Review and Evaluation on the Sociocultural Theory and Bottleneck Hypothesis

Updata:01-01-1970

Source:
By:fan xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/ret.v3i4.2404

Abstract:

Over the past three decades, a growing number of different theories in second language acquisition field have come out in an effort to provide explanations as to how language learning takes place, to figure out what variables are effective for second language acquisition as well as to offer guidance to mass second language learners and language teachers. Because behind every teaching approach exists certain kind of theory of language acquisition and good theory in turn can help students master language skills in an effective and efficient way.

Each theory is considered to have contributed to the field by highlighting a specific aspect of the language acquisition process. Second language acquisition theories are intrinsically related with various disciplines such as applied linguistics, psychology, education, sociolinguistics, neurology, etc. Considering the impossibility to elaborate all second language theories, I will focus on sociocultural theory and bottleneck hypothesis in second language acquisition. There is an overview which follows the introduction to the Sociocultural Theory and Bottleneck Hypothesis and its contribution to second language acquisition respectively, and then I will evaluate them to see their contributions to the SLA disciplinary development.

References:

[1] VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Williams, J. (Ed.). (2015). Theories in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. [2] White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [3] Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum. [4] Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit. [5] Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [6] Ortega, and Lourdes. (2013). SLA for the 21st Century: Disciplinary Progress, Transdisciplinary Relevance, and the Bi/multilingual Turn. Language Learning. 63.s1: 1-24. [7] Lantolf, J. and S. Thorne. (2007). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. In: B. VanPatten and J. Williams, Eds., Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 201- 224. [8] Vygotsky L. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 31-36. [9] Wertsch, J. Mind as Action. (1998) New York: Oxford University Press, 53-58. [10] Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2): 79-96. [11] Swain M, Kinnear P, Steinman L. (2011) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction Through Narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 45-46. [12] DeKeyser, R. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55, Issue S1, 1–25. [13] Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a Critical Period for the acquisition of semantics? Second Language Research, 22, 3, 302–338. [14] Jensen, I. N., Slabakova, R., Westergaard, M., & Lundquist, B. (2020). The Bottleneck Hypothesis in L2 acquisition: L1 Norwegian learners’ knowledge of syntax and morphology in L2 English. Second Language Research, 36(1), 3–29. [15] Jiang Nan. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. (2004). Applied Psycholinguistics 25: 603-634. [16] Schmidt, R. W. (1983). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson & J. Manes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. [17] Lardiere, D. 1998a. Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research 14: 1-26. [18] Slabakova, R. (2014). The bottleneck of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 46(4): 543-559.

Tags: