Second Language Acquisition: Sociocultural or Cognitive or both?
Second Language Acquisition:
Sociocultural or Cognitive or both?
by Shane Tholen
Introduction
How do people best learn, acquire and make use of a second language? Researchers and theorists in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) have had a relatively short history of grappling with this question. Indeed, the answer to the above question has led to considerable classroom and field research as theorists have sought to support behavioral, humanistic, cognitive linguistic and, more recently, sociocultural linguistic perspectives. If not for a perceived lack in particular theories or questions left unanswered in research, an understanding of how SLA works would not progress and students of language would not gain opportunities to improve the efficiency of acquisition. It is the purpose of this literature review to describe how certain theories have tried to supersede older hypotheses and to describe two main, contemporary linguistic outlooks, namely sociocultural and cognitive theories that currently seem to be at odds in the field of SLA. Furthermore, it will look at areas of SLA such as a first language 's (L1) effect on a second (L2), Universal Grammar and the role of Input, Output and Interaction suggesting further research such as longitudinal studies that take account of synchronous processes in situational language events.
A brief history
In a Western context, SLA research can probably be traced back to Humbolt (1767-1835) who began investigating languages as rule-governed, heterogeneous systems. This stance was later referred to by Chomsky in the 1950s when linguistics studies were in full swing after Whorf 's (1956) 1930s investigation of Hopi led to his "linguistic relativity hypothesis" where particular languages are believed to influence specific ways of thinking, understanding and belief. Lado 's(1957) work on contrastive analysis was also influential at that time. His theory states that L1 has a direct influence on L2 acquisition and thereby needs to be contrasted to find inhibiting discrepancies. Chomsky, however, searched for similarities in language structure among all humans and with his theory of the existence of an innate Universal Grammar (UG) he became one of the world 's most influential writers on linguistics. UG theory goes beyond the 'mimicry ' of behaviorism to account for the infinite number of phrases humans can create after limited input (poverty of stimulus). Later, the idea of innate grammar, which is hard to prove or disprove, helped shape the form of contemporary SLA theory. For example, Selinker 's (1972) notion of the existence of an 'interlanguage ' (IL) is also based on learners forming rule-based systems. Furthermore, Krashen( 1985), basing his hypothesis on Chomsky 's Language acquisition Device (LAD) which is said to reside in the brain, postulated that learners automatically acquire language if the input is at a comprehensible level (i+1 model). Arguments over the role of input and output have since been at the fore of SLA debates with questions as to what best triggers UG. Swain (1985), for instance, believes an output focused language practice would lead to improved processing of syntax. More recently, however, innate grammar has been questioned by cognitive and computational linguists such as N. Ellis, Langacker and Goldberg who propose language use can be explained in terms of activated neurological networks (connectionism). Still, cognitive linguistics (CL) has not been without criticism, especially from sociocultural linguists (SCL) and theorists such as Lantolf and Preston(1989). These writers argue that language does not exist in a 'black box ' within a learner but is socially, communally and culturally co-created. R. Ellis(2003), on the other hand, is interested in the insights that both perspectives can offer on SLA.
A more detailed view
Influence of a learner 's first language (L1) on second language (L2)
Historical views:
At the outset of modern linguistics we find behaviourism, which believes language to be a case of stimulus-response. Bloomfield (1933) described speech as being habitually formed from mimicry and analogizing, beginning with the babbling child said to imitate the sound of the adult in context. Language was seen to be cumulative and, in this way, old knowledge was seen to affect new knowledge. As this was applied to language acquisition, it led to a theory that L2 was directly affected by L1(Gass and Selinker (2008)) .
Lado(1957), who drew on behaviourism, believed individuals tend to transfer form and meaning from L1 to L2 both productively and receptively. Therefore, contrastive analysis between L1 and L2 was perceived as useful for an effective pedagogy. Researchers who looked at the output of L2 and compared it to the output of L1 believed a negative (interfering) or positive(facilitating) transfer would be shown. Lado also judged L2 acquisition (L2A) to be very different from L1 acquisition (L1A) due to transfer. He saw that problems arose in L2A due to habits formed in childhood L1A. So, a teacher would focus on students learning differences between L1 and L2. Even so, contrastive analysis failed to predict patterns. Consequently, error analysis gained credence (Gass and Selinker p. 97).
The main attack on behaviourism, however, came from Chomsky (1959), who argued language is rule-based rather than habit based (Ellis (1990)). For example, inhibition arising from L1 could not account for generalisations such as , “He comed yesterday.” Another criticism leveled at bahaviourist output analysis said that it could not always show what difficulties are taking place within the learner. Theorists such as Wardaugh (1970) argued that difference between L1 and L2 was not enough to account for learner difficulties. In the 70s, linguists did accept that L1 influenced L2 but it was not clear how and when. Even so, the use of repetition and drill in the classroom that had resulted from a behaviourist methodology trying to force a change in behaviour (for example audio-lingualism (see Ellis (1990)) was abandoned in favor of a learner-centred approach that examined how L2 was being used. On top of this, nativists argued that it was learners who controlled their own language acquisition rather than it evolving from exterior manipulation (see Ellis (1990)).
Current theories accept L1 does affect L2 but not 1:1 as in behaviorist theory. Rocca (2007), for example, has shown through research that SLA is complex and that child learners are indeed influenced by L1. What 's more, a study by Laufer and Eliasson (1993) showed difficulties related to large differences between L1 and L2 can cause avoidance.
However, if the learner sees similarities between L1 and L2, they see that L1 can be helpful (Gass and Selinker (2008) p. 143) In differential learning (Ard and Homburg, 1983, 1992) it is shown that L1 can infulence L2 in many ways. For instance, when learners with a close relationship between L1 and L2 spend more time on studying the differences between their native language and the target language, the focus on new lexis can lead to facilitation of acquisition.(see Gass and Selinker (2008)p. 140).
Presently, both cognitive linguists and sociocultural linguists also have their views on L1 's effect on L2:
Contemporary views: cognitive:
N. Ellis (2008) is a cognitive linguist who sees that L2 changes according to L1, as the mind creates expectations. He explains that language processing is very sensitive to prior usage in that the mind perceives one sound will probably lead to another. So, for a learner of TL there needs to be a high frequency of cues reliably foregrounding new forms in order to override the influence of L1.
Even though learners are here reduced to floating minds in a decontextualized space, N. Ellis 's hypothesis does raise some interesting questions. For example, if certain forms are not salient enough to become part of the probability equations, can a learner ' reach native-like proficiency? Subconscious probability projection would require 'noticing ' (see Schmidt (2001) cited in R. Ellis (2009)), explicit teaching and the use of metalinguistic strategies if one is to have any chance of fluency. Another question raised is, 'How do expectations networked in L1 affect perception of an L2 situation? ' Given the variables they perceive, when learners expect a situation to yield a predictable behavior, as it does in an L1 situation, what happens when this expectation is not met in L2? For example, if a speaker is used to supermarkets but encounters an unusual degree of politeness of a sales-representative, will the destabilization affect their language use? Research is obviously needed on areas of culture clash and its affect on long term retention of forms.
Odlin (2008) also questions whether speakers can become native in L2. Where research shows L1 greatly influences L2A, there are those who believe L1 gets in the way of L2A whereas others judge L1 can be used to teach L2. Odlin cites Whorf (1956) ,for example, who argued L1 gets in the way of L2. Whorf, though, believed L1 could be used to teach L2 and that L1 rules lose their 'binding power ' when they are made conscious. Whorf also claimed L1 and L2 are fundamentally different. However, Odlin argues there must be some transfer of meaning from L1 to L2 otherwise it would be impossible to translate. Even so, he does inquire about the transference of concept. As language exists in space/time, he asks if a learner 's L2 cultural conception of space time can be the same as that of a native speaker? For example, Japanese speakers use climb for up. They cannot readily see that we can use “climb down” Finally, Odlin suggests learners correlate L2 lexis with the closest counterpart in L1.
Odlin, himself recognizes the need for more research in the area of conceptual transference. He questions the pervasiveness of the cognitive linking of L2 grammar back to L1 but postulated memory processes may be involved where speakers encode experience (p.330). We can forgive Odlin in trying to distill the human to a process of mind as his discussion remains open to cultural questions, albeit internalized. In investigating language transference, we need to ask questions like what conceptual and cultural expectations are being brought to L2?
Hudson (2008) argues the richness of L1, due to its copious links, should lead L2. He further proposed words are cognitively networked. That when a word comes to the fore, there is 'spreading activation ' and other, co-joined nodes are activated. Uttered words or “tokens” are given allotments if they share commonality with sorted words “types”(p. 103).
Although useful for analogy in Sociocultural linguistics (see below), Hudson 's view is mechanistic and as such, inadequate. The computer like model takes no account of affective variables within learners nor cultural or social aspects (see Preston below), There is little in Hudson 's theory that wouldn 't give rise to a resurgence of behaviorist practices. Even so, although on the surface it may seem that it completely goes against theories of immersion, it actually points to the value of a learner gaining as much stimulus as possible from L2, which, I believe, would include the culture of L2. The 'newly 'networked nodes ' should create strong between words and experiences. Naturally, the learner will seek similarities to 'link in the new knowledge to existing concepts. Even so, an L1 that leads L2 would risk reinforcing the dominating presence of L1, especially where the goal of L2A is to become 'native-like '.
It would be interesting to see research done on the effect of metalanguage in an L1/ L2 relationship. Is a discussion of similarities between L1 and L2 best done within an immersion setting or would a teacher need to rely on bilingual aids to facilitate meta-conversation (see Preston (1989)). From a sociocultural perspective (see below), a teacher should be sensitive to identity issues a learner may be having as they shift from an L1 context to L2. There may be cultural implications inherent within L1 that could affect L2A. For example, students from some religious backgrounds may be adverse to using a particular means of learning such as using dance or images of people. An overview of how the world 's languages interact with other languages is obviously logistically impossible, but surely a teacher would benefit from some kind of overview on the world 's major languages as they interact with English. Although variables such as individual differences could render such a resource superficial, it would certainly be a helpful starting point for any teacher. Obviously in SLA there is more at stake than just words. If CL wishes to sincerely investigate the strength that association of L1 to L2 gives to SLA, researchers should look into the long-term effects of frequent coupling of specific lexis groups with particular individual and cultural situations.
Contemporary views: Sociolinguistics
Preston (1989) asks SLA researchers to think about the attitude and motivation a learner has toward L2 as well as the relationship between L1 and L2: What gains will learners make from fluency, and how much will they identify with new forms and culture? He asks if learners risk losing their L1 status or whether the L2 culture is even attractive. For example, do they want to join the new culture or is the acquisition instrumental? Furthermore, the status the new society gives to L1 will have a marked effect on the learner, whether it allows for positive bilingualism or demands strict integration which can lead to alienation. In other words, SLA may challenge a learner 's identity (Preston (1989) p.59). It should be noted that sociocultural theory has cast doubt on cognitive researchers ' means of acquiring evidence. Ellis (2009) cites a study by Coughlan and Duff (1994) which shows a researcher plays a large role in the production of language. What is more, using language to coerce, manipulate or control, data collection in a laboratory setting can be viewed as a false environment. (Preston (1989)). Preston is thereby careful to consider the situation of the field worker when collecting data known as the 'observer 's paradox ' (Preston (1989))p. 7). A researcher may also need to investigate power play and the social relationships in the interaction setting in order to understand the particular instances of SLA. Whereas, on the part of the cognitive linguists, there is no mention of such considerations, any research in the area of SLA would need to be careful to acknowledge the 'ethnography of communication ' (Preston (1989)p. 10). Consequently, teachers should not insist on native speaker (NS) norms but rather facilitate discovery and let learners make up their own minds based on critical evaluation. Gender issues could also play a role on the interaction between L1 and L2 with research showing men generally talking more, interrupting and controlling the conversation more than women who tended to be the ones asking more questions (Preston (1989) p.72), Preston does point out, though, that this can be culturally influenced. Furthermore, in order to facilitate cultural understanding from L1 to L2, Preston suggests using successful bilingual role models (Preston (1989) p. 83).
