CHAPTER 2

Second Language Acquisition Theories

Abstract  Song surveys the literature on second language acquisition to

show how the literature on this subject evolved over time. By describ-
ing the second language acquisition theories based on behaviorism and
error analysis to interlanguage, native language influence, and cognitive
perspectives that explain the role of conceptual cognition in enhancing
second language learning, Song shows how our understanding of second
language acquisition has improved. By describing second language acqui-
sition theories, Song demonstrates that second language acquisition is a
complex learning process affected by many linguistic, social, psycholin-
guistic, and intercultural factors.

Keywords  Second language acquisition theories · Native language

influence · Error analysis · Cognitive perspectives

In this chapter, I survey second language acquisition theories. Early stud-

ies on second language acquisition focused on errors made by second
language speakers, the so-called behaviorism. These studies argue that
the impact of native language on second language learning is the main
cause of errors in second language speech acts. Since similarities between
the first and second languages are important, the contrastive analysis
method was highly utilized.
The contrastive analysis approach sees second language learning from
the comparative perspective of the NL and the TL. They argue that the

© The Author(s) 2018 9

S. Song, Second Language Acquisition as a Mode-Switching Process,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-52436-2_2
10  S. Song

difficulty of second language learning varies depending on the language.

Errors produced by second language learners do not show the ability of
language learners, and anyone can overcome difficulties in second lan-
guage learning through repeated drills. However, some scholars (Corder
1967; Richards 1971; Dulay and Burt 1974) questioned the contrastive
analysis approach and contend that language learners’ strategies directly
affect learning progress and error production. Learning from the first
language acquisition literature, they examined how second language
learners utilize their mental capability and learn from errors. Proponents
of this perspective argue that just like children learn their first language
by making errors, adult second language learners also learn from making
errors. Thus, learning strategies employed by language learners make dif-
ferences in learning progress.
To explain the impact of the native language on a second language,
a nonconventional concept called Interlanguage was introduced by
Selinker (1972). According to Corder (1971) and Corrigan et al.
(1989), since second language learners realize the errors in their speech
acts, they attempt to correct. Due to the lack of complete grammar
knowledge, however, their correction efforts tend to be ungrammati-
cal although it is consistent. In other words, Interlanguage is a concept
describing second language learners’ intellectual mind reflecting the
competence of the target language.
With the introduction of Interlanguage, scholarly attention moved to
language learner’s cognitive mind. This approach explains second lan-
guage learning process with the human internal mechanism of language
learning. Unlike previous studies that viewed language system as a static
system, these studies explored the cognitive aspects of learners in lan-
guage learning.
Another group of scholars (Diller 1971) studied how semantics inter-
acts with syntactic structure in the second language learning process.
Assuming language learning is obtaining the knowledge of language
structure and its meaning, scholars of this school argue that learning syn-
tactic, semantic, and phonological form of a language in the context of
lexical properties is crucial in second language learning.
In contrast to the previous studies that investigated second lan-
guage acquisition in the context of the first language impact, a group
of scholars (e.g., Azlan and Narasuman 2013; Myers-Scotton 1993;
Payant 2015; Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney 2008; Van Der Meij and
Zhao 2010) explored second language acquisition in connection with
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  11

bilingual linguistic behavior. According to Myers-Scotton (1993), sec-

ond language acquisition research is related to bilingual studies. Payant
(2015) also argues that the use of multiple languages by a single speaker
in a conversation can reveal significant insights on how two languages
are mediated in the cognitive processes of language use. These studies
acknowledge second language learners’ dependence on their first lan-
guage. They mainly focus on the function of the first language as a medi-
ating tool for enhancing the second language learner’s learning a new
language. In this case, a learner’s positive belief of the facilitating role of
the first language, often referred to as the role of scaffolding, makes an
important contribution to learning a new language.
With the influence of the first language and bilingualism on second
language acquisition, another concept called “transfer” was introduced.
Clyne (1967) asserts that “transfer” occurs when the elements of lan-
guages are adopted to speak another language. The contrastive analysis
approach, although they did not use the term “transfer,” posited that the
habit of native language is imposed on a second language, which is the
source of errors. Yet, Müller (1998) contends that “transfer” is a relief
strategy to handle difficulties in speaking a new language. On the other
hand, Kellerman (1995) studied the relationship between language and
experience in discussing the impact of native language.
Another group of scholars (e.g., Cohen and Olshtain 1981; Kasper
1982; Fraser and Nolen 1981; House 1982; Wolfson 1981; Blum-
Kulka 1982; Thomas 1983) argue that second language learners must
learn cultural values and norms of the country that the language they
are learning is used because the referential and social implications of the
linguistic expressions should be attained to become truly comfortable in
communication in a second language. This is the so-called Interlanguage
pragmatics.
As discussed briefly thus far, various theories have been developed to
study second language acquisition. Although all the second language
acquisition (SLA) theories approach the problem of second language learn-
ers’ errors from different theoretical bases, each of them has some valid-
ity in finding out what is involved in acquiring a second language. Given
these flows of second language research, the consensus of many recent
studies is that second language learning is not the process of just learn-
ing the phonetically and syntactic grammar. It is more inclusive attain-
ment interconnecting syntactic, pragmatic, and sociocultural disciplines
of language learning. In addition, as Schenning and van Hout (1994)
12  S. Song

noted, the cognitive transition between native language and target lan-
guage should be the area which gets the concern in the relationship
between native language and target language too. Accordingly, the native
language influence also needs to be compared with the other kinds of fac-
tors, including sociocultural, cognitive, psycholinguistic, strategy-oriented,
and task-based (Jarvis 1998).
If social structures or relations change, speakers need to employ a dif-
ferent grammatical and lexical orientation to adapt to the social expec-
tation of the new society. Thus, in order to understand the second
language acquisition process, we need to study how second language
learners link grammar, pragmatics, and contextual meanings of the sec-
ond language to achieve their communicative goals.
Next, I discuss all these theories of second language acquisition in
detail.

Native Language Interference and Second

Language Acquisition
One of the main factors of second language learning is that learners
already possess the knowledge of the native language that they predomi-
nantly use and think with. The rules and customs of the native language
are naturalized in the speaker’s mind. Consequently, second language
learners have to deal with the impact of their native language while learn-
ing a new language. There is a consensus in the literature that second
language production cannot be explained completely in negative behav-
iorist terms, such as native language interference. Yet, it is also inaccurate
that native language influence can be ignored entirely (Dulay and Burt
1973; Dulay et al. 1982; Felix 1980).
The classical study by Lado (1957) introduced the approach of
linking the impact of native language with second language acquisi-
tion. In this seminal work, Lado (1957) proposed that the habits of
the native language (NL) are transferred to and superimposed on the
patterns learned in the target language (TL). This approach was called
as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH). Since Lado proposed
the CAH, many scholars have attempted to explain why second lan-
guage learners talk the way they do by comparing the native language
and the target language systemic features. The CAH came from a
behaviorist theoretical basis. This theory assumes that accumulated
habits in using native language tend to get in the way of learning a new
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  13

language, such as a foreign or second language. Second language errors

happen as a result of persisting native language habits, that is, native
language interference in their second/foreign language production.
Thus, the errors produced by second language learners were consid-
ered the manifestation of the difficulty in their learning process.
With respect to native language interference, Lado asserted that the
differences between the two languages result in errors. In other words,
difficulties are predicted by the differences between the NL and the TL,
meaning “when one significant unit or element in the native language
equates bilingually with two significant units in the foreign language we
have maximum learning difficulty” (Lado 1957: 15). He assumes that
the maximum difficulty occurs when the unified elements in the NL are
divided into two in the TL. For example, splitting one phoneme in the
NL to two TL allophones causes the maximum difficulty phonologi-
cally, according to Lado (1957). Thus, the main source causing difficulty
in second language learning is owed to the language habit transferred
through native language use, resulting in interference in learning the
new language. This approach mainly focuses on the negative impact of
native language interference based on the different components between
speakers’ native languages and new languages.
In fact, second language learners’ native languages have been proven
to have a strong and salient influence on the phonological learn-
ing of second language. For example, comparing the phonetic systems
of Spanish with those of English, Stockwell and Bowen (1965: 178)
expanded Lado’s contrastive analysis hypothesis and developed the
hierarchy of difficulty, employing “negative, positive, and zero trans-
fer.” According to the authors, the greatest difficulty in second lan-
guage learning lies in learning a feature which is not present in the NL
but “obligatory” that is “allophonic” in the TL. One notable fact is that
neither Lado (1957) nor Stockwell et al. (1965) conducted an empirical
analysis with respect to errors
Lexical repertoire and structural rules including word order are the
second area where native language and target language systems interact.
For example, the concept of spatial relations and the concept of time
transition are determined heavily by the concept projected by native lan-
guage. Studies on the subject compared variances in discrete grammatical
rules between two different languages. They assumed language learner’s
native language to be the sole deciding factor in the success or failure of
learning a new language. Summing up, the CAH School claims that the
14  S. Song

errors (the difficulty) in SLA need to be explained by NL interference, or

by the comparison between the NL and the TL.
On the other hand, other studies show that differences between
native language and second language do not guarantee negative trans-
fer, and the similarities between NL and TL do not always result in posi-
tive transfer either. For instance, Duskova (1969) employed the NL and
TL comparison method to study Czech ESL learners’ errors. She found
that the difficulty in SLA cannot be completely explained by NL inter-
ference alone because Czech ESL learners had trouble using articles
even though Czech has articles. Thus, Duskova (1969: 18) concluded
that “Contrastive analysis predicts learning problems not only where the
source and the target language differ, but also in the case of linguistic
features unknown in the source language. This statement is fully con-
firmed by the errors made in the use of articles.”

Learning Strategies
The contrastive analysis approach describes the difficulty in second lan-
guage learning based on the comparison of a learner’s NL and the TL.
According to them, the difficulty was language-specific, and it does not
reflect the developmental ability of language learners. Thus, difficulty can
be overcome by repeated drills.
However, a group of scholars (Corder 1967; Richards 1971; Dulay
and Burt 1974) disagree with this argument. They contend that lan-
guage learners’ learning strategies affect the second language learning
process and, in particular, error production. Corder (1967) recognized
the identical developmental process in second language learning between
children and adult learners. He claimed that both children and adults
have the same functional ability to learn both the first language and the
second language. He was also a central scholar in discussions of the pro-
ductive function of second language errors by both children and adults.
Corder (1967) claimed that regardless of age, the errors in second lan-
guage production are inevitable outcomes and are useful in investigating
the language learning strategies employed by second language learners,
and that they furthermore mark the degree of improvement made by
learners in their language learning process.
Corder (1967) also argued that language learners’ errors should not
be understood as just unwelcomed products of the NL impediment. They
provide the evidence of the strategies adopted by both the first language
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  15

and the second language learners. Richards (1971: 182) agreed with
Corder and argued that “interference for the mother tongue is clearly a
major source of difficulty in second language learning. … Many errors,
however, derived from the strategies employed by the learner in language
acquisition, and from the mutual interference of items within the target
language. This cannot be accounted for by contrastive analysis.”
In addition, in their cross-sectional studies of Spanish and Chinese
children, Dulay and Burt (1974: 52) showed the similarities of the
errors in the usage of a group of morphemes in English. This similar-
ity between two different NL speakers led to “the strong indication that
universal cognitive mechanisms are basis for the child organization of a
target language.” Dulay and Burt also proposed a “natural sequence”
of the acquisition of morphemes, starting from pronoun case with the
highest and ending in third person singular “s” in the lowest. The imple-
mentation of this order is that the highest morpheme is learned first and
the lowest last. This order has been supported by Bailey et al. (1974),
who replicated Dulay and Burt’s morpheme order research in the con-
text of adult ESL learners across different language backgrounds. Larsen-
Freeman (1976) reaffirmed the findings of the above two studies in her
morpheme acquisition order study. In that study, she demonstrated a
similar morpheme acquisition order among her subjects.
These studies reveal that “there is highly consistent order of rela-
tive difficulty in the use of the functors across different language
backgrounds, indicating that learners are experiencing intra-linguistic
­
difficulties” (Bailey et al. 1974: 237). In other words, there is a hierarchy
of difficulties, which was established not just by the comparison of the
NL and the TL, but also by the learners’ learning strategies regardless of
the NL. The lower the morpheme in the morpheme acquisition order,
the more difficult and the later the acquisition.
Dulay and Burt (1974) proposed a morpheme acquisition order,
which showed a hierarchy of difficulties. Baily et al. (1974) as well as
Larsen-Freeman (1976) supported the morpheme acquisition order
because the morpheme which was mastered last typically is the most dif-
ficult and predicts more errors than the formerly acquired ones. In this
context, this morpheme acquisition order also reflects learners’ develop-
mental strategies and cognitive abilities. According to Duskova (1969),
the difficulty viewed by morpheme acquisition order could be mastered
by language learners’ efforts, although some elements might never be
completely attainable.
16  S. Song

Chafe (1980) stresses that grammars are the best understood by their
use in language production in connection with the language user’s con-
ceptual rationale. Thus, researchers have employed error analysis to dem-
onstrate that error patterns change according to different learning stages,
reflecting the learner’s competence at a particular stage. To test the role
of language learners’ cognitive minds rather than the contribution of the
concept of transfer, these studies focused on proving the substantial por-
tion of errors not directly attributable to the native language. For exam-
ple, Dulay and Burt (1975) argued that the data elicited in their study
showed that less than 5% of second language learners’ errors are attribut-
able to their native language. George (1972) also notes that he can relate
only one-third of the second language errors from his data to the native
language.
The errors that are not attributable to the native language show much
more interesting and subtle factors in understanding the second language
learning process. It is the biggest contribution of these morpheme order
studies that they viewed second language learners as active participants
in the learning process and language creators (Gass and Selinker 1994).
Dulay and Burt (1974: 37) proposed creative construction, which is

…the process in which children gradually reconstruct roles for speech they
hear, guided by universal innate mechanisms which cause them to formu-
late certain types of hypotheses about the language system being acquired,
until the mismatch between what they are exposed to and what they pro-
duce is resolved.

This concept of creative construction puts more focus on the role of

language learners’ mental and innate propensity for language learning
rather than the impact of native languages of the learners. Accordingly,
under this linguistic mentalist view, native language has minimal impact
on second language learning.
In addition to the creative construction of the language learners and
the similar acquisition behaviors of English morphemes across different
native language backgrounds, Dulay et al. (1982) argue that the second
language learners they studied gained in accuracy when they were asked
to review their production. In addition, they often corrected their errors
on their own right after they made them. Accordingly, second language
learners are aware of the discrepancies between what they produced and
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  17

what they learned to produce, which proves that the second language
learners do not mechanically transfer their knowledge of native language
norms to second language production (Dulay et al. 1982).

Interlanguage
From the period of late 1970s, second language studies turned their
focus from the structural differences between the native language and
the target language to cognitive rationales employed by second language
learners. More and more studies around this time began to admit that
learning does not happen with mere accumulation of language habits.
They still used error analysis in studying second language production,
but their goal was not in investigating just the NL interference but to
figure out the second language learners’ cognitive strategies for grasping
the TL system.
Selinker (1972) originated the term Interlanguage as a separate lin-
guistic system which reflects second language learners’ strategic minds.
According to Selinker (1972), Interlanguage should not be regarded as
showing the result of just transferring native language habits. It is true
that second language competence is in part affected by the native lan-
guage. However, what matters more is an individual learner’s unique
and creative leaning mind in encountering new target language features.
That is why learners with the same second language input produce idi-
osyncratic production with different types of errors, errors that show the
rationale for what the second language learner knows and thinks in their
developmental stage.
Corrigan et al. (1989) contend that Interlanguage speakers often
realize the “imperfections” of their own utterances and try to change
them in the direction of the TL. Thus, an Interlanguage system may
be ungrammatical, but it is systematic with a speaker’s own understand-
ing and construction of target language grammars. Thus, interlanguage
shows what second language learners know as well as what they do
not know about the grammar and rules of the target language (Corder
1971). In other words, interlanguage is an outcome of second language
learners’ cognitive learning and proves the learners’ competence in the
target language. The studies at this stage focus on a staged development
or progress of second language learners which is considered systematic,
not random and not conditioned solely by the system of the TL.
18  S. Song

Cognitive and Usage Mind

The main contribution of natural morpheme order theory is attracting
scholarly attention to the role of a language learner’s cognitive mind.
They argue that language learning is not just a process of applying native
language habit to the target language without any strategy. Thus, they
study the role of the learners’ reasoning and strategic cognizance, lead-
ing to the birth of the theory of Universal Grammar, which attempts to
explain the second language learning process solely based on the human
internal mechanism of language learning. Most studies in second lan-
guage acquisition up to these arguments have focused on reviewing a
language system as more or less fixed and static. Accordingly, these stud-
ies have no bearings neither on context and use in sociocultural scenes
nor on the cognitive aspects of learners. However, the mentalist studies
serve as a seed to call attention to the factors of learners’ strategic minds
and developmental stages in the second language acquisition studies.
Ellis (1991) is one of the first scholars to emphasize the importance
of a language learner’s strategic mind rather than the comparative exami-
nation of native language and target language in understanding second
language production. He argues that second language learners apply the
target language grammar or rules, reflecting their own application, which
can be considered a true reflection of competence for second language
learners. In other words, any application of language rules that a second
language speaker uses in a sentence are idiosyncratic, so the individuals
in learning the same second language show dissimilar usages of the same
grammar rules in their second language production.
Ellis (1991) also stresses that the variable appearance of the target lan-
guage rules in second language speech demonstrates the different devel-
opment stages in negotiating the new language rules with their native
language rules. This variability tends to go with the second language
learners’ progress. Ellis notes that in early stages most second language
learners show similar types of application of the target rules. But, the
variability gets more apparent, and dissimilar manipulation of the target
rules is observed at later stages.
Ellis (1991) took the example of the third person singular s. In the
early stage, second language learners of English do not use the third
person singular s because they do not know the rule. As they learn
more about English grammar or have more opportunities to commu-
nicate with native speakers, they learn the rule. Typically, few second
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  19

language learners of English would use the third person singular s right
after they learn this rule. In his study, Ellis (1991) noticed the coexist-
ence of two forms he calls “free” or “systematic” variation. He believes
“environment,” meaning language context, plays a crucial role in causing
this type of variability in applying or internalizing the rules they learn.
McLaughlin (1987) studied learner’s variability in understanding
second language processes and devised a concept of “acculturation.”
According to McLaughlin, second language learners learn a new lan-
guage, internalizing the new rules in comparison with their native lan-
guage rules comparable to those and building the appropriate linguistic
habits to function properly in an appropriate context. This process of
acculturation involves the learners’ effort to modify their attitude as well
as knowledge and behavior. This theory of acculturation pairs with Ellis’
claim to show that the incomplete production by second language learn-
ers is the crucial achievement each second language learner attains at that
level of second language learning. This process of acculturation gets criti-
cally impacted by the environment and the social distance between the
learner and the native speakers of the target language. The level of accul-
turation tends to be different based on the social distance that the learner
feels in regard to the native speakers of the target language, in addition
to the linguistic distance between the NL and the TL.
In addition, second language acquisition scholar investigated learn-
ers’ cognitive development and functional progress in using second lan-
guages. The goal of these studies is to garner a broad range of models
and theories of language, all that fall into the category of “usage-based”
approaches. Although there are some dissimilarities in methodology and
concentration, these volumes of studies share usage-based perspectives
and theories. After being initiated by Langacker (1987), these usage-
based approaches to language and language learning gained popularity
for explaining the behaviors of second language learning.
Barlow and Kemmer (2000) argue that usage-based approaches fit
into two major traditions: The Firthian tradition emphasizes the impor-
tance of context while the second approach that belongs to Enunciativist
linguistics studies the organization of sentence structure around the
speech acts. In other words, usage-based approaches in studying lan-
guage acquisition can be grouped into two major categories: one stress-
ing the significance of contexts including social contexts and the other
mostly addressing models of language structure using the data of
speech acts (e.g., Ducrot 1984; Culioli 1995). For these usage-based
20  S. Song

approaches, the frequency of second language use plays a central role not
only because of its capacity to reveal patterns, but also for its strength as
a quality capable of shaping a language system. That is why Barlow and
Kemmer (2000: 10) claim that “a usage-based model, which stresses the
importance of instances of use and consequent cognitive entrenchment,
places learning at the forefront of language acquisition.”

Lexical Syntax and Semantics

Second language lexical acquisition and Interlanguage semantics are get-
ting more attention in studying language acquisition. Scholars exam-
ined how semantic domain interacts with the acquisition of syntactic
structure, assuming the language acquisition process is well understood
in investigating the relationship between the structure and its mean-
ing. Diller (1971), focusing on the function of lexical mappings, argued
that lexical entries include a representation of the phonological form, a
specification of syntactic categories and semantic characteristics. In other
words, acquisition of syntactic, semantic, and phonological form is insep-
arably interrelated with lexical properties.
Regarding the reason why lexical acquisition is so important, Jarvis
(1998) claimed that lexical items themselves are the most basic part of
language acquisition, implying that where there are no words, there is
no meaning. Second language learners get familiarized with the given
language primarily through learning the meaning of the new language
lexicon. Meara (1984) discovered that second language learners tend to
make more lexical errors than grammatical errors. Many recent language
researchers (Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet 1990; Chomsky 1995;
Singleton and Ridley 1995) claim that lexicon carries not only content-
bound meaning, but also grammatical subcategorization frames, argu-
ment structures, and functional information.
Regarding lexical errors, several studies (Bardovi-Harlig 1991;
Hulstijin and Tangelder 1992; Sonaiya 1991) argued that errors caused
by semantical similarity tend to be the majority in second language pro-
duction. In many cases, semantically parallel lexical items share a com-
mon semantic domain, but possess differences in syntactic structure. For
example, among the different kinds of lexical errors produced by second
language learners of English, semantically similar lexical verbs with differ-
ent syntactic configurations can cause a high degree of difficulty in sec-
ond or foreign language learning. In detail, the verbs or the verb phrases
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  21

such as see/look at, hear/listen to, mention/talk about are examples that
cause errors for second language learners of English. The reason is that,
as Hiki (1995) noted, native speakers are supposed to process uncon-
scious configurations of structural mappings related with these verbs’
argument structures and semantic connections. To the native speakers,
lexical information serves as an important guideline for figuring out the
proper syntactic structures.
Many second language studies on semantics assume that semantic
structures of native language play a major role in determining the ini-
tial state of second language structures (e.g., Schwaltz and Spouse 1996;
Smith 1988; White 1988, 2000). Current research on the acquisition of
semantics-syntax correspondences in second language learning proposes
that learners often apply default syntactic templates for certain semantic
categories from their native language morphology. They note that this
kind of native language influence happens in an initial stage of second
language production.
Learners tend to misclassify lexical items into native language concur-
rent structures. The learner’s first language semantic concepts tend to
strongly influence in the configuration of the second language seman-
tic and syntactic correspondence (Inagaki 1997). In addition, Inagaki
(1997) argued that this process of semantics-syntax mapping happens
automatically at an unconscious level. Although second language learners
are provided with explicit instructions and optimal input of the syntactic
structures, the native language transfer of semantics-syntax correspond-
ences in a first language may cause issues of learnability in regard to
enhance the proper morpho-syntax use in a second language.

Bilingual Linguistic Behavior

Another group of scholars (e.g., Azlan and Narasuman 2013; Myers-
Scotton 1993; Payant 2015; Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney 2008; Van Der
Meij and Zhao 2010) explored second language acquisition in connec-
tion with bilingual linguistic behavior. Myers-Scotton (1993) argues
that second language acquisition research is related to bilingual studies.
According to Payant (2015), the use of multiple languages by a single
speaker in a conversation can reveal significant insights into how two lan-
guages are mediated in the cognitive processes of language use. These
studies acknowledge second language learners’ dependence on their first
language. They mainly focused on the function of the first language as
22  S. Song

a mediating tool for enhancing the second language learner’s learning

a new language. In this case, a learner’s positive belief of the facilitat-
ing role of the first language, often referred to as the role of scaffolding,
makes an important contribution to learning a new language.
Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney’s survey (2008) of 52 foreign language
students found a positive relay function of the first language in enhanc-
ing the understanding of second language concepts. Payant (2015) also
argued that a speaker’s first language work helps second language devel-
opment. In other words, learners’ native language facilitates are useful in
figuring out the grammar and vocabulary of the second language. Pablo
et al. (2011) supported the positive effects of native language on second
language learning. They examined why students and teachers utilize the
first language in the foreign language classroom (French and English) in
central Mexico. The study revealed that there is a socializing function of
native language in learning a foreign language. Yet, it needs to be noted
that these studies did not pay much attention to the second or foreign
language learners’ errors. They mainly focused on the mediating contri-
bution of the first language in the process of making progress in learning
a new language.
In his study on bilingualism, Grosjean (1998) defines transfer as a
language learners’ strategy, which is used as a relief by bilingual learners
to manage challenging input. Grosjean (2001) uses the term “dynamic
interferences” to refer to the influence of a nonactive language on the
dominant language. With the term “intermediate modes,” he attempts to
explain the stage of imperfection in bilingual language learning. However,
instead of focusing on flaws, he uses this term to highlight the dyna-
mism of the intermediate stage of language production. Rothman (2011)
also argues that even in the situation of learning three languages, learn-
ers build the cognitive ability to analyze the proximity of two languages,
which serves as the source of transfer. Rather than emphasizing the nega-
tive impact of the previously learned language as a source of interference
and errors, many recent studies assess the mitigating impact of the previ-
ously learned language due to its similarity with the new language.
Bilingual studies (e.g., Grosjean 1998, 2001; Pablo et al. 2011;
Payant 2015) also explain bilingual behavior using the concept of code-
switching. Code is the language resources that bilingual speakers utilize
for speech acts. Thus, code is what the bilingual (or multilingual) speaker
uses interchangeably to satisfy the speakers’ social and cognitive motiva-
tion. Proponents of code-switching view the role of the first language
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  23

differently because code-switching is the situation where two languages

are used based on the choice of the speaker to satisfy their social motiva-
tions. These studies reveal that in the speech acts, second language learn-
ers rely on the grammar rules and vocabularies of the first and the second
languages interchangeably according to their level of proficiency in the
second language.

Transfer
Clyne (1967) argues that “transfer” occurs when any element or feature
of one language is adopted to speak in another language. The contrastive
analysis approach posits that “transfer” arises when native language habit
is imposed on a second language learner. Accordingly, transfer of native
language habits was recognized as an impediment in learning a new lan-
guage. Thus, when the second language is systemically different, the first
language causes inaccurate performance in the production of second lan-
guage (Felix 1980; Kellerman 1995; Jarvis 1998). In other words, the
first language entrenches learning the second language (Cook 2001;
Edstrom 2006; Turnbull 2001). This is also the reason that Weinreich
(1966) argued that “interference” in a second language production
appears as deviation coming from the native language norms, which the
speakers are acquainted with.
However, Müller (1998) argues that “transfer” is used as an assuag-
ing strategy to deal with the difficulties in using a new language. This
interpretation of “transfer” depends on learners’ perspectives as it is a
progressive process for the learner to cope with the confusing input of
the TL. Arnberg (1987) assures that language learners are capable of
integrating the systems of two different languages in order to create a
hybrid system. Accordingly, there is a renewed interest in the role of first
language influence in second language acquisition research (e.g., Odlin
1990; Kellerman 1995; Jarvis 1998; Kasper and Rose 2002).
Hulk and Van der Linden (1996) study bilingual children of French
and Dutch in regard to how they produce the object/verb construction
such as “livre lire (book read).” They argue that the object/verb con-
struction found in the Dutch children’s French production is based on
the “activation” of the Focus Movement rule, which happens to be the
same order of object/verb in Dutch. They argue that the language learn-
ers automatically bring the native language or dominant language rules
to a new language production. For example, the reason Dutch learners
24  S. Song

of French apply a Dutch rule of the object/verb order to speak French

is that the order happens to be the same as the focus order of object and
verb. Hulk and Van der Linden (1996) call the process of applying domi-
nant language grammar (the so-called native language grammar) activa-
tion of salient rules in learners’ cognitive learning minds. They argue that
language learners strategize which rules they would apply as a priority.
Most native language influence seems to appear in the early stage of
learning and decreases along with the development of second language
capacity. Native language influence can vary based on the language learn-
er’s developmental stage and also on the different linguistic disciplines.
Accordingly, participants in the study can make a difference. Many schol-
ars made efforts to provide better explanations on native language influ-
ence in learning second language (Bardovi-harlig 1992; Kasper 1992;
Klein and Perdue 1993; Kellerman 1995; Slobin 1996; Schwartz and
Sprouse 1996). In their studies, these scholars inspected numerous types
of syntactic or pragmatic errors, which appear in the process of second
language learning. Their consent is that errors are the best measuring
tool for evaluating the level of second language capacity and the impact
of the first language. That is why Klein and Perdue (1993) claim that the
impact of first language should not be regarded as detrimental.
A review on more details of transfer reveals two directions. One is inter-
ference, the so-called negative transfer, and the other is facilitation, positive
transfer. Grosjean (2010) acknowledges the term “interference” as being
significant, but also as being quite broad and difficult to define. Odlin
(1990) argues that the reason for the findings on the insignificance of first
language-related errors may come from the fact that the participants/sub-
jects were mostly advanced- or intermediate-level learners. According to
him, these studies overlooked the importance of the subject’s second lan-
guage fluency level. Most of the native language influence tends to appear
in the early stage of learning and decreases as second language learners
develop their language skills. Therefore, the learning stage of participants
in the study can make a difference in the results of the study. This may be
the reason why some previous studies did not value the importance of the
native language influence in second language acquisition.
In terms of positive transfer or the facilitation effect, quite a few schol-
ars (e.g., Cenoz 2001; De Angelis 2005; Sánchez 2011) prove that typo-
logically similar languages tend to make a positive influence in learning.
For example, French has more commonality with Spanish than English,
as a result Spanish native speakers are expected to master French much
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  25

easier and faster than English. In other words, they prove that the dis-
tance between the two languages makes a big impact in relaxing the
learners as well as facilitating the intake of the linguistic forms in a new
language. Similar logic is provided by Andersen (1983), who proposed
the model of transfer to somewhere. Andersen (1983) argues that the sim-
ilarity in native language and target language exerts positive influence in
enhancing second language learning, as long as the similar components
of first language as a candidate of transfer ensure not to violate the prin-
ciple of natural acquisition of language learning (Anderson 1983).
Contrary to the contrastive analysis approach which focused more on
the difference between the first and the second language, the Transfer
to Somewhere perspective focuses mostly on the similarity between two
languages. In other words, the second language input must play a role
as the positive source for generalizing some part of the second language
mechanism from the first language as well as providing lexical and typo-
logical indexing to enhance the progress of second language learning
(Anderson 1983; Kellerman 1995).
Although the presence of first language has been said to interfere with
the process of second language use, it can also serve as a mediating compo-
nent, the so-called stepping stone. The reason is that the positive influence
of using a first language can enhance second language learner’s under-
standing of a new language system (Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney 2008;
Storch and Wigglesworth 2003). In addition, a native language’s func-
tion can play the role of social and cognitive bridge for internalizing and
mediating the process of learning a second language (Lantolf 2006; Moore
2013; Swain and Lapkin 2000). Moore (2013) also argues that the first
language can be a link for learners to interact with new symbols in a new
language. In other words, the first language serves as a semantic bridge in
recognizing new structures or words in learning a second language.
Rivers (2010) asserts that second language learners experience indul-
gence when they can use their first language, so their mental relaxation
can be beneficial. According to Epstein et al. (1996: 682), language
learners can “analogize grammaticality.” between the first language and
the second language. In other words, although the equivalent grammars
between the first language and the second language are not completely
matching, the second language learners can make an analogy between
the two grammatical processes to enhance second language learning. It
is true that considerable matching types of learning progress have been
found in the studies of first and second language learning.
26  S. Song

On the one hand, the notion of Transfer to Nowhere, proposed by

Kellerman (1995) posits that similarity between the first language and
the second language lead to transfer which may function as a positive
controller in syntactic and cognitive contexts of second language learn-
ing. In contrast, the lack of similarity between the two languages can
cause difficulties in learning the second language due to their major
differences because the conceptual basis the learners carry from their
native language plays a role in enhancing second language learning.
The absence of the same grammar and words results in the vacancy of
the concurrent concepts which dampen in second language learning.
Kellerman (1995: 141) contends that “[adult second language learners]
may seek the linguistic tools which permit them to maintain their first
language perspectives” for the matching perspective in a new language.
In sum, the impact of a learner’s native language has been cherished,
diminished, and readdressed in the flow of studies of second language
learning. Thus, we need to involve first language input in understanding
the rationality of second language learning, although it should not serve
as an entire and sole basis of analysis.

Cognitive Context
Learning a new language is closely connected with grasping cogni-
tive concepts codified by vocabularies and grammars of that language.
Language learners learn different grammars and words in learning a dif-
ferent language, but when they do not have the same features in their
native language they can get lost easily because they do not have map-
keys to open the door to new concepts. Schwanenflugel et al. (1991:
75) agreed that “the unavailability of a particular word in a language to
express a certain concept makes conceptualization and expression poten-
tially more difficult for a speaker, but not impossible.”
Slobin (1993) claims that structural differences in languages lead to
different logical renditions. He emphasized the difference in learning
viable concepts and the abstract concepts undergone in different lan-
guages. The viable concepts, such as plurality or gender, can be learned
without much struggle in a new language although the learner’s native
language does not have equivalent syntactic and morphological features.
On the other hand, people tend to have much difficulty in learning the
abstract concepts such as aspect, definiteness, voice, and the like through
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  27

language since these concepts are hard to be schematized by the lan-

guage learners. That is why these categories are regarded as “categories
of thinking for speaking” (Slobin 1993: 136).
Halliday (1978) and Matthiessen (2007) integrated functional con-
text and synoptic imagery and introduced them to the study of grammar
or syntax in second language study. They argued that language learning
is not just memorizing or learning static rules. It is a process of explor-
ing the function of language. According to this view, language learn-
ing is a multidimensional phenomenon (Halliday 1994; Martin 1992;
Matthiessen 1995).
Teruya (2009: 69) argues that the study of language in context
“explores the domain of grammar in terms of sequences of events that
are logico-semantically constructed in clause complexes by means of
diverse relations.” This approach focused on what second language
learners are thinking rather than analyzing their grammatical errors.
According to Teruya (2009), the study of language in context is valu-
able because it characterizes grammar via four significant qualities: (1)
grammar as a resource for making meaning; (2) grammar as the major
unit of language processing and meaning construction; (3) grammar as
a continuously flowing font of meaning aligned with human experience
more broadly; and (4) grammar as a system of language logic. While
grammaticality is tightly contained by a need to meet the syntactic rules
pertaining to agreement or word order, the proper use of those rules
relies heavily on learning context. As Halliday (2002) noted, grammar
is not just a rule but a model of interpreting human experience, ratifying
human feelings and relations, and creating a synoptic reality.

Pragmatic Transfer
The main goal of second language learning is its use in actual, day-to-day
life. Second language learners may run into difficulties in actual commu-
nication with native speakers even if they are competent with the gram-
mars and the lexical inventories of the target language, particularly if
they do not develop sufficient sociocultural understanding (Blum-Kulka
1982; Cohen and Olstein 1981; Fraser and Nolen 1981; House 1982;
Kasper 1982; Thomas 1983; Wolfson 1981). Thus, a sufficient under-
standing of the referential meanings and social implications of pragmatic
expressions in addition to the adequate knowledge of linguistic features
28  S. Song

is very important for successful communication in a second language

(Hymes 1974). That is why recent studies pay close attention to second
language pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives.
Pragmatic context is also closely related to the issue of transfer influ-
encing the adequate use of a second language and language learners’
communicative attainments. When second language learners run into a
totally different social usage and connotation of pragmatic expression
from their native language, they will have difficulty because their native
language cannot provide proper cross-language correspondence beyond
their awareness. Kasper (1992) termed these second language learners’
pragmatic performances with sociocultural implications as Interlanguage
pragmatics. Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1992) counted Interlanguage
pragmatics as one of the major areas of second language studies.
Many studies on second language pragmatics or Interlanguage prag-
matics investigated various speech acts such as apology, request, compli-
ment, refusal, or invitation (Blum-Kulka and Olstein 1986; Hill 1997;
Rose 2000; Houck and Gass 1986; Robinson 1992; Bardovi-Harlig and
Hartford 1993; Trosborg 1995). Interlanguage pragmatics also includes
other subareas such as second language discourse and narrative structure
(Tarone 1980; Bardovi-harlig 1992) and lexical acquisition in pragmatic
contexts (Ijaz 1986; Gass 1988; Gitsaki 2002).
These studies focus on the significant impact of second language
learners’ pragmatic and sociocultural knowledge on their communicative
abilities by reviewing their speech acts in diverse pragmatic disciplines.
Using subjects from diverse cultural and social backgrounds, those stud-
ies explored how those cultural and social features impact learning social
discourse in a second language. They mostly examined the contextual
information and cultural implications of the given speech acts and com-
pared cross-cultural differences found in various modes of speech acts.
Language learning is also learning the sociocultural practices of a differ-
ent linguistic community.
Like other systemic features that interfere with second language learn-
ing, a speaker’s conceptual and cultural beliefs in pragmatic contexts
affect nonnative speakers’ pragmatic activities. Kasper (1992) found that
first language pragmatic habits are carried on the pragmatic expressions
of second language learners, which she calls pragmatic transfer, although
there are mixed findings on the relationship between the proficiency of
the learner and pragmatic transfer.
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  29

In pragmatic contexts, the equivalent pragmatic conventions and

expressions from a learner’s native language result in Transfer to
Somewhere in the process of second language acquisition. Some schol-
ars argue that a first language supports language learning cognitively
and socially for linguistic and nonlinguistics utilities (e.g., Moore and
Gajo 2009; Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney 2008; Storch and Wigglesworth
2003). On the other hand, the sociocultural or cognitive gaps between
the native language and the target language lead to Transfer to Nowhere.
Moreover, Pienemann (1997) points out that the learner’s awareness of
social distance affects the success of communication. When second lan-
guage learners feel greater social distance between themselves and the
target language speakers, the learners tend to make more grammatical
errors (Pienemann 1997).
Hill (1997) examines the relationship between language proficiency
and pragmatic usage through her analysis of Japanese English learner’s
request strategies. She found that many advanced Japanese learners of
English prefer to use English conditionals, such as if you don’t mind. Hill
(1997) explained that this preference for the English conditional resulted
from Japanese translation of moshi yokattara (‘it’s OK’) to if you don’t
mind. Beebe and Takahashi (1987) also claim that learners with second
language fluency tend to make more pragmatic transfer although they are
more knowledgeable of the sociocultural norms of the second language.
In turn, Interlanguage pragmatics is an area of study addressing the
second language learning processes of adult learners. Kasper and Rose
(2002) emphasized the differences in learning tasks and in developmen-
tal stages of adult second language learners when compares to young
learners. As opposed to young learners, adult learners’ grammatical and
pragmatic proficiency in the second language tend to be more compat-
ible with each other. Adult second language learners “have to acquire
unfamiliar socio-pragmatic distinctions and practices, new paralinguistic
conventions, their social meanings, and their contextual distributions”
(Kasper and Rose 2002: 164). Foley and Thompson (2003) agree with
Kasper and Rose (2002) that adult second language learners have an
advantage when dealing with wide-ranging cultural and cognitive aware-
ness as well as with cogent application of it in language production.
Besides, adult second language learners have a better understanding of
the social relations included in syntactic and lexical features of a second
language they are learning.
30  S. Song

As reviewed thus far, studies on second language acquisition have been

developed to ensure that they integrate multidimensional functions of lin-
guistic, social, intercultural, and cognitive aspects of language learning.

References
Andersen, R. 1983. Transfer to Somewhere. In Language Transfer in Language
Learning, ed. S. Gass and L. Selinker, 177–201. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Arnberg, L. 1987. Raising Children Bilingually: The Pre-School Years. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Azlan, N.M.N.I., and S. Narasuman. 2013. The Role of Code-Switching as a
Communicative Tool in an ESL Teacher Education Classroom. Procedia—
Social and Behavioral Sciences 90: 458–467.
Bailey, N., Madden, C., and S.D. Krashen. 1974. Is There a Natural Sequence in
Adult Second Language Learning? Language Learning 24 (2): 235–243.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1991. Developing Pragmatic Awareness: Closing the
Conversation. Elt Journal 45: 4–15.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1992. The Relationship of Form and Meaning: A Cross-
Sectional Study of Tense and Aspect in the Interlanguage of Learners of
English as a Second Language. Applied Psycholinguistics 13: 253–278.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and B.S. Hartford. 1992. Emerging Pragmatic Competence:
Situational and Linguistic Knowledge. In QUILT and QUILL: Achieving
and Maintaining Quality in Language Teaching and Learning, ed. N. Bird
and J. Harris, 325–339. Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education,
Education Department.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., and B.S. Hartford. 1993. Learning the Rules of Academic
Talk: A Longitudinal Study of Pragmatic Development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 15: 279–304.
Barlow, M., and S. Kemmer. 2000. Introduction: A Usage-Based Conception of
Language. In Usage Based Models of Language, ed. M. Barlow and S. Kemmer,
vii–xxviii. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Beebe, L., and T. Takahashi. 1987. The Development of Pragmatic Competence
by Japanese Learners of English. JALT Journal 8 (2): 131–155.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. Learning to Say What You Mean in a Second Language: A
Study of the Speech Act Performance of Hebrew Second Language Learners.
Applied Linguistics 3: 29–59.
Blum-Kulka, S., and E. Olshtain. 1986. Too Many Words: Length of Utterance
and Pragmatic Failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8: 47–61.
Cenoz, J. 2001. The Effect of Linguistic Distance, L2 Status and Age on
Crosslinguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition. In Cross-Linguistic
Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, ed. J.
Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, and U. Jessner, 8–20. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  31

Chafe, W. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of
Narrative Production. New York, NY: Ablex.
Chierchia, G., and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and Grammar: An
Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clyne, M. 1967. Transference and Triggering. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Cohen, A.D., and E. Olshtain. 1981. Developing a Measure of Sociocultural
Competence: The Case of Apology. Language Learning 31: 113–134.
Cook, V. 2001. Using the First Language in the Classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review 57: 402–423.
Corder, S.P. 1967. The Significance of Learner’s Errors. International Review of
Applied Linguistics 5: 161–170.
Corder, S.P. 1971. Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis. In Error Analysis
and Interlanguage, ed. S.P. Corder, 14–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corrigan, R., F. Eckman, and M.P. Noonan. 1989. Linguistic Categorization.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Culioli, A. 1995. Cognition and Representation in Linguistic Theory. Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory 112: 1–161.
De Angelis, A. 2005. Interlanguage Transfer of Function Words. Language
Learning 55: 379–414.
Diller, K.C. 1971. Generative Grammar, Structural Linguistics, and Language
Teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Ducrot, I. 1984. Saying and Not Saying Principles of Linguistic Semantics.
Philosophical Review of France and Abroad 164: 339–340.
Dulay, H., and M. Burt. 1973. Should We Teach Children Syntax? Language
Learning 23: 245–258.
Dulay, H., and M. Burt. 1974. Natural Sequences in Child Second Language
Acquisition. Language Learning 24: 37–53.
Dulay, H., and M. Burt. 1975. A New Approach to Discovering Universals of
Child Language Acquisition. In Developmental Psycholinguistics, ed. D. Dato.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Dulay, H., M. Burt, and S. Krashen. 1982. Language Two. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Duskova, L. 1969. On Sources of Errors in Foreign Language Learning.
International Review of Applied Linguistics 7: 11–36.
Edstrom, A. 2006. Use in the Classroom: One Teacher’s Self-Evaluation. The
Canadian Modern Language Review 63: 275–292.
Ellis, R. 1991. Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Epstein, S., R. Pacini, V. Denes-Raj, and H. Heier. 1996. Individual Differences
in Intuitive-Experiential and Analytic-Rational Thinking Styles. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 71: 390–405.
32  S. Song

Felix, S. 1980. Recent Trends in Research on Second Language Acquisition.

Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Foley, J., and L. Thompson. 2003. Language Learning: A Life Long Process.
London: Edward Arnold.
Fraser, B., and W. Nolen. 1981. The Association of Deference with Linguistic
Form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27: 93–109.
Gass, S. 1988. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 9: 92–106.
Gass, S., and L. Selinker. 1994. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory
Course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
George, H. 1972. Common Errors in Language Learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Gitsaki, C. 2002. Second Language Lexical Acquisition: A Study of Development of
Collocated Knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Grosjean, F. 1998. Transfer and Language Mode. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 1 (3): 175–176.
Grosjean, F. 2001. The Bilingual’s Language Modes. In One Mind, Two
Languages: Bilingual Language Processing, ed. J. Nicol, 1–22. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Grosjean, F. 2010. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed.
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2002. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. J. Webster, ed.
vol. 2. London: Continuum.
Hiki, K. 1995. An Exploratory Study into Second Language Learner Knowledge of
Semantically Similar Lexical Items: The Case of Verbs of Perception. Doctoral
Dissertation, Indiana University, USA.
Hill, T. 1997. The Development of Pragmatic Competence in an EFL Context.
Doctoral dissertation. Temple University, Japan. 
Houck, N., and S. Gass. 1986. Non-Native Refusal: A Methodological
Perspective. In Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenge to Communication in a
Second Language, ed. S. Gass and J. Neu, 45–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
House, J. 1982. Opening and Closing Phrases in German and English
Dialogues. Grazer Linguistische Berichte 59: 76–90.
Hulk, A., and E. Van Der Linden. 1996. Language Mixing in a French-Dutch
Bilingual Child. In Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen (Eurosal 6, A
Selection of Papers), ed. E. Kellermand, B. Weltens, and T. Borgaerts,
89–103.
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  33

