Theories of second-

language acquisition

The main purpose of theories of second-

language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light
on how people who already know one
language learn a second language. The
field of second-language acquisition
involves various contributions, such as
linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology,
cognitive science, neuroscience, and
education. These multiple fields in second-
language acquisition can be grouped as
four major research strands: (a) linguistic
dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive (but not
linguistic) dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-
cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d)
instructional dimensions of SLA. While the
orientation of each research strand is
distinct, they are in common in that they
can guide us to find helpful condition to
facilitate successful language learning.
Acknowledging the contributions of each
perspective and the interdisciplinarity
between each field, more and more
second language researchers are now
trying to have a bigger lens on examining
the complexities of second language
acquisition.

History
As second-language acquisition began as
an interdisciplinary field, it is hard to pin
down a precise starting date.[1] However,
there are two publications in particular
that are seen as instrumental to the
development of the modern study of SLA:
(1) Corder's 1967 essay The Significance of
Learners' Errors, and (2) Selinker's 1972
article Interlanguage. Corder's essay
rejected a behaviorist account of SLA and
suggested that learners made use of
intrinsic internal linguistic processes;
Selinker's article argued that second-
language learners possess their own
individual linguistic systems that are
independent from both the first and
second languages.[2]

In the 1970s the general trend in SLA was

for research exploring the ideas of Corder
and Selinker, and refuting behaviorist
theories of language acquisition.
Examples include research into error
analysis, studies in transitional stages of
second-language ability, and the
"morpheme studies" investigating the
order in which learners acquired linguistic
features. The 70s were dominated by
naturalistic studies of people learning
English as a second language.[2]

By the 1980s, the theories of Stephen

Krashen had become the prominent
paradigm in SLA. In his theories, often
collectively known as the Input
Hypothesis, Krashen suggested that
language acquisition is driven solely by
comprehensible input, language input that
learners can understand. Krashen's model
was influential in the field of SLA and also
had a large influence on language
teaching, but it left some important
processes in SLA unexplained. Research in
the 1980s was characterized by the
attempt to fill in these gaps. Some
approaches included White's descriptions
of learner competence, and Pienemann's
use of speech processing models and
lexical functional grammar to explain
learner output. This period also saw the
beginning of approaches based in other
disciplines, such as the psychological
approach of connectionism.[2]
The 1990s saw a host of new theories
introduced to the field, such as Michael
Long's interaction hypothesis, Merrill
Swain's output hypothesis, and Richard
Schmidt's noticing hypothesis. However,
the two main areas of research interest
were linguistic theories of SLA based upon
Noam Chomsky's universal grammar, and
psychological approaches such as skill
acquisition theory and connectionism. The
latter category also saw the new theories
of processability and input processing in
this time period. The 1990s also saw the
introduction of sociocultural theory, an
approach to explain second-language
acquisition in terms of the social
environment of the learner.[2]

In the 2000s research was focused on

much the same areas as in the 1990s, with
research split into two main camps of
linguistic and psychological approaches.
VanPatten and Benati do not see this state
of affairs as changing in the near future,
pointing to the support both areas of
research have in the wider fields of
linguistics and psychology, respectively.[2]

Universal grammar
From the field of linguistics, the most
influential theory by far has been
Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar
(UG). The core of this theory lies on the
existence of an innate universal grammar,
grounded on the poverty of the stimulus.[3]
The UG model of principles, basic
properties which all languages share, and
parameters, properties which can vary
between languages, has been the basis for
much second-language research.

From a UG perspective, learning the

grammar of a second language is simply a
matter of setting the correct parameters.
Take the pro-drop parameter, which
dictates whether or not sentences must
have a subject in order to be
grammatically correct. This parameter can
have two values: positive, in which case
sentences do not necessarily need a
subject, and negative, in which case
subjects must be present. In German the
sentence "Er spricht" (he speaks) is
grammatical, but the sentence "Spricht"
(speaks) is ungrammatical. In Italian,
however, the sentence "Parla" (speaks) is
perfectly normal and grammatically
correct.[4] A German speaker learning
Italian would only need to deduce that
subjects are optional from the language he
hears, and then set his pro-drop parameter
for Italian accordingly. Once he has set all
the parameters in the language correctly,
then from a UG perspective he can be said
to have learned Italian, i.e. he will always
produce perfectly correct Italian
sentences.

