How a second language is acquired and which factors affect the acquisition process

have been two central issues considered in the broad framework of Applied Linguistics.
This field of study has been defined as

“…the study of second and foreign language learning and teaching..” and “ … the
study of language and linguistics in relation to practical problems, such as
lexicography, translation, speech pathology, etc. Applied Linguistics uses
information from sociology, psychology, anthropology, and information theory, as
well as from linguistics (…), and then uses this information and theory in practical
areas such as syllabus design, speech therapy, language planning, stylistics, etc.”
(Richards and Schmidt 1985: 28)

In other words, Applied Linguistics is the field of study that provides researchers with
the necessary tools to bridge the gap between the theoretical framework and the
practical world of language learning.

Within the field of Applied Linguistics, controversy has arisen between two different
terminologies used by linguists: acquisition and learning. As the applied linguist Rod
Ellis stated:

“The term ‘acquisition’ is used to refer to picking up a second language through

exposure, whereas the term ‘learning’ is used to refer to the conscious study of a
second language.” (Ellis 1985: 06)

Likewise, the American applied linguist, Stephen Krashen, made a similar

suggestion regarding the acquisition / learning difference. He emphasized the idea that
language that is acquired is language that can be used spontaneously, since it is ready
to be used when needed. On the other hand, language that is learned, that is to say,
language that is studied through grammar rules and vocabulary cannot be used in
spontaneous conversation, as its only function is to act as a monitor of spontaneous
communication. Nevertheless, Ellis made reference to the fact that these two terms can
be used interchangeably, disregarding whether conscious or unconscious processes
are involved. In the following paper, the two terms will be applied according to Ellis’
view.

Moreover, linguists have made a distinction concerning the meanings of first

and second language. The former refers to “…a person’s mother tongue or the language
acquired first.” The latter, is defined as “…a language that plays a major role in a particular
country or region though it may not be the first language of the people who use it.” (Richards
and Schmidt 1985: 202 / 472)

Linguists have distinguished between these two terms to show that the study
of second language acquisition started with an insight into first language acquisition
(FLA). How a second language can be acquired and whether it is possible for learners
to achieve native-like competence have been two key questions. The study of Second
Language Acquisition (SLA) has led to the consideration of which factors influence,
directly and / or indirectly, this process. Rod Ellis has considered a learner’s first
language, social / situational factors, linguistic input, and learner differences as key
issues in ESL research.

In recent years, many people have embarked on the study of a second

language. Learning a second language demands from the students not only knowledge
of its grammatical and semantic rules, but also an assimilation of the cultural,
transactional and interactional aspects of the target language. Consequently, students
may find it really complicated to accomplish native-like proficiency. The purpose of the
following essay is to account for the possible failure of EFL students to achieve native-
like competence in a second language. In order to do so, first we will define three fields
of study: Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics and Discourse. Second, we will provide a
detailed account of a number of issues related to those fields of study which help to
explain the purpose of this paper.

Psycholinguistics studies the mental processes a person uses in producing and

understanding language, as well as, how human beings acquire / learn language.
Under this field, it is possible to place the theories of first language acquisition.
Behaviorist, Nativist, and Developmental theories have provided an explanation of how
a first language is acquired and how it affects the acquisition of a second language.
Behaviorists, like Skinner, state that language acquisition is the result of the response
to a stimulus, which leads to the formation of a habit. Nativists, like Chomsky, argue
that humans’ ability to acquire a language depends on an innate linguistic capacity.
Developmentalists, like Bloom and Selinker, claim that language development is linked
to internal personal processes and the interaction between the linguistic and world
experience each child gathers.

Sociolinguistics studies the language in relation to social factors, i.e. social class,
educational level and type of education, age, sex, ethnic origin, etc. However, linguists
have opposing views as regards which of the aspects mentioned before should be
included under this field of study. As pointed out by Lightbown and Spada, some
aspects, such as the age factor, are so closely related to other factors that it is really
impossible to separate them completely. That is why; it is not feasible to label them
under one single category or another (Psycholinguistic, Sociolinguistics, or Discourse).

Discourse issues center upon the study of language which results from an act
of communication, whether in spoken or written form. Furthermore, this field deals with
the role of participants, the relationship between utterances in actual conversation, the
outstanding roles of input, interaction and formal instruction and the importance of the
learner’s output and intake.

