The second language acquisition process differs from the first language acquisition in most

cases. Apart from the situations in which a child is raised by parents using two different
languages on everyday basis, or in a country in which there are two languages in common use,
the most usual situation is learning a second language not from infancy, but at school, or even
later. therefore, the very circumstances of language acquisition are different, and thus the process
itself shows certain distinctive features.
In applied linguistics and language methodology various manners of second language
learning/acquisition are acknowledged. Therefore, if a person learns a language in a community
that uses a different mother tongue, then the process is called foreign language learning, so a
German child learning English in a school in Germany learns it as a foreign language, because
English is not usually used on everyday basis outside the classroom. However, if a German child
living in Britain in a German-speaking community learns English the process is called learning
English as a second language, since English is not foreign in Britain.
Moreover, linguists and language teachers distinguish between learning and acquisition. Hence,
the term learning is used to describe a conscious process that includes thorough explanation of
grammar rules, practice of those rules, as well as memorizing lists of vocabulary. Learning is
what we usually experience during classroom lessons. Acquisition, on the other hand, is an
unconscious process which does not involve tutelage and is more dependent on the amount of
exposure to language and interaction.
There are numerous factors affecting the process of second language acquisition. It most
frequently occurs in a classroom situation, which means fewer hours in which learners are
exposed to language comparing to first language acquisition. Moreover, there are many things
happening in classes that disturb the process, such as embarrassment and fear of making
mistakes, lack of motivation to learn or unwillingness to sound foreign because of lack of
sympathy towards the target language culture. When factors such as stress or self-consciousness
also occur linguists tend to talk of affective factors which influence the entire process.
What is characteristic of second language acquisition, but not of the first language acquisition
process is so called transfer. This term denotes the act of trying to apply the pronunciation, word
order, vocabulary or some expression form the mother tongue to the target language learnt at the
moment. When the transfer is successful, for example a word from the learners native language
has been used while using the target language and such a word indeed exists in the target
language (either with different pronunciation, or not) the learner has benefited from a positive
transfer. However, when in a similar attempt the learner tries to use a structure, or a word from
the native language, but such a word, or structure does not exist in the target language the learner
makes use of the negative transfer.
When students learn some foreign language they do it gradually. They start with simple words
and grammar constructions and proceed to more complex structures. The methods that are most
frequently used to teach foreign languages stress that certain factors in the process resemble the
process of the first language acquisition. Therefore, errors are often perceived as natural
indication that the process of the second language acquisition occurs. As in the first language
acquisition certain errors are predictable and determined by the current level of proficiency.
However, there is also a large number of errors that cannot be accounted for as negative transfer,
because the forms used do not exist in learners mother tongue, but also do not exist in the target

language. That supports the idea that learners create a sort of in-between system of their own
while learning a foreign language called interlanguage.
Studies show that the earlier the process of second language acquisition begins the better the
results will be. Although there are some exceptions to this rule usually people who started
learning second language as young children have better linguistic competence. Most of the
people learning a foreign language reach a certain level of fluency, or use some phrases that
would not be used by the native users of the target language. Thus it is said that learners
interlanguage fossilizes, which means that it does not improve anymore. Fossilization is most
likely to occur in pronunciation as after puberty it is difficult to learn to sound like a native
speaker.

While many discussions about learning a second language focus on teaching methodologies,
little emphasis is given to the contextual factors-individual, social, and societal-that affect
students' learning. These contextual factors can be considered from the perspective of the
language, the learner, and the learning process. This digest discusses these perspectives as they
relate to learning any second language, with a particular focus on how they affect adolescent
learners of English as a second language.
LANGUAGE
Several factors related to students' first and second languages shape their second language
learning. These factors include the linguistic distance between the two languages, students' level
of proficiency in the native language and their knowledge of the second language, the dialect of
the native language spoken by the students (i.e., whether it is standard or nonstandard), the
relative status of the students' language in the community, and societal attitudes toward the
students' native language.
"Language Distance." Specific languages can be more or less difficult to learn, depending on
how different from or similar they are to the languages the learner already knows. At the Defense
Language Institute in Monterey, California, for example, languages are placed in four categories
depending on their average learning difficulty from the perspective of a native English speaker.
The basic intensive language course, which brings a student to an intermediate level, can be as
short as 24 weeks for languages such as Dutch or Spanish, which are Indo European languages
and use the same writing system as English, or as long as 65 weeks for languages such as Arabic,
Korean, or Vietnamese, which are members of other language families and use different writing
systems.
"Native language proficiency." The student's level of proficiency in the native languageincluding not only oral language and literacy, but also metalinguistic development, training in
formal and academic features of language use, and knowledge of rhetorical patterns and
variations in genre and style-affects acquisition of a second language. The more academically
sophisticated the student's native language knowledge and abilities, the easier it will be for that
student to learn a second language. This helps explain why foreign exchange students tend to be

successful in American high school classes: They already have high school level proficiency in
their native language.
"Knowledge of the second language." Students' prior knowledge of the second language is of
course a significant factor in their current learning. High school students learning English as a
second language in a U.S. classroom may possess skills ranging from conversational fluency
acquired from contacts with the English-speaking world to formal knowledge obtained in
English as a foreign language classes in their countries of origin. The extent and type of prior
knowledge is an essential consideration in planning instruction. For example, a student with
informal conversational English skills may have little understanding of English grammatical
systems and may need specific instruction in English grammar.
"Dialect and register." Learners may need to learn a dialect and a formal register in school that
are different from those they encounter in their daily lives. This involves acquiring speech
patterns that may differ significantly from those they are familiar with and value as members of a
particular social group or speech community.
"Language status." Consideration of dialects and registers of a language and of the relationships
between two languages includes the relative prestige of different languages and dialects and of
the cultures and ethnic groups associated with them. Students whose first language has a low
status vis a vis the second may lose their first language, perhaps feeling they have to give up
their own linguistic and cultural background to join the more prestigious society associated with
the target language.
"Language attitudes." Language attitudes in the learner, the peer group, the school, the
neighborhood, and society at large can have an enormous effect on the second language learning
process, both positive and negative. It is vital that teachers and students examine and understand
these attitudes. In particular, they need to understand that learning a second language does not
mean giving up one's first language or dialect. Rather, it involves adding a new language or
dialect to one's repertoire.
This is true even for students engaged in formal study of their first language. For example,
students in Spanish for native speakers classes may feel bad when teachers tell them that the
ways they speak Spanish are not right. Clearly, this is an issue of dialect difference. School (in
this case, classroom Spanish) requires formal registers and standard dialects, while conversation
with friends and relatives may call for informal registers and nonstandard dialects. If their ways
of talking outside of school are valued when used in appropriate contexts, students are more
likely to be open to learning a new language or dialect, knowing that the new discourses will
expand their communicative repertoires rather than displace their familiar ways of
communicating.
THE LEARNER
Students come from diverse backgrounds and have diverse needs and goals. With adolescent
language learners, factors such as peer pressure, the presence of role models, and the level of
home support can strongly affect the desire and ability to learn a second language.

"Diverse needs" A basic educational principle is that new learning should be based on prior
experiences and existing skills. Although this principle is known and generally agreed upon by
educators, in practice it is often overshadowed by the administrative convenience of the linear
curriculum and the single textbook. Homogeneous curricula and materials are problematic
enough if all learners are from a single language and cultural background, but they are
indefensible given the great diversity in today's classrooms. Such diversity requires a different
conception of curricula and a different approach to materials. Differentiation and
individualization are not a luxury in this context: They are a necessity.
"Diverse goals." Learners' goals may determine how they use the language being learned, how
native-like their pronunciation will be, how lexically elaborate and grammatically accurate their
utterances will be, and how much energy they will expend to understand messages in the target
language. Learners' goals can vary from wholly integrative-the desire to assimilate and become a
full member of the English-speaking world-to primarily instrumental-oriented toward specific
goals such as academic or professional success (Gardner, 1989). Educators working with English
language learners must also consider whether the communities in which their students live, work,
and study accept them, support their efforts, and offer them genuine English-learning
opportunities.
"Peer groups." Teenagers tend to be heavily influenced by their peer groups. In second language
learning, peer pressure often undermines the goals set by parents and teachers. Peer pressure
often reduces the desire of the student to work toward native pronunciation, because the sounds
of the target language may be regarded as strange. For learners of English as a second language,
speaking like a native speaker may unconsciously be regarded as a sign of no longer belonging to
their native-language peer group. In working with secondary school students, it is important to
keep these peer influences in mind and to foster a positive image for proficiency in a second
language.
"Role models." Students need to have positive and realistic role models who demonstrate the
value of being proficient in more than one language. It is also helpful for students to read
literature about the personal experiences of people from diverse language and dialect
backgrounds. Through discussions of the challenges experienced by others, students can develop
a better understanding of their own challenges.
"Home support." Support from home is very important for successful second language learning.
Some educators believe that parents of English language learners should speak only English in
the home (see, e.g., recommendations made in Rodriguez, 1982). However, far more important
than speaking English is that parents value both the native language and English, communicate
with their children in whichever language is most comfortable, and show support for and interest
in their children's progress.
THE LEARNING PROCESS
When we think of second language development as a learning process, we need to remember that
different students have different learning styles, that intrinsic motivation aids learning, and that
the quality of classroom interaction matters a great deal.

"Learning styles." Research has shown that individuals vary greatly in the ways they learn a
second language (Skehan, 1989). Some learners are more analytically oriented and thrive on
picking apart words and sentences. Others are more globally oriented, needing to experience
overall patterns of language in meaningful contexts before making sense of the linguistic parts
and forms. Some learners are more visually oriented, others more geared to sounds.
"Motivation." According to Deci and Ryan (1985), intrinsic motivation is related to basic human
needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Intrinsically motivated activities are those that
the learner engages in for their own sake because of their value, interest, and challenge. Such
activities present the best possible opportunities for learning.
"Classroom interaction." Language learning does not occur as a result of the transmission of facts
about language or from a succession of rote memorization drills. It is the result of opportunities
for meaningful interaction with others in the target language. Therefore, lecturing and recitation
are not the most appropriate modes of language use in the second language classroom. Teachers
need to move toward more richly interactive language use, such as that found in instructional
conversations (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and collaborative classroom work (Adger, Kalyanpur,
Peterson, & Bridger, 1995).
CONCLUSION
While this digest has focused on the second language acquisition process from the perspective of
the language, the learner, and the learning process, it is important to point out that the larger
social and cultural contexts of second language development have a tremendous impact on
second language learning, especially for immigrant students. The status of students' ethnic
groups in relation to the larger culture can help or hinder the acquisition of the language of
mainstream society.
REFERENCES
Adger, C., Kalyanpur, M., Peterson, D., & Bridger, T. (1995). "Engaging students: Thinking,
talking, cooperating." Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). "Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior." New York: Plenum.
Gardner, H. (1989). "To open minds: Chinese clues to the dilemma of contemporary education."
New York: Basic.
Rodriguez, R. (1982). "Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez, an
autobiography." Toronto: Bantam.
Skehan, P. (1989). "Individual differences in second-language learning." London: Edward
Arnold.

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). "Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and school in
social context." New York: Cambridge University Press.
This digest is drawn from "Access and Engagement: Program Design and Instructional
Approaches for Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools," by Aida Walqui, the fourth volume
in the Topics in Immigrant Education series.

Factors Influencing
Acquisition

Second

Language

The rate at which a student develops proficiency in English, adapts to

the new environment, and integrates into the mainstream academic
program
will
be
influenced
by
the
following
factors
The age at which students begin to learn English
The length of time the student has lived away from the home
country
The student's stage of acculturation or orientation to France and
the
school

The
student's
previous
educational
experiences

The
student's
level
of
first-language
literacy

The
student's
previous
exposure
to
English
The
language or languages spoken in the student's home

The
presence
of
learning
exceptionalities
The effect of possible personal trauma caused by natural disaster,
political upheaval, war family disruption or other difficult
circumstances

6 Top factors that influence second language

acquisition
December 23, 2010
Why language schools are often ineffective? I did about about one month German language
course and found that I was gaining very little out of it. I had different teachers and I noticed that
a good teacher can make a huge difference by creating a learning environment that involve
students and do not bore them.
When I started to read literature about the factors that influence language learning, but also
learning in general, I found out that the approach that some of my teachers were following was
totally wrong.
I summarize what I think are crucial factors for efficient language learning and will then explain
each one more in detail:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Motivation
Regular practice
Emotional involvement
Playfulness and willingness to make mistakes
Humble approach The basic first
Grammar is secondary to practice, theory is secondary to practice.

1. Motivation
Turns out that the more you are motivated toward learning the faster and better you will learn.
This seems obvious but the crucial point is that to be motivated you have actually to believe that
you can learn the language, and that you can learn it pretty quickly.
2. Regular practice
It is better to practice the language every day 20-30 minutes than 2 hours 2 times a week.
Regular practice it is very much linked to other factors such as time management and motivation.
3. Emotional involvement
Our memory can retain much better information that is associated with strong emotions and more
than one sense. For example, associating the sound of a word with images and smell could be
more effective than just reading the word on a dictionary. One important factor is that a person
memory may have preference for one of the senses. Therefore, discovering what is your
favourite sense for memory retention can be highly useful to decide how to learn languages.
4. Playfulness and willingness to make mistakes
When we are bored we do not learn. When we are having fun we are more receptive. This is one
of the reason why boring language school is usually very ineffective. I think that is also
important to not worry about sounding a bit ridiculous during the first months speaking a foreign
language. Willingness to make mistakes allows you to improve by getting feedback on what are
you doing wrong and how to fix it. A playful approach to language learning can be highly
rewarding because allows you to say anything and without having to worry too much about it.
5. Humble approach Starting from the basic

We learn better when we interiorize very well some small knowledge chuncks or principles
before adding new ones. Therefore, a beginner that start by an humble approach, and recognize
that is better to learn very good very few things at the beginning before learning a lot of
advanced rules will actually learn faster. In other words, I think that the secret to learn fast is
actually to learn slowly (gradually).
6. Grammar is secondary to practice.
Generally speaking I believe that second language acquisition is more successful when it imitates
children language acquisition. Children do not learn grammar first and then how to speak, they
learn how to speak by a trial and error process which involve constant engaging with their
environment. Children do not learn reading by starting to read literature. They learn to read by
starting to read simple single words, and then simple single sentences. Grammar should be taught
very sparingly and sparingly used to check the sentences that one has already pronounced instead
than the opposite.
Peter
Related content:

Second-language acquisition or second-language learning is the process by which people

learn a second language. Second-language acquisition (often abbreviated to SLA) is also the
name of the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. Second language refers to any
language learned in addition to a person's first language; although the concept is named second
language acquisition, it can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth or subsequent
languages.[1] Second-language acquisition refers to what learners do; it does not refer to practices
in language teaching.
The academic discipline of second-language acquisition is a sub-discipline of applied linguistics.
It is broad-based and relatively new. As well as the various branches of linguistics, secondlanguage acquisition is also closely related to psychology, cognitive psychology, and education.
To separate the academic discipline from the learning process itself, the terms second-language
acquisition research, second-language studies, and second-language acquisition studies are also
used. SLA research began as an interdisciplinary field, and because of this it is difficult to
identify a precise starting date. However, it does appear to have developed a great deal since the
mid-1960s.[2] The term acquisition was originally used to emphasize the subconscious nature of
the learning process,[3] but in recent years learning and acquisition have become largely
synonymous.
Second-language acquisition can incorporate heritage language learning,[4] but it does not usually
incorporate bilingualism. Most SLA researchers see bilingualism as being the end result of
learning a language, not the process itself, and see the term as referring to native-like fluency.
Writers in fields such as education and psychology, however, often use bilingualism loosely to
refer to all forms of multilingualism.[5] Second-language acquisition is also not to be contrasted
with the acquisition of a foreign language; rather, the learning of second languages and the
learning of foreign languages involve the same fundamental processes in different situations.[6].

There has been much debate about exactly how language is learned, and many issues are still
unresolved. There have been many theories of second-language acquisition that have been
proposed, but none has been accepted as an overarching theory by all SLA researchers. Due to
the interdisciplinary nature of the field of second-language acquisition, this is not expected to
happen in the foreseeable future.

Contents
[hide]

1 History
2 Comparisons with first language acquisition
3 Learner language
o 3.1 Item and system learning
o 3.2 Interlanguage
o 3.3 Sequences of acquisition
o 3.4 Variability
4 External factors
o 4.1 Input and interaction
o 4.2 Social aspects
5 Internal factors
o 5.1 Cognitive approaches
o 5.2 Sociocultural approaches
o 5.3 Linguistic approaches
6 Individual variation
o 6.1 Affective factors
7 In the classroom
8 See also
9 Notes
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links

[edit] History
As SLA began as an interdisciplinary field, it is hard to pin down a precise starting date.[2]
However, there are two publications in particular that are seen as instrumental to the
development of the modern study of SLA: Pitt Corder's 1967 essay The Significance of Learners'
Errors, and Larry 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.[7]
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.[7]
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 Lydia White's
descriptions of learner competence, and Manfred 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.[7]
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.[7]
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.[7]

[edit] Comparisons with first language acquisition

People who learn a second language differ from children learning their first language in a
number of ways. Perhaps the most striking of these is that very few adult second-language
learners reach the same competence as native speakers of that language. Children learning a
second language are more likely to achieve native-like fluency than adults, but in general it is
very rare for someone speaking a second language to pass completely for a native speaker. When
a learner's speech plateaus in this way it is known as fossilization.
In addition, some errors that second-language learners make in their speech originate in their first
language. For example, Spanish speakers learning English may say "Is raining" rather than "It is
raining", leaving out the subject of the sentence. French speakers learning English, however, do
not usually make the same mistake. This is because sentence subjects can be left out in Spanish,
but not in French.[8] This influence of the first language on the second is known as language
transfer.
Also, when people learn a second language, the way they speak their first language changes in
subtle ways. These changes can be with any aspect of language, from pronunciation and syntax
to gestures the learner makes and the things they tend to notice.[9] For example, French speakers

who spoke English as a second language pronounced the /t/ sound in French differently from
monolingual French speakers.[10] When shown a fish tank, Chinese speakers of English tend to
remember more fish and fewer plants than Chinese monolinguals.[11] This effect of the second
language on the first led Vivian Cook to propose the idea of multi-competence, which sees the
different languages a person speaks not as separate systems, but as related systems in their
mind.[12]

[edit] Learner language

Learner language is the written or spoken language produced by a learner. It is also the main
type of data used in second-language acquisition research.[13] Much research in second-language
acquisition is concerned with the internal representations of a language in the mind of the
learner, and in how those representations change over time. It is not yet possible to inspect these
representations directly with brain scans or similar techniques, so SLA researchers are forced to
make inferences about these rules from learners' speech or writing.[14]
[edit] Item and system learning

There are two types of learning that second-language learners engage in. The first is item
learning, or the learning of formulaic chunks of language. These chunks can be individual words,
set phrases, or formulas like Can I have a ___? The second kind of learning is system learning,
or the learning of systematic rules.[15]
[edit] Interlanguage
Main article: Interlanguage

Originally, attempts to describe learner language were based on comparing different languages
and on analyzing learners' errors. However, these approaches weren't able to predict all the errors
that learners made when in the process of learning a second language. For example, Serbo-Croat
speakers learning English may say "What does Pat doing now?", although this is not a valid
sentence in either language.[16]
To explain these kind of systematic errors, the idea of the interlanguage was developed.[17] An
interlanguage is an emerging language system in the mind of a second-language learner. A
learner's interlanguage is not a deficient version of the language being learned filled with random
errors, nor is it a language purely based on errors introduced from the learner's first language.
Rather, it is a language in its own right, with its own systematic rules.[18] It is possible to view
most aspects of language from an interlanguage perspective, including grammar, phonology,
lexicon, and pragmatics.
There are three different processes that influence the creation of interlanguages:[16]

Language transfer. Learners fall back on their mother tongue to help create their language
system. This is now recognized not as a mistake, but as a process that all learners go through.
Overgeneralization. Learners use rules from the second language in a way that native speakers
would not. For example, a learner may say "I goed home", overgeneralizing the English rule of
adding -ed to create past tense verb forms.

Simplification. Learners use a highly simplified form of language, similar to speech by children or
in pidgins. This may be related to linguistic universals.

The concept of interlanguage has become very widespread in SLA research, and is often a basic
assumption made by researchers.[18]
[edit] Sequences of acquisition
A typical order of acquisition for English[19]

1. Plural -s

Girls go.

2. Progressive -ing

Girls going.

3. Copula forms of be

Girls are here.

4. Auxiliary forms of be

Girls are going.

5.

Definite and indefinite

The girls go.
articles the and a

6. Irregular past tense

The girls went.

7. Third person -s

The girl goes.

8. Possessive 's

The girl's book.

Main article: Order of acquisition

In the 1970s there were several studies that investigated the order in which learners acquired
different grammatical structures.[20] These studies showed that there was little change in this
order among learners with different first languages. Furthermore, it showed that the order was
the same for adults as well as children, and that it did not even change if the learner had language
lessons. This proved that there were factors other than language transfer involved in learning
second languages, and was a strong confirmation of the concept of interlanguage.
However, the studies did not find that the orders were exactly the same. Although there were
remarkable similarities in the order in which all learners learned second-language grammar, there

were still some differences among individuals and among learners with different first languages.
It is also difficult to tell when exactly a grammatical structure has been learned, as learners may
use structures correctly in some situations but not in others. Thus it is more accurate to speak of
sequences of acquisition, where particular grammatical features in a language have a fixed
sequence of development, but the overall order of acquisition is less rigid.
[edit] Variability

Although second-language acquisition proceeds in discrete sequences, it does not progress from
one step of a sequence to the next in an orderly fashion. There can be considerable variability in
features of learners' interlanguage while progressing from one stage to the next.[21] For example,
in one study by Rod Ellis a learner used both "No look my card" and "Don't look my card" while
playing a game of bingo.[22] A small fraction of variation in interlanguage is free variation, when
the learner uses two forms interchangeably. However, most variation is systemic variation,
variation which depends on the context of utterances the learner makes.[21] Forms can vary
depending on linguistic context, such as whether the subject of a sentence is a pronoun or a noun;
they can vary depending on social context, such as using formal expressions with superiors and
informal expressions with friends; and also, they can vary depending on psycholinguistic
context, or in other words, on whether learners have the chance to plan what they are going to
say.[21] The causes of variability are a matter of great debate among SLA researchers.[22]

[edit] External factors

[edit] Input and interaction

The primary factor affecting language acquisition appears to be the input that the learner
receives. Stephen Krashen took a very strong position on the importance of input, asserting that
comprehensible input is all that is necessary for second-language acquisition.[23][24] Krashen
pointed to studies showing that the length of time a person stays in a foreign country is closely
linked with his level of language acquisition. Further evidence for input comes from studies on
reading: large amounts of free voluntary reading have a significant positive effect on learners'
vocabulary, grammar, and writing.[25][26] Input is also the mechanism by which people learn
languages according to the universal grammar model.[27]
The type of input may also be important. One tenet of Krashen's theory is that input should not
be grammatically sequenced. He claims that such sequencing, as found in language classrooms
where lessons involve practicing a "structure of the day", is not necessary, and may even be
harmful.[28]
While input is of vital importance, Krashen's assertion that only input matters in second-language
acquisition has been contradicted by more recent research. For example, students enrolled in
French-language immersion programs in Canada still produced non-native-like grammar when
they spoke, even though they had years of meaning-focused lessons and their listening skills
were statistically native-level.[29] Output appears to play an important role, and among other
things, can help provide learners with feedback, make them concentrate on the form of what they
are saying, and help them to automatize their language knowledge.[30] These processes have been
codified in the theory of comprehensible output.[31]

Researchers have also pointed to interaction in the second language as being important for
acquisition. According to Long's interaction hypothesis the conditions for acquisition are
especially good when interacting in the second language; specifically, conditions are good when
a breakdown in communication occurs and learners must negotiate for meaning. The
modifications to speech arising from interactions like this help make input more comprehensible,
provide feedback to the learner, and push learners to modify their speech.[32]
[edit] Social aspects

