Chapter 4

L2 Learning Is Situated, and Attentionally and Socially Gated

Overview

As we discussed in Chapter 2, research on language from several fields has converged on findings about language knowledge. In contrast to a view of language as a fixed system of symbols and rules for their combination, current understandings reveal it to comprise complex, dynamic constructions. Learning these constructions is not simply the uptake of linguistic forms. Indeed, it is far more complex. It entails dynamic interactions between individual neurobiological and cognitive capabilities and three interdependent layers of social activity (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). At the micro level of social activity, individuals’ emotional and general cognitive capabilities interact with social processes in ways that give shape to L2 learners’ repertoires of semiotic resources. What is attended to at the micro level of social activity focuses learning. This level is represented by the white concentric circle, embedded within two larger circles, that is depicted in Chapter 1’s Figure 1.1. In this chapter, we take a closer look at the micro level of learning.

Learning Is Situated

The learning of language is driven by the human need to communicate (Tomasello, 2008). Whether it is one’s first, second, or third language that is being learned, language learning begins at the micro level of social activity. To state that language learning is situated and socially gated at this level means that it occurs as a matter of making meaning in shared activity with others within the social contexts of daily life (Lee, Mikesell, Joaquin, Mates, & Schumann, 2009; MacWhinney, 2012).

The scope of these contexts is wide-ranging and includes informal contexts such as gatherings with friends and family and more formal contexts such as educational classrooms, and professional and workplace settings. The activities that form part of these contexts can also range from very informal to formal. Informal activities include, for example, interacting face-to-face or via social media with friends and family and engaging in recreational pursuits. More formal activities include participating in classroom instructional interactions, engaging in professional meetings and other proceedings, taking part in civil and religious ceremonies and so on.

There are two key aspects of social experiences that contribute to the development of individual language knowledge at the micro level of social activity. One is the recurring nature of the experiences and the second is the distribution and frequency with which specific linguistic components of actions are encountered in the experiences. As individuals engage in their social experiences, they draw on a range of emotional and general cognitive capacities such as perception, association, and categorization. These capacities help to focus their attention on particular constructions and patterns of actions and to detect patterns in the use of the constructions, hypothesize about their form-meanings connections, test their understandings of the connections, categorize them and so on (Bybee, 2006; Goldberg, 1995, 2003). The more routine learners’ social experiences are and the more frequent, predictable, and stable the uses of particular constructions are in the experiences, the more likely the constructions will become part of their repertoires.

Interactional Instinct

Emotion and motivation play significant roles in language learning at the micro level of social activity. Underpinning the emotional-motivational system is the interactional instinct (Lee et al., 2009; Schumann, 2010, 2013). This instinct is an innate attentional and motivational drive that pushes children to seek out and engage in emotionally rewarding, bonding relationships with their caregivers. These relationships make possible sufficient opportunities for children to be exposed to and participate in regular, routinized interactions with others. The intensely rewarding aspects of their bonds become part of their memories and serve as a template for subsequent affiliative relationships, and, along with the relationships, additional opportunities for interaction. For first language learners, these conditions ensure successful language learning (Lee et al., 2009; Schumann, 2013).

L2 learning relies on the same conditions of emotion, motivation, and opportunity. The interactional instinct can compel adolescent and adult L2 learners to seek out emotionally rewarding, motivating relