Theoretical perspectives on second language learning.

Abstract

Contending theories are typical of disciplines that endeavor to explain multifaceted phenomena. Similarly, research on second language (L2) acquisition reflects the complexity of learning a language other than one's native tongue. Is there one unified theory of L2 acquisition? What are the theoretical bases of various approaches to L2 acquisition? What are the practical implications for L2 teaching and material development? This article examines several theoretical approaches which have evolved in the field in the past three decades and their practical implications for L2 teaching.

Background

In the past twenty-five years, there has been much growth in research accompanied by broader views of language, consideration of its dynamic nature, and attention to many contexts of L2 learning (Kaplan, 2002). Krashen (1981, 1982, 1985, 1990) has suggested theoretical perspectives, articulated in a set of interrelated hypotheses about L2 acquisition which many recognized at that time as the most influential in the field (e.g., Omaggio Hadley 1993; Swaffar and Bacon 1993). Although proficiency in L2 is now understood not only as familiarity with its linguistic system, but also as the ability to communicate effectively in the target language (Ellis, 1997; Mitchell & Myles, 1998), many researchers (e.g., Juffs, 2002; Schwartz, 1999; White et al. 1997) advocate the role of formal linguistics in the explanation of L2 competence. At the same time, cognitive models present learning as an active process in which learners consciously select and organize information, relate it to what they already know, retain the information they consider to be important, use the information in appropriate contexts, and reflect on their own success in learning (Schmidt, 1990; Harrington, 2002). A sociocultural approach to language learning (Warschauer, 1997; Lantolf, 2002; Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002) places L2 acquisition in a context of social practices. In addition, because of recent developments in educational technology, according to Chapelle (2002), in the twenty-first century, many concepts in applied linguistics are likely to be examined and developed with CALL (computer assisted language learning).

Language Acquisition vs. Learning

According to Krashen (1981), adult L2 learners have two means for internalizing a target language. The first is "acquisition," a subconscious and intuitive process, similar to that used by a child to "pick up" a language. The second is conscious "learning," in which a learner attends to form and is aware of his/her own learning process; the conscious learning processes and the subconscious acquisition processes are mutually exclusive (1982). Thus, the scholar uses his claim of "no interface" between learning and acquisition as the principal argument for recommending large doses of acquisition activities in the classroom, and asserts that speech would "emerge" after the acquirer had been exposed to "enough comprehensible input" (1985, p. 65). He further suggests that the best acquisition occurs in environments where anxiety is low and defensiveness is absent, and proposes the Affective Filter Hypothesis.

The Monitor Model, the Input Hypothesis, and the Affective Filter Hypothesis have been hotly disputed both by linguists and psychologists (Gregg, 1984; McLaughlin, 1990; Odlin, 1986), to name but a few. For example, Brumfit (1992) reports that L2 learning in a school context requires active participation of learners and teachers alike, and emphasizes the role of interaction, feedback, and "intake" in L2 learning. In addition, Juffs (2002) asserts that formal linguistic theory has a "crucial role to play" (p. 103) in the explanation of L2 competence. The scholar emphasizes that although the results of this research do not have direct pedagogical application, they can help us understand the process of L2 acquisition and may assist teachers in understanding learners' progress in the classroom. Atkinson (2002) argues that when "two foundational concepts language and its acquisition" are defined accurately, L2 acquisition is understood as a "situated, integrated, sociocognitive process" (p. 526).

Because Krashen's theory claims that L2 is best acquired unconsciously, it provides the foundation for comprehension-based approaches to L2 learning, which are based on listening to large amounts of spoken language in the early stages of L2 instruction. In contrast, McLaughlin (1990), drawing upon findings in experimental psychology, opposes the attempt to separate "conscious" from "unconscious" in L2 learning by arguing that there is no long-term learning of new material without awareness. Schmidt (1990) corroborates by providing empirical evidence specifically for L2 learning. Other cognitivists (e.g., Gass, 1997; Long 1996; Schmidt, 1990) agree that acquisition requires interaction with, rather than exposure to, the target language. Most recent discussions have underscored strong links between language and culture and their relevance for L2 learning (Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). To integrate "culture" with "interaction" in L2 learning, language professionals today widely believe that "judicious implementation of educational technology allows for the inclusion of a wealth of real life cultural L2 materials and resources, and more importantly, enhance students' learning by means of interactive features and functionality never before available" (Liontas 2002, p.317).

Cognitive Perspectives

Cognitive models view learning as an active process that requires high degrees of learner involvement, and assume that interconnected concepts in our memory may result from formal education or other experiences. Anderson (1985) suggests that most information is stored in long-term memory as either declarative knowledge (knowing "what" we can declare), or procedural knowledge (knowing "how" to do things). Cognitive theories of learning provide a foundation for a cognitive-theoretical view of L2 acquisition. A cognitive theory of L2 acquisition examines the mechanisms that underlie comprehension and production and the means by which L2 competence develops in the mind of a learner. Although differences exist between the information-processing tradition and sentence processing research, the two paradigms are complementary and, according to Harrington (2002), both play an important role in the development of L2 cognitive theory.

Based on the cognitive-theoretical view of learning represented in the work of Anderson (1985), O'Malley and Chamot (1993) assert that L2 acquisition occurs most effectively with high degrees of learner involvement. They suggest that strategic learning can focus on discrete components of language, such as vocabulary, or on understanding and communicating meaningful ideas. According to Stillings et al. (1987), L2 pervades schemata through propositional representations or abbreviated language; essential meanings may include the subject and object of a sentence, a causal sequence, or a hierarchical relationship. Similarly, O'Malley and Chamot (1993) argue that in order to learn new information through a L2, students should first identify what they already know. The previous knowledge may be limited to a few words in the L2 or even to concepts in the learners' L1. This proposition is directly rooted in Anderson's (1985) assertion that the least effective way to learn declarative knowledge is to construct new schemata out of unfamiliar concepts or language rules.

Unlike declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge is learned most effectively through meaningful practice that achieves a specific goal. O'Malley and Chamot (1993) suggest three methods for learning procedural knowledge which allow L2 learners to avoid rule-based memorization. First, observe and model sequences of goal-oriented expert performance. Second, identify manageable components of a complete skill, gain "partial mastery over the components" by practice with feedback either from the teacher or from more skilled peers; then combine the components together to make a complete action sequence that achieves a meaningful goal. Third, learn by analogy: draw a parallel between a familiar and unfamiliar language, then identify the concepts which can be applied to new tasks or settings. They suggest that a L2 learner can model "expert" performance, seek feedback, or refer to rules if there is a need for refinement in performance. Finally, the learner should be able to perform the skill with the accuracy of an "expert." McLaughlin (1990) calls the shift from conscious to spontaneous language automaticity. Recent works by Juffs (2002) address complex interactions of the L1 and the L2 in processing.

Sociocultural Perspectives

For less than a decade, scholars from a number of disciplines, including education, linguistics, psychology, and sociology have contributed to a new sociocultural approach to L2 learning (Lantolf, 2002). Based on a broad socio-cultural theory proposed by Vygotsky (1962, 1978), this approach emphasizes building cognitive understanding in social contexts. A Vygotskyan concept of the relationship among mind, language, communication and culture focuses on three major concepts: (1) genetic analysis, (2) social learning, and (3) mediation. Genetic analysis suggests that interpretation of learning should take into account broad social, cultural, and historic trends (Vygotsky, 1978).

Social learning postulates that the ability to read and write is a social practice rather than an individual skill. According to Vygotsky, "Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first on the social level, and later on the individual level" (p. 57). Vygotsky claims that this development takes place through a form of apprenticeship learning. More specifically, interactions with teachers or peers allow students to advance through their "zone of proximal development," the distance between what they can achieve by themselves and when assisted by others (p. 58). As a mediated process, L2 acquisition has been viewed from three general perspectives: social mediation by experts and peers, self mediation, and artifact mediation (Lantolf, 2002). In this view, L2 learning is not an isolated act of cognition, but "a process of gaining entry to a discourse of practitioners via apprenticeship assistance from peers and teachers" (Warschauer, 1997). Salaberry (1996) discusses computer-mediated communication, which he claims fosters among L2 learners freedom of expression and diminishes anxiety. Mediation suggests that all human activity is mediated by tools or signs. Warschauer (1997) explains that the concept of mediation interprets the teacher's role as "a facilitator, guide, and, when appropriate, expert" in apprenticing students "into discourse and social practices" of the communities of native speakers. Analyzing the implications of the sociocultural theory for L2 acquisition, the scholar asserts:

   Literacy in foreign language teaching has long been conceptualized as
   basic skills of coding and decoding. A sociocultural approach to
   literacy does not deny the importance of coding and decoding text,
   but places the skill in context of social practices. An English
   speaking American becomes literate in French, Spanish, or Japanese by
   successfully gaining entry into the discourse communities of users of
   that language. And that entry can be realized ... not through
   decontextualized acquisition of vocabulary or skills, but rather
   through apprenticeship into authentic literate communities.
   (Warschauer, pp. 92-93)

Cognitive Apprenticeship and Situated Cognition

Manual and intellectual apprenticeships were used in education as early as the ancient Greek and Roman eras (Lave, 1988). Collins, Brown, and Newman (1989) have suggested a new type of apprenticeship, a cognitive apprenticeship. In cognitive apprenticeship, the sequence of instruction should progress from difficult to complex, the content should be presented in authentic contexts and should address the experience of functioning in a social environment.

