Discuss Second Language Acquisition from a sociocultural perspective and a cognitive perspective.

The study of second language acquisition is one of increasing relevance and importance due to continuing globalization leading to intercultural communication and rising immigration rates brought about for various social and political reasons (Kramsch, 2000). Research has been focused on the processes by which children and adults acquire a second language through either natural settings, that is to say, by living in the country in which the second language is spoken, or through instructional settings, be it a school classroom, personal tuition or the use of computer programmes and technology (Kramsch, 2000). Whilst the field is traditionally influenced by psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology thus leading to an initial heavy focus on cognitive perspectives on second language acquisition, a recent consideration of a sociocultural perspectives, which wishes to re-assert the self-evident notion that the use of language is a social act, has served to broaden the scope of research undertaken (Ellis, 1994). Consequently, the perspectives are clearly discerned as cognitive based research in the area has attempted to discover the processes of the acquisition of a second language and how this relates to existing understanding of human cognition whereas research influenced by sociocultural theory has considered the aspects of interaction with other target language speakers and the role of cultural and social identity in language acquisition. For the remainder of the essay, I shall discuss these cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, the differing approaches taken by research in both of these perspectives and the possible future directions of research in second language acquisition, which may be greatly aided by an attempt to develop a coherent sociocognitive perspective built upon complementary research emerging from these differing perspectives. The central concern of cognitive perspectives on second language acquisition is to comprehend which psychological mechanisms underlie the comprehension and production of language (Harrington, 2005). Thus the focus of research is very much focused on the internal, the individual as the learner and how they learn new information (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). How this information is learnt is a source of contention within cognitive research however, with some researchers viewing the individual as operating a complex computational system that treats linguistic -1-

information as symbolic, that is, based on fundamental elements of language such as phonemes and morphemes. Language is assumed to be represented in the mind in set rules, something which subsequently results in the system treating language in a nonprobabilistic way (Harrington, 2005). This information processing approach investigates the use of memory in building up knowledge systems about the second language and how through attention and repetition this information becomes automatic to the individual over time (Lightbown and Spada, 2000). Two influential models have been developed from this perspective to explain how this process occurs. McLaughlins information-processing model (McLaughlin and Heredia, 1996) is based upon the notion that complex behaviour such as language acquisition is based upon rudimentary processes. McLaughlin argues that the individual initially conducts controlled processing, in which information regarding the target language is selected and thus information is processed in the short-term memory. This requires a great deal of attention on the part of the individual and is constrained by the limited capacity of the short-term memory (Ellis, 1994). However, through repetition the process becomes automatic and the information sequence is stored in long-term memory, resulting in a reduced amount of attentional control and a relative ease of recall. This then allows further and increasingly complex clusters of information to undergo this automatization process due to the short-term memory no longer being constrained, thus explaining the incremental nature of language acquisition (McLaughlin and Heredia, 1996). As this process occurs the linguistic system of the learner is undergoing perpetual restructuring to allow initial input which is often rote-learned with little analysis to become subject to productive rules acquired later in the acquisition process, something which accelerates the rate of automatization and explains the acquisition of some information with relative ease, should it be similar to knowledge already acquired and processed (Ellis, 1996). Restructuring can lead to the appearance of significant progress in the language learner, but it may also be problematic should the learner apply a rule extensively and fail to consider irregularities and exceptions to the rule. Instead, these exceptions must be subject to separate attentional processes so as to be automatized (Lightbown and Spada, 2000).

-2-

Andersons model of adaptive control of thought (ACT*) (Anderson, 2000) offers a similar framework to the information-processing model but differs in its account of memory stores. Andersons working memory functions similarly to McLaughlins short-term memory store in that both are capacity limited and are central to the initial stage of language learning. However, Anderson posits the existence of two aspects of long-term memory: declarative and procedural, with language information initially being declarative knowledge that is, knowing that something is the case, before becoming procedural knowledge, which is knowing how to do something (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). This division of declarative and procedural memory appears intuitively correct as there is a clear distinction between a language learner knowing a rule and applying it correctly. Anderson (2000) sees the transition of shortterm memory to declarative memory operating in a similar vein to McLaughlin and sees the move from declarative to procedural knowledge as taking place in three discrete stages. First is the cognitive stage in which the procedure itself is learnt; the associative stage involves the development of a method for performing the procedure is learnt; and finally, the autonomous stage sees the performance of the procedure become automatic and exerting little attentional effort. Similarly to the previous model, this process allows the limited working memory to be subject to another more complex aspect of the target language, whereupon its eventual development into procedural knowledge commences again. This view of the brain as a symbolic computational system that processes information was dominant in early research in cognition and language (Atkinson, 2002) and whilst the information processing models described have inspired a great deal of research there have been criticism of the approach. For example, Andersons position that declarative memory is necessary for language learning has come under scrutiny in that it implies that the grammatical rules of a second language can only be acquired through the conscious awareness and application of these rules (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). As a result of this, researchers have argued that there is an unconscious component to declarative knowledge (Bialystok, 1991) in order to reflect the experience of language learners who often engage in the learning of grammar without conscious awareness (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). However, it is argued by connectionists that this learning of grammar without awareness of rules isnt due to an

-3-

unconscious awareness, but rather due to the fact that language learning is an associative process as opposed to a rule-governed one. The connectionist viewpoint, which has emerged in recent decades, eschews the rulebased computational machine of classical cognition described above in favour of a network of associative links based on rates of probability, with associations that recur possessing stronger links than those that dont (Harrington, 2005). Whilst this distributed representation may produce behaviour analogous to rules, it doesnt posit the existence of rules as learning is solely based on associative processes due to the learner being sensitive to regularities in language structures (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). This graded nature of associations appears to offer a broader scope of internal representations that the symbolic approach which assumes information to be either learned or not (Hintzman, 1993). This perhaps better captures the variable nature of behaviour and learning, something especially relevant in an area of second language acquisition, where individual differences and variation is of interest (Harrington, 2005). In a similar way to the restructuring of classical models described above, connectionists also posit that novel input is processed in light of previously acquired knowledge, with the process influencing the strength of the association and aiding the development of further patterns and generalizations that appear to act as rule-like behaviour (Harrington, 2005) However, rule like behaviour does not necessarily imply rule-governed behaviour; rule-like behaviour is the result of strong associations developed through repeated exposure to similar information (Ellis, 1996). Research within this framework has been primarily conducted through the use of computer models that simulate the networks that are posited to be established in the mind by language learning; input is then observed by the computer model and associative patterns are ascertained (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). Sokolik and Smith (1992) conducted an experiment involving the identification of the gender of French nouns by a computer programme. The assignment of gender is fundamentally arbitrary in French but certain noun endings are predictive (e.g. -ette is generally feminine; -eur is generally masculine) and French speaking children assign gender correctly based on these regularities in both novel and nonsense nouns (Sokolik and Smith, 1992). The model developed by the researchers was found to generalize and correctly assign gender to nouns with reliability due to the associative patterns -4-

detected in the input reflecting the process connectionists believe occurs in the human mind (Sokolik and Smith, 1992). Furthermore, a simulation by Plunkett and Marchman (1989, as cited in Gasser, 1990)) regarding past tense forms have demonstrated that their model appears to reflect the typical u-shaped curve of second language learning in which there is good initial learning but this performance declines over time, resulting in stabilization (McLaughlin and Heredia, 1996). This ushaped learning in respect to past tense forms runs thus: first, both regular and irregular forms are initially memorized by learners and then the rule of the regular form is acquired and is incorrectly generalized to irregular forms. Finally, the rule is correctly generalized to the regular form and irregular forms are also correctly conjugated (Gasser, 1990). A similar pattern to this was elicited by the computer simulation upon observing the input data provided, greatly supporting the computer simulations ability to reflect the psychological mechanisms of the mind (Plunkett and Marchman, 1989 as cited in Gasser, 1990). However, an issue with connectionist theory is its reliance on such research; controlled experimental studies based on computer simulations that address a singular grammatical aspect of language; this isolation of one variable to be studied under such controlled conditions leads to questions as to what extent can results be generalized (Mitchell and Myles, 2004), especially seeing as language is fundamentally a social act. This neglect of the richness of context in language production is an issue in cognitive research generally; study of a decontextualized language learner is simply too narrow a perspective to take to address the complexity of second language acquisition (Atkinson, 2002). A sociocultural perspective attempts to redress that balance and thus emphasizes the importance of social interaction and language learning context in second language acquisition. Researchers from the sociocultural viewpoint dont simply see interaction as the source of the input that the cognitive perspective study, but rather see this social interaction as having a central role to play in language acquisition as learning is regarded as socially mediated (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). They therefore are critical of the cognitive view of the language learner as as a solipsistic biological organism whose cognitive powers simply unfold or ripen with the passage of time, rather than as someone who experiences productive participation in joint activity (Lantolf and -5-

