The Neurobiological Factors in Second Language Learning and Acquisition

---

Others note Clark, that even when biological factors are very determining, linguistics are obliged to stick to the main stream of language acquisition, which is - beyond any questions - not a biological but a psychological factor. However, there are a lot more others who support biological factors and dealing with neurobiology deeply in contemporary writings Caplan, These opinions all encouraged us to write an essay on biological factors, emphasizing that biology and neurobiology are very important in Language Acquisition.

Furthermore, in accordance with the new scientific findings and surveys, we were really given the suggestion that there is a great need for dealing and utilizing neurobiology in the frame of linguistics. Therefore, we would have intended to prove that these factors are even more than worth being dealt with; consequently we will get to the conclusion that without these factors, the conceptual and cognitive productions of any languages are not possible. Neurobiology is not the only medical term covering and interfering language learning and memorizing procedure. Certainly, there are many other phenomena and factors in this field.

Nevertheless, it is highly influenced by genetics and genetic features, congenital transference of human features and abilities. Even more, the consequences of pregnancy and the circumstances of the delivery are also determining. These all lead to psychological categories and consequences e. Therefore, the root of all psychological factors and utterances must be traced in neurobiological factors. It means - no doubt - that linguistic experts cannot get apart from this highly important phenomenon at all.

On the other hand, we cannot apart from dealing with brain damage that might lead to defects in memory and language production. Throughout our experiences at the health services, we collected some interesting cases when the patients had cerebral stroke in which those lobes were damaged where language production, learning and acquisition take place.

Therefore, in the last but one chapter of our essay we can mention some interesting cases, possibilities and opportunities to improve the cerebral areas in order that the patient could get the previous knowledge back. Also, it is very interesting to deal with because of the fact that some decades earlier experts thought that cerebral damage and neurons cannot recover Bence, However, in the past few years, scientists discovered that the tact areas could be improved, since the neurons are able to recover from the shock that a brain stroke hemorrhage, embolic, etc had caused.

That might be the reason why dealing with neurobiology in the case of language learning and acquisition seem to be so interesting and important. So dear reader, stay tuned. Language acquisition is very similar to the process which children use in order to acquire first and second languages. It requires meaningful interactions in the target language in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.

Second-language learning and changes in the brain

It often happens in real life communications and real life situations. Language acquisition is therefore a procedure in which the proper knowledge is acquired independently or - we could say - instinctively. Even when error correction and explicit teaching of rules are not relevant to language acquisition Brown and Hanlon, , native speakers can modify their utterances in order to clarify what they are about to say or to help listeners understand it.

These modifications, therefore, are thought to help the acquisition process, which - as we have already noted - happens spontaneously. It means that language acquisition is a kind of end product we have to get at the end of the learning procedure. Moreover, when learning a second language, we have got to get to the point that remembering words and phrases do not take place on the ground of previous memorization, but on the ground of an instinct automatic recall. It means that we have to get to the level when learning the language is not demonstrated and achieved by mugging up words and memorizing things wittingly.

In other words, when anyone asks us where we get a word from, the proper answer would be that we do not remember. If it is so, it might be supposed that the words came from unwittingly acquired knowledge, which is actually language acquisition. There are many theories in the field of SLA. They are all trying to prove how the process is going on and how it leads to acquisition finally. We have opted for his theories, which are, without any doubt, the closes to our theme.

According to Krashen, there are five main components of his theory. Each of the components relates to different aspects of the language learning procedures: This hypothesis actually combines two basic theories of how individuals learn languages. Krashen concludes that there are two systems of language acquisition which are independent, however, absolutely related: The acquired system relates to the unconscious aspect of language acquisition.

When people learn their first language by speaking the language naturally in daily interaction with others who speak their native language, this acquired system is at work. It means that in this system, speakers are less concerned with the structure of their utterances than with the act of communicating meaning.

In fact, Krashen privileges the acquired system over the learned system. Moreover, the learned system relates to formal instruction where students engage in formal study to acquire knowledge about the target language. For example, studying the rules of syntax is part of the learned system Wiley, The monitor hypothesis seeks to show how the acquired system is affected by the learned system.

Just when second language learners monitor their speech, they are applying their understanding of learned grammar to form, plan, and initiate their communication. This action can only happen when speakers have abundant time to think about the form and structure of their sentences. Furthermore, the amount of monitoring occurs on a continuum. It suggests that some language learners over-monitor and some use very little of their learned knowledge and are said to under-monitor. Ideally, speakers point out a balance and monitor at a level where they use their knowledge, which, however, does not succeed always Tucker, This hypothesis assumes that there is a natural order to the way second language learners acquire their target language Krashen, Research suggests that this natural order seems to be characterized by age, the learner's native language, the target language, and the conditions beneath which the second language is being learned.

Normally, the order that the learners follow has four steps:. This hypothesis seeks to explain how second languages are acquired. In its most basic form, the input hypothesis argues that learners progress along the natural order only when they encounter second language input that is one step beyond where they are in the natural order Rivers, Therefore, if a learner is at step one from the above list, they will only proceed along the natural order when they encounter input that is at the second step. This hypothesis describes external factors that can act as a filter that impedes acquisition.

These factors include motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. For example, if a learner has very low motivation, very low self-confidence, and a high level of anxiety, the affective filter comes into place and inhibits the learner from acquiring the new language Krashen, Students who are motivated, confident, and relaxed about learning the target language have much more success acquiring a second language than those who are trying to learn with the affective filter in place.

According to second language acquisition theory, the role of grammar in language acquisition is useful only when the learner is interested in learning grammar. However, Krashen argues that studying grammar equates to language appreciation and does not positively influence language acquisition. In our practice we have carried out most of the approaches and theories of LA, consequently, we do consider that second language acquisition is the end of an unconscious as well as conscious process by which adequate active language knowledge is obtained.

Even when there are many methods 2 or approaches - we would rather call them enterprises - focusing on early stage learning, we would question the effectiveness of these trials.

Therefore, acquisition does never happen without any purposes. There should always be a reason, at least the purpose of the learners to study. In a way, we are to argue Krashen since he separates acquisition and deliberate learning categorically. We say, however, that learning procedure is important for the final output of production, which is actually leading to acquisition. In addition, we should define production and acquisition.

Are these the same or very similar things to each other? We would state that production of the language is of a more complex thing than acquisition, however, production cannot exist without acquisition, therefore the two are built upon each other. Memory is one of the cognitive capacities by which we recall information and reconstruct past experiences, usually bound for present purposes. A feature of bilingualism that conspicuously connects age, plasticity and variability is linguistic dominance.

Regarding plasticity and age, it is not always the case that language learned in infancy is the dominant language of a bilingual: Among international adoptees and heritage speakers, dominance shifts involve attrition of the L1, a representational and functional loss which likewise reflects neural plasticity see below. As concerns variability, inter-individual differences in dominance relationships are natural consequences of idiosyncratic experiences with, skills in, and use of the two languages. No two bilinguals are identical in terms of dominance.

Linguistic dominance in bilingualism is understood in terms of dimensions — relative performance in a language skill such as speech rate, picture naming or grammatical accuracy — and in terms of domains — typically, the comparative frequency of use of each language at work, with family members, or at school. Dominance is not uniquely equatable with relative proficiency as defined in terms of grammatical and lexical accuracy, speech fluency, etc.

Forgot Password?

As with many other features of bilingualism, linguistic dominance is not inherently categorical. Accordingly, in order to faithfully capture the construct, dominance, like AoA, is properly operationalized and analyzed as a continuous subject factor. As with any other continuous variable, participant assignment to dominance categories may mask intra-group variability and result in loss of statistical power e. Some instruments for assessing dominance take into account both domains and dimensions of dominance.

Birdsong reviews methods of calculating dominance indices, along with problems of incommensurability in comparing individual bilinguals who may have the same composite dominance indices, but who vary with respect to the underlying dimensions and domains measured by the instrument. The term is sometimes used or assumed to denote very high or near- nativelike proficiency in both languages. However, degree of proficiency is independent from degree of dominance. An individual who is at an equally low proficiency level in two languages, and an individual who is highly and equally proficient in two languages, are both by definition balanced bilinguals.

