The Routledge Encyclopedia ofSecond Language Acquisition

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second LanguageAcquisition offers a user-friendly, authoritativesurvey of terms and constructs that are important tounderstanding research in second language acqui-sition (SLA) and its applications. The Encyclopediais designed for use as a reference tool by students,researchers, teachers and professionals with aninterest in SLA. The Encyclopedia has the followingfeatures:

255 alphabetized entries written in an acces-sible style, including cross references to otherrelated entries in the Encyclopedia and sug-gestions for further reading.

Among these, 9 survey entries that cover thefoundational areas of SLA in detail: Develop-ment in SLA, Discourse and Pragmatics inSLA, Individual Differences in SLA, Instruc-

ted SLA, Language and the Lexicon in SLA,Measuring and Researching SLA, Psycholingus-tics of SLA, Social and Sociocultural Approa-ches to SLA, Theoretical Constructs in SLA.

The rest of the entries cover all the majorsubdisciplines, methodologies and concepts ofSLA, from Accommodation to the ZISAproject.

Written by an international team of specialists, The

Routledge Encyclopedia of Second LanguageAcquisition is an invaluable resource for studentsand researchers with an academic interest in SLA.

Peter Robinson is Professor of Linguistics andSecond Language Acquisition, Department of Eng-lish, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan.

The Routledge Encyclopediaof Second Language

Acquisition

Edited byPeter Robinson

First published 2013by Routledge711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Simultaneously published in the UKby Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

2013 Taylor & Francis

The right of the editors to be identied as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for theirindividual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs andPatents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by anyelectronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying andrecording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from thepublishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are usedonly for identication and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataRoutledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition / edited by Peter Robinson.p. cm.Includes index.1. Second language acquisition. 2. Language and languages. I. Robinson, Peter Jake.

II. Title: Encyclopedia of second language acquisition.P118.2.R67 20124010.9303dc23

2011043255

ISBN: 978-0-415-87751-0 (hbk)ISBN: 978-0-203-13594-5 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Romans and Helveticaby Taylor & Francis Books

Printed and bound in the United States of America on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations vi

Editorial Advisory Board viii

List of Contributors ix

List of Entries xvii

Acknowledgements xxi

Introduction to the encyclopedia xxii

Entries A-Z 1

Index 710

List of Illustrations

Figures

1 Part of a right-sorted concordance of importance in the Michigan Corpus of Upper-levelStudent Papers (MICUSP) 135

2 A correlation of language prociency and vocabulary knowledge 1433 FonF taxanomy 2464 A sample derivation 2785 A symbolic unit: a form-meaning link 3556 Strengthening of form-meaning link over time after multiple exposures 3557 Strengthening of form-meaning link over time after multiple exposures, with weak

associations concerning contextualized usage beginning to form 3558 Test, construct, and criterion 3619 Effects of output on SLA processes 47110 Lexical entries and c-structure for Peter owns many dogs 51511 A-structure, f-structure and c-structure for What does Mary eat? 51612 Lexical organization as a function of early vs. late learning of L2. Shaded areas

indicate L2 (Chinese) representations 52813 The Revised Hierarchical Model 55914 A sample SEM model showing a predictive relationship between strategy

use (based on responses to a 5-section strategy survey) and performanceon a speaking test comprising ve tasks 616

15 U-shaped learning curve 66316 The Pyramid Model of willingness to communicate 688

Tables

1 Schematic frequency table of two elements A and B and their co-occurrence 932 Observed of give and the ditransitive in the ICE-GB (with expected

frequencies in parentheses) 933 Selected software tools for corpus analysis (ofine use) 1374 Selected online corpus tools 1385 Development and learner-specic variation in L2 acquisition 1696 Content and function words 2657 Features distinguishing Bahasa Indonesian pronouns 2668 A schematic representation of the constructicon 2929 Distribution of data 294

10 Implicational scale of data 29411 Hypothesized hierarchy of processing procedures 51412 Developmental stages for English morphology 51513 Developmental stages for English syntax: Constituent questions and Y/N questions 51714 A TLU Analysis of English noun plural -s 628

List of Illustrations vii

Editorial Advisory Board

Niclas AbrahamssonStockholm University, Sweden

Dwight AtkinsonPurdue University, USA

Kathleen Bardovi-HarligIndiana University, USA

Alister CummingOntario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto, Canada

Robert DeKeyserUniversity of Maryland, USA

Jean-Marc DewaeleBirkbeck College, University of London, UK

Ulrike JessnerUniversity of Innsbruck, Austria

Patsy LightbownConcordia University, Canada

Alison MackeyGeorgetown University, USA

Dean MellowSimon Fraser University, Canada

Terence OdlinUniversity of Ohio, USA

William OGradyUniversity of Hawaii, USA

Norman SegalowitzConcordia University, Canada

Yasuhiro ShiraiUniversity of Pittsburgh, USA

Michael UllmanGeorgetown University, USA

Leo Van LierMonterey Institute of InternationalStudies, USA

Marjolijn VerspoorUniversity of Groningen, Netherlands

John WilliamsUniversity of Cambridge, UK

List of Contributors

Rebekha AbbuhlCalifornia State University at Long Beach

Niclas AbrahamssonStockholm University

Michel AchardRice University

Phillip L. AckermanGeorgia Institute of Technology

Agnes AlbertEtvs Lornd University

Eva Alcn-SolerUniversitat Jaume I

Jeanette AltarribaUniversity at Albany, State University ofNew York

Dwight AtkinsonPurdue University

Kathleen Bardovi-HarligIndiana University

Robert BayleyUniversity of California, Davis

Alessandro BenattiUniversity of Greenwich

Tej K. BhatiaSyracuse University

Ellen BialystokYork University

Henrike K. BlumenfeldSan Diego State University

Melissa BowlesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Diana BoxerUniversity of Florida

Charles BrowneMeiji Gakuin University

Christopher D.B. BurtUniversity of Canterbury

Heidi ByrnesGeorgetown University

Teresa CadiernoUniversity of Southern Denmark

Marcus CalliesJohannes-Gutenberg-Universitt Mainz

Helen CarpenterUpper-Story Educational Servicesand Consulting

Mary CarrollUniversity of Heidelberg

Susanne E. CarrollUniversity of Calgary

Devin M. CasenhiserYork University

Micheline Chalhoub-DevilleUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro

Andrew CohenUniversity of Minnesota

KimMarie ColeSUNY Fredonia

Joseph CollentineNorthern Arizona University

Vivian CookNewcastle University

Albert CostaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra

Alister CummingOntario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto

Jim CumminsOntario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto

Saadiyah DarusUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Maria C.M. de GuerreroInter American University of Puerto Rico

Nel de JongFree University Amsterdam

Tamar DeganiUniversity of Pittsburgh

Robert M. DeKeyserUniversity of Maryland

Tracey M. DerwingUniversity of Alberta

Jean-Marc DewaeleBirkbeck College, University of London

Bruno Di BiaseUniversity of Western Sydney

Bryan DonaldsonUniversity of Texas at Austin

Margaret A. DuFonCalifornia State University, Chico

Paola E. DussiasPennsylvania State University

Fred R. EckmanUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Nick C. EllisUniversity of Michigan

Soren EskildsenUniversity of Southern Denmark

Hossein FarhadyAmerican University of Armenia

J. Csar Flix-BrasdeferIndiana University

Pauline FosterSt. Marys University College

Patricia FriedrichArizona State University

Mara del Pilar Garca-MayoUniversidad del Pas Vasco

x List of Contributors

Robert C. GardnerUniversity of Western Ontario

Susan GassMichigan State University

Ronald GeluykensUniversity of Oldenburg

Pauline GibbonsUniversity of Technology Sydney

Roger GilabertUniversity of Barcelona

Christina GitsakiUniversity of Queensland

Aline GodfroidMichigan State University

Donald F. GravesUniversity at Albany, State Universityof New York

Elena GrigorenkoYale University

Rosa E. Guzzardo TamargoPennsylvania State University

Stefan Th. GriesUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

Henk HaarmannUniversity of Maryland

Gisela HkanssonLund University

Joan Kelly HallPennsylvania State University

Bjrn HammarbergStockholm University

ZhaoHong HanColumbia University, Teachers College

Linda HarklauUniversity of Georgia

Ruth HarmanUniversity of Georgia

Eric HauserTokyo University of Electro-communications

Alice F. HealyUniversity of Colorado

John HellermannPortland State University

Henritte HendriksUniversity of Cambridge, RCEAL

Julia HerschensohnUniversity of Washington

Thom HeubnerSan Jose State University

Gregory HickokUniversity of California, Irvine

Richard HudsonUniversity College London

Paul IbbotsonUniversity of Manchester

Tomohito IshikawaSoka Womens College

Shinichi IzumiSophia University

Daniel O. JacksonUniversity of Hawaii at Ma-noa

List of Contributors xi

Eunice Eunhee JangOntario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto

Scott JarvisOhio University

Geoff JordanLeicester University

Satomi KawaguchiUniversity of Western Sydney

Chieko KawauchiKurume University

Wolfgang KleinMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics,Nijmegen

Keiko KodaCarnegie Mellon University

Joel KoethUniversity of Maryland

James A. KoleUniversity of Colorado

Judit KormosLancaster University

Silvia KouwenbergUniversity of the West Indies

Claire KramschUniversity of California, Berkeley

Anthony John KunnanCalifornia State University, Los Angeles

Hye-Young KwakUniversity of Hawaii

Usha LakshmananSouthern Illinois University Carbondale

Donna LardiereGeorgetown University

Diane Larsen-FreemanUniversity of Michigan

Jenifer Larson-HallUniversity of North Texas

David LasagabasterUniversity of the Basque Country

Batia LauferUniversity of Haifa

Sunyoung Lee-EllisUniversity of Maryland

Mietta LennesUniversity of Helsinki

Ronald P. LeowGeorgetown University

Ping LiPennsylvania State University

Patsy M. LightbownConcordia University

Jeannette LittlemoreUniversity of Birmingham

Shawn LoewenMichigan State University

Wander LowieUniversity of Groningen

Zoe LukUniversity of Pittsburgh

Roy LysterMcGill University

Ernesto MacaroUniversity of Oxford

xii List of Contributors

Peter D. MacIntyreCape Breton University

Brian MacWhinneyCarnegie Mellon University

Theodoros MarinisUniversity of Reading

Numa MarkeeUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Clara MartinLaboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, CNRSand Universit de Provence

