SLA Theories since the 50s PDF

## The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research ### Introduction To understand current developments in second language learning research, it is helpful to trace its recent history. This chapter explores the roots of modern research in the fields of linguistics, psychology, sociology, an...

## The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research ### Introduction To understand current developments in second language learning research, it is helpful to trace its recent history. This chapter explores the roots of modern research in the fields of linguistics, psychology, sociology, and pedagogy. The first part of this chapter explores the theoretical foundations of modern second language learning research. The period after the 1950s saw the development of second language learning research from an adjunct to language pedagogy, to a fully developed field. This period can be divided into three stages: * **The 1950s and the 1960s:** This was the period where second language learning was viewed as a set of habits to be learned. * **The 1970s:** This was the period of the “Chomskyan revolution,” and it saw the rise of Error Analysis. * **The 1980s:** This was the period of the “social turn,” and it saw the development of a range of new models, including the Monitor Model and the Input Hypothesis. This chapter will explore these stages in detail, following the “timeline” of key publications from the 1950s up to the present. ### The 1950s and the 1960s The 1950s and early 1960s were characterized by a focus on practical language teaching and a belief that language teaching methods needed to be justified by underlying learning theory. The rise of the "progressive" 1950s language pedagogy drew heavily on the structuralism of the British linguist Palmer and his Michigan colleagues. The key features of this “structuralist” approach were: * Learning a language was seen as acquiring a set of appropriate speech habits. * Courses of instruction were built around a graded syllabus of structural patterns. * Grammar was taught inductively. * Errors were avoided through practice and rehearsal. The predominant learning theory during this period was behaviorism, which views learning as the formation of habits. ### Behaviorism Behaviorism was a prominent theory in psychology in the 1950s and 1960s. It was embraced by language teaching experts and reformers of the time, who saw language learning as analogous to other types of learning, such as conditioning or habit formation. Behaviorism views language learning as the formation of stimulus-response pairings. Humans are exposed to numerous stimuli in their environment, and responses are reinforced if they lead to a desired outcome. Through repeated reinforcement of desired responses, a certain stimulus will elicit the same response time and again, which eventually becomes a habit. The creation of stimulus-response pairings are the basis of skill learning and the formation of habits. Applied to language learning, a certain situation is associated with a certain response. For example, meeting someone leads to some kind of greeting, and the response is reinforced if the desired outcome is achieved. There are two key implications of behaviorism for language teaching: * Practice makes perfect, and second language learning takes place by imitating and repeating the same structures time after time. * It is important to focus on structures believed to be difficult and to practice them accordingly. ### Behaviorism Under Attack The 1950s and 1960s also witnessed significant developments in both linguistics and psychology, which challenged the dominance of behaviorism. In linguistics, the publication of Noam Chomsky’s _Syntactic Structures_ (1957) was a pivotal moment, marking the shift from structural linguistics to generative linguistics. Generative linguistics emphasizes the rule-governed and creative nature of human language, highlighting the ability of humans to create novel sentences and to learn new rules based on limited input. In psychology, the rise of cognitive development theories, such as Piaget's theory, emphasized the importance of internal forces in learning, rather than a simple emphasis on environmental influences. These developments in linguistics and psychology challenged the behaviourist view of language, arguing that it could not adequately account for the complexities of language or for the learning process. ### The 1970s: First Language Acquisition and the Rise of Error Analysis The 1970s saw a renewed interest in first language acquisition research, spearheaded by linguists such as Edward Klima, Ursula Bellugi, and Dan Slobin. This research revealed that children learning any language go through a sequence of predictable stages, with a consistent order of acquisition occurring. This evidence suggested that learning was not solely a matter of imitation or reinforcement but was guided by internal, innate mechanisms. The consistent order of acquisition of morphemes in English was most thoroughly documented by Roger Brown in his 1973 morpheme study. This study, along with subsequent research, revealed that children learning different languages acquire the same morphemes in a similar, consistent order, suggesting that the process of language acquisition is universal, despite differences in the rate of learning. The findings of L1 research had a profound impact on second language acquisition research, influencing the development of Error analysis. Error analysis is the systematic study of learners’ errors, viewing learner language as a linguistic system in its own right, deserving of systematic investigation and analysis. The focus of Error analysis shifted from attributing errors to L1 interference (as argued for by contrastive analysis) to identifying learner-internal errors, revealing that learners create a system of their own, called “interlanguage,” which is neither the native language nor the target language. ### The Interlanguage Hypothesis The concept of interlanguage was introduced by Larry Selinker in 1972. It emphasizes that learner language is a dynamic system characterized by: * **Systematicity:** Unlike random errors, learner errors are governed by systematic rules. * **Evolution:** Interlanguage evolves over time as learners develop new skills and knowledge. The interlanguage hypothesis challenged the behaviourist view of language learning and supported the idea of a universal, innate process of acquisition. ### The 1970s: The Birth of Error Analysis and the Concept of Interlanguage The findings of first language acquisition research led to a reassessment of the role of contrastive analysis. The predictions of contrastive analysis were not always borne out in practice. Classroom teachers encountered situations where constructions that were different in two languages were not necessarily difficult, and vice versa. Furthermore, difficulties in second language learning often occurred in one direction but not the other. For example, the placement of unstressed object pronouns in English and French differed; while English uses _I like them_, French uses _Je les aime_. However, English learners of French often struggled with this construction, while French learners of English did not. This suggests that the predictions of contrastive analysis were not always accurate and that a more nuanced understanding of second language learning was needed. The concept of interlanguage emerged from this reassessment. Second language learners are not simply mimicking the target language or transferring L1 patterns, but are instead creating a new, evolving system of their own – that is, interlanguage. Interlanguage is learner-internal and systematic, reflecting the current state of the learner’s second language development. ### The 1970s: The Rise of Morpheme Studies and Krashen’s Monitor Model The 1970s also saw the rise of morpheme studies, which investigated the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes in second language learning. These studies, drawing inspiration from Roger Brown’s research on L1 acquisition, yielded some significant findings: * **Consistent Order of Acquisition:** Learners across different L1 backgrounds and learning contexts acquire morphemes in a remarkably similar, consistent order. * **Cross-Linguistic Similarity:** The order of acquisition of morphemes often mirrors the order observed in L1 acquisition, suggesting a universal order of development. These studies provided further evidence for the interlanguage hypothesis, suggesting that L2 development is not entirely driven by L1 interference, but is guided by innate, universal principles. One of the most influential models developed in the 1970s was Krashen's Monitor Model, which accounted for the role of conscious learning alongside subconscious acquisition. Krashen proposed that language acquisition is based on comprehensible input “i + 1”, which is input that is slightly beyond the learner's current competence, but still understandable. The Monitor Model, in contrast, accounts for conscious learning, which is used to edit and revise the output produced by the acquired system. Krashen developed five key hypotheses to account for the process of second language acquisition: * **Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis:** Acquisition is a subconscious process, while learning is a conscious one. Acquisition is the result of natural interaction, while learning results from instruction and conscious effort. * **Monitor Hypothesis:** The Monitor, or the conscious knowledge of grammar, is used to edit and revise language produced by the acquired system, rather than to produce new language. * **Natural Order Hypothesis:** Learners acquire grammatical structures in a predictable order, regardless of the order of instruction. * **Input Hypothesis:** Learners acquire language through comprehensible input “i + 1”. * **Affective Filter Hypothesis:** Learners’ emotional states and attitudes, such as motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, can affect the accessibility of input. Krashen’s Monitor Model and his five hypotheses became a cornerstone of language acquisition research in the 1980s. They challenged the behaviourist paradigm, emphasizing the role of comprehensible input and the universality of language acquisition. ### The 1980s: A Turning Point The 1980s saw a turning point in language acquisition research. New theoretical perspectives challenged the previous models, and a greater emphasis was placed on the role of social and psychological factors. * **Interaction Hypothesis:** Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis highlighted the importance of interaction in L2 learning. He argued that meaning negotiation and interaction during communication provide opportunities for learners to receive comprehensible input and to develop fluency. * **Output Hypothesis:** Merrill Swain’s Output Hypothesis emphasized the importance of output in L2 development. She argued that learners need to use the language, not just receive it, to develop their skills. * **Information Processing Models:** The influence of information processing models from cognitive psychology started appearing in L2 research. These models explained how learners process information and develop fluency by moving from controlled processing to automatized processing. This emphasis on the role of social and psychological factors led to a renewed focus on learner individuality, the impact of social contexts, and the role of conscious learning. ### Continuites in the Research Agenda Despite the emergence of new theoretical perspectives, the research agenda in L2 learning continued to be driven by a number of fundamental questions: * **Universal Grammar:** Is L2 acquisition guided by the same universal principles as L1 acquisition? * **First Language Influence:** To what extent does L1 influence L2 acquisition? * **Cognitive Processes:** What are the cognitive processes involved in language learning, and how are they similar to those involved in other complex skills? * **Social Factors:** What is the role of social factors in L2 acquisition? * **Input:** What is the role of input in L2 acquisition, and how does it relate to the role of interaction and output? These questions continue to shape the research agenda in L2 learning, resulting in the development of a diverse range of theories and models. ### Timeline of Major Publications in Second Language Learning This timeline is an adapted version of Myles (2010), reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press. | Year | Text |  Comment | |:---:|:---:|:---:| | 1945 | Fries, C. (1945). _Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language_. | Fries develops a behaviorist pedagogy of language that emphasizes repetition and practice, and argues for the importance of contrastive analysis. | | 1957 | Skinner, B.F. (1957). _Verbal Behavior_. | Skinner's account of behaviorism is applied to language learning, arguing that it is analogous to other types of learning that take place through stimulus-response reinforcement. | | 1957 | Lado, R. (1957). _Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics For Language Teachers_. | Lado compares pairs of languages to identify differences in order to determine areas of difficulty and pinpoint areas where teachers should focus. | | 1959 | Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of _B.F. Skinner Verbal Behavior_. | Chomsky launches a scathing critique of Skinner, arguing that children have an innate faculty guiding them in acquiring language. His concept of *Universal Grammar* will subsequently become influential in the field. | | 1964 | Lado, R. (1964). _Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach_. | Lado draws on structuralist linguistics and behaviourist psychology to develop an *audiolingual* approach to language teaching. | | 1966 | Newmark, L. (1966). _How Not to Interfere in Language Learning_. | In contrast to Lado (1964) and the dominant behaviourist thinking of the time, Newmark argues that teachers should allow learners' own, internalized grammar to guide language development, rather than try to directly shape it. | | 1967 | Corder, S.P. (1967). _The Significance of Learners' Errors_. | Corder argues that learners have a unique, internal syllabus and emphasizes the importance of studying learners' errors. | | 1967 | Lenneberg, E. (1967). _Biological Foundations of Language_ | Lenneberg suggests that L1 acquisition is biologically triggered and that children acquire language spontaneously, as long as language is present. | | 1972 | Selinker, L. (1972). _Interlanguage_. | Selinker coins the term _Interlanguage_ to refer to the L2 learner's evolving system. | | 1972 | Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E. (1972). _Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning_. | Gardner & Lambert propose that L2 motivation can be _integrative_ (desire to integrate with the L2-using community) or _instrumental_ (desire to achieve pragmatic goals). | | 1973 | Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1973). _Should we teach children syntax_. | Dulay & Burt’s morpheme studies show that L2 learners acquire morphemes in a consistent order, suggesting that L2 acquisition is driven by innate mechanisms, not simply L1 interference. | | 1974 | Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a 'natural sequence' in adult second language learning? | Bailey, Madden, and Krashen’s follow-up morpheme studies with adult L2 learners show a consistent order of acquisition of morphemes. | | 1974 | Richards, J. (ed.) (1974). _Error analysis: Perspectives on second language learning_. | Richards’ landmark _Error Analysis_ book draws attention to learners’ errors and becomes influential in the field. | | 1978 | Schumann, J. (1978). _The Pidginisation Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition_. | Schumann’s model of *pidginization* and *acculturation* proposes that L2 development is influenced by social and psychological distance between the learner and the target language community. | | 1978 | Bialystok, E. (1978). _A theoretical model of second language learning_. | Bialystok develops a theoretical model of L2 learning, distinguishing between *implicit* and *explicit* knowledge. | | 1979 | Givón, T. (1979). _From Discourse to Syntax: Grammar as a Processing Strategy_. | Givón argues that learner speech, especially in the early stages, resembles the *pragmatic mode*, which relies heavily on context. | | 1980 | Long, M. (1980). _Input, interaction and second language acquisition_. | Long’s PhD thesis argues that learners are active partners in L2 communication, negotiating the input to maximize comprehension. This marks a shift of focus from input to interaction and from analysis of learners’ errors to examining learner production and communicative competence development. | | 1981 | Krashen, S. (1981). _Second Language Acquisition and Second language learning_. | Krashen’s _Monitor Model_ proposes that learning takes place through *acquisition* (subconscious process) and *learning* (conscious process). | | 1981 | Meisel, J., Clahsen, H. & Pienemann, M. (1981). _On Determining Developmental Stages in Natural Second Language Acquisition_. | Meisel, Clahsen, and Pienemann’s study of German word order acquisition across a variety of L1s provides evidence for development stages in L2 acquisition. | | 1982 | Dulay, H., Burt, M. & Krashen, S. (1982). _Language Two_. | Dulay et al. confirm the results of their morpheme studies and conclude that learners acquire morphemes in a consistent order across different L1s. | | 1983 | Flynn, S. (1983). _A Study of the Effects of Principal Branching Direction in Second Language Acquisition: The Generalization of a Parameter of Universal Grammar from First to Second Language Acquisition_. | Flynn’s work on how UG parameters are reset from L1 to L2 opens a new vein of research. She argues that learners are able to reset L1 parameters, such as the *head parameter*, to the values of the L2. | | 1984 | Hyltenstam, K. (1984). _The Use of Typological Markedness Conditions as Predictors in Second language acquisition_. | Hyltenstam proposes that markedness relations play a role in second language acquisition, and that L2 learners acquire typologically unmarked structures before marked structures. | | 1984 | Pienemann, M. (1984). _Psychological Constraints on the Teachability of Languages_. | Pienemann suggests that language acquisition occurs in a series of stages, and that learners must acquire one stage before they can acquire the next. | | 1985 | Krashen, S. (1985). _The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications_. | Krashen expands on his _Input Hypothesis_, further developing his argument that comprehensible input is necessary and sufficient for L2 acquisition. * | | 1985 | Swain, M. (1985). _Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development_. | Swain’s _Output Hypothesis_ argues that learners need not only comprehensible input, but also comprehensible output. The hypothesis challenges Krashen’s view that output is a consequence, rather than a cause, of L2 acquisition. | | 1987 | McLaughlin, B. (1987). _Theories of Second Language Learning_. | McLaughlin draws on cognitive psychology to explain the processes and mechanisms of L2 acquisition. | | 1989 | Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). _What is the logical problem of foreign language learning?_. | Bley-Vroman’s _Fundamental Difference Hypothesis_ argues that UG plays a central role in L1 acquisition, but that L2 acquisition relies on cognitive mechanisms shared across other domains, such as problem-solving. | | 1989 | White, L. (1989). _Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition_. | White’s detailed analysis of the role of UG in L2 acquisition argues that it is a crucial factor in L2 acquisition. | | 1989 | Johnson, J. & Newport, E. (1989). _Critical Period Effects in Second Language Learning: The Influence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of ESL_. | Johnson and Newport provide evidence for the existence of a critical period effect in second language acquisition, arguing for the advantage of early immersion. | | 1989 | Skehan, P. (1989). _Individual Differences in Foreign Language Learning_. | Skehan’s work on individual differences challenges the universal assumptions of previous models and emphasizes the importance of factors, such as personality, anxiety, and motivation, in second language learning. | | 1990 | Schmidt, R. (1990). _The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning_ | Schmidt’s _Noticing Hypothesis_ proposes that learners must consciously attend to and notice form in the input for L2 development. | | 1991 | Cook, V.J. (1991). _The Poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence._ | Cook argues that the bilingual mind is more than the sum of two monolingual minds, and that L1 and L2 interact and influence one another. | | 1992 | Klein, W. & Perdue, C. (1992). _Utterance Structure: Developing Grammars Again._ | Klein and Perdue’s research, conducted through a collaborative project, provides evidence for consistent stages of L2 development. | | 1992 | Sokolik, M. & Smith, M. (1992). _Assignment of Gender to French Nouns in Primary and Secondary Languages: A Connectionist Model_. | Sokolik and Smith develop a *connectionist* model to explain the acquisition of grammatical gender in French. | | 1993 | VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). _Explicit Instruction and Input Processing_. | VanPatten and Cadierno argue that learners process input in a way that is highly dependent upon the grammatical structure of the input. | | 1994 | Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) (1994). _Socio-cultural Theory and Second language learning: Special Issue of The Modern Language Journal_. | Lantolf's work on *sociocultural theory* emphasizes the importance of interaction, mediation, and social context in second language acquisition. | | 1994 | Bayley, R. (1994). _Interlanguage Variation and the Quantitative Paradigm: Past Tense Marking in Chinese-English_. | Bayley’s work on *sociolinguistic variation* examines how learners’ L2 production deviates from the target language. | | 1995 | Duff, P. (1995). _An Ethnography of Communication in Immersion Classrooms in Hungary_. | Duff’s work on *sociocultural factors* illuminates the role of L2 socialization in second language acquisition. | | 1996 | Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). _L2 Cognitive States and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model._ | Schwartz and Sprouse propose the *Full Transfer-Full Access* Model, arguing that L2 learners initially transfer all their L1 parameter settings. | | 1996 | Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). _Gradual Development of L2 Phrase Structure_. | Vainikka and Young-Scholten propose a *gradual development* model of L2 development, with the gradual acquisition of functional categories. | | 1997 | Lyster, R. & Ranta, E. (1997). _Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Communicative Classrooms_. | Lyster and Ranta’s study of *corrective feedback* in communicative classrooms demonstrates the importance of interaction and reciprocal negotiation. | | 1997 | Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). _Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language Acquisition_. | Larsen-Freeman introduces the concept of *complexity theory* to explain the non-linear and chaotic nature of L2 acquisition, and argues that learners create *dynamic systems*. | | 1997 | Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). _On Discourse, Communication and Some Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research_. | Firth and Wagner’s work on *discourse* and *interaction* argues that learners' L2 development is a dynamic system, deeply intertwined with the social nature of language. | | 1998 | Pienemann, M. (1998). _Language Processing and Second Language Acquisition: Processability Theory_. | Pienemann’s *Processability Theory* proposes that learners acquire language through steps, building on previous acquisition. | | 1998 | Lardiere, D. (1998). _Dissociating Syntax from Morphology in a Divergent L2 End-State Grammar._ | Lardiere’s insightful study of an *end-state learner* argues that L2 learners have access to UG principles, but that their ability to acquire morphology can be impaired. | | 1998 | Archibald, J. (1998). _Second Language Phonology_. | Archibald's work on *L2 phonology* highlights the importance of this area to understanding L2 acquisition. | | 1999 | Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999). _Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis_. | Birdsong’s edited volume addresses the controversial issue of _critical period effects_ in second language acquisition. | | 2000 | Carroll, S. (2001). _Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition_. | Carroll’s _Autonomous Induction_ theory argues that language acquisition is a result of learners’ interacting with comprehensible input and analyzing its structures. | | 2000 | Herschensohn, J. (2000). _The Second Time Around_. | Herschensohn’s model of L2 development includes *Minimalist Program* research and *Universal Grammar* in its model of L2 acquisition. | | 2000 | Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). _Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis._ | Norris and Ortega’s meta-analysis of L2 research provides a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of L2 instruction. | | 2000 | Norton, B. (2000). _Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change_. | Norton’s influential work on *learner identity* argues that motivation and agency are crucial for language learning. | | 2001 | Ohta, A. (2001). _Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom_. | Ohta’s groundbreaking work examines the influence of classroom *social interaction* in L2 learning. | | 2001 | Hawkins, R. (2001). _Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction_. | Hawkins expands on the *Modulated Structure Building* model of L2 acquisition, arguing that learners start with lexical projections and gradually build functional categories. | | 2001 | Ullman, M. (2001a). _The Neural Basis of Lexicon and Grammar in First and Second Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model_. | Ullman’s *Declarative/Procedural Model* proposes that L2 learners store and access lexical knowledge declaratively and grammatical knowledge procedurally. | | 2002 | Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2002). _Pragmatic Development in a Second Language_. | Kasper and Rose’s comprehensive overview of *pragmatic development* in L2 learners includes *sociocultural* factors, such as language use, social context, and learner identity. | | 2003 | Ellis, N.C. (2003). _Constructions, Chunking, and Connectionism: The Emergence of Second Language Structure_. | Ellis’ *connectionist* model argues that L2 acquisition is a result of learners constructing their own grammar, based on their analysis of the input.| | 2004 | Paradis, M. (2004). _A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism_. | Paradis’ comprehensive model of *bilingualism* proposes a neurofunctional model of language and combines it with a set of hypotheses of language processing. | | 2004 | Truscott, J. & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). _Acquisition by Processing: A Modular Perspective on Language Development_. | Truscott’s and Sharwood Smith’s *Modular On-line Growth and Use of Language* model (MOGUL) proposes that language acquisition is a natural product of language processing. | | 2005 | Dörnyei, Z. (2005). _The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition_. | Dörnyei’s work on *motivation* and *the L2 motivational self system* provides a framework for studying individual learner differences. | | 2005 | O’Grady, W. (2005). _Syntactic Carpentry: An Emergentist Approach to Syntax_. | O’Grady’s _emergentist_ approach to syntax argues that language is acquired through a computational processing system. | | 2006 | Lantolf, J. and Thorne, S. (2006). _Sociocultural Theory and The Genesis of Second Language Development_. | Lantolf and Thorne’s extensive overview of *sociocultural theory* includes *dynamic assessment*, *concept-based instruction*, and a wide range of applications of the theory to L2 learning. | | 2007 | DeKeyser, R. (ed.) (2007b). _Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology_. | DeKeyser's multi-authored volume brings together a variety of scholars working on *Skill Acquisition* and *implicit* and *explicit* learning. | | 2008 | Hawkins, R. (ed.) (2008c). _Current Emergentist and Nativist Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition_. | Hawkins' *emergentist* and *nativist* approaches to L2 acquisition. |