Although the dominant perspective in second-language research is a cognitive one, from the
early days of the discipline researchers have also acknowledged that social aspects play an
important role.[33] There have been many different approaches to sociolinguistic study of secondlanguage acquisition, and indeed, according to Rod Ellis, this plurality has meant that
"sociolinguistic SLA is replete with a bewildering set of terms referring to the social aspects of
L2 acquisition".[34] Common to each of these approaches, however, is a rejection of language as
a purely psychological phenomenon; instead, sociolinguistic research views the social context in
which language is learned as essential for a proper understanding of the acquisition process.[35]
Ellis identifies three types of social structure which can affect the acquisition of second
languages: socialinguistic setting, specific social factors, and situational factors.[36]
Socialinguistic setting refers to the role of the second language in society, such as whether it is
spoken by a majority or a minority of the population, whether its use is widespread or restricted
to a few functional roles, or whether the society is predominantly bilingual or monolingual.[37]
Ellis also includes the distinction of whether the second language is learned in a natural or an
educational setting.[38] Specific social factors that can affect second-language acquisition include
age, gender, social class, and ethnic identity, with ethnic identity being the one that has received
most research attention.[39] Situational factors are those which vary between each social
interaction. For example, a learner may use more polite language when talking to someone of
higher social status, but more informal language when talking with friends.[40]
There have been several models developed to explain social effects on language acquisition.
Schumann's acculturation model proposes that learners' rate of development and ultimate level of
language achievement is a function of the "social distance" and the "psychological distance"
between learners and the second-language community. In Schumann's model the social factors
are most important, but the degree to which learners are comfortable with learning the second
language also plays a role.[41] Another sociolinguistic model is Gardner's socio-educational
model, which was designed to explain classroom language acquisition.[42] The inter-group model
proposes "ethnolinguistic vitality" as a key construct for second-language acquisition.[43]
Language socialization is an approach with the premise that "linguistic and cultural knowledge
are constructed through each other",[44] and saw increased attention after the year 2000.[45]
Finally, Norton's theory of social identity is an attempt to codify the relationship between power,
identity, and language acquisition.[46]

[edit] Internal factors

Internal factors affecting second-language acquisition are those which stem from the learner's
own mind. Attempts to account for the internal mechanisms of second-language acquisition can
be divided into three general strands: cognitive, sociocultural, and linguistic. These explanations
are not all compatible, and often differ significantly.
[edit] Cognitive approaches

Much modern research in second-language acquisition has taken a cognitive approach.[47]

Cognitive research is concerned with the mental processes involved in language acquisition, and
how they can explain the nature of learners' language knowledge. This area of research is based
in the more general area of cognitive science, and uses many concepts and models used in more
general cognitive theories of learning. As such, cognitive theories view second-language
acquisition as a special case of more general learning mechanisms in the brain. This puts them in
direct contrast with linguistic theories, which posit that language acquisition uses a unique
process different from other types of learning.[48][49]
The dominant model in cognitive approaches to second-language acquisition, and indeed in all
second-language acquisition research, is the computational model.[49] The computational model
involves three stages. In the first stage, learners retain certain features of the language input in
short-term memory. (This retained input is known as intake.) Then, learners convert some of this
intake into second-language knowledge, which is stored in long-term memory. Finally, learners
use this second-language knowledge to produce spoken output.[50] Cognitive theories attempt to
codify both the nature of the mental representations of intake and language knowledge, and the
mental processes which underlie these stages.
In the early days of second-language acquisition research interlanguage was seen as the basic
representation of second-language knowledge; however, more recent research has taken a
number of different approaches in characterizing the mental representation of language
knowledge.[51] There are theories that hypothesize that learner language is inherently variable,[52]
and there is the functionalist perspective that sees acquisition of language as intimately tied to
the function it provides.[53] Some researchers make the distinction between implicit and explicit
language knowledge, and some between declarative and procedural language knowledge.[54]
There have also been approaches that argue for a dual-mode system in which some language
knowledge is stored as rules, and other language knowledge as items.[55]
The mental processes that underlie second-language acquisition can be broken down into microprocesses and macro-processes. Micro-processes include attention;[56] working memory;[57]
integration and restructuring, the process by which learners change their interlanguage
systems;[58] and monitoring, the conscious attending of learners to their own language output.[59]
Macro-processes include the distinction between intentional learning and incidental learning; and
also the distinction between explicit and implicit learning.[60] Some of the notable cognitive
theories of second-language acquisition include the nativization model, the multidimensional
model and processability theory, emergentist models, the competition model, and skillacquisition theories.[61]

Other cognitive approaches have looked at learners' speech production, particularly learners'
speech planning and communication strategies. Speech planning can have an effect on learners'
spoken output, and research in this area has focused on how planning affects three aspects of
speech: complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Of these three, planning effects on fluency has had
the most research attention.[62] Communication strategies are conscious strategies that learners
employ to get around any instances of communication breakdown they may experience. Their
effect on second-language acquisition is unclear, with some researchers claiming they help it,
and others claiming the opposite.[63]
[edit] Sociocultural approaches

While still essentially being based in the cognitive tradition, sociocultural theory has a
fundamentally different set of assumptions to approaches to second-language acquisition based
on the computational model.[64] Furthermore, although it is closely affiliated with other social
approaches, it is a theory of mind and not of general social explanations of language acquisition.
According to Ellis, "It is important to recognize ... that this paradigm, despite the label
'sociocultural' does not seek to explain how learners acquire the cultural values of the L2 but
rather how knowledge of an L2 is internalized through experiences of a sociocultural nature."[64]
The origins of sociocultural theory lie in the work of Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist.[65]
[edit] Linguistic approaches

Linguistic approaches to explaining second-language acquisition spring from the wider study of
linguistics. They differ from cognitive approaches and sociocultural approaches in that they
consider language knowledge to be unique and distinct from any other type of knowledge.[48][49]
The linguistic research tradition in second-language acquisition has developed in relative
isolation from the cognitive and sociocultural research traditions, and as of 2010 the influence
from the wider field of linguistics was still strong.[47] Two main strands of research can be
identified in the linguistic tradition: approaches informed by universal grammar, and typological
approaches.[66]
Typological universals are principles that hold for all the world's languages. They are found
empirically, by surveying different languages and deducing which aspects of them could be
universal; these aspects are then checked against other languages to verify the findings. The
interlanguages of second-language learners have been shown to obey typological universals, and
some researchers have suggested that typological universals may constrain interlanguage
development.[67]
The theory of universal grammar was proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s, and has
enjoyed considerable popularity in the field of linguistics. It is a narrowly-focused theory that
only concentrates on describing the linguistic competence of an individual, as opposed to
mechanisms of learning. It consists of a set of principles, which are universal and constant, and a
set of parameters, which can be set differently for different languages.[68] The "universals" in
universal grammar differ from typological universals in that they are a mental construct derived
by researchers, whereas typological universals are readily verifiable by data from world
languages.[67] It is widely accepted among researchers in the universal grammar framework that
all first-language learners have access to universal grammar; this is not the case for second-

language learners, however, and much research in the context of second-language acquisition has
focused on what level of access learners may have.[68]

[edit] Individual variation

Main article: Individual variation in second-language acquisition

There is considerable variation in the rate at which people learn second languages, and in the
language level that they ultimately reach. Some learners learn quickly and reach a near-native
level of competence, but others learn slowly and get stuck at relatively early stages of
acquisition, despite living in the country where the language is spoken for several years. The
reason for this disparity was first addressed with the study of language learning aptitude in the
1950s, and later with the good language learner studies in the 1970s. More recently research has
focused on a number of different factors that affect individuals' language learning, in particular
strategy use, social and societal influences, personality, motivation, and anxiety. The relationship
between age and the ability to learn languages has also been a subject of long-standing debate.
The issue of age was first addressed with the critical period hypothesis.[69] The strict version of
this hypothesis states that there is a cut-off age at about 12, after which learners lose the ability to
fully learn a language. This strict version has since been rejected for second-language
acquisition, as adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation
and general fluency. However, in general, adult learners of a second-language rarely achieve the
native-like fluency that children display, despite often progressing faster in the initial stages.
This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect
language learning.
There has been considerable attention paid to the strategies which learners use when learning a
second language. Strategies have been found to be of critical importance, so much so that
strategic competence has been suggested as a major component of communicative
competence.[70] Strategies are commonly divided into learning strategies and communicative
strategies, although there are other ways of categorizing them. Learning strategies are techniques
used to improve learning, such as mnemonics or using a dictionary. Communicative strategies
are strategies a learner uses to convey meaning even when she doesn't have access to the correct
form, such as using pro-forms like thing, or using non-verbal means such as gestures.
[edit] Affective factors

The learner's attitude to the learning process has also been identified as being critically important
to second-language acquisition. Anxiety in language-learning situations has been almost
unanimously shown to be detrimental to successful learning. A related factor, personality, has
also received attention. There has been discussion about the effects of extrovert and introvert
personalities. However, one study has found that there were no significant differences between
extroverts and introverts on the way they achieve success in a second language.[71]
Social attitudes such as gender roles and community views toward language learning have also
proven critical. Language learning can be severely hampered by cultural attitudes, with a
frequently cited example being the difficulty of Navajo children in learning English. Also, the

motivation of the individual learner is of vital importance to the success of language learning.
Studies have consistently shown that intrinsic motivation, or a genuine interest in the language
itself, is more effective over the long-term than extrinsic motivation, as in learning a language for
a reward such as high grades or praise.

[edit] In the classroom

Main article: Second-language acquisition classroom research

While the majority of SLA research has been devoted to language learning in a natural setting,
there have also been efforts made to investigate second-language acquisition in the classroom.
This kind of research has a significant overlap with language education, but it is always
empirical, based on data and statistics, and it is mainly concerned with the effect that instruction
has on the learner, rather than what the teacher does.
The research has been wide-ranging. There have been attempts made to systematically measure
the effectiveness of language teaching practices for every level of language, from phonetics to
pragmatics, and for almost every current teaching methodology. This research has indicated that
many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient.[72] cited in Ellis 1994 It
is generally agreed that pedagogy restricted to teaching grammar rules and vocabulary lists does
not give students the ability to use the L2 with accuracy and fluency. Rather, to become
proficient in the second language, the learner must be given opportunities to use it for
communicative purposes.[73][74]
Another area of research has been on the effects of corrective feedback in assisting learners.This
has been shown to vary depending on the technique used to make the correction, and the overall
focus of the classroom, whether on formal accuracy or on communication of meaningful
content.[75][76][77] There is also considerable interest in supplementing published research with
approaches that engage language teachers in action research on learner language in their own
classrooms.[78] As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced by their
students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize interlanguage
development.[79]

[edit] See also

Applied linguistics
Bilingualism (neurology)
Interlanguage
Language education

Language Acquisition and Affective Variables

Jill McCain

As the global society in which we live flows more easily across state borders, our people,
cultures, companies, governments, and institutions from around the world have more contact.
Borders are blurred and the importance of bi- and multi-lingualism becomes necessary to sustain
this constant contact. As a result of this increase in language acquisition and teaching, much
research has been devoted to exploring ways in which a diverse set of factors affects learning and
acquisition. The significance of these variables lies in the impact on how we teach second
languages. In a where barriers to inter-cultural and inter-linguistic interaction are being torn
down, this research will have a great impact on its future.
Evolution has shown the immense importance of the capability of language in human beings.
Because language allows for cooperation and the spread of technology and knowledge more
easily, it has benefited the advancement in technology for humans. Pinker (1)writes that
"the shape of the human vocal tract seems to have been modified in evolution for the demands of
speech. Our larynxes are low in our throats, and our vocal tracts have a sharp right angle bend
that creates two independently-modifiable resonant cavities (the mouth and the pharynx or
throat) that defines a large two-dimensional range of vowel sounds.... But it comes at a sacrifice
of efficiency for breathing, swallowing, and chewing (Lieberman, 1984). Before the invention of
the Heimlich maneuver, choking on food was a common cause of accidental death in humans,
causing 6,000 deaths a year in the United States. The evolutionary selective advantages must
have been very large to outweigh such a disadvantage."
While chimps have been trained to mimic human speech, Pinker points out, they do not naturally
acquire it without training as humans do. Thus, humans are unique in their ability to acquire and
pass on language.
More recent changes in human society have increased our need for and use of multi-lingual
communication. Our world has become more global, leaving fewer realms to exist in state
boundaries and expanding the number of activities involving different cultures and languages.
Migration, inter-language marriages, bilingual education, multi-national corporations, and
international organizations are just a few phenomena on the rise that require bilingual (or
multilingual) participants. This trend has in turn spawned research into two overlapping areas-initial language acquisition in young children and that on acquisition of subsequent languages. I
will first turn to initial language acquisition.
INITIAL LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
The most important factor affecting initial language acquisition is neurological developments in
the brain. Unless completely deprived of language input (see (1)) in the form of hearing others
speak, or physical limitations prohibiting speech, children invariably learn to talk (1).
Pinker summarizes the first two years of neurological development relating to language use:

Before birth, virtually all neurons (nerve cells) are formed, and they migrate to their proper
locations in the brain. But head size, brain weight, and thickness of the cerebral cortex (gray
matter), where the synapses (junctions) subserving mental computation take place, continue to
increase rapidly in the year after birth. Long-distance connections (white matter are not complete
until nine months, and continue to grow in their speed-inducing myelin insulation throughout
childhood. Synapses continue to develop peaking in number between nine months and two years
(depending on the brain region), at which point the child has 50% more synapses that the adult.
Metabolic activity in the brain reaches adult levels by nine to ten months , and soon exceeds it,
peaking around the age of four. In addition, huge numbers of neurons die in utero, and the dying
continues during the first two years before leveling off at age seven. Synapses whither from the
age of two through the rest of childhood and into adolescence, when the brain's metabolic rate
falls back to adult levels." (1)
The brain can also recover from damage to crucial language areas by reassigning functions to
unaffected areas, while adults cannot perform similar types of recovery after the same types of
damage (1).
While these are the most important factors affecting development of language, children can also
have other characteristics that aid in rapid acquisition-- they are unselfconscious, learn clear
positive advantages associated with successful communication (getting food, attention, etc.), and
have no other language to fall back on. These types of advantages play a role in how fast and
well children acquire language. In second language acquisition similar factors determine whether
or not the language is acquired at all.
SUBSEQUENT LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
While initial language acquisition relies mainly on neurological development over time, second
(and subsequent) language acquisition relies on age only in associated characteristics and not in
actual brain structure. Past the age of two, brain structure and differences play only a nominal
role. More relevant to second language acquisition (SLA) are four other factors: motivation,
opportunity, environment, and personality.
MOTIVATION
A person's motivation behind learning a second language (L2) and the views she holds regarding
the L2-speaking community both come into play in speed of SLA and degree of proficiency
achieved. Motivation is differentiated along a continuum-- integrative at one end and
instrumental at the other. Integrative motivation is seen in language learners whose desire to
learn is rooted in wanting to become part of the L2-speaking community, wants more contact
with it, or is genuinely interested in it. On the other end of the spectrum is instrumental
motivation. A student who sees language as a means to obtaining some reward (good grades,
employment, a diploma or for mere appreciation) would reflect instrumental motivation.
Integrative motivation is more helpful in SLA and proficiency because there is more desire for
interaction with the community and the language that helps acquisition. Those students with
mainly instrumental motivation are less likely to seek out situations where there language skills

will be needed and will be improved, like social occasions in the L2 community, readings in the
L2, or friends in the L2 community.
Also, students with low views of the L2 community are likely to not see benefits in learning the
language. If a language community is associated with poverty, crime or other negative
characteristics, there is less motivation for students to be associated with that community.
OPPORTUNITY
Opportunity and motivation work together to affect language acquisition. Motivated students are
more likely to seek out more opportunities that utilize language skills. Stephen Krashen has
argued that "the learner improves and progresses... when he or she receives second language
input that is one step beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a
learner is at stage 'i', then acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'comprehensible
input' that belongs to level 'i+1'" (2). The learner can still follow the conversation, but is exposed
to new words or concepts. Many theorists and teachers (3) (4) (5) stress that varied and frequent
comprehensible input is key to acquisition. It would make sense that the number of the
opportunities the brain has to store and reinforce patterns, accents, concepts, and meanings of a
language, that the better this information would be stored and processed.
ENVIRONMENT
The environment in which these opportunities take place also affects SLA. As explored before,
the level of input provided has maximum effect at the 'i+1' level, In addition to this, an
environment which encourages the greatest amount of use of the language is beneficial. Dulay
and Burt (6) proposed that people use an 'affective filter' that "regulates how much input is
received by a language processing mechanism" (6). If the affective filter is over-used, a person
tries to compose grammatically perfect sentences every times she speaks, and if it is underused
she speaks without regard to the 'rules' she is aware of. The optimal user of the affective filter
speaks naturally and often and eventually incorporates more rules into her speech. In this way,
the brain is provided with more experience and input while also progressing toward more fluent
speech.
PERSONALITY
Personality can also affect SLA. In combination with environment it can act to inhibit learners or
to encourage increased opportunity. Introversion has the greatest chance of negatively affecting
SLA. Students that are afraid of embarrassing themselves by speaking incorrectly or by not being
able to speak at all may try to avoid opportunities that would otherwise aid their learning. If
teachers correct mistakes and further embarrass shy students, it may isolate students even more.
Instead, repeating back the corrected statement allows feedback without a damaging student's
ego. For example, if Marcia says "Yesterday I go to the store with my madre," the teacher would
respond, "You went to the store with your mother yesterday?" She has effectively provided
corrected input while also continuing the conversation. If a student shuts down after an outright
correction then opportunity for more input and practice has been lost.

All of these external and internal characteristics affect the way in which language is acquired by
the brain. Increased input, lowered anxiety, strong integrative motivation and positive
environments can help processes of language acquisition progress. It is an interesting overlap
between the physical processes of the brain and the more mental processes of the mind. While
language acquisition is ultimately completed and stored in the brain, emotional and
environmental factors greatly affect the process by which it is acquired. Because these factors
and many others all interact in the acquisition of language, it is incredibly difficult to research
the effect of one specific aspect. Many studies have ignored this fact and have tried to attribute
too much weight to one factor, while others have undoubtedly affected the outcomes. Since
single factors and how they affect acquisition cannot be completely isolated, research should be
concentrated on the outcomes of certain teaching techniques. They will not be universally
applicable, but will help to eliminate less effective or damaging techniques. This area of teaching
will be increasingly important as our world continues to become more bilingual and multilingual.
WWW Sources
1)Number one ,

2) Number two,
3) Number three,
4) number four,
5) number five,
6) number six,

econd Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course

Susan Gass and Larry Selinker (1994)
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Pp. xvi + 357
ISBN 0-8058-0494-3 (paper); 0-8058-0493-5 (cloth)
US $34.50 (paper); $79.57 (cloth)
Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (SLAIC) is a welcome addition to the
growing number of introductory texts on second language acquisition. Gass and Selinker take a
multidisciplinary approach to adult second language acquisition (SLA), in which insights and
research material from several perspectives, primarily linguistics, psychology, and
sociolinguistics, are linked to SLA research itself. Their book attempts to bring together these
disparate threads [and] to place them within a coherent framework (p. xiv). Thus, although the
authors do not specifically say so, their book is written from an integrative, applied linguistics
point of view, such as that described in Kaplan & Grabe (1992).

Gass and Selinker state (p. xiii) that they designed SLAIC so that it can be used in an
introductory course for undergraduate or graduate students, whether such students have had any
background in linguistics or not. Their goal is to make the subject accessible to large numbers of
students by presenting in an understandable way the complexities of the field through providing
a clear review of the issues and pertinent literature in SLA, often in an inductive manner.
The eleven chapters in SLAIC cover most of the topics one would expect in an overview of
SLA: the role of the native language, typological universals and Universal Grammar,
interlanguage, variation, input and interaction, and individual factors. However, Gass and
Selinker also include valuable material on other topics of importance in an introductory text,
such as how SLA data is obtained and analyzed and the place of the lexicon. The book concludes
with the authors integrated view of SLA. A glossary, along with indexes covering both authors
and subjects, is added after the list of references. One of the attractive features of the book is the
Points for Discussion section at the end of each chapter. On the whole, Gass and Selinker have
devised useful and challenging questions, situations, and problems, often based on actual second
language data, to lead students, both individually and as a class, into further exploration of the
material covered in the chapter.
In chapter 1, in the section on the nature of language, the authors briefly mention six areas of
language which can be described systematically: phonology, syntax, morphology, the lexicon,
semantics, and pragmatics. Missing, however, is any mention of discourse which, according to
Grabe (1992), is the most important area of research for applied linguistics (p. 53), an area
which is now at the heart of applied linguistics research (p. 56). Although [-1-] the notions of
discourse function and discourse domain are mentioned briefly in the chapter on variation, and
some reference to discourse is made in the discussion of input, comprehension, output, and
interaction, discourse analysis and its importance in second language learning is given
insufficient attention, given the extensive literature on the analysis of both conversation and a
wide range of written materials.
Chapter 2 is a helpful transition between the introductory chapter and the specific content
chapters to follow. Gass and Selinker lead the reader through the process of analyzing SLA data,
pointing out that data can be ambiguous in their interpretation. Thus rather than thinking of
solutions as right or wrong, the reader needs to consider arguments and proposed solutions as
being better or worse. The authors then discuss how SLA data are collected, how the data are
elicited, and the effect of ones theoretical position on ones research design. The final section of
the chapter looks at other issues in the analysis of SLA data. This process of working through the
elicitation, collection, and analysis of data, Gass and Selinker state, will help the reader do the
problems and evaluate the research in the remainder of the book.
Gass and Selinker devote chapters 3 and 4 to a consideration of the role of the native language
(NL) in SLA. In chapter 3, they examine earlier positions on the NL, critiquing both contrastive
analysis and error analysis. In chapter 4, they look at the morpheme order studies and recent
reactions to that body of research, which have led to a new perspective on the NL, particularly
via studies of transfer and cross-linguistic influences.

Chapters 5 to 7 focus on how SLA has been influenced by three disciplines: linguistics (how to
describe and explain the L2 system produced by learners), psychology (how to describe and
explain the process by which learners create their L2 system, or interlanguage) and
sociolinguistics (how to describe and explain the effect social factors have on the way learners
vary their use of their L2 system). Chapter 5 covers issues related to universals and how they are
dealt with within typological universals and Universal Grammar. Chapter 6 looks at how learners
organize and use their developing knowledge of L2 and how learning new material has an effect
on the structure of their interlanguage. Chapter 7 examines issues relating to the external
variables which affect L2 production and to the communication strategies learners use.
The last section of chapter 7 mentions other disciplines which potentially can contribute to SLA
studies. It also looks at ways in which SLA studies can have a return effect on the three major
contributing disciplines. Again, this is very much an applied linguistics perspective in the sense
put forward in Kaplan (1980) and the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Applied linguistics
(in this case the subfield of SLA) does not merely consume theories generated by other
disciplines but, according to [-2-] Gass and Selinker, also gives back to those disciplines crucial
data and a broad, multidisciplinary perspective which may challenge or at least enhance, certain
positions on language which those disciplines currently hold.
In chapter 8, Gass and Selinker discuss the nature of input and the factors which make it
understandable and thus able to become intake, along with the role of output and negotiated
interaction in SLA. This is a social interactionist view in which language and cognition develop
within a social context. The authors reject Krashens view that comprehensible input is the only
causal factor in SLA, taking instead [comprehended] linguistic input coupled with
conversational interaction as the driving force of language development (p. 215). Chapter 9
examines individual differences in SLA (e.g., age, aptitude, motivation). Gass and Selinker
prefer to call these factors nonlanguage influences since they can have a societal rather than
idiosyncratic basis. This is an extremely valuable chapter because the authors carefully examine
each of these nonlanguage influences (NLIs) and show that research does not always support
commonly held positions. The authors begin by looking at research traditions. They point out
that linguistics has tended to minimize the role of aptitude while cognitive psychology has
played down the role of attitudes and motivation. They note that SLA researchers coming out of
these disciplines, particularly mainline linguistics, seem reluctant to explore these NLIs. Gass
and Selinker look next at specific NLIs to see what effect they have on SLA. They accept social
distance (acculturation) as a contributing but not a causal factor. Despite the differences in the
rate and ultimate attainment of child and adult L2 learners, they note that there is as yet no
consensus among researchers about the reasons why children are more able to reach native-like
fluency than adults. Gass and Selinker see aptitude as of crucial importance (p. 247) but
largely ignored in SLA research on differential success among L2 learners. The authors then deal
with motivation and attitudes, noting some difficulties with Gardners often-cited work (e.g., the
Canadian setting may be atypical for the integrative-instrumental distinction, and self-report data
may be unreliable for the study of motivation). Their sections covering the relationship between
motivation and goals over time and between motivation and success are interesting but short. On
personality factors in SLA, Gass and Selinker find no evidence of any traits able to predict
success in learning an L2. Finally, on learning strategies, the authors consider the research to
date as being merely preliminary.

Chapter 10 is a welcome addition to overviews of SLA. In it, the authors deal with the lexicon,
an area which they consider to be neglected in SLA research because of its complexity.
Nevertheless, they claim that the lexicon may be the most important component for learners (p.
270). In support of this claim, they point out that lexical errors are numerous and disruptive and
that good lexical skills help learners to comprehend input and produce output, both of [-3-]
which aid acquisition. Recent work by Hoey (1991) within a discourse framework should also be
considered.
In their final chapter, Gass and Selinker try to pull together the various factors that influence
second language learning, integrating what is learned and what is not learned, as well as the
contexts in which that learning and nonlearning take place (p. 295). Much of the material in the
chapter is based on Gass (1988). Gass and Selinker maintain that five levels are necessary to
account for the way in which input is converted to output: (a) Apperceived input, (b)
comprehended input, (c) intake, (d) integration, and (e) output (p. 298). Between or within these
levels, there are a number of factors, or filters, which help or hinder language learners in their
efforts to process the incoming material.
The authors conclude their book by pointing out that they have tried to present a dynamic and
interactive view of second language acquisition which shows the diverse factors that have an
impact on this complex and multifaceted process.
Two final comments. First, I question whether the book is really suitable for the broad range of
students targeted by the authors: both undergraduates and graduates, with or without a
background in linguistics. Those without a knowledge of linguistics, particularly undergraduates,
will find some of the discussions technical and rather difficult. Others, for example language
teachers or graduate students of TESOL whose program is not housed in a linguistics
department, may find the book less accessible and less applicable to their needs than, say, Brown
(1994). Second, readers will notice an occasional printing error and a few exercises that do not
work particularly well. Nevertheless, Gass and Selinker are to be congratulated for having
produced a stimulating, highly readable book which should become one of the standard
introductory texts in the field of SLA.
References
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied
Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Grabe, W. (1992). Applied linguistics and linguistics. In W. Grabe & R. Kaplan (Eds.),
Introducing applied linguistics (pp. 35- 58). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [-4-] Kaplan, R.
(1980). On the scope of applied linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Kaplan, R. & Grabe, W. (1992). Introduction. In W. Grabe & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Introducing
applied linguistics (pp. 1-9). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Herb Purnell
Biola University
<herb_purnell@peter.biola.edu>
[-5-]

Motivation, an influential factor for L2 Acquisition?

-------How can the less intelligent learners enhance motivation

Second language acquisition (SLA) is the study of how second languages are learned and
the factors that influence the process. , According to the research, motivation serves as the
influential factors for L2 acquisition.

What is motivation?
Motivation, defined as the impetus to create and sustain intentions and goal-seeking acts
(Ames & Ames, 1989), is important because it determines the extent of the learner's active
involvement and attitude toward learning. In other word, it is an inner drive, impulse, emotion, or
desire that moves one to a particular action. More specially, humans universally have needs or
drive which are more or less innate, yet their intensity is environmentally conditioned.(Brown)
Motivation is the learners orientation regarding the goal of learning a second language
(Crookes and Schmidt 1991). It is extremely important to understand the nature of student
motivation because research shows that motivation plays a major part in students' choices of
language learning strategies and the proficiency levels they achieve. However, language
instructors often are not aware of the specific motivations of their students. The work is based on
the extensive research of the role of attitudes and motivation in second language acquisition by
Gardner and Lambert (1972), Dornyei (1998), and others. An eventual theory of secondlanguage teaching should take into account not only scientific knowledge coming from
contributing sciences (linguistics, psychology, etc.), but also practical knowledge of language
teachers.
Maslow(1970) listed hierarchical human needs. The picture is as follows:
Being Needs
Self-actualization

Esteem needs
Belonging needs
Safety needs
Physiological needs
Instrumental Motivation and Integrative Motivation
Current second language acquisition research discusses two types of attitudes labeled as an
"integrative orientation" and an "instrumental" orientation. Two Types of Motivation:
Instrumental Motivation is characterized by the desire to obtain something practical from
studying a second language. It is typical of second language acquisition where little or no social
integration of the learner into a community using the target language takes place, such as in a
foreign language classroom. The learners purpose in language acquisition is more practical,
such as meeting a requirement for school or university graduation, applying for a job, reaching
technical material.
Integrative Motivation is characterized by the learners positive attitudes towards the target
language group and comes into play when one desires to become a part of a community that uses
the target language in social situations. Integrative motivation has been found to sustain longterm success when learning a second language.
The distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation is that in the former, the
learner wishes to learn a language in order to integrate into the culture and society of the
language group, whereas in the latter learning of a language is motivated by the desire to achieve
instrumental goals, such as academic achievement, and/or professional and economic
advancement.
How can the less intelligent learners appeal to their inner needs and enhance motivation?
Motivation, like self-esteem, can be global, situational or task-oriented.That is,there are two
cases
I dont like learning English, but I like this attractive young teacher.(situation)
I dont like learning English , but I like this English game.(task)
In our English teaching, we can use these two cases to stimulate the students passion into
English learning . .That is to say, the reason why people who want to pass TOEFL are
instrumentally oriented. As we all know, Students with instrumental motivation are more
successful in Second Language Learning(SLA), compared with people with integrative
motivation .When a learning wishes to integrate him/her within the culture of the target language
group, to

Identify him/her with and become a part of that society.

transfer and motivation

Research suggests that transfer and motivation are mutually supportive in creating an
optimal learning environment. If the learner perceives what he is learning to be relevant and
transferable to other situations, he will find learning meaningful, and his motivation to acquire
the skill or knowledge will increase. Similarly, for transfer to take place, the learner must be
motivated to do two things. First, he must be able to recognize opportunities for transfer (Prawat,
1989); second, he needs to possess the motivation to take advantage of these opportunities (Pea,
1988).
Teachers can observe circumstances under which learners acquire language and can make
adjustments toward creating optimal learning conditions. In designing learning activities, the
language teacher should remember that because language learning focuses on both the accuracy
and appropriateness of application in various contexts of use, learners must be given
opportunities to participate as language users in multiple contexts. These opportunities will result
in learners' heightened motivation and awareness of the intricacies of language use, including
Encourage learned to take ownership in learning.
First, have learners take ownership of the learning assignment by letting them identify and
decide for themselves relevant learning goals. This will motivate them to apply what they have
learned to attain these learning goals. Promote international cognition or mindfulness to learning
in various contexts.
second, learners must be able to practice language in multiple contexts in order to bridge
domains and foster active abstraction of concepts learned (Bransford, et al. 1990). This will help
learners recognize the relevance and transferability of different learning skills or knowledge.
Increase authenticity of learning and goals.
Last but not least, learners should recognize a real need to accomplish learning goals that
are relevant and holistic (rather than task-specific). This prepares them for the complexities of
real-world tasks that require them to use language skills and knowledge that have to be
continually transferred.

Who is winner
Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-image, and a
low level of anxiety are better equipped for success in second language acquisition. Low
motivation, low self-esteem, and debilitating anxiety can combine to 'raise' the affective filter
and form a 'mental block' that prevents comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In
other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive
affect is necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.
motivation is perceived to be composed of three elements. These include effort, desire and affect.
Effort refers to the time spent studying the language and the drive of the learner. Desire indicates

how much the learner wants to become proficient in the language, and affect illustrates the
learner's emotional reactions with regard to language study (Gardner 1982).

Gardner's Socio-Educational Model

The work conducted by Gardner in the area of motivation was largely influenced by Mowrer
(1950, cited in Larson-Freeman and Long 1994), whose focus was on first language acquisition. Mowrer
proposed that a child's success when learning a first language could be attributed to the desire to gain
identity within the family unit and then the wider language community. Using this as the basis for his
own research Gardner went on to investigate motivation as an influencing factor in L2 acquisition.
Motivation has been identified as the learner's orientation with regard to the goal of learning a
second language (Crookes and Schmidt 1991). It is thought that students who are most successful
when learning a target language are those who like the people that speak the language, admire the
culture and have a desire to become familiar with or even integrate into the society in which the
language is used (Falk 1978). This form of motivation is known as integrative motivation. When
someone becomes a resident in a new community that uses the target language in its social
interactions, integrative motivation is a key component in assisting the learner to develop some level
of proficiency in the language. It becomes a necessity, in order to operate socially in the community
and become one of its members. It is also theorised that "integrative motivation typically underlies
successful acquisition of a wide range of registers and a nativelike pronunciation" (Finegan 1999:568).

In the same study (Berwick et al. 1989) it was proposed that motivation for studying
English peaks in the final year of high school when students channel all their energy into
studying for university entrance. Once students gain entrance to a university, motivation to
continue English study is sometimes diminished . Many first-year students appear to have no
academic purpose. In direct contrast to this, however, is the strong desire of many adults to once
again resume study. This often takes place in the many private foreign language schools which
provide classes at all hours of the day, catering for the busy employee who is often occupied
until late in the evening. Some of the many reasons for the renewed interest of adults in studying
include acquiring new skills necessary for the workplace and preparation for an overseas work
transfer.

What does research say about learner motivation in SLA?

Motivation has been a focus of SLA research for many years. Identifies motivation as "why
people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity [and] how hard
they are going to pursue it." Linguist Robert Gardner (1985; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003)
examined factors that affected French- and English-speaking Canadians learning the language of
the other community. His studies support the theory that integrative motivation (wanting to learn
a language in order to identify with the community that speaks the language) promotes SLA.
This motivation seems to promote SLA regardless of the age of the learner or whether the
language is being learned as a second or foreign language. Even if individuals do not have this
positive attitude toward learning the language, they may have instrumental motivation-that is,
they may want to learn the language to meet their needs and goals, such as to get a job or to talk
to their children's teachers (Morris, 2001; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Whatever the learners'

motivation, research seems to support the practice of teachers discovering and responding to
learners' needs and goals when planning instruction (Weddel & Van Duzer, 1997).
Teachers can facilitate motivation by helping learners identify short-term goals and reflect
on their progress and achievements. For example, teachers can provide learners with selfassessment checklists to identify skill strengths and weaknesses, weekly checklists to track their
progress on meeting a learning goal, and self-reflection tools (e.g., learning diaries) to help
learners build autonomy and take charge of their learning (Marshall, 2002).
Recent research looks at how instructional contexts also affect motivation. A learner's
motivation may vary from day to day and even from task to task ( Kormos, 2000). Using varied
and challenging instructional activities can help learners stay focused and engaged in
instructional content. Research examining how to improve learner motivation suggests that social
factors (e.g., group dynamics, learning environment, and a partner's motivation) affect a learner's
attitude, effort, classroom behavior, and achievement). Therefore, teachers should create an
environment that is conducive to learning by encouraging group cohesion in the classroom. Pair
and group work activities can provide learners with opportunities to share information and build
a sense of community (Florez & Burt, 2001).
Research also suggests that teachers cultivate opportunities that continue to stimulate
language use when learners are not in class Noels, 1994). Project work provides learners with a
bridge between practice in and outside of class. In addition, projects provide opportunities for
learners to work with others to accomplish tasks, using English in real-life situations (Moss &
Van Duzer, 1998).
Research on the relationship between motivation and second language acquisition is
ongoing. Current research looks at instructional practices that teachers use to generate and
maintain learner motivation and strategies through which learners themselves take control of
factors that have an impact on their motivation and learning, such as lack of self-confidence,
change of goals, or distractions Noels, Clement, & Pelletier, 2003).

What is the role of interaction in SLA?

Another area of SLA research focuses on how interaction contributes to second language
acquisition. Interaction refers to communication between individuals, particularly when they are
negotiating meaning in order to prevent a breakdown in communication (Ellis, 1999). Research
on interaction is conducted within the framework of the Interactive Hypothesis, which states that
conversational interaction "facilitates [language] acquisition because it connects input [what
learners hear and read]; internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention; and output
[what learners produce] in productive ways" (Long, 1996, pp. 451-452). Interaction provides
learners with opportunities to receive comprehensible input and feedback (Gass, 1997; Long,
1996; Pica, 1994) as well as to make changes in their own linguistic output (Swain, 1995). This
allows learners to "notice the gap" (Schmidt & Frota, 1986, p. 311) between their command of
the language and correct, or target-like, use of the language.

A person's motivation behind learning a second language (L2) and the views she holds
regarding the L2-speaking community both come into play in speed of SLA and degree of
proficiency achieved. Integrative motivation is more helpful in SLA and proficiency because
there is more desire for interaction with the community and the language that helps acquisition.
Those students with mainly instrumental motivation are less likely to seek out situations where
there language skills will be needed and will be improved, like social occasions in the L2
community, readings in the L2, or friends in the L2 community.
Many studies have ignored this fact and have tried to attribute too much weight to one factor,
while others have undoubtedly affected the outcomes. Since single factors and how they affect
acquisition cannot be completely isolated, research should be concentrated on the outcomes of
certain teaching techniques. They will not be universally applicable, but will help to eliminate
less effective or damaging techniques. This area of teaching will be increasingly important as our
world continues to become more bilingual and multilingual.
Let me conclude this paper with a quotation from Stephen Krashen
The best methods are therefore those that supply 'comprehensible
input' in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students
really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in
the second language, but allow students to produce when they are
'ready', recognizing that improvement comes from supplying
communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing
and correcting production."
so that motivations position in L2 acquisition can be confirmed with a reputation of being an
economical and efficient "shortcut".

Bibliography
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1989). Research in motivation in education. San Diego: Academic Press
Benson, M.J. (1991). Attitudes and motivation towards English : A survey of Japanese Crookes, G., &
Schmidt R.W. (1991). Motivation : Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41(4), 469-512.

Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language
Learning, 41, 469-512. [EJ 435 997]
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language
Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994) "Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical
framework." The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 1328.
Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). New conceptions of thinking: From ontology to
education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 67-85.

Rod Ellis (2000) Second Language Acquisition[8-73]

Spolsky, B. (1985). Formulating a theory of second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 7, 269-288. [EJ 334 501]
Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Writer: Qiu Fei

From : Zhong Guo Middle School

Ten Key Factors that Influence Successful Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Presentation Transcript

1. Ten Key Factors that Influence Successful Bilingualism and Multilingualism: Policy
implicationsTracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ph.D.Rottedam, The NetherlandsNovember 18, 2009
2. BackgroundMasters from Harvard University in International Education and Development
and doctorate (Ph.D.) from Capella University (cross-disciplinary approach comparing findings in
neuroscience, psychology, pedagogy, cultural anthropology and linguistics). Director of the
Instittue for Research and Educational Development, Universidad San Francisco de Quito,
Ecuador. Author of Raising Multilingual Children (2001), The Multilingual Mind (2003), and Living
Languages (2008).Teacher (pre-kindergarten through university) with 20+ years of comparative
research based on family case studies (Japan, Ecuador, USA, Canada, France, Switzerland,
Germany).Three children (raised in English, Spanish, German and French).
3. Todays topicsPart IMyths of MultilingualismThe Ten Key FactorsPart IIBackward
DesignObjetives in language learningSchool impact on languagesQualities of a good
teachersSuccessful programsSuccessful schoolsQuestions and discussion
4. Part I
5. True and False QuizDo you believe the statement is true or false?Why?(Origins: These are
statements made by teachers, doctors and parents I met while doing my research.)
6. True or False?By learning more than one language a child can suffer brain overload.Nitsch, C.,
Franceschini, R., Ldi, G., Rad, E.-W., 2006; Hirsch, 1997.
7. True or False?2. Some languages are easier to learn than others.Baker, 2004; Pinker, 2000.
8. True or False?3.Bilinguals are more creative than monolinguals.Ricardelli, 1992
9. True or False?4. Bilingualism can cause problems such as stuttering and dyslexia.Harley 1989;
McLaughlin 1992.
10. True or False?5. It is impossible for an adult to learn a new language as fast as a child.Harley
1989; McLaughlin 1992.
11. True or False?6. It is impossible for an adult to learn a new language without an
accent.Harley 1989; McLaughlin 1992.

12. True or False?7. When a child learns his languages from birth he is effectively learning them
as two first languages.
13. Two languages in one brain:Brain scans show that people brought up bilingual from birth
have languages in the same area of the brain as monolinguals, whereas people who learn
languages after the first seven months or so actually use different areas for processing sounds,
or simply do not perceive sounds which are not representative in their native language at all.
Kovelman, Baker, and Petitto, 2008; Fennell, Byers-Heinlein & Werker , 2006.
14. True or False?8. All people have the same area of their brain to speak different languages.
15. True or False?9. It is not recommended that children learn literacy skills in two languages
simultaneously.
16. True or False? 10. The general research findings examining trilinguals brains to date point to
no pattern for multilingualism.Nitsch, Franceschini, Ldi, Rad, n/d
17. True or False?11. Multilingualsare shown to be faster at working memory tasks than
monolinguals.Baddeley, 2001
18. True or False?12. Bilingual students achieve higher results on English-language proficiency
tests than their Anglophone, monolingual peers.Cenoz & Lindsay, 1994
19. True or False?13. A nine-year-old has the same size brain as an adult; therefore they learn
foreign languages in the same way. Suddath, Christison, Torrey, Casanova & Weinberger, 1990.
20. True or False?14. The more languages you know, the easier it gets to learn an additional
one.Government of Canada, 2003; University of Oxford, 2003
21. True and False?15. The quality of the first language impacts the quality of the second
language, and the quality of the third language depends on the quality of the second
language.Cenoz & Lindsay, 1994
22. True or False?16. Most of the world is monolingual. Nitsch, 2004
23. A child should first study his native language, then after he has mastered this, then learn a
new one. A child who learns two languages simultaneously will be confused and have lower
intelligence. A child with two languages will never feel completely secure in either. A bilingual
child will always have identity problems and feel a lack of belonging to his cultures because he
will never fully be a part of either. Bilinguals tend to translate from the weaker language tothe
stronger. True bilinguals never mix their languages. More mythsGutierrez, s.f.; Kandolf, 1998;
Narvez, 2009
24. More myths.All people who are bilingual from birth make excellent translators. True
bilinguals never confuse their languages; if they do, they are actually semi-linguals. There are
some language programs which can actually teach foreign languages in a matter of weeks or evn
days, which means there is no reason, except for lack of motivation, that many people take
years to learn another languaes. The ability to learn a foreign language is directly related to the
level of intelligence of an individual. Bilinguals have split personalities.Older people can never
become fully bilingual. Gutierrez, s.f.; Kandolf, 1998; Narvez, 2009
25. The Ten Key Factors1. Timing (Windows of Opportunity)2. Aptitude3. Motivation4.
Strategy5. Consistency6. Opprotunity and support (home, school, community)7. Linguistic and
historic relationship between languages8. Silblings9. Gender10. Hand-use as a refleciton of
cerebral dominance for languages11.and?
26. 1. The Windows ofOpprotunity 1. First: 0 a 9 months(A window-and-a-half: 9 a 24-30
months)2. Second : 4 a 8 years3. Tthird: 8 years + (from old-age and back)Language
Milestones*2-3 Normal Mixing Stage3-4 Labeling of Languages5+ Cognizant of translation
concept 4-10 syntactic conservationism*Remember that children can vary by as much as a
year in either direction related to language development!
27. 1. Cummins (1981); 2. Gibbins (1999); 3. Corson (1993, 1995)

28. 2. AptitudeSomething one is born withApproximately 10% of the populationMeasuring

MFLATGardeners definition of IntelligenceLevines neurodevelopmental constructs
29. 3. Motivation Positive (+)Negative (-)Intrinsic Extrinsic Internal vs. ExternalPositive vs.
Negative
30. 4. Strategy 5. ConsistencySeven most practiced strategiesDo not have to be simpleThey
should be consistent (especially for younger children).
31. Sample Strategies
32. 6. Opportuniy and SupportHow many times a day does the child have the chance to use the
target language(s) in a given day? At HomeIn SchoolWithin the CommunityWho takes
responsibility for language learning? (The Child himself? The School? The Community? The
Family?)
33. 7. Linguistic and historic relationship between languagesHistorical vs. Linguistic
relationships and languagesLanguage Sub-Families FamiliesRelated languages are easier to
learn.
34. Sample language families (Europe)Proto-Indo-European LenguagesIndo-IranIran (Persa,
Kurdo)Indo-Aryan (Hind, Urdu, Bengal, Nepals)Indo-EuropeasRomnicas (Francs, Espaol,
Portugus, Italiano, Rumano)Holands (Alemn, Ingls, Holands, Dans, Sueco)Checa-Eslovaco
(Checa, Eslovaco, Polaco, Serbo-Croata, Ucraniano, Ruso)Celta (Galico, Gals)Bltico (Lituano,
Letn)GriegoAlbanoArmenio Other European languagesUgrofins (Finlands, Hngaro,
Estonio)VascoCaucsico (Georgiano, Chechenio)
35. Sample language families (Africa)African languagesAfro-AsianSemita (rabe,
Hebreo)ChdicaBerebereCushiticEgipcio Nilo-Sahariana (Masai)Niger-CongoYorubaBant
(Suahil, Bantu)Khoisan (Nama)
36. Sample language families (Asia)Asian Pacific languagesDravdica (Tamil)Munda (Khmer,
Vietnamita)BurushaskiAltaico (Mongol, Turco, Tungs)JaponsCoreanoSino-Tibetano (Chino,
Tibetano, Birmano)Thas (Tailands)Austroneasiano (Malayo, Bahasa, Hawaiano,
Tagalos)PapuaAborigen Australiano
37. Sample language families (America)American languagesEsquimal - Aleuta (Inuit,
Groenlndico)Na-DemeAthabasken (Navajo)Algonquino (Otras lenguas indias nativas
americanas)IroquoianSiouanUto-Azteca (Nhuatl , Quechua )QuechuaTup-GuaranJvaroTicuna
38. Linguistic typologiesBased on Greenberg, 1966, Typological Ensembles
39. Native languages speakersThere are roughly 2,500-6,000 lanagues in the world.The twelve
most widely spoken languages with approximate number of native speakers are the following,
totaling a little more than half of the worlds population:
40. 8. SilblingsPositive influencesNegative influences
41. 9. GenderAre there differences between boys and girls (men and women) related to
language?How are these measured?What does this imply in terms of children learning foreign
languages?
42. 10. Hemispheric dominance for languagesReflection of cerebral dominance95% of righthanded people and 70% of left handed people are left hemisphere dominant for
languages.What does this mean for teaching materials that are developed for the majority?
43. 11. What other factor is missing?
44. The Ten Key Factorsin Raising Multilingual Children1. Timing and The Windows of
Opportunity2. Aptitude for Foreign Languages3. Motivation4. Strategy5. Consistency6.
Opportunity and Support (Home, School and Community)7. Language Typology and
Similarities8. Siblings9. Gender10. Hand Use11. ????Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2000
45. Part II

46. (Neuro)linguisticsBilingual children learn have higher levels of abstraction at earlier ages
than monolinguals. (1)Bilinguals learn to manage language rules at an earlier age than
monolinguals. (2)Bilinguals learn to inihibit (ignore information calling for attention) earlier and
with faster speed thab monolinguals, which directly relates to executive funtions (3).Bilinguals
use more of their brians than monolinguals. (3).Multilingual children are more creative than
monolingual ones in 30 of 33 tests of creativity (4).1. Suzanne Flynn professor of linguistics and
second-language acquisition at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ellen Bialystok,
professor of psychology at York University in Toronto. 2. Adele Diamond, director of the Center
for Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in
Waltham. 3. Patricia Kuhl of the University of Washington . 4. Lena Riccardelli (1992).
47. Emotional aspects of learningWhen a concept fights with an emotion, the emotion almost
always wins.Sousa, D. (2002). Cmoaprende el cerebro, p.53.
48. The Finks Four Teaching ComponentsL. Dee Fink (2003) Creating Significant Learning
Experiences, p.22
49. Backward DesignGrant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (1998/2005). Understanding by design.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
50. Three steps to ensuring understanding (backward design)Adopted from Grant Wiggins and
Jay McTighe (1998), Understanding by Design.
51. Step 1. Identify desired resultsStart with the end in mind. Think of competencies
(knowledge, skills and attitudes): What should students know, understand and be able to do?
Determine important knowledge (facts, concepts, principles, dates, formulas).Determine
important skills (processes, strategies and methods). Determine important attitudes (e.g.,
empathy, intellectual honesty, perseverance)Determine what content area will be the focus of
evaluation.Whyit is important to do so? What is the enduring understanding that is the object of
the teaching?Adopted from Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (1998), Understanding by Design.
52. Step 2. Determine Acceptable Evidence (Evaluation activities)Backward designs focus forces
us to think about each unit of the class in terms of assessment evidence to document and
validate desired learning objectives. How do we know if the students are achieving the results
we desire and the standards we need? What will we accept as evidence of learning (the
achievement of the competencies)?Adopted from Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (1998),
Understanding by Design.
53. Step 3. Lesson Plans (Activities, Experiences and Instruction)What activities will provide
students with the knowledge and skills needed in this subject (in this unit, in this class)? What
should be taught and how should I teach it in order to reach my stated goals?What materials are
needed to conduct the activities? Adopted from Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (1998),
Understanding by Design.
54. School influences.
55. The Facts and StudiesCenoz and Lindsay (1994) in their study, &quot;Teaching English in
Primary School: A Project To Introduce a Third Language to Eight Year Olds highlight the
important role of the teacher.1. UNESCO. (July-Sept. 2003). The mother-tongue dilemma.
Education Today Newsletter 2. Aarts and Verrhoeven (1999). &quot;Literacy Attained in a
Second Language Submersion Context.&quot; Applied Psycholinguistics 20(3): 377-394.). 3.
Cenoz, J. and D. Lindsay (1994). &quot;Teaching English in Primary School: A Project To
Introduce a Third Language to Eight Year Olds.&quot; Language and Education 8(4): 201-210.
56. What motivates students?According to Sass (1989), the eight most influential factors that
motivate students and that are controlled by the teacher are:Teacher enthusiasmRelevance of
the subjectOagnzaition of course courseAppropriate difficulty level Active participation by
studentVariety of activities and methodologyPersonal link between teacher and studentUse of

approrpriate, concrete and clear examples. Sass, E. J. &quot;Motivation in the College

Classroom: What Students Tell Us.&quot; Teaching of Psychology, 1989, 16(2), 86-88.
57. Typically, teachers who have more graduate education and more specialized training for
working with language minority children are more successful.Teachers with greater knowledge
of the home language(s) of their students are more successful.Knowledge of evaluation
methods that ensure instructually embedded assessment.Teacher qualifications
58. High EFL teacher qualifications means:Being versed in appropriate teaching
methodsUnderstanding of students native language structure (or being able to speak
it)Understanding of learning stylesOwning a good toolbox of motivational skillsAppropriate use
of evaluation and feedback mechanismsRespect for other culturesQuality of the Teacher
59. Do most of the talking in classrooms (poor language teachers make about twice as many
utterances as do students). Students produce language only when they are working directly with
a teacher, and then only in response to teacher initiations. In over half of the interactions that
teachers have with students, students do not produce any language as they are only listening or
responding with non-verbal gestures or actions. When students do respond, typically they
provide only simple information recall statements. Rather than being provided with the
opportunity to generate original statements, students are asked to provide simple discrete
close-ended or patterned (i.e., expected) responses. Teaching practices-What not to doRamirez,
Yuen, & Ramey, 1991, Executive Summary
60. Teacher should make classes student-centered and try NOT speak most of the time, nor
initiate the majority of the exchanges by asking display questions, but rather seek out studentinitiated requests. As students prefer to verbally request help only in small group or one-to-one
interactions with the teacher, teachers should call on students individually and approach them
personally to offer support.Teachers should not only modify their own speech in response to
students' requests (verbal or non-verbal), they should also request modifications of the
students' speech.Sustained negotiation - in which teachers and students verbally resolve
incomplete or inaccurate messages should occur frequently. Teaching practices-What to
doMusumeci, D. (1996). &quot;Teacher-Learner Negotiation in Content-Based Instruction:
Communication at Cross-Purposes.&quot; Applied Linguistics 17(3): 286-324.
61. Aspects of a good teacher training program:Train teachers in English language
instruction;Have regular meetings for discussing instructional issues and exchanging
ideas;Develop an activity-based and thematic syllabus;Program co-ordinators observe
classrooms several times a year;Apply a formative evaluation usingPortfoliosObservationAn
attitude survey of teachers, parents, and administratorsA teacher survey, and English language
testing.
62. Ongoing assessment using multiple measure.Inetgrated schooling (all language learners
together)High expectations by teachersEqual status of languagesHealthy parent
involvementContinuous staff developmentSecond language taught through academic content
Critical thinking across language programActivation of students' prior knowledgeRespect for
students' home language and cultureCooperative learningInteractive and discovery
learningIntense and meaningful cognitive/academic developmentProgram design should
include:
63. Questions?Thank you for coming!
64. ReferenciasAarts, R. and L. Verrhoeven (1999). Literacy Attained in a Second Language
Submersion Context. Applied Psycholinguistics 20(3), 377-394.Abdelrazak, M. (2001). Towards
more effective supplementary and mother-tongue schools. London: Resource Unit. Abramson,
S., Seda, I., and Johnson, C. (1990). Literacy development in a multilingual kindergarten
classroom. Childhood Education, 67, 68-72.Atkins, B. T. S. & Varantola, K. (1998). Language

learners using dictionaries: The final report of the EURALEX- and AILA-sponsored Research
Project into Dictionary Use. In Using dictionaries: Studies of dictionary use by language learners
and translators, ed. Atkins B. T. S. Tbingen: Niemeyer.Baker, C. (2000). The care and education
of young bilinguals. An introduction for professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, P
and Eversley, J. (eds). (2000). Multilingual capital: The languages of London&apos;s
schoolchildren and their relevance to economic, social and educational policies. London:
Battlebridge Publications.Beebe, R.M.,&Leonard, K.S. (1993). Second language learning in a
social context. In Visions and reality in foreign language teaching: Where we are, where we are
going. Chicago: National Textbook.Beebe, R.M., Leonard, K. (January 1994). Second language
learning in a social context. CAL Digest on foreign language education. EDO-FL-94-05Bernard, J.
and Grandcolas, B. (2001). Apprendre une troisime langue quand on est bilingue: le franais
chez un locuteur anglo-espagno. Paris: Aile 14, 111-113.
65. Best, C.T. (1994). The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A
perceptual assimilation model. In J.C. Goodman and H.C. Nusbaum (ed.), The development of
speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words, pp. 167-224.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cazden, C. B. (1984). Effective instructional practices in bilingual
education. [Research review commissioned by the National Institute of Education]. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 768). Cazden, C. B., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1990).
English plus: Issues in bilingual education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences, 508. (Also published as a separate volume by Newbury Park, CA: Sage.) Cazden,
C.B. (1991). Language minority education in the United States: Implications of the Ramirea
Report. Educational Practice Report 3. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education,
National Center for Reserarch on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Cazden, C.
B., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1990). English plus: Issues in bilingual education. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 508. (Also published as a separate volume by
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.) Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. and Jessner, U. (2001). Towards trilingual
education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1), 1-10. Cenoz, J. and
Jessner, U. (eds.) (2000). English in Europe: The Acquisition of a third language. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.Cenoz, J. and F. Genesee, Eds. (1998). Beyond bilingualism:
Multilingualism and multilingual education. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.Cenoz, J. (1996).
Learning a third language: Basque, Spanish and English. Spanish in Contact: Issues in
Bilingualism. A. Roca, & Jensen, John B. Somerville, Cascadilla: 13-27.
66. Cenoz, J. and D. Lindsay (1994). Teaching English in primary school: A project to Introduce a
third language to eight year olds. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages (28th, Baltimore, MD, March 8-12, 1994.&quot; ERIC
Database (ED372637). Language and Education 8(4): 201-210.Cenoz, J. Hufeisen, B. and Jessner,
U. (ed). (2003). The multilingual lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Childs, M.R. (2002 mar).
The practical linguist: Make the most of the bilingual advantage. The Daily Yomiuri. Japan.Clyne,
M. and P. Cassia (1999). Trilingualism, immigration and relatedness of language. ITL Review of
Applied Linguistics 123-124, 57-78.Collier, V.P. (Fall 1995). Acquiring a second language for
school. Directions in language & education, 1 (4). National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Collier, V. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students. New Jersey:TESOL-BE.Collier,
V. and Thomas, W.P. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington
D.C.: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/effectiveness/thomas-collier97.pdfCook, V.
(1995). Multi-competence and the learning of many languages. In M. Bensousannan, I.
Kreindler, & E. Aogain (Eds.), Multilingualism and language learning: 8, 2. Language, Culture and
Curriculum (pp.93-98). Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Corder, S. (1983). A role for the

mother tongue. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp.85-97).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
67. Crago, M., Eriks-Brophy, A., Pesco, D., & McAlpine, L. (1997). Culturally based
miscommunication in classroom interaction. Language, Speech and HearingServices in Schools,
28, 245-254. Crandall, J. (1992). Content-Centered Learning in the United States.&quot; Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 111-127.Cromdal, J. (1999). Childhood bilingualism and
metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals. Applied
Psycholinguistics 20(1), 1-20.Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.Cummins, J. (1992) Language proficiency, bilingualism, and
academic achievement. In P.A. Richard-Amoto & M. A. Snow (eds), The multicultural classroom:
Readings for content-area teachers. Reading: Addison Wesley. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating
identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association
for Bilingual Education.Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in
the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Cummins, J. (2001). Instructional conditions
for trilingual development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1), 6175.Cummins, J. (2001April). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23.Damico, J.S., Smith, M., Augustine, L.
(1995). Multicultural populations and language disorders. In M.D. Smith & J.S. Damico (Eds.)
Childhood language disorders (pp. 272-299). New York: Theme Medical Publishers.
68. DeAngelis, G., & S. Selinker, L. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and copeting linguistic systems
in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in
this language acquisition: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.42-58). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.De Avila, Ed. (1990). Assessment of language minority students: Political, technical,
practical and moral imperatives. Proceedings of the First Research Symposium on Limited
English Proficient Student Issues. OBEMLA.
http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/symposia/first/assessment.htmDewaele, J. (2001).
Activation or inhibition? The interaction of L1, L2 and L3 on the language mode continuum. In
J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence on thid language acquisition:
Psycholonguistic perspectives (pp.69-89). Clevedon, UK: Multilingal Matters.Ecke, P. (2001).
Lexical retrieval in a third language: Evidence from errors and tip-of-the-tongue states. In J.
Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence on thid language acquisition:
Psycholonguistic perspectives (pp.69-89). Clevedon, UK: Multilingal Matters.Edelsky, C. (1994).
With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social in language and education, 2nd Ed.
London: Taylor & Francis. Edwards, V. (1998) The Tower of Babel Teaching and learning in
multilingual classrooms. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books (further reading)Eggen, P. D. and D. P.
Kauchak (1996). Strategies for Teachers. Teaching Content and Thinking Skills. Boston, Allyn and
Bacon. A Simon & Schuster Company.
69. Eisenstein, M.,&Starbuck, R.J. (1989). The effect of emotional investment in L2 production.
In Variation in second language acquisition: Volume II. Psycholinguistic issues. Clevedon:
Newbury House.Fishman, Joshua (1991). Reversing Lnguage Shft: Theretical and Empirical
Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Flores,
B., Cousin, P. & Diaz, E. (1991). Transforming deficit myths about learning, language, and culture.
Language Arts, 68, 369-377Flynn, S., Foley, C., and Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The CumulativeEnhancement Model for Language Acquisition: Comparing Adults&apos; and Children&apos;s
Patterns of Development in First, Second and Third Language Acquisition of Relative Clauses.
The International Journal of Multilingualism. Volume: 1 Number: 1 Page: 316Fradd, S.H. &
Weismantel, M.J. (1989). Meeting the needs of culturally and
linguistically different
students: A handbook for educators. Boston: College-Hill Press.Francis, N. (1999). Bilingualism,

writing, and metalinguistic awareness: Oral-literate interactions between first and second
languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 533-561. Fuller, J. M. (1999). Between three languages:
Composite structure and interlanguage.&quot; Applied Linguistics 20(4), 534-561.Fung, C.Y.
(2002 Feb). Towards an interactive view of L3 acquisition: the case of the German Vorfeld. Hong
Kong: University of Hong Kong.Garate, V. and Cenoz Iragui, J. (1993). Bilingualism and third
language acquisition. ERIC Database (ED364118).
70. Garca-Vsquez, E., Vsquez, L.A., Lpez, I.C. and Ward, W. (1997). Language proficiency and
academic success: Relationships between proficiency in two languages and achievement among
Mexican American Students. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 334-347.Gardner, R.C.,and Lambert,
W.E. (1986). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.Graddol, Ds. (1997). The future of English. London: The British Council.Graddol, David
(1999). The decline of the native speaker. In David Graddol andUlrike H. Meinhof (eds) English in
a changing world. AILA: The AILA Review 13, 57-68.Gonzalez, V. (1996). Cognition, culture and
language in bilingual children. Bethesda, MD: Austin & Winfield.Gregory, E. (1994) Cultural
assumptions and early years pedagogy: the effect of home culture on minority
childrensGregory, E. (1998) Siblings as mediators of literacy in linguistic minority communities.
Language and Education 12, 1 33-54.Gregory, E. and Williams, A. (2000) City literacies: Learning
to read across generations and cultures. London: Routledge. Grosjean, F. (1995). A
psycholinguistic approach to code-switching: The recoginition of guest words by bilinguals. In L.
Milroy and P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on
codeswitching (pp.259-275). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Grosjean, F. (2001).
The bilinguals language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language
processing (pp.1-22). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
71. Griessler, M. (2001). The effects of third language learning on second language proficiency:
an Austrian example, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1), 50-60.
Hakuta, K. (1999). Definition of Bilingualism, APA Encyclopedia of Psychology. Hammarberg, B.
(2001). Roles of L1 and L2 in L3 production and acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner
(Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence on thid language acquisition: Psycholonguistic perspectives
(pp.69-89). Clevedon, UK: Multilingal Matters.Harley, B., Hart, D., et al. (1986). The effects of
early bilingual schooling on first language skills. Applied Psycholinguistics 7(4), 295322.Hansford, R. (1997). Language minorities in Britain: a summary of the available statistical
data. In Statistics in the teaching and learning of modern foreign languages in the U.K.: directory
of sources. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. House, J. (2004). A stateless
language that Europe must embrace. The Guardian Weekly. Brighton UK: IATEFL.Jacquemot, C.,
Pallier, C., Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E. The neuroanatomy of language-specific speech processing: A
cross linguistic study using event related Functional Magnetic Resonance Imagery. Paris, France:
SHFJ.
72. Jenkins, J. and Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Bringing Europe&apos;s lingua franca into the
classroom.The Guardian Weekly. Brighton UK: IATEFL.Johnson, M. (1991). Slippery lingualism:
Are all bilinguals really bilingual?Kellerman, R. (1983). An eye for an eye: Crosslinguistic
constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. In M. Sharwood Smith & E. Kellerman (Eds.),
Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp.35-48). Oxford, UK: Pergamons
Press. Kempadoo, M and Abdelrazak, M. (2001). Directory of supplementary and mother-tongue
classes. London: Resource Unit. King, D.F. & Goodman, K. (1990). Cherishing learners and their
language. Language,Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 221-227. Klein, E.C. (1995).
Second versus third language acquisition: is there a difference?&quot;, Language Learning 45(3),
419-465. Laponce, J.A. (1985 Aug). The multilingual mind and multilingual societies: In Search of
Neuropsychological Explanations of the Spatial Behavior of Ethno-Linguistic Groups. Politics and

the Life Sciences 4(1), 3-9.Lasagabaster, D. (1998). Learning English as an L3. ITL Review of
Applied Linguistics 121-122, 51-83. Levis, N. (2001). The brave new world of bilingual teaching.
Times Educational Supplement(4418).
73. Lieven, E. V. M. (1994). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural aspects of language addressed to
children. In Gallaway, C. and Richards, B.J. (eds) Input and interaction in language
acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University PressLlisterri, J.,and Poch, D. (1986). Influence de
la L1 (catalan) et de la L2 (castillan) sur l&apos;apprentissage du systme phonologique
d&apos;une troisime langue (franais). In Actas de las IX Jornadas Pedaggicas sobre la
Enseanza del Francs en Espaa. Barcelona: Institut de Cincies de l&apos;Educaci,
Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona. pp. 153-167.Ldi, Georges (2004). Plurilinguisme prcoce reprsentations sociales et vidence neurolinguistique. Basel : 4e CONFERENCE
INTERNATIONALE SUR L&apos;ACQUISITION D&apos;UNE 3e LANGUE ET LE
PLURILINGUISME.Lynch, E. W., and Hanson, M. J. (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence:
A guide for working with young children and their families. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks
Publishing.MacSwan, J. (2002). The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other
contributions to a deficit view of linguistic minorities. SAGE McLauahglin, B., Blanchard, A.G., &
Osani, Y. (1995 Sum). Assessing language development in bilingual prechool children. NCB
Program Information Guide Series, 22
74. Mgiste, E. (1984). Learning a third language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 5(5), 415-421.Mgiste, E. (1986). Selected issues in second and third language
learning. In J. Vaid (Ed.), Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic
perspectives (pp.97-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Martin-Jones, M and
Romaine, S. (1986). Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied
Linguistics, 7, 1, 26-38. (further reading)Medgyes, P. (1999). The non-native teacher (revised 2nd
edition). Ismaning, Germany: Hueber VerlangMcLaughline, B., Blanchard A.T., & Osanai, Y.
(1995). Assessing language development in bilingual preschool children. NCBE Program
Information Guide Seris, 22. Meijers, and Sanders, M. (1995). English as L3 in the elementary
school. Review of Applied Linguistics 107-108, 59-78. Murphy, S. (2002). Second language
transfer during third language acquisition. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction:
Communication at cross-purposes. Applied Linguistics 17(3), 286-324.Nissani, H. (1990). Early
childhood programs for language-minority children. FOCUS Occasional Papers in Bilingual
Education. Washington, DC: NCBE.
75. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ogasawara,
N. (edition Editor). (2004 May 6). Book discussion forumon LINGUIST List 15.1440. Review:
Psycholing/Acquisition: Cenoz, et al. (2003). Announced at
http://linguistlist.org/issues.Pavlenko, A., / Jarvis, S. (2001). Conceptual transfer : New
perspectives on the study of crosslinguistic influence. In E. Nemth (Ed.), Cognition in language
use: Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Volume 1 (pp.288-301).
Antwerp, NL: International Pragmatics Association.Philipson, R. (2004). English yes, but equal
language rights first. The Guardian Weekly. Brighton UK: IATEFL.Poulisse, N. and T. Bongaerts
(1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics 15(1), 3657.Ramirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Longitudinal study of structured English
immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for
language-minority children. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education. Executive
Summary and Vols. I and II. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Rivers, W.-P. (1996). Selfdirected language learning and third language learner. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (30th, Philadelphia, PA,

November 22-24.Rolstad, K. (1997). Effects of Two-way Immersion on the Ethnic Identification

of Third Language Students: An Exploratory Study. Bilingual Research Journal 21(1).
76. Ruuskanen, D.D.K. Bilingual and Multilingual children: Can my new baby learn two or more
languages at home? Ask a Linguist . University of Vaasa, Finland.Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual
education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. Applied
Psycholinguistics 21(1),: 23-44. Schmidt, P. (1991, February 20). Three types of bilingual
education equally effective, E.D. study concludes. Education Week, pp.1, 23. Secada, W. G.
(1990). Research, politics, and bilingual education. The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Sciences, 508, 81-106. Selinker, L. & Baumgartner-Cohen, B. (1995). Multiple
language acquisition: Damn it, why cant I keep these two languages apart?. In M. Bensoussan,
I. Kreindler, & E. Aogain (Eds.), Multilingualism and language learning: 8, 2. Language, culture
and curriculum (pp.115-123). Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Selinker, L., & Lakshmanan,
U. (1993). Language transfer and fossilization: The Multilple Effects Principle. In S. Gass & L
Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (Rev. ed., pp.197-216). Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins.Sharon, B. (1991). Faulty language selection in polyglots. Language and cognitive
processes, 6 (4), 339-350.
77. Sikogukira, M. (1993). Influence of languages other than the L1 on a foreign language: the
case of transfer from L2 to L3. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4:110-132.
Swain, M. et al. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning&quot;,
Language, Culture and Curriculum 3(1), 65-81. Schecter, S.R. & Bayley, R. (1997). Language
socialization practices and cultural identity: contrastive relevance in bilingual maintenance
strategies of Mexican-descent families in California and Texas. Paper given at International
Symposium on Bilingualism, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Schmidt, P. (1991, February 20).
Three types of bilingual education equally effective, E.D. study concludes. Education Week, pp.1,
23. Secada, W. G. (1990). Research, politics, and bilingual education. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 508, 81-106. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 1984.
Bilingual or not: The education of minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. (transl. by Lars
Malmberg & David Crane).Snow, M. A., A. M. Padilla, et al. (1988). Patterns of second language
retention of graduates of a Spanish immersion program. Applied Linguistics 9(2),183-197.Snow,
C.E., Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I.F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations:
Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Swain, M. et
al. (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy in third language learning&quot;, Language,
Culture and Curriculum 3(1), 65-81.
78. Taboors, P.O. (1997). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children
learning English as a second language.Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2000). Raising multilingual
children: Foreign language acquisition and children. Westport, CT: Greenwood.TokuhamaEspinosa, T. (2003). The multilingual mind: Questions by, for, and about people living with many
languages. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2008). Living languages:
Multilingualism across the lifespan. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Toohey K. (2000). Learning
English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters (background reading)UNESCO. (July-Sept. 2003). The mother-tongue dilemma.
Education Today Newsletter. UNESCO. (July-Sept. 2003). UNESCO and multiliongualism.
Education Today Newsletter. Valadez, C.. M., MacSwan, J. and Martnez, C. (1997). Toward a
new view of low achieving bilinguals: Syntactic competence in designated
&quot;semilinguals.&quot; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (AERA). http://www.public.asu.edu/~macswan/aera97.pdf
79. Walsh, J. (2004). Minority voices show strong instinct for survival. The Guardian Weekly.
Brighton UK: IATEFLWei, L. (2000) Dimensions of bilingualism in Wei, L. (ed). (2000). The

bilingualism reader. London: RoutledgeWei, L., Niklas Miller, & Barbara Dodd. 1997.
Distinguishing communicative difference from language disorder in bilingual children. The
Bilingual Family Newsletter 14(1), 3-4.Werker, J.F. and Tees R.C. (1984) Cross-language speech
perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior
and Development 7, 49-63.Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3
production: Implications for a polyglot speaking world. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 295-333.Wong
Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 6 (3), 323-347.
80. For more information:Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa, Ph.D.Universidad San Francisco de
QuitoEdif. Galileo #101Telf: +593 2 297-1700 x1338 o +593-2-29718937ttokuhama@usfq.edu.ec ortracey.tokuhama@gmail.comTracey Tokuhama-Espinosa is a
professor of Education and Psychology at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Ecuador at
the undergraduate and Masters levels. Tracey received her doctorate (PhD) in the new field of
Mind, Brain, and Education Science in July 2008 (Capella University), her Masters of Education
from Harvard University (International Development) and her Bachelors of Arts (International
Relations) and Bachelors of Science (Communications) from Boston University, magna cum
laude