Kim McDonoughConcordia University

Jrgen M. MeiselUniversity of Hamburg and Universityof Calgary

J. Dean MellowSimon Fraser University

Renata MeuterQueensland University of Technology

Silvina MontrulUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Kara Morgan-ShortUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

Junko MoriUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Carmen MuozUniversitat de Barcelona

Hitoshi MuranoiTohoku Gakuin University

Pieter MuyskenRadboud University Nijmegen

Hossein NassajiUniversity of Victoria

Paul NationVictoria University of Wellington

Helen NevilleUniversity of Oregon

Shuichi NobeAoyama Gakuin University

Kimberly NoelsUniversity of Alberta

Bonny NortonUniversity of British Columbia

Terence OdlinOhio State University

William OGradyUniversity of Hawaii

Luca OnnisUniversity of Hawaii

Frederick L. OswaldRice University

Rebecca L. OxfordAir Force Culture and Language Centerand University of Maryland

Hiromi OzekiReitaku University

Eric PakalukUniversity of Oregon

Jenefer PhilpUniversity of Auckland

Teresa PicaUniversity of Pennsylvania

List of Contributors xiii

Luke PlonskyNorthern Arizona University

Matthew E. PoehnerPennsylvania State University

Charlene PolioMichigan State University

Graeme PorteUniversidad de Granada

Anna Giacalone RamatUniversit di Pavia

Patrick RebuschatUniversity of Wales, Bangor

Daniel J. ReedMichigan State University

Andrea ReveszLancaster University

Hkan RingbomAbo Akademi University

William C. RitchieSyracuse University

Leah RobertsUniversity of York

Karen RoehrUniversity of Essex

Ute RmerGeorgia State University

Kenneth R. RoseCity University of Hong Kong

Ralph L. RoseWaseda University

Rebecca SachsGeorgetown University

Jasmin SadatInstituci Catalana de Recerca i EstudisAvanats (ICREA)

Yasuyo SawakiWaseda University

Norbert SchmittUniversity of Nottingham

Barbara SchulzGoethe-Universitt Frankfurt am Main

John SchumannUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Norman SegalowitzConcordia University

Jeff SiegelUniversity of New England

Larry SelinkerNew York University and ResearchProduction Associates

Ali ShehadehUnited Arab Emirates University

Yasuhiro ShiraiUniversity of Pittsburgh

Roumyana SlabakovaUniversity of Iowa

Nina SpadaOntario Institute for Studies in Education,University of Toronto

Richard SparksCollege of Mount St. Joseph

Charles StanseldSecond Language Testing, Inc.

Robert SternbergUniversity of Oklahoma

xiv List of Contributors

David StringerIndiana University

Naoko TaguchiCarnegie Mellon University

Satomi TakahashiRikkyo University

Sauli TakalaUniversity of Helsinki

Steven TalmyUniversity of British Columbia

Elaine TaroneUniversity of Minnesota

Parvaneh TavakoliLondon Metropolitan University

John TaylorUniversity of Otago

Steven L. ThornePortland State University and Universityof Groningen

Tomoko TodeNiigata University of Health and Welfare

Minna ToivolaUniversity of Helsinki

Natasha TokowiczUniversity of Pittsburgh

Michael TomaselloMax Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Shigeo TonoikeAoyama Gakuin University

Pavel TromovichConcordia University

John TruscottNational Tsing Hua University

Ianthi Maria TsimpliAristotle University of Thessaloniki

Andrea TylerGeorgetown University

Michael T. UllmanGeorgetown University

Ema UshiodaUniversity of Warwick

Kris Van den BrandenKatholieke Universiteit Leuven

Leo van LierMonterey Institute of International Studies

Larry VandergriftUniversity of Ottawa

Bill VanPattenMichigan State University

Marjolijn VerspoorUniversity of Groningen

Christiane von StutterheimUniversity of Heidelberg

Michiko WatanabeUniversity of Tokyo

Joanna WhiteConcordia University

Lydia WhiteMcGill University

Jessica WilliamsUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

Alison WrayCardiff University

List of Contributors xv

Stefanie WulffUniversity of North Texas

Hongzhi YangUniversity of New South Wales

Richard F. YoungUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

xvi List of Contributors

List of Entries

Note: Thematic overview entries are in bold.

accommodationAcculturation Modelacquisition of motion expressionsacquisition of tense and aspectactivity theory and SLAaffordanceage effects in SLAagreementalignmentamygdalaanalogical mapping in construction learningAnalysis of variance (ANOVA)Analysis-control modelanxietyaptitude-trait complexesaptitudeAptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) researchArticial Language Learning (ALL)Aspect Hypothesis (AH)attention in SLAAttitudes and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)attitudes to the L2attritionautistic savantsautomaticityAutonomous Induction Theoryawareness

basic varietyBICS and CALP

bilingualism and SLA

case studieschild second language acquisitionchunking and prefabricationclassroom interaction researchcode-switchingCognition Hypothesis (CH)cognitive agingCognitive Linguistics and SLAcohesion and coherencecollostructionscommunicative competenceCommunity of practiceCompetition Model (CM)Complexity Theory/Dynamic Systems TheoryComputer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)Concept-oriented Approach to SecondLanguage Acquisition (CoA)

conceptual spanconceptual transferconnectionism and SLAconstrual and perspective takingconstruction learningcontent-based language teachingcontext of situationContrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)Conversation analysis (CA)corpus analysiscorrective feedback (oral)

correlationcreativityCritical Period Hypothesis (CPH)cross-linguistic inuence (CLI)cross-sectional research

declarative memory and knowledgeDeclarative Procedural Model (DP)depth of processingdevelopment in Second LanguageAcquisition

developmental sequencesdialogic inquirydiscourse and pragmatics in SLADiscourse Completion Task (DCT)discourse processingdistributed cognitiondynamic assessment

ecology of language learningeffect sizeembodimentemergence criterionemergentismemotionsentrenchmentepisodic memoryerror analysisethnographic researchEuropean Science Foundation (ESF) projectEvent-related potentials (ERP)executive control and frontal cortexexplicit learningeye tracking

Factor analysis (FA)oodinguencyFocus on Form (FonF)form-meaning connection (FMC)formulaic languagefossilizationfrequency effectsfunctional categoriesfunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)functional typological linguisticsFundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH)

generalizabilitygenerative linguisticsgestures and SLAgrammatical encoding

heritage language acquisitionhypothesis testing

identity theoryidiomaticityimplicational scalingimplicational universalsimplicatureimplicit learningindividual differences in SLAinectional morphemesinhibitory controlinitial stateinput enhancementinstitutional talkinstructed Second Language Acquisitionintakeintelligibility in SLAInteraction and the Interaction Hypothesisinteractional instinctInterdependence Hypothesisinterlanguageinter-rater reliabilityinvestmentInvolvement Load Hypothesis (ILH)

L2 phonologylanguage (task) switchinglanguage and the lexicon in SLAlanguage testing and SLAlanguage typology and language distancelateralizationlearned attention and blockinglearning disabilities and second (foreign)language learning

learning strategiesLevelts model of speech production andcomprehension

lexical access and selection in bilinguallanguage production

lexical conceptsLimited Capacity Hypothesis

xviii List of Entries

Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis(LCDH)

linguistic relativity in SLAlinguistic transferlisteninglongitudinal research

markednessMarkedness Differential Hypothesis (MDH)measuring and researching SLAmeta-analysismetaphorminimalist programmirror neuronsmixed methods researchModern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT)modularityMOGUL framework for SLAMonitor Modelmonitoringmorpheme acquisition ordersmotivationmulti-competencemultifunctionalitymyelination

native speakernaturalistic and instructed learningnegotiation of meaningneuroimagingNoticing Hypothesis

one-to-one principleoperating principlesOutput Hypothesis

parallel and distributed processing (PDP)models in SLA

parsing sentencespausology and hesitation phenomena in SLAperson-in-situation approaches to SLAphonological short-term memory (PSTM)pidginization and creolizationplanning timepolitenesspositive and negative evidencepragmalinguistics

pragmaticsprimingprivate speechprocedural memory and knowledgeProcessability Theory (PT)Processing Instruction (PI)prociencyprotocol analysisprototypespsycholingustics of Second LanguageAcquisition

qualitative researchquantitative researchquestionnaire research

Reaction Time (RT)readingrecastsrehearsalrelative clausesreplication researchRevised Hierarchical Model (RHM)

scaffoldingschematascopesecond dialect acquisitionsecond language socializationself-repairsemantic processingsignicance levelsimplicationsocial and socio-cultural approaches to SLAsociocognitive approaches to second languageacquisition

sociopragmaticsspeakingspeech actsspeech perception and SLAspeech ratestatistical learningstimulated recallStructural equation modeling (SEM)study abroad and SLAsymbolic mediationSystemic Functional Linguistics

