1

Table of contents

Unit one
APPLIED LINGUISTICS

1.1 HISTORY

1.2 ATTEMPTING A DEFINITION

1.3 DICHOTOMIES RELATED TO THE DISCIPLINE

Unit two

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2.1 CDA: A DEFINITION

2.2 MAIN PRINCIPLES OF CDA

2.2.1 Macro vs. micro

2.2.2 Power as control

2.3 AREAS OF CDA

2.3.1 Gender
2.3.2 The media
2.3.3 Political discourse
2.3.4 Ethnicity

2.4 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

Unit three
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section A

3.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

3.2 COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING – section B

3.2.1 Situational factors

2
 3.2.2 Input

3.2.3 Learner differences

2.2.3.1 Personal factors
2.2.3.2 General factors

Unit four
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section B
4. COMPONENTS OF LANGUAGE LEARNING – section B

4.1. Learner processes

4.1.1 Other knowledge
4.1.2 Language processing
4.1.3 L2 knowledge

4.2. Output

Unit five
SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION - Section C

5.1 SLA APPROACHES

5.1.1 Cognition-oriented theories

5.1.1.1 Innatist theories
5.1.1.2 Cognitive theories

5.1.2 Context-oriented theories

5.2 FORMS OF INSTRUCTION

5.2.1 Theoretical positions

5.2.2 Issues in formal instruction

5.3 TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ ROLES

3
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.

3.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF SLA

Interest in second language learning is not new. Although SLA began to gain standing as an
independent field during the 1970’s, work had been done in L2 learning via linguistics or first
language acquisition research (Cook, 1993). From that moment, SLA research has increased
dramatically, and has branched out into many subfields, each following its own theoretical

4
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, p. 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 1940’s
and 1950’s. 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” (as cited in
Cook, 1993, p.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
Weinreich’s view is that of the link between the two languages in an individual’s 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 Weinreich’s work concentrates on knowledge of language, Robert Lado’s has a

pedagogical approach. He based his research on Contrastive Analysis, a detailed comparison of
L1 and L2. The basic notion in Lado’s 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” (as cited in Cook, 1993, p. 11). This predicts that

5
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. Lado’s 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 1950’s, Noam Chomsky’s work on the acquisition of an L1 began to
undermine the then prevailing behaviourist approach to the study of language acquisition.
Chomsky (1957) 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 child’s L1 is a developing system in its own right, not a
defective version of adult speech, and this concept is known as the independent grammars
assumption (Chomsky, 1957).

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 (Chomsky, 1972). 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 1970’s 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,

6
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 (1972) to refer to the learner’s
independent language system, which differed from the approximate system in that the former,
according to Selinker, seldom reached target language standards. Selinker (1972) 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 teacher´s 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 Selinker’s IL mentions the fact that he is not clear about whether IL refers to the
learner’s 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.

Some time earlier, Pit Corder had introduced a methodology for studying SLA known as Error
Analysis. Corder (1967) 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 Selinker’s IL. However, two methodological problems have
been identified. 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 learner’s 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:

7
 Focus Theory / Hypothesis Researcher
L1 – L2 relation Interference
Weinreich
Bilingualism
Transfer Lado
Nature of L2 grammar Weinreich
Phrase-structure grammar
Lado
Interlanguage Selinker
Research methods Contrastive Analysis Lado
Error Analysis Corder

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 1980’s 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.

8
3.2 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, p. 276),
provides a framework for examining the components of SLA.

Learner processes

3.2.1 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

9
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, p. 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, p.201)

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.)

Characteristics Natural acquisition Communicative instruction

Limited, meaning emphasised over

Error correction Rare
form

Language is not
Grading of language Structural grading
structured

Time available for learning Ample Limited

10
Availability of native speakers
High ratio Limited
to learners

Variety of language and Introduced through “real life”

High
discourse types materials and activities.

Low. In early stages, there is

Pressure to speak High
emphasis on comprehension.

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

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, p. 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, p. 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

11
“learner’s perception, production, and acquisition of specific aspects of the second language
system” (Tarone, 2010, p. 54).

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 interlocutor’s corrective feedback
on their L2 form” (Tarone, 2010, p. 60).

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.

12
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).

3.2.2 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, p. 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, p. 16) refer to three different
general accounts of L1 acquisition which, despite not being contemporary with one another,
offer explanations for different aspects of children’s 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

13
human beings are endowed with. According to this view, children are born with some kind of
“innately specified knowledge” (Gass, 2005, p. 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, p. 175). Finally, the interactionist view, which claims that language
acquisition is the result of the interplay between the learner’s 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 & Spada, 1993, p. 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, p. 130). As
regards the functions of motherese, mothers do not pay much attention to the correctness of
their children’s speech, while they do concentrate on the social appropriateness and meaning.

Regarding the effects of simplified input, the available evidence suggests that the route1 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 rate2 of learning. However, according to
Ellis (1985, p. 131), “the key features of the input appear to be interactional rather than formal.
That is, it is the mother’s 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.

14
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, p. 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 NS’s 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, p. 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

15
in naturalistic settings. Research reported by Ellis (1985, p. 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 teacher’s 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, pp. 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; and
4. real communication, which consists of spontaneous natural speech.

This description of discourse in the classroom is complemented by Ellis’ framework (1985, p.

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

16
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 Krashen’s 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 (as cited in Ellis
1985, p. 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 Krashen’s position. Ellis (1985, p. 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 Krashen’s view is that “interactional modifications do not always result
in comprehensible input” (1985, p. 158). Finally, Krashen’s 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, p. 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.

17
Input may also affect the rate of acquisition. The studies reported by Ellis (1985, pp. 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 learner’s 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 (as
cited in Ellis, 1985, p. 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.”

3.2.3 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.

18
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 individual’s approach to learning a L2” (1985, p.
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.

3.2.3.1 Personal factors

Group dynamics

Group dynamics, important in classroom settings, relate competitiveness and anxiety

experienced by learners. Bailey (as cited in Ellis, 1985, pp. 101-102) presents a model of how
the learner’s 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

19
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 else’s 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.

3.2.3.2 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, p. 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, p. 121)

Intelligence and aptitude

20
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, p. 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, p.
111), and following Carroll’s research (as cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 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

21
learning.” (Ellis, 1994, p. 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 Dörnyei and Skehan, different learning styles
“may be equally valid and advantageous” (2005, p. 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, p. 114) defines cognitive styles as the way in which people “perceive, conceptualize,
organize and recall information.” Dörnyei 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, p. 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 dependence Field independence

Personal orientation Impersonal orientation
i.e. reliance on external frame of reference in i.e. reliance on internal frame of reference in
processing information processing information

22
Holistic Analytic
i.e perceives field as a whole; parts are fused with i.e perceives a field in terms of its component
background parts; parts are distinguished from background

Dependent Independent
i.e. the self-view is derived from others i.e. sense of separate identity

Socially sensitive Not so socially aware

i.e greater skill in interpersonal/social relationships i.e less skilled in interpersonal/social relationships

Based on Ellis (1985, p. 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, p. 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 (as cited in
Dörnyei & 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)

23
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 Dörnyei 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, p. 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.” Dörnyei and Skehan (2005, p. 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 people’s behaviours (Ellis
1985, p. 116).

Dörnyei and Skehan (2005, p.459) 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.”

24
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 (as cited in Dörnyei & Skehan. p. 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 Gardner’s 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.” (as cited in Dörnyei & Skehan, 2005, p 458)

Related to Gardner´s 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, 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

25
control, perseverance, and overcoming various internal obstacles to action” (as cited in Dörnyei
& Skehan, 2005, p. 461).

From a neurobiological perspective, Schumann’s approach tries to link the study of language
with cognitive science (as cited in Dörnyei & Skehan, 2005, p. 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, p. 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

26
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, p. 176). Strozer (1994, p. 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 1960´s, 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, p.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 Lenneberg’s 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 Newport’s seminal study investigated whether the CPH applies to L2 as well. It
focuses on the ultimate command of the grammar of the L2 with respect to the age of
exposure to that language. Subjects in this study were Chinese and Korean immigrants to the

27
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 (Johnson & Newport,
1989, p. 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” (Johnson & Newport, 1989, p.
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.” (Johnson & Newport, 1989, p. 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).

28
Attitudinal factors, such as motivation, identification and self-consciousness, were also unable
to explain away the effects of age.

In sum, Johnson and Newport’s 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, p. 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, p. 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

29
account for the decrease in ultimate attainment with increasing” age of onset (Hyltenstam &
Abrahamsson, 2005; pp. 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, p. 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, while the
competition hypothesis claims that adults have continued access to UG, and that the LAD
competes with general problem-solving processes, which eventually succeed (Hyltenstam &
Abrahamsson, 2005, p. 423). The less is more hypothesis states that children’s 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” (Hyltenstam &
Abrahamsson, 2005, p. 423).

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, p. 106) gives the following
summary of the effects of age:

30
 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, p. 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, p.
50), “it may be more efficient to begin second language teaching later. In research on school

31
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” (Lightbown & Spada, 1993, p. 50). 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 a variety of activities.
According to a study reported in Johnstone (2002, p. 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, pp. 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 child’s language awareness
and literacy;

32
 ▪ 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 children’s 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 Johnstone’s words (2002, p. 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.”

33
References
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton & Co.
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. Harcourt College Pub
Cook, 1993, p. 11
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International review of applied
linguistics in language teaching. 4. 161-169.
Davies, A. & Elder, C. (2004) The handbook of applied linguistics. (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2005). Individual differences in second language learning. In C.
Doughty & M. Long (Eds.) The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
442-471). Blackwell Publishing.
Doughty, C. & Long, M. (2005). The handbook of second language acquisition. (Eds.) Blackwell
Publishing.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of SLA. Oxford University Press.
Johnson, J and E. Newport (1989). Critical periods effects in second language learning: The
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a Second Language.
Cognitive psychology. 21: 60-99

34
Johnstone, R. (2002). Addressing ‘the age factor’: some Implications for language policy.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Internet edition
downloaded September 1st, 2011 from dkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice.pdf
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (2004) Second Language Learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.) The handbook
of applied linguistics (pp. 501-524).. Blackwell Publishing
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching. 10, 209 -231.
Simpson, J. (2011). The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics. (Ed.) Routledge.
Strozer, J. (1994). Language acquisition after puberty. Washington University Press.
Tarone, E. (2010). Social context and cognition in SLA: a variationist perspective. Downloaded
August 12th, 2011 from https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/items/.../303587.pdf -

35