Chapter 2 – The History of Second Language Acquisition

Case Study

Mai is a 20-year-old university student who wants to improve her English for study and future work. She uses mobile apps, watches English videos online, and follows English-speaking creators on social media every day. She enjoys learning new words and expressions, but she still feels uncomfortable when speaking in real conversations. Although Mai studies regularly, most of her practice happens alone through technology. She rarely joins live discussions or speaks with fluent users of English. Mai now wonders why online learning helps her vocabulary and listening, but not her speaking confidence. She wants to find a more effective way to learn English.

Discussion

1. What helps Mai most? What is missing from her current learning routine?
2. Which theories in SLA might explain her gains in vocabulary but not in speaking confidence?
3. Suggest one change that would add more interaction and real communication to her plan.

Introduction

The history of second language acquisition (SLA) is best understood as the development of a field through several major theoretical traditions. Early work was strongly influenced by behaviorism, which treated language learning as habit formation. This view was later challenged by mentalist and cognitive perspectives that emphasized the learner’s internal processing of language. From the 1980s onward, SLA expanded further through input-based, interactionist, and sociocultural approaches, and more recent work has also drawn on psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics to examine how second languages are represented and processed in the mind and brain (Ellis, 1994; Krashen, 1982; Lantolf, 2000; Ullman, 2001).

In this sense, the history of SLA is not a linear movement from “wrong” to “right” theories. Rather, it reflects changing assumptions about what language is, how it is learned, and which kinds of evidence are most useful for explaining acquisition. Some traditions focused on observable behavior, others on cognition, and others on social mediation and participation. Together, these perspectives have shaped SLA into an interdisciplinary field with multiple complementary lines of inquiry (Ellis, 1994; Lantolf, 2000).

Behaviorist Theories of Learning

Behaviorism played an important role in the early development of language learning theory. In this tradition, language was viewed as a set of verbal habits acquired through stimulus, response, reinforcement, and repetition. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior is the most commonly cited statement of this position, and its broader influence was especially visible in mid-twentieth-century approaches that linked language learning to habit formation and practice (Skinner, 1957).

However, the behaviorist account was increasingly criticized for its inability to explain the creative and generative nature of language use. Chomsky’s review of Verbal Behavior became a major turning point because it argued that language could not be explained adequately through reinforcement alone. In SLA, this criticism mattered because learners often produce forms they have never simply repeated, which suggests that acquisition involves rule formation and internal restructuring rather than only habit building (Chomsky, 1959; Ellis, 1994).

For this reason, behaviorism is now usually treated as historically important but theoretically limited in explaining SLA. Its legacy remains visible in some pedagogical practices, especially those involving drilling and repetition, but later SLA research moved toward accounts that gave a more central role to mental representation, processing, and developmental sequences (Ellis, 1994).

Cognitive Theories of SLA

Cognitive approaches to SLA shifted attention from observable behavior to the mental processes involved in language learning. Rather than viewing acquisition as habit formation, cognitive perspectives treat learners as active processors of input who notice patterns, form hypotheses, test those hypotheses, and gradually restructure their developing linguistic system. This shift helped establish SLA as a field concerned with attention, memory, processing, and representation, not merely with practice and reinforcement (Ellis, 1994).

One of the most influential early cognitive-input accounts was Krashen’s Monitor Model, especially the Input Hypothesis. Krashen argued that acquisition develops when learners are exposed to comprehensible input that is slightly beyond their current level of competence, commonly represented as i + 1. He also drew a strong distinction between subconscious acquisition and conscious learning, assigning a more limited role to explicit rule learning in spontaneous language development (Krashen, 1982).

Krashen’s work was highly influential because it redirected attention to the quality of input and the conditions that support comprehension. At the same time, later SLA research did not stop with input alone. Interactionist and psycholinguistic work increasingly emphasized that acquisition is also shaped by attention, negotiation of meaning, feedback, and processing constraints. As a result, cognitive theories in SLA developed beyond a single hypothesis and became a broad family of approaches concerned with how learners process language over time (Ellis, 1994; Long, 1996).

Social and Cultural Factors in Language Acquisition

From the 1990s onward, SLA research increasingly emphasized that language learning is not only a cognitive process but also a socially and culturally mediated one. This shift drew on sociocultural theory, sociolinguistics, and linguistic anthropology, all of which highlighted the importance of participation, context, and identity in language development. In this perspective, learners do not acquire language only through exposure to input; they develop it through interaction, mediation, and engagement in meaningful social activity (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf, 2009).

A key contribution of sociocultural theory is its view that learning is mediated by tools, social relationships, and cultural practices. In SLA, this means that interaction with more capable others, collaborative activity, and guided participation can support development in ways that simple exposure cannot fully explain. This tradition therefore places strong emphasis on context, not merely as background, but as a constitutive part of how language is learned and used (Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf, 2009).

At the same time, it is important to distinguish sociocultural theory from other socially oriented SLA frameworks. Michael Long, for example, is more closely associated with interactionist approaches than with sociocultural theory. Both perspectives value interaction, but they differ in their assumptions: interactionism focuses more on negotiation of meaning and input-related processes, whereas sociocultural theory emphasizes mediation, internalization, and development through socially organized activity (Lantolf, 2000; Long, 1996).

Neuroscience and Psycholinguistics in SLA

More recent SLA research has become increasingly interdisciplinary, drawing on psycholinguistics and neuroscience to examine how second languages are processed, stored, and learned. This work has shifted attention toward memory systems, real-time processing, and neural organization, allowing researchers to ask not only how learners develop a second language but also what kinds of cognitive and neural mechanisms support that development (Ullman, 2001).

One influential account is Ullman’s declarative/procedural model, which proposes that lexical knowledge and grammatical knowledge rely on partly different memory systems. In this framework, aspects of vocabulary learning are linked more strongly to declarative memory, while aspects of grammar are associated more closely with procedural memory. This model has been important because it connects SLA research with broader neurocognitive theories of learning and helps explain why different components of language may develop in different ways (Ullman, 2001).

Psycholinguistic research has also highlighted the role of attention and noticing in SLA. Schmidt’s work argues that linguistic features in the input are unlikely to become intake unless learners notice them, making attention a central construct in explaining how exposure leads to development. This line of work has helped bridge cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches by showing that input alone is not enough; what matters is how learners process that input in real time (Schmidt, 1990).

Transfer and the Role of the L1

Transfer refers to the influence of a learner’s first language on the acquisition and use of a second language. In SLA, transfer is no longer viewed simply as interference; instead, it is understood as a broader form of cross-linguistic influence that can either facilitate or hinder learning depending on the relationship between the languages involved and the specific feature being learned. This means that the role of the L1 is complex, variable, and strongly dependent on linguistic and learning context (Odlin, 1989; Ringbom, 1987).

Negative Transfer

Negative transfer occurs when patterns from the first language lead to non-target-like forms in the second language. This is especially likely when learners assume equivalence between structures that differ across languages. Odlin’s work helped establish negative transfer as an important explanation for persistent difficulties in grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation, particularly when the L1 and L2 differ substantially in form or distribution (Odlin, 1989).

Negative transfer can also be observed in speech learning. Flege’s research shows that learners’ perception and production of second-language sounds are shaped by the categories established in the first language, which may make some contrasts easier or harder to acquire. This is one reason pronunciation difficulties are often resistant to change, especially when learners assimilate unfamiliar L2 sounds to familiar L1 categories (Flege, 1995).

Positive Transfer

Positive transfer occurs when knowledge of the first language supports the learning of the second language. This is particularly likely when the languages are typologically related or when learners can accurately perceive similarities in vocabulary, structure, or sound patterns. Ringbom’s work is especially important here because it shows that cross-linguistic similarity can facilitate learning, especially in lexical development and comprehension (Ringbom, 1987).

For this reason, transfer should not be treated only as a source of error. It can also reduce learning burden and make parts of the L2 more accessible, especially when learners can build on existing linguistic knowledge in strategic ways. In this broader view, the L1 is not merely an obstacle but a potential cognitive resource (Ringbom, 1987; Cook, 2001).

L1 as a Resource for Learners

A more recent perspective argues that the first language can function as a resource in learning rather than something that should always be minimized. Cook, for example, challenges the assumption that effective L2 teaching requires total exclusion of the L1 and argues that judicious use of the first language may support explanation, comparison, and classroom management. This position does not deny the importance of L2 exposure, but it rejects the view that the two languages must be kept completely separate in instruction (Cook, 2001).

Overall, research on transfer shows that the L1 can both constrain and support SLA. Whether its influence is positive or negative depends on linguistic similarity, learner awareness, proficiency, and the task at hand. A more accurate contemporary view is therefore that cross-linguistic influence is dynamic and multifunctional rather than uniformly harmful or uniformly helpful (Odlin, 1989; Cook, 2001; Ringbom, 1987).

Contrastive Analysis

Contrastive analysis is an early approach in SLA that compares the learner’s first language (L1) and the target language (L2) in order to identify similarities and differences that may facilitate or hinder learning. Lado (1957) argued that elements similar to the learner’s native language would be easier to learn, whereas different elements would be more difficult. In this sense, contrastive analysis was closely tied to the prediction of learning difficulty and to the development of teaching materials designed to reduce negative transfer.

Although contrastive analysis was historically influential, it was later criticized for assuming that all major learner difficulties could be predicted from structural differences between languages. SLA research showed that not all predicted difficulties actually occur, and that many learner errors cannot be explained solely by L1–L2 comparison. As a result, contrastive analysis is now regarded as useful for identifying possible areas of cross-linguistic influence, but insufficient as a complete explanation of second language development (Ellis, 1994; Odlin, 1989).

Error Analysis

Error analysis emerged as an important response to the limitations of contrastive analysis. Rather than predicting difficulty in advance, this approach examines the actual errors learners produce in order to understand the developing system underlying their language use. Corder (1973)’s work was especially important because it showed that learner errors are not random failures but evidence of an evolving interlanguage system. From this perspective, errors provide insight into how learners test hypotheses, restructure knowledge, and move through developmental stages in the L2.

At the same time, error analysis also has limitations. Because it focuses on non-target-like production, it may underrepresent what learners can already do successfully, and it does not always distinguish clearly between lack of knowledge and performance problems caused by attention, memory, or task pressure. Even so, error analysis remains valuable because it helps researchers and teachers identify recurrent areas of difficulty and better understand the developmental character of learner language (Corder, 1967, 1973; Ellis, 1994).

The Impact of Culture on Second Language Acquisition

Culture is not an optional supplement to language learning; it is deeply bound up with how language is used, interpreted, and valued. Kramsch argues that language learning always involves entry into systems of meaning shaped by social and cultural context. For this reason, SLA cannot be fully explained only in terms of grammar and vocabulary. Learners must also develop awareness of how meanings shift across contexts, relationships, identities, and communities of practice (Kramsch, 1993).

Cultural factors also shape learners’ identities, motivations, and participation in the target language. Pavlenko and Lantolf emphasize that second language learning can involve the reconstruction of the self, especially when learners enter new communities and negotiate new forms of belonging. This perspective broadens SLA beyond formal learning processes and highlights how attitudes, symbolic value, and social positioning influence engagement with the L2 (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000).

For these reasons, culture affects SLA not only through exposure to target-language communities but also through educational policy, the prestige of languages, and learners’ perceptions of the people who speak them. A more accurate contemporary view is that language learning is always culturally situated, and successful acquisition includes the development of intercultural and pragmatic competence alongside linguistic knowledge (Kramsch, 1993; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000).

The Impact of Technology on Second Language Acquisition

Technology has expanded the environments in which SLA can occur by increasing access to input, interaction, feedback, and self-directed practice. Research in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has shown that digital tools can support second language development when they are integrated meaningfully into pedagogy rather than treated as neutral delivery systems. Chapelle’s work was especially important in establishing technology as a serious area of SLA inquiry by linking CALL to broader questions of interaction, task design, and language learning conditions (Chapelle, 2001).

Later research further emphasized the range of possibilities created by digital learning environments. Levy and Stockwell show that CALL includes multiple dimensions, including delivery mode, learner control, interaction, and evaluation, and that technology influences not just access to language but also the design of learning experiences. This means that technology is not simply an add-on to language teaching; it can reshape when, where, and how learners engage with the target language (Levy & Stockwell, 2006).

Mobile and networked technologies have strengthened this shift by making language learning less tied to fixed classroom times and spaces. Kukulska-Hulme (2012) argues that contemporary language learning is increasingly defined by time and place flexibility, allowing learners to move across formal, informal, and personal learning contexts. Even so, research consistently suggests that technology is most effective when it supports meaningful communication, learner autonomy, and sustained engagement, rather than replacing the social dimensions of language learning (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012; Chapelle, 2001).

Online Learning / E-Learning

Online learning, or e-learning, has expanded the contexts in which second language acquisition can take place by allowing learners to access instruction, materials, and interaction beyond the physical classroom. In SLA, the significance of e-learning lies not simply in convenience, but in its ability to increase access to input, feedback, collaboration, and learner control over time and pace. Blake argues that digitally mediated language learning can support interactionist and learner-centered approaches when online environments are designed to promote meaningful communication rather than passive content delivery.

Research on e-learning in language education suggests that its effectiveness depends less on the medium itself than on the quality of task design, interaction, and pedagogical integration. In other words, online learning is not automatically superior or inferior to face-to-face instruction; its value depends on how it supports communication, practice, and learner engagement. For this reason, e-learning is best understood as an extension of language learning environments rather than a replacement for all other forms of instruction (Blake, 2013; Levy & Stockwell, 2006).

Mobile Devices

Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) refers to the use of mobile technologies such as smartphones and tablets to support language learning across settings. A major contribution of MALL is that it allows learners to engage with language in more flexible, immediate, and context-sensitive ways. Kukulska-Hulme (2012) and Shield’s review helped establish MALL as a distinct area of SLA-related research by showing that mobile devices can support interaction, collaboration, and just-in-time learning rather than merely replicating desktop-based instruction on smaller screens.

Stockwell and Hubbard further argue that mobile learning is pedagogically meaningful because it reshapes when and where language learning happens, often increasing learner autonomy and the continuity of exposure outside class. At the same time, research in MALL consistently shows that mobile tools are most effective when they are aligned with sound learning principles, realistic task demands, and sustained learner use. Thus, mobile devices should be treated not as inherently transformative tools, but as technologies whose value depends on how they are integrated into language learning practice (Stockwell & Hubbard, 2013).

Social Media

Social media has become an important resource for language learning because it gives learners access to authentic discourse, participatory communication, and informal language use beyond the classroom. Research in this area has shown that blogs, wikis, and social networking platforms can create opportunities for interaction, identity work, and engagement with target-language communities. Rather than functioning only as content sources, social media environments can serve as spaces where learners read, write, respond, and participate in socially situated language practices (Reinhardt, 2019; Lomicka & Lord, 2011).

This perspective is especially important because it connects language learning with digital literacies and intercultural participation. Thorne and Reinhardt argue that online environments can support language development when learners are guided in how to engage critically and productively with vernacular digital practices. Social media therefore contributes to SLA not only by increasing exposure, but also by broadening the communicative and cultural spaces in which learners use the target language (Reinhardt, 2019).

The Benefits of Bilingualism in Second Language Acquisition

Bilingualism has often been associated with advantages relevant to second language acquisition, particularly in metalinguistic awareness and aspects of attentional control. Bialystok (2015)’s work has been especially influential in arguing that experience managing more than one language can shape cognitive processes related to attention and language awareness. However, contemporary scholarship tends to treat these advantages with caution, noting that their strength and consistency may vary across tasks, populations, and contexts. A balanced conclusion is that bilingualism can influence how learners attend to language and manage competing information, but its effects should not be overstated as uniform or automatic.

Bilingualism may also support SLA by providing learners with greater sensitivity to language structure and with experience drawing on more than one linguistic system. In addition, Grosjean emphasizes that bilingualism should be understood as a normal and valuable form of language competence rather than as two monolingualisms in one person. From this perspective, the benefits of bilingualism in SLA are not limited to cognition alone; they also include broader communicative repertoires, cross-cultural flexibility, and greater readiness to navigate multilingual settings (Grosjean, 2010; Adesope et al., 2010).

In short, technology and bilingual experience both expand the possibilities for SLA, but neither should be treated in simplistic terms. Online learning, mobile learning, and social media are most valuable when they support meaningful communication and sustained engagement, while bilingualism is best understood as a dynamic resource that can shape linguistic, cognitive, and social development in ways that are context dependent.

Problem-Solving Activity

Situation
Mai uses apps, online videos, and social media to learn English every day. Her vocabulary and listening have improved, but she still lacks confidence in speaking. She studies alone most of the time and has very little real interaction in English.

Task
Work in groups and design a practical 4-week learning plan to help Mai improve her speaking confidence and communication skills.

Your plan should include:

• two online learning activities
• one mobile learning activity
• one social media activity
• one real communication activity
• ways to use her bilingual ability as a strength
• how to measure her progress each week

Discussion goal
Explain why your plan is effective based on what you learned about online learning, mobile devices, social media, and bilingualism in SLA.

References

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

Bialystok, E. (2015). Bilingualism and the development of executive function: The role of attention. Child Development Perspectives, 9(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12116

Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning (2nd ed.). Georgetown University Press.

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge University Press.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–170.

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

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

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.

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

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

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

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Language learning defined by time and place: A framework for next generation designs. In J. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Left to my own devices: Learner autonomy and mobile-assisted language learning (pp. 1–13). Emerald.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

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

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

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 42(1), 78–86.

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

Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2011). The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. CALICO Journal.

Long, M. H. (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). Academic Press.

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

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford University Press.

Reinhardt, J. (2019). Social media in second and foreign language teaching and learning: Blogs, wikis, and social networking. Language Teaching, 52(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000356

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

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129

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

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

Ullman, M. T. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728901000220

Case Study Mai is a 20-year-old university student who wants to improve her English for study and future work. She uses mobile apps, watches English videos online, and follows English-speaking creators on social media every day. She enjoys learning new words and expressions, but she still feels uncomfortable when speaking in real conversations. Although Mai…