Second Language Acquisition.docx

1、Second Language AcquisitionSecond language acquisitionFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.(Redirected from Second language learning)Second language acquisition, or SLA, is the processes by which people learn languages in addition to their native tongue(s). Just as second language is the standard t

2、erm for any language whose acquisition starts after early childhood, including what is chronologically the third or subsequent language, SLA is the acquisition of any second language. The language to be learned is often referred to as the target language or L2 (and SLA is often called L2A, for L2 ac

3、quisition). The study of SLA is usually viewed as part of applied linguistics.The term language acquisition became commonly used after Stephen Krashen contrasted it with formal and non-constructive learning. Today, most scholars use language learning and language acquisition interchangeably, unless

4、they are directly addressing Krashens work. However, Second Language Acquisition or SLA has become established as the preferred term for this academic discipline.Contentshide 1 Describing learner language o 1.1 Error analysiso 1.2 Interlanguageo 1.3 Developmental patterns 1.3.1 Order of acquisition

5、1.3.2 Sequence of acquisitiono 1.4 Variability 2 Learner-external factors o 2.1 Social effectso 2.2 Input and intakeo 2.3 Interactiono 2.4 Pedagogical effects 3 Learner-internal factors o 3.1 Cognitive approacheso 3.2 Language transfero 3.3 Linguistic universals 4 Individual variation o 4.1 Language

6、 aptitudeo 4.2 Ageo 4.3 Strategy useo 4.4 Affective factors 4.4.1 Anxiety 4.4.2 Socio-cultural factors 4.4.3 Motivation 5 Understanding SLA o 5.1 Concepts of ability 6 References and further reading 7 See also 8 External linkseditDescribing learner languageThrough the descriptive study of learner la

7、nguage, SLA researchers seek to better understand language learning without recourse to factors outside learner language. Researchers may adopt an interlanguage perspective, exploring learner language as a linguistic system, or they may study how learner language compares to the target language. Res

8、earch is centered on the question: What are the unique characteristics of learner language?editError analysisThe field of error analysis in SLA was established in the 1970s by S. P. Corder and colleagues. A widely-available survey can be found in chapter 8 of Brown, 2000. Error analysis was an alter

9、native to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of err

10、ors, although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new language.Error analysts distinguish between errors, which

11、 are systematic, and mistakes, which are not. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as I angry are obvious even ou

12、t of context, whereas covert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the classification according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst must examine, and extent, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. Errors may also be clas

13、sified according to the level of language: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed according to the degree to which they interfere with communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to understand, while local errors do not. In t

14、he above example, I angry would be a local error, since the meaning is apparent.From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. In particular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error

15、a learner is making. Also, error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with learner reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot control for learner use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use

16、 a form with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging approach

17、 to learner language, known as interlanguage.Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology.editInterlanguageInterlanguage scholarship seeks to understand learner langu

18、age on its own terms, as a natural language with its own consistent set of rules. Interlanguage scholars reject, at least for heuristic purposes, the view of learner language as merely an imperfect version of the target language. Interlanguage is perhaps best viewed as an attitude toward language ac

19、quisition, and not a distinct discipline. By the same token, interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to learner pronunciation (interlanguage phonology), but also to language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatic

20、s).By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below, under linguistic universals.editDevelopmental patternsEllis (1994) distinguished between order t

21、o refer to the pattern in which different language features are acquired and sequence to denote the pattern by which a specific language feature is acquired.editOrder of acquisitionResearchers have found a very consistent order in the acquisition of first language structures by children, and this ha

22、s drawn a great deal of interest from SLA scholars. Considerable effort has been devoted to testing the identity hypothesis, which asserts that first-language and second-language acquisition conform to the same patterns. This has not been confirmed, probably because second-language learners cognitiv

23、e and affective states are so much more advanced. However, orders of acquisition in SLA do often resemble those found in first language acquisition, and may have common neurological causes.Most learners begin their acquisition process with a silent period, in which they speak very little if at all.

24、For some this is a period of language shock, in which the learner actively rejects the incomprehensible input of the new language. However, research has shown that many silent learners are engaging in private speech (sometimes called self-talk). While appearing silent, they are rehearsing important

25、survival phrases and lexical chunks. These memorized phrases are then employed in the subsequent period of formulaic speech. Whether by choice or compulsion, other learners have no silent period and pass directly to formulaic speech. This speech, in which a handful of routines are used to accomplish

26、 basic purposes, often shows few departures from L2 morphosyntax. It eventually gives way to a more experimental phase of acquisition, in which the semantics and grammar of the target language are simplified and the learners begin to construct a true interlanguage.The nature of the transition betwee

27、n formulaic and simplied speech is disputed. Some, including Krashen, have argued that there is no cognitive relationship between the two, and that the transition is abrupt. Thinkers influenced by recent theories of the lexicon have preferred to view even native speaker speech as heavily formulaic,

28、and interpret the transition as a process of gradually developing a broader repertoire of chunks and a deeper understanding of the rules which govern them. Some studies have supported both views, and it is likely that the relationship depends in great part on the learning styles of individual learne

29、rs.A flurry of studies took place in the 1970s, examining whether a consistent order of morpheme acquisition could be shown. Most of these studies did show fairly consistent orders of acquisition for selected morphemes. For example, among learners of English the cluster of features including the suf

30、fix -ing, the plural, and the copula were found to consistently precede others such as the article, auxiliary, and third person singular. However, these studies were widely criticized as not paying sufficient attention to overuse of the features (idiosyncratic uses outside what are obligatory contex

31、ts in the L2), and sporadic but inconsistent use of the features. More recent scholarship prefers to view the acquisition of each linguistic feature as a gradual and complex process. For that reason most scholarship since the 1980s has focused on the sequence, rather than the order, of feature acqui

32、sition.editSequence of acquisitionA number of studies have looked into the sequence of acquisition of pronouns by learners of various Indo-European languages. These are reviewed by Ellis (1994), pp. 96-99. They show that learners begin by omitting pronouns or using them indiscriminately: for example, using I to refer to all agents. Learners then acquire a single pronoun feature, often person, followed by number and eventually by gender. Little evidence of interference from the learners first langua