104565557 Second Language Acquisition From a Sociocultural Perspective and a Cognitive Perspective

7/29/2019 104565557 Second Language Acquisition From a Sociocultural Perspective and a Cognitive Perspective

1/11

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 -


2/11

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 non-

probabilistic 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 -


3/11

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 thatsomething 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 short-

term 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 -


4/11

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 rule-

based 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 -


5/11

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 u-

shaped 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 -


6/11

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 -


7/11

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 -


8/11

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 -


9/11

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 -


10/11

References:

Anderson, J.R. (2000): Cognitive Psychology and its Implications

New York: Worth

Atkinson, D. (2002): Toward a Sociocognitive Approach to Second LanguageAcquisition

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 InstructionLanguage 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


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 inExperimental 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 -


11/11

Lantolf, J.P. (2005): Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Acquisition

As found in:

Kaplan, R.B. (ed.): Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics


Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G. (1994): Vygotskian Approaches to Second LanguageResearch

New Jersey: Ablex

Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2000):How Languages are Learned


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 PsychologyNew York: Sharpe

- 11 -

Documents

104565557 Second Language Acquisition From a Sociocultural Perspective and a Cognitive Perspective