What 's more, one is bound to ask, how the L1 culture is perceived by the L2 community (see Preston p. 162). Such is the circumstance in Western Australia where children of 457 visa holders are being thrown in the deep end (see West Australian newspaper ,Wednesday 20 May ). One may also wish to ask about the different social relationships in various localities around Perth. For example, do parents of learners disempowered in L2 communities rely on their children for communication? (see Gordon (2008).
In light of sociocultural concerns, it would be interesting for researchers to investigate the relationship between socio-linguistically identified variables and form retention. For example, do pleasurable, painful or significant events lead to stronger word associations than complacent or insignificant situations? Which forms form substantial bonds to particular areas of culture? Furthermore, it might be more convincing for cognitive linguists if quantitative sociolinguistics was to prove the effectiveness of contextualization on acquisition compared to decontextualized language. It is highly unlikely, for example that a learner can get all they need from simply reading a textbook. Sociocultural linguists argue that a language is communication, that it is a shared process. In that case, how does a learner put together words that he has never experienced unitedly before?
The ability of a learner to generalize
Chomsky and Universal Grammar
How do children acquire language so quickly given the input is limited? This perplexing questions led Chomsky (1975) to develop the concept of Universal Grammar (UG) which explains that language is a system with its own rules. Chomsky proposed the notion of the existence of core grammars in all natural languages. He believed that input alone cannot lead children to complex, adult grammar because contexts cannot supply reasons to all variety of forms. (Gass and Selinker (2008)) This led to nativist theories which state that some aspects of language learning are innate. Where behaviourists theorized humans parroted the external language of others, from the nativist perspective it is mental grammar which mediates between sound and meaning in language.
UG is a contentious issue in SLA research. Some theorists such as Krashen and R. Ellis have taken it onboard and elaborated upon it, whereas others, especially those in the field of cognitive science, seem eager to dismiss the notion.
Chomsky 's UG can be explained with the help of the following illustration.
Observe these pictures with accompanying non-sense language:
1. cyummnyet corringa seppi
2. dyummnyet djoordi seppi 3. grummnyet gronjoo sepgni
4. dyummnyet dordi seppi
5. cyummnyet corringoo sepgni
6. grum????? groonji ????
Without asking, and without being given meaning, rules are quickly attended to. There may be questions or insecurities about the language such as not knowing the tense, but there is some confidence about what goes in 6. grum????? groonji ???? How is this understanding reached? It is not an English construct so one cannot depend on their L1 to interact. Actually, underpinning this is an assumption that there is purpose to the task and an intention to communicate something so we try our best to make sense of it. One may guess that it is a verb and be confident it is not the subject, and yet no-one has said anything about which is which. We certainly have a predisposition to automatically search for commonality in input which allows us to generalize. But, is this due to a LAD (Chomsky) which allows us to grasp understanding, automatically filtering out nouns, predicates and auxiliaries? Cognitive linguists seem to be going to great pains to dispute the existence of a UG and describe acquisition as a mechanistic networking of form-function correspondence. Achard (2008), for instance, tries to persuade us that language is a collection: It does not generate or construct anything new. Grammar is seen as a schema or template that generalizes. However, this input-only viewpoint doesn 't seem to account for the ability to create codes. During the creation of the above example, rules did go through my mind (L1 to L2) permitting me to generalize and create new forms, but there had been zero input of this particular language. Even so, these invented codes were based on playing with grammatical knowledge which seems to give weight to the existence of UG. The question then is, can input alone theories account for the creation of novel forms such as creoles and sign language?
Cognitive Linguistics
Goldberg and Casenhiser (2008) dispute Chomsky 's universalism believing language to be constructed from input.
Although they agree with most linguists that form itself is useless without meaning, according to their Word Grammar theory, communication consists of speakers using a network of learned, interrelated form-function correspondences. In other words, a speaker learns to associate formal patterns with meanings and is then able to generalize. Goldberg and Casenhiser showed through experiments that children make links between novel constructions and meanings. After minimal input, the children were able to generalize from a previously introduced pattern to correctly identify a novel verb conjugation eg. “the sailor the pond naifoed”. In other words, they quickly correlated phoneme with meaning. All that is needed for “abstract categories to be facilitated is “shared concrete similarity” of phoneme in a meaningful context.” The fact that Goldberg and Casenhiser 's example grammar does not occur naturally led them to dispute Universal Grammar. Since usage based input can be manipulated, children don 't switch on a previously installed lexical path. One cannot help feeling, though, that the researchers missed the point of UG. There are still rules involved. The children were still using their capacity to generalize. It is more a question of whether the form-focused input led to rule-like behavior.
Ping Li (2006),who observes SLA from a cognitive perspective, refers to a computational context study by Burgess and Lund (1997, 1996) where a model mapped the probability of lexical co-occurrence, and analogizes that learners cognitively track speech through memory and are sensitive to the probability of words going together. The connectionist perspective views SLA as a neurological process where a large number of micro-processing neurons activate in parallel. Knowledge, then is seen as 'patterns of activation distributed across neurons, and that new knowledge is 'formed through adaptation of the strengths of neuron connections. In contrast to particular, symbolic rules represented in the mind (UG), Ping Li suggests generalization occurs due to 'crypotypes ' or shared general meanings which could be lexical or morphological. Based on input, active units of neurons and neighboring units self organize. The next time the same input appears, the neurons respond more strongly. Parallelling SLA to the computational model, Ping Li showed 'crypotypes ' can lead to statistical representation which displays rule-like behaviour (Ping Li (2006)p. 129).
Similarly, Hudson (2008) explains that general and specific patterns are stored, that the system creates “super categories” that allow us to generalize. For example, 'paper ' may be linked to notes, books , origami, napkins, recycling etc. Hudson proposed that when a word comes to the fore, there is 'spreading activation ' of the cognitive network and other, co-joined nodes are activated. He also explains that tokens that don 't fit are interesting and are more likely to be remembered. The more the networks spread, the higher incidence of generalization and the more likely the word will become activated.
In other words, the senses perceive a new pattern of language which correlates to a particular functional situation; existing correspondences help filter the information, separating and categorizing form-function pairings which are then stored for later use. New language could be created by a listener perceiving input similarities in utterances. Consequently, mimicked slips of the tongue, and mispronunciation could lead to a creation of new forms.
Chomsky(2002) has gone on to propose that language is learned by lexicon (minimalism) (Gass, & Selinker (2008)p. 172). This parallels cognitive research where syntax is acquired in meaningful chunks (Bybee 2008): The morphemes aren 't salient and form is analogized by the learner understanding contextualized patterns. Furthermore, Achard (2008) argues that grammar can be taught like lexis because syntax is inseperable from 'semantic organisation ' (Achard (2008) p. 438) Although both nativists and cognitive linguists are fundamentally opposed in their acceptance of UG, both give importance to the role of input in SLA. Whereas cognitive linguists may look at input as a collection which does not generate or construct anything new, nativists such as Krashen see that input sparks innate grammar processes. But surely motivation plays a big part.
If a researcher were interested to see whether creoles could be transformed into standardized usage or whether standard English users could use a creole based on input, sociocultural variables, such as the status of the language groups involved and motivation to acquire, would certainly need to be taken into consideration (see Preston (1989)). Indeed, such considerations may even lead one to question the ethics of research for the sake of proving or disproving theories as to how acquisition takes place, as certain language groups may not even be interested in changing or altering their collective identity. Clearly, the giving or receiving of messages may not be the primary motivation for a speech event and this is why Preston sees form-function pairing as naïve. Whether in chunks, discrete lexis or contextualized, research into the power of input, from a communictive perspective, is weak unless the interactions involved are examined within its cultural context.
Sociocultural Linguistics
The degree of influence of external conditions on SLA is one area where cognitive linguistics (CL) and sociocultural linguists (SCL)disagree. Where Cognitive Grammar (CG) believes a linguistic event is centred around a speaker 's decisions, using memory, planning, problem solving and other attributes used for other processes (Achard (2008) p. 436), sociocultural theorists believe language cannot be divorced from communication. Ellis(2009) explains that “mediation serves as the means by which internal mediation is achieved”, that language is participated in and not acquired. (p.176) Furthermore, Preston assures us language can be predicted fairly accurately from information about a person 's social group where interactive variables such as setting, content and relationship contribute to speech behaviour (Preston pp. 120-186) . Generalisation, then, can be seen to be facilitated socially rather than cognitively. Using norms (or particular forms) to communicate speakers co-construct meaning. A novel utterance then must be a restructuring of previous interactions: Not an internalized set of memories but a inclination to produce form-function-culture correlation at an intersection of sociocultural situations. In a novel situation, needs will have to be met by using interlanguage forms of L2 norms, or the speakers will risk miscommunication. Various conventions perceived by the speaker/ listeners will be offered to the interactive space between them. Again, language does not exist in the “black box” of the mind. Even thought could be seen to be converging echoes of previous interactions bouncing off an imaginary social sphere: the trepidation of conveyance.
This view may actually conflict with a Universal Grammar existing in the mind of a person. There seem to be too many cognitive and social variables to say that all humanity possesses an instrument that seeks particular rules. Even investigations into linguistic categories have unearthed significant differences in the structure of languages such as elision of subject (see Leiden 2006) Yet, as languages seem to display rules, there are still researchers who find UG worthy of inquiry. Moreover, since the issue is unresolved, pedagogical ramifications cannot be agreed upon: Do teachers aim to merely provide input for building, try to awaken innate grammar (implicit learning), or teach grammar rules (explicit)? From a SCL perspective, rather than thinking of language learning as dependent upon an internal sensitivity to syntax, one would have to observe the intersection of social variables to predict probabilistic rule-like behaviour.
The role of Input, Output and Interaction
Input vs Output
In Behaviorism input is crucial to mimicry. Consequently, when behaviorism flagged, interest in input waned. The theory of innate language then developed where minimal input is the trigger to processes that occur in the mind. As a result, input 's importance diminished in linguistic circles. Corder(1967) then compared input(=available language) to intake(=the language actually taken in). Ferguson (1971) then distinguished 'foreigner talk ' (simplified language spoken for the benefit of the non-native speaker) from other styles of communication and interest in input resurfaced. In 1978, based on L1=L2 hypothesis that L1 and L2 learners use the same strategies, McLaughlin proposed that input quality was central to SLA and the concept of immersion came into favor. Perceiving problems of learners being bombarded with input beyond their comprehension, however, Krashen (1985) suggested input should be slightly ahead of the learner 's current state of grammatical knowledge, in other words, comprehensible (i+1). He also believed the LAD was activated by input. A teacher, therefore, should provide sufficient i+1 input in context, acquisition will then be automatic (Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 346). However, Swain (1985) criticized input alone approaches as being insufficient for acquisition because meaning can be interpreted and communicated without attention to syntax. In other words, input only could lead to elision of non-salient lexis, possibly leading to fossilization of an IL divergent from the TL (Achard 2008). Swain suggested learners make use of an Output focused practice where they are forced to put correct language to use. In this way, learners could move from semantic processing to syntactic processing. Currently, studies are showing that pedagogy where students are given opportunities to incorporate new forms with feedback on output are benefiting acquisition (see Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 329). Prior to Swain, output was viewed as practicing what had been acquired (presentation-practice models) or as a way to elicit more input. Swain, however, sees that output has an impact on syntax and morphology.