Bilinguals who are not balanced that is, who are dominant in either Language A or Language B are situated to one side or the other of the diagonal. Adapted from Goto Butler and Hakuta Republished with permission from John Wiley and Sons. The direction and degree of dominance in the two languages are dynamic over the lifetime of an individual bilingual.

In some cases, and for similar reasons, the L1 may return to dominance, and still further shifts are possible. Grosjean details multiple dominance shifts over 60 years of his life. For a review of research and theory on the relationship between dominance and age, see Birdsong a. Conceptually as well as in practice, the developmental dynamics of dominance relationships may reflect both L1 loss and L2 gains. For example, among some immigrants and adoptees, there may be little or no ongoing use of the L1; as the L1 withers in terms of domains or dimensions , the L2 perforce becomes the dominant language.

On a developmental scenario, a sequential bilingual whose L1 is not fully developed may use and maintain the L1, but as a matter of relative gains in linguistic knowledge and proficiency over time, the L2 eventually outstrips the L1. Losses in the L1 and gains in the L2, with consequent reflexes in the dominance relationship between the two languages, have been theorized together in terms of maturational constraints on plasticity. After this period the potential for both L1 attrition and L2 attainment declines, with the relevant geometry of both resembling a stretched Pallier advances a different view, whereby the AoA-ultimate L2 attainment function exhibits a linear decline, starting essentially at birth; by contrast, the likelihood and degree of L1 attrition start to drop off only after age For Pallier and Bylund et al.

Thus, with respect to plasticity in dominance relationships in the first decade of life, there are two distinct possibilities. One possibility is that L1 loss, the likelihood of which is highest for several early years, is a greater contributor to dominance shifts than L2 gains, which start to become less likely very early in life, with progressively less influence on shifts from L1 to L2 dominance.

Another possibility is that L2 gains and L1 losses conspire simultaneously to enable L1-to-L2 shifts of dominance. The latter possibility relates L1 loss and L2 gain under a unified view of plasticity in early childhood development: For a recent empirical study and review of age effects on L1 attrition, see Ahn et al. As L1 loss slows, the point at which a complete shift to L2 dominance can be expected is delayed. Similarly, depth of attrition the degree to which a domain or dimension is diminished and breadth of attrition the number of dimensions and domains diminished should decrease with the age at which the loss begins.

Thus, indirectly through L1 loss, age contributes to variability in L1—L2 dominance relationships see also Montrul, b. Dominance has been shown to be a predictive factor in studies of bilingualism. As an example, Amengual looks at the elicited production of mid vowels among Spanish—Catalan bilinguals in Majorca. However, among the 30 Spanish dominants, those whose BLP scores approached balanced bilingualism i.

Adapted from Amengual Republished with permission from Sage Publishing. A study of bilingual speakers in Guatemala by Baird illustrates how the dominance factor accounts for inter-individual variation in bilingualism. In most varieties of Spanish, the peak of F0 rise occurs after the tonic syllable.

In contact and bilingualism contexts, Spanish varieties display an F0 that is closer to sometimes before the tonic syllable. At the same time, for speakers from both communities, the degree of Spanish vs. Adapted from Baird A critical take-away from Baird is that the nature of inter-individual variation is obscured in a simple analysis by binary factors, in this instance place of residence and pre- vs. More revealing can be examinations of variation along continuous dimensions, in this case distance of peaks from the tonic syllable and degree of Spanish vs.

By such an analysis, individual variability along a continuum of peak F0 placement is predicted by degree of dominance, independently of residence. Researchers have considered the possibility that dominance in the L2 may be associated with monolingual nativelikeness in pronunciation in that language. In a delayed sentence-repetition task for English sentences, Flege et al.

A series of follow-up studies by Antoniou and colleagues look more closely at interference effects, in this case with respect to VOT among L2 dominants. For the same bilinguals, Antoniou et al.

In contrast to the unilingual mode one language activated results of Antoniou et al. That is, the L1 appears to influence pronunciation in the dominant L2, but not the other way around. Perception experiments with a larger sample of Greek—English bilinguals Antoniou et al. Results may vary according to production vs.

Another illustration of the role of dominance in bilingualism relates to the question of executive control. A considerable body of research e. At the same time, since bilingualism is not a unitary phenomenon and thus not a categorical variable Luk and Bialystok, ; Yow and Li examine degree of dominance as a predictor of cognitive control within bilingual populations.

WELCOME TO OUR BLOG

Among 72 English—Mandarin young adult bilinguals, the researchers find a positive effect for balanced use and balanced proficiency with respect to interference in Stroop task performance and mixing cost in a number-letter mental-set shifting task. In addition, early AoA of the second language is associated with less interference on the Stroop task. As a related and final example, recent work by Onnis et al.

Statistical language learning involves tracking the frequencies of, or the transitional probabilities between, grammatical elements, which results in implicit knowledge of structural regularities. In this study, success in statistical learning of artificial grammars is predicted by the degree to which participants approach or depart from balanced bilingualism, as measured by BLP scores: Thus, degree of bilingual dominance in adulthood is associated with differential ability to learn a novel language.

In this review we have seen how variation in L2 acquisition and bilingualism is conditioned by age, which itself conditions plasticity. We also know that age similarly conditions individual factors such as language experience, L1 attrition and linguistic dominance, which are themselves predictive of variation. Age-related effects of which neurobiological maturation within a critical period is one possible source cannot account for all varieties of non-nativelike outcomes in L2 acquisition, since departures from monolingual-likeness are found not just in post-childhood learning but among from-birth simultaneous bilinguals as well.

By contrast, bilingualism effects can account for observed non-monolingual-likeness in both the L1 and the L2, whatever the age of learning. At the same time, the degree of L1 activation, L1 entrenchment, L1 attrition and relative L1—L2 dominance — all of which are affected by AoA — modulate attainment levels across L2 learners. The application of different statistical models and methods can result in different shapes of the function that relates AoA to L2 outcomes; such artifacts add another dimension of variability to the picture of L2 acquisition.

We have also considered possible sources of variability in L2 attainment with increasing AoA. These sources range from experiential education, length of residence , to representational L1 entrenchment and to cognitive decline with underlying neurologic causes such as dopamine levels that mediate domain-general learning and processing. The role of cognitive decline in AoA-related variability in L2 learning outcomes is of particular interest for future investigation. This review has brought these concerns into focus with illustrations from two areas of active research, individual differences and bilingual dominance.

With respect to individual differences in L2 learning, we have highlighted the roles of neurogenetic makeup, higher-order cognitive factors, language experience, age-conditioned learning styles and motivation. We have seen that the gradient phenomenon of dominance in bilingualism is dynamic over the lifespan, is conditioned by experience as well as by neural plasticity, and is predictive of phonetic variation, cognitive control, and statistical learning in artificial language paradigms.

In his classic position paper Bley-Vroman , p. From this understanding emerges heuristic guidance for further explorations of the richness of L2 acquisition and bilingualism. The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication. The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Front Psychol v. Published online Mar Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer. This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.

Received Jul 22; Accepted Jan The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Much of what is known about the outcome of second language acquisition and bilingualism can be summarized in terms of inter-individual variability, plasticity and age. Introduction This review article examines a range of features of second-language L2 acquisition and bilingualism from the intersecting perspectives of plasticity, variability and age.

Notes on Terminology and Concepts In this review, the relationship between age and L2 attainment will be considered with respect to the time at which learning of the L2 begins, be it from birth or at any time thereafter. Plasticity, Variability and Age: Developmental Neurobiology and Behavioral Outcomes The notion of plasticity with respect to adult language acquisition is often traced back to Penfield and Roberts , p.

