UNIVERSIDAD FASTAFACULTAD DE CS. DE LA EDUCACINLICENCIATURA EN INGLS- CICLO DE LICENCIATURA

UNIVERSIDAD FASTAFACULTAD DE CS. DE LA EDUCACINLICENCIATURA EN INGLS- CICLO DE LICENCIATURA

APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Silvia Morgavi2013

Course objectives

Understand the field of applied linguistics and its main features.

Acknowledge the variables involved in language acquisition.

Identify and understand the nature of second language acquisition and the variables involved in the process of learning a second language.

Explore the challenges presented by the main components of a SLA programme.

Examine the field of critical discourse analysis and the relationship between language and its social context.

Survey some areas of critical discourse analysis and develop a critical understanding of language use.

Table of contentsPart oneAPPLIED LINGUISTICS1.1 HISTORY

1.2 ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION 1.3 DICHOTOMIES RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINE

Part twoSECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

2.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

2.2 COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING 2.2.1 Situational factors

2.2.2 Input

2.2.3 Learner differences2.2.3.1 Personal factors2.2.3.2 General factors

2.2.4 Learner processes 2.2.4.1 Other knowledge2.2.4.2 Language processing2.2.4.3 L2 knowledge

2.2.5 Output

2.3 SLA APPROACHES

2.3.1 Cognition-oriented theories2.3.1.1 Innatist theories2.3.1.2 Cognitive theories

2.3.2 Context-oriented theories

2.4 FORMS OF INSTRUCTION

2.4.1 Theoretical positions2.4.2 Issues in formal instruction

2.5 TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ROLES

Part threeCRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

3.1 CDA: A DEFINITION

3.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF CDA

3.2.1 Macro vs. micro3.2.2 Power as control

3.3 AREAS OF CDA

3.3.1 Gender 3.3.2 The media3.3.3 Political discourse3.3.4 Ethnicity

3.4 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

PART ONEAPPLIED LINGUISTICS

Language is so pervasive that most of its users simply take it for granted. There is little awareness of its magnitude, let alone of its nature and workings. Even so, it is everywhere. It is almost impossible to conceive of one single human act which is devoid of language. Such an entity is the object of study of general linguistics, which traditionally concentrates on its nature and structure, by focusing on its semantics, syntax and phonology. However, as language exists almost everywhere, its study cannot be restricted to just one science, thus the emergence of language-related disciplines of varied orientation, like applied linguistics.

1.1 HISTORY

The term Applied Linguistics seems to be of quite recent coinage. It emerged in the late 1940s and 1950s both in America and Britain to refer to the incipient field of the study of the teaching and learning of foreign languages. The 1980s saw a widening of the term to include topics that are language-related beyond linguistics itself. At this point it is necessary to distinguish linguistics from applied linguistics. Davies and Elder (2004: 11) point to the fact that while linguistics is primarily concerned with language itself and with language problems in so far as they provide evidence for better language description or for a linguistic theory, applied linguistics is interested in language problems for what they reveal about the role of language in peoples daily lives and whether intervention is either possible or desirable. (2004: 12) Applied linguistics has evolved as independent from linguistics as its only source, and is often problem-oriented towards the analysis and resolution of language-related social problems that people find in the real world (teachers, academics, lawyers, policy developers, business clients, to mention only a few) across a wide range of settings. Also, in a preface to his An Introduction to Applied Linguistics: from Practice to Theory (1999: vii), Davies explains his approach to applied linguistics as a theorizing approach to practical experience in the language professions, notably, but not exclusively, those concerned with language learning and teaching. It is concerned with the problems, the processes, the mechanisms and the purpose of language in use.

1.2 ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION

Applied linguistics may be defined, then, in a simplified sense, as a science that mediates between theory and practice, with a view to the resolution of language-related problems in various contexts. According to Widdowson (2005: 12), in attempting a definition, two things are taken into account: first, that it deals with problems in the real world in which language is involved, and second, that, and as a necessary consequence of the first, it is interdisciplinary in nature.

As to the variety of issues related to the field, Kaplan (2002) lists several foci of study for the discipline:1- Language teaching and learning, recently concentrating on topics like information processing, patterns of interaction and language awareness. Also, teacher development issues are being addressed, such as how to engage teachers in action research and give them training in evaluating their practices. 2- The role of critical studies, such as critical discourse analysis, critical pedagogy and ethics.3- Language use in academic and professional settings, where language can act as a positive mechanism or as an obstacle in achieving results.4- Descriptive analyses of language in real settings, and their possible applications in corpus linguistics, genre analysis and register variation.5- Multilingualism in schools, communities, work settings or language policies.6- Language testing and assessment issues.7- The role of applied linguistics as mediator between research and practice.

It becomes apparent from the list above that the scope of applied linguistics is difficult to determine. Also, as the resolution of real world problems is a complex task, applied linguistics can be effective if it remains interdisciplinary. However, as in most sciences, there is disagreement. Widdowson (2005: 25) is clear about his position with regards to the danger posited by interdisciplinarity, in that there may be a separation between the domain experience of the real world and the theoretical discipline knowledge: interdisciplinaritycannot actually provide such a service since it operates on a level of abstraction remote from the actualities as experienced by the folk. If we are to engage with real-world issues, we need to develop a methodological approach that mediates between these two orders of reality of discipline and domain in which none is unilaterally imposed.

1.3 DICHOTOMIES RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINE

In trying to understand the environment of applied linguistics, it is necessary to consider its source and target, the former referring to what applied linguistics draws on, the latter to what AL is being applied to. According to Davies (1999: vii), there is a two-way relationship: Like any other discipline, applied linguistics draws on theories from related disciplines with which it explores the professional experience of its practitioners and which in turn are themselves illuminated by that experience. He considers both source and target as dependent on the view one adheres to, either a restricted view in which applied linguistics only applies theoretical linguistics and therefore there is little connection with real life problems, or a wider one in which the discipline would have to concern itself with whatever is related to language. Neither position seems to be realistic: Linguisticsmust play an important role in applied linguistics but by no means the only role. Applied linguistics must also draw on psychology, sociology, education, measurement theory and so on. (Davies 1999:3)

Regarding the target and scope of the science, there are two poles and in-between positions, as to whether applied linguistics should focus on language teaching with a broad meaning, i.e. to inform fields like speech therapy, translation and language planning, or, on the other hand, it should have a much wider application. This position, however, should present limitations so as to avoid creating a science of everything (Davies 1999).

Yet another distinction must be made, that of the Applied-Linguistics versus the Linguistics-Applied approach to language problems. Applied linguistics looks outward, beyond language in an attempt to explain, perhaps even ameliorate social problems in the real world (Davies 2004:11), and uses information sources from fields that stand outside linguistics (Ellis 1997). On the other hand, linguistics applied makes use of language data to extend knowledge about language concerned with theories about language. However, this distinction is not always clear-cut, and it seems to be one not of areas of interest but of orientation of research.

In sum, applied linguistics is too complex a field to offer easy definitions. Its complexity in terms of components, orientations and outcomes is also a source of various theories and hypotheses that cause considerable debate among its practitioners. However, the dominant concern for applied linguistics seems to be that of language teaching and learning, in that more applied linguists devote their attention to this field than to any other (Davies 1999: 63). As Littlewood (2004: 502) states the study of second language learning is an immensely rich and varied enterprise. Most participantsstill see its ultimate justification in terms of the desire to improve learning and teaching. In this respect the study of second language learning is an important branch of the overall field of applied linguistics.

PART TWOSECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Second Language Acquisition is the branch of applied linguistics that looks into language learning once the native language, or languages, have been acquired.

Before going deeper into the subject, some terms need to be clarified. As in most research in the field, L2 refers to any language a learner learns after having incorporated his/her L1, no matter how many languages he/she speaks. Also, no distinction is made in this module between an L2 and a FL, the former acting as a cover term for a language learnt while living in the country where the target language is spoken and for a language learnt where there is no contact with the target language community. In cases where the distinction is necessary, it will be made. The concepts of learning and acquisition are also taken as synonymous, unless a difference is specified.

Finally, some words need to be said about the term language. In early SLA work, it usually meant grammar and vocabulary, while in current work the distinction between knowledge and use is important. Also, after the introduction of the concept of Communicative Competence, the concept of language includes not only linguistic knowledge, but also discourse, pragmatic, sociolinguistic and socio-cultural knowledge.

1. 2. 2.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

Interest in second language learning is not new. Although SLA began to gain standing as an independent field during the 1970s, work had been done in L2 learning via linguistics or first language acquisition research (Cook 1993: 8). From that moment, SLA research has increased dramatically, and has branched out into many subfields, each following its own theoretical framework. Many researchers are still pedagogically motivated, while, on the other hand, much research has departed from practical purposes and has become highly theoretical. Again, it is impossible and purposeless to draw clear lines between these two extremes, because, as Littlewood (2004: 502) clearly states, such non-applied research is also likely to improve the basis for making practical decisions. However, he warns as to the dangers of teachers trying to apply theoretical research to their teaching practices without due consideration.

The first approaches to the study of L2 learning were derived from general learning principles, within the field of behaviourist psychology, which dominated the scene between the 1940s and 1950s. The first two approaches that will be discussed in this section (Cook 1993) are based on phrase structure syntax, which analyses sentences by segmenting them into smaller and smaller units, until they cannot be segmented any further. These approaches are consistent with the behaviourist view of learning that prevailed at that time, and which viewed learning as the building of a system of habits acquired through stimulus-response.

Uriel Weinreich focused on how two language systems relate to each other in a person who is bilingual, i.e. somebody who uses two languages alternatively, without any further specification as to the definition of bilingualism. Weinreich proposes two key concepts: first, interference, instances of deviation from the norm of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language (in Cook 1993:8). Interference may be present both in bilinguals knowledge of the language and in their actual speech, and across all areas of language. The second key concept in Weinreichs view is that of the link between the two languages in an individuals mind, in terms of how concepts and words are related. This second key concept has been found flawed in that it restricts the focus to vocabulary, leaving out other aspects of language. On the other hand, the notion of interference is recurrent in SLA research.

While Weinreichs work concentrates on knowledge of language, Robert Lados has a pedagogical approach. He based his research on Contrastive Analysis, a detailed comparison of L1 and L2. The basic notion in Lados work is that of transfer. Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture (in Cook 1993: 11). This predicts that transfer will be negative when there is no correspondence between the two languages, while it will be positive when language items are the same. Language teaching should, therefore, concentrate on those areas in which both languages differ more, which are expected to cause most trouble. Lados work has been criticised on the grounds that many of the difficulties predicted by it do not actually come true and, at the same time, many of learners problems are not predicted by Contrastive Analysis. However, the notion of transfer, just like that of interference, is still found in current work on SLA.

At the end of the 1950s, Noam Chomskys work on the acquisition of an L1 began to undermine the then prevailing behaviourist approach to the study of language acquisition. Chomsky posited that stimulus-response learning does not explain the creative aspect of language, i.e. the possibility humans have of creating sentences they have never heard before. He also considered that the childs L1 is a developing system in its own right, not a defective version of adult speech. This concept is known as the independent grammars assumption.

In later work, Chomsky introduced the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), also referred to as the black box, a device in the mind which is specific to language (thus originating the mentalist view of language learning), that analyses the input it encounters to construct a generative grammar. Comparing the input children receive with their speech production, it is possible to deduce how the process of acquisition develops. In this view, children alter their grammars by testing their hypotheses until a final one is found, which corresponds to adult competence.

Nowadays, the notion of the LAD has been incorporated into the wider Universal Grammar theory. On the other hand, the validity of hypothesis-testing in L1 learning is disputed because of the fact that children seldom get the necessary negative feedback that would allow them to test their hypotheses. Nevertheless, the independent grammars assumption and the hypothesis-testing model are central elements of SLA.

The early 1970s saw the beginnings of SLA as an independent field, as well as its branching out into various sub-fields. One facilitating factor was the recognition that an L2 learner at times, contrarily to what Contrastive Analysis predicted, uses neither the L1 nor the L2. The independent grammars assumption therefore applies also to L2 learners, who develop an approximate system that gradually nears the target language.

The term interlanguage (IL) was introduced by Larry Selinker to refer to the learners independent language system. It differed from the approximate system in that the former, according to Selinker, seldom reached target language standards. Selinker claims that IL depends on five central processes, which are part of a general psychological structure: transfer (L1 features are projected onto the L2), overgeneralisation of L2 rules, transfer of training (sometimes a teachers overuse of a language feature may discourage learners from the use of other features), strategies of L2 learning (e.g. simplification of learners structures) and communication strategies (e.g. learners omission of redundant grammatical items).

Criticism to Selinkers IL mentions the fact that he is not clear about whether IL refers to the learners knowledge of the L2 or to its actual use. The same applies to the five processes held responsible for IL. Nevertheless, the notion of interlanguage was a major contribution to the study of SLA, and has been further developed by later researchers.

At the same time, Pit Corder introduced a methodology for studying SLA known as Error Analysis. Corder claims that mistakes, both in L1 and L2, are not really mistakes, but evidence of an internal grammar. Corder also claims that errors are a means of testing hypotheses, in accordance with Selinkers IL. There are two methodological problems, recognised by Corder himself. First, it may be extremely difficult to determine whether a mistake comes from competence (error) or performance (mistake). The second problem concerns the nature of the error. It is not always possible to discover the learners intended meaning from his/her speech, and as this is a subjective process, it is prone to failure.

The following table summarises early SLA research:

FocusTheory / HypothesisResearcher

L1 L2 relationInterferenceWeinreich

Bilingualism

TransferLado

Nature of L2 grammarPhrase-structure grammarWeinreich

Lado

InterlanguageSelinker

Research methodsContrastive AnalysisLado

Error AnalysisCorder

By this time, early SLA theories have abandoned habit-formation and the behaviourist school which supported it, in favour of the mentalist school which propounded hypothesis-testing as a means of building an interim grammar.

The 1980s saw SLA gather momentum as many researchers followed in previous researchers footsteps, while others took different paths. Much work emanated from various language-related disciplines, broadening the field as to goals, views and methodology. At present, SLA offers a vast array of perspectives, from the most theoretical to the most practical. Such a variety of approaches ensures debate and disagreement, reflecting the dynamic nature of the field. Keeping up to date offers the language professional a way to make informed decisions regarding their practice, and to open a field of interest and enquiry.

The next section will offer an introduction to the main elements of SLA, while a brief discussion of current theories will be presented later.

2.2 COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

Different current approaches to SLA seek to explain language acquisition from different perspectives, based on different theoretical stances. So far, no definite answers have been advanced. This section explores a variety of elements that have been identified as crucial factors in the process of acquisition. The following table, taken in part from Ellis (1985: 276), provides a framework for examining the components of SLA.

Situational factors

Learner processesL2 outputOther knowledge

Input

Language processingL2 knowledge

Learner differences

2.2.1 Situational factors

Situational factors relate to the context of SLA, i.e. the environment in which learning takes place, and affect both the nature of the input and the strategies used by learners.

Contexts of SLA can be broadly characterised as either naturalistic or instructed. Naturalistic learning happens within a non-instructional community, in which the learner is exposed to the target language at work or in social interaction, or at school where instruction is directed at native speakers. This is typically the case of immigrants. On the other hand, instructed learning normally happens in a language classroom, although with the new technologies, new ways of learning are becoming more accessible, allowing for autonomous learning. This polarity is mediated by in-between possibilities, like formal L2 instruction within the target language community and immersion courses both abroad and at home.

According to Ellis (1985: 16), One of the key issues in SLA research is the extent to which the process of SLA is similar or different in the two environments. Many people consider learning in a naturalistic context more effective. According to Lightbown and Spada (1993), this may be so because of the fact that most successful learners have had exposure to the target language outside the classroom. Contrarily, other researchers, based on studies, make a claim in favour of instruction, which they see as potentially effective, provided it is relevant to the learners needs. (Doughty 2005)

All learning contexts are significant in that they offer different learning opportunities. The following comparison of natural acquisition and communicative instruction is based on Lightbown and Spada (1993). (Traditional, grammar-based instruction, in which the focus is on learning the target language instead of its communicative use will be left out of the comparison since it has been shown not to be effective.)

CharacteristicsNatural acquisitionCommunicative instruction

Error correctionRareLimited, meaning emphasised over form

Grading of languageLanguage is not structuredStructural grading

Time available for learningAmpleLimited

Availability of native speakers to learnersHigh ratioLimited

Variety of language and discourse typesHighIntroduced through real life materials and activities.

Pressure to speakHighLow. In early stages, there is emphasis on comprehension.

Access to modified inputAvailable in many one-on-one conversations, not often in conversations where there are many native speakers.Totally available, from teacher, other learners, and materials.

It is evident that both input and interaction are likely to be different according to context. Both the type of input learners receive and the kind of interaction in which they engage affect the negotiation of meaning to a great extent. As will be seen later, negotiation of meaning is considered to be a crucial element in the acquisition process. As regards discourse types, both contexts may provide the same or similar types, but in different degrees. As Ellis (1985: 152) summarises, Considerable differences between natural and classroom environments arise, particularly when the focus is on form in language lessons. These differences are not absolute; they vary in degree according to the type of classroom and the type of teaching. Situational factors also include social ones. From a variationist perspective, Tarone (2010: 54) studies how social setting systematically influences both the kind of second language (L2) input learners receive and their cognitive processing of it; the speech production of L2 learners; and even, upon occasion, the stages in which learner language (or interlanguage) forms are acquired. In other words, contextual variables such as the identity and role of interlocutors, topic, and task, as well as contextual linguistic forms, have a systematic impact on the learners perception, production, and acquisition of specific aspects of the second language system.

Social settings influence the input provided in two basic ways. First, learners are likely to have more contact with the particular variety of the target language used by their social setting. For example, learners in an immersion programme are likely to have closer contact with academic genres. On the other hand, learners in a classroom situation will lack exposure to vernacular varieties. Second, the amount of input adjustment provided will vary according to the setting. Tarone (2010), in accordance with Lightbown and Spada, reports that adjusted input is less likely to be offered to learners in naturalistic contexts, while it is more available in classroom situations.

Also, social settings influence negotiation of meaning, i.e. conversations involving interlocutors in trying to overcome communication problems, by selecting salient topics, topic shifting, checking of comprehension, requests for clarification, slower pace, repetition, etc. Negotiation of meaning can be focused on form or meaning. Tarone (2010) reports on how learners with a lower-proficiency level tend not to negotiate meaning with higher-proficiency learners, as the latter are not usually willing to offer explanations. On the other hand, there is more negotiation when the lower-proficiency learners are the senders of the message. Social relationships between learners strongly impacted key cognitive processes involved in the negotiation of meaning, disregard for an interlocutor who is less socially dominant or significant to the learner may also cause a learner to ignore or discount that interlocutors corrective feedback on their L2 form.

This point is related to the fact that error detection does not depend only on psycholinguistic factors, such as attention, but also on the social context, represented by the accuracy demands of the task, who the listeners are, or whether there is an audience, to name a few. Also, error correction is always value-laden, so noticing the mistake does not always result in uptake, since the corrector (native speaker, teacher or peer) has to be accepted by the learner as having the right to give the correction.

Social settings also make an impact on learners language production. Research shows that learners adjust their interlanguage to the forms used by their interlocutors, according to whether there is identification with the interlocutors or not. This issue is more clearly seen in naturalistic settings, and is explored by Accommodation Theory (which, due to space restrictions will not be dealt with here). Nevertheless, the mentioned phenomenon does occur in classroom settings, albeit to a lesser degree. According to Tarone (2010), In sociocultural theory, new IL forms originate in collaborative dialogue with supportive others and gradually get internalized. In other words, new IL forms may develop in collaborative dialogue in a relaxed setting, a process referred to as scaffolding.

For a more detailed account of contexts of SLA and their influence on learning processes, see Ellis (1994).

2.2.2 Input

Situational factors go hand in hand with input. Also external to the learner, input is of vital importance in SLA, as learning depends directly on it. Lightbown and Spada (1993: 122) define input as The language which the learner is exposed to (either written or spoken) in the environment. This positive evidence serves as the data which the learner uses to learn the target language. However, not all input is processed by the learner, as it may have not been understood, or attended to. The input that is understood and attended to, and therefore processed, is referred to as intake. This distinction is a fundamental one, as it is intake that leads to learning.

SLA cannot ignore L1 acquisition. Lightbown and Spada (1993: 16) refer to three different general accounts of L1 acquisition which, despite not being contemporary with one another, offer explanations for different aspects of childrens language development. The behaviourist position, which posits that children learn by imitating their interlocutors and by receiving feedback on their utterances, which in turn reinforces or corrects them, may explain how word meanings and some language routines are learned. The innatist, or nativist, position minimises the role of input by considering it a mere trigger which activates the internal mechanisms that human beings are endowed with. According to this view, children are born with some kind of innately specified knowledge (Gass 2005: 176) that helps in grammar formation, as the input they receive does not provide all the information that is necessary for the extraction of abstractions (2005: 175). Finally, the interactionist view, which claims that language acquisition is the result of the interplay between the learners mental abilities and the linguistic environment, may explain how children relate form and meaning, how they interact in conversations, and how they use language appropriately (Lightbown and Spada 1993:16). Thus, in this view, language acquisition is the result of the interaction of input factors and innate mechanisms.

Early studies of L1 acquisition have focused on the input received by children, sometimes called motherese or caretaker speech. Child-directed speech is adapted to be made more comprehensible, and it changes according to the developmental stages of children. It usually contains shorter utterances, few subordinate and co-ordinate constructions, tutorial questions (i.e. questions to which the interlocutor already knows the answer), and a high level of redundancy. There are also adjustments in pitch, intonation and rhythm (Ellis 1985: 130). As regards the functions of motherese, mothers do not pay much attention to the correctness of their childrens speech, while they do concentrate on the social appropriateness and meaning.

Regarding the effects of simplified input, the available evidence suggests that the route[footnoteRef:1] of acquisition is not altered by differences in the linguistic environment. On the other hand, the way mothers talk to their children has effects on the rate[footnoteRef:2] of learning. However, according to Ellis (1985: 131), the key features of the input appear to be interactional rather than formal. That is, it is the mothers choice of discourse function (e.g. commands rather than questions) and the devices she uses to sustain the conversation (e.g. requests for clarifications, expansions, acknowledgements) which provide the right kind of data to foster development. Research into this type of modified speech led to a new consideration of the role of input, as more than simply a factor that triggered innate mechanisms, which in turn led to an interactionist view of language development. [1: Route of acquisition: transitional states speakers/learners go through while acquiring L1/2 rules.] [2: Rate of acquisition: speed at which speakers/learners develop L1/2 proficiency.]

Modified input is not restricted to child-directed language. Within the sphere of SLA, input is present in natural and instructed settings. As regards natural linguistic environments, there are two areas of special interest: foreigner talk (simplified talk used by native speakers (NS) to address non-native speakers (NNS)), and the discourse involving conversations between NS and NNS. Foreigner talk is to be seen as dynamic, in that it changes according to situational factors, such as the topic of conversation, the age of the participants, and, in particular, the proficiency of the learners. (Ellis 1985: 133) Foreigner talk is similar to motherese in that both contain simplifications within the grammar of the language. However, foreigner talk can also contain some ungrammatical speech, if the NNS has a very low proficiency in the L2, or if the NS considers himself/herself to be of a higher status.

Discourse studies have shown that input is not determined only by the native speaker. The feedback the non-native speaker provides helps to delineate the nature of the subsequent input provided by the NS. This is particularly noticeable in interaction between NSs and older learners, as it is more likely to have instances of negotiation of meaning, by means of requests for clarification, echoing, repair strategies, and recasts (a corrected version of a NNS incorrect utterance).

In sum, although the basic function of foreigner talk is to facilitate communication, it may indirectly provide a teaching/learning opportunity, which is central to L2 acquisition.

Similar constructs are involved in instructed settings, as the type of language used by the teacher and the type of interactions that take place in the classroom are conducive to learning. Ellis (1985: 143), for example believes in the rejection of language teaching method as the principal determinant of successful learning. Focusing on classroom interaction as the major factor affecting SLA in instructed settings led to research into teacher talk and into the discourse generated in the classroom. Teacher talk is characterised by having formal adjustments in syntax (shorter utterances), in pronunciation (more accurate, standard pronunciation with lower-level learners), and in lexis (using more general words). In contrast with foreigner talk, teacher talk does not contain ungrammatical speech. Teacher talk involves the use of interactional adjustments, some resembling those in motherese, like repetition, prompting, and expansions. In the classroom, tutorial questions are much more frequent than in naturalistic settings. Research reported by Ellis (1985: 145) notes that while comprehension checks are more frequent in the classroom, confirmation checks and requests for clarification are not. The analysis of the discourse produced in classrooms has shown that, in teacher-oriented teaching, discourse typically consists of three stages, in which the teacher initiates interaction, the learner responds, and the teacher gives feedback. Apart from reinforcing the teachers role as the sole manager of the learning process, this type of distorted input may not be conducive to language learning in all levels, as it does not give learners experience in, for example, how to initiate interaction.

Ellis reports on four types of language use that have been identified in the classroom (Ellis 1985:147-148):

1. mechanical, where no exchange of meaning is involved;2. meaningful, where language use is contextualized but still no real information is conveyed;3. pseudo-communicative, where information is exchanged, but in a way that would be unlikely to occur outside the classroom; and4. real communication, which consists of spontaneous natural speech.

This description of discourse in the classroom is complemented by Ellis framework (1985: 148), in which he describes three pedagogical goals:

(1) core goals, which relate to the explicit pedagogic purpose of the lesson (e.g. to teach specific aspects of the L2, ); (2) framework goals, which relate to the organization requirements of the lesson (e.g. giving out materials, managing pupil behaviour); and (3) social goals, involving the use of language for more personal purposes (e.g. imparting private information, quarrelling).

He also distinguishes types of address, that is, who functions as speaker, listener and hearer. These aspects combine to produce a wide variety of classroom interactions, with different patterns. For example, interactions with a framework goal usually include many directives, to which the learners may respond non-verbally. The frequency of this type of interaction, which may be profitable for lower level learners, may vary according to the type of classroom and level of students. Thus, attention to interaction forms becomes of uppermost importance.

Although much of the current research into SLA shows that there may be a natural route for acquisition, the interplay between input and interaction can affect it in several ways. According to Ellis (1985), one of these is by providing learners with formulaic speech. Ready-made chunks appear in routinised interactions, and may serve immediate communication purposes. Also, they are raw material for analysis into component parts, which is a vital part of the learning process. Frequency of occurrence may also affect the route of acquisition, as learners are likely to learn first items from the language they are most frequently exposed to. A third issue concerning input is the availability of comprehensible input. In Krashens view, stated in his SLA theory, sometimes known as the Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1982), learners need to receive input that contains samples of the language which, according to the natural order, are due to be acquired next. This is what he calls i + 1. In order for learners to understand the input, it is a prerequisite that they are focused on meaning, not on form. According to Long (in Ellis 1985: 157), input is rendered comprehensible by the fact that learners use the linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts and their general knowledge to interpret language which they do not actually know. Also, during interaction, some adjustments are usually made to aid comprehension. If these conditions are met, acquisition will proceed automatically. However, there is disagreement as to the validity of Krashens position. Ellis (1985: 158) explains that SLA can take place without two-way communication, as when input is encountered when reading or watching television or films. In this case, there are no interactional modifications. Another problem with Krashens view is that interactional modifications do not always result in comprehensible input (1985: 158). Finally, Krashens theory fails to recognise the role of output. While output is considered a vital element in language acquisition (see section on output), the only role allotted to it by Krashen is that of generator of more input (Krashen 1982: 60). Yet another problem is that not all input that is understood will be processed by the learner. Intake, a necessary condition for SLA will therefore not always be present. Little is known about how learners select from the input they receive, but it is believed that factors that may mould intake are motivation, the internal processing mechanisms, and features of the input.

Input may also affect the rate of acquisition. The studies reported by Ellis (1985: 160-161) into the effects of input and interaction in classroom environments have led him to suggest that the following features are likely to aid rapid development:

1. A high quantity of input directed at the learner.2. The learners perceived need to communicate in the L2.3. Independent control of the propositional content by the learner (e.g. control over topic choice).4. Adherence to the here-and-now principle, at least initially.5. The performance of a range of speech acts by both native speaker/teacher and the learner (i.e. the learner needs the opportunity to listen to and to produce language used to perform different language functions.)6. Exposure to a high quantity of directives.7. Exposure to a high quantity of extending utterances (e.g. requests for clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and expansions.)8. Opportunities for uninhibited practice (which may provide opportunities to experiment using new forms).

In sum, it is clear that input is one of the vital elements in SLA. However, what is not so clear is the amount of responsibility that it has, as opposed to the internal mechanisms. As Hatch (in Ellis 1985: 162) states, While social interaction may give the learner the best data to work with, the brain in turn must work out a fitting and relevant model of that input.

2.2.3 Learner differences

In contrast with situational factors and input, which are external to the learner, there is another construct that interacts with input and learner processes: learner differences. This area of SLA has been motivated by the need to explain the striking variation in learning outcomes, especially as regards rate of learning and levels of achievement.

Individual factors have proved to be difficult to define and classify. According to Ellis (1985), this is due to the fact that qualities like aptitude or motivation cannot be directly observed. Also, individual factors interact with one another affecting language learning. Those factors are in fact clusters of behaviours, and there is no consensus among researchers as to their definitions. However, Ellis proposes a distinction between personal and general factors. The first are highly idiosyncratic features of each individuals approach to learning a L2 (1985: 100), while the second are characteristics of all learners. General factors are of two types: modifiable (likely to change during the learning process) and unmodifiable.

Both personal and general factors have social, cognitive and affective aspects. These aspects are all present in the mentioned factors, in different degrees. Cognitive factors are related to the problem-solving strategies used by the learner. Social aspects concern the relationship a learner has with native speakers of the target language and with speakers of his/her own language. Finally, affective factors are relative to the emotional responses caused by the learning process.

2.2.3.1 Personal factors

Group dynamics

Group dynamics, important in classroom settings, relate competitiveness and anxiety experienced by learners. Bailey (in Ellis 1985: 101-102) presents a model of how the learners self-image is affected by comparison with other learners, resulting in a successful or unsuccessful self-image. If the learner has a positive self-image, then learning will be enhanced. On the contrary, if the image is a negative one, this may result in facilitating or debilitating anxiety. In the case of the former, the learner will try to improve L2. In the case of the latter, learning may be impaired or even abandoned.

Attitudes to the teacher and course materials

In Ellis review of the topic (1985), learners appear to have very different views as to what makes a good teacher. Some prefer teaching to be structured or predictable, others dislike having to follow somebody elses teaching plan. Something similar applies to coursebooks. In general, adult learners prefer a variety of materials to a rigid use of the coursebook.

Individual learning techniques

Different learners make use of a wide variety of learning techniques. They may be classified into techniques for studying the L2, such as preparing and memorising vocabulary lists, learning words in context and reading to reinforce learning, and for obtaining L2 input, as in seeking opportunities for communication with native speakers, or for exposure to the target language through, for example, films.

2.2.3.2 General factors

This section will refer to the factors that have received most attention in SLA research.

Personality

Although personality is considered to be a crucial variable in success in language learning, the available research does not provide conclusive results. According to Ellis, there is fairly substantial support for the claim that extroverted learners will do better in acquiring basic interpersonal communication skills (1994: 520), mainly by obtaining more input. However, the effects of extroversion/introversion may be situation-dependent. He concludes that this may be so because personality becomes a major factor only in the acquisition of communicative competence. (1985: 121)

Intelligence and aptitude

There is no general consensus as to whether intelligence and language aptitude are separate constructs or are two aspects of a single general language faculty. Even so, both have been found to have an influence on L2 learning, especially when studied in the context of classroom learning.

For those scholars who consider intelligence separate from aptitude, intelligence refers to a general reasoning ability, which underlies our use of academic skills. It does not refer to the knowledge in our minds, but to our ability to learn. According to the studies reported by Ellis (1985: 111), intelligence does not seem to be a mayor determinant of L1 acquisition, so it is probably not so important in SLA in naturalistic contexts. As regards instructed SLA, intelligence may influence the acquisition of some skills associated with formal study, like reading, grammar, vocabulary and free writing, while its relation with the development of oral fluency skills is much less certain. Also, the influence of intelligence is restricted to the rate and success of SLA, as there is no evidence that it affects the route of acquisition.

On the other hand, language aptitude has been found to be a better predictor of L2 learning than intelligence. Aptitude refers to specific cognitive qualities needed for SLA (Ellis 1985: 111), and following Carrolls research (in Ellis 1994:496) four factors are identified:

1. Phonemic coding ability (the ability to code foreign sounds in a way that they can be remembered later). This ability is seen as related to the ability to spell and to handle sound-symbol relationships.2. Grammatical sensitivity (the ability to recognize the grammatical functions of words in sentences).3. Inductive language learning ability (the ability to identify patterns of correspondence and relationships involving form and meaning).4. Rote learning ability (the ability to form and remember associations between stimuli). This ability is hypothesized to be involved in vocabulary learning.

It should be noted that aptitude has been studied mostly in relation to the linguistic aspect of language learning, as opposed to the development of interpersonal communication. Also, aptitude is not a prerequisite for SLA, but a capacity that enhances the rate and ease of learning. (Ellis 1994: 495) In this respect, there is no evidence that aptitude has any effect on the route of SLA, while, on the other hand, it can be expected to influence the rate of development and have effects on ultimate success in SLA.

Cognitive and learning styles

The concept of learning styles comes from general psychology. On the whole, cognitive and learning styles are relevant to SLA as, according to Drnyei and Skehan, different learning styles may be equally valid and advantageous (2005: 450), and it is possible for different styles to make contributions to different domains. Also, as they appear to be less fixed than other factors (like aptitude), learners may adapt their styles to meet the needs of particular situations.Ellis (1985: 114) defines cognitive styles as the way in which people perceive, conceptualize, organize and recall information. Drnyei and Skehan make a distinction between cognitive and learning styles: The former can be defined as a predisposition to process information in a characteristic manner while the latter can be defined as a typical preference for approaching learning in general. The former, in other words, is more restricted to information-processing preferences, while the latter embraces all aspects of learning. (2005: 451)

As regards cognitive styles, a number of distinctions have been made in cognitive psychology, but one that has attracted much attention in SLA is that of the contrast between field independence (FI) and field dependence (FD). The following table shows the main characteristics of FD and FI cognitive styles:

Field dependenceField independence

Personal orientationi.e. reliance on external frame of reference in processing information

Impersonal orientationi.e. reliance on internal frame of reference in processing information

Holistici.e perceives field as a whole; parts are fused with backgroundAnalytici.e perceives a field in terms of its component parts; parts are distinguished from background

Dependenti.e. the self-view is derived from othersIndependenti.e. sense of separate identity

Socially sensitivei.e greater skill in interpersonal/social relationshipsNot so socially awarei.e less skilled in interpersonal/social relationships

Based on Ellis (1985: 115)

As can be hypothesised from the table above, field independents may prefer to study alone, and benefit from analysing linguistic material, while field dependents may work well in groups and profit more from communicative language use.

There are, however, some points to clarify. First, the distinction should not be taken as comprising two polarities, but poles on a cline, with individuals varying in their predispositions. Second, according to some research reported by Ellis (1985: 115), the effects of cognitive style may be related to age, in that field independence is facilitative in the case of late adolescence but not before. Also, researchers disagree as to the usefulness of the FD/FI distinction in that there have been problems both as to the definitions and measurements of the constructs. In all, the results are not at all conclusive, but the research area is considered to be promising.

Other approaches to the study of learning styles include sensory preference. Reid (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005) distinguishes four perceptual learning modalities:

1. Visual (e.g. reading and studying charts)2. Auditory (preference towards listening)3. Kinaesthetic (involving physical response)4. Tactile (using their hands, as in building models)

According to this model, learners benefit from tasks that allow them to use their preferred sensory styles.

Various other approaches are being studied in relation to their effects on SLA. For more info, see Drnyei and Skehan (2005) .

As a general conclusion, it can be said that learners vary a great deal in their preferred styles for L2 learning, and that there is no best style. In Ellis words (1994: 508), it may be that learners who display flexibility are those who are most successful, but there is no real evidence yet for such a conclusion. Drnyei and Skehan (2005: 454) conclude that the concepts of cognitive and learning styles have not been clearly defined in the literature, and are sometimes conflated with other factors. However, they argue that, while they may not deserve high research priority, they have not been eliminated as potentially relevant second language linked measures.

Motivation

The concept of motivation, which has attracted much attention within the field of SLA as being considered one accurate predictor of L2 learning success, is not without difficulties. One of them is related to the conceptualisation of the construct, another to the fact that motivation cannot be directly observed, and therefore it has to be inferred from peoples behaviours (Ellis 1985: 116).

Drnyei and Skehan (2005) describe motivation as concerning the direction and magnitude of human behavior, or, more specifically (i) the choice of a particular action, (ii) the persistence with it, and (iii) the effort expended on it. In broad terms, motivation is responsible for why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard they are going to pursue it. Given the array of potential determinants of motivation, different approaches to it focus on different factors on which to base their studies. As a result, none of the current positions offer a comprehensive view of all the factors that affect motivation.

One of the central approaches to motivation is that of Gardner, oriented towards the roles of attitudes and motivation in SLA (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005). His model includes the distinction between integrative and instrumental orientations towards L2 learning. The first reflects a positive disposition towards the L2 group and a desire to identify with its culture. The second relates to functional goals, such as passing an examination, getting a better job, facilitating the study of other subjects through the medium of the L2, etc. Although these two concepts are widely known in the L2 field, there is still a wider concept in Gardners theory, the integrative motive, which is made up of three main components: (i) integrativeness, subsuming integrative orientation, interest in foreign languages, and attitudes toward the L2 community; (ii) attitudes toward the learning situation, comprising attitudes toward the teacher and the course; and (iii) motivation, which according to Gardner is made up of motivational intensity, desire to learn the language, and attitudes toward learning the language. (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005: 458)

Related to Gardners integrative motive is the notion of intrinsic motivation. This is understood as an inherent interest in the learning process and tasks. This concept is of utmost importance in SLA as it is possible to manipulate it in the classroom, in an attempt to arouse and sustain students interest. Ellis (1994) reports on several ways to enhance learners motivation: by providing opportunities for communication, by learners becoming self-directed (able to choose their learning objectives and ways of achieving this, and to evaluate their own progress), by presenting students with tasks that pose a reasonable challenge, by providing opportunities for group work, and variety.

Another influential approach is that proposed by Heckhausen and Kuhl, known as Action Control Theory (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005: 461), which differentiates between the predecisional and the postdecisional phases of motivation. The former refers to the pre-actional stage of deliberation associated with planning, goal setting, and intention formation while the latter is about influences that come into force when action has started and therefore concern motivational maintenance and control, perseverance, and overcoming various internal obstacles to action.

From a neurobiological perspective, Schumanns approach tries to link the study of language with cognitive science (in Drnyei and Skehan 2005: 462). The key issue is stimulus appraisal,

which occurs in the brain along five dimensions: novelty (degree of unexpectedness/familiarity); pleasantness (attractiveness); goal/need significance (whether the stimulus is instrumental in satisfying needs or achieving goals); coping potential (whether the individual expects to be able to cope with the event); and self- and social image (whether the event is compatible with social norms and the individual's self-concept). Thus, stimulus appraisal can be seen as a key process underlying executive motivation.

From the points mentioned above there can be little doubt that motivation is a powerful factor in SLA. According to Ellis (1985: 119), its effects can be seen on both the rate and success of L2 learning. What is not clear is whether it is motivation that produces successful learning, or vice versa. Whatever the directionality, the key issue is that, as motivation is more susceptible to change than other personal factors, teachers have a greater role in fostering it. This can be achieved by a careful selection of activities that are relevant to the learners interests and needs, and that are in accordance with their level, so as to prevent anxiety (if the task is too demanding) and boredom (if the task does not pose a challenge), and by giving learners enough autonomy so that they can gain more control over their own learning process.

Age

Age has been the most considered individual factor in SLA, and it is still the most controversial.

Although age does not present any difficulties as to measuring, it can hardly be separated from other factors that inevitably interact with it, such as context of learning, length of stay (in the case of immigrants), amount of instruction, age of onset, and ultimate attainment, to mention a few.

In SLA research, it is widely agreed that in a naturalistic context, early starters tend to attain high levels of language competence. In contrast, learners who start later in life, especially after the end of adolescence, show a great variability in their levels of linguistic attainment (Ortega 2011: 176). Strozer (1994: 130) is clear about the effects of age:

all normal children are totally successful at acquiring the language of their communities, while most adults who try do not succeed in developing a mastery of a single foreign language. This sharp disparity at first may strike us as paradoxical (the greatest success is achieved by the least developed organisms, which are in fact less capable at most things than adult organisms).

The current, and unresolved debate, concerns the explanations for the commonly agreed on fact expressed above. One of the most influential biological explanations is the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), first advanced in the late 1960s, and mostly associated with Eric Lenneberg. The hypothesis holds that language acquisition must occur before the onset of puberty in order for language to develop fully. (Johnson & Newport 1989:77) Lenneberg proposed a neurological mechanism which might be responsible for the change in learning abilities: once the brain has achieved adult values by puberty, it loses the plasticity needed for language acquisition. This points to a sharp decline in the ability to acquire an L1. However, Johnson and Newport (1989) mention two problems with Lennebergs formulation of the critical period hypothesis. First, previous studies show that the decline in the ability to learn an L1 is not in fact as sharp as claimed. Second, L1 acquisition by postpubescent learners, albeit lower in ultimate attainment, is not altogether impossible. In conclusion, an extreme interpretation of the hypothesis should be ruled out.

Johnson and Newports seminal study investigated whether the CPH applies to L2 as well. It focuses on ultimate command of the grammar of the L2 with respect to the age of exposure to that language. Subjects on this study were Chinese and Korean immigrants to the US, who learned English as a second language. They varied in the age at which they moved to the US, and had lived there for at least 3 years.

In order to make the distinction between L1 and L2 clear, the researchers outline two versions of the critical period hypothesis. While the two versions make the same predictions for L1 acquisition, they differ as regards L2 learning. The exercise hypothesis (1989: 109) states that Early in life, humans have a superior capacity for acquiring languages. If the capacity is not exercised during this time, it will disappear or decline with maturation. If the capacity is exercised, however, further language learning abilities will remain intact throughout life. This version predicts that L2 learning should be the same in children and adults, or perhaps even superior in adult learners, as they already possess language skills from their L1.

The maturational state hypothesis, on the other hand, claims that the superior capacity for learning languages disappears or declines with maturation (1989: 109), and therefore predicts that children are better at acquiring any language, L1 or L2.

The results of the study support the maturational state hypothesis: Human beings appear to have a special capacity for acquiring language in childhood, regardless of whether the language is their first or second. (1989: 109) As regards the decline in performance, the study did not find a sudden drop in performance at the end of the critical period. Instead, it showed a gradual decline from about age seven on until adulthood, with a marked drop around puberty. After puberty, performance did not continue to decline with increasing age, but showed important individual differences. From these findings, it can be concluded that learning an L2 after puberty is not impossible, in spite of some deficiencies. Also, for adult learners, age is not a predictor of performance.

The study also takes into account variables other than age, in order to investigate whether experiential or attitudinal factors can affect the effects obtained for age of acquisition. As regards the experiential variable, it was found that length of exposure did not alter performance significantly beyond the first few years of exposure (in an immersion context). Attitudinal factors, such as motivation, identification and self-consciousness, were also unable to explain away the effects of age.

In sum, Johnson and Newports work seems to prove their claim that the critical period does exist, although not in an extreme interpretation (some researchers refer to it as a sensitive period), and that it applies to both first and second languages. Also, the existence of a critical period does not rule out the benefits of exercise, allowing for the possibility of language acquisition after puberty, in spite of its wide variety as regards outcomes. Thus, the two versions of the hypothesis are not mutually exclusive.

Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2005: 420) classify current explanations for age effects into three areas. According to these authors review of the literature on the topic,

biological explanations have addressed the brain's steady loss of flexibility or plasticity. Even though little is known about the exact cerebral mechanisms that are responsible for differential outcomes of language learning at different phases of life, there is enough independent knowledge of changes in the brain taking place during the time when language acquisition outcomes differ systematically to be suggestive of hypothesized relations between the two.

Cerebral plasticity is related to the ability of neurons to make new and varied connections depending on the stimulus, and also to the strengthening of those connections. Other biological explanations include metabolic changes in the brain around puberty, thickening of the corpus callosum and the process of lateralisation, that is, the neurological capacity for understanding and producing language, which initially involves both hemispheres of the brain, and which is slowly concentrated in the left hemisphere for most people. (Ellis 1985: 107)

As far as social/psychological explanations for the effects of age are concerned, these factors are believed to have some influence on the process of L2 acquisition. However, their impact is not as significant as that of age itself. For instance, there is no direct evidence that children would be inherently more motivated to learn the L2, or that they receive more input than adults In addition, several empirical studies have shown that motivational factors cannot account for the decrease in ultimate attainment with increasing age of onset (Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson (2005:421-422). In the case of adult learners, while age is still the dominant factor affecting outcomes, the variability between highly successful learners and other L2 learners may be considered the result of (a combination of) non-maturational variables such as motivation, affective/attitudinal factors, input, type of instruction, verbal analytical ability, metalinguistic awareness, and language aptitude.

Finally, Hyltenstam and Abrahamsson offer cognitive explanations, which seem to enjoy general consensus as regards the fact that cognitive factors must have an influence on the process of L2 learning, although there is disagreement as to how they play their part. According to their review (2005: 423), general problem-solving mechanisms, typical of older learners, may counteract the normal direct processing of target language input in children. This view is similar to explanations linked to the UG (Universal Grammar)(see below) position, which can be viewed from different perspectives. The fundamental difference hypothesis claims that adults are different from children in that they no longer have access to the language acquisition device (LAD), and therefore have to rely on general problem-solving mechanisms. The competition hypothesis claims that adults have continued access to UG, and that the LAD competes with general problem-solving processes, which eventually succeed. The less is more hypothesis states that childrens limitations on cognitive capacity allow them to focus on and store component pieces of the input, while adults unsuccessfully try to analyze complex chunks of input simultaneously.

Nevertheless, these cognitive explanations are not without controversy, as they would predict basic differences in learning processes between children and adults as regards the order and sequence of acquisition, while the available evidence points to the fact that age does not affect the route of acquisition. In other words, children, adolescents and adults follow the same stages of development, irrespective of their age. On the other hand, rate and success appear to be strongly influenced by the maturational factor. Ellis (1985: 106) gives the following summary of the effects of age:

1. Starting age does not affect the route of SLA. Although there may be differences in the acquisitional order, these are not the result of age.2. Starting age affects the rate of learning. Where grammar and vocabulary are concerned, adolescent learners do better than either children or adults, when the length of exposure is held constant.3. Both number of years of exposure and starting age affect the level of success. The number of years exposure contributes greatly to the overall communication fluency of the learners, but starting age determines the levels of accuracy achieved, particularly in pronunciation.

As regards the different areas of language acquisition, they do not seem to be affected alike. Strozer (1994: 160) reports on adult acquisition of accent-free phonology, widely accepted as the first loss brought about by age. Research shows that the critical period relates more to the peripherals of production and perception than to the central core of language since there seems to be no critical period for at least one aspect of language acquisition, namely, the growth of the vocabulary, which is a lifelong process.

In sum, maturation seems to be a major determinant for language acquisition, while non-maturational factors seem to account for the variability between highly successful and non-exceptional L2 learners of the same starting age. As regards social/psychological factors, they seem to become more important with age, as they can compensate for the negative effects of maturation.

Finally, it is necessary to look at instruction in relation to the influence of age on the SLA process. In a naturalistic setting, younger learners usually have more overall time to learn. They also have more opportunities to use the language without the strong pressure to speak correctly and fluently that they may experience in a classroom setting. On the other hand, adolescent and adults may develop a sense of frustration when they find themselves in situations in which they are expected to express complex ideas and language.

Contrarily, in the case of instructed L2 learning, according to Lightbown and Spada (1993: 50), it may be more efficient to begin second language teaching later. In research on school learners receiving a few hours of instruction per week, learners who start later (for example, at age 10, 11, or 12) catch up very quickly with those who began earlier. However, they warn of the fact that One or two hours a week even for seven or eight years will not produce very advanced second language speakers. In spite of this, there may be an advantage in an early start with appropriate teaching and a sufficient amount of time. Some characteristics need to be taken into account when teaching children, such as their need to use their bodies when learning, their need to develop a strong emotional attachment with their teachers, and their short attention span, which calls for variety of activities. According to a study reported in Johnstone (2002: 12), when children are around 6, they feel positive about learning a new language when they enjoy their classroom activities. At around 9, children notice that they are learning, and feel pleasure from this. As regards older learners, they benefit from the fact that they can make use of already existing metalinguistic awareness from their L1. Also, they are more experienced in the negotiation of meaning, and therefore will get better input.

Johnstone (2002: 13-14) provides a list of learner characteristics together with advantages and disadvantages for different ages. Given appropriate teaching conditions for learning, younger learners may possess the following advantages over older beginners

they are likely to find it easier to acquire a good command of the sound system of the language, not only the pronunciation of individual sounds but also patterns of intonation; they are likely to be less language anxious than many older learners and hence be more able to absorb language rather than block it out; they are likely to have more time available overall. If young beginners at age 5 are compared with older beginners at age 10 then after one year the older group are likely to be ahead. However, if both groups are compared at (say) age 14, the younger beginners stand a better chance of being ahead, in part because of the greater amount of time available overall; an earlier start enables productive links to be made between first and additional languages, which can have important benefits for a childs language awareness and literacy; a range of acquisitional processes can come into play, e.g. largely intuitive processes at an early age, complemented by more analytical processes later. This potentially allows the additional language to become more deeply embedded in the person; there can be a positive influence on childrens general educational development (e.g. cognitive, emotional, cultural) and on the formation of a multilingual and intercultural identity.

On the other hand, Older learners may possess some or all of the following advantages over younger beginners:

they may be able to plot their new language to concepts about the world which they already possess from their first language. they may be more experience in handling the discourse of conversations and other language activities, and thus may be more adept at gaining feedback from native speakers or teachers and in negotiating meaning; they are likely to have acquired a wider range of strategies for learning, e.g. note-taking, use of reference materials, searching for underlying pattern. This, allied to their established literacy in their first language, may help them become more efficient learners; they may have a clearer sense of why they are learning an additional language and may therefore be able to work purposefully towards objectives of their own choosing.

To conclude, and taking into account the teaching practice, knowledge about the effects of age should provide a basis for the design of teaching materials and methodologies,as well as language policies. Teachers can be better equipped for evaluating materials, techniques and practices in relation to their students and their needs. In Johnstones words (2002: 21), given suitable teaching, motivation and support, it is possible to make a success of language learning at any age and stage, though older learners are less likely to approximate to the levels of a native speaker.

2.2.4 Learner processes

Another complex element in second language acquisition is learner processes. What goes on inside the black box has been a topic of long-standing debate, and has triggered several sometimes conflicting approaches. The main disagreement seems to be about the nature of language learning, that is, whether it is biologically determined and language specific, or whether language is developed within general cognitive abilities.

The construct of learner processes comprises three elements that are in constant interplay: L2 knowledge, language processing and other knowledge. It is necessary to keep in mind that learner processes are affected by situational factors, input and individual differences, and that, these, in turn are affected by learner processes.

2.2.4.1 Other knowledge

Schemata

The first component to be discussed in this section will be knowledge of the world. In order to understand language, humans rely not only on their knowledge of language, either L1 or L2, but also on their knowledge of the world. This is mostly automatic and unaware. Relevant to this area is the concept of knowledge schemata. According to Cook (1989: 69), these are mental representations of typical situations,used in discourse processing to predict the contents of the particular situation which the discourse describes. The idea is that the mind, stimulated by key words or phrases in the text, or by the context, activates a knowledge schema, and uses it to make sense of the discourse. Schemata involve the use of pre-existing knowledge of the world (that is, stereotypical situations, sequences of events, roles, relationships, etc) in the comprehension of interaction. Apart from aiding comprehension, schemata allow communication to be economical, in that information that is shared by the interlocutors will be taken for granted and, therefore, will not need to be fully explicit. Schemata are complex data structures, many of which may be activated at the same time. Also, the mind is capable of building new ones as well as of discarding old ones. Communication may fail if people make false assumptions as to shared schemata, and in the case of people from different cultures and languages, there may be misjudgements and mismatches. As can be seen, language learning is not alone in the process, and it can be aided by knowledge which does not belong in the realm of language.

L1

The other fundamental component of this section on other knowledge is the L1, and its influence on SLA, mainly as regards transfer. Not surprisingly, the problems related to cross-linguistic influence are various and complex. In consequence, there is no conclusive theory of transfer. The role of L1 was first studied within the behaviourist position, and was linked to the errors produced by learners. According to this view, errors were the result of interference from the habits of the L1.Weinreich studied patterns of negative transfer, or what he called interference, as well as positive transfer, that is, the facilitating influences that may arise from cross-linguistic similarities. (Odlin 2005: 334) Contrastive Analysis was developed as an attempt to predict areas in which learners would encounter difficulty. However, the claims made by Contrastive Analysis were not supported by evidence, since many of the errors predicted by it did not occur, while others, not predicted, did actually arise. The role of the L1 was reconsidered, and the L1 is now viewed as a resource of knowledge which learners will use both consciously and subconsciously to help them sift the L2 data in the input and to perform as best as they can in the L2. (Ellis 1985: 40)The use of this resource depends on linguistic factors, such as the formal and pragmatic features of both L1 and L2, and on psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic factors, such as the learners stage of development and type of language use. Although Ellis (1985: 40) claims that the influence of the L1 is most evident in the phonological aspect of the target language, studies reported by Odlin (2005) show that there are problems with this view, in that frequency of occurrence and individual perceptions of the similarities between the native and target language may affect predictions of interference.

One factor which Weinreich and Lado already considered important, and which is still considered so, is that of language distance, that is, what learners think the difference between their native language and the target language is. Learners have the possibility of relying on their L1 for help. Having such opportunities, however, does not guarantee that any particular learner will do the necessary looking or come to the right conclusion about just how congruent a cross-linguistic correspondence is. (Odlin 2005: 337) In other words, language distance depends on individual perceptions of interlingual similarities, and judgements may not always be accurate. Moreover, there may be other constraints, such as general cognitive capacities, like perception and memory.

Language acquisition is not independent of social factors, thus the notion of cultural transfer. This includes a variety of factors, from literacy and discourse conventions, to conceptualisations and pragmatics. Transfer, both positive and negative, are intuitively obvious as regards writing conventions. On the other hand, conceptual and pragmatic processes of transfer are not so evident. Odlin (2005: 351) defines conceptual transfer as the mapping of concepts underlying the L1 words onto L2 linguistic labels, regardless of the possible differences in the semantic boundaries between the corresponding words. Conceptual transfer entails more than just the mapping of concepts onto new words, as is evident in the coding of concepts in, for example, idioms, as correspondence is not always absolute. Sometimes, conceptualisations are different, as in the mass-count distinction. Pragmatic transfer can also be at work, as, for example, in how affect is coded in language. In Odlins words (2005: 352) Learning to speak a second language normally requires learning a repertoire at least somewhat different in how affect is coded, and difficulties may arise either from being at a loss for words or from using a pragmatic routine acceptable in the native language but not in the target language. Learning new pragmatic routines may cause an identity problem, and therefore, an affective constraint.

In sum, schemata and the L1 exert considerable influence on learner processes, which, in turn, influence the process of SLA. Formal language instruction can help by raising learners awareness of these facts, which are usually not obvious to students. Instruction can help by guiding learners as to the process of transfer, so that their L1 becomes more of a facilitating element.

2.2.4.2 Language processing

This section will explore some of the internal processes that allow for language acquisition. Different researchers describe what goes on inside the black box differently, focusing on various aspects according to the theoretical point of view they subscribe to. However, this is an oversimplification as, even within similar backgrounds, there are different foci of attention. The concepts introduced in this section are key concepts in language processing, and will provide the basis for the description of SLA models below. Ellis (1994: 415) proposes a classification of the available explanations for the internal mechanisms that are responsible for SLA into two strands: those that focus on the linguistic nature of acquisition, and those that focus on its cognitive nature. The former discuss L2 acquisition in terms of linguistic rules, principles and universals, and lies within the field of linguistics. The latter concentrates on processes, strategies and operations, and is therefore within the scope of psychology.

Linguistic description

UG

The theory of Universal Grammar (UG), both a description of grammar and a model of language acquisition, derives from Chomskys view that language learning is best explained in terms of an independent language faculty, sometimes called Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which is independent of the general cognitive mechanisms responsible for intellectual development. The LAD is genetically endowed with principles about grammar, which allow the child to build his/her L1 by means of hypothesis testing. This position minimises the role of input, in that the role ascribed to it is simply that of the trigger that activates the process of acquisition. The fact that the data available from the input is not sufficient to enable the child to acquire certain rules, together with the fact that children seldom receive negative feedback are two of the main reasons for the explanation of the innateness of UG. This claim is referred to as the Poverty of the Stimulus argument.

UG is a system of linguistic universals that are present in all human languages. In Elliss discussion, (1994: 430) these universals consist of universal principles and language-specific parameters, which constrain the hypotheses learners will make. The first are highly abstract properties of grammar which underlie the grammatical rules of all languages. The second are principles that vary from language to language. Another key concept within UG is markedness, and is related to core and peripheral features. Core features are governed by UG, and are unmarked, and therefore require minimal evidence to be acquired. Peripheral features are marked, and will require much more evidence to be acquired.

A number of researchers have argued that the logical problem of language acquisition also applies to SLA, that is, L2 learners possess knowledge of the L2 that they could not have acquired from the input and which must, therefore, have existed within their own minds. (Ellis 1994: 432) Thus, the poverty of the stimulus argument applies to L2 learning too, although SLA may be more dependent on the nature of the evidence.

In conclusion, although the theory of UG is a quite well developed one, it does not yet offer a conclusive explanation of language processing. (UG will be taken up below, in the section on theories of acquisition, and will be developed a little further.)

Cognitive descriptions

On the cognitive side, research has concentrated on constructs like processes, strategies and operations. This subsection will explore some of the internal processes that account for what learners do with input data.

Declarative/procedural memory

Work within the neurosciences has produced a model that claims that the distinction between the mental lexicon and the mental grammar in language is tied to the distinction between declarative and procedural memory.That is, lexical memory depends largely on the declarative memory system, whereas aspects of grammar depend on the procedural memory system. (Ullman 2004: 233) These two memory systems depend on different parts of the brain. Declarative memory is associated with the learning, representation and use of facts and events, and at least part of this knowledge can be consciously retrieved. It is knowing what. Procedural memory, on the other hand, is an implicit memory system, as it is not usually available to conscious access. It is instrumental in the learning of new, and the control of established habits and skills; it is knowing how. Learning in this system is gradual and slow, as compared to the fast learning produced by declarative memory. The relevance of this model to SLA lies on the fact that, according to its supporters, the brain system underlying declarative memory also underlies the mental lexicon, that is, it stores word meanings, sounds and categories; it stores both free and bound morphemes, irregular forms, idioms, etc. On the other hand, procedural knowledge is assumed to play a crucial role in the combination of stored forms and abstract representations into complex structures.

These two systems are hypothesised to interact, in that the rapid lexical/declarative storage of sequences of lexical forms should provide a database from which grammatical rules can gradually and implicitly be abstracted by the procedural memory system. (Ullman 2004) Also, Access to a stored representation which has similar mappings to one which could be composed compositionally by the procedural system (e.g. an irregular versus a regular past-tense form of the same verb) would block completion of the latter computation.

The declarative/procedural model can provide an insight into the acquisition of the different elements of language, as well as give the process a biological underpinning.

Explicit/implicit learning

These two concepts are relevant to the study of SLA as regards their effectiveness in the learning process. There is disagreement, though, as to the definitions of the concepts, especially as regards the conceptualisations of terms used in definitions. Basically, implicit learning takes place without consciousness or awareness, while explicit learning involves intentionality. However, DeKeyser (2005: 241) explains that subjects in experiments on implicit learning usually have the intention of learning something, even though they may learn something different from what they intended to learn. Also, there are different positions as to the existence of an interface between explicit and explicit knowledge. In DeKeysers words, (2005: 242) Even though implicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain implicit, and explicitly acquired knowledge tends to remain explicit, explicitly learned knowledge can become implicit in the sense that learners can lose awareness of its structure over time, and learners can become aware of the structure of implicit knowledge when attempting to access it. This is not without debate, as there are different opinions as to the existence of an interface between explicit knowledge and language use, and the current empirical evidence is not conclusive. DeKeyser (2005: 250-251) summarises the positions as follows:

1. a non-interface position, usually associated with Krashen, which states that explicit learning can never become implicit (acquired) knowledge.2. an opposite view, which claims that the gap between explicit learning and use can be bridged by means of practice, at least for some rules.3. two intermediate positions, favoured by supporters of focus on form (i.e. learners direct their conscious attention to a language feature while trying to carry out a communicative activity. This is in contrast with focus on forms, i.e. focus on the formal elements of the language, without attention to meaning.) Within this intermediate position, one is for making learners explicitly aware of a structure, but the focus on form technique used is not necessarily explicit, as with input enhancement (input which is manipulated by a teacher to make some features more salient, so as to facilitate acquisition). Another intermediate position is that advocated by Ellis (1997: 123), who claims that explicit learning can help the learner to notice features in the input that would otherwise be ignored. Also, explicit knowledge may lead the learner to notice the gap between his/her performance and input.

As regards SLA, the review of current research supplied by DeKeyser (2005:251) suggests that there may be a positive role for attention to form, either through the explicit teaching of grammar and explicit error correction, or through more indirect means such as input enhancement. Moreover, research suggests that it is possible that learners lose their awareness of rules after large amounts of communicative use and automatisation of the rules. At that point they not only have procedural knowledge that is functionally equivalent to implicitly acquired knowledge, but even implicit knowledge in the narrow sense of knowledge without awareness.

As can be seen from the preceding section, the notions of explicit/implicit, declarative/procedural are not totally independent of one another. The same applies to the following pair.

Automatic /controlled processes

These concepts come from an approach to SLA that views language learning as a special case of complex skill acquisition. According to Segalowitz (2005:292) automaticity involves fast processing, and is related to the need for attention and effort in the acquisition of skills. As ones skill gradually increases, and moves from non-automatic to automatic, performance seems to be more efficient, that is, faster, more accurate and more stable, and the amount of attention and effort needed seems to decrease. As regards language learning, increased performance efficiency contributes to fluency. Automaticity involves fast processing and effortless production; it is independent of the amount of information being processed, and is unaware of the process. In contrast, non-automatic or controlled processes are slow, likely to be inhibited by interfering events, they depend on the information load and involve awareness.

Segalowitz (2005:304) explains some of the reasons why automaticity can benefit SLA:

because automatic processing consumes fewer attentional resources than does controlled processing, the more automatic performance becomes the more attentional resources there are left over for other purposes. Thus, for example, if one can handle the phonology and syntax of a second language automatically, then more attention can be paid to processing semantic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic levels of com