Cognitive apprenticeship has been used mostly with L1 speakers. More recently, Hosenfeld, Cavour, and Bonk (1996) have adapted the framework of reciprocal teaching for beginning L2 learners. The researchers designed a set of lesson plans that embed the teaching of declarative and procedural knowledge needed to perform the following cognitive tasks: asking a main idea question, predicting what the subsequent paragraph is about, and clarifying unclear phrases. The instructor takes on a supportive role by offering hints, providing feedback, and praising. Based on their timings, Hosenfeld et al. (1996) recommend the model for L2 learners at different levels of reading proficiency. At the same time, practitioners from a number of disciplines report that students frequently experience problems in utilizing the knowledge and skills acquired via formal learning (Choi & Hannafin, 1995). For example, students may pass exams, but be unable to apply the same knowledge in everyday circumstances. In contrast, situated cognition has emerged as a perspective in providing meaningful learning and promoting the transfer of knowledge to real-life situations. Choi and Hannafin (1995) suggest a conceptual framework for situated learning environments which centers on four basic issues: the role of contexts, the role of content, the role of facilitation, and the role of assessment. Although more experimental studies are needed, cognitive apprenticeship appears well suited for situated learning environments and may hold potential for L2 teaching.

Conclusion

Together, theories of L2 acquisition, cognitive, and sociocultural theories of language learning provide a theoretical framework for communicative L2 teaching and learning. Summarizing the opposing perspectives, it appears that learning L2 is such a complex phenomenon, that both acquisition and learning may be beneficial for a learner, based on his/her own needs. Because there is no one unified theory, practitioners in the field should examine various theoretical approaches and should experiment with eclectic methodologies that stem from students' needs. According to Chapelle (2002), educational technologies such as CALL will make a substantive contribution to theoretical developments in the field; in turn, views regarding "appropriate" CALL activities will be updated by developments in theory and research in L2 teaching and in technology

References

Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Freeman Press.

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (4), 524-545.

Brumfit, C. (1992). Review of Steven Krashen's language acquisition and language education. Applied Linguistics, 13, 123-125.

Chapelle, C. (2002). Computer-asssted language learning. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 498-505). New York: Oxford University Press.

Choi, J., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: role, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 53-69.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching of reading and writing. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gregg, K.R. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-I00.

Harrington, M. (2002). Cognitive perspectives on second language acquisition. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 124-140). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hosenfeld, C., Cavour, I., & Bonk, D. (1996). Adapting a cognitive apprenticeship method to foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 588-595.

Juffs, A. (2002). Formal linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 104-114). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaplan, R.B. (2002). Where to from here? Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 509-515). New York: Oxford University Press.

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

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

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.

Krashen, S. D. (1990). How reading and writing make you smarter, or how smart people read and write. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (pp. 15-29). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 104-114). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Liontas, J. I. (2002). CALLmedia digital technology. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 315-330.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisitions. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Pess, 413468.

McLaughlin, B. (1990). "Conscious" versus "unconscious" learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 617634.

Mitchell, R, & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Edward Arnold.

Odlin, T. (1986). On the nature and use of explicit knowledge. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 123-144.

Omaggio Hadley, A. (1993). Research in language learning: Toward communication and synthesis. In A. Omaggio Hadley (Ed.), Research in language learning: Principles, processes and prospects (pp. v-vii). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. (1993). Learner characteristics in second language acquisition. In A. Omaggio Hadley (Ed.), Research in language learning: Principles, processes, and prospects (pp. 96-123). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Salaberry, M.R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer-mediated communication. The CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5-34.

Savignon, S. J., & Sysoyev, P.V. (2002) .Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of cultures. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 508-524.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schwartz, B.D. (1999). Let's make up your mind: "Special Nativist" perspectives on language, modularity of mind, and nonnative language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 635-654. Stillings, N. M., Feinstein, M. H., Garfield, J. L., Rissland, E. L., Rosenbaum, D. A., Weisler, S.

E., & Baker-Ward, L. (1987). Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Swaffar, J., & Bacon, S. (1993). Reading and listening comprehension: Perspectives on research and implications for practice. In A. Omaggio Hadley (Ed.), Research in language learning: Principles, processes, and prospects (pp. 124-155). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Warschauer, M. (1997). A sociocultural approach to literacy and its significance for CALL. In R. H. Sanders (Series Ed.), & K. A. Murphy-Judy (Vol. Ed.), Nexus--The convergence of language teaching and research using technology, (CALICO monograph series,Vol. 4, pp. 88-97). Durham, NC: Duke University.

White, L., J. Bruhn-Garavito, T. Kawasaki, J. Pater, and P. Prevost (1997). The researcher gave the subject a test about himself: Problems of ambiguity and preference in the investigation of reflexive binding. Language Learning, 47, 145-172.

Luba V. Iskold, Muhlenberg College, PA

Dr. Luba V. Iskold is assistant professor of Russian and director of the Language Learning Center. Her research and publications focus on second language pedagogy and effective uses of technology for the study of languages and cultures.