Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this article, I argue that first language (L1), second language (L2) and third language (L3) acquisition are fundamentally the same process, based on learning by parsing. Both child and adult learners are sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, and language development takes place in small steps. While the bulk of the article focuses on crosslinguistic influence in L2/Ln acquisition, I first briefly outline the Micro-cue Model of L1 acquisition (Westergaard, 2009a, 2014), arguing that children build their I-language grammars incrementally, paying attention to small distinctions in syntax and information structure from early on. They are also shown to be conservative learners, generally not producing overt elements or performing movement operations unless there is positive evidence for this in the input, thus minimizing the need for unlearning. I then ask the question how this model fares with respect to multilingual situations, more specifically L2 and L3 acquisition. Discussing both theoretical and empirical evidence, I argue that, although L2 and L3 learners are different from L1 children in that they are not always conservative learners, they are also sensitive to fine linguistic distinctions, in that transfer/crosslinguistic influence takes place on a property-by-property basis. Full Transfer is traditionally understood as wholesale transfer at the initial state of L2 acquisition. However, I argue that it is impossible to distinguish between wholesale and property-by-property transfer in L2 acquisition on empirical grounds. In L3 acquisition, on the other hand, crosslinguistic influence from both previously acquired languages would provide support for property-by-property transfer. I discuss a few such cases and argue for what I call Full Transfer Potential (FTP), rather than Full (wholesale) Transfer, within the Linguistic Proximity Model (LPM) of L3 acquisition. Thus, rather than assuming that ‘everything does transfer’, I argue that ‘anything may transfer’.

A quarter of a century has passed since complex dynamic systems theory was proposed as an alternative paradigm to rethink and reexamine some of the main questions and phenomena in applied linguistics and language learning. In this article, we report a scoping review of the heterogenous body of research adopting this framework. We analyzed 158 reports satisfying our inclusion criteria (89 journal articles and 69 dissertations) for methodological characteristics and substantive contributions. We first highlight methodological trends in the report pool using a framework for dynamic method integration at the levels of study aim, unit of analysis, and choice of method. We then survey the main substantive contribution this body of research has made to the field. Finally, examination of study quality in these reports revealed a number of potential areas of improvement. We synthesize these insights in what we call the “nine tenets” of complex dynamic systems theory research, which we hope will help enhance the methodological rigor and the substantive contribution of future research.

Since the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (SSH) was first put forward in 2006, it has inspired a growing body of research on grammatical processing in nonnative (L2) speakers. More than 10 years later, we think it is time for the SSH to be reconsidered in the light of new empirical findings and current theoretical assumptions about human language processing. The purpose of our critical commentary is twofold: to clarify some issues regarding the SSH and to sketch possible ways in which this hypothesis might be refined and improved to better account for L1 and L2 speakers’ performance patterns.

The theoretical emphasis within the L2 Motivational Self System has typically been on the two future self-guides representing possible (ideal and ought-to) selves, leaving the third main dimension of the construct, the L2 Learning Experience, somewhat undertheorized. Yet, this third component is not secondary in importance, as evidenced by empirical studies that consistently indicate that the L2 Learning Experience is not only a strong predictor of various criterion measures but is often the most powerful predictor of motivated behavior. This paper begins with an analysis of possible reasons for this neglect and then draws on the notion of student engagement in educational psychology to offer a theoretical framework for the concept. It is proposed that the L2 Learning Experience may be defined as the perceived quality of the learners’ engagement with various aspects of the language learning process.

Despite the increasing interest in learning non-alphabetical languages such as Chinese, research about its learning process for alphabet users is scarce. Research conducted on Latin alphabet users on learning languages written in Latin alphabet, or on Chinese language learning in Chinese native speakers, users is undoubtedly useful but it does not inform about the peculiarities of leaning Chinese language by other alphabet users. Additionally, several authors have highlighted the need to inform and extend the current second language acquisition theories on the particular challenges of learning a language that uses another script. In this research we aim to contribute filling this research gap and studied the learning process of Chinese vocabulary by users of scripts different from Chinese. In particular, we examined the role of pictures and translations as learning aids for Chinese language vocabulary learning in participants familiarized with either one or two alphabetical scripts (different from the Chinese logographic script). One hundred thirteen participants studied word-aid pairs in different conditions: Hanzi (Chinese in Chinese characters)-picture; Pinyin (Chinese in Latin alphabet)-picture; Hanzi-translation; Pinyin-translation. Participants evaluated the future recallability of the words and their meanings (i.e., judgements of learning) and completed two recognition tests. Words in Pinyin and words-translation pairs were judged to be easier to remember than Hanzi and word-pictures pairs. Participants remembered the meaning of words written in Hanzi better than in Pinyin, and word-translations pairs better than pictures, but they were more confident about word-picture pairs. These results suggest that pictures boost confidence in learning Chinese, but do not affect performance. These findings suggest that while pictures may boost confidence in learning Chinese, they may not necessarily lead to better performance. Our study provides valuable insights into the interaction of learning aids and writing system in (meta)memory during vocabulary acquisition.