Open in a separate window. Plasticity, Variability and Critical Periods in L2 Acquisition It is commonly believed that L2 attainment to nativelike levels among adults is impossible because they have passed a critical period for successful learning. Non-nativelike Attainment As a second type of support for critical period effects in L2 acquisition, some researchers point to the lack of evidence for across-the-board nativelikeness in late L2 acquisition e. Nativelikeness It is important to emphasize that, despite bilingualism effects, there are late L2 learners who resemble native monolinguals with respect to targeted aspects of the L2 as opposed to bilinguals being indistinguishable from monolinguals in every measurable respect.

Possible Sources In some studies, as AoA increases, the outcome of learning of L2 morphosyntax appears to become more variable see, e. Individual Differences in L2 Learning It is axiomatic that people vary widely in the effectiveness and efficiency with which they learn an L2.

Dominance, Plasticity, Variability and Age A feature of bilingualism that conspicuously connects age, plasticity and variability is linguistic dominance. Dominance Shifts and Age The direction and degree of dominance in the two languages are dynamic over the lifetime of an individual bilingual. Examples of Prediction and Variation in Dominance Dominance has been shown to be a predictive factor in studies of bilingualism. Conclusion In this review we have seen how variation in L2 acquisition and bilingualism is conditioned by age, which itself conditions plasticity.

Author Contributions The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication. Conflict of Interest Statement The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Age effects in first language attrition: The perception and production of language-specific mid-vowel contrasts: Inter-language interference in VOT production by L2-dominant bilinguals: Two ways to listen: Oxford University Press; , 58— Cascadilla Proceedings Project; , — Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; , — New conceptualizations of linguistic giftedness.

Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Decision making in second language acquisition. Psycholinguistic Approaches eds Kroll J. Oxford University Press; , — Age and second language acquisition and processing: John Benjamins; , 99— Three perspectives on non-uniform linguistic attainment. Dominance and age in bilingualism. Cambridge University Press; , 85— In faint praise of folly: On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. American Psychological Association; , — The logical problem of foreign language learning.

INTP Seek to develop logical explanations for everything that interests them. Theoretical and abstract, interested more in ideas than in social interaction. Quiet, contained, flexible, and adaptable. Have unusual ability to focus in depth to solve problems in their area of interest. ESTP Flexible and tolerant, they take a pragmatic approach focused immediate results.

Theories and conceptual explanations bore them — they want to act energetically to solve the problem. Focus on the here-and-now, spontaneous, enjoy each moment that they can be active with others. ESFP Outgoing, friendly, and accepting. Exuberant lovers of life, people, and material comforts. Enjoy working with others to make things happen. Bring common sense and a realistic approach to their work, and make work fun. Flexible and spontaneous, adapt readily to new people and environments.

Learn best by trying a new skill with other people. ENFP Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make connections between events and information very quickly, and confidently proceed based on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others, and readily give appreciation and support. ENTP Quick, ingenious, stimulating, alert, and outspoken.

Resourceful in solving new and challenging problems. Adept at generating conceptual possibilities and then analyzing them strategically. Good at reading other people.

The Neurobiological Factors in Second Language Learning and Acquisition

Bored by routine, will seldom do the same thing the same way, apt to turn to one new interest after another. ESTJ Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact. Decisive, quickly move to implement decisions. Organize projects and people to get things done, focus on getting results in the most efficient way possible. Take care of routine details.

Have a clear set of logical standards, systematically follow them and want others to also. Forceful in implementing their plans. ESFJ Warmhearted, conscientious, and cooperative. Want harmony in their environment, work with determination to establish it. Like to work with others to complete tasks accurately and on time.

Loyal, follow through even in small matters. Notice what others need in their day-by-day lives and try to provide it.

Want to be appreciated for who they are and for what they contribute. ENFJ Warm, empathetic, responsive, and responsible.

• Vous suis-je? (FICTION) (French Edition)
• Autism Speaks to You from a Teacher’s Point of View
• Maniac Monster Stories
• sutatodassyudesawotukerutiryouinkaigyoujunbimanyuaru (Japanese Edition)
• ICD-programmering: En handbok (Swedish Edition)
• Whom God Loves
• Catchin Heck