Recently, studies have also shown that input alone is not enough and that negative evidence is necessary to show what is not possible (R. Ellis 1993). However, investigations have also demonstrated that negative evidence seems to help with short term acquisition whereas numerous doses of additional focused input has proven to aid long term retention (Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 331). Examples of a request clarification might be, “Sorry?” whereas recasts, where a teacher repeats the phrase corrected may provide salience for learners that are developmentally ready. Even so, the teacher must check that the students have understood the feedback. Gass and Selinker (2008) take up Swain 's ideas in suggesting that the processing of meaning alone cannot lead to syntax of language being understood which they see as a requirement for production. In view of this, teachers should be aware that output creates an opportunity for students to receive feedback. A result of this would be students 'noticing ' their language and thereby being able to reassess. It must be remembered, however that often children don 't respond to correction (Pinker 1984). Feedback, therefore, cannot be relied upon. Moreover, for feedback to work, a learner must notice it and use memory to compare TL and IL (Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 354). Nonetheless, it should not be abandoned as Saxton (2005) does show that contrasting grammar in feedback can create conflict in the learner leading to self-correction. Output based learning seems to argue for explicit teaching of forms in the output stage, but where does this leave input?
The belief in the 70s and 80s that explicit teaching leads only to explicit knowledge has given way to an acceptance that explicit manipulation of input can lead to a fusion of implicit and explicit knowledge in the learner (Gass, & Selinker(2008)p. 387). Research useful for pedagogy seems to support an initial focus on meaning followed by an explicit focus on form. However, Long (1991) advises a teacher not to focus on formS but meaning where forms are embedded. Moreover, Gass et. al. (1999) showed that a focus on both form and meaning was a cognitive burden and that syntax improved once meaning had been established.
Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive linguistic (CL) approaches seem to be favoring rich input (for example, Ping Li (2006)and Bybee(2008)) with focus on form strategies in place to counterbalance potential elision.
Bybee 's (2008) research, for example, showed that repeated exposure to practice developed cognitive structures. He sees acquisition as a categorisation process which “creates a vast network of phonological, semantic and pragmatic associations.” (Bybee (2008) p.220). It is a constructionist view with language seen as stored form-function association which occurs through experiences being mapped in memory by similarity/ difference. What 's more, according to Bybee, high token frequency aids acquisition. N. Ellis (2008) also believes frequency of forms at input facilitates acquisition. Based on the conception that the mind creates expectation, Ellis suggests a focus on many examples of form re-tunes selective attention, making the language salient and thereby easier to acquire. Cues are chosen due to being frequently available and reliable signifiers of meaning. The greater the intensity of a cue the easier it is to retain. Consequently, certain quiet forms would need to be made plain to increase the 'salience ': (eg. Ve in I 've is harder for a learner to perceive.) Learners learn probability of a meaning correlating to a form in a particular context and when understanding needs to be clearer, learners add new forms. Favorable research has also led Van Patten (1995) to suggest the teacher ask questions at the input stage to direct students to the form. In other words, before input becomes potentially erroneous intake, the teacher intervenes to aid processing. However, Goldberg and Casenhiser 's study showed that noisy input inhibits learning. When there are many distractors, children don 't acquire new language. This would point, pedagogically to the notion that language points should be introduced one at a time and that if a student were to try and learn vocabulary and grammar from a text or even try interacting while focusing on form, acquisition may be impeded. To avoid additional, hindering input due to an L2 explanation, Achard (2008) believes concepts should be explained in L1 unless the learner is proficient. He does argue, though, that grammar is needed. Furthermore, he says grammar comes from students drawing conclusions from targeted activities where language repeats. It is easy to see why CL favors explicit instruction on rich input. DISAGREE?
At the theoretical level, CL seeks to describe that a learner mentally grasps lexis/syntax from meaningful input which lodges in the memory coupled with function. At the pedagogical level, rich, manipulated, meaningful input is presented to the learner to facilitate acquisition. Forms are focused upon once meaning has been established. Gordon (2007) describes the PACE model prepared by Adair-Hauk and Donato (2002) that seems to support many of the theories outlined above. In the story-based methodology there is a focus on meaning at the beginning (Presentation), followed by a focus on grammar (Attention), in the next stage, the teacher works with the students to develop rules (Co-construction). Here, the teacher provides questions, not answers. Once learners have the idea, The teacher recasts children 's insights into conventional language, familiarizing students with the terminology and current use. Finally the students try to use the new language in a parallel, meaningful situation or writing task (Extension).
Longitudinal data collection and analysis would be needed to determine the efficiency of the PACE model. Moreover, the entire methodology would need to be deconstructed and examined to ascertain the effectiveness of its parts. That is, how much does the Attention stage , for example, contribute to long-term acquisition? What happens if it is left out? Is it the explicit focus on form that is helping SLA progress or are there implicit processes involved?
Sociocultural linguists see that open ended tasks rather than form orientated settings are the best situations in which to measure interlanguage. Furthermore, where language is seen as communication, grammar is not acquired but participated in (R. Ellis (2009). A question we must ask then is, “Is SLA the learning of grammar rules or a restructuring of self within a new culture?” Lantolf (2000), referring to Vygotsky, sees that language develops within the individual only after it has been formed between people in a meaningful social interaction.
Interaction
In R. Ellis ' (2003) methodology, which is based on the premise that language is acquired through communication, children do not need to be informed of the form even in focused tasks to gain implicit knowledge. In other words, as learners interact with input and output, form is incidental and they automatically generalize. Moreover, R. Ellis (2009), citing studies by N. Ellis, Pienemann and Long, sees language learning as primarily implicit, but, contrary to Krashen 's(1981) beliefs, R. Ellis (2003) sees explicit teaching still has a role in assisting language features to become salient. He contrasts this to situational grammar exercises where learners know the form and intentionally attend to it (Ellis 2003 p. 141). By focusing on target behaviour rather than target language, learners use fast processing and consequently automatize forms. Whereas decontextualized, structured grammar practice, R. Ellis tells us, would only lead to reification of structures and not a long term ability to participate in communication (R. Ellis (2009) pp 146-8). Nonetheless, he does refer to Schmidt (2001), who suggests the design of tasks can orientate and influence a learner 's attention. Even so, the noticing is involuntary. R.Ellis (2009) also discusses VanPatten 's (1996) input processing model, and various input enrichment strategies such as highlighting forms, but puts success down to structuring the input and notes there are problems with learners possibly maintaining incorrect rules (R. Ellis (2009) p.158). Ellis then compares Consciousness Raising Tasks where learners use L2 to talk about TL grammar. This explicit focus on form, at the level of understanding rather than noticing is supposed to facilitate processing. Although research showed some favorable results, Ellis cautions that young children, low-level learners or non-intellectual students may not be able to do such tasks. In order to facilitate implicit automatization then, Ellis believes explicit teaching should supplement a language program rather than sit at the core. Preston(1989), coming from a sociocultural perspective, names explicit learning 'Superordinate interlanguage ' and agrees with Ellis that it may have a role in short-cutting a learner 's attention to a form through salience, instead of a slower, unanalyzed experimentation with vernacular (interlanguage).
Achard (2008) also believes teachers should put students in situations in which native speakers are highly likely to choose a specific linguistic usage. (Of course, it needs to be leveled/ comprehensible to the learner.) Children associate language to social action rather than, for example, verb-article combinations. Achard suggests a teacher narrow the context to foreground a form, identifying motivation for using a form. “Students need to have access to the proper form in order to convey the intended meaning.” (p. 450) However, authentic communication situated in a classroom is seen as a paradox by some:
“The quality and pattern of classroom communication are deficient. Classroom discourse is usually distorted and reduced when compared with naturally occurring discourse, to the effect that the resulting input is impoverished and not sufficiently robust nor varied, affording the learner limited opportunity for hypothesis formation and testing.” Paradowski, (2007)
However, Paradowski (2007) does point out that contemporary linguists accept that formal instruction benefits SLA, without which, input can fail to become intake as learners fail to understand or notice features. How then do teachers reconcile authentic communication with explicit instruction? Explicit examination of form is obviously a teacher-student relationship and only occurs in natural settings outside the school when a NS feels the need to clarify a NNS 's conversation. Migrant children that correct their parents for example, would no doubt be quickly put in their place as they would be out of context. Ellis may be right in proposing an authentic, interaction-based syllabus supplemented by sessions where language taken from input is discussed. The explicit focus-on -form would be made as subtle as possible, the goal being an increase in salience of the form 's importance to a cultural situation. Once again, longitudinal studies would assay the benefits of Ellis 's methodology. Although it would be interesting to see how a CL researcher would approach Ellis 's inconsequential use of explicit teaching.
Returning to Bybee(2008), we find an interesting comparison between 'procedural knowledge '(PK), such as riding a bike, which Bybee sees speakers use to develop grammar, and 'declarative knowledge '(DK), such as facts, which speakers use to contextualize lexis. Initially perceived with DK, learners chunk language in a lexis-like process. Frequency of a tokens appearance leads to PK and the language becomes automatized. Moreover, even as very high frequency words become PK , they are subconsciously sought out by learners so they can then generalize by analogy (Bybee(2008), pp. 225-9). If the analogy is extended to compare DK to explicit knowledge and PK to implicit, while explicit teaching would be used to make a language point and its context clear (facts about the language), learners would be left to work out their own rules implicitly. Furthermore, metalinguistics as DK could be used to analyze what is usually taken for granted in social interactions such as the various expression of functions. This could facilitate an initial awareness of cultural form-function pairing which, with repetition, would become PK. Thus, rather than looking to input for the genesis of generalization, a more holistic story emerges through frequency of types of interaction.
Sociocultural Linguistics
Sociolinguists see there are many factors that can affect input, output and interaction and, ultimately, SLA. In order to answer a question such as, 'Will a learner strive to acquire? ', Block (2007) suggests the issues specific to individuals need to be examined. When investigating a learner Block advises researchers consider 1) microgentic factors (thoughts and feelings), 2) ontogenetic factors (lifetime development) and 3) the global social position of the speaker. Based on data collected in natural settings, sociolinguists can analyse social and situational influences on input and evaluate the communicative competence of a learner 's interlanguage, including their knowledge of appropriacy of forms. Preston(1989) lists 29 variables that can have a marked effect on language use including age, role, gender, power and emotions as well as time, place and length of interaction. What is more, he demands quantitative analysis rather that intuitive reasoning so that language can be predicted with some accuracy. Many of the variables identified by Preston seem to be ignored by Cognitive Linguists as researchers seek to demarcate cognitive processes by detaching the mind 's perception of form-function correspondence from its extended context. Lantolf (2000) considers learners to be speaker/ hearers who develop through interaction. Acquisition is not seen as being 'owned ' in the mind of a learner bur co-produced in a non-separable environment. For example, SLA research may focus on how students produce “should ” for giving advice but they may not consider how the speaker feels about giving advice according to her culture. Moreover, when students attend to form in a classroom, are they able to see the broader social context, its appropriacy and consequences?
Krashen, for example, is criticized for a lack of concern for contextual communication. His theory that language is implicitly acquired can be taken as passivity and not active collaboration (Thorney). SCL sees that i+1 requires teacher sensitivity in providing comprehensible input and questions the playing down of the role of the monitor (that part of the learner which knows the rule). Moreover, Preston (1989) sees that Krashen 's socioaffective filter as an inhibitor is simplistic (Preston(1989) p 64). He alerts us to the fact that adults can use their interactive power to draw from random input, whereas children 's lack of control over conversation may mean less control over comprehensible input. Needless to say, teenagers may also lag with input as they struggle with identity.
