Abstract
The aim of this paper is twofold: i. firstly, to show why second language learners (from perhaps as early as age six, but certainly after age twelve or thereabouts) are claimed to. require instruction in addition to communicative exposure to the language; and ii. secondly, to dispel the idea that, as long as theories of how second languages are acquired keep changing, no insight into the acquisition process can be gained from them. The focus will be on theories of L2 acquisition that have a strong linguistic base to the exclusion of, for example, psychological process-based theories. By narrowing the focus of the paper, I hope to keep the main thrust of the argument clear. The choice of focus should not be taken to imply that other approaches have not provided useful perspectives on aspects of L2 acquisition.
Highlights
The aim of this paper is twofold: i.firstly, to show why second language learners are claimed to. require instruction in addition to communicative exposure to the language; and ii. secondly, to dispel the idea that, as long as theories of how second languages are acquired keep changing, no insight into the acquisition process can be gained from them.The focus will be on theories of L2 acquisition that have a strong linguistic base to the exclusion of, for example, psychological process-based theories
As regards 'mimicking', the question arises what kind of acquisitional mechanism it represents. Is it a triggering mechanism, which is the only type of mechanism claimed to be involved in acquisition on Universal Grammar (UG)-based theories of L2 acquisition? Or is it a hypothesisformation-and-testing mechanism, which is the type of mechanism assumed to be involved in learning? If it is a triggering mechanism, what is it that gets triggered if not parameter settings? If it is a hypothesis-formation-and-testing mechanism, how does it resolve the learning-versus-acquisition problem described in paragraph 4 above? We do not yet have answers to any of these questions
Proposals formulated in terms of this concept have produced a wealth of experimental studies investigating the effects of various types of input enhancement within communication-based L2 learning environments: studies such as those conducted by Tornasello and Herron (1988), Van Patten (1990), Lightbown and Spada (1990), White, Spada, Lightbown and Ranta (1991), Doughty (1991), Fotos and Ellis (1991) and Carrell and Swain (1993), amongst others
Summary
The aim of this paper is twofold: i. Firstly, to show why second language learners (from perhaps as early as age six, but certainly after age twelve or thereabouts) are claimed to. Require instruction in addition to communicative exposure to the language; and ii. Secondly, to dispel the idea that, as long as theories of how second languages are acquired keep changing, no insight into the acquisition process can be gained from them. The focus will be on theories of L2 acquisition that have a strong linguistic base to the exclusion of, for example, psychological process-based theories. By narrowing the focus of the paper, I hope to keep the main thrust of the argument clear. The choice of focus should not be taken to imply that other approaches have not provided useful perspectives on aspects of L2 acquisition
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
