A UNIFIED MODEL
Abstract
There are three obvious differences between first and second language learners. First, infants who are learning language are also engaged in learning about how the world works. In contrast, second language learners already have a full understanding of the world and human society. Second, infants are able to rely on a highly malleable brain that has not yet been committed to other tasks (MacWhinney, Feldman, Sacco, & ValdesPerez, 2000). In contrast, second language learners have to deal with a brain that has already been committed in various ways to the task of processing the first language. Third, infants can rely on an intense system of social support from their caregivers (Snow, 1999). In contrast, second language learners are often heavily involved in social and business commitments in their first language that distract them from interactions in the new language.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
L2 learners begin with cues that are more available in the input and/or those they are most attuned to from their L1, after which they come to rely upon cues that are more reliable in their interpretations.
“To do this, they begin with cues that are more available in the input and/or those that they are most attuned to from their L1 (MacWhinney, 2008), after which they come to rely upon cues that are more reliable in their interpretations.”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as MacWhinney, 2008
The encoding of third person present -s and plural -s on subjects is also under the influence of syntactic integrity, although in English, agreement processing is generally less obligatory than processing for tense and aspect.
“The encoding of third person present -s and plural -s on subjects is also under the influence of syntactic integrity, although in English, agreement processing is generally less obligatory than processing for tense and aspect (MacWhinney, 1997(MacWhinney, , 2008)).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as MacWhinney, 2008
Cites
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One solution to this problem is to extend the original formulations of chunking theory (Chase & Simon, 1973; Newell, 1990) to allow for the formation of more schematic chunks (Gobet, 2005).”
Ellis, N. C. (2002) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263102002024 · Cited by 2,230 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Ellis (1996, 2002) has argued that chunking can help us understand the growth of fluency in second language learning.”
BackgroundMethodKuhl, P. K. (1991) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03212211 · Cited by 1,331 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The mechanisms for pattern completion and pattern separation in the hippocampus
Rolls, E. T. (2013) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00074 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Murakami, A., & Ellis, N. C. (2022) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12500 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- MacWhinney, B.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brian MacWhinney
- ORCID
- Brian MacWhinney
- Venue
- Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2008-03-29
- Pages
- 351-381
- OpenAlex
- W422125572
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 44.83
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- second language acquisition, first language acquisition, infant language development, neuroplasticity, cognitive commitment, social support, caregiver interaction, language learning models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
