How Languages Are Learned 5th Edition: Patsy M. Lightbown & Nina Spada
How Languages Are Learned 5th Edition: Patsy M. Lightbown & Nina Spada
5th edition
Patsy M. Lightbown & Nina Spada
Summary of Chapter 4:
Explaining Second Language Learning
The behaviourist perspective
• Views L2 acquisition as a result of:
- Imitation
- Practice
- Reinforcement (feedback on success)
- Habit formation
(e.g. Brooks, 1960)
2
Second language applications:
Mimicry and memorization
• Audiolingual instruction: a dominant approach to
foreign language teaching from the 1940s to the
1960s, especially in North America (e.g. Lado, 1964).
• Activities emphasized mimicry and memorization.
• ‘Habits’ formed in L1 were seen as interfering
with new L2 habits.
• Thus, behaviourism was linked with the
contrastive analysis hypothesis that learners’
errors are predictable on the basis of their L1.
3
Second language applications:
Mimicry and memorization (cont.)
• Researchers found that many learner errors are not
predictable on the basis of L1 alone.
• L1 influence is not simply a matter of habits but a
more complex process.
• Rejection of contrastive analysis hypothesis.
• Rejection of behaviourism.
The innatist perspective
• Chomsky’s view:
‒ Children have innate knowledge of certain
principles governing all languages: Universal
Grammar (UG).
‒ UG permits all children to acquire language
during a critical period.
‒ Chomsky made no specific claims about the
implications of his theory for L2 acquisition.
The innatist perspective
• Some linguists believe that UG is also the basis for
L2 acquisition (e.g. Cook, 2004).
• Others argue that UG is no longer ‘available’ for L2
acquisition (e.g. Schachter, 1990).
• Others hypothesize that prior knowledge of L1
changes how UG affects L2 acquisition (e.g. L. White,
1991).
Second language applications:
Krashen’s ‘Monitor Model’
Five hypotheses of the Monitor Model:
• ‘Acquisition’ is not the same as ‘learning’
• Learned knowledge is used only as a
monitor/editor
• Acquisition follows a ‘natural order’.
• Acquisition is based on access to comprehensible
input (containing i+1).
• The ‘affective filter’: stress and negative affect
interfere with acquisition.
(Krashen, 1982)
7
Krashen’s ‘Monitor Model’
• Challenged by other researchers and theorists as
not testable (e.g. McLaughlin, 1987).
• Nonetheless, a major influence on the movement
from structure-based to communicative
approaches to language teaching.
• Classroom research on L2 learning confirms that
students can make considerable progress through
exposure to comprehensible input but that it is
not sufficient: instructional intervention is also
important for L2 acquisition (e.g. R. Ellis, 2012).
8
The cognitive perspective
• The study of cognition—how humans acquire,
process, store, and retrieve information.
• In contrast to the innatist perspective, the
cognitive perspective does not assume a
mental module devoted specifically to language
acquisition. Rather, all learning and thinking are
based on the same cognitive processes.
• Learning L1 or L2 draws on the same learning
processes but the circumstances of learning
and L2 learners’ prior knowledge of L1 shapes
their perception of L2.
Information processing
• Language acquisition: gradually building up
knowledge through exposure to L2 (Robinson &
N. Ellis, 2008).
• New information must be noticed before it can
be learned (Schmidt, 2001).
• There is a limit to how much information a
learner can pay attention to at once (Segalowitz,
2010).
Information processing (cont.)
• Skill learning: New information may first be
internalized as declarative knowledge: the learner is
aware of the information and can report noticing it.
• Through practice, declarative knowledge is
proceduralized, and the learner acquires the ability to
use the information appropriately.
• With further practice, the information can be
accessed automatically—so automatically, in fact, that
the learner forgets having learned it.
(DeKeyser, 1998)
Information processing (cont.)
• Restructuring: not all knowledge seems to follow
the declarative–procedural–automatic path
(McLaughlin, 1990).
• Learners may practise something for a while and
then fail to use it when they acquire new
knowledge, e.g.
‒ after saying I saw or I went, a learner may begin to
use the regular past ending on these irregular verbs
(e.g. I seed or I goed).
• This process of ‘restructuring’ represents progress,
even though it may result in new errors in learner
language (Lightbown, 1985).
Information processing (cont.)
• Transfer-appropriate processing: when we learn
something, we also internalize the conditions under
which it was learned and the cognitive processes
involved in the learning.
• Thus, we recall something more easily when the
context and processes for recall are similar to those
in which we originally learned it.
(Lightbown, 2008)
Usage-based learning
• Learning is the gradual establishment and
strengthening of links between bits of information
(e.g. word and object, words that occur together,
words and grammatical markers).
• All learning is based on the same cognitive processes
—no special ‘module’ for language learning.
• The frequency with which information is
encountered is a strong predictor of how easily it will
be learned.
(N. Ellis & Wulff, 2020)
The competition model
• Proposed to account for both L1 and L2 learning
(Bates & MacWhinney, 1981).
• Through exposure, learners understand how to use
the cues (e.g. word order, animacy) that languages
use to signal specific functions.
• To interpret ‘odd’ sentences, English speakers tend
to use word order and Italian speakers use animacy
with a sentence like:
Il giocattolo sta guardando il bambino. (The toy – is
looking at – the child or, to an Italian speaker, The
child is looking at the toy) (MacWhinney, 1997).
Language and the brain
• Current research challenges the assumption that
language functions are located only in the left
hemisphere: multiple regions of the brain are
activated when language is processed.
• Differences have been observed between L1 and L2
processing (Beretta, 2011).
• Research shows activation of different brain regions
in relation to explicit and implicit instruction (e.g.
Ullman, 2020).
• Although it is premature to base L2 teaching on
brain research, new technologies are providing
more information about brain and language.
(e.g. Morgan-Short, 2014).
Second language applications:
Interaction, noticing, processing,
and practising
• The interaction hypothesis
• The noticing hypothesis
• Input processing
• Processability theory
• The role of practice
The interaction hypothesis