Unpacking the Concept of Complexity in the Instructed SLA Research: Towards an Acquisitional Definition

Ji-Yung Jung

doi:10.22158/selt.v6n1p65

Abstract

<p><em>Over the past few decades, the field of second language acquisition (SLA) has seen a remarkable increase of interest in the study of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), which “investigates second language (L2) learning or acquisition that occurs as a result of teaching” (Loewen, 2014, p. 2). The importance of this subfield has particularly been emphasized for the sake of adult L2 learners, who, due to biological and cognitive constraints, have difficulty acquiring a target language (TL) solely based on naturalistic input (e.g., Han, 2004; Long, 1990). For this, ISLA research has suggested the utilization of focus on form (FonF), a pedagogical approach that attempts to engage learners’ metalinguistic attention in an otherwise solely meaning-based environment (Doughty &amp; Williams, 1998; Long, 1991; Long &amp; Robinson, 1998). According to Doughty and Williams (1998), FonF involves an array of pedagogical options, ranging from implicit techniques (e.g., input flood, input enhancement, and recasts) that attempt to attract leaners’ attention to form, to explicit techniques (e.g., processing instruction, consciousness-raising, and dictogloss) that attempt to direct their attention to form.</em></p>

Highlights

Over the past few decades, the field of second language acquisition (SLA) has seen a remarkable increase of interest in the study of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), which “investigates second language (L2) learning or acquisition that occurs as a result of teaching” (Loewen, 2014, p. 2)
Morphological features or grammatical functors have generally been defined as simple features, despite the extremely complicated meanings and/or functions underlying them (e.g., English in/definite articles), whereas syntactic structures or ‘constructions’ have almost always been described as complex in nature (e.g., Gass, Svetics, & Lemelin, 2003; Spada & Tomita, 2010)
Han and Lew (2012) offered a more integral definition of complexity, suggesting that the concept should be viewed in light of what acquisition entails, that is, form, meaning, and function (Larsen-Freeman, 2001) encompassed in a given L2 feature and the mappings between these aspects

Summary

Introduction

Over the past few decades, the field of second language acquisition (SLA) has seen a remarkable increase of interest in the study of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), which “investigates second language (L2) learning or acquisition that occurs as a result of teaching” (Loewen, 2014, p. 2). A more recent, acquisitional perspective (Han & Lew, 2012) is introduced, and a few key aspects of acquisitional complexity are discussed, which offer critical insights on future empirical studies, related to the internal validity of research designs.

Results

Conclusion