In accordance with a learner 's social standing, her interlanguage will develop as she participates in situations through time that require certain functions. Sociocultural linguists, however, as mentioned above, do not like to deal with functions separately. Yet, even though sociolinguists have a strong case for those involved in SLA to consider extensive variables, they need not be so insistent that their theory be central. Take slips of the tongue, for instance. If there are physical processes that can cause a change in language then sociolinguists must concede that the mechanics of the brain must play a part in acquisition. Preston may argue that language can be socially predictable, and in formal situations or in participation which relies on norms that may be the case, but what about that language which is unpredictable? Without spontaneous innovation, for instance, learners of L2 would be very restricted in their interactions, not to mention the comedians and artists who would soon lose their patrons. Answers to the puzzle of generalization and creativity may seem to lie in CL but it must be looked at through a SCL lens in order to make sense of the way learners generalize through interaction. Forms cannot be separated from the sphere of communication, which is another reason why learning situations need to be as authentic as possible. Schools, however, rendered as Declarative Knowledge by virtue of formalized procedures which contextualize learning can make use of socialising to allow learners to be attentive to expected intersections of various cultural situations. Just as a team benefits from Time Out for the coach to comment on the game, learners become socialized in reflecting on valued form-functions. Furthermore, a teacher must know the various states of a learner 's interlanguage, background and affective or inhibiting factors,in order to develop appropriate, confidence raising interactive input and output tasks where form is frequent and salient. If education is 'salient ' in a learner 's social experience and has proved to be beneficial, then learners will continue to make use of it.
Clearly, the above examples show that CL and SCL do not have to be separated in the scheme of SLA.
Reconciling Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Linguistics
Rather than thinking of the process as internal to an individual, if we take the space of Ping Li 's (2006) 'crypotype ' development to be interactive communication, we move to a social harmonizing of shared general meanings. Input can be seen as a combination of sensory perceptions including sound, vision and shared sociocultural history vibrating in a complex event that resonates within the participants ' common time-space domain. Frequency of shared sensory patterns leads to culturally infused rule-like linguistic norms. Socially constructed categories intersect in new situations and novel forms are produced. Since Langacker, a cognitive linguist, argues that frequent usage events are abstracted into commonality (Langacker (2008)), a social reverberation theory as described above attempts to bridge the gap between cognitive and sociocultural linguistics by suggesting the neural networks of speakers/ listeners resonate.
I understand this is intuitive speculation and realize research would need to be done to ascertain the degree to which a repetition of situation can lead to predictive social and linguistic behaviour. However, there are theorists who have ventured into this area such as Haden 's(1962) 'A resonance theory for linguistics ' although this theory was more about phonemes.
What is more, any new theory should be able to take account of empirical research. Both sociocultural and cognitive theories may attempt to explain, for example, the theoretical fundamental difference in the cognitive processes between adults and children: Gordon(2007) describes recent research in neurolinguistics, where, due to advances in MBI and PET technology, scientists have located brain activity related to language use: The “Broca 's area” which controls fluency, grammatical proficiency and the abstract glue that groups words. The “Wernicke 's area that seems to be in charge of language communication. Cornell University studies showed late learners used different parts of the Broca 's area, the same as younger learners. At a certain age this area closes off but part of the area is reserved. Rather than completely passing off this investigation as irrelevant to a communication based theory as some sociocultural linguists might be tempted to do, we should try to examine how the data retrieved from 'brains ' can assist interactive theory. Delving deeper and tentatively into the field of particle physics, if humans can be thought of as interconnected, vibrating particles of matter that seek resonance with each other, then both micro and macro explanations of language participation can be observed. Taking fundamental difference, for example, we could look microscopically at patterns of reverberation that have set in and aged creating fossilization of the mechanics of the brain. We could then observe the physical, psychological and social consequences. It could be that resonating particles residing in two beings correspond to cultural interaction. I do wonder, though, if the instruments of investigation we currently possess would be sufficient to conduct such an experiment that can account for both micro and macro viewpoints.
Conclusion
There is a current danger of teachers harking back to an imitative pedagogy such as behaviorism as cognitive theorists argue the case of frequency of input. However, as sociocultural variables are considered and the importance of understanding the background and motivation of a learner is realized, those involved in SLA will seek to move beyond form-focused input-based methodologies to a variety of real, culturally situated, communicative, form-rich input/ output tasks which allow students to become aware of the qualities of their own interactions so that they can move toward an implicit understanding of contextualized patterns. This suggestion would probably gain support from Gass, & Selinker(2008) who see negotiation as a trigger for adjustment where the learner who gets the gist of input through interaction accesses internal capacities, uses output productively and gathers the TL becoming aware of discrepancies between TL and IL.
As SLA researchers start to understand the effects various cultures have on each other, they may see that social situations have their own 'spreading networks ' of meaning, situations, culture and feelings that resonate within us: that it is the intersection of L1 and L2 culture that creates the novel utterances of interlanguage which should be attended to sensitively to accommodate difficulties learners might be having. Researchers will furthermore understand that they are a part of the extended social reality of a learners SLA and investigate their own position of power accordingly.
The goal of research may be understanding but what is understanding without practical application? While teachers of SLA make best use of both CL and SCL theories before them they must look forward to clarifying research that bridges disciplines and allows the efficient facilitation of second language participation.
vittynyetdjiangna yopi sepi cyummnyet corringoo sepgni
References
Achard, M. (2008) Teaching Construal Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar (Ch 17). in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Bybee, J. (2008) Usage Based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition (Ch 10) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Ellis, N (2008) Usage-Based and Form-Focused Language Acquisition. in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ellis(1985) FLOTE CD.
Gass, S and Selinker, L (2008). Second Language Acquisition: AN Introductory Course. Routledge, New York.(G&S)
Goldberg,A. and Casenhiser D, (2008) Construction Learning and Second Language Acquisition (Chapter 9) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Gordon, T (2007). Teaching Young Children a Second Language.Westport, Conn. : Praeger Publishers, in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Haden, Ernest Faber, (1962) A resonance theory for linguistics Mouton,
Hudson, R.. (2008) “Word Grammar, Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning and Teaching” (Chapter 5) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar as a basis for language instruction in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Odlin, T. (2008) Conceptual Transfer and Meaningful Extensions (Chapter 13) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Paradowski, Michał B. (2007) Exploring the L1/L2 Interface. A Study of Polish Advanced EFL Learners. Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, pp. 64–85. In http://knol.google.com/k/mbp/utility-of-formal-instruction-and-focus/2qpvzotrrhys1/32?domain=knol.google.com&locale=en#
Ping Li (Capter 6) “In Search of Meaning: The Acquisition of Semantic Structures and Morphological Systems” . In Luchjenbroers, J (2006) Cognitive Linguistic Investigations, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
Plantolf, J,P.(ed.) (2000) “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning” Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Preston, (1989) “Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition” Blackwell,Oxford, UK.
Tyler, A. (2008) “Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction” (CH 18) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
References: Achard, M. (2008) Teaching Construal Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar (Ch 17). in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Bybee, J. (2008) Usage Based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition (Ch 10) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Ellis, N (2008) Usage-Based and Form-Focused Language Acquisition. in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Ellis, R. (2003) Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ellis(1985) FLOTE CD. Gass, S and Selinker, L (2008). Second Language Acquisition: AN Introductory Course. Routledge, New York.(G&S) Goldberg,A Gordon, T (2007). Teaching Young Children a Second Language.Westport, Conn. : Praeger Publishers, in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Haden, Ernest Faber, (1962) A resonance theory for linguistics Mouton, Hudson, R. Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar as a basis for language instruction in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Odlin, T. (2008) Conceptual Transfer and Meaningful Extensions (Chapter 13) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Plantolf, J,P.(ed.) (2000) “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning” Oxford, Oxford University Press. Preston, (1989) “Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition” Blackwell,Oxford, UK. Tyler, A. (2008) “Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction” (CH 18) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Sociocultural or Cognitive or both?
by Shane Tholen
Introduction
How do people best learn, acquire and make use of a second language? Researchers and theorists in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) have had a relatively short history of grappling with this question. Indeed, the answer to the above question has led to considerable classroom and field research as theorists have sought to support behavioral, humanistic, cognitive linguistic and, more recently, sociocultural linguistic perspectives. If not for a perceived lack in particular theories or questions left unanswered in research, an understanding of how SLA works would not progress and students of language would not gain opportunities to improve the efficiency of acquisition. It is the purpose of this literature review to describe how certain theories have tried to supersede older hypotheses and to describe two main, contemporary linguistic outlooks, namely sociocultural and cognitive theories that currently seem to be at odds in the field of SLA. Furthermore, it will look at areas of SLA such as a first language 's (L1) effect on a second (L2), Universal Grammar and the role of Input, Output and Interaction suggesting further research such as longitudinal studies that take account of synchronous processes in situational language events.
A brief history
In a Western context, SLA research can probably be traced back to Humbolt (1767-1835) who began investigating languages as rule-governed, heterogeneous systems. This stance was later referred to by Chomsky in the 1950s when linguistics studies were in full swing after Whorf 's (1956) 1930s investigation of Hopi led to his "linguistic relativity hypothesis" where particular languages are believed to influence specific ways of thinking, understanding and belief. Lado 's(1957) work on contrastive analysis was also influential at that time. His theory states that L1 has a direct influence on L2 acquisition and thereby needs to be contrasted to find inhibiting discrepancies. Chomsky, however, searched for similarities in language structure among all humans and with his theory of the existence of an innate Universal Grammar (UG) he became one of the world 's most influential writers on linguistics. UG theory goes beyond the 'mimicry ' of behaviorism to account for the infinite number of phrases humans can create after limited input (poverty of stimulus). Later, the idea of innate grammar, which is hard to prove or disprove, helped shape the form of contemporary SLA theory. For example, Selinker 's (1972) notion of the existence of an 'interlanguage ' (IL) is also based on learners forming rule-based systems. Furthermore, Krashen( 1985), basing his hypothesis on Chomsky 's Language acquisition Device (LAD) which is said to reside in the brain, postulated that learners automatically acquire language if the input is at a comprehensible level (i+1 model). Arguments over the role of input and output have since been at the fore of SLA debates with questions as to what best triggers UG. Swain (1985), for instance, believes an output focused language practice would lead to improved processing of syntax. More recently, however, innate grammar has been questioned by cognitive and computational linguists such as N. Ellis, Langacker and Goldberg who propose language use can be explained in terms of activated neurological networks (connectionism). Still, cognitive linguistics (CL) has not been without criticism, especially from sociocultural linguists (SCL) and theorists such as Lantolf and Preston(1989). These writers argue that language does not exist in a 'black box ' within a learner but is socially, communally and culturally co-created. R. Ellis(2003), on the other hand, is interested in the insights that both perspectives can offer on SLA.
A more detailed view
Influence of a learner 's first language (L1) on second language (L2)
Historical views:
At the outset of modern linguistics we find behaviourism, which believes language to be a case of stimulus-response. Bloomfield (1933) described speech as being habitually formed from mimicry and analogizing, beginning with the babbling child said to imitate the sound of the adult in context. Language was seen to be cumulative and, in this way, old knowledge was seen to affect new knowledge. As this was applied to language acquisition, it led to a theory that L2 was directly affected by L1(Gass and Selinker (2008)) .