Hulstijin, J., and C. Tangelder. 1992. Semantic and Phonological Interference in

the Mental Lexicon of Learners of English as a Foreign Language and Native
Speakers of English. In 1st International Congress: Memory and Memorization
in Acquiring and Learning Language, ed. J. Chapelle and M. Claes, 143–
164. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cowan Liebowitz Latman.
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ijaz, H. 1986. Linguistic and Cognitive Determinants of Lexical Acquisition in a
Second Language. Language Learning 36 (4): 401–451.
Inagaki, S. 1997. Japanese and Chinese learner ’ s Acquisition of the Narrow-range
Rules for the Dative Alternation in English. Language Learning 47: 637–669.
Jarvis, S. 1998. Conceptual Transfer in the Interlanguage Lexicon. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Kasper, G. 1982. Teaching-Induced Aspects of Interlanguage Discourse. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 4: 91–113.
Kasper, G. 1992. Pragmatic Transfer. Second Language Research 8: 203–231.
Kasper, G., and K. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Kellerman, E. 1995. Crosslinguistic Influence: Transfer to Nowhere? Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 125–150.
Klein, W., and C. Perdue. 1993. Utterance Structure. In Adult Language
Acquisition: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, ed. C. Perdue, 3–40. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lantolf, J.P. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and L2: State of the Art. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 28 (1): 67–109.
Larsen-Freeman, D.E. 1976. An Explanation for the Morpheme Acquisition
Order of Second Language Learners. Language Learning 26 (1): 125–134.
Martin, J.R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 1995. Theme as an Enabling Resource in Ideational
‘Knowledge’ Construction. In Thematic Development in English Texts, ed. M.
Ghadessy, 20–54. London: Pinter.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2007. The Multimodal Page: A Systemic Functional
Exploration. In New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse, ed.
T.D. Royce and W.L. Bowcher, 1–62. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum..
McLaughlin, M.W. 1987. Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy
Implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9 (2): 171–178.
34  S. Song

Meara, P. M. 1984. The Study of Lexis in Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.
Moore, P. 2013. An Emergent Perspective on the Use of the First Language
in the English-as a Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language
Journal 97 (1): 240–253.
Moore, D., and L. Gajo. 2009. Introduction–French Voices on Plurilingualism
and Pluriculturalism: Theory, Significance and Perspectives. International
Journal of Multilingualism 6 (2): 137–153.
Müller, N. 1998. Transfer in Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition 1 (3): 151–171.
Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Common and Uncommon Ground: Social and
Structural Factors in Codeswitching. Language in Society 22 (4): 475–503.
Odlin, T. 1990. Word Order Transfer, Metalinguistic Awareness and Constraints
on Foreign Language Learning. In Second Language Acquisition/ Foreign
Language Learning, ed. W. Van Pattern and J. Lee, 95–117. Clevedon:
Multiligual Matters.
Pablo, I.M., M.M. Lengeling, B.R. Zenil, T. Crawford, and D. Goodwin. 2011.
Students and Teachers’ Reasons for Using the First Language within the
Foreign Language Classroom (French and English) in Central Mexico. Profile
13 (2): 113–129.
Payant, C. 2015. Plurilingual Learners’ Beliefs and Practices in Relation
to Native and Non-native Language Mediation during Learner-Leaner
Interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review 71 (2): 105–129. 
Pienemann, Ma. 1997. Psychological Constraints on the Teachability of
Lanuages. In First and Second Language Acquisition Processes, ed. C. Pfaff.
Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Richards, J.C. 1971. A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. Journal of
ELT 25: 204–219.
Rivers, D. J. 2010. National Identification and Intercultural Relations in Foreign
Language Learning. Language and Intercultural Communication 10 (4):
318–336.
Robinson, M.A. 1992. Introspective Methodology in Interlanguage Pragmatics
Research. In Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target Language, ed. G.
Kasper, 27–82. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Rolin-Ianziti, J., and R. Varshney. 2008. Students’ Views Regarding the Use of
the First Language: An Exploratory Study in a Tertiary Context Maximizing
Target Language Use. Canadian Modern Language Review 65 (2): 249–273.
Rose, K. 2000. An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study of Interlanguage
Pragmatic Development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 27–67.
Rothman, J. 2011. L3 Syntactic Transfer Selectivity and Typological
Determinacy: The Typological Primacy Model. Second Language Research 27
(1): 107–127.
 2  SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES  35

Sánchez, L. 2011. Luisa and Pedrito’s dog will the breakfast eat: Interlanguage
transfer and the role of the second language factor. In New Trends in
Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research, eds. G. De Angelis
and  J.-M. Dewaele, 86–104. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 
Schenning, S., and R. Van Hout. 1994. Dimensional Spatial Relations in Adult
Language Acquisition. Linguistics in the Netherlands 11 (1): 235–246.
Schwanenflugel, P., B. Blount, and P. Lin. 1991. Cross-Cultural Aspects of Word
Meanings. In The Psychology of Word Meanings, ed. P. Schwanenflugel, 71–90.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, B., and R. Sprouse. 1996. L2 Cognitive States and the Full Transfer/
Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research 12: 40–72.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10:
209–231.
Singleton, D., and J. Ridley. 1995. Strategic L2 Lexical Innovation: Case Study
of a University Level ab initio Learner of German. Second Language Research
11 (2): 137–148.
Slobin, D.I. 1993. Adult Language Acquisition: A View from Child Language
Study. Adult Language Acquisition: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives 2: 239–252.
Slobin, D.I. 1996. Though and Language to ‘Thinking for Speaking’. In
Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. J. Gumperz and S. Iverson, 77–96.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, M.S. 1988. On the Role of Linguistic Theory in Explanations of Second
Language Developmental Grammars. In Linguistic Theory in Second Language
Acquisition, ed. S. Flynn and W. O’Neil, 173–198. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Sonaiya, R. 1991. Vocabulary Acquisition as a Process of Continuous Lexical
Discrimination. International Review of Applied Linguistics 14: 269–284.
Stockwell, R.P., and J.D. Bowen. 1965. The Grammatical Structures of English
and Spanish, vol. 4. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Storch, N., and G. Wigglesworth. 2003. Is There a Role for the Use of the L1 in
an L2 Setting? TESOL Quarterly 37 (4): 760–769.
Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 2000. Task-Based Second Language Learning: The
Uses of the First Language. Language Teaching Research 4 (3): 251–274.
Tarone, E.E. 1980. Communicative Strategies, Foreign Talk, and Repair in
Interlanguage. Language Learning 30 (2): 417–431.
Teruya, K. 2009. Grammar as a Gateway into Discourse: A Systemic Functional
Approach to Subject, Theme, and Logic. Linguistics and Education 20 (1):
67–79.
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics 4:
91–112.
Trahey, M. and L. White. 1993. Positive Evidence and Preemption in the Second
Language Classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 181–204.
36  S. Song

Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Turnbull, W. 2001. An Appraisal of Pragmatic Elicitation Technique for the
Social Psychological Study of Talk: The Case of Request Refusals. Pragmatics
11 (1): 31–61.
Van Der Meij, H., and X. Zhao. 2010. Codeswitching in English Courses in
Chinese Universities. The Modern Language Journal 94 (3): 396–411.
Weinreich, U. 1966. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague:
Mouton.
White, L. 1988. Island Effects in Second Language Acquisition. In Linguistic
Theory in Second Language Acquisition, ed. S. Flynn and W. O’Neill, 144–
172. Dordrecht: Reidel.
White, L. 2000. Second Language Acquisition: From Initial to Final State. In
Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, ed. J. Archibald, 130–
155. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wolfson, N. 1981. Complements in Cross-Cultural Perspective. TESOL
Quarterly 15: 117–124.
http://www.springer.com/978-1-137-52435-5