After presenting these three main fields of study, we will be focusing on those
issues within the fields previously mentioned, which account for EFL students’ lack of
success in achieving native-like competence. One of them is the process of
fossilization. That is to say:

“…when incorrect linguistic features, such as aspects of pronunciation, vocabulary

usage and grammar become fixed or a permanent part of the way a person speaks
or writes a language…” (Richards and Schmidt 1985: 202 / 472)

This process occurs in most language learners and cannot be overcome through
instruction. It has a direct impact on students’ interlanguage and affects the so-called
“interlanguage continuum”. According to Selinker:

“An ‘interlanguage’ may be linguistically described using as data the observable

output resulting from a speaker’s attempt to produce a foreign norm. I.e. both his
errors and his non-errors…” (Selinker 1969: 71 in Spolsky: 1989: 32)

In other words, interlanguage is the learner’s version of the language at a given stage
of development, which is continually improved as he advances in the process of
achieving command of a second language.

Some of the observable data collected from students’ production of a second

language reveals that their interlanguage is characterized by two kinds of errors:
interference and developmental errors.
 Interference errors refer to the moment when L1 and L2 come into contact with
each other, producing confusions which cause errors in the learner’s actual use of the
language. These are evidenced at the level of grammar, sounds, and vocabulary. For
example, at the grammar level, a native Spanish speaker learning English as a second
language might produce a L1 interference error when saying: “I have twenty years”,
whose Spanish counterpart is: “Tengo veinte años”. In this case, the error made shows
the incorrect use of “have” in the place of the verb “to be”. Likewise, an error can be
found in the oral production of the consonant sounds /t/ and /d/ in the case of a
Spanish speaker trying to pronounce the word “doctor” in English. The difference lies in
the position of the tongue. Whereas /t/ and /d/ are alveolar sounds in English, they are
dental sounds in Spanish. As a result, the Spanish speaker may well use the dental
sounds instead of the alveolar ones when saying “doctor”. Similarly, confusions as
regards word usage are made evident with the presence of the so-called “false friends”
(i.e. words that have the same or very similar form in two languages, but that have
completely distinct meanings in each). Such is the case of words like “embarrassed”,
which students confuse with “embarazada”, or “sensible”, which they associate with
“sensible”, but in fact, it means “sensato”.

Developmental errors are mainly part of the natural acquisition process and
common among language learners. They can be defined as overgeneralizations of a
new rule that has been subconsciously learned. For instance, in learning verbs in the
simple past tense in English, first and second language learners sometimes produce
verb forms such as “goed” and “breaked”, instead of “went” and “broke”. This is so,
since learners have learned the rule for the regular past tense and then, they have
associated it to all verbs.

Making errors is usually seen as a drawback for language development. However,

Corder suggested that:

“…both L1 and L2 learners make errors in order to test out certain hypotheses about
the nature of the language they are learning. He saw the making of errors as a
strategy, evidence of learner-internal processing.” (Corder 1967 in Ellis 1985: 47)

Nevertheless, many second language learners get stuck in the interlanguage

continuum as they use a “fixed system of linguistic forms that do not match the target
language model” (Allwright and Bailey 1987: 93). This refers to the concept known as
fossilization mentioned before. This term implies the consistent “use of recognizable
erroneous forms” (ibid: 93). As a consequence of fossilized structures, students fail to
achieve native-like competence in the target language.

Another determining characteristic in the EFL’s unsuccessful accomplishment

of native-like competence in a second language is the age factor, according to
Mentalists (Chomsky and Lenneberg). The relationship between a learner’s age and
his / her natural skill in second language acquisition is conditioned by the so-called
Critical Period Hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that:

“…there is a time in human development when the brain is predisposed for

success in language learning. Developmental changes in the brain change the
nature of second language acquisition. According to this view, language learning
which occurs after the end of the critical period may not be based on the innate
structures believed to contribute to first language acquisition or second language
acquisition in early childhood…” (Lightbown and Spada 1993: 42)

Lenneberg argues that the human innate capacity for acquiring a language is lost once
puberty has been reached, even though some other researchers differ over when this
period ends and whether it really impedes SLA. However, according to Lenneberg’s
view, age is of paramount importance when acquiring a second language since this
process takes place naturally and effortlessly until the critical age, in which language
input begins to be processed differently, i.e. conscious learning arises. (Ellis 1985). So,
adults who do not make use of what Chomsky and others coined as “language
acquisition device” (an innate mental module which provides a person with the capacity
to direct the process of acquisition) do not attain a native-like competence of a second
language. In general children do succeed in achieving native-like mastery as they do
not make conscious exercise of the language.

Other factors like motivation, social identity and conditions for learning are
closely related to the age factor discussed above, thus it is not possible to consider
them independently from one another.

Motivation is a complex phenomenon which can be defined in terms of two elements:

learners’ communicative needs and their attitudes towards the second language
community. (Lightbown and Spada 1993). It is generally considered to be one of the
primary causes of success and failure in SLA. External factors such as lack of
identification with the target language culture, parental pressure, societal expectations,
academic requirements, and the impression of the L2 linguistic difficulty may minimize
motivation and generate negative attitudes towards SLA. So, “Depending on the learner’s
attitudes, learning a second language can be a source of enrichment or a source of resentment.”

(Lightbown and Spada 1993: 40) For instance, if someone needs to speak a L2 due to
professional achievements, he will appreciate the importance of communicating in a L2
and, as a consequence, will be motivated to acquire proficiency in it, not matter how
difficult he may find language learning. On the contrary, if someone does not perceive
the importance of speaking a L2 and does not feel identified with the speakers of that
language, he will adopt a negative attitude in the process of learning that language,
which will manifest itself, in the long term, as the lack of native-like competence in it.

Within the affective domain, personality plays an outstanding role in terms of

promoting or demoting native-like linguistic outcomes. Negative personality factors
such as lack of self-esteem, inhibition, anxiety, introversion, and fear of risk-taking, are
thought to influence the second language acquisition process negatively. For example,
a student who is not eager to get involved in language activities which demand taking
risks and playing with the language may not succeed in reaching target language
competence, as he does not make use of available learning opportunities. Moreover,
research has shown that in some cases, an anxious learner will not be a good student.
Anxiety is most often associated with speaking, listening and examinations; and with
low proficient second language learner’s fear of being forced to communicate in the
target language.

The factors discussed above (motivation and personality) are closely

associated with the Affective Filter Hypothesis stated by Stephen Krashen. This
hypothesis deals with the role of affective factors in SLA which control the amount of
input the learner is exposed to and how much of it is transformed into intake.
Therefore, a learner who shows evidence of little motivation, lack of self-confidence
and a high level of anxiety possesses a high affective filter, which will impede the
reception of input.

The distinction between two other learner factors, intelligence and aptitude,
has aroused controversy among language specialists for two main reasons. First of all,
the two features have not been clearly distinguished from each other yet. Secondly,
there has been trouble identifying how intelligence and aptitude affect second language
acquisition, and what the consequences of their influence are.
Research has shown that if a student lacked some minimum capacity for second
language learning, this process could not possibly happen. In other words, all human
beings exhibit a range of aptitude for learning a second language, either though formal
instruction or informal immersion (Lightbown and Spada 1993). Aptitute is seen as
responsible for influencing the rate of acquisition, “particularly where formal classroom
learning is concerned” (Ellis, Rod 1985: 113). Therefore, a person who has been born with
a high level of aptitude can learn at a faster and easier rate than a person with a low
language aptitude (Richards and Schmidt 1985: 285).

The abilities that constitute aptitude have not been clearly identified yet. As stated by
Lightbown and Spada:

“…many of the behaviors associated with aptitude may just as easily be associated
with another learner characteristic, such as general intelligence or personality.”
(1993: 38)

The issue of aptitude has also been related to the age factor discussed before. For
instance, research has proved that many adults fail to reach native-like proficiency in a
second language. Adult learners do not seem to have the same innate language-
specific capability or propensity as children for acquiring fluency and an ability to speak
the language in a natural way.

The aforementioned factors play a crucial role in the acquisition of a second

language. That is why; it is possible to assert that all these components work together,
creating an interactive model for SLA.

The process of SLA takes place in social contexts, either the family home,
school, or community. These backgrounds pave the way for opportunities to use and
practise the language. In order to do so, speakers should acculturate to the target
language community. That is to say, speaker must assimilate the L2 roles, values,
political correctness, rules of usage as regards when, how, as well as its degree of
appropriateness in different social contexts. Nevertheless, due to the influence or
interference of their own cultural norms, it is hard for non-native speakers to choose the
forms appropriate to certain situations. Lack of native-like competence in a second
language is, then, the result of a person’s failure to “…take on the beliefs, values and
culture of a new group.” (Richards and Schmidt 1985: 6) Acculturation denotes “social and
psychological distance between the learner and the target culture.” (Quoted in the subject
Second Language Acquisition: 43)

Likewise, accommodation also affects the overall learner’s level of proficiency attained
in SLA. Giles explains that:

“People are continually modifying their speech with others so as to reduce or

accentuate the linguistic and social difference between them depending on their
perceptions of the interactive situation.” (Giles 1977 in Ellis 1985: 257)

According to Giles, motivation is the determining factor of L2 proficiency. Therefore, if a

student is negatively motivated towards the second language community, particular
features of his mother tongue will become evident. Then, as stated by Ellis:

“when motivation is low as a consequence of unfavourable socio-psychological

attitudes, whether the learner succeeds in formal language contexts will depend
instead on intelligence and aptitude, because he is less likely to take advantage of
informal acquisition contexts.” (Ellis 1985: 257)

When social and psychological distances are of considerable importance the learner
fails to make progress in his learning. This leads to the pidginisation process by which
students make use of very basic grammatical structures. When pidginisation persists,
fossilization occurs. For example, this might be the case of Latin-Americans living in
the U.S.A. In many instances, due to social restrictions and feelings of inferiority these
immigrants show social and psychological distance towards the American community,
which is reflected in their actual use of the rules of the community target language.

The role of input also affects the process of SLA. The input that learners are
exposed to may take place either in natural or formal settings, in spoken or written
form. According to Stephen Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, input should have three main
characteristics. First, it must be comprehensible so that learners can understand the
sentences they see or hear. Second, it has to match the student’s needs and
expectations. In this way, the learner could store and handle this input for future
production. Moreover, it must be slightly beyond the learner’s actual level of
competence, as indicated by Krashen’s “I + 1” formula.
From another perspective, the nature and role of input can be analysed in relation to
the interaction between the learner’s mental processes and the linguistic environment
in which acquisition takes place. Spoken or written data is not sufficient to ensure
successful acquisition of a L2. It is the discourse which interlocutors negotiate and
create which guarantees that successful acquisition will take place. Speakers, whether
in natural or classroom settings, make use of different devices in order to avoid
communication breakdowns. In this way, they adapt the language the use, for example
by using simple structures, pausing, avoiding turns, paraphrasing ideas, to name a few,
and they make use of paralinguistic features. The use of this negotiated interaction,
either in the form of “foreign-talk” or “teacher-talk” has the main purpose of leading to
comprehensible input. It is precisely this kind of input that serves as “a trigger to
activate the (language acquisition) device,” stated before (Ellis 1985: 12)

Current theories of L2 acquisition state that two main stages are seen to be
involved in the process of input becoming output, i.e. the language produced by the
learner. The first stage, in which input becomes intake, i.e. that part of input that has
been assimilated by the learner, involves learner’s noticing language features in the
input, absorbing them into their short-term memories and comparing them to features
produced as output. The second stage is one in which intake is absorbed into the
learner’s interlanguage system and changes to this system only occur when language
features become part of learner’s long-term memory. (Ellis 1997).

As a result, failure to achieve native-like mastery of a second language may be

experienced because of three main reasons. First, as input is not comprehensible
enough. Second, due to the fact that communication is blocked as consequence of lack
of negotiation between the interlocutors. Last but not least, as the language produced
by a learner cannot be understood by other speakers of the L2. It has been argued
that:

“…when learners have to make efforts to ensure that their messages are
communicated (pushed-output) this puts them in a better position to notice the gap
between their productions and those of proficient speakers, fostering acquisition.”
(Richards and Schmidt 1985:379)

Finally, formal instruction has also been questioned as regards up to what

extent it accounts for students’ failure to attain native-like proficiency in a second
language. However, it is of extreme importance to remember that the role played by
this kind of instruction has attracted some support as well as criticism. For example,
there is no certain answer as to whether it is formal instruction by itself or other factors
related to the learners (motivation, age, individual differences, interaction among them)
which are responsible for influencing the acquisition process successfully.

“In order to investigate the role of instruction in SLA, it is necessary to separate

out the effects that formal instruction has on the route of SLA and on the rate /
success of SLA” (Ellis 1985: 245)

The effects of formal instruction upon the natural route of development point out that
the natural stages learners go through cannot be changed. This “natural” route reflects
a particular type of language use (free, spontaneous conversation). Formal instruction
may not influence this type of language use. “Thus classroom SLA appears to involve
the same processing strategies as naturalistic SLA”. (Ellis 1985: 245) However,
differing views which have tried to provide an account of classroom SLA claim that
formal instruction provides an opportunity for either accelerating or slowing the
acquisition process.

There are several views which have tried to provide the reasons why some second
language learners do not achieve native-like competence.

