Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:10:20.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of theories of second language acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2010

Florence Myles
Florence Myles*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Second language acquisition (SLA) is a relatively new field of enquiry. Before the late 1960s, educators did write about L2 learning, but very much as an adjunct of language teaching pedagogy, underpinned by behaviourism, the then-dominant learning theory in psychology. In this view, the task facing learners of foreign languages was to rote-learn and practise the grammatical patterns and vocabulary of the language to be learnt, in order to form new ‘habits’, that is to create new stimulus–response pairings which would become stronger with reinforcement. In order for the ‘old habits’ of the L1 not to interfere with this process by being ‘copied’, or transferred, into the L2, researchers embarked on thorough descriptions of pairs of languages to be learnt, in order to identify areas that are different and would thus be difficult.

Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 320 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd edn.). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1984). Semantic features of pidginised learners of German. In Andersen, R. (ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 243–270.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. (2009). Typological universals and second language acquisition. In Scalise, S., Magni, E. & Bisetto, A. (eds.), Universals of language today. Rotterdam: Springer, 253–272.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). The acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Klima, E. & Bellugi, V. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. (eds.), Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 183–219.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (eds.) (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413–468.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd edn.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (ed.) (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (ed.) (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tense of English verbs. In McClelland, J. & Rumelhart, D. (eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (vol. 2): Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 216–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, C. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D. & Sprouse, R. A. (1994). Word order and nominative Case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317–368.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. & Seidlhofer, B. (eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.Google Scholar