Review and Evaluation on the Sociocultural Theory and Bottleneck Hypothesis

Authors

  • Fan Xu School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University

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.

Keywords:

Sociocultural Theory; Bottleneck hypothesis; Theory evaluation

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:

[3] Cambridge University Press.

[4] Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.

[5] Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to

[6] developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.

[7] Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[8] Ortega, and Lourdes. (2013). SLA for the 21st Century: Disciplinary Progress, Transdisciplinary Relevance, and the Bi/multilingual Turn. Language Learning. 63.s1: 1-24.

[9] 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.

[10] Vygotsky L. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 31-36.

[11] Wertsch, J. Mind as Action. (1998) New York: Oxford University Press, 53-58.

[12] Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2): 79-96.

[13] Swain M, Kinnear P, Steinman L. (2011) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction Through Narratives. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 45-46.

[14] DeKeyser, R. (2005). What Makes Learning Second-Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55, Issue S1, 1–25.

[15] Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a Critical Period for the acquisition of semantics? Second

[16] Language Research, 22, 3, 302–338.

[17] 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.

[18] Jiang Nan. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. (2004). Applied Psycholinguistics 25: 603-634.

[19] 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.

[20] Lardiere, D. 1998a. Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research 14: 1-26.

[21] Slabakova, R. (2014). The bottleneck of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 46(4): 543-559.

Downloads

Issue

Vol. 3 , Iss. 4 (October 2020)

Article Type

Articles

License

Copyright and Licensing

The authors shall retain the copyright of their work but allow the Publisher to publish, copy, distribute, and convey the work.

Review of Educational Theory publishes accepted manuscripts under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Authors who submit their papers for publication by Review of Educational Theory agree to have the CC BY-NC 4.0 license applied to their work, and that anyone is allowed to reuse the article or part of it free of charge for non-commercial use. As long as you follow the license terms and original source is properly cited, anyone may copy, redistribute the material in any medium or format, remix, transform, and build upon the material.

License Policy for Reuse of Third-Party Materials

If a manuscript submitted to the journal contains the materials which are held in copyright by a third-party, authors are responsible for obtaining permissions from the copyright holder to reuse or republish any previously published figures, illustrations, charts, tables, photographs, and text excerpts, etc. When submitting a manuscript, official written proof of permission must be provided and clearly stated in the cover letter.
The editorial office of the journal has the right to reject/retract articles that reuse third-party materials without permission.

Journal Policies on Data Sharing

We encourage authors to share articles published in our journal to other data platforms, but only if it is noted that it has been published in this journal.