The recent history of second language learning research
Objective: Please read this chapter and write a post of around 300 words analyzing how the history presented of SLA has changed in recent years. Think of all social, technological, cultural and even political aspects that in the last two decades have impacted the ways we think about language acquisition and second language research. You can draw on previous readings such as Saville-Troike. After you have made your post, read at least two classmates' posts and react to them with a commentary.
Google Images
Grading criteria:
Punctuality: Make the post by Monday so that your classmates can react to it. (0.5 points)
Conceptual appropriation: Show that you have read the material (2.0 points)
Critical positioning: show that you can connect the concepts to previous knowledge and the analysis of contemporary developments in SLA. (1.0 point)
Meaningful reaction to at least two classmates (1.5 point)
Reading this chapter by Mitchell, Myles and Marsden made me think about something that seems simple but took many years to recognize: learning a second language does not only happen in a classroom, it does not follow one single path, and the goal is not always to sound like a native speaker. But for a long time, those were exactly the ideas behind all the research.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter helps us understand where we come from. Behaviourism saw learning as forming habits: repeat, copy, avoid mistakes. Then Chomsky changed everything with the idea that humans are born with something special for language. After that came the morpheme studies, Krashen with his Monitor Model, and slowly the question changed: not only "how do we learn?" but also "who learns, where, and why?"
What I find most interesting is what has happened in the last twenty years, which the chapter barely mentions. Today, a person can learn English by watching YouTube, talking to strangers on Discord, playing video games, or watching series. In my case, for example, I learned mostly through music, just because I liked it, with no academic goal, listening to lyrics, repeating pronunciations, trying to understand what my favorite songs said. Nobody asked me to do it, nobody gave me a grade. And it still worked. Which theory explains that? Krashen might say it was comprehensible input with a very low affective filter, because there was real motivation and no anxiety. Schumann might talk about acculturation, about wanting to get closer to a culture that I liked. But none of these ideas fully explains something I think is very important: learning by yourself, driven by curiosity or passion, with no formal instruction. That kind of learning is real, and SLA research still does not know very well what to do with it. What about the person who learns just because they want to, because something catches their attention, because a song moved them in a language that was not their own?
Saville-Troike helps us see something important too: communicative competence is not only knowing grammar, it is knowing how language works in real social situations. Today those situations are very different. A person learning English in Cali does not necessarily want to sound like someone from London or New York. They want to communicate in a world where English belongs to everyone and to no one at the same time.
I also think about more concrete things that have changed everything: the pandemic moved millions of students to online classes very fast, removing the line between formal and informal learning. Large migration in many countries has created classrooms where five or six different languages exist together. Social media has given visibility to minority languages that never had it before. All of this affects how we learn, how we do research, and what that research is actually for.
What I take from this chapter is that the history of SLA is also the history of how the world pushed researchers to ask bigger questions. And it feels like that process is far from over.
Hello María Paula I really enjoyed reading your reflection, especially the part about how you learned english through music. It made me think about how much language learning can happen outside formal classrooms and how personal interests can become powerful learning opportunities. I agree that curiosity and genuine motivation are factors that many traditional SLA theories do not fully capture. However, I also think that some of those theories still help us understand these experiences, even if they cannot explain them completely. Have a great day!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHello Maria Paula, I found your discussion about technology very interesting. I agree that digital tools have changed the way people learn languages and have created opportunities that did not exist before. Today, learners can practice through social media and other platforms, which makes language learning more accessible. This relates to my comment, that SLA has expanded beyond traditional classroom settings and now considers the impact of technology on communication and learning.
DeleteGood evening, Maria Paula.
DeleteI found your comment very interesting because of two things. First, I can relate to it, as I learned English in a similar way when I was a kid (through passion rather than a goal, mostly due to music and videos). Second, I was particularly interested in your point about the pandemic and the disappearance of visible boundaries between formal and informal learning. I think this connects well with the mention I made of the “newer themes” explained by Mitchell and Myles, where they discuss informal language learning through digital spaces near the end of the chapter. Today, L2 learners can move between classroom instructions, social media, online communities, and entertainment, which makes learning much less limited to traditional educational settings than in many earlier SLA theories. I also wonder if we would have reached the same technological advances in language learning so quickly if the pandemic hadn’t accelerated the process.
Good job María Paula,
DeleteI think you have brought up an interesting discussion among your classmates: Sharik, Anju and Gabriela, there are still many things that SLA needs to explain such as how nonformal learning spaces have impacted SLA. As you say, people are learning online through new artifacts and ways of interacting with the language that previous generations did not have access to. This chapter is from 2019, and yet they don't say much about what has happened during these two decades of the XXI Century.
Mitchell and Myles present the history of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) as a shift from behaviorist explanations toward cognitive, interactionist, and social perspectives. One of the most interesting aspects of the chapter is how theories have evolved as researchers gained a deeper understanding of language learning. For example, behaviorism viewed language learning as habit formation through repetition and imitation, while Contrastive Analysis emphasized the influence of the first language. However, later research on Error Analysis and Interlanguage showed that learners actively construct their own linguistic systems and follow systematic developmental paths rather than simply transferring structures from their L1.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this evolution demonstrates that language learning cannot be explained by a single factor. Mitchell and Myles discuss the roles of input, interaction, cognition, and social context, while Saville-Troike also presents SLA as a multidisciplinary field. Although cognitive processes are important, I believe that social factors play a crucial role because human beings are social by nature and language emerges from the need to communicate with others.
Another important development described in the chapter is the “social turn” in SLA. Recent research has increasingly focused on learner identity, agency, multilingualism, and the contexts in which languages are used. I find this perspective particularly relevant because it challenges the traditional idea that learners should aim to achieve native-speaker competence. Instead, successful language learning can be understood as developing intercultural competence and communicating effectively across cultures, an idea that connects with the work of Oliveras and Byram.
The chapter also highlights the growing importance of digital environments for language learning. Today, technology has expanded these opportunities even further. In my view, tools such as generative AI can support language learning when used critically and responsibly, but they can also become prejudicial if learners depend on them excessively.
Overall, the history presented by Mitchell and Myles shows that SLA research has become increasingly interdisciplinary, reflecting the complexity of language learning in contemporary society.
I liked your comment, Maria Paz. I agree with your point about how technology has helped language learning. I have used it myself while learning languages, and I have also used AI. I think it is a very useful tool, especially for grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure. However, I do not think it can replace the experience of using a language in real-life situations. It can help us practice, but it cannot fully provide the interaction and immersion that language learning requires.
DeleteAnother idea that I found interesting is how the view of errors has changed over time. In the past, errors were often seen as something negative, but later research showed that they are a normal part of the learning process. I think this is important because making mistakes helps us learn and improve.
Overall, your comment shows how SLA has changed over the years and how language learning involves many different factors, such as cognition, social interaction, and technology. This reminds us that learning a language is a complex process and that there is no single way to explain it.
Hello María paz, I really agree with your idea that language learning cannot be explained by a single factor and I especially liked how you highlight the importance of social factors, since language is fundamentally a tool for communication and is deeply connected to the contexts in which it is used. Your point about moving beyond the native-speaker model is also very important, as today many learners use English mainly to communicate with people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. I also found your reflection on AI interesting because, while these tools can provide valuable support, they raise important questions about learner autonomy and the balance between assistance and genuine language development, I think that I would like to try using this tool myself to have a better understanding of how can it help my language learning or if I definitely prefer not to use it. Have a great day!
DeleteThank you María Paz, good job. Yes, I do highlight the role of social interaction as a primary motor for language development since as you say the need to socialize can be considered natural to human beings. María Paula point put another important idea, SLA is complex and before we used to talk about two main categories: cognition and social interaction, but she added now, technology. That's a good point.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about this chapter is what I realized when relating it to Saville-Troikes’. I think that their ideas complement each other and illustrate the change of SLA history to nowadays, except for a few details. Basically, even if the views from the 1950s to 1960s thought of practice and repetition (behaviourism) as the main path to learning a language, with time we came to realize that not only effort nor habits are important, but also that we need meaningful input, feedback, motivation and social context like Saville-Troikes exposes as "necessary conditions”. The author says that face-to-face interaction is not always needed for an L2 learner as they can get high levels of proficiency through books, television, or other media. I can link this to aspects brought by globalization and technological advance over the years, which have impacted the way we think about learning a second language.
ReplyDeleteAs of now, online platforms, language-learning applications, AI, and virtual communities (like fandoms where people from multiple backgrounds interact, for example) can give people access to real input or opportunities for their practice and feedback, although not in person. Actually, Mitchell and Myles mention this shift of the 2000’s near the end of the chapter when they discuss the “growing interest in informal language learning among internet users” (like gamers and fan-fiction writers). That’s an interesting way to show that learning spaces were already starting to shift from classrooms to digital ones. And these developments also reinforce the social perspective of it, since learning a language today emphasizes participation, experience and the effects of the “outside” rather than just individual or cognitive processes.
Furthermore, recent research pays more attention to identity and cultural belonging, like sociolinguistic or ethnolinguistic studies of language. Learning also involves understanding how and when communities use the language, which gives meaning to social norms, knowledge and context-specific use for expressions. One needs to be able to understand humor, politeness, and sometimes slang to hold a conversation, or for what I mentioned before about digital development, even some internet culture is needed to participate properly in specific spaces where a language is spoken, which is knowledge you can’t learn about just with grammar instruction.
At last, what I find more relevant today is that no single theory is enough to describe SLA. All of the approaches are in some way combined: cognitive, social, linguistic, and cultural.
Good afternoon, Sharik.
DeleteI agree that technological developments have transformed language learning by creating new spaces for interaction beyond the classroom. However, I think it is important not to assume that access to technology automatically leads to language acquisition. As Mitchell and Myles suggest, factors such as motivation, participation, and social engagement remain essential. In this sense, digital tools and online communities are only valuable when learners actively use them to communicate and negotiate meaning. I also find particularly relevant your discussion of identity and cultural belonging, since it challenges the traditional view that learning a language is mainly about mastering grammar. Today, understanding cultural references, humor, slang, and community practices is often as important as linguistic accuracy. For that reason, I agree with your conclusion that SLA cannot be explained by a single theory; rather, it requires an integrated perspective that recognizes the interaction between cognitive, linguistic, social, and cultural dimensions.
Sharik, I really liked your comment, especially the connection you made between Mitchell and Myles and Saville-Troike. It made me think about how much language learning has changed over time. I also agree with your point about online communities and digital spaces. Nowadays, a lot of people practice languages through social media, games, videos, or by interacting with people from other countries, even if they never meet face to face.
DeleteI also found interesting what you mentioned about identity and culture. As language learners, we often realize that knowing grammar is not enough to communicate naturally. Understanding jokes, slang, cultural references, or even how people interact in different situations is also part of learning a language.
What I take from your post is that language learning is much more complex than it was once thought to be. Different factors influence the process, and that is why it is important to look at SLA from different perspectives instead of relying on just one explanation.
Hi Sharik! I really enjoyed reading your post. The connection you made between Mitchell and Myles and Saville-Troike was very interesting because it shows how different perspectives can complement each other when explaining language learning. I also liked your discussion of online communities and informal learning spaces. It made me think about how much language learning has changed in recent years and how people can now develop their skills through experiences that happen outside the classroom. Your point about humor, slang, and internet culture was especially insightful because it reminds us that learning a language is also about understanding the people who use it. Overall, I think your post does a great job of showing why SLA cannot be explained by only one theory and why it is important to consider cognitive, social, and cultural factors together.
DeleteHii, sharik. I agree with your point that learning a language involves much more than grammar. Sometimes understanding humor, cultural references, or the way people communicate in specific online communities can be just as important as knowing grammatical rules. Also, your conclusion that no single theory can fully explain SLA also stood out to me. After reading this chapter, I feel that language learning is influenced by many interconnected factors, including cognition, social interaction, culture, motivation, and technology.
DeleteHi Sharik, thank for your comments. This is good. You highlight key aspects that the authors discuss. I particularly like your understanding of how language learning todays is centered around participation in non traditional social spaces created by digital technologies. Your classmates highlight this too and add that humor, slang and other cultural aspects also contribute to language learning and many times this is not found in regular classrooms.
DeleteIn my opinion, the history of Second Language Acquisition by Mitchell, Myles and Marsden shows how our understanding of language learning has become a lot more complete over time because earlier approaches focused mainly on internal processes, such as acquisition orders, universal grammar, and Krashen’s theories about input and natural development. However, I think the most interesting part of the evolution of SLA is that researchers now recognize that language learning cannot be explained by only one factor.
ReplyDeleteThis idea connects with Saville-Troike’s discussion of multilingualism, this because while older perspectives often compared learners to native speakers, Saville-Troike argues that multilingualism is actually the norm in many societies. I believe this is an important shift because it values bilingual and multilingual speakers for their own abilities rather than measuring them against an idealized native-speaker model. It also helps explain why current SLA research pays more attention to identity, social context, and participation in communities.
Another point that stands out to me is the role of technology in language learning. Mitchell et al. explain that learning now takes place not only in classrooms but also through social media, video games, online communities, and messaging platforms. This relates to ideas discussed in previous readings about the importance of interaction and meaningful communication for language development. These digital environments provide learners with more opportunities to use the language in authentic situations.
I think the readings show that SLA has developed into a more interdisciplinary field. Rather than searching for a single explanation, researchers now recognize that language learning is shaped by the interaction of linguistic, cognitive, social, cultural, and technological factors.
Good afternoon, Gabriela.
DeleteI particularly agree with your point about moving away from the native-speaker model. In my view, this is one of the most significant changes in SLA research because it recognizes multilingual speakers as legitimate language users rather than incomplete native speakers. However, I think there is still a gap between research and educational practice. As Mitchell and Myles show, recent theories value multilingualism, identity, and diverse learning trajectories, yet many educational systems continue to assess learners according to traditional standards of grammatical accuracy and native-like performance. This suggests that while SLA research has evolved considerably, some teaching practices have not fully incorporated these newer perspectives. For that reason, I believe the challenge today is not only to develop new theories, but also to translate them into more inclusive and realistic approaches to language education.
Good afternoon, Gabriela!
DeleteI particularly like your comment as the link between multilingualism and the shift away from the native-speaker model that you exposed made me think of the interlanguage concept. I think it directly supports your argument because learners develop their own evolving linguistic system while acquiring an L2, so it is not always fair to compare them to native-speaker standards. This change in perspective was important because, as Saville-Troike explains, it allows researchers to see learner language as a stage of development rather than just a collection of errors or something “unfinished”. Moreover, in many contexts, both in the past and today, it is also more important to communicate effectively than to sound like a native speaker, such as when learning a second language to migrate or integrate somewhere new. This is one of the ways in which I think current SLA researchers have become more aware of social dimensions of language learning.
Hi, Gabriela, how are you?
DeleteI really like your perspective, since you focused on concepts that I didn’t explore in depth but that are just as important and valuable. I really liked how you approached the concept of multilingualism and how research on SL learning has shifted away from comparing students to native speakers. I think this is one of the most important changes in the field, because it recognizes and values bilingual and multilingual speakers for who they are, rather than for “what they are not.”
Thank you so much!
Good point María Paz, there is a disconnection between educational research and classroom practices. Experts investigate and teachers do not have access, cannot digest the theory, or don't want to accept them and thus language teaching stagnates.
DeleteGood job Gabriela, I could not agree more with you. SLA has founded it self as a monolinguistic and monocultural discipline; now that multilingualism is a fact, this means that SLA must reshape its theories and think of how a language is more complex and linked to individuals' semiotic resources.
DeleteHi! I am Andrea Julieth Castaño Rodríguez , after reading the chapter, I noticed that the history of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has changed a lot over time. The early theories mainly focused on language as a set of habits and rules that learners had to acquire through repetition and practice. Researchers were interested in grammar, error patterns, and the influence of the first language on the second language. These approaches were important because they helped establish SLA as a field of study, but they often looked at language learning as something that happened mostly inside the learner's mind. As the field developed, scholars began to realize that language acquisition is much more complex than simply learning structures and memorizing forms.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest changes in the last two decades has been the growing attention to social and cultural factors. Today, researchers understand that language learning is closely connected to identity, motivation, and interaction with other people. This idea is similar to what Saville-Troike discusses when she explains that language acquisition is influenced by both cognitive and social elements. In a globalized world, people learn languages for many different reasons, such as education, work, travel, and communication with people from different backgrounds. Because of this, SLA research now explores how learners use language in real situations and how culture affects the learning process. I think this makes the field more realistic because language is not only a system of rules but also a tool for connecting with others.
Technology has also transformed the way we think about SLA. Twenty years ago, learners depended mostly on teachers, textbooks, and classroom activities. Now, they can practice through social media, language-learning apps, online communities, and even artificial intelligence tools. These resources provide more opportunities for exposure and interaction than ever before. Political and social changes, such as migration and international education, have also increased interest in multilingualism and intercultural communication. Overall, I think the history of SLA shows a clear shift from focusing mainly on grammar and linguistic structures to understanding language learning as a dynamic process influenced by society, culture, technology, and personal experiences. This evolution makes the field much more intresting and relevent to the world we live in today.
Hi Yuli,
DeleteI really liked your reflection, especially the way you highlighted the importance of social and cultural factors in language learning. I agree that SLA has evolved from focusing mainly on grammar and language structures to considering how people actually use language in real-life situations. I also think your point about technology is very relevant because learners today have many more opportunities to practice outside the classroom through online platforms and digital tools.
That is an awesome summary, Andrea. You did a great job showing how the field went from just seeing language as internal habits to realizing it is a massive social tool. Your point about technology is spot on being able to practice with global online communities and artificial intelligence tools totally changes the game compared to the old textbook days. It really shows how learning a language has moved way past the classroom and into real, everyday spaces where who you are and how you connect shapes everything
DeleteHi Yu :) I really liked your reflection, iliked the way you developed your text and how all the ideas connect, especially the part about technology. I agree that technology has transformed the way we learn languages, but I also think it has helped us connect more with a global society and experience the L2 in more authentic ways. Through social media, online communities, gaming, and even AI, learners can interact with real language and different cultures beyond the classroom.
DeleteGood job Julieth, you make very interesting points. I appreciate especially that you highlight how language is a central tool to connect with others. Traditionally, they have told us that language is there to help us communicate, but as you show, it is more than that. It is there to help us connect with others, which for me goes beyond merely communicating with others.
DeleteAfter reading this chapter, one thing that stood out to me is how difficult it is to find a single explanation for how people learn a second language. Throughout the history of SLA, different researchers have tried to explain the process from different perspectives. Some focused on the learner’s mind, others on the environment, and others on social interaction. This shows that language learning is not something simple that can be explained by only one theory.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in the debate about whether language is acquired naturally or learned through explicit instruction. Many learners know grammar rules very well but still struggle to use them in real conversations. On the other hand, some people communicate effectively without being able to explain the rules they are using. This suggests that knowing about a language and being able to use it are not exactly the same thing.
Another point I found important is the role of interaction. Learning does not happen in isolation. When people communicate, ask questions, make mistakes, and receive feedback, they are constantly improving their language abilities. For this reason, communication seems to be just as important as studying grammar or memorizing vocabulary. The chapter also shows how SLA research has become more open to different factors that affect learning. Researchers now pay attention to motivation, emotions, previous language knowledge, and even the learner’s social environment. Two students can receive the same instruction but achieve very different results because their experiences and personal characteristics are different.
In my opinion, the most valuable lesson from this chapter is that language learning is a gradual process. Progress does not happen in a straight line, and mistakes are a normal part of development. Understanding this can help teachers be more patient and help learners feel less frustrated. Overall, the chapter demonstrates that second language acquisition is a complex process influenced by many factors working together rather than by a single cause.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat is a great reflection. You perfectly captured the gap between knowing about a language and actually being able to use it spontaneously, it shows how complex the cognitive side of learning really is. I also completely agree with your point about progress not being a straight line. Realizing that mistakes are just evidence of the brain figuring things out rather than signs of failure is honestly one of the most freeing mindsets both for students and teachers. It really takes a village of different theories to understand the whole process.
DeleteI agree with you that second language acquisition is a complicated concept. I personally believe that actual acquisition is not about knowing all the grammatical rules of the language, but about being able to apply the rules spontaneously. I also agree that knowing about a language is not the same as being able to use it. Communication is essential for acquiring L2. In my personal experience, what allowed me to have a better learning process and improve my speaking was interacting with other L2 learners.
DeleteVery good job Luisa. you point at several important aspects of SLA. I like your comment about errors and how teachers should be able to understand that errors are evidence of learning and be more patient about it. I can tell you classmates: Juliana and Christopher connected with your ideas, especially that knowing the language is not the same as enacting the language.
DeleteWhen I read this text on second language acquisition and Lydia White's take on Universal Grammar, I found it to be a really insightful and solid piece for understanding how we actually develop complex language systems. What I found most interesting was the concept of interlanguage grammars and how she explains that a second language learner's mistakes aren't just random errors, but actually show a very systematic behavior governed by its own internal rules. On the other hand, for me, the most important takeaway of the text is the discussion around the logical problem of language acquisition or the poverty of the stimulus. I think it is fascinating how this theory shows that the language input we get from our environment is just too limited to explain the super complex and abstract knowledge we end up having subconsciously, which makes a really strong case for why an innate faculty like Universal Grammar must be there to guide us from the start. I love how she highlights that learners end up knowing subtle grammatical restrictions that they were never explicitly taught, proving that our brains aren't just blank slates soaking up words, but are instead actively mapping new data onto a preexisting blueprint. This perspective completely changes the way you look at the challenges of learning a new language, making you realize that the human mind is doing some serious heavy lifting beneath the surface. It completely shifts the focus from simple memorization to a deep, unconscious cognitive restructuring process, which I think is absolutely brilliant and completely mind blowing. Ultimately, the text gave me a whole new appreciation for how incredibly complex yet beautifully organized human language is, and it really drives home the big idea that our innate linguistic capacity still remains incredibly powerful, even when we grow much older and find ourselves trying to master a completely unfamiliar tongue that feels totally different from our own native one
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Cris,
DeleteI agree that the concept of interlanguage is very interesting since it shows that learner errors are not simply mistakes, but part of a structured and meaningful learning process. This idea helps us understand that language development follows patterns rather than happening randomly. What I found most interesting in your reflection is the emphasis on the active role of the learner's mind. It reminds us that language learning is not just about memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules, but about building a deeper understanding of how the language works.
Hi, Cris
DeleteI really liked your reflection. What I found most interesting is how your post shows that language learning is much more complex than many people think. Sometimes we only see the final result, but there are many processes happening in our minds while we learn a new language.
Your post also made me think about how amazing the human brain is and how much it helps us learn and use languages, tkss!
Hi, Christopher.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your reflection. I found most interesting was your discussion of Universal Grammar and the poverty of the stimulus because it highlights how much language learning happens beyond what we consciously notice.
As language students, we often get frustrated when we make errors, but your post reminded us that mistakes can actually be signs of progress. They show that we are experimenting with the language and trying to apply rules, even if we have not mastered them yet.
Hello Christopher, this is a good post. I appreciate your enthusiastic view of how marvelous our brain is and all that implies the learning and acquisition of languages. It is a good piece of evidence that there are so many things the eye cannot perceive but that on close up we can detect the complexity of our existence and the biological mechanisms that make possible that existence.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey everyone, I hope you are well :)
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this reading because there were a lot of interesting “factos” about Language Acquisition, but also about pedagogy and its evolution. It made me reflect on how connected this topic is to our “Seminario de pedagogía” class.
I think is so amazing to see how the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has transformed from a rigid and mechanical study into something deeply “conscious" and human. As we’ve discussed in other courses the evolution of pedagogy and education has always gone hand in hand with the evolution of humanity, and this is perfectly reflected in how our understanding of language has shifted over the decades.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the field was dominated by Behaviourism. Back then, learning a language was seen simply as habit formation through a cycle of stimulus, It was a very mechanical era that viewed learners almost like dogs being trained (if you obeyed and repeated correctly, you received a reward) It did not really take into account what was happening inside the learner's mind, focusing instead on “drilling” and avoiding errors.
However, since the late 1990s and 2000s, we have seen the "social turn" in SLA, one of the most exciting shifts in SLA is the rejection of 'native speaker' competence as the only valid goal. Instead, contemporary research views multilingualism as the normal state of the human mind, where our L1 and L2 form a unified and creative resource rather than staying in separate boxes. We aren’t failing to become native speakers; we are successfully building our own interlanguage, a unique system that reflects our identity as global citizens. Realizing that our personal “mix” is actually a powerful tool for communication and honestly, I think that's pretty cool.
In my opinion, another thing that makes this evolution so interesting is the role that technology has played in it. Technologically, the way we learn has become much more "real." We’ve moved beyond the classroom into informal learning spaces like gaming, music, fan fiction, digital social networks, and even AI. Even the way we study the brain has evolved, as the text explains, using eye-tracking and EEG technology to observe the conscious processing of language in real time.
Hi Danita. I really enjoyed reading your post. I especially liked your idea that language learning has become more human and conscious over time. I agree that older approaches seemed very mechanical, while current perspectives pay much more attention to the learner as a person. I also found your comments about multilingualism very interesting. The idea that learners do not have to become native speakers to be successful is something I completely agree with. In today's world, being able to communicate effectively with people from different backgrounds is often more important than speaking perfectly. Another point that caught my attention was the role of technology. Like you mentioned, many people now learn through social media, music, videos, games, and online communities. I think these spaces provide authentic language exposure and make learning more meaningful and enjoyable. Overall, your post helped me think about how SLA has evolved alongside changes in education, society, and technology.
DeleteHello Dana, lovely post! I especially liked your ideas about how interlanguage becomes a unique system that reflects our identity. And yes, interlanguage is dynamic just as our identity is across our lifetime. Language learning evolves with human evolution and as you say, technology is now part of humans' ecosystem and it is modifying us in diverse ways including how we learn.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, I am Danny Fernanda Cerón. After reading this chapter, I was surprised by the significant changes the field SLA has undergone over time. At first, a lot of researchers viewed language learning mainly as a process of habit formation, but later the focus shifted to what happens inside the learner’s mind through concepts such as interlanguage and comprehensible input.
ReplyDeleteFirst, one aspect that I found particularly interesting was Krashen’s work. Although many of his hypotheses have been criticized over time, I think it is important to evaluate them within their historical context. Considering the limited amount of research available at the time, his proposals were remarkably well-constructed.
Second, another theory that I can connect to my own experience is Krashen’s Affective Filter Hypothesis. I completely agree that the emotional aspect of learning is extremely important. Nowadays, many teachers try to use engaging materials, games, videos, and interactive activities to capture students’ attention and create positive emotions during the learning process.
Third, technology and social media have also transformed how languages are learned. Unlike learners in previous generations, we now have access to social media, online games, videos, podcasts, series, movies, and international communities (Reddit, Twitter, TikTok, etc.) Personally, I have learned many expressions and vocabulary outside the classroom through social media.
Fourth, I was also interested in the idea that multilingualism is now considered the norm rather than the exception. because this challenges the traditional belief that learners should aim to become “native speakers.” In today’s globalized world, people often use English to communicate with speakers from many different linguistic backgrounds. For that reason, successful communication may be more important than achieving native-like perfection.
Overall, I believe SLA has evolved from a mainly cognitive field to a more holistic one that recognizes the influence of technology, globalization, identity, and social interaction on language learning.
Hi Danny, I really liked your point about the Affective Filter Hypothesis. I also think that emotions play an important role in language learning because students usually learn better when they feel comfortable and motivated. I agree that games, videos, and interactive activities can make a big difference in the classroom. I also found your comments about social media interesting. Like you, I have learned a lot of vocabulary and expressions outside the classroom through videos and online content. I think this shows how technology has changed language learning and created more opportunities to practice English in real-life situations. Overall, I agree that SLA has become a more holistic field that considers not only cognitive factors but also social, emotional, and technological influences.
DeleteHi, Danny, I hope you're doing great.
DeleteI wanted to let you know that I found your comment very relevant and interesting. I really appreciated that, even though Krashen's theories and hypotheses have been questioned nowadays, you were still able to highlight his work as a fundamental contribution to research and development in language acquisition. Your perspective is very similar to mine! I also believe that emotions and linguistic attitude are key factors when it comes to learning a new language and culture. Thank you very much!
Hello Danny, I agree with you that Krashen's hypothesis, even if he did not have much proof, paved the way for future research in this field, as other classmates and you have mentioned, online communities are useful for L2 acquisition and sometimes more effective than learning plain grammar.
DeleteDear Juliana, Camila and Hanna, yes, I am with you on the idea that Krashen's ideas although lacking empirical proof, they make a lot of sense and this si why they have stood the passing of time. And to be honest, I do think that we don't always need to fall in the rationalist trap of whatever does not have empirical evidence is not true. His ideas do make a lot of sense.
DeleteHello Danny, thank you for this good post! I totally agree with your point that Krashen's ideas are still important. For instance, his ideas about the Affective filter resonate much with affective perspectives. We cannot detach learning from emotion and affect, human being filter everything through their cognitive but also their affective states. Teacher must have this in mind.
DeleteResponse to Mitchell and Myles
ReplyDeleteIdeas about Second Language Acquisition (SLA) have changed significantly over time. In the past, language learning was often understood as a process of creating habits through repetition, practice, and correction. Later, researchers began to see learners as active participants who build their own understanding of a language. Instead of simply copying what they hear, learners develop their own language system and improve it gradually through experience and exposure.
In the last twenty years, technology has transformed the way people learn languages. The internet allows learners to watch videos, listen to podcasts, read articles, and communicate with speakers from different parts of the world. Social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and online communities provide daily exposure to authentic language. In addition, language-learning applications and artificial intelligence tools offer new ways to practice vocabulary, pronunciation, writing, and conversation. Because of these changes, learning can happen anywhere and at any time, not only in the classroom.
Social and cultural developments have also influenced SLA research. Globalization has increased contact between people from different countries and cultures. As a result, multilingualism has become more common, and many people use more than one language in their everyday lives. Researchers now pay more attention to how culture, identity, and social interaction influence language learning. This idea is similar to Saville-Troike’s perspective, which highlights the importance of both cognitive and social factors in language acquisition.
Political changes have also played an important role. Many governments support bilingual education and encourage foreign language learning because of international communication, study opportunities, and employment needs. Migration has also created multilingual societies where learning additional languages is often necessary.
Overall, SLA research has moved from simple explanations focused mainly on habits and grammar to broader perspectives that include cognitive, social, cultural, and technological factors. Today, language learning is understood as a dynamic process that is influenced by the learner, the community, and the changing world around them.
Good job Hanna, from your post I want to highlight the point that political changes have contributed to favor more certain perspectives on SLA. For instance , in recent years governments have accepted the multilingual nature of nations, and they have passed several laws to protect multilingualism. Colombia is one case in point; however, this multilingual view is still limited because native languages continue to be disfavored before hegemonic international languages such as English.
DeleteThe development of the field of SLA has been a process of extremes, moving from psychological, behaviorist, and structural approaches of language learning (viewing language as any other kind of learning, a sequence of repetitive patterns, and a collection of “appropriate” habits) to functionalist, cognitive, sociocultural, and sociolinguistic perspectives, which emphasize communicative needs and individual differences in language learning.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite discoveries in this wide journey is the concept of universal stages of language acquisition. I find a special beauty in the fact that children all over the world, regardless of their ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, or culture, go through similar developmental stages, use comparable constructions to express meaning, and make many of the same types of mistakes. This finding has been highly significant for the study of LA, for it suggests that language learning is guided by common cognitive and developmental processes. In this sense, children can be understood not only as intelligent agents capable of systematically discovering and organizing linguistic rules, as Chomsky argues, but also as active participants who negotiate meaning, interact with others, and consciously navigate the functional aspects of language.
Now, for SLA, Krashen’s Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis is one of the topics that interests me most as a future foreign language teacher. What particularly catches my attention is its distinction between language acquisition and language learning: acquisition occurs through meaningful communication, while learning results from explicit instruction. This hypothesis helps explain a situation that language teachers often face (and that I have experienced as a language learner too): students may know grammatical rules very well but still struggle to use them in spontaneous conversation. This perspective made me reflect on the gap that often exists between students’ grammatical knowledge and their communicative competence.
Finally, in the last two decades, the field has increasingly recognized the influence of social, cultural, and technological factors on language acquisition and second language learning. More attention has been given to learner differences, social contexts and identities, as well as the impact of digital environments such as online communities, gaming, and social media on language learning.
Hello Camila, tank you for this interesting post. I enjoyed reading your insights and appreciate that you comments on the distinction between competence vs. performance (competencia vs actuación) that starts with Chomsky and that Hymes develops further. I think this distinction emerges primarily from how the order of acquisition or the condition of acquisition reverse when a person learns a second or foreign language. when you acquire the L1, first you perform or you acquire while performing, and then you are explained the grammar. So, it is more performance to develop linguistic competence. When learning an L2, you first learn and then perform. But people learn more meaningfully when they perform because performance activates many social and cognitive , and emotional and bodily processes; however, when language is learned, sort of artificially, more emphasis is given to cognitive processes, not always meaningful, which causes the gap between competence vs. performance. I know the grammar but I cannot enact it in performance.
DeleteThe investigation of second language acquisition has come a long way. At first, second language acquisition studies were more focused on structuralism and behaviorism; they were more concerned with language habits and teaching methods than with the cultural or social aspects of L2 acquisition. From my perspective, this point of view was limited and ignored other vital aspects of this process, as I mentioned before, the social and cultural aspects. Giving the students plenty of time to practice an exercise can be beneficial for learning grammar, but not necessarily good for spontaneity. This situation shifted with the emergence of generative linguistics, which was influenced by Noam Chomsky and the discoveries of Daniel Slobin and Roger Brown, who showed that L1 and L2 acquisition processes shared similar stages. Similar to the contributions made by child language researchers in Snow (1999), L2 learners make development mistakes similar to those of little kids and show similar learning sequences.
ReplyDeleteLater in the chapter, some Social aspects were explored, in this case, by Krashen’s model
He had five basic hypotheses about second language acquisition: the acquisition-learning Hypothesis, the monitor Hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis. I perceived that, in general, Krashen focused on how L2 is acquired by exposure to meaningful and comprehensible input rather than the explicit study of grammar rules, and that the success of this acquisition will most definitely be influenced by emotional and social factors, in contrast to the prior case. Regarding the evolution of the cultural aspect, Schumann discovered that, for successful second language acquisition, the learner must feel socially and psychologically close to the community to make progress.
The decade of the 1980s marked an expansion in the research of second language acquisition, mostly influenced by Noam Chomsky and Stephen Krashen. New ideas emerged in response to developments in linguistics, first-language acquisition research, and earlier SLA theories. Nowadays, research has abandoned the classroom and now includes other ways of acquiring L2, such as adult migrants learning a new language in daily life, and young people learning through the internet, gaming, social media, and fan fiction.
Good job Juliana, this is a good summary. I wish you had given more space to personal commentary. I would highlight your comment hat SLA has abandoned the classroom to explore other contexts of language development. This is true. Especially because there are so many new contexts where language is displayed and thus new understanding about what it is to know a language, people from different countries can interact online using diverse semiotic resources such images, music and so on with little use of linguistic resources.
DeleteLooking at the history of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), it is clear the field has changed a lot. It started out in the 1950s as just a practical tool for language teaching, heavily relying on behaviorism and habit-formation. Then, Chomsky's ideas shifted the focus toward innate cognitive structures. But in the last two decades, the way we think about language acquisition has blown wide open because of social, technological, and cultural shifts. The biggest change is what researchers call the "social turn". For a long time, SLA treated the learner like a computer processing data, and the goal was always to perfectly copy a "native speaker". Today, as Ortega and Cook point out, that idea is mostly rejected. Because of globalization, multilingualism is now seen as the normal human state. Instead of treating a learner's unique speech as an error, concepts like translanguaging validate how people actually use multiple languages to communicate. Technology has also completely changed the situation. In the 1980s, Krashen and Long argued about "input" and "interaction" based on physical classrooms or face-to-face talk. Now, the internet, online gaming, and digital communities mean that a massive amount of language learning happens informally. Learners are choosing their own spaces, which changes their motivation and how they build their identities. Finally, the research methods have split into two really interesting directions. On one hand, we have high-tech cognitive tools like eye-tracking and brain scans to see how the mind processes language in real time. On the other hand, researchers use qualitative methods like conversation analysis to study social practices. Ultimately, SLA has moved away from seeing language as just a fixed set of grammar rules. It is now viewed as a dynamic, living system tied to who we are and how we connect in a digital world.
ReplyDeleteNahual, thank you for this good summary and your comments. I appreciate that you highlight that language is seem more like a living system tied to identity. Now, our identities have diversified. For instance, before the 90s people did not have digital identities, we only had offline identities. Today, people have to deal with how they represent themselves and build multiple identities for the different digital spaces that they inhabit. One on Facebook, one in Tiktok, instagram and possibly other private communities that have affiliations with. I find this complicated but in terms of language acquisition many of these communities present multiple contexts of language and meaning negotiation which favor multilingual identities and competencies.
ReplyDelete