Appel, 1994, p.11). Much of the work of sociocultural theorists of second language researchers originate from Vygotskys (1981) claim that language appears initially as social, and that external speech is experienced by an individual before it becomes internalized as inner speech. Thus the external practice of speech forges an internal cognitive practice. However, theorists argue that language never fully becomes an internal function, rather, it is simultaneously internal and external for language speakers; it occupies both social and cognitive space (Atkinson, 2002). An implication of this approach is that teaching is central to how language is learnt and that anyone who has a meaningful interaction with anyone who is equally or more skilled in the target language may serve as a teacher, both in and out of instructional settings (Atkinson, 2002). This is primarily achieved through the process of scaffolding, by which the language leaner is induced into a shared understanding with the teacher through collaborative talk. This supportive dialogue draws the learner to key aspects of the language, such as pronunciation and word order, which, in turn is incorporated into the learners speech (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). This has been found to occur in analysis of student-teacher interactions. Nassaji and Swain (2000) in analysing transcripts of these interactions found that when the tutor identified a mistake in the students speech, implicit feedback was offered. Should the learner not respond, a gradually more explicit form of correction was given until the learner corrected their error. This, the researchers argue is a demonstration of scaffolding which takes into account the learners zone of proximal development. This zone of proximal development consists of the level of ability that the learner has yet to master, but is not significantly more complex than the learners current ability thus progression to this higher level is possible. For optimal learning, the tutor will teach elements of language that reside within the learners zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). This finding was recently demonstrated in Kersten and Earles study (2001) in which it was found that adults acquired an artificial language with greater ease when presented with the language in incremental steps than those who were full exposed to the full complexity of the language throughout learning. The fundamental importance of conversational interaction in second language learning can be seen in Donato and Adair-Haucks study (1992) in which the instructional talk of one teacher was compared to the conversational talk of another. It -6-

was found that the use of instructional talk didnt encourage verbal interaction and challenge the students in comparison to conversational talk in which students were drawn into conversational activity that they were unable to achieve alone (Lantolf, 2005). Platt and Brooks (2002) study seems to support the idea that learners must engage with their activities in order to promote language learning. In this study one group was given a list of words to do with animals and asked to include them in a composition piece and the other group were told to hold an interview with another student about their experiences as a language learner. This group were told that they could ask for any vocabulary they needed to conduct this interview. The researchers found that these words requested by the participants were recalled with little difficulty in comparison to those who were set the animal task and asked to recall words on the list they were give. Further to this, individuals who participated in the interview task recalled the words that they requested with greater ease than other words that other individuals requested for the same task (Platt and Brooks, 2002), implying that the more invested an individual is in the learning and the task at hand, the more effective the teaching process is. Another important aspect of second language acquisition the sociocultural perspective has found is that dialogue does not necessarily have to be between a student and a designated teacher to be beneficial; peer interaction aids second language learning in both participants due to the collaborative effort and a willingness of the participants to aid each other or to provide ample time for a speaker to form an utterance should they be experiencing difficulty (Ohta, 2001). That interaction and the correction of mistakes by an individual in a teaching role serve as the basis of learning appears to offer an alternative explanation to the cognitive account of stabilization. From a sociocultural perspective, when an individual becomes competent in a second language, feedback decreases and there is less willingness on the learners side to interact with aspects of the language beyond their grasp (Mackey, 2008). Research on this aspect of language learning is in its very early stages in sociocultural studies as necessary longitudinal studies to comprehend the progress of language learning is in its conception (Mackey, 2008) The crux of sociocultural learning theory is the internalization of speech. Ohtas (2001) work has achieved a great deal in explicating how this process occurs. Her -7-

longitudinal study involving recording seven adult learners of Japanese using personal microphones led to her identifying three types of private speech; that is, speech inaudible to others directed to oneself to aid learning (Mitchell and Myles, 2004). This private speech included repetition, which consisted usually of repeating the teachers utterances; vicarious responses, when they respond privately to the question of a teacher or fellow student and manipulation, whereupon the learner conjugated verbs, formed interrogatives and conducted other language constructions. Whilst the sociocultural approach is clearly of importance in the field of second language acquisition, not least due to its focus on second language learning in the classroom, there are issues with the approach. The central issue with the perspective is that it tends to neglect the notion of language as a formal system at the expense of treating it solely as a social tool, an inversion of the treatment of language by psycholinguists such as Chomsky. The treatment of language as a formal system has been the source of an immeasurable amount of empirical research in second language learning and linguistics generally (Mitchell and Myles, 2004) The sociocultural perspective fails to explore grammatical properties and the acquisition of the technical aspects of language such as word ordering and this may be necessary for research to be fully integrated into the field of second language learning (Atkinson, 2002). The recent advent of the interactionist perspective, a perspective which is outside the scope of this present essay but with many similarities to the sociocultural approach to second language acquisition, appears to be a movement toward this necessity to address other properties than social interaction, as it does not see social interaction as the only force behind language learning (Mackey, 2008) Whilst cognitive and sociocultural perspectives on second language learning clearly have differing approaches to learning and the individuals role in acquisition, the perspectives arent necessarily mutually exclusive; to say that language is social does not deny that it is also cognitive, and the converse is also true (Atkinson, 2002). The act of conversing undoubtedly is a social act; an individual recognizes power, gesture and the turn-taking aspect of language. At the same time, the individuals cognitive processes produces and monitors output through retrieval of linguistic information online (Atkinson, 2002). It is thus necessary to attempt to reflect this complexity in an approach that doesnt focus on either the cognitive or sociocultural aspect of language -8-

at the expense of the other. Both perspectives have offered a significant contribution to second language acquisition and future research and study might greatly benefit from an attempt to develop a sociocognitive approach which offers a broader scope which more accurately reflects the second language learner as a contextualised individual who implements psychological mechanisms in learning a language and develops these mechanisms through conversational interaction, something which also instigates and refines the acquisition of a second language. Word Count, 3,165

-9-

References: Anderson, J.R. (2000): Cognitive Psychology and its Implications New York: Worth Atkinson, D. (2002): Toward a Sociocognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), pp.525-545 Bialystok, E. (1991): Achieving Proficiency in a Second Language: A Processing Description As found in: Phillipson, R., Kellerman, L.E., Selinker, L., Sharwood-Smith, M. and Swain, M. (eds.): Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research Avon: Multilingual Matters Donato, R. and Adair-Hauck, B. (1992): Discourse Perspectives on Formal Instruction Language Awareness, 1(2), pp.73-89 Ellis, R. (1994): The Study of Second Language Acquisition Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press Ellis, N.C. (1996): Sequencing in SLA: Phonological Memory, Chunking, and Points of Order Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), pp.91-126 Gasser, M. (1990): Connectionism and Universals of Second Language Acquisition Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, pp.179-199 Harrington, M (2005): Cognitive Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition As found in: Kaplan, R.B. (ed.): Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press Hintzman, D.L. (1993) Twenty-five years of learning and memory: Was the cognitive revolution a mistake? As found in: Meyer, D.S. and Kornblum, S. (eds.): Attention and Performance: Synergies in Experimental Psychology, Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Neuroscience Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press Kersten, A.W. and Earles, J.L. (2001): Less really is more for adults learning a miniature artificial language Journal of Memory and Language, 44(2), pp.250-273 Kramsch, C. (2000): Second Language Acquisition, Applied Linguistics, and the Teaching of Foreign Languages The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), pp.311-326

- 10 -

Lantolf, J.P. (2005): Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition As found in: Kaplan, R.B. (ed.): Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G. (1994): Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research New Jersey: Ablex Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2000): How Languages are Learned Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press Mackey, A. (2008): Second Language Acquisition As found in: Fasold, R.W. and Connor-Linton, J. (eds.): An Introduction to Language and Linguistics Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press McLaughlin, B. and Heredia, R.R. (1996): Information-processing approaches to research on second language acquisition and use As found in: Doughty, C and Long, M.H. (eds.): The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Blackwell Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004): Second Language Learning Theories London: Arnold Nassaji, H. and Swain, M. (2000): Vygotskian Perspective on Corrective Feedback in L2: The Effect of Random versus Negotiated Help on the Learning of English Articles Language Awareness, 9(1): pp.34-51 Ohta, A.S. (2001): Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom London: L. Erlbaum Platt, E. and Brooks, F.B. (2002): Task Engagement: A turning point in Foreign Language Development Language Learning, 52(2), pp.365-400 Sokolik, M.E. and Smith, M.E. (1992): Assignment of gender to French nouns in primary and secondary language: s connectionist model Second Language Research, 8(1), pp.39-58 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978): Mind in Society Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press Vygotsky, L.S. (1981): The Instrumental Method in Psychology As found in: Wertsch, J (ed.): The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology New York: Sharpe

- 11 -