Lado(1957), who drew on behaviourism, believed individuals tend to transfer form and meaning from L1 to L2 both productively and receptively. Therefore, contrastive analysis between L1 and L2 was perceived as useful for an effective pedagogy. Researchers who looked at the output of L2 and compared it to the output of L1 believed a negative (interfering) or positive(facilitating) transfer would be shown. Lado also judged L2 acquisition (L2A) to be very different from L1 acquisition (L1A) due to transfer. He saw that problems arose in L2A due to habits formed in childhood L1A. So, a teacher would focus on students learning differences between L1 and L2. Even so, contrastive analysis failed to predict patterns. Consequently, error analysis gained credence (Gass and Selinker p. 97).
The main attack on behaviourism, however, came from Chomsky (1959), who argued language is rule-based rather than habit based (Ellis (1990)). For example, inhibition arising from L1 could not account for generalisations such as , “He comed yesterday.” Another criticism leveled at bahaviourist output analysis said that it could not always show what difficulties are taking place within the learner. Theorists such as Wardaugh (1970) argued that difference between L1 and L2 was not enough to account for learner difficulties. In the 70s, linguists did accept that L1 influenced L2 but it was not clear how and when. Even so, the use of repetition and drill in the classroom that had resulted from a behaviourist methodology trying to force a change in behaviour (for example audio-lingualism (see Ellis (1990)) was abandoned in favor of a learner-centred approach that examined how L2 was being used. On top of this, nativists argued that it was learners who controlled their own language acquisition rather than it evolving from exterior manipulation (see Ellis (1990)).
Current theories accept L1 does affect L2 but not 1:1 as in behaviorist theory. Rocca (2007), for example, has shown through research that SLA is complex and that child learners are indeed influenced by L1. What 's more, a study by Laufer and Eliasson (1993) showed difficulties related to large differences between L1 and L2 can cause avoidance.
However, if the learner sees similarities between L1 and L2, they see that L1 can be helpful (Gass and Selinker (2008) p. 143) In differential learning (Ard and Homburg, 1983, 1992) it is shown that L1 can infulence L2 in many ways. For instance, when learners with a close relationship between L1 and L2 spend more time on studying the differences between their native language and the target language, the focus on new lexis can lead to facilitation of acquisition.(see Gass and Selinker (2008)p. 140).
Presently, both cognitive linguists and sociocultural linguists also have their views on L1 's effect on L2:
Contemporary views: cognitive:
N. Ellis (2008) is a cognitive linguist who sees that L2 changes according to L1, as the mind creates expectations. He explains that language processing is very sensitive to prior usage in that the mind perceives one sound will probably lead to another. So, for a learner of TL there needs to be a high frequency of cues reliably foregrounding new forms in order to override the influence of L1.
Even though learners are here reduced to floating minds in a decontextualized space, N. Ellis 's hypothesis does raise some interesting questions. For example, if certain forms are not salient enough to become part of the probability equations, can a learner ' reach native-like proficiency? Subconscious probability projection would require 'noticing ' (see Schmidt (2001) cited in R. Ellis (2009)), explicit teaching and the use of metalinguistic strategies if one is to have any chance of fluency. Another question raised is, 'How do expectations networked in L1 affect perception of an L2 situation? ' Given the variables they perceive, when learners expect a situation to yield a predictable behavior, as it does in an L1 situation, what happens when this expectation is not met in L2? For example, if a speaker is used to supermarkets but encounters an unusual degree of politeness of a sales-representative, will the destabilization affect their language use? Research is obviously needed on areas of culture clash and its affect on long term retention of forms.
Odlin (2008) also questions whether speakers can become native in L2. Where research shows L1 greatly influences L2A, there are those who believe L1 gets in the way of L2A whereas others judge L1 can be used to teach L2. Odlin cites Whorf (1956) ,for example, who argued L1 gets in the way of L2. Whorf, though, believed L1 could be used to teach L2 and that L1 rules lose their 'binding power ' when they are made conscious. Whorf also claimed L1 and L2 are fundamentally different. However, Odlin argues there must be some transfer of meaning from L1 to L2 otherwise it would be impossible to translate. Even so, he does inquire about the transference of concept. As language exists in space/time, he asks if a learner 's L2 cultural conception of space time can be the same as that of a native speaker? For example, Japanese speakers use climb for up. They cannot readily see that we can use “climb down” Finally, Odlin suggests learners correlate L2 lexis with the closest counterpart in L1.
Odlin, himself recognizes the need for more research in the area of conceptual transference. He questions the pervasiveness of the cognitive linking of L2 grammar back to L1 but postulated memory processes may be involved where speakers encode experience (p.330). We can forgive Odlin in trying to distill the human to a process of mind as his discussion remains open to cultural questions, albeit internalized. In investigating language transference, we need to ask questions like what conceptual and cultural expectations are being brought to L2?
Hudson (2008) argues the richness of L1, due to its copious links, should lead L2. He further proposed words are cognitively networked. That when a word comes to the fore, there is 'spreading activation ' and other, co-joined nodes are activated. Uttered words or “tokens” are given allotments if they share commonality with sorted words “types”(p. 103).
Although useful for analogy in Sociocultural linguistics (see below), Hudson 's view is mechanistic and as such, inadequate. The computer like model takes no account of affective variables within learners nor cultural or social aspects (see Preston below), There is little in Hudson 's theory that wouldn 't give rise to a resurgence of behaviorist practices. Even so, although on the surface it may seem that it completely goes against theories of immersion, it actually points to the value of a learner gaining as much stimulus as possible from L2, which, I believe, would include the culture of L2. The 'newly 'networked nodes ' should create strong between words and experiences. Naturally, the learner will seek similarities to 'link in the new knowledge to existing concepts. Even so, an L1 that leads L2 would risk reinforcing the dominating presence of L1, especially where the goal of L2A is to become 'native-like '.
It would be interesting to see research done on the effect of metalanguage in an L1/ L2 relationship. Is a discussion of similarities between L1 and L2 best done within an immersion setting or would a teacher need to rely on bilingual aids to facilitate meta-conversation (see Preston (1989)). From a sociocultural perspective (see below), a teacher should be sensitive to identity issues a learner may be having as they shift from an L1 context to L2. There may be cultural implications inherent within L1 that could affect L2A. For example, students from some religious backgrounds may be adverse to using a particular means of learning such as using dance or images of people. An overview of how the world 's languages interact with other languages is obviously logistically impossible, but surely a teacher would benefit from some kind of overview on the world 's major languages as they interact with English. Although variables such as individual differences could render such a resource superficial, it would certainly be a helpful starting point for any teacher. Obviously in SLA there is more at stake than just words. If CL wishes to sincerely investigate the strength that association of L1 to L2 gives to SLA, researchers should look into the long-term effects of frequent coupling of specific lexis groups with particular individual and cultural situations.
Contemporary views: Sociolinguistics
Preston (1989) asks SLA researchers to think about the attitude and motivation a learner has toward L2 as well as the relationship between L1 and L2: What gains will learners make from fluency, and how much will they identify with new forms and culture? He asks if learners risk losing their L1 status or whether the L2 culture is even attractive. For example, do they want to join the new culture or is the acquisition instrumental? Furthermore, the status the new society gives to L1 will have a marked effect on the learner, whether it allows for positive bilingualism or demands strict integration which can lead to alienation. In other words, SLA may challenge a learner 's identity (Preston (1989) p.59). It should be noted that sociocultural theory has cast doubt on cognitive researchers ' means of acquiring evidence. Ellis (2009) cites a study by Coughlan and Duff (1994) which shows a researcher plays a large role in the production of language. What is more, using language to coerce, manipulate or control, data collection in a laboratory setting can be viewed as a false environment. (Preston (1989)). Preston is thereby careful to consider the situation of the field worker when collecting data known as the 'observer 's paradox ' (Preston (1989))p. 7). A researcher may also need to investigate power play and the social relationships in the interaction setting in order to understand the particular instances of SLA. Whereas, on the part of the cognitive linguists, there is no mention of such considerations, any research in the area of SLA would need to be careful to acknowledge the 'ethnography of communication ' (Preston (1989)p. 10). Consequently, teachers should not insist on native speaker (NS) norms but rather facilitate discovery and let learners make up their own minds based on critical evaluation. Gender issues could also play a role on the interaction between L1 and L2 with research showing men generally talking more, interrupting and controlling the conversation more than women who tended to be the ones asking more questions (Preston (1989) p.72), Preston does point out, though, that this can be culturally influenced. Furthermore, in order to facilitate cultural understanding from L1 to L2, Preston suggests using successful bilingual role models (Preston (1989) p. 83).
What 's more, one is bound to ask, how the L1 culture is perceived by the L2 community (see Preston p. 162). Such is the circumstance in Western Australia where children of 457 visa holders are being thrown in the deep end (see West Australian newspaper ,Wednesday 20 May ). One may also wish to ask about the different social relationships in various localities around Perth. For example, do parents of learners disempowered in L2 communities rely on their children for communication? (see Gordon (2008).
In light of sociocultural concerns, it would be interesting for researchers to investigate the relationship between socio-linguistically identified variables and form retention. For example, do pleasurable, painful or significant events lead to stronger word associations than complacent or insignificant situations? Which forms form substantial bonds to particular areas of culture? Furthermore, it might be more convincing for cognitive linguists if quantitative sociolinguistics was to prove the effectiveness of contextualization on acquisition compared to decontextualized language. It is highly unlikely, for example that a learner can get all they need from simply reading a textbook. Sociocultural linguists argue that a language is communication, that it is a shared process. In that case, how does a learner put together words that he has never experienced unitedly before?
The ability of a learner to generalize
Chomsky and Universal Grammar
How do children acquire language so quickly given the input is limited? This perplexing questions led Chomsky (1975) to develop the concept of Universal Grammar (UG) which explains that language is a system with its own rules. Chomsky proposed the notion of the existence of core grammars in all natural languages. He believed that input alone cannot lead children to complex, adult grammar because contexts cannot supply reasons to all variety of forms. (Gass and Selinker (2008)) This led to nativist theories which state that some aspects of language learning are innate. Where behaviourists theorized humans parroted the external language of others, from the nativist perspective it is mental grammar which mediates between sound and meaning in language.
UG is a contentious issue in SLA research. Some theorists such as Krashen and R. Ellis have taken it onboard and elaborated upon it, whereas others, especially those in the field of cognitive science, seem eager to dismiss the notion.
Chomsky 's UG can be explained with the help of the following illustration.
Observe these pictures with accompanying non-sense language:
1. cyummnyet corringa seppi
2. dyummnyet djoordi seppi 3. grummnyet gronjoo sepgni
4. dyummnyet dordi seppi
5. cyummnyet corringoo sepgni
6. grum????? groonji ????
Without asking, and without being given meaning, rules are quickly attended to. There may be questions or insecurities about the language such as not knowing the tense, but there is some confidence about what goes in 6. grum????? groonji ???? How is this understanding reached? It is not an English construct so one cannot depend on their L1 to interact. Actually, underpinning this is an assumption that there is purpose to the task and an intention to communicate something so we try our best to make sense of it. One may guess that it is a verb and be confident it is not the subject, and yet no-one has said anything about which is which. We certainly have a predisposition to automatically search for commonality in input which allows us to generalize. But, is this due to a LAD (Chomsky) which allows us to grasp understanding, automatically filtering out nouns, predicates and auxiliaries? Cognitive linguists seem to be going to great pains to dispute the existence of a UG and describe acquisition as a mechanistic networking of form-function correspondence. Achard (2008), for instance, tries to persuade us that language is a collection: It does not generate or construct anything new. Grammar is seen as a schema or template that generalizes. However, this input-only viewpoint doesn 't seem to account for the ability to create codes. During the creation of the above example, rules did go through my mind (L1 to L2) permitting me to generalize and create new forms, but there had been zero input of this particular language. Even so, these invented codes were based on playing with grammatical knowledge which seems to give weight to the existence of UG. The question then is, can input alone theories account for the creation of novel forms such as creoles and sign language?
Cognitive Linguistics
Goldberg and Casenhiser (2008) dispute Chomsky 's universalism believing language to be constructed from input.
Although they agree with most linguists that form itself is useless without meaning, according to their Word Grammar theory, communication consists of speakers using a network of learned, interrelated form-function correspondences. In other words, a speaker learns to associate formal patterns with meanings and is then able to generalize. Goldberg and Casenhiser showed through experiments that children make links between novel constructions and meanings. After minimal input, the children were able to generalize from a previously introduced pattern to correctly identify a novel verb conjugation eg. “the sailor the pond naifoed”. In other words, they quickly correlated phoneme with meaning. All that is needed for “abstract categories to be facilitated is “shared concrete similarity” of phoneme in a meaningful context.” The fact that Goldberg and Casenhiser 's example grammar does not occur naturally led them to dispute Universal Grammar. Since usage based input can be manipulated, children don 't switch on a previously installed lexical path. One cannot help feeling, though, that the researchers missed the point of UG. There are still rules involved. The children were still using their capacity to generalize. It is more a question of whether the form-focused input led to rule-like behavior.
Ping Li (2006),who observes SLA from a cognitive perspective, refers to a computational context study by Burgess and Lund (1997, 1996) where a model mapped the probability of lexical co-occurrence, and analogizes that learners cognitively track speech through memory and are sensitive to the probability of words going together. The connectionist perspective views SLA as a neurological process where a large number of micro-processing neurons activate in parallel. Knowledge, then is seen as 'patterns of activation distributed across neurons, and that new knowledge is 'formed through adaptation of the strengths of neuron connections. In contrast to particular, symbolic rules represented in the mind (UG), Ping Li suggests generalization occurs due to 'crypotypes ' or shared general meanings which could be lexical or morphological. Based on input, active units of neurons and neighboring units self organize. The next time the same input appears, the neurons respond more strongly. Parallelling SLA to the computational model, Ping Li showed 'crypotypes ' can lead to statistical representation which displays rule-like behaviour (Ping Li (2006)p. 129).
Similarly, Hudson (2008) explains that general and specific patterns are stored, that the system creates “super categories” that allow us to generalize. For example, 'paper ' may be linked to notes, books , origami, napkins, recycling etc. Hudson proposed that when a word comes to the fore, there is 'spreading activation ' of the cognitive network and other, co-joined nodes are activated. He also explains that tokens that don 't fit are interesting and are more likely to be remembered. The more the networks spread, the higher incidence of generalization and the more likely the word will become activated.
In other words, the senses perceive a new pattern of language which correlates to a particular functional situation; existing correspondences help filter the information, separating and categorizing form-function pairings which are then stored for later use. New language could be created by a listener perceiving input similarities in utterances. Consequently, mimicked slips of the tongue, and mispronunciation could lead to a creation of new forms.
Chomsky(2002) has gone on to propose that language is learned by lexicon (minimalism) (Gass, & Selinker (2008)p. 172). This parallels cognitive research where syntax is acquired in meaningful chunks (Bybee 2008): The morphemes aren 't salient and form is analogized by the learner understanding contextualized patterns. Furthermore, Achard (2008) argues that grammar can be taught like lexis because syntax is inseperable from 'semantic organisation ' (Achard (2008) p. 438) Although both nativists and cognitive linguists are fundamentally opposed in their acceptance of UG, both give importance to the role of input in SLA. Whereas cognitive linguists may look at input as a collection which does not generate or construct anything new, nativists such as Krashen see that input sparks innate grammar processes. But surely motivation plays a big part.
If a researcher were interested to see whether creoles could be transformed into standardized usage or whether standard English users could use a creole based on input, sociocultural variables, such as the status of the language groups involved and motivation to acquire, would certainly need to be taken into consideration (see Preston (1989)). Indeed, such considerations may even lead one to question the ethics of research for the sake of proving or disproving theories as to how acquisition takes place, as certain language groups may not even be interested in changing or altering their collective identity. Clearly, the giving or receiving of messages may not be the primary motivation for a speech event and this is why Preston sees form-function pairing as naïve. Whether in chunks, discrete lexis or contextualized, research into the power of input, from a communictive perspective, is weak unless the interactions involved are examined within its cultural context.
Sociocultural Linguistics
The degree of influence of external conditions on SLA is one area where cognitive linguistics (CL) and sociocultural linguists (SCL)disagree. Where Cognitive Grammar (CG) believes a linguistic event is centred around a speaker 's decisions, using memory, planning, problem solving and other attributes used for other processes (Achard (2008) p. 436), sociocultural theorists believe language cannot be divorced from communication. Ellis(2009) explains that “mediation serves as the means by which internal mediation is achieved”, that language is participated in and not acquired. (p.176) Furthermore, Preston assures us language can be predicted fairly accurately from information about a person 's social group where interactive variables such as setting, content and relationship contribute to speech behaviour (Preston pp. 120-186) . Generalisation, then, can be seen to be facilitated socially rather than cognitively. Using norms (or particular forms) to communicate speakers co-construct meaning. A novel utterance then must be a restructuring of previous interactions: Not an internalized set of memories but a inclination to produce form-function-culture correlation at an intersection of sociocultural situations. In a novel situation, needs will have to be met by using interlanguage forms of L2 norms, or the speakers will risk miscommunication. Various conventions perceived by the speaker/ listeners will be offered to the interactive space between them. Again, language does not exist in the “black box” of the mind. Even thought could be seen to be converging echoes of previous interactions bouncing off an imaginary social sphere: the trepidation of conveyance.
This view may actually conflict with a Universal Grammar existing in the mind of a person. There seem to be too many cognitive and social variables to say that all humanity possesses an instrument that seeks particular rules. Even investigations into linguistic categories have unearthed significant differences in the structure of languages such as elision of subject (see Leiden 2006) Yet, as languages seem to display rules, there are still researchers who find UG worthy of inquiry. Moreover, since the issue is unresolved, pedagogical ramifications cannot be agreed upon: Do teachers aim to merely provide input for building, try to awaken innate grammar (implicit learning), or teach grammar rules (explicit)? From a SCL perspective, rather than thinking of language learning as dependent upon an internal sensitivity to syntax, one would have to observe the intersection of social variables to predict probabilistic rule-like behaviour.
The role of Input, Output and Interaction
Input vs Output
In Behaviorism input is crucial to mimicry. Consequently, when behaviorism flagged, interest in input waned. The theory of innate language then developed where minimal input is the trigger to processes that occur in the mind. As a result, input 's importance diminished in linguistic circles. Corder(1967) then compared input(=available language) to intake(=the language actually taken in). Ferguson (1971) then distinguished 'foreigner talk ' (simplified language spoken for the benefit of the non-native speaker) from other styles of communication and interest in input resurfaced. In 1978, based on L1=L2 hypothesis that L1 and L2 learners use the same strategies, McLaughlin proposed that input quality was central to SLA and the concept of immersion came into favor. Perceiving problems of learners being bombarded with input beyond their comprehension, however, Krashen (1985) suggested input should be slightly ahead of the learner 's current state of grammatical knowledge, in other words, comprehensible (i+1). He also believed the LAD was activated by input. A teacher, therefore, should provide sufficient i+1 input in context, acquisition will then be automatic (Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 346). However, Swain (1985) criticized input alone approaches as being insufficient for acquisition because meaning can be interpreted and communicated without attention to syntax. In other words, input only could lead to elision of non-salient lexis, possibly leading to fossilization of an IL divergent from the TL (Achard 2008). Swain suggested learners make use of an Output focused practice where they are forced to put correct language to use. In this way, learners could move from semantic processing to syntactic processing. Currently, studies are showing that pedagogy where students are given opportunities to incorporate new forms with feedback on output are benefiting acquisition (see Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 329). Prior to Swain, output was viewed as practicing what had been acquired (presentation-practice models) or as a way to elicit more input. Swain, however, sees that output has an impact on syntax and morphology.
Recently, studies have also shown that input alone is not enough and that negative evidence is necessary to show what is not possible (R. Ellis 1993). However, investigations have also demonstrated that negative evidence seems to help with short term acquisition whereas numerous doses of additional focused input has proven to aid long term retention (Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 331). Examples of a request clarification might be, “Sorry?” whereas recasts, where a teacher repeats the phrase corrected may provide salience for learners that are developmentally ready. Even so, the teacher must check that the students have understood the feedback. Gass and Selinker (2008) take up Swain 's ideas in suggesting that the processing of meaning alone cannot lead to syntax of language being understood which they see as a requirement for production. In view of this, teachers should be aware that output creates an opportunity for students to receive feedback. A result of this would be students 'noticing ' their language and thereby being able to reassess. It must be remembered, however that often children don 't respond to correction (Pinker 1984). Feedback, therefore, cannot be relied upon. Moreover, for feedback to work, a learner must notice it and use memory to compare TL and IL (Gass, & Selinker(2008) p. 354). Nonetheless, it should not be abandoned as Saxton (2005) does show that contrasting grammar in feedback can create conflict in the learner leading to self-correction. Output based learning seems to argue for explicit teaching of forms in the output stage, but where does this leave input?
The belief in the 70s and 80s that explicit teaching leads only to explicit knowledge has given way to an acceptance that explicit manipulation of input can lead to a fusion of implicit and explicit knowledge in the learner (Gass, & Selinker(2008)p. 387). Research useful for pedagogy seems to support an initial focus on meaning followed by an explicit focus on form. However, Long (1991) advises a teacher not to focus on formS but meaning where forms are embedded. Moreover, Gass et. al. (1999) showed that a focus on both form and meaning was a cognitive burden and that syntax improved once meaning had been established.
Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive linguistic (CL) approaches seem to be favoring rich input (for example, Ping Li (2006)and Bybee(2008)) with focus on form strategies in place to counterbalance potential elision.
Bybee 's (2008) research, for example, showed that repeated exposure to practice developed cognitive structures. He sees acquisition as a categorisation process which “creates a vast network of phonological, semantic and pragmatic associations.” (Bybee (2008) p.220). It is a constructionist view with language seen as stored form-function association which occurs through experiences being mapped in memory by similarity/ difference. What 's more, according to Bybee, high token frequency aids acquisition. N. Ellis (2008) also believes frequency of forms at input facilitates acquisition. Based on the conception that the mind creates expectation, Ellis suggests a focus on many examples of form re-tunes selective attention, making the language salient and thereby easier to acquire. Cues are chosen due to being frequently available and reliable signifiers of meaning. The greater the intensity of a cue the easier it is to retain. Consequently, certain quiet forms would need to be made plain to increase the 'salience ': (eg. Ve in I 've is harder for a learner to perceive.) Learners learn probability of a meaning correlating to a form in a particular context and when understanding needs to be clearer, learners add new forms. Favorable research has also led Van Patten (1995) to suggest the teacher ask questions at the input stage to direct students to the form. In other words, before input becomes potentially erroneous intake, the teacher intervenes to aid processing. However, Goldberg and Casenhiser 's study showed that noisy input inhibits learning. When there are many distractors, children don 't acquire new language. This would point, pedagogically to the notion that language points should be introduced one at a time and that if a student were to try and learn vocabulary and grammar from a text or even try interacting while focusing on form, acquisition may be impeded. To avoid additional, hindering input due to an L2 explanation, Achard (2008) believes concepts should be explained in L1 unless the learner is proficient. He does argue, though, that grammar is needed. Furthermore, he says grammar comes from students drawing conclusions from targeted activities where language repeats. It is easy to see why CL favors explicit instruction on rich input. DISAGREE?
At the theoretical level, CL seeks to describe that a learner mentally grasps lexis/syntax from meaningful input which lodges in the memory coupled with function. At the pedagogical level, rich, manipulated, meaningful input is presented to the learner to facilitate acquisition. Forms are focused upon once meaning has been established. Gordon (2007) describes the PACE model prepared by Adair-Hauk and Donato (2002) that seems to support many of the theories outlined above. In the story-based methodology there is a focus on meaning at the beginning (Presentation), followed by a focus on grammar (Attention), in the next stage, the teacher works with the students to develop rules (Co-construction). Here, the teacher provides questions, not answers. Once learners have the idea, The teacher recasts children 's insights into conventional language, familiarizing students with the terminology and current use. Finally the students try to use the new language in a parallel, meaningful situation or writing task (Extension).
Longitudinal data collection and analysis would be needed to determine the efficiency of the PACE model. Moreover, the entire methodology would need to be deconstructed and examined to ascertain the effectiveness of its parts. That is, how much does the Attention stage , for example, contribute to long-term acquisition? What happens if it is left out? Is it the explicit focus on form that is helping SLA progress or are there implicit processes involved?
Sociocultural linguists see that open ended tasks rather than form orientated settings are the best situations in which to measure interlanguage. Furthermore, where language is seen as communication, grammar is not acquired but participated in (R. Ellis (2009). A question we must ask then is, “Is SLA the learning of grammar rules or a restructuring of self within a new culture?” Lantolf (2000), referring to Vygotsky, sees that language develops within the individual only after it has been formed between people in a meaningful social interaction.
Interaction
In R. Ellis ' (2003) methodology, which is based on the premise that language is acquired through communication, children do not need to be informed of the form even in focused tasks to gain implicit knowledge. In other words, as learners interact with input and output, form is incidental and they automatically generalize. Moreover, R. Ellis (2009), citing studies by N. Ellis, Pienemann and Long, sees language learning as primarily implicit, but, contrary to Krashen 's(1981) beliefs, R. Ellis (2003) sees explicit teaching still has a role in assisting language features to become salient. He contrasts this to situational grammar exercises where learners know the form and intentionally attend to it (Ellis 2003 p. 141). By focusing on target behaviour rather than target language, learners use fast processing and consequently automatize forms. Whereas decontextualized, structured grammar practice, R. Ellis tells us, would only lead to reification of structures and not a long term ability to participate in communication (R. Ellis (2009) pp 146-8). Nonetheless, he does refer to Schmidt (2001), who suggests the design of tasks can orientate and influence a learner 's attention. Even so, the noticing is involuntary. R.Ellis (2009) also discusses VanPatten 's (1996) input processing model, and various input enrichment strategies such as highlighting forms, but puts success down to structuring the input and notes there are problems with learners possibly maintaining incorrect rules (R. Ellis (2009) p.158). Ellis then compares Consciousness Raising Tasks where learners use L2 to talk about TL grammar. This explicit focus on form, at the level of understanding rather than noticing is supposed to facilitate processing. Although research showed some favorable results, Ellis cautions that young children, low-level learners or non-intellectual students may not be able to do such tasks. In order to facilitate implicit automatization then, Ellis believes explicit teaching should supplement a language program rather than sit at the core. Preston(1989), coming from a sociocultural perspective, names explicit learning 'Superordinate interlanguage ' and agrees with Ellis that it may have a role in short-cutting a learner 's attention to a form through salience, instead of a slower, unanalyzed experimentation with vernacular (interlanguage).
Achard (2008) also believes teachers should put students in situations in which native speakers are highly likely to choose a specific linguistic usage. (Of course, it needs to be leveled/ comprehensible to the learner.) Children associate language to social action rather than, for example, verb-article combinations. Achard suggests a teacher narrow the context to foreground a form, identifying motivation for using a form. “Students need to have access to the proper form in order to convey the intended meaning.” (p. 450) However, authentic communication situated in a classroom is seen as a paradox by some:
“The quality and pattern of classroom communication are deficient. Classroom discourse is usually distorted and reduced when compared with naturally occurring discourse, to the effect that the resulting input is impoverished and not sufficiently robust nor varied, affording the learner limited opportunity for hypothesis formation and testing.” Paradowski, (2007)
However, Paradowski (2007) does point out that contemporary linguists accept that formal instruction benefits SLA, without which, input can fail to become intake as learners fail to understand or notice features. How then do teachers reconcile authentic communication with explicit instruction? Explicit examination of form is obviously a teacher-student relationship and only occurs in natural settings outside the school when a NS feels the need to clarify a NNS 's conversation. Migrant children that correct their parents for example, would no doubt be quickly put in their place as they would be out of context. Ellis may be right in proposing an authentic, interaction-based syllabus supplemented by sessions where language taken from input is discussed. The explicit focus-on -form would be made as subtle as possible, the goal being an increase in salience of the form 's importance to a cultural situation. Once again, longitudinal studies would assay the benefits of Ellis 's methodology. Although it would be interesting to see how a CL researcher would approach Ellis 's inconsequential use of explicit teaching.
Returning to Bybee(2008), we find an interesting comparison between 'procedural knowledge '(PK), such as riding a bike, which Bybee sees speakers use to develop grammar, and 'declarative knowledge '(DK), such as facts, which speakers use to contextualize lexis. Initially perceived with DK, learners chunk language in a lexis-like process. Frequency of a tokens appearance leads to PK and the language becomes automatized. Moreover, even as very high frequency words become PK , they are subconsciously sought out by learners so they can then generalize by analogy (Bybee(2008), pp. 225-9). If the analogy is extended to compare DK to explicit knowledge and PK to implicit, while explicit teaching would be used to make a language point and its context clear (facts about the language), learners would be left to work out their own rules implicitly. Furthermore, metalinguistics as DK could be used to analyze what is usually taken for granted in social interactions such as the various expression of functions. This could facilitate an initial awareness of cultural form-function pairing which, with repetition, would become PK. Thus, rather than looking to input for the genesis of generalization, a more holistic story emerges through frequency of types of interaction.
Sociocultural Linguistics
Sociolinguists see there are many factors that can affect input, output and interaction and, ultimately, SLA. In order to answer a question such as, 'Will a learner strive to acquire? ', Block (2007) suggests the issues specific to individuals need to be examined. When investigating a learner Block advises researchers consider 1) microgentic factors (thoughts and feelings), 2) ontogenetic factors (lifetime development) and 3) the global social position of the speaker. Based on data collected in natural settings, sociolinguists can analyse social and situational influences on input and evaluate the communicative competence of a learner 's interlanguage, including their knowledge of appropriacy of forms. Preston(1989) lists 29 variables that can have a marked effect on language use including age, role, gender, power and emotions as well as time, place and length of interaction. What is more, he demands quantitative analysis rather that intuitive reasoning so that language can be predicted with some accuracy. Many of the variables identified by Preston seem to be ignored by Cognitive Linguists as researchers seek to demarcate cognitive processes by detaching the mind 's perception of form-function correspondence from its extended context. Lantolf (2000) considers learners to be speaker/ hearers who develop through interaction. Acquisition is not seen as being 'owned ' in the mind of a learner bur co-produced in a non-separable environment. For example, SLA research may focus on how students produce “should ” for giving advice but they may not consider how the speaker feels about giving advice according to her culture. Moreover, when students attend to form in a classroom, are they able to see the broader social context, its appropriacy and consequences?
Krashen, for example, is criticized for a lack of concern for contextual communication. His theory that language is implicitly acquired can be taken as passivity and not active collaboration (Thorney). SCL sees that i+1 requires teacher sensitivity in providing comprehensible input and questions the playing down of the role of the monitor (that part of the learner which knows the rule). Moreover, Preston (1989) sees that Krashen 's socioaffective filter as an inhibitor is simplistic (Preston(1989) p 64). He alerts us to the fact that adults can use their interactive power to draw from random input, whereas children 's lack of control over conversation may mean less control over comprehensible input. Needless to say, teenagers may also lag with input as they struggle with identity.
In accordance with a learner 's social standing, her interlanguage will develop as she participates in situations through time that require certain functions. Sociocultural linguists, however, as mentioned above, do not like to deal with functions separately. Yet, even though sociolinguists have a strong case for those involved in SLA to consider extensive variables, they need not be so insistent that their theory be central. Take slips of the tongue, for instance. If there are physical processes that can cause a change in language then sociolinguists must concede that the mechanics of the brain must play a part in acquisition. Preston may argue that language can be socially predictable, and in formal situations or in participation which relies on norms that may be the case, but what about that language which is unpredictable? Without spontaneous innovation, for instance, learners of L2 would be very restricted in their interactions, not to mention the comedians and artists who would soon lose their patrons. Answers to the puzzle of generalization and creativity may seem to lie in CL but it must be looked at through a SCL lens in order to make sense of the way learners generalize through interaction. Forms cannot be separated from the sphere of communication, which is another reason why learning situations need to be as authentic as possible. Schools, however, rendered as Declarative Knowledge by virtue of formalized procedures which contextualize learning can make use of socialising to allow learners to be attentive to expected intersections of various cultural situations. Just as a team benefits from Time Out for the coach to comment on the game, learners become socialized in reflecting on valued form-functions. Furthermore, a teacher must know the various states of a learner 's interlanguage, background and affective or inhibiting factors,in order to develop appropriate, confidence raising interactive input and output tasks where form is frequent and salient. If education is 'salient ' in a learner 's social experience and has proved to be beneficial, then learners will continue to make use of it.
Clearly, the above examples show that CL and SCL do not have to be separated in the scheme of SLA.
Reconciling Cognitive Linguistics and Sociocultural Linguistics
Rather than thinking of the process as internal to an individual, if we take the space of Ping Li 's (2006) 'crypotype ' development to be interactive communication, we move to a social harmonizing of shared general meanings. Input can be seen as a combination of sensory perceptions including sound, vision and shared sociocultural history vibrating in a complex event that resonates within the participants ' common time-space domain. Frequency of shared sensory patterns leads to culturally infused rule-like linguistic norms. Socially constructed categories intersect in new situations and novel forms are produced. Since Langacker, a cognitive linguist, argues that frequent usage events are abstracted into commonality (Langacker (2008)), a social reverberation theory as described above attempts to bridge the gap between cognitive and sociocultural linguistics by suggesting the neural networks of speakers/ listeners resonate.
I understand this is intuitive speculation and realize research would need to be done to ascertain the degree to which a repetition of situation can lead to predictive social and linguistic behaviour. However, there are theorists who have ventured into this area such as Haden 's(1962) 'A resonance theory for linguistics ' although this theory was more about phonemes.
What is more, any new theory should be able to take account of empirical research. Both sociocultural and cognitive theories may attempt to explain, for example, the theoretical fundamental difference in the cognitive processes between adults and children: Gordon(2007) describes recent research in neurolinguistics, where, due to advances in MBI and PET technology, scientists have located brain activity related to language use: The “Broca 's area” which controls fluency, grammatical proficiency and the abstract glue that groups words. The “Wernicke 's area that seems to be in charge of language communication. Cornell University studies showed late learners used different parts of the Broca 's area, the same as younger learners. At a certain age this area closes off but part of the area is reserved. Rather than completely passing off this investigation as irrelevant to a communication based theory as some sociocultural linguists might be tempted to do, we should try to examine how the data retrieved from 'brains ' can assist interactive theory. Delving deeper and tentatively into the field of particle physics, if humans can be thought of as interconnected, vibrating particles of matter that seek resonance with each other, then both micro and macro explanations of language participation can be observed. Taking fundamental difference, for example, we could look microscopically at patterns of reverberation that have set in and aged creating fossilization of the mechanics of the brain. We could then observe the physical, psychological and social consequences. It could be that resonating particles residing in two beings correspond to cultural interaction. I do wonder, though, if the instruments of investigation we currently possess would be sufficient to conduct such an experiment that can account for both micro and macro viewpoints.
Conclusion
There is a current danger of teachers harking back to an imitative pedagogy such as behaviorism as cognitive theorists argue the case of frequency of input. However, as sociocultural variables are considered and the importance of understanding the background and motivation of a learner is realized, those involved in SLA will seek to move beyond form-focused input-based methodologies to a variety of real, culturally situated, communicative, form-rich input/ output tasks which allow students to become aware of the qualities of their own interactions so that they can move toward an implicit understanding of contextualized patterns. This suggestion would probably gain support from Gass, & Selinker(2008) who see negotiation as a trigger for adjustment where the learner who gets the gist of input through interaction accesses internal capacities, uses output productively and gathers the TL becoming aware of discrepancies between TL and IL.
As SLA researchers start to understand the effects various cultures have on each other, they may see that social situations have their own 'spreading networks ' of meaning, situations, culture and feelings that resonate within us: that it is the intersection of L1 and L2 culture that creates the novel utterances of interlanguage which should be attended to sensitively to accommodate difficulties learners might be having. Researchers will furthermore understand that they are a part of the extended social reality of a learners SLA and investigate their own position of power accordingly.
The goal of research may be understanding but what is understanding without practical application? While teachers of SLA make best use of both CL and SCL theories before them they must look forward to clarifying research that bridges disciplines and allows the efficient facilitation of second language participation.
vittynyetdjiangna yopi sepi cyummnyet corringoo sepgni
References
Achard, M. (2008) Teaching Construal Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar (Ch 17). in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Bybee, J. (2008) Usage Based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition (Ch 10) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Ellis, N (2008) Usage-Based and Form-Focused Language Acquisition. in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Ellis, R. (2003) Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ellis(1985) FLOTE CD.
Gass, S and Selinker, L (2008). Second Language Acquisition: AN Introductory Course. Routledge, New York.(G&S)
Goldberg,A. and Casenhiser D, (2008) Construction Learning and Second Language Acquisition (Chapter 9) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Gordon, T (2007). Teaching Young Children a Second Language.Westport, Conn. : Praeger Publishers, in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Haden, Ernest Faber, (1962) A resonance theory for linguistics Mouton,
Hudson, R.. (2008) “Word Grammar, Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning and Teaching” (Chapter 5) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar as a basis for language instruction in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Odlin, T. (2008) Conceptual Transfer and Meaningful Extensions (Chapter 13) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
Paradowski, Michał B. (2007) Exploring the L1/L2 Interface. A Study of Polish Advanced EFL Learners. Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, pp. 64–85. In http://knol.google.com/k/mbp/utility-of-formal-instruction-and-focus/2qpvzotrrhys1/32?domain=knol.google.com&locale=en#
Ping Li (Capter 6) “In Search of Meaning: The Acquisition of Semantic Structures and Morphological Systems” . In Luchjenbroers, J (2006) Cognitive Linguistic Investigations, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
Plantolf, J,P.(ed.) (2000) “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning” Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Preston, (1989) “Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition” Blackwell,Oxford, UK.
Tyler, A. (2008) “Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction” (CH 18) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
References: Achard, M. (2008) Teaching Construal Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar (Ch 17). in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Bybee, J. (2008) Usage Based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition (Ch 10) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Ellis, N (2008) Usage-Based and Form-Focused Language Acquisition. in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Ellis, R. (2003) Task Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ellis(1985) FLOTE CD. Gass, S and Selinker, L (2008). Second Language Acquisition: AN Introductory Course. Routledge, New York.(G&S) Goldberg,A Gordon, T (2007). Teaching Young Children a Second Language.Westport, Conn. : Praeger Publishers, in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Haden, Ernest Faber, (1962) A resonance theory for linguistics Mouton, Hudson, R. Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar as a basis for language instruction in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Odlin, T. (2008) Conceptual Transfer and Meaningful Extensions (Chapter 13) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Plantolf, J,P.(ed.) (2000) “Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning” Oxford, Oxford University Press. Preston, (1989) “Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition” Blackwell,Oxford, UK. Tyler, A. (2008) “Cognitive Linguistics and L2 Instruction” (CH 18) in Robinson, P. and Ellis, N. (eds) (2008)(Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Lemetyinen, H. (2012). Language Acquisition Theory | Simply Psychology. Simplypsychology.org. Retrieved 11 January 2015, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/language.html…
- 1984 Words
- 6 Pages
Best Essays -
Dolati, R (2012) Overview on three core theories of second language acquisition and criticism, Advences in natural and applied sciences,vol6,issue 6, p 752…
- 6976 Words
- 24 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Author’s Info: Associate professor and Chair of the Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She’s interested in language acquisition because she thinks that if we could understand what grammar is for the very young children, we would gain insight into its true nature.…
- 1389 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Walqui, A. (2000).Contextual Factors in Second Language Acquisition. WestEd. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0005-contextual-walqui.pdf.…
- 1999 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The increased pace of research on first language acquisition in the 60s and 70s attracted the attention not only of linguists of all kinds but also of educators in various language-related fields. Today the applications of research findings in first language acquisition are widespread. In language arts education, for example, it is not uncommon to find teacher trainess studying first language acquisition, particularly acquisition after age 5, in order to improve their understanding of the task of teaching language speaker to native speakers. In foreign language education most standard text and curricula now include some introductory material in first language acquisition. The reason for this are clear: We have all observed children acquiring their first language easily and well, yet the learning of second language, particularly in an education setting, often meets with great difficulty and sometimes failure. We should therefore able to learn something from a systematic study of that first language learning experience.…
- 3468 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Krashen, S. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Prentice Hall International (UK). pp 64-70…
- 866 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
References: Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. 1991. Language learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45, 98–117. Kumaravadivelu, B. 1993. The name of the task and the task of naming: Methodological aspects of task-based pedagogy. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. Grammar. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds) The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. H. 1985. A role for instruction in second language acquisition. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds) Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Long, M. H. and G. Crookes. 1993. Units of analysis in syllabus design: the case for task. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Long, M. H. and P. Robinson. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martyn, E. 1996. The influence of task type on the negotiation of meaning in small group work. Paper presented at the Annual Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Auckland, New Zealand. Martyn, E. 2001. The effects of task type on negotiation of meaning in small group work. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. Nunan, D. 1995. ATLAS 4: Learning-Centered Communication. Student’s book 2. Boston: Heinle / Thomson Learning. Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle / Thomson Learning. Richards, J. C. with J. Hull and S. Proctor. 1997. New Interchange: Student’s book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rutherford, W. 1987. Second Language Grammar: Teaching and learning. London: Longman. Swain, M. 1995. Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds) Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Papers in honour of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.…
- 6168 Words
- 25 Pages
Better Essays -
Cruse, Alan (2004). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics: 155-157.…
- 456 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In his article, “My and Misconceptions about Second Language Learning,” published in 1992, Barry McLaughlin listed five major myths and misconceptions held by the general public, or specifically by some second language teachers, as well as some contradictory viewpoints about second language learning held by different scholars. In his five main arguments, he puts specific emphases on his suggestions for second language teachers about second language teaching and learning to dispel these five myths and misconceptions. Though diverse and comprehensive, McLaughlin’s synthesis of relevant language teaching and learning studies does not provide enough…
- 770 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Prior to the time of Chomsky, “little was known about the process of second language acquisition, and thus (traditional approaches) were grounded in the linguistic, psychological, and pedagogical theories of their day.”(1)…
- 3609 Words
- 15 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Mitchell, Rosamond and Florence Myles. (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. Norris-Holt, Jacqueline. (2001). Motivation as a Contributing Factor in Second Language Acquisition. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. VII, No. 6. Available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Norris-Motivation.html Richard-Amato, Patricia. (1996). Making It Happen: Interaction in the Second Language Classroom. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Group. Sysoyev, Pavel V. (1999). Integrative L2 Grammar Teaching: Exploration, Explanation and Expression. The Internet TESL Journal. Vol. V, No. 6. Available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/Sysoyev-Integrative.html…
- 6868 Words
- 28 Pages
Good Essays -
References: BEEBE, L. M. (1988) Issues in second language acquisition : Multiple Perspectives, New York ; London, Newbury House. CHAMBERS, J. K. A. T., P. (1980) Dialectology. Cambridge University Press. In Preston,D.1989. CUMMINS, J. (1983) Language proficiency and academic achievement. Newbury House. In Oller(ed.) 1983. ELLIS, R. (1994) The study of second languge acquisition. New York, Oxford University Press . FAERCH, C., HAASTRUP, K. & PHILLIPSON, R. (1984) Learner language and language learning. Copenhagen, Gyldendalske Boghandel. FILLMORE, C. J., KEMPLER, D. & WANG, W. S. Y. (1979) Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York, Academic Press. GARDNER, R. C. (1972) Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley,MA: Newbury House. In Ellis,R1994, GILES, H. & BYRNE, J. L. (1982) An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17-40. HAMMERLY, H. (1991) Fluency and accuracy : toward balance in language teaching and learning, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. HEDGE, T. (2000) Teaching and learning in the language classroom, Oxford, Oxford University Press. KRASHEN, S., LONG, M. & SCARCELLA, R. (1979) Age, rate and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL QUARTERLY, 13, No. 4. KRASHEN, S. D. (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition . Oxford, Pergamon. In Ellis,R.(1994), LABOV, W. (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia,P.A, University of Pennsylvania Press. In Ellis,R.1994. LABOV, W. (1991) The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. In Ellis,R.1994. LENNON, P. (1990)Investigating fluency in EFL: a quantitative approach. Language Learning40,387-412. LENNON, P. (2000) the lexical element in spoken second language fluency, Michigan, the University of Michigan Press. In Kormos,J and Denes,M., Volume 32, Issue 2, June 2004, Pages 145-164 Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech of second language learners OLSHTAIN, E., SHOHAMY, E., KEMP, J. & CHATOW, R. (1990) Factors predicting success in EFL among culturally different learners. In Ellis,R.1994. PAWLEY, A. & SYDER, F. H. (1983) two puzzles for linguistic theory:Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In :Richards,J.C., Schmidt,R.W.(Eds) Amsterdam, Elsevier. SCHUMANN, J. (1975) Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition.In Preston,D.1989. SKEHAN, P. (1990) The relationship between native and foreign language learning ability. In Ellis,R1994. WARDHAUGH, R. (1986) An introduction to sociolinguistics, Massachusetts, Basil Blackwell.…
- 2167 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The package includes a CD-ROM and an Access File which is delivered upon purchase as…
- 3150 Words
- 13 Pages
Powerful Essays -
general (namely the role of the language environment, the role of input, the role of…
- 3023 Words
- 13 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The cognitive linguistics enterprise is characterized by two fundamental commitments (Lakoff 1990). These underlie both the orientation and approach adopted by practicing cognitive linguists, and the assumptions and methodologies employed in the two main branches of the cognitive linguistics enterprise: cognitive semantics, and cognitive approaches to grammar, discussed in further detail in later sections.…
- 3437 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays