula-based learning (FBL) refers to the process of acquiring L2 by focusing on formulaic language, rather than on grammar rules and isolated vocabulary items (Wray, 2002). This approach to language learning is based on the idea that formulaic language is the “stuff of acquisition” and that learners need to develop a large and varied repertoire of formulaic language to become proficient in the L2 (Ellis, 2008). Proponents of FBL argue that formulaic language is learned through frequency-based exposure to input and that learners’ ability to produce and comprehend formulaic language is facilitated by their knowledge of multi-word units and their ability to process language holistically (Wray, 2002). This is in contrast to traditional approaches to language learning that emphasize the explicit teaching of grammar rules and the memorization of individual vocabulary items.

Studies have shown that FBL can lead to improved fluency and accuracy in L2 use, particularly in oral communication (Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, & Demecheleer, 2006; Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, & Maynard, 2008; Wray, 2002). FBL has also been found to be effective for learners at different proficiency levels and in different contexts, such as classroom instruction and study abroad programs (Ellis & Shintani, 2014; Stengers, Boers, & Eyckmans, 2017). FBL is an approach to language learning that emphasizes the importance of formulaic language in L2 acquisition. By focusing on the frequent and contextually appropriate use of multi-word units, learners can develop greater fluency and accuracy in their L2 use. FBL has been found to be effective for learners at different proficiency levels and in different contexts, and its importance in SLA is increasingly recognized by researchers and educators alike.

The use of memorized formulas in language learning has been a topic of interest for researchers in the field of interlanguage studies. In Wong Fillmore’s (1979) study of Mexican children learning English as a second language, she found that learners initially rely on memorized formulas, which are embedded in current, interest-holding activities over which learners have already acquired some mastery and received social rewards. These formulas are used in an unanalyzed fashion at first and are driven by communicative and strategic motives that promote learning. The study documented the gradual transformation of five Mexican children from having no English to being relatively functional in their daily dealings with English-speaking peers. Among the children, Nora, a six-year-old girl, proved to be a spectacular success as a language learner because she exhibited the fastest learning pace by far. Wong Fillmore discovered that part of the reason was Nora’s formula-based analysis of the input, which she intently sought through abundant social interactions.

The use of memorized formulas has been seen under different theoretical lights over the history of interlanguage studies. While they were initially thought to be spurred by communicative and strategic motives promoting learning, recent research suggests that formulaic sequences are an essential building block in language acquisition (Ellis & Shintani, 2014; Stengers, Boers, & Eyckmans, 2017). Furthermore, formula-based learning has been found to promote the development of automaticity, fluency, and accuracy in language use (Boers et al., 2006; Ellis et al., 2008; Wray, 2002).

Informal Linguistics Approach

In contrast to the general cognitive approach, the informal linguistics approach focuses on the analysis of learner language from a linguistic perspective. This approach views language as a system of rules and structures, and aims to identify the linguistic patterns and regularities in learner language. The informal linguistics approach often uses qualitative methods, such as discourse analysis and error analysis, to examine the linguistic features of learner language and to identify the sources of errors and difficulties that learners face.

One example of the informal linguistics approach is the analysis of errors made by L2 learners. Error analysis (EA) is a method that involves identifying and categorizing the errors made by learners and analyzing the linguistic patterns and regularities in those errors. EA aims to identify the sources of errors, such as transfer from the L1 or overgeneralization of L2 rules, and to develop pedagogical interventions that can address those errors (Corder, 1974). The informal linguistics approach has also been used to study other aspects of learner language, such as interlanguage pragmatics and discourse features (e.g., Kasper & Rose, 2002).

Formal linguistics approach

The formal linguistics approach to the study of learner language focuses on the formal properties of language, such as syntax, morphology, and phonology, and seeks to identify the underlying grammatical rules that govern language production (Klein & Perdue, 1997). Formal linguistics is often contrasted with the functional approach to language, which emphasizes the communicative functions of language use and the social and pragmatic factors that influence language production and comprehension (Schumann, 1997).

The formal linguistics approach has been used in SLA research to investigate a variety of topics related to learner language, including the development of grammatical structures and the role of input in language acquisition (Klein & Perdue, 1997). Formal linguistics has also been used to develop theoretical models of SLA that can help to explain the processes and mechanisms involved in L2 acquisition (White, 2003). One of the strengths of the formal linguistics approach is its ability to provide precise descriptions of language structures and rules, which can be used to identify patterns and regularities in learner language (Klein & Perdue, 1997). Formal linguistics also provides a rigorous framework for testing hypotheses about language acquisition, and allows researchers to make precise predictions about the types of errors that learners are likely to make at different stages of language acquisition (White, 2003).

However, the formal linguistics approach has also been criticized for its narrow focus on the formal properties of language, and its relative neglect of the social and pragmatic factors that influence language use (Schumann, 1997). Some scholars argue that the formal linguistics approach is overly abstract and divorced from the reality of language use, and that it fails to capture the richness and complexity of the social and cultural contexts in which language is produced and interpreted.

The formal linguistics approach to the study of learner language focuses on the formal properties of language and seeks to identify the underlying grammatical rules that govern language production. While this approach has its strengths, such as its ability to provide precise descriptions of language structures and rules, it has also been criticized for its narrow focus on formal properties of language and its neglect of the social and pragmatic factors that influence language use.

Interlanguages

Interlanguage is a term used in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) to refer to the linguistic system that learners develop as they attempt to acquire a second language (L2) (Selinker, 1972). Interlanguage is a dynamic system that reflects the learner’s ongoing experience with the L2 input and is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the quality and quantity of the L2 input, the learner’s motivation and attitude towards learning the L2, and the learner’s prior knowledge of the L1 and other languages (Gass & Selinker, 2008).

Interlanguage is a unique linguistic system that is neither the learner’s first language (L1) nor the target language (TL), but rather a system that reflects the learner’s attempt to make sense of the L2 input and to communicate in the L2. Interlanguage has its own rules and structures, which may be influenced by the learner’s L1, but are also shaped by the L2 input and the learner’s attempts to use the language (Selinker, 1972). Interlanguage can be seen as a transitional system that learners use as they move towards native-like competence in the L2.

Interlanguage has been studied extensively in SLA research, and researchers have identified a number of characteristic features of interlanguage. For example, interlanguage is often marked by overgeneralization of L2 rules and structures as learners attempt to apply their existing knowledge of the L2 to new contexts (Selinker, 1972). Interlanguage may also be marked by fossilization, or the persistence of errors in the learner’s language use despite ongoing exposure to the L2 input (Selinker, 1992). The study of interlanguage has important implications for language teaching and learning. Understanding the characteristics of interlanguage can help teachers to identify the specific challenges that learners face as they attempt to acquire the L2, and to develop more effective strategies for promoting language learning and L2 acquisition. For example, teachers may need to provide learners with targeted feedback on their language use, or to focus on specific aspects of the L2 that are particularly challenging for learners based on their interlanguage.

Interlanguage is a unique linguistic system that learners develop as they attempt to acquire a second language. Interlanguage reflects the learner’s ongoing experience with the L2 input and is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the quality and quantity of the L2 input, the learner’s motivation and attitude towards learning the L2, and the learner’s prior knowledge of the L1 and other languages. The study of interlanguage has important implications for language teaching and learning, and can help teachers to develop more effective strategies for promoting language learning and L2 acquisition.

Future of Interlanguages

The concept of interlanguage has been an influential framework for understanding second language acquisition, and it continues to evolve with new research and developments in language teaching. The future of interlanguage research and practice is likely to be shaped by several factors.

Firstly, advances in technology and digital tools are likely to play a role in the future of interlanguage research and practice. For example, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has been shown to be effective in promoting language learning, and new technologies such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence are likely to offer further opportunities for language learners to practice and develop their interlanguage skills.

Secondly, there is growing recognition of the importance of multilingualism and the benefits of learning multiple languages. This has led to a renewed focus on interlanguage development and the role of transfer and language transfer in language learning. As such, interlanguage research may increasingly incorporate a multilingual perspective, looking at the ways in which different languages interact and influence each other in the process of language learning.

Thirdly, there is a need to continue to explore the relationship between instruction and interlanguage development. Research has shown that explicit grammar instruction can be effective in promoting accurate and efficient interlanguage development, but the optimal methods and conditions for such instruction are still being debated. Future research may therefore focus on refining instructional methods and strategies to support interlanguage development better.

Finally, the future of interlanguage is likely to be shaped by ongoing debates about the nature of language and language learning, as well as changing societal and cultural attitudes towards language and language diversity. These debates may impact the way in which interlanguage is studied and understood and may lead to new insights and perspectives on the role of interlanguage in language acquisition.

The future of interlanguage is likely to be shaped by advances in technology, a growing focus on multilingualism and language transfer, ongoing debates about the role of instruction in interlanguage development, and changing attitudes towards language and language diversity. These developments will likely contribute to a deeper understanding of interlanguage and its role in language acquisition and to developing more effective language teaching practices.

Interlanguage as a Dynamic System

One of the key features of interlanguage is its dynamic nature, which means that it is not a static system but rather a constantly evolving one that reflects the learner’s ongoing experience with the L2 input (Selinker, 1972). The interlanguage system is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the learner’s exposure to the L2 input, the quality and quantity of the input, and the learner’s motivation and attitude (Gass & Selinker, 2008).

The dynamic nature of interlanguage can be explained by the fact that language learning is a complex and multifaceted process influenced by various factors. For example, learners may encounter different types of L2 input, such as formal instruction, immersion, or interaction with L2 speakers. The input’s quality and quantity may vary depending on these factors (Gass & Selinker, 2008). Additionally, learners may have different levels of motivation and attitude towards learning the L2, which can affect their engagement with the input and their willingness to experiment with the language (Dörnyei, 2005).

The dynamic nature of interlanguage means that it is more than just the sum of the L1 and L2 input, as it also reflects the learner’s ongoing interactions with the L2. For example, learners may modify their interlanguage in response to L2 speakers’ feedback or experiment with different linguistic forms to express their intended meaning (Selinker, 1972). As learners gain more experience with the L2, their interlanguage may become more complex and accurate, reflecting their increasing proficiency in the language.

The dynamic nature of interlanguage has important implications for language teaching and learning. Language educators need to recognize that interlanguage is not a fixed system but a constantly evolving one influenced by various factors. Teachers can help learners by providing them with rich and varied L2 input, opportunities for interaction with L2 speakers, and feedback on their language use. Additionally, teachers can encourage learners to take an active role in their language learning by promoting their motivation and engagement with the language.

Interlanguage is a dynamic system that reflects the learner’s ongoing experience with the L2 input. The dynamic nature of interlanguage means that it is more than just the sum of the L1 and L2 input, as it also reflects the learner’s ongoing interactions with the L2. By recognizing the dynamic nature of interlanguage, language educators can develop more effective strategies for promoting language learning and L2 acquisition.

Interlanguage as a Unique Linguistic System

Interlanguage is a unique linguistic system distinct from the L1 and the L2. Interlanguage is not simply a combination of L1 and L2 features, but rather a distinct linguistic system that reflects the learner’s attempts to make sense of the L2 input (Kellerman & Sharwood Smith, 1986). Interlanguage has its own rules and structures, and it is not always predictable based on the L1 or the L2 alone. For example, learners may produce errors in their interlanguage that are not typical of either the L1 or the L2, such as overgeneralization of L2 rules or incomplete acquisition of L1 rules (Ellis, 2008).

One of the key features of interlanguage is its unique nature, which distinguishes it from both the L1 and L2. This uniqueness arises from the fact that interlanguage is a learner-created system that reflects the learner’s own attempts to make sense of the L2 input (Kellerman & Sharwood Smith, 1986). As such, interlanguage has its own set of rules and structures that are different from those of the L1 or the L2.

Moreover, interlanguage can display characteristics that are not typical of either the L1 or the L2. For example, learners may produce errors in their interlanguage that are not present in either the L1 or the L2, such as the overgeneralization of L2 rules or the incomplete acquisition of L1 rules (Ellis, 2008). These types of errors reflect the fact that interlanguage is a unique linguistic system that is not simply a combination of L1 and L2 features.

The unique nature of interlanguage has important implications for SLA research and language teaching. Understanding the nature of interlanguage can help researchers to develop more accurate models of L2 acquisition, and language teachers to develop more effective teaching strategies that are tailored to the unique needs of individual learners (Selinker & Lakshmanan, 1992).

Interlanguage is a unique linguistic system distinct from the L1 and L2. Interlanguage has its own rules and structures, and it is not always predictable based on the L1 or the L2 alone. This unique nature of interlanguage has important implications for SLA research and language teaching, and underscores the importance of understanding interlanguage as a distinct and dynamic system.

Interlanguage as a Creative System

Interlanguage is also characterized by its creative nature, which allows learners to express meaning in the L2 using a variety of strategies. This creativity is often driven by the learner’s desire to communicate effectively, despite gaps in their knowledge of the L2. As Cook (1993) notes, learners may use circumlocution or borrow words from their L1 as creative strategies to overcome these gaps.

The creative nature of interlanguage means that it is not always predictable based solely on the L1 and L2 input. Learners may use their own strategies to express meaning, resulting in unique and often innovative use of language. For example, in a study by Han and Selinker (2005), Korean learners of English were found to use creative strategies, such as inserting English words into Korean sentences and adjusting word order in order to communicate more effectively in English.

The creative aspect of interlanguage is closely linked to its dynamic nature, as learners constantly adapt and adjust their strategies in response to their ongoing experience with the L2. This creative and dynamic nature of interlanguage reflects the learner’s active role in the language acquisition process, as they actively seek to express meaning and communicate effectively in the L2.

The creative nature of interlanguage highlights the importance of viewing learners as active participants in the language acquisition process, rather than passive recipients of input. Interlanguage is not simply a combination of L1 and L2 features, but rather a unique and dynamic system that reflects the learner’s creative attempts to communicate meaning in the L2.

Four Interlanguage Processes

The concept of interlanguage processes refers to the strategies that second language learners use to develop and improve their linguistic abilities. Ellis (1994) describes four interlanguage processes: simplification, overgeneralization, restructuring, and U-shaped behavior.

Simplification

Simplification is the process by which learners simplify the target language’s structure to make it more manageable. This process is particularly common in the early stages of language acquisition when learners have limited knowledge of the target language. Simplification can occur at the level of grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation. For example, learners may simplify grammar structures by omitting articles or prepositions or use simpler vocabulary words to convey a message.

Simplification is a common process in second language acquisition, where learners simplify the target language’s structure to make it more manageable. According to Selinker (1972), simplification is a result of the learner’s attempt to reduce the cognitive load of language learning. It occurs at various levels, such as grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation (Ellis, 1997).

Learners may simplify complex structures at the grammar level by omitting functional elements such as articles, prepositions, or pronouns. For example, learners might say “I go school” instead of “I go to school” or “He like ice cream” instead of “He likes ice cream.” At the vocabulary level, learners may use simpler words to convey their message, often resorting to high-frequency words that are easier to remember. For example, learners may say “big” instead of “enormous” or “small” instead of “tiny.” At the pronunciation level, learners may simplify the sound system of the target language by ignoring distinctions that do not exist in their native language. For example, Japanese learners of English might have difficulty distinguishing between /r/ and /l/ sounds, resulting in pronouncing “right” as “light.”

Simplification is not limited to beginners and can occur at any level of language learning. As learners progress in their language proficiency, they may still simplify their language use in communication with less competent interlocutors or when communicating about unfamiliar topics (Kellerman, 1983). Simplification is a natural and necessary process in language acquisition that helps learners cope with the cognitive demands of learning a new language.

Overgeneralization

Overgeneralization is a common process in language acquisition, particularly at the early stages of learning. As learners try to create a systematic understanding of the target language, they may apply a rule more widely than is appropriate. This can result in errors and mistakes, but it also reflects an attempt by the learner to make sense of the language.

Overgeneralization is the process by which learners apply a rule of the target language more widely than is appropriate. This often happens when learners are attempting to create a systematic understanding of the target language. For example, a learner may overgeneralize the English plural “-s” ending to irregular nouns, such as “mouses” instead of “mice.”

For example, in English, the plural of most nouns is formed by adding the suffix “-s” (e.g., dog-dogs, cat-cats). However, some nouns have irregular plurals that do not follow this pattern, such as “mouse-mice,” “goose-geese,” and “child-children.” A learner who is in the process of acquiring English might overgeneralize the “-s” plural ending to these irregular nouns and say “mouses,” “gooses,” and “childs.”

Overgeneralization can also occur at the level of grammar. For instance, a learner might overgeneralize a rule of English verb agreement by saying “he walk” instead of “he walks,” or “I goed” instead of “I went.”

Several studies have documented overgeneralization in interlanguage. For example, in a study of Turkish learners of English, Selinker (1972) found that learners overgeneralized English past tense forms by adding “-ed” to irregular verbs, such as “goed” instead of “went.” Similarly, in a study of Chinese learners of English, Han (2002) found that learners overgeneralized English articles, using “a” and “an” indiscriminately, regardless of whether the noun was countable or uncountable.

Restructuring

Restructuring is a cognitive process that involves a change in a learner’s mental representation of the language system (Ellis, 2015). This process is essential to second language acquisition as it allows learners to revise their previous knowledge and construct more accurate representations of the target language. Restructuring can be initiated by a variety of factors, such as exposure to new language input, feedback, or increased awareness of language structure.

Restructuring is the process by which learners revise their existing knowledge of the target language. This occurs when learners realize that their existing knowledge does not match the language input they receive. Restructuring can lead to changes in grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation. For example, learners using “I goed” instead of “I went” may restructure their knowledge to incorporate the correct form.

One example of restructuring is Spanish learners’ development of the past tense in English. Spanish has two past tenses, preterite and imperfect, which are used to convey different meanings. In contrast, English uses a single past tense form to express past events. Spanish learners initially transfer the use of the preterite and imperfect tenses to English, resulting in errors such as “Yesterday, I was playing tennis when it started to rain” instead of “Yesterday, I played tennis when it started to rain.” However, with increased exposure to English and feedback from teachers, learners gradually restructure their knowledge to use the correct past tense form (Ellis, 2015).

Another example of restructuring involves the acquisition of the English article system by speakers of languages that do not have articles. Learners may initially use articles randomly or omit them altogether, as they are not familiar with the grammatical category. However, as they become more aware of the function and meaning of articles in English, they restructure their knowledge to use them more accurately (Ellis, 2015). Restructuring is vital in second language acquisition as it enables learners to refine their mental representations of the target language and move towards more accurate and native-like production.

U-shaped behavior

U-shaped behavior is the process by which learners initially make progress in their language acquisition, then experience a period of regression, and then recover and continue to make progress. This process is characterized by an initial stage of learning, followed by a stage of incorrect use, and finally a stage of correct use. For example, a learner may initially use a rule correctly, then overgeneralize it, and finally use the rule correctly again.

U-shaped behavior is a common phenomenon observed in language acquisition, where learners initially demonstrate correct use of a rule or structure, then regress and demonstrate incorrect use, before finally mastering the rule again. This pattern of learning is thought to be related to the learners’ developing understanding of the complexity of the target language.

For example, a child learning irregular past tense forms in English may initially correctly produce the past tense of “go” as “went”. However, as they start to acquire more irregular past tense forms, they may overgeneralize the “-ed” ending to irregular verbs, producing forms like “goed” or “eated”. Eventually, with more exposure and practice, the child will relearn and use the correct forms of irregular verbs appropriately.

Research has found evidence of U-shaped behavior in various language acquisition contexts, including first-language and second-language acquisition (Ellis, 2008). This phenomenon has been observed in both spoken and written language and across different age groups. U-shaped behavior highlights the dynamic nature of language acquisition, where learners may make errors and correct them as they continue developing their understanding of the target language.

Development of syntax

The development of syntax in second language acquisition has been the subject of much research, with a particular focus on the acquisition of relative clauses. One influential theoretical approach to understanding the acquisition of relative clauses is markedness theory, which posits that certain structures are more complex or marked than others and, therefore, more difficult to acquire (Eckman, 1991).

According to markedness theory, relative clauses in English are more marked than subject-verb-object (SVO) sentences, which are the basic word order in English. This means that relative clauses are more complex and more difficult to produce correctly. Therefore, learners tend to produce simpler, unmarked structures before they can produce the more complex, marked structures.

Research on the acquisition of relative clauses has provided support for this theory. Studies have shown that learners tend to produce simple, unmarked relative clauses (e.g., the man who is here) before they can produce more complex, marked structures (e.g., the man I saw yesterday and wearing a hat). This pattern of development suggests that learners begin with a basic variety of the target language, which consists of simple, unmarked structures, and gradually acquire more complex structures over time.

Furthermore, research has shown that the acquisition of relative clauses is influenced by a number of factors, including the learner’s L1, age, and input frequency. For example, learners whose L1 allows for relative clauses (such as Spanish) tend to acquire relative clauses in their L2 more quickly than learners whose L1 does not have relative clauses (such as Mandarin Chinese). Similarly, younger learners tend to acquire relative clauses more easily than older learners, and learners exposed to more input containing relative clauses tend to acquire them more quickly than those not.

The development of syntax in second language acquisition is influenced by markedness, with learners tending to acquire simple, unmarked structures before more complex, marked structures. The acquisition of relative clauses is influenced by a range of factors, including L1, age, and input frequency. These findings have important implications for language teaching, suggesting that learners may benefit from explicit instruction and practice with complex structures, particularly those that are marked or difficult to acquire.

The value of grammar instruction

Researchers and educators have debated the question of whether explicit grammar instruction is beneficial for language learners for decades. Some argue that grammar instruction can lead to improved accuracy and fluency in the target language, while others believe that a focus on grammar can be detrimental to language acquisition and that learners should instead focus on communication and meaning.

Proponents of grammar instruction argue that explicit teaching of grammar rules can help learners understand the structure of the language and make connections between the form and meaning of the language. Research has shown that explicit instruction can improve spoken and written language accuracy, especially in complex structures such as relative clauses and passive voice (Spada, 1997; Ellis, 2002).

However, critics of grammar instruction argue that learners do not always transfer explicit knowledge of grammar rules to their use of the language in communication. In fact, studies have shown that many language learners are unable to apply the grammar rules they have learned in classroom instruction to their spontaneous use of the language (Ellis, 2003). Moreover, some research has suggested that a focus on grammar can lead to anxiety and a negative attitude towards language learning, which can in turn negatively affect motivation and learning outcomes (Skehan, 1998).

The question of the interface between explicit and implicit knowledge of grammar further complicates the debate around the value of grammar instruction. Some researchers argue that explicit instruction can help learners develop a conscious understanding of grammar rules, which can then be internalized and used unconsciously in communication. Others argue that implicit knowledge, acquired through exposure to the language in naturalistic settings, is the primary driver of language acquisition and that explicit instruction is of limited value (Krashen, 1981).

The value of grammar instruction in language learning is a complex and debated issue. While explicit teaching of grammar rules can lead to improved accuracy and understanding of the structure of the language, it is not always clear how this explicit knowledge translates to the spontaneous use of the language in communication. Moreover, the interface between explicit and implicit knowledge of grammar is not well understood and requires further research.

Advantages of grammar instruction

Grammar instruction has long been a topic of debate in the field of language learning, with some arguing that it is essential for language acquisition, while others suggest it may not be necessary. However, research has shown that grammar instruction can provide a number of advantages, including increased accuracy and rate of learning.

One advantage of grammar instruction is increased accuracy in language production. By learning the rules and structures of a language, learners can improve their ability to produce correct language forms. For example, a study by DeKeyser and Sokolik (1996) found that explicit grammar instruction helped learners to use the correct word order in English questions.

Another advantage of grammar instruction is an increased rate of learning. By providing explicit instruction on grammar rules, learners can learn and apply these rules more quickly than they might through exposure alone. This can be particularly beneficial for learners who are working within time constraints, such as those who need to learn a language for a specific purpose or within a limited timeframe.

Also, grammar instruction can help learners develop metalinguistic awareness, or the ability to reflect on and analyze language forms. This can be useful in facilitating the acquisition of other language skills, such as reading comprehension and writing.

It should be noted, however, that the effectiveness of grammar instruction may depend on a number of factors, including the level of proficiency of the learner, the type of instruction provided, and the language being learned. Nonetheless, research suggests that, in general, explicit grammar instruction can provide significant benefits for language learners.

Language Instruction & learner readiness

Instruction and learner readiness are interconnected when it comes to language learning. Effective language instruction must consider the learner’s developmental stage, level of readiness, and individual learning needs. Several factors can influence learner readiness, including age, motivation, previous language learning experiences, and learning style.

Research has shown that different developmental stages may require different instructional approaches. For example, young children may benefit from a more implicit, naturalistic approach to language instruction, while older learners may require explicit instruction that focuses on grammar rules and structures (Doughty & Long, 2003). Additionally, learners who are more advanced in their language proficiency may benefit from instruction emphasizing more complex structures and fine-tuning their language skills (Ellis, 2015).

Learner readiness is also influenced by motivation and individual learning styles. Motivated learners who are eager to learn and engage in the language learning process may be more receptive to different instructional approaches and may progress more quickly than learners who are less motivated (Dornyei, 2001). Similarly, learners who have a strong visual learning style may benefit from instructional materials that incorporate visual aids and diagrams, while auditory learners may benefit from instructional materials that emphasize listening and speaking skills (Ellis, 2015).

In addition to considering learner readiness, effective language instruction must also consider the developmental stages of language learning. Krashen (1981) identified five stages of second language acquisition: preproduction, early production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency. Specific language development features characterize each stage and requires different instructional approaches. For example, learners in the preproduction stage may benefit from instruction that emphasizes vocabulary and simple structures, while learners in the advanced fluency stage may benefit from instruction that focuses on advanced grammar structures and fine-tuning their language skills.

Effective language instruction must consider learner readiness, developmental stages, and individual learning needs to provide a tailored and effective learning experience. Different instructional approaches may be more appropriate for learners at different developmental stages, and instructional materials and methods must be tailored to individual learners’ learning styles and needs.

Chapter Summary

Chapter 5 covers various approaches and perspectives related to language acquisition and development under the umbrella of cognitive psychology. The general cognitive approach emphasizes the role of mental processes in language acquisition, and the chapter explores how different cognitive perspectives have contributed to understanding how learners acquire a second language. The chapter discusses the development of learner language from the perspective of cognitivism, which suggests that language acquisition is a cognitive process that involves the development of complex mental representations of language. The chapter also explores formula-based learning, which emphasizes the role of memorization and repetition in language acquisition, as well as the informal and formal linguistics approaches, which highlight the importance of context and rules in language acquisition.

Interlanguages are discussed as the intermediate language systems that learners construct during the process of acquiring a new language, and the chapter delves into four interlanguage processes, namely transfer, overgeneralization, restructuring, and U-shaped behavior. The chapter also discusses the development of syntax and how it is influenced by markedness and the acquisition of relative clauses, which are influenced by various factors such as the learner’s L1, age, and input frequency. The value of grammar instruction is examined in the chapter, with a focus on how it can lead to greater accuracy and faster learning. The chapter also explores the role of language instruction and learner readiness, emphasizing the importance of tailoring instruction to the learner’s level of readiness and abilities.

Overall, chapter 5 provides an in-depth exploration of cognitive perspectives on language acquisition and development and how these perspectives can inform language instruction and lead to more effective learning outcomes.

Questions for reviewing the lesson

1. What is interlanguage and how is it formed?
2. What are the four interlanguage processes and how do they affect language acquisition?
3. How does simplification occur in language acquisition?
4. What is overgeneralization and how does it affect language acquisition?
5. How does restructuring affect language acquisition?
6. What is U-shaped behavior in language acquisition?
7. What is the value of grammar instruction in language acquisition?
8. How does learner readiness affect language instruction and development?
9. What are some factors that influence the acquisition of relative clauses in a second language?
10. How does the L1 of a learner influence the acquisition of relative clauses in a second language?
11. What are some advantages of grammar instruction in language acquisition?
12. What does the future of interlanguage research look like?

References

Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261. doi: 10.1191/1362168806lr193oa

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. Palgrave Macmillan.

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97-113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

DeKeyser, R. M., & Sokolik, M. (1996). The differential effects of comprehension-based and production-based grammar instruction on the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91-126.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Wiley-Blackwell.

Eckman, F. R. (1991). On the acquisition of relative clauses in English: Universal Grammar and the initial state. Language learning, 41(3), 369-391.

Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 223-236.

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

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2006b). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x

Ellis, R., & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. London: Routledge.

Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge.

Han, Z. (2002). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Han, Z. H., & Selinker, L. (2005). Effects of linguistic knowledge, vocabulary size, and background knowledge on Korean EFL students’ inferential reading and processing. Language Learning, 55(1), 115-151.

Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.

Kellerman, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don’t. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 112-134). Newbury House.

Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301-347.

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

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

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

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008a). An introduction to cognitive linguistics for TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 391–400.

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008b). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. Routledge.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(1-4), 209-231.

Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.

Selinker, L., & Lakshmanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. In E. Tarone & S. Gass (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 371-399). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schumann, J. H. (1997). The neurobiology of affect in language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209-231.

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

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73-87.

Stengers, H., Boers, F., & Eyckmans, J. (2017). Multiword expressions and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A data-driven perspective. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead (pp. 357-372). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 141-178). Georgetown University Press.

Verspoor, M. H., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2008). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 207–224.

White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8(2), 203-218.

Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 5 focuses on the cognitive approach to language learning and the various perspectives that fall under it. The chapter begins by discussing the general cognitive approach and how it differs from the behaviorist approach. It then explores the development of learner language from the perspectives of cognitivists, with a focus on the role of…