First, according to Krashen’s non-interface position, learners may not succeed in

achieving native-like competence when the input provided by the teacher-talk is not
comprehensible enough. As a result, formal instruction does not successfully affect the
developmental rate of acquisition. For instance, Krashen has forwarded the idea that
adult beginners may have a certain level of difficulty obtaining comprehensible input in
natural situations. Thus, they are better at doing so in the classroom, as it will be their
most suitable source of comprehensible input. In this way, they are expected to
achieve an intermediate level rapidly. Conversely, if the classroom is not well-equipped
in terms of the kind of input it should supply the learners with, it will not ensure the right
kind exposure needed for success in acquisition. So, it is in the outside world where the
learners will have access to a great quantity of input. However,

“…although the outside world may supply more input to the learner, the classroom is
better equipped to ensure that the right kind of qualitative input needed for
‘acquisition’ is available.” (Ellis 1985: 231)
Regarding the route of acquisition, Krashen claims that:

“…formal instruction fails to have any substantial effect on the route of SLA. This
route is a reflection of acquisition (…) Formal instruction is directed as
consciousness-raising and so, presumably, affects only learning.” (Ellis 1985:231)

In other words, acquisition and learning are considered as two distinct processes, since
students in classroom situations may learn rules, but it is not until they get involved in
natural communicative settings that it can be said that they have acquired the rules.
Therefore, Krashen explains the powerless role of formal instruction in the natural
sequence of language development.

Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis states that:

“Learners need opportunities for “pushed output” (i.e. speech or writing that makes
demands on learners for correct and appropriate use of the L2) in order to develop
certain grammatical features that do not appear to be acquired purely on the basis
of comprehending input…” (Ellis 1985: 27)

Moreover, successful production also takes place when learner have opportunities for
meaningful use of their linguistic resources and when they construct discourse
collaboratively with an interlocutor, in this way developing new structures. As a result, it
can be said that when students do not interact meaningfully not only among them but
also with the teacher, they cannot possibly acquire a L2 optimally. The main reason for
this lies on the fact that learners lack opportunities to negotiate and share meaning with
other interlocutors; an aspect which is considered to be crucial for the actual acquisition
of the target language. In connection with this, it is possible to state that in classroom
contexts, it is both strong and weak learners who benefit from this playing with the
language. As highlighted by Lynch:

“The more proficient learner gets practice in producing comprehensible output;

the weaker partner gains experience in negotiating meaning.” (Lynch 1996: 115
quoted in the subject Classroom Management, p 3)

Learners may also fail to become proficient in a second language due to a

lack of practice. This idea is highly supported by the interface position to SLA. This
view, maintained by Stevick, states that “learned or explicit knowledge can turn into
acquired or implicit knowledge if there is enough practice” (Ellis 1985:245)
 In addition, learners may be unsuccessful in attaining ultimate levels of
proficiency in a L2 as a result of not having access to different knowledge types, as
stated by the variability position, associated with Tarone and Bialystok, who state that:

“In order to acquire the necessary linguistic knowledge to perform one kind of
activity does not guarantee the ability to perform a different kind of activity. For
example, the effects of practice may be specific to the kind of activity that is
being exercised.” (Ellis 1985: 238)

As stated above, there is no sufficient evidence as regards the role of formal

instruction in the SLA process. What is more, whether and, if so, how instruction
affects second language acquisition will depend, to a great extent, on the specific
approach to second language teaching adopted and the type of instruction used.

In conclusion, despite some inconclusive results, researchers have tried to

account for the failure and success of second language learners in achieving native-
like competence. It can be seen that the differences among researchers are significant.
Three main fields have been considered to provide a plausible explanation:
Psycholinguistics, Sociolinguistics and Discourse. Each one of these areas has
proposed different factors influencing SLA, which have contributed to create an
interactive model where most of its components work or go together. Some of these
factors are fossilization, age, motivation, personality traits, intelligence and aptitude,
lack identification with the target language community, lack accessible comprehensible
input and output, and practice in a classroom context. This research has attempted to
clarify how the absence of these factors prevents a learner from acquiring a L2 and, in
turn, from achieving native-like mastery in a second language.

References:

Allwright, D and Bailey, K. (1987) Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction

To Classroom Reasearch for Language Teachers. Cambrigde University Press

Ellis, R. (1985): Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press

Lightbown, P and Spada, N. (1993) How Languages are Learned. Oxford University
 Press.

Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard. (2002): Dictionary of Language Teaching and
Applied Linguistics. Longman

Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford University

Press.