Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T09:35:39.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Acquisition

from Part I - Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2019

By
Nick C. Ellis  and
Stefanie Wulff
Edited by
John W. Schwieter  and
Alessandro Benati
John W. Schwieter
Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati
Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we describe the constructs and working assumptions that characterize such approaches to language learning, with a particular focus on their cognitive underpinnings and how these explain differences between the linguistic forms that distinguish L1 and L2 speakers. We first define constructions as the targets of language learning and then describe the processes of construction learning in terms of exemplar-based, rational, associative learning. Not all constructions are equally learnable by all learners: naturalistic second language learners process open-class words more efficiently than grammatical cues even though the grammatical cues may be more frequent. We outline a usage-based account of this phenomenon in terms of salience, contingency, and redundancy, and explain how effects of learned attention and blocking further limit learning in adult L2 learners. We describe educational interventions taking these findings into consideration and conclude with further readings on usage-based approaches to L2 acquisition.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 41 - 61
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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. R. (1989). A rational analysis of human memory. In Roediger, H. L. I. & Craik, F. I. M. (eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 195–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15, 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The use of adverbials and natural order in the development of temporal expression. IRAL, 30, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beckett, S. (1954). Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R. A., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system. Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Benati, A. (2013). The input processing theory in second language acquisition. In García Mayo, M. P., Gutierrez Mangado, M. J., Martínez Adrián, M., Myles, F., Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B. (eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 93–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2008). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, R. D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 602–623). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (eds.) (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Manning, C. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M., & Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1284.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–169.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., & Carter, D. M. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech & Language, 2(3), 133–142.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (ed.). (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48(4), 631–664.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). The Associative-Cognitive CREED. In Patten, B. V. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006c). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 1–31.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008a). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 41(3), 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008b). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Salience. In Hundt, M., Pfenninger, S., & Mollin, S. (eds.), The changing english language (pp. 71–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of second language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (eds.). (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Mahwah, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Hafeez, K., Martin, K. I., Chen, L., Boland, J., & Sagarra, N. (2014). An eye-tracking study of learned attention in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 547–579.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Language usage, acquisition, and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 553–580.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 589–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015a). Second language acquisition. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 409–431). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., and Wulff, S. (2015b). Usage-based approaches in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 75–93). London and New York: NY Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Learning. In Ellis, R. (ed.) Language Teaching Research and Pedagogy (pp. 217–306). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65, 268–297.Google Scholar
Flege, J. (2002). Interactions between the native and second-language phonetic systems. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honor of Henning Wode (pp. 217–244). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50.Google Scholar
Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. In Rebuschat, P. (ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 443–482). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015). Polysemy. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. S. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 472–490). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Currents in Language Learning, 2, 228–255.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H., & Odlin, T. (eds.) (2006). Studies of fossilization in second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Herron, D., & Bates, E. (1997). Sentential and acoustic factors in the recognition of open- and closed-class words. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 217–239.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M. H., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N. C., & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(3), 361–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamin, L. J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In Campbell, B. A. & Church, R. M. (eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 276–296). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Klein, W. (1998). The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 48, 527–550.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2006). Learned Attention. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Development and Learning, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. K., & Blair, N. J. (2000). Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 636–645.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. F. (2002). The incidental acquisition of Spanish future morphology through reading in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 55–80.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the Competition Model. In De Groot, A. M. B. & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2001). The Competition Model: The input, the context, and the brain. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 69–90). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (eds.) (2015). The handbook of language emergence. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. (1987). Reference to past events and actions in the development of natural second language acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (ed.), First and second language acquisition (pp. 206–224). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.Google Scholar
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.Google Scholar
Noyau, C., Klein, W., & Dietrich, R. (1995). Acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortega, L., Tyler, A. E. In Park, H., & Uno, M. (eds.) (2016). The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (eds.) (2012). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66, 1–5.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (eds.) (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing morphology. Language experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 261–290.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1984). The strengths and limitations of acquisition: A case study of an untutored language learner. Language, Learning, and Communication, 3, 1–16.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & Plaut, D. C. (2014). Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science, 38(6), 1190–1228.Google Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 52–63.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2018). Technologies, morphologies of communicative action, and the rewilding of language education. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T. (eds.) (2013). Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (2007). Input processing in adult second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In Cadierno, T. & Eskildsen, S. W. (eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75–101). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wills, A. J. (2005). New directions in human associative learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zuraw, K. (2003). Probability in language change. In Bod, R., Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 139–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×