English language teaching (ELT) publishing as we know it today has a long and lucrative history, dating, according to Rix (2008), from the Longman publication of Michael West's New Method Readers in 1926, to the present day, where annual turnover runs to around US$194 billion (Jordan & Gray, 2019). Some of the sector's best-sellers, such as Oxford University Press's Headway series (Soars & Soars), have sold over 70 million copies (Ożóg, 2018) with OUP's English File (Latham-Koenig, Oxenden, & Lambert) selling over a million copies in China alone. Generally speaking, it is taken for granted that commercial publications in the educational sector are based on sound, accepted pedagogical principles. Early language teaching publications (from the 1950s onwards) naturally reflected practices that were thought to promote language learning at that time – such as repetition, drills and sentence-level grammar exercises. As our understanding of language learning developed, this Structural approach gave way to a Communicative one, reflecting the 1970s preoccupation with the importance of communicative competence, influenced by theorists such as Hymes (e.g. 1972) and Halliday (e.g. 1975). This approach remains the predominant one (in the West at least) 50 years later. It represents, remarkably perhaps, the last time that applied linguistics substantially influenced a language teaching approach, or at least, one that had such global reach and enduring influence. Since then, findings from the fields of applied linguistics and second language (L2) acquisition, which should have fed into language learning approaches and hence language coursebooks, have been slow to do so in any systematic or significant way. Where they have, the way in which language learning theory ‘translates’ into pedagogy in the coursebook and thence classroom, can be questionable. In parallel with this is the problem of the socio-cultural standpoint of teaching materials of an international language such as English, issuing from a particular geographic heartland, viz. England. As with applied linguistics and L2 acquisition research, developments in sociolinguistic, socio-cultural and socio-political theory have been realised in language teaching coursebooks only as a rather superficial multi-cultural gloss. The advent of ‘global’ coursebooks conceived in the 1990s, with multiple iterations, attempting to capture international appeal, still has not resolved the conundrum that language – and hence language teaching materials, that is, the combination of content and pedagogy – constitute cultural artefacts, imbued with cultural values and ideologies. All in all, as Timmis, Mukundan, and Alkhaldi laconically observe: ‘for such commonplace objects, [coursebooks] have aroused a surprising degree of controversy’ (2009, p. 11). These then, are the chief areas of contention that I will develop in this article. Opposing these issues, it will be acknowledged that coursebooks remain the default language learning resource, and that teachers and learners world-wide need, want and value them as ready-made language teaching materials.

Vocabulary development is critical for second language (L2) learners in both English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. Recently, a large body of research has been dedicated to how computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) can facilitate vocabulary knowledge in L2 learners in both EFL and ESL settings. A number of reviews on this topic have been conducted, however, little attention has been given to learners in PreK-12. Also missing from the existing research is an in-depth examination of the theories underlying vocabulary learning within technological programs. However, understanding theoretical foundations of vocabulary learning is critical for both researchers and educators who seek to improve vocabulary development in L2 learners. The current study aims to close these gaps by investigating research on the use of technology for L2 vocabulary learning for learners in PreK-12 between 2011 and 2020. Using systematic review procedures, a total of 80 articles were identified for analysis. Results showed information/cognitive theories were most frequently and explicitly referenced, followed by social theories of learning. Consistent with previous research syntheses on CALL and MALL, many studies did not articulate an explicit theoretical framework used in their research. These findings suggest that research on technology-mediated vocabulary learning for Prek-12 L2 learners should be conducted from more diverse and explicit theoretical perspectives.

We introduce the blueprint of the Ontogenesis Model of the L2 Lexical Representation (OM) that focuses on the development of lexical representations. The OM has three dimensions: linguistic domains (phonological, orthographic, and semantic), mappings between domains, and networks of lexical representations. The model assumes that fuzziness is a pervasive property of the L2 lexicon: most L2 lexical representations are low resolution and the ontogenetic curve of their development does not reach the optimum (i.e., the ultimate stage of their attainment with optimal encoding) in one or more dimensions. We review the findings on lexical processing and vocabulary training to show that the OM has a potential to provide an interpretation for the results that have been treated separately and to move us forward in building a comprehensive model of L2 lexical acquisition and processing.

One of the basic goals of second language (L2) speech research is to understand the perception-production link, or the relationship between L2 speech perception and L2 speech production. Although many studies have examined the link, they have done so with strikingly different conceptual foci and methods. Even studies that appear to use similar perception and production tasks often present nontrivial differences in task characteristics and implementation. This conceptual and methodological variation makes meaningful synthesis of perception-production findings difficult, and it also complicates the process of developing new perception-production models that specifically address how the link changes throughout L2 learning. In this study, we scrutinize theoretical and methodological issues in perception-production research and offer recommendations for advancing theory and practice in this domain. We focus on L2 sound learning because most work in the area has focused on segmental contrasts.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Stephen Krashen developed Monitor Theory—a group of hypotheses explaining second language acquisition with implications for language teaching. As the L2 scholarly community began considering what requirements theories should meet, Monitor Theory was widely criticized and dismissed, along with its teaching implications. What happened to these ideas? We argue that many of them have evolved and are still driving SLA research today—often unacknowledged and under new terminology. In this essay, we focus on three of Krashen's five fundamental hypotheses: The Acquisition‐Learning Distinction, The Natural Order Hypothesis, and The Input Hypothesis. We argue that these ideas persist today as the following constructs: implicit versus explicit learning, ordered development, and a central role for communicatively embedded input in all theories of second language acquisition. We conclude with implications for language teaching, including a focus on comprehensible input and communication in the classroom. The Challenge Krashen's Monitor Theory first appeared some 40 years ago. Does it belong to the “history of language teaching”? Or do Krashen's ideas still drive second language acquisition research—unacknowledged and under different names—and thus still have relevance for teaching? We argue that they have survived and are still relevant