List of Entries xix

T-testsTalkBankTarget-Like-Use (TLU) Analysistask-based language teaching and learningteacher talktheoretical constructs in SLAthinking for speakingthird language acquisitionthreshold hypothesistime-series designtopicalizationtransfer appropriate processingTriarchic Theory of intelligencetriggeringturn takingtype and token frequency in SLA

U-shaped learning and overgeneralization

units for analyzing L2 speaking

units for analyzing L2 writing

Universal Grammar (UG) and SLA

uptake

variance

variationist approaches to SLA

vocabulary learning and teaching

Wh-questions

Willingness to communicate (WTC)

word knowledge

working memory

World Englishes

writing

ZISA project

xx List of Entries

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this encyclopedia has takenplace over two and a half years, beginning in mid2009 when I contacted colleagues who wouldbecome members of the advisory board, askingthem if they would be willing to look over myrationale for the content and organization, and givefeedback on suggestions for entries and thematicareas, before I submitted the proposal. I am gratefulfor all of their work at that initial stage and, inmany cases, for entries they have themselves writ-ten, and for their reviews of entries submitted byothers. In addition to the advisory board members,Nick C. Ellis (University of Michigan), JaemyungGoo (Georgia State University), Lourdes Ortega(University of Hawaii), and Dick Schmidt (Uni-versity of Hawaii), also reviewed and made com-ments for authors on one or more entries, and I am

grateful to them for that. I am very grateful too, to

each of the many entry authors for agreeing to

contribute, and for taking the time needed to pre-

pare their submissions following the guidelines

provided. Chloe Wandler, an exchange student

from the University of Oregon helped to prepare

the large spreadsheet with contributor information

and keep it up to date while she was at Aoyama

Gakuin University. That has been a great help.

Finally, Ivy Ip and Mike Andrews, and more

recently Elysse Preposi and Paola Celli, at Routle-

dge have been very efcient and easy to work within answering email queries from various con-

tributors, and keeping them updated on the pro-

gress of the book, and in dealing with details of the

production process.

Introduction to the encyclopedia

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language

Acquisition aims to provide readers with a user-

friendly, authoritative survey of terms and con-

structs that are currently thought to be important to

understanding research in second language acqui-

sition (SLA) and its applications. As such this

encyclopedia can be used as a reference tool by

students, researchers, teachers and professionals

with an interest in SLA. As described in a number

of recent introductions to SLA (e.g., Ellis, 2008;

Ortega, 2009), theoretical thinking about, and

empirical research into SLA has accumulated over

the last forty years, with the result that there are

now a number of Handbooks of SLA (e.g.,

Doughty and Long, 2003; Gass and Mackey, 2012;

Ritchie and Bhatia, 2009) providing valuable in-

depth chapter length treatment of many of the

topics covered in this encyclopedia. However, the

number of chapters in these handbooks is limited

(24 chapters in Doughty and Long, 2003; 35 in

Gass and Mackey, 2012; and 27 in Ritchie and

Bhatia, 2009) and each of these chapters often

deals simultaneously with many of the terms and

topics addressed separately by entries in this ency-

clopedia. Consequently, the more broadly pre-

sented, concise, and focused treatment of terms and

topics in this encyclopedia should be useful for

readers to consult either in preparation for, or

whilst reading the in-depth surveys provided by

various introductions to SLA, or by contemporary

handbook chapters on SLA.

Organization of entries

The encyclopedia contains over 250 entries, writtenin an accessible, concise style, followed by refer-ences, and recommended further readings. Thelength of each entry differs, reecting differencesin what is known of each entry term and topic, andthe extent of SLA research into it to date, withapproximately equal numbers of entries consistingof 500 words, 1,000 words, 1,500 words, and 2,000words. Each entry is also followed by a see alsolist of six related entries, which should help readersnavigate among entries dealing with similar issuesin SLA research. In addition, there are also ninesurvey entries, of around 4,000 words in length,describing different thematic areas in SLAresearch, which relate the terms and topics addres-sed in separate entries to broader issues. Thesethematic survey entries are a good starting point forreaders wishing to navigate between entries, andbroaden their search for information, and can beread in any order, as suits the individual readersinterests. A brief summary of the scope of eachsurvey entry is given below.

Survey entries

The thematic survey entry on Social and socio-cultural approaches on SLA, is written byDwight Atkinson. An example of an entry inthis area is scaffolding, a term used todescribe how a more knowledgeable partner canhelp a learner construct their knowledge of the

second language (L2). This survey also relatesissues such as communicative competence andsecond language socialization to sociallyoriented approaches to SLA research such asconversation analysis.

The survey entry on Psycholinguistics of SLA,written by Ping Li and Natasha Tokowicz, dealswith such issues as Age effects in SLA andThe critical period as well as with mechan-isms and stages in language processing, such asthe phonological loop, which is where soundsof the L2 are stored and rehearsed temporarilyin phonological short-term memory. Thisentry also describes mental processes such asinhibitory control, or the ability to not thinkabout one thing (for example, words in the L1)while processing another (words in the L2).

There are many sources of Individual differ-ences in SLA, and inhibitory control is one ofthem. Bilinguals have very good inhibitorycontrol when it comes to language selection.Another, rather different source of differencesbetween learners is willingness to commu-nicate, as is measured by responses to ques-tionnaires by L2 learners. In this survey entryRebecca Oxford describes a number of areas ofindividual differences between learners thathave been researched for their effects on suc-cessful SLA.

The survey entry on Discourse and pragmaticsin SLA concerns issues such as politeness,and how perceptions of it are affected by choiceof L2 words and phrases for speech acts suchas apologizing or requesting in the L2. In thisentry Eva Alcn-Soler describes the broadernotion of pragmatic competence and how itmay be implicated in learning during interactionin the L2.

Of course, the area of discourse and pragmaticsis closely related to Language and the lexiconin SLA, and the differences between languages,for example, in whether they have inectionalmorphology for marking the past tense, or theobject of a sentence. This survey entry, byMarjolijn Verspoor and Norbert Schmitt, alsoaddresses choices that exist within any lan-guage, such as the use of Wh-questions inEnglish, versus other constructions for asking

questions, and describes the processes that con-tribute to construction learning and the estab-lishment of form-meaning connections in theL2.

The study of Development in SLA is the study ofstages in the L2 emergence of e.g., morphemes,WH words, and multi-word constructions. In hissurvey entry, Jrgen Meisel considers to whatextent there are morpheme acquisition ordersthat are shared across L2 learners with a widevariety of L1s, and to what extent there istransfer of L1 knowledge to the L2 whilelearning them. Large-scale projects such as theEuropean Science Foundation Project and theZISA project in the 1980s and 1990s studiedthese issues during naturalistic untutoredlearning of L2s in European countries.

Instructed SLA differs from naturalistic learn-ing in its broadly dened social setting, andaims to speed up learning through various ped-agogic interventions. In their survey entry PatsyLightbown and Nina Spada describe some ofthese techniques that aim to focus learner atten-tion on aspects of the L2 that are infrequent inthe input, or easy to overlook, such as inputenhancement. In this technique forms can beunderlined or italicized to increase their per-ceptual salience in reading materials. Alter-natively ooding is a technique for providingmany examples of the forms, above their usuallevel of frequency, in spoken or written input.

Measuring and researching SLA involves, forexample, assessing the variance betweenlearners in any group in their accuracy in usinga form, or identifying the hesitation phenom-ena that occur during spoken performance, andcontributing to uency. In their survey entryAndrew Cohen and Ernesto Macaro describethese and other issues, such as measurementoptions appropriate to qualitative research andquantitative research procedures, and thetasks that are often used as instruments to testthe extent of L2 knowledge and ability.

Finally, Theoretical constructs in SLA includesuch terms as interlanguage, motivation,aptitude, and noticing. As Geoff Jordandescribes in his survey entry, these constructsare used in the service of theories which attempt

Introduction to the encyclopedia xxiii

to explain phenomena and he describes threecriteria which can be used for assessing con-structs used in SLA theories, relating these toKrashens Monitor Model, Schmidts Noti-cing Hypothesis, aptitudes and variationistapproaches to SLA.

In summary, this encyclopedia aims to provideaccessible, authoritative entries on terms which areoften used in descriptions of research to date onSLA, and also to help organize links between themin a way that allows readers to fashion their ownunderstanding of the issues addressed in thisimportant eld of enquiry.

Peter Robinson

References

Doughty, C.J. and Long, M.H. (2003). The Hand-book of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second LanguageAcquisition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2012). The RoutledgeHandbook of Second Language Acquisition.New York: Routledge.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Lan-guage Acquisition. London: Hodder.

Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K. (2009). The NewHandbook of Second Language Acquisition,2nd edn. Bingley: Emerald.

xxiv Introduction to the encyclopedia

AAccommodationKimMarie ColeSUNY Fredonia

In the eld of sociolinguistics, accommodation isvalued for its explanations and predictions of indi-vidual variation. As described below, second lan-guage acquisition (SLA) researchers have usedaccommodation to account for differences in lear-ners language use with native speakers and how itaccounts for some linguistic features of input.While empirical studies are relatively few in number,Tarones (2007) review includes accommodationamong sociolinguistic theories of SLA.Beebe and Giles (1984) rst present an overview

of Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT) and itsapplications to second language acquisition. Its keypropositions include convergence and divergence,active strategies used by learners based on theirassessment of the perceived relationship betweentheir language and that of their interlocutors. Whenspeakers like or identify with their speakers or havean instrumental purpose for speaking, their speechconverges. They are likely to model their speech onthat of their interlocutor, using similar linguisticfeatures. Conversely, when speakers feel a lack ofidentication or a perceived threat to their lan-guage, they accentuate linguistic differences, ordiverge from their interlocutors. In terms of SLA,the model suggests that those learners who perceivethe new language as a threat to their rst languagewould not seek opportunities to practice the secondand would therefore not develop second languageprociency. Conversely, learners, who see the secondlanguage as complementary to their rst would

achieve higher prociency. Early SLA accommoda-tion studies predicted learners convergence ordivergence from target language forms usually basedon factors such as the perceived ethnolinguisticvitality or relative status of the rst language withrespect to the target language.With additional developments, SAT gave way to

Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) toaccount for an expanded notion of accommodationand a greater number of features included in themodel. Giles, Coupland and Coupland (1991)explain that CAT accounts for intergroup variablesand language use in naturalistic settings. Zuenglers(1991) review of CAT in SLA in the same volumediscussed empirical studies and offered a groundedexplanation for foreigner talk (FT), a form of inputconsidered benecial for SLA. CAT predicts that ifa native speaker has a functional reason for inter-acting with a language learner, there would begreater amounts of converging FT. Someone whowished to highlight social or personal distinctions,would diverge from facilitative FT. In this way,CATs relevance for SLA expands beyond lear-ners identications to include contextual featuresof input and demonstrates that language acquisitioncan depend on complex relationships in the learningcontext as much as within the learner.SAT and CAT rely heavily on the idea of stra-

tegic language use based on perceived notions ofinterlocutors and language groups. Recent chal-lenges argue that this identication of the othercan be static or stereotypical given new models ofpersonal and group identity afliation within culturalstudies. Ylanne-McEwen and Coupland (2000)review this critique and counter that CAT is a

multi-faceted perspective that recognizes languageas both symbol of cultural identication and as themedium through which individuals negotiate theiridentities (p. 211). In their view CAT accommodatesthe full complexity of speakers in interaction.

See also: alignment, attitudes to the L2, bilingual-ism and SLA, context of stituation, identity theory,social and sociocultural approaches to SLA

References

Beebe, L. and Giles, H. (1984). Speech Accom-modation Theories: a discussion in terms ofsecond-language acquisition. International Jour-nal of Sociology of Language, 46, 532.

Giles, H., Coupland, N. and Coupland, J. (1991).Accommodation theory: communication, contextand consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland andN. Coupland (eds), Contexts of Accommoda-tion: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics,pp. 168. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches tosecond language acquisition research, 19972007. Modern Language Journal, 91, 83748.

Ylanne-McEwen, V. and Coupland, N. (2000).Accommodation theory: a conceptual resourcefor intercultural sociolinguistics. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: managingrapport through talk across cultures, pp. 191216. London: Continuum.

Zuengler, J. (1991). Accommodation in native-nonnative interactions: going beyond the whatto the why in second language research. In H.Giles, J. Coupland, and N. Coupland (eds),Contexts of accommodation: developments inapplied sociolinguistics, pp. 22344. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Acculturation ModelJohn SchumannUniversity of California, Los Angeles

The acculturation model (AM) (Schumann, 1978)is an exploration of social (i.e., group) and psy-chological (i.e., individual) inuences on second

language acquisition (SLA). The model identiesfactors affecting an immigrant groups and anindividual immigrants interaction with the targetlanguage speakers and the resultant acquisition ofthe target language by the learners.

Social variables

From this perspective seven factors to consider:dominance, integration patterns, enclosure, culturalcongruence, group size, group attitudes, and inten-ded length of residence. The rst factor considersdominance relations between the immigrant groupand the target language group. If one of the groupsis considered politically, economically, culturally, ormilitarily superior, that group would be unlikely toacquire the other groups language. For example,when Turkish workers immigrated to Germany, it wasthe Turks who acquired German, not the other wayaround. The second factor involves integration pat-terns. The immigrant group might adopt an assim-ilation strategy in which it is willing to give up itslifestyle and values and adopt those of the targetlanguage group. Or the immigrant group mightchoose an adaptation strategy in which they main-tain their native language and culture for intragroupuse and adapt to the lifestyle and values of the tar-get language group for intergroup interaction. Forexample, Armenian immigrants throughout theirdiaspora have retained their native language andacquired the local TLs. It is very difcult to nd amonolingual Armenian. Finally, an immigrantgroup might choose a preservationist strategy inwhich they reject the lifestyle and values of the TLgroup, retain their own, and learn little of the targetlanguage. This strategy is perhaps starkly exempli-ed by military personnel living on Americanbases in countries such as Germany, Japan, andSouth Korea. Another example might be Frenchcolonists living in urban areas of North Africa andby early German immigrants to the Midwest in theUnited States. The next factor to consider in the AMis enclosure. If the immigrant group and the TLgroup participate in different crafts, professions,trades, if they attend different schools, churches,and recreational facilities, and if they do not inter-marry, then enclosure is said to be high, contactand interaction between groups is restricted, and

2 Acculturation Model

therefore, opportunity for acquisition of the targetlanguage by the immigrant group is limited. Arelated factor is cohesion. If the members of theimmigrant group associate mostly or even exclu-sively with each other, then the group is said to becohesive, and again opportunities for contact andinteraction with members of the TL group arediminished. Cultural congruence is another issue. Ifthe two groups have cultural values that are similar(e.g., Western/Christian, Eastern/Muslim), then thepotential for interaction is increased. Additionally,if the size of the immigrant group is large (e.g., theMexican or Korean communities in Los Angeles,California) group contact will likely be muchgreater than if the immigrant group were small andscattered. If the two groups have positive attitudestowards each other interaction is more likely. Andnally if the immigrant group intends to remain inthe TL area for a long period (perhaps forever) theyare more likely to make an effort to acquire thetarget language than if they believe they will bethere only temporarily.

Psychological variables

Affective factors. The second part of the AM con-sisted of four affective variables: language shock,culture shock, motivation, and ego permeability.Stimulus appraisal dimensions. Schumann et al.

(2004) replaced these affective factors with themore general notion of stimulus appraisal (Scherer,1984). This construct consists of ve domains inwhich an individual assesses the emotional andmotivational relevance of stimuli and stimulussituations in SLA according to their novelty,pleasantness, goals/needs signicance, copingpotential, and self and social image. The noveltycheck assesses whether simulation contains new orunexpected patterns. An assessment of intrinsicpleasantness determines whether an event is plea-sant and thus fosters approach or whether it isunpleasant and thus promotes avoidance. Thegoals/needs signicance check assesses the rele-vance of the event to the individuals needs andgoals. The coping potential check determines anindividuals ability to cope intellectually, psycho-logically or physically with stimulus event. Finallythe self and social compatibility check assesses

compatibility of the event with ones self-imageand with social norms and the expectations of sig-nicant others. Schumann (1997) argued that allitems on questionnaires measuring motivation in SLAcan be reduced to these ve dimensions of stimulusappraisal.The social and the affective factors in the AM

are neither independent nor mutually exclusive. Theyall highlight slightly different aspects of accultura-tion and its inuence on SLA, but there is also con-siderable overlap among them. This makesacculturation very difcult to measure. Therefore, themodel is best considered a conceptual-theoreticalperspective that allows one to think about successor lack of it in SLA. This kind of reection canusefully be applied to case studies of SLA. Onesuch case (Schmidt, 1983) has been consideredcounter evidence to the acculturation (indeed bySchumann himself, see Schumann, 1986). Schmidtstudied the acquisition of English over a three-yearperiod by Wes, a 33-year-old Japanese artist whoultimately settled in Hawaii. Wes had substantialcontact and interaction with English-speakingfriends and customers. His English prociencydeveloped in the areas of sociolinguistic, discourse,and strategic competence; however, he showed lit-tle development in grammatical prociency.Nevertheless, in terms of acculturation variables,Wes had a prole that would predict a higher ef-ciency in all aspects of English. However, Schu-mann (1993), in light of neuropsychologicalresearch, pointed out that Wes may constitute anexceptional case that needed another explanation.Based on research by (Humes-Bartlo, 1989; Novoaet al., 1988; Schneiderman and Desmaris, 1988),Schumann suggested that the visuo-spatial talentthat Wes had as an artist may have existed along-side a decit in his ability to acquire a grammaticalcode in an L2. From this perspective, positiveacculturation may have facilitated the developmentof his communicative ability in English, and hisdecit in code learning may have diminishedhis ability to acquire the L2 grammar. From thisperspective, Wes is actually evidence for the AM.

See also: amygdala, motivation, theoreticalconstructs in SLA, social and cultural inuences

Acculturation Model 3

on SLA, attitude, and motivation test battery,individual differences in SLA

References

Humes-Bartlo, M. (1989). Variation in childrensability to learn second languages. In K. Hylten-stam and L.K. Ober (eds), Bilingualism acrossthe Lifespan. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Novoa, L., Fein, D. and Obler, L.K. (1988). Talentin foreign languages: A case study. In L.K.Obler and D. Fein (eds), The Exceptional Brain.New York: The Guilford Press.

Scherer, K.R. (1984). Emotion is a multi-componentprocess: A model and some cross cultural data.In P. Shaver (ed.), Review of Personality andPsychology. Vol. 5: Emotions, Relationshipsand Health. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, andthe acquisition of communicative competence: Acase study of an adult. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd(eds), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition,Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Schneiderman, E.I. and Desmaris, C. (1998). Aneuropsychological substrate for talent in secondlanguage acquisition. In L.K. Obler and D. Fein(eds), The Exceptional Brain. New York: TheGuilford Press.

Schumann, J.H. (1978). The acculturation modelfor second language acquisition. In R.C. Gin-gras (ed.), Second Language Acquisition andForeign Language Teaching. Washington, DC:Center for Applied Linguistics.

(1986). Research on the acculturation model forsecond language acquisition. Journal of Multi-lingual and Multicultural Development, 7(5),37992.

(1993). Some problems with falsication: Anillustration from SLA research. Applied Lin-guistics, 14(3), 295306.

(1997) The Neurobiology of Affect in Lan-guage. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Schumann, J.H., Crowell, S.E., Jones, N.E., Lee,N., Schuchert, S.A. and Wood, L.A. (2004).The Neurobiology of Learning: Perspectivesfrom Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Acquisition of motion expressionsDavid StringerIndiana University

Second language research into the linguistic expres-sion of motion events has drawn largely onTalmys well-known typology of motion: V(verb)-framed languages, such as those in the Romance,Semitic and Polynesian families, generally encodePath in verbs; while S(satellite)-framed languages,such as those in the Indo-European family (apartfrom Romance), usually do so in adpositions,afxes or particles. Thus in Spanish one mustcruzar la calle corriendo cross the road running(Path in the verb, Manner in an adjunct); while inEnglish one can run across the road (Path in thepreposition, Manner in the verb). Systematic dif-ferences in the ways typical V- and S-framed lan-guages encode Path and Manner have been used toargue for the hypothesis that our perception ofevents as we engage in language use is partlydetermined by the language we speak (see Think-ing for speaking).Such typological differences raise questions for

second language research. Cadierno (2010)addressed the issue of transfer of thinking-for-speaking patterns from the rst to the second lan-guage. She found that low-intermediate learners ofDanish (S-framed) whose rst language was Ger-man or Russian (also S-framed) used more char-acteristic motion constructions and had a largervocabulary of motion verbs than those whose rstlanguage was Spanish (V-framed). This ndingsuggests that transfer may be apparent in the earlierstages of acquisition, despite previous evidence thatadvanced learners are able to converge on target-like expression of motion events. Thinking-for-speaking patterns in motion events have also beenobserved to transfer in terms of the gestures thatsynchronically accompany speech. Stam (2006)found that Spanish learners of English had anoverall gesture pattern somewhere between thetypical alignments for Spanish and English, andproduced interesting speech-gesture mismatches.Taking a generative approach to issues of learn-

ability, Inagaki (2001) argued that English allowsboth S-framed and V-framed grammar, whileJapanese strictly allows only V-framed grammar,

4 Acquisition of motion expressions

thus creating a subset problem in acquisition. Hisexperimental evidence revealed that English lear-ners of Japanese transfer S-framed grammar, lead-ing him to predict that a retreat from suchovergeneralization is impossible, as appropriatepositive evidence is not available. This interpreta-tion was questioned by Stringer (2007), who foundevidence of both patterns in Japanese, and arguedthat the problem is one of lexical relativity: analogousverbs in each language differ in argument structure,such that learners must ne-tune individual predicatesin a general process of relexication.More recent research in both cognitive linguistic

and generative frameworks recognizes that theoriginal binary typology is too strict; many, if notmost, languages fall somewhere on a cline betweenthese two characteristic means of expression.Chinese, originally characterized as S-framed, isnow considered to be somewhere in-between. Wu(2010) examined how English-speaking learnerscome to grasp the dual functions of Chinesespatial morphemes as Path satellites and asindependent verbs, and proposed a sequence ofdevelopment in the second language grammar.In line with previous studies, the results wereinterpreted as revealing initial problems in adjust-ing to new patterns of thinking for speaking in asecond language.

See also: cognitive linguistics and SLA, con-ceptual transfer, gestures and SLA, linguisticrelativity, linguistic transfer, thinking for speaking

References

Cadierno, T. (2010). Motion in Danish as a SecondLanguage: Does the Learners L1 make a Dif-ference? In Z.-H. Han and T. Cadierno (eds),Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking forSpeaking. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Inagaki, S. (2001). Motion Verbs with Goal PPs inthe L2 Acquisition of English and Japanese.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23,15370.

Stam, G.A. (2006). Thinking for Speaking aboutMotion: L1 and L2 Speech and Gesture. Inter-national Review of Applied Linguistics, 44 (2),14369.

Stringer, D. (2007). Motion events in L2 acquisi-tion: A lexicalist account. In H. Caunt-Nulton,S. Kulatilake and I.H. Woo (eds), BUCLD 31:Proceedings of the 31st annual Boston Uni-versity Conference on Language Development,Vol. II, 58596. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.

Wu, S.L. (2010). Learning to Express MotionEvents in an L2: The Case of Chinese Direc-tional Complements. Language Learning, no.doi: 10.1111/j.14679922.2010.00614.x

Further reading

Berman, R.A. and Slobin, D.I. (eds) (1994). Relat-ing Events in Narrative: A CrosslinguisticDevelopmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates. (A classic volume investi-gating the linguistic expression of motionevents by children and adults, using the now-famous frog story elicitation technique.)

Han, Z.-H. and Cadierno, T. (eds) (2010).Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking forSpeaking. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.(Recent edited volume with several papers onmotion events and spatial relations in secondlanguage acquisition.)

Slobin, D.I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs ofmotion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibataniand S.C.A. Thompson (eds), GrammaticalConstructions: Their Form and Meaning.Oxford: Oxford University Press. (An insightfulanalysis of V-framed and S-framed means ofexpression, drawing on developmental data aswell as literary texts in translation.)

Strmqvist S. and Verhoeven, L. (eds) (2004).Relating Events in Narrative: Typologicaland Contextual Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum. (An excellent collection ofresearch reports inspired by Berman and Slobin,1994, which goes beyond the original binarytypology.)

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics,Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems; Vol. 2:Typology and Process in Concept Structuring.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (A collection ofTalmys most inuential research, with revisedand expanded versions of several classic paperson motion events.)

Acquisition of motion expressions 5

Acquisition of tense and aspectKathleen Bardovi-HarligIndiana University

Interest in the second language acquisition of tenseand aspect dates back to the earliest studies in theeld. Before studies of acquisition as we knowthem, tense and aspect gured prominently inpedagogical curricula of languages, and this con-tinues today. Studies that include tense and aspectconsist of two types: studies of tense and aspect asmorphology (in which the semantic characteristicsof tense-aspect systems are largely irrelevant), andstudies of tense and aspect as temporal semantics (inwhich the form-meaning associations are paramount).Tense locates an event or situation on the time

line. In English, John loves Mary (present) andJohn loved Mary (past) show a difference in tense.Grammatical aspect provides a means of expres-sing ones view of a situation or event. For exam-ple, an event may be viewed as completed, as inJohn walked down the road (simple past), or ascontinuous, as in John was walking down the road(past progressive); both are past, but differ ingrammatical aspect. The choice of grammaticalaspect reects the function of the sentence in evol-ving discourse.Studies of tense and aspect as morphology

include studies of morpheme order, phonetic con-straints, and universal grammar. They generallyemploy a supplied in obligatory context (SOC)analysis. The rst studies to include tense-aspectmorphology were the morpheme order studies inwhich verbal morphemes (notably, present, pro-gressive, and past) were included among othergrammatical morphemes (e.g., noun markers, pre-positions, auxiliaries, and the copula). Separatingverbal morphology from other morphemes revealsa single order of verbal morphemes for bothchildren and adults: -ing, irregular past, and thirdperson singular. (See morpheme acquisition order.)Interest in the acquisition of regular and irregular

past has continued beyond the morpheme orderstudies; longitudinal studies have supported theirregular-before-regular order in a variety of lan-guages and have argued that this order does notcharacterize the learning of rules, but individuallexical items (Dietrich et al., 1995).

Studies of phonetic constraints on past-tense usein English have shown that phonetic realization ofthe past tense is dependent on phonological envir-onments and make two main claims: 1) irregularverbs will show greater tense marking than regularverbs and 2) the phonetic shape of the past tense ofthe verb and the following phonological environ-ment will determine the likelihood of past-tenserealization (Wolfram, 1989). Bayley (1994) positedthe following hierarchy, from the most likely to bemarked to the least: suppletive (be), doubly marked(sleep/slept), internal vowel (sing/sang), changein nal segment (send/sent), weak syllabic (pat/patted), and modals.Tense-aspect morphology has also been investi-

gated in the generative framework, with a focus onwhether optionality in the L2 use of tense andagreement morphology is due to impaired knowl-edge of functional categories, or a mapping prob-lem from existing abstract features to their surfacerepresentations (Ionin and Wexler, 2002; Lardiere,2006).Studies of tense-aspect as a semantic system

span a range of target languages dividing into twomain strands of inquiry: the form-orientedapproach, which investigates the distribution ofverbal morphology and its interlanguage function,and the meaning-oriented approach, which investi-gates the expression of semantic concepts. Both theform-oriented and meaning-oriented approachestake an interlanguage perspective, describing theinterlanguage as a system independent of thetarget language (e.g., Dietrich et al., 1995; Bardovi-Harlig, 2000).Form-oriented inquiry has taken three perspec-

tives: acquisitional sequences, the inuence of lex-ical aspect, and the inuence of discourse structure.Studies of acquisitional sequences describe vialongitudinal studies the order of emergence oftense-aspect morphology and the meaning asso-ciated with each form and the contrasts betweenform-meaning associations (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig,2000; Dietrich et al., 1995).The aspect hypothesis predicts that the lexical

aspect of predicatestheir inherent temporal prop-ertieswill determine the distribution of tense-aspect morphology in the earlier stages of acquisi-tion (Andersen, 1991). Predicates will attract

6 Acquisition of tense and aspect

semantically compatible tense-aspect morphology,reecting prototype associations. For example, apredicate expressing a state (e.g., John seemedhappy) will attract the imperfective and a predicateexpressing an action with no inherent endpoint,called an activity (e.g., John swam) will attract theprogressive in languages that have one. In contrast,predicates that have inherent endpoints such asJohn changed the tire (an accomplishment) andJohn recognized Mary (an achievement) will attractthe perfective past. Following the initial, exclusiveassociations with semantically compatible pre-dicates, tense-aspect morphology then spreadsacross lexical categories (see Aspect Hypothesis).Following Hoppers observation that competent

(native) users of a language mark out a main routethrough the narrative and divert in some way thoseparts of the narrative that are not strictly relevant tothis route (1979: 239), the Discourse Hypothesispredicts that learners use emerging verbal mor-phology to distinguish the main route (the fore-ground) from the background in narratives. Forexample, learners of English show greater use ofsimple past in foreground than in the background.Moreover, they show greater use of progressive inthe background than in the foreground. Unlike thepast which can occur in both foreground andbackground, the progressive generally occurs in thebackground in targetlike use (Bardovi-Harlig, 1998).Aspectual categories and discourse structure

interact (Bardovi-Harlig, 1998): achievements aremost likely to be inected for simple past, regard-less of grounding; accomplishments are the nextmost likely to exhibit the simple past with fore-ground accomplishments showing higher rates ofuse than background accomplishments; and, activ-ities are the least likely of all the dynamic pre-dicates to carry simple past, but foregroundactivities show higher rates of simple past inec-tion than background activities. Activities alsoshow use of progressive in the background.The concept-oriented, or meaning-oriented,

approach investigates all means of expression for aparticular concept such as the past or the future(von Stutterheim and Klein, 1987). Temporalitymay be expressed (in order of appearance in secondlanguage acquisition) by pragmatic devices (e.g.,use of chronological order or scaffolding), lexical

means (e.g., temporal adverbials), and verbal mor-phology. Form-oriented inquiry concentrates onlyon the third stage, whereas the concept-orientedapproach situates the development of tense-aspectmorphology in the larger context of second lan-guage acquisition.

See also: Aspect Hypothesis, concept-orientedapproach to SLA, developmental sequences,European Science Foundation (ESF) project,form-meaning connections, morpheme acquisi-tion orders

References

Andersen, R.W. (1991). Developmental sequences:The emergence of aspect marking in secondlanguage acquisition. In T. Huebner and C.A.Ferguson (eds), Crosscurrents in Second Lan-guage Acquisition and Linguistic Theories.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure andlexical aspect: Conspiring factors in secondlanguage acquisition of tense-aspect morphol-ogy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,20, 471508.

(2000). Tense and Aspect in Second LanguageAcquisition: Form, Meaning, and Use. Oxford:Blackwell.

Bayley, R.J. (1994). Interlanguage variation andthe quantitative paradigm: Past tense marking inChinese-English. In S. Gass, A. Cohen, and E.Tarone (eds), Research Methodology in SecondLanguage Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dietrich, R., Klein, W. and Noyau, C. (1995). TheAcquisition of Temporality in a Second Lan-guage. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hopper, P.J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding indiscourse. In T. Givn (ed.), Syntax andSemantics: Discourse and Syntax. New York:Academic Press.

Ionin, T. and K. Wexler (2002). Why is is easierthan -s?: acquisition of tense/agreement mor-phology by child second language learners ofEnglish. Second Language Research, 18, 95136.

Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate Attainment in SecondLanguage Acquisition: A Case Study. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Acquisition of tense and aspect 7

von Stutterheim, C. and Klein, W. (1987). A concept-oriented approach to second language studies.In C.W. Pfaff (ed.), First and Second LanguageAcquisition Processes. Cambridge, MA: New-bury House.

Wolfram, W. (1989). Systematic variability in second-language tense marking. In M.R. Eisenstein (ed.),The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies inSecond Language Variation. New York: Plenum.

Further reading

Kempchinsky, P. and R. Slabakova, R. (eds)(2005). Aspectual Inquiries. Dordrecht: Kluwer.(Empirical and theoretical treatments of aspect.)

Labeau, E. (ed.) (in press) Development of Tense,Aspect and Mood in L1 and L2. Amsterdam:Rodopi/Cahiers Chronos. (Acquisitional stud-ies on a range of languages including non-Indo-European languages.)

Li, P. and Shirai, Y. (2000). The Acquisition ofLexical and Grammatical Aspect. Berlin: DeGruyter. (Acquisition of aspect in Chinese andJapanese.)

Salaberry, R. and Shirai, Y. (eds) (2002). Tense-aspect Morphology in L2 Acquisition. Amster-dam: John Benjamins. (Covers many issues in arange of European languages.)

Salaberry, R. and L. Comajoan, L. (eds) (in press).Research Design and Methodology in Studieson Second Language Tense and Aspect. Mou-ton. (Comprehensive coverage of tense-aspectresearch designs.)

Activity theory and SLAHongzhi YangUniversity of New South Wales

Activity theory, or cultural historical activity theory(CHAT), is an interdisciplinary approach to humansciences and a commonly accepted name for a lineof theorizing and research established by the foun-ders of the cultural-historical school of Russianpsychology, L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontev, andA R. Luria, during the 1920s1930s. Vygotskyproposed that consciousness is constructed through

a subjects interactions with the world and is anattribute of the relationship between subject andobject. Activity theory is used as a framework foranalysis of an object-oriented, collective and culturallymediated human activity, emphasizing the media-tion of human action by cultural artefacts. It is notonly a psychological theory per se, but also a broadapproach that develops novel conceptual tools fortackling theoretical and methodological questions inthe social sciences today. In this way, activity theoryhas much to contribute to the growing wave of multi-disciplinary interest in cultural practices and practice-bound cognition (Engestrm and Miettinen, 1999).The rst generation of activity theory centres on

Vygotskys development of the concept of culturalmediation. In the second generation theory devel-oped by A.N. Leontev, division of labour, rules,and community were incorporated into the activitytheory framework, determining how subjects mustt into the community (Engestrm, 1987). Thethird generation of activity theory concerns thedevelopment of conceptual tools to address dialogue,a multiplicity of perspectives, and the interrelationsbetween dened activity systems (Engestrm,2001). Language, being determined by the broadersocio-historical milieu, is realized in dialogues byinterlocutors whose multiple perspectives are con-structed according to the structure of the activitythey are engaged in (Moro, 2007).The elements of this activity system include the

object, subject, mediating artefacts, rules, commu-nity, and division of labour (Engestrm, 1987). Theinternal contradictions within the elements of anactivity system are the potential force of develop-ment if they are properly resolved. This develop-ment happens as a result of continuous transitionsand transformations between these components ofan activity system (Engestrm and Miettinen,1999). At the same time, there are two basic inter-twined processes operating at every level of humanactivity: internalization, the reproduction of culture;and externalization, the creation of new artefacts andproduction of new activity structures during theprocess of transformation. Internalization relates toself-regulation where individuals develop newlinguistic resources that can potentially mediatetheir mental and social activity during this process(Lantolf and Thorne, 2006).

8 Activity theory and SLA

Activity and agency

From the activity theory perspective, ones agencyis constantly constrained and empowered by socialgroupings, material and symbolic resources, as wellas other social and personal factors. Agency is notonly intentionality but also a cultural informedattribute shaped by participation in specic com-munity of practices. It is a relationship which isco-constructed and negotiated with others in asocial setting (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). Agencycan explain why and how learners act. Therefore,teachers should be aware of the difference betweenthe cognitive target of learning and learnersagency in determining activities. In addition,agency is shaped in response to the transformationof activities, and is inuenced by learners personalhistories of language learning (Lantolf and Thorne,2006), and the language ideologies that are part ofthe implicit and explicit discourse produced atinstitutional and nation-sate levels (Lantolf andPavlenko, 2001). Therefore, the outcomes of alanguage classroom should not only pertain to lan-guage development, but also enhance an indivi-duals sense of agency for adaptation and action, aswell as facilitate the development of learnersagency in response to educational requirements.

Second language education andactivity theory

Language learning is connected with cultural,social, institutional and discursive forces, wherelanguage is considered a cultural artefact that med-iates thinking and communication between peopleand within an individual. This cultural historicalperspective caused an epistemological shift awayfrom Cartesian-derived theories of cognition thatisolate the individual mind from the culture andsociety, to the perception that historical, institu-tional and discursive forces mediate a personsactivity (Thorne, 2004). Activity theory proposesmore holistic approaches to SLA research andpraxis (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). It aims totransform practices in the way that might improvethe conditions and outcomes of teaching andlearning, by providing additional mediation, offer-ing different rules of engagement, and gathering

individuals/communities with different previoushistories. In the classroom, even when oper-ationally learners appear to be adopting the samebehaviours, cognitively they are always engagingin the activity differently and even direct theactivity in specic ways according to their differentindividual history, goals and motives. It is notnecessary that all learners in the classroom have thesame goal of learning. What matters to learning isthe activity, how learners construct the task,because it shapes the learners orientation to learnor not (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006). The process ofintersubjectivity, or shared understanding in colla-boration, and the support intersubjectivity providesto language-mediated communication, are elementsof developing communicative abilities which areoften missing in the SLA research (Lantolf andThorne, 2006).

Limitations

Activity theory has given rise to alternative ways ofconceiving of situated cognition that is mediated byits social context and culturally shaped medita-tional tools. However, researchers in socioculturalpsychology fall victim to the circumstances thatVygotsky had warned about at the outset of hiscareer; namely, activity cannot be an object ofstudy and simultaneously serve as an explanatoryprinciple of consciousness, unless it has its ownunit of analysis as well as its own explanatoryprinciples (Lantolf and Appel, 1994). Activity the-ory, like many other theories, has a number ofunresolved problems (e.g. see Davydov, 2007).Some philosophers and psychologists dismiss italtogether due to its alleged expression of totalitar-ian ideology, representing human beings as mereexecutors of plans, orders and standards imposedfrom the outside. However, the third generationactivity theory tries to bridge the outside and insideby including sensuous aspects, such as emotions,identity and moral dimensions of action into theunit of analysis (Engestrm, 2009). While the for-mulation and elaboration of some ideas of this the-ory were inuenced by the ideological and politicalclimate at the time and place of its origin, there isgreat potential for new directions to be forged, andSLA is a fruitful ground for this to happen.

Activity theory and SLA 9

See also: development in SLA, identity theory,qualitative research, motivation, social andsociocultural approaches to SLA, theoreticalconstructs in SLA

References

Davydov, V.V. (1999). The content and unsolvedproblems of activity theory. In Y. Engestrom,R. Miettinen and R.-L. Punamaki (eds), Per-spectives on Activity Theory, pp. 3952. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engestrm, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: AnActivity-theoretical Approach to DevelopmentalResearch. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

(2001). Expansive learning at work: Towardan activity theoretical reconceptualization.Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133156.

Engestrm, Y. (2009). The future of activity the-ory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Danielsand D. Gutierrez (eds), Learning and Expand-ing with Activity Theory, pp. 30328. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engestrm, Y. and Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduc-tion. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R.-L.Punamaki (eds), Perspectives on Activity The-ory, pp. 116. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Lantolf, J. and Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd(L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: understandingsecond language learners as people. In M.P.Breen (ed.), Learner Contributions to LanguageLearning: New Directions in Research,pp. 14158. London: Longman.

Lantolf, J.P. and Thorne, S.L. (2006). SocioculturalTheory and the Sociogenesis of Second Lan-guage Development. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G. (1994). Theoreticalframework: An introduction to Vygotskian per-spectives on second language research. In J.P.Lantolf and G. Appel (eds), VygotskianApproaches to Second Language Research, pp.132. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Moro, Y. (2007). The expanded dialogic sphere:Writing activity and authoring of self in Japa-nese classrooms. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinenand R.-L. Punamaki (eds), Perspectives on

Activity Theory, pp. 16582. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Thorne, S.L. (2004). Cultural historical activitytheory and the object of innovation. In O. St.John, K. Esch and E. Schalkwijk (eds), NewInsights into Foreign Language Learning andTeaching. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.

AffordanceLeo van LierMonterey Institute ofInternational Studies

During the last decade or so, the concept of affor-dance has gradually made its entry into secondlanguage acquisition (SLA), and it has by nowbecome a regularly used term in the eld. I beganusing it in my teaching and in presentations in theearly 1990s, and proposed using the ecologicalnotion of affordance to replace the information-processing term input (van Lier, 1996; 2000). I rstencountered the term in a paper by the psychologistThomas Natsoulas (1993), in which he describedthe work on the ecology of visual perception byGibson (1979). The notion seemed immediatelyuseful, since I was working at the time on the waysin which language students worked collaborativelyon computer projects (such as designing simpleweb pages) and learned language at the same time,often using deictic gestures and cursor movementson the screen as integral components of their inter-active co-constructions. I initially incorporated theconstruct in my 1996 book on the importance ofinteraction in the language curriculum, and pub-lished a paper in 2000 arguing that the mechanisticinformation-processing term input could andshould be replaced by the ecological notion ofaffordance. The term affordance is still relativelynew in our eld, and its raison dtre, as well as itscore meaning, are as yet not widely understood.The purpose of this entry is to trace the origin andmeaning of the term affordance, and discuss itsrelevance for language education.The word affordance was coined by the psy-

chologist James Jerome Gibson (1979), who denedit as what the environment offers the animal, what

10 Affordance

it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill(p. 127, emphasis in the original). For Gibson, theconstruct of affordance is a central component ofan ecological theory of visual perception. Thistheory signals a radical break with traditional the-ories that are characterized by individual cognitiveprocesses enriching eeting fragmentary scraps ofdata signaled by the senses (Gregory, 1991: 512).J.J. Gibson and E. Gibson referred to their newtheory as a differentiation theory, as opposed totraditional enrichment theories (Gibson and Pick,2000). Briey, enrichment theories assume, withGregory, that the real work of perceiving is done inthe brain. Perceptual experience, in this view, iscognitive, not environmental. The Gibsonian dif-ferentiation approach, on the other hand, assumesthat the environment is richly specied, and thework of perceptual learning consists of increas-ingly learning to interact with this real world ofaffordances.The main characteristics of an affordance-based,

differentiation theory of perception are as follows:

1) Perception and action are inseparable, theyco-specify one another, and thus form anaction-perception system.

2) Perception is reciprocal (or dialogical), that is,other-perception is contingent on self-perception.

3) Affordances are neither objective nor sub-jective, they are relational, that is, affordancesrefer to relations among entities, not the entitiesthemselves.

4) Affordances are primarily perceived directlyor immediately, not indirectly or in mediatedform. In other words, they do not have to gothrough a mental processing cycle, beforebeing perceived, though mediation may enterinto their subsequent interpretation.

Language is an inseparable part of a muchbroader array of meaning making resources, patternsand practices (in other words, semiotics) and occa-sions of language use are concretely specied inthe environment in which language users and lear-ners are active. Linguistic expressions and actions,much like gestures, facial expressions and othersemiotic phenomena of the physical, social andsymbolic worlds that we inhabit, carry arrays of

potential affordances that can be turned into mean-ings (and possibilities for further action) dependingon the access and engagement that a language userenjoys with the phenomena in question.

The relevance of affordances forlanguage education

Gibson (1979) distinguishes several modes ofvisual perception: snapshot, ambient and ambulatory.Traditional perceptual psychology is based on

phenomena observed when an observer is sta-tionary (snapshot). Gibson added two other modesof perception in actual contexts: ambient, when anobserver is looking around, and ambulatory, whenan observer is moving around in three-dimensionalspace.We can suggest that all three play a role in

language learning (see also, Forman, 2005).At the risk of some oversimplication, snapshot

perception is the scrutiny of grammatical rules andsentences for analysis, memorization, and sub-sequent application on exercises and tests. Ambientperception implies looking around, seeing rules andsentences in context (discourse), and examining thebefore, after, above, and below of a particularlinguistic impression.Ambulatory perception pertains to a perceiving

agent who moves around and picks up informationwhile pursuing a particular goal. One can see thisas the most natural environment for picking upaffordances for learning, and the most appropriatecurriculum from this perspective is a project-based(or action-based see van Lier 2007) one.The suggested hierarchy of perceptual experience

in the above scenarios is that ambulatory percep-tion is primary and natural, and the others aremerely artifacts of instructional traditions (say, ofstationary learners at desks who are provided withstatic exemplars of linguistic practice). However, inpractice things are perhaps not quite so simple.Moving around the spatio-temporal landscape oflearning while picking up affordances for instruc-tional purposes (the ambulatory scenario) mayindeed be richly fruitful, but for learning to beshaped and consolidated in an instructional envir-onment it is also necessary to require the ambientanalysis of genres and registers of expression, and

Affordance 11

these in turn require much detailed (snapshot)scrutiny of grammatical and lexical patterning.The theory of language learning affordances, in a

wider ecology of learning, therefore accords a placefor a variety of meaning-making resources, all ofwhich may activate different kinds of affordancesthat the learning environment can enable, if thisenvironment is set up to provide a rich semioticbudget (van Lier, 2000).Now that the notion of affordance is gaining

traction in the applied linguistics literature, it isperhaps worth concluding with the recommendationthat the term affordance should be used only in thecontext of its twin dening features: its inseparabilityfrom agency, and its dialogicity or reciprocity.A third feature, the immediacy or directness ofaffordances (as opposed to the contribution ofmediation or indirectness of various kinds) will nodoubt be the subject of much debate for sometime to come (Forrester, 1999; van Lier, 2004).

See also: awareness, dialogic inquiry, discourseand pragmatics in SLA, ecology of languagelearning, social and sociocultural approaches toSLA, symbolic mediation

References

Forman, R. (2005). Teaching EFL in Thailand: ABilingual Study. Unpublished PhD thesis. Uni-versity of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

Forrester, M. (1999). Conversation and instructionwithin apprenticeship: Affordances for learning.In Ainley, P. and Rainbird, H. (eds), Appren-ticeship: Towards a New Paradigm of Learn-ing, pp. 8697. London: Kogan Page.

Gibson, E.J. and Pick, A.D. (2000). An EcologicalApproach to Perceptual Learning and Devel-opment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, J.J. (1979). The Ecological Approach toVisual Perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gregory, R. (1991). Seeing as thinking: An activetheory of perception. In E.J. Gibson (ed.), AnOdyssey in Learning and Perception, pp. 51119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Natsoulas, T. (1993). Perceiving, its componentstream of perceptual experience, and Gibson,

J.J.s ecological approach. PsychologicalResearch, 55, 24857.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the LanguageCurriculum: Awareness, Autonomy andAuthenticity. London: Longman.

(2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspec-tive. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theoryand Second Language Learning: RecentAdvances, pp. 24559. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

(2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Lan-guage Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective.Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

(2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy andidentity. International Journal of Innovation inLanguage Learning and Teaching, 1, 4665.

Age effects in SLACarmen MuozUniversitat de Barcelona

The inuence that learners age may have on theiracquisition of a second or additional language hasbecome a crucial issue in debates in both theore-tical and applied areas of SLA research. Its rele-vance has increased as second language (L2)learning has become a common phenomenon indifferent political situations and varied exposureconditions, such as mass immigration (naturalisticlanguage learning), compulsory schooling (instruc-ted language learning), or school immersion pro-grams. It was in the context of the latter, theCanadian immersion programs, that the debateabout the best or most effective starting age beganwith Penelds notion that for the purposes oflearning languages, the human brain becomes pro-gressively stiff and rigid after the age of nine(Peneld and Roberts, 1959: 236).Lenneberg (1967) maintained a similar perspec-

tive with his formulation of the Critical PeriodHypothesis (CPH). According to this hypothesis,there is a period in life between the age of twoand puberty in which rst language (L1) acqui-sition must necessarily take place, otherwise it willbe impossible or incomplete. Although Lennebergs

12 Age effects in SLA

only evidence at the time was based on his obser-vations concerning different recovery patterns ofpatients with brain injuries, his biological hypoth-esis concurred with the Chomskyan conception oflanguage innateness. As for L2 acquisition, it wasargued that it may resemble L1 acquisition andapproach nativelike attainment only if it beginsduring this privileged period (Johnson andNewport, 1989).The rst review of the literature on age differences

dates back to the 1979 publication by Krashen,Long and Scarcella. Two ndings appeared con-sistently across the studies then available: olderstarters proceed through early stages of morphologi-cal and syntactic development faster than youngerstarters; and child starters outperform adult startersin the long run. Hence, a distinction may be madebetween two types of advantage: a rate advantagefor older starters, and an ultimate attainmentadvantage for younger starters. The latter advan-tage was deemed more important because it wasrelated to the possibility that child starters, but notlate starters, could achieve nativelike command of asecond language. This suggests differences inlearning mechanisms between children and adults thatshould be accounted for by a theory of languageand language learning.Research in recent decades has accumulated rich

and complex evidence of age effects in L2 learning,but it has not ended the dispute about the existence,scope and characteristics of a critical period. Onecrucial issue in the discussion centers on the shapeof the decline of age effects: whereas an elbowshape showing abrupt discontinuity after a certainage would strongly argue for the end of a privi-leged period for L2 acquisition, a smooth lineardecline would instead suggest an age-relateddecline that is consistent with the contour of gen-eral cognitive deterioration (see Birdsong, 2006).Another signicant point in question is that of theexistence and interpretation of cases of nativelikeachievement in late learners, a matter that has beenexpected to provide nal evidence for the existenceof maturational constraints.While the jury is still out on such central issues,

a number of specic research questions havesought answers in behavioral evidence, such as:are all aspects of language similarly affected by

starting age of learning? Is an early starting age anabsolute guarantee for nativelikeness in a secondlanguage? What is the effect of language learningaptitude? And what is the effect of learningcontext? Other questions have their roots in lin-guistic theory, psycholinguistics, or neurobiologicalinvestigation.The issue of whether all aspects of language are

similarly affected by starting age of learning isrelated to the existence of either one critical periodor of several sensitive periods for the acquisition ofthe different components of a language. In view ofresearch ndings that indicate that age-relateddeclines may be variable in onset in relation to thearea of language under study, Long (1990) sug-gested that not all areas of language may be affec-ted at the same time. He claims that the supposedclosure for phonology may be as early as age sixwhile it may be around 15 for morphology andsyntax. Moreover, while Long holds that all aspectsof language are affected by maturational con-straints, including lexis as well, a different standpointis offered by Scovel (1988), who argues that phonol-ogy is the only aspect affected by age constraintsbecause of its neuromotor etiology.In fact, the inuence that age has on the various

language dimensions seems to affect phonologicaldevelopment in a distinctive way. To illustrate, inthe area of L1 perception, evidence sustaining avery early schedule has mounted up. In the rstmonths of life infants are endowed with universaldiscrimination abilities, which decline or, morespecically, become attuned to the native languageas early as one year of age. In second languageacquisition, older learners may be less likely toperceive differences between L1 and L2 sounds,once the L1 categories are fully developed. As aconsequence, learners may perceive and producenon-native sounds under a greater inuence of theirnative language. Moreover, research has alsoshown that L2 input (its quantity and quality) andL1 use are predictive factors of L2 speech mastery(e.g., Flege, 1995).The second question above whether L2 learn-

ing that begins in childhood inevitably results innativelikeness has been addressed only recently.Findings from studies with increasingly demandingtests and measures seem to show that this is not the

Age effects in SLA 13

case, and that an early age of onset is a necessaryalthough not sufcient requirement for nativelikeultimate attainment in a second language (Abra-hamsson and Hyltenstam, 2009). Whereas such anding does not deny the existence of a criticalperiod as such, it introduces some complexity tothe former, more deterministic prediction. Anotherfactor that has added complexity to the criticalperiod debate is the possible interaction betweenage effects and language aptitude. Mixed resultshave been obtained in research so far: while somendings seem to show that having superior lan-guage analytical skills is a condition for late lear-ners nativelike attainment in a second language(DeKeyser et al., 2010), other studies haveobserved that a superior language learning aptitudemay also be a characteristic of successful child L2acquisition (Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam, 2008).The role played by language learning context has

not traditionally been addressed in the workinspired by maturational constraints issues. How-ever, some authors have argued that the criticalperiod hypothesis might only apply to languageacquisition under sustained conditions of natur-alistic or informal exposure, thereby excluding itsgeneralization to situations of instructed foreignlanguage. A reason for this may lie in the scarcityof the input learners receive in an instructed foreignlanguage learning setting. According to DeKeyser(e.g., 2000), the lack of massive exposure to thetarget language does not allow children to use theirsuperior implicit learning mechanisms, the possibi-lity for implicit learning (acquisition from mereexposure to the language) being the critical differ-ence between children and adults.A number of studies have been recently con-

ducted in instructed language learning settings thathave obtained some consistent ndings. First, it hasbeen conrmed that, where exposure to the targetlanguage is limited, older children and adolescentsare more efcient learners than younger children.That is to say, after the same amount of instruc-tional hours older children are observed to attainhigher levels of prociency than younger children,especially in those areas that are more cognitivelydemanding (Muoz, 2006). This nding conrmsthe older starters short-term rate advantage alsofound in naturalistic language learning settings

(Snow and Hoefnagel-Hhle, 1978). The olderlearners advantage in learning rate may be theresult of their superior cognitive maturity relative toyounger learners, which grants older learnersgreater efciency in learning. In contrast, theyounger starters advantage in ultimate attainmentfound in naturalistic exposure se