Universal Grammar also provides a

succinct explanation for much of the
phenomenon of language transfer.
Spanish learners of English who make the
mistake "Is raining" instead of "It is raining"
have not yet set their pro-drop parameters
correctly and are still using the same
setting as in Spanish.
The main shortcoming of Universal
Grammar in describing second-language
acquisition is that it does not deal at all
with the psychological processes involved
with learning a language. UG scholarship
is only concerned with whether
parameters are set or not, not with how
they are set. Schachter[5] (1988) is a useful
critique of research testing the role of
Universal Grammar in second language
acquisition.

Input hypothesis
Learners' most direct source of
information about the target language is
the target language itself. When they come
into direct contact with the target
language, this is referred to as "input."
When learners process that language in a
way that can contribute to learning, this is
referred to as "intake". However, it must be
at a level that is comprehensible to them.
In his monitor theory, Krashen advanced
the concept that language input should be
at the "i+1" level, just beyond what the
learner can fully understand; this input is
comprehensible, but contains structures
that are not yet fully understood. This has
been criticized on the basis that there is no
clear definition of i+1, and that factors
other than structural difficulty (such as
interest or presentation) can affect
whether input is actually turned into
intake. The concept has been quantified,
however, in vocabulary acquisition
research; Nation reviews various studies
which indicate that about 98% of the
words in running text should be previously
known in order for extensive reading to be
effective.[6]

In his Input Hypothesis, Krashen proposes

that language acquisition takes place only
when learners receive input just beyond
their current level of L2 competence. He
termed this level of input “i+1.” However, in
contrast to emergentist and connectionist
theories, he follows the innate approach by
applying Chomsky's Government and
binding theory and concept of Universal
grammar (UG) to second-language
acquisition. He does so by proposing a
Language Acquisition Device that uses L2
input to define the parameters of the L2,
within the constraints of UG, and to
increase the L2 proficiency of the learner.
In addition, Krashen (1982)’s Affective
Filter Hypothesis holds that the acquisition
of a second language is halted if the
learner has a high degree of anxiety when
receiving input. According to this concept,
a part of the mind filters out L2 input and
prevents intake by the learner, if the learner
feels that the process of SLA is
threatening. As mentioned earlier, since
input is essential in Krashen’s model, this
filtering action prevents acquisition from
progressing.

A great deal of research has taken place

on input enhancement, the ways in which
input may be altered so as to direct
learners' attention to linguistically
important areas. Input enhancement might
include bold-faced vocabulary words or
marginal glosses in a reading text.
Research here is closely linked to research
on pedagogical effects, and comparably
diverse.

Monitor model
Other concepts have also been influential
in the speculation about the processes of
building internal systems of second-
language information. Some thinkers hold
that language processing handles distinct
types of knowledge. For instance, one
component of the Monitor Model,
propounded by Krashen, posits a
distinction between “acquisition” and
“learning.”[7] According to Krashen, L2
acquisition is a subconscious process of
incidentally “picking up” a language, as
children do when becoming proficient in
their first languages. Language learning,
on the other hand, is studying, consciously
and intentionally, the features of a
language, as is common in traditional
classrooms. Krashen sees these two
processes as fundamentally different, with
little or no interface between them. In
common with connectionism, Krashen
sees input as essential to language
acquisition.[7]

Further, Bialystok and Smith make another

distinction in explaining how learners build
and use L2 and interlanguage knowledge
structures.[8] They argue that the concept
of interlanguage should include a
distinction between two specific kinds of
language processing ability. On one hand
is learners’ knowledge of L2 grammatical
structure and ability to analyze the target
language objectively using that knowledge,
which they term “representation,” and, on
the other hand is the ability to use their L2
linguistic knowledge, under time
constraints, to accurately comprehend
input and produce output in the L2, which
they call “control.” They point out that
often non-native speakers of a language
have higher levels of representation than
their native-speaking counterparts have,
yet have a lower level of control. Finally,
Bialystok has framed the acquisition of
language in terms of the interaction
between what she calls “analysis” and
“control.”[9] Analysis is what learners do
when they attempt to understand the rules
of the target language. Through this
process, they acquire these rules and can
use them to gain greater control over their
own production.

Monitoring is another important concept in

some theoretical models of learner use of
L2 knowledge. According to Krashen, the
Monitor is a component of an L2 learner's
language processing device that uses
knowledge gained from language learning
to observe and regulate the learner's own
L2 production, checking for accuracy and
adjusting language production when
necessary.[7]

Interaction hypothesis
Long's interaction hypothesis proposes
that language acquisition is strongly
facilitated by the use of the target
language in interaction. Similarly to
Krashen's Input Hypothesis, the Interaction
Hypothesis claims that comprehensible
input is important for language learning. In
addition, it claims that the effectiveness of
comprehensible input is greatly increased
when learners have to negotiate for
meaning.[10]

Interactions often result in learners

receiving negative evidence.[10] [11] That is,
if learners say something that their
interlocutors do not understand, after
negotiation the interlocutors may model
the correct language form. In doing this,
learners can receive feedback on their
production and on grammar that they have
not yet mastered.[10] The process of
interaction may also result in learners
receiving more input from their
interlocutors than they would
otherwise.[11] Furthermore, if learners stop
to clarify things that they do not
understand, they may have more time to
process the input they receive. This can
lead to better understanding and possibly
the acquisition of new language forms.[10]
Finally, interactions may serve as a way of
focusing learners' attention on a
difference between their knowledge of the
target language and the reality of what
they are hearing; it may also focus their
attention on a part of the target language
of which they are not yet aware.[1]

Output hypothesis
In the 1980s, Canadian SLA researcher
Merrill Swain advanced the output
hypothesis, that meaningful output is as
necessary to language learning as
meaningful input. However, most studies
have shown little if any correlation
between learning and quantity of output.
Today, most scholars contend that small
amounts of meaningful output are
important to language learning, but
primarily because the experience of
producing language leads to more
effective processing of input.

Critical Period Hypothesis

In 1967, Eric Lenneberg argued the
existence of a critical period
(approximately 2–13 years old) for the
acquisition of a first language. This has
attracted much attention in the realm of
second language acquisition. For instance,
Newport (1990) extended the argument of
critical period hypothesis by pointing to a
possibility that when a learner is exposed
to an L2 might also contribute to their
second language acquisition. Indeed, she
revealed the correlation between age of
arrival and second language performance.
In this regard, second language learning
might be affected by a learner's
maturational state .[12]

Competition model
Some of the major cognitive theories of
how learners organize language
knowledge are based on analyses of how
speakers of various languages analyze
sentences for meaning. MacWhinney,
Bates, and Kliegl found that speakers of
English, German, and Italian showed
varying patterns in identifying the subjects
of transitive sentences containing more
than one noun.[13] English speakers relied
heavily on word order; German speakers
used morphological agreement, the
animacy status of noun referents, and
stress; and speakers of Italian relied on
agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al.
interpreted these results as supporting the
Competition Model, which states that
individuals use linguistic cues to get
meaning from language, rather than
relying on linguistic universals.[13]
According to this theory, when acquiring
an L2, learners sometimes receive
competing cues and must decide which
cue(s) is most relevant for determining
meaning.

Connectionism and second-

language acquisition

Connectionism
These findings also relate to
Connectionism. Connectionism attempts
to model the cognitive language
processing of the human brain, using
computer architectures that make
associations between elements of
language, based on frequency of co-
occurrence in the language input.[14]
Frequency has been found to be a factor in
various linguistic domains of language
learning.[15] Connectionism posits that
learners form mental connections
between items that co-occur, using
exemplars found in language input. From
this input, learners extract the rules of the
language through cognitive processes
common to other areas of cognitive skill
acquisition. Since connectionism denies
both innate rules and the existence of any
innate language-learning module, L2 input
is of greater importance than it is in
processing models based on innate
approaches, since, in connectionism, input
is the source of both the units and the
rules of language.
Noticing hypothesis
Attention is another characteristic that
some believe to have a role in determining
the success or failure of language
processing. Richard Schmidt states that
although explicit metalinguistic knowledge
of a language is not always essential for
acquisition, the learner must be aware of
L2 input in order to gain from it.[16] In his
“noticing hypothesis,” Schmidt posits that
learners must notice the ways in which
their interlanguage structures differ from
target norms. This noticing of the gap
allows the learner's internal language
processing to restructure the learner's
internal representation of the rules of the
L2 in order to bring the learner's
production closer to the target. In this
respect, Schmidt's understanding is
consistent with the ongoing process of
rule formation found in emergentism and
connectionism.

Processability
Some theorists and researchers have
contributed to the cognitive approach to
second-language acquisition by increasing
understanding of the ways L2 learners
restructure their interlanguage knowledge
systems to be in greater conformity to L2
structures. Processability theory states
that learners restructure their L2
knowledge systems in an order of which
they are capable at their stage of
development.[17] For instance, In order to
acquire the correct morphological and
syntactic forms for English questions,
learners must transform declarative
English sentences. They do so by a series
of stages, consistent across learners.
Clahsen proposed that certain processing
principles determine this order of
restructuring.[18] Specifically, he stated
that learners first, maintain declarative
word order while changing other aspects
of the utterances, second, move words to
the beginning and end of sentences, and
third, move elements within main clauses
before subordinate clauses.
Automaticity
Thinkers have produced several theories
concerning how learners use their internal
L2 knowledge structures to comprehend
L2 input and produce L2 output. One idea
is that learners acquire proficiency in an L2
in the same way that people acquire other
complex cognitive skills. Automaticity is
the performance of a skill without
conscious control. It results from the
gradated process of proceduralization. In
the field of cognitive psychology, Anderson
expounds a model of skill acquisition,
according to which persons use
procedures to apply their declarative
knowledge about a subject in order to
solve problems.[19] On repeated practice,
these procedures develop into production
rules that the individual can use to solve
the problem, without accessing long-term
declarative memory. Performance speed
and accuracy improve as the learner
implements these production rules.
DeKeyser tested the application of this
model to L2 language automaticity.[20] He
found that subjects developed increasing
proficiency in performing tasks related to
the morphosyntax of an artificial language,
Autopractan, and performed on a learning
curve typical of the acquisition of non-
language cognitive skills. This evidence
conforms to Anderson's general model of
cognitive skill acquisition, supports the
idea that declarative knowledge can be
transformed into procedural knowledge,
and tends to undermine the idea of
Krashen[7] that knowledge gained through
language “learning” cannot be used to
initiate speech production.

Declarative/procedural model

An example of declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge,
and conditional knowledge

Michael T. Ullman has used a

declarative/procedural model to
understand how language information is
stored. This model is consistent with a
distinction made in general cognitive
science between the storage and retrieval
of facts, on the one hand, and
understanding of how to carry out
operations, on the other. It states that
declarative knowledge consists of
arbitrary linguistic information, such as
irregular verb forms, that are stored in the
brain's declarative memory. In contrast,
knowledge about the rules of a language,
such as grammatical word order is
procedural knowledge and is stored in
procedural memory. Ullman reviews
several psycholinguistic and
neurolinguistic studies that support the
declarative/procedural model.[21]

Memory and second-

language acquisition
Perhaps certain psychological
characteristics constrain language
processing. One area of research is the
role of memory. Williams conducted a
study in which he found some positive
correlation between verbatim memory
functioning and grammar learning success
for his subjects.[22] This suggests that
individuals with less short-term memory
capacity might have a limitation in
performing cognitive processes for
organization and use of linguistic
knowledge.

Semantic theory
For the second-language learner, the
acquisition of meaning is arguably the
most important task. Meaning is at the
heart of a language, not the exotic sounds
or elegant sentence structure. There are
several types of meanings: lexical,
grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic. All
the different meanings contribute to the
acquisition of meaning resulting in the
integrated second language
possession.[23]

Lexical meaning – meaning that is stored

in our mental lexicon;

Grammatical meaning – comes into

consideration when calculating the
meaning of a sentence; usually encoded in
inflectional morphology (ex. - ed for past
simple, -‘s for third person possessive)

Semantic meaning – word meaning;

Pragmatic meaning – meaning that

depends on context, requires knowledge
of the world to decipher; for example,
when someone asks on the phone, “Is
Mike there?” he doesn’t want to know if
Mike is physically there; he wants to know
if he can talk to Mike.
Sociocultural theory

Larsen-Freeman

Sociocultural theory was originally coined

by Wertsch in 1985 and derived from the
work of Lev Vygotsky and the Vygotsky
Circle in Moscow from the 1920s onwards.
Sociocultural theory is the notion that
human mental function is from
participating cultural mediation integrated
into social activities.[24] The central thread
of sociocultural theory focuses on diverse
social, historical, cultural, and political
contexts where language learning occurs
and how learners negotiate or resist the
diverse options that surround them.[25]
More recently, in accordance with this
sociocultural thread, Larsen-Freeman
(2011) created the triangle form that
shows the interplay of four Important
concepts in language learning and
education: (a) teacher, (b) learner, (c)
language or culture and (d) context.[26] In
this regard, what makes sociocultural
theory different from other theories is that
it argues that second learning acquisition
is not a universal process. On the contrary,
it views learners as active participants by
interacting with others and also the culture
of the environment.

Complex Dynamic Systems

Theory
Second language acquisition has been
usually investigated by applying traditional
cross-sectional studies. In these designs
usually a pre-test post-test method is
used. However, in the 2000s a novel angle
emerged in the field of second language
research. These studies mainly adopt
Dynamic systems theory perspective to
analyse longitudinal time-series data.
Scientists such as Larsen-Freeman,
Verspoor, de Bot, Lowie, van Geert claim
that second language acquisition can be
best captured by applying longitudinal
case study research design rather than
cross-sectional designs. In these studies
variability is seen a key indicator of
development, self-organization from a
Dynamic systems parlance. The
interconnectedness of the systems is
usually analysed by moving correlations.

Notes
1. Gass & Selinker 2008.
2. VanPatten & Benati 2010, pp. 2–5.
3. Tomasello 2005, pp. 183–197.
4. Cook 2008, p. 35.
5. Schachter 1988, pp. 219–235
 6. Nation 2001.
7. Krashen 1982.
8. Bialystok & Sharwood Smith 1985
9. Bialystok 1994.
10. Ellis 1997.
11. Schmidt 2002.
12. Newport 1990.
13. MacWhinney, Bates & Kliegl 1984.
14. Christiansen & Chater 2001.
15. Ellis 2002.
16. Schmidt 1990.
17. Pienemann 1998.
18. Clahsen 1984.
19. Anderson 1992.
20. DeKeyser 1997.
21. Ullman 2001.
22. Williams 1999.
23. Slabakova 2010.
24. Lantolf & Beckett 2009.
25. Norton 2011.
26. Larsen-Freeman 2011.

References
Anderson, J. R. (1992). "Automaticity and the
ACT* theory". American Journal of
Psychology. 105 (2): 165–180.
doi:10.2307/1423026 (https://doi.org/10.230
7%2F1423026) . JSTOR 1423026 (https://w
ww.jstor.org/stable/1423026) .
PMID 1621879 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/1621879) .
Bialystok, E.; Sharwood Smith, M. (1985).
"Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An
evaluation of the construct for second-
language acquisition". Applied Linguistics. 6
(2): 101–117. doi:10.1093/applin/6.2.101 (ht
tps://doi.org/10.1093%2Fapplin%2F6.2.101)
.
Bialystok, E. (1994). "Analysis and control in
the development of second language
proficiency". Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 16 (2): 157–168.
doi:10.1017/S0272263100012857 (https://d
oi.org/10.1017%2FS0272263100012857) .
S2CID 145296687 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:145296687) .
Christiansen, M. H.; Chater, N. (2001).
"Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing
the empirical data". Trends in Cognitive
Sciences. 5 (2): 82–88.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.22.3502 (https://citeseerx.i
st.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2
2.3502) . doi:10.1016/S1364-
6613(00)01600-4 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2
FS1364-6613%2800%2901600-4) .
PMID 11166638 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/11166638) . S2CID 7279603 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7279603) .
Clahsen, H. (1984). "The acquisition of
German word order: a test case for cognitive
approaches to second language acquisition".
In Andersen, R. (ed.). Second languages: a
cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House. pp. 219–242. ISBN 978-0-
88377-440-3.
Cook, Vivian (2008). Second language
learning and language teaching. London:
Arnold. ISBN 978-0-340-95876-6.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). "Beyond explicit rule
learning: Automatizing second language
morphosyntax". Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 19 (2): 195–222.
doi:10.1017/s0272263197002040 (https://d
oi.org/10.1017%2Fs0272263197002040) .
S2CID 146769886 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:146769886) .
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition
(https://archive.org/details/secondlanguage
ac00rode) . Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-437212-1.
Ellis, N. (2002). "Frequency effects in
language processing" (https://doi.org/10.101
7%2Fs0272263102002024) . Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 24 (2): 143–
188. doi:10.1017/s0272263102002024 (http
s://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs027226310200202
4) .
Ellis, R. (2005). "Measuring implicit and
explicit knowledge of a second language: A
psychometric study" (https://doi.org/10.101
7%2Fs0272263105050096) . Studies in
Second Language Acquisition. 27 (2): 141–
172. doi:10.1017/s0272263105050096 (http
s://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs027226310505009
6) .
Gass, S.; Selinker, L. (2008). Second language
acquisition: An introductory course (https://ar
chive.org/details/secondlanguageac00gass
_0) . New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-
8058-5497-8.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). "Theoretical and
empirical issues in the study of implicit and
explicit second-language learning" (https://d
oi.org/10.1017%2Fs0272263105050084) .
Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 27
(2): 129–140.
doi:10.1017/s0272263105050084 (https://d
oi.org/10.1017%2Fs0272263105050084) .
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in
second language acquisition (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20110716023230/http://www.
sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practice/ind
ex.html) . Pergamon Press. ISBN 978-0-08-
028628-0. Archived from the original (http://
www.sdkrashen.com/Principles_and_Practic
e/index.html) on 2011-07-16. Retrieved
2010-11-25.
Lantolf, J. P.; Beckett, T. G. (2009).
"Sociocultural theory and second language
acquisition" (https://publishup.uni-potsdam.d
e/opus4-ubp/files/1838/kliegl_etal_1984.pd
f) (PDF). Language Teaching. 42 (4): 459–
475. doi:10.1017/S0261444809990048 (http
s://doi.org/10.1017%2FS026144480999004
8) . S2CID 145202925 (https://api.semantics
cholar.org/CorpusID:145202925) .
MacWhinney, B.; Bates, E.; Kliegl, R. (1984).
"Cue validity and sentence interpretation in
English, German, and Italian" (https://publish
up.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/files/1838/kli
egl_etal_1984.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior. 23 (2): 127–
150. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90093-8 (h
ttps://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0022-5371%288
4%2990093-8) .
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in
another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80498-1.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing
and second language development:
Processability theory. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. ISBN 978-1-55619-549-5.
Slabakova, R. (2010). "Semantic theory and
second language acquisition". Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics. 30: 231–247.
doi:10.1017/s0267190510000139 (https://d
oi.org/10.1017%2Fs0267190510000139) .
S2CID 145691099 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:145691099) .
Tomasello, M. (2005). "Beyond formalities:
The case of language acquisition". The
Linguistic Review. 22 (2–4): 183–197.
doi:10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.183 (https://doi.
org/10.1515%2Ftlir.2005.22.2-4.183) .
S2CID 15476748 (https://api.semanticschola
r.org/CorpusID:15476748) .
Ullman, M. T. (2001). "The
declarative/procedural model of lexicon and
grammar". Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research. 30 (1): 37–69.
doi:10.1023/A:1005204207369 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1023%2FA%3A1005204207369) .
PMID 11291183 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/11291183) . S2CID 17654813 (https://
api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1765481
3) .
VanPatten, B.; Benati, A.G. (2010). Key terms
in second language acquisition. London:
Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-9914-1.
Williams, J. (1999). "Memory, attention and
inductive learning". Studies in Second
Language Acquisition. 21: 1–48.
doi:10.1017/s0272263199001011 (https://d
oi.org/10.1017%2Fs0272263199001011) .
S2CID 144518733 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:144518733) .
Schmidt, R. (1990). "The role of
consciousness in second language learning".
Applied Linguistics. 11 (2): 129–158.
doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 (https://doi.org/
10.1093%2Fapplin%2F11.2.129) .
Schmidt, R. (2002). "Interaction hypothesis".
In Richards, J.; Schmidt, R. (eds.). Longman
dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. London New York: Longman.
p. 264. ISBN 978-0-582-43825-5.
Schachter, J. (1988). "Second language
acquisition and its relationship to universal
grammar". Applied Linguistics. 9 (3): 219–
235. doi:10.1093/applin/9.3.219 (https://doi.
org/10.1093%2Fapplin%2F9.3.219) .
Newport, E. (1990). "Maturational constraints
on language learning". Cognitive Science. 14
(1): 11–28.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2 (https://d
oi.org/10.1207%2Fs15516709cog1401_2) .
S2CID 207056257 (https://api.semanticschol
ar.org/CorpusID:207056257) .
Norton, B. (2002). "Identity". In Simpson, J.
(ed.). Routledge handbooks in applied
 linguistics: the Routledge handbook of applied
linguistics. London, UK: Routledge.

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Theories_of_second-
language_acquisition&oldid=1168786332"

This page was last edited on 5 August 2023, at

00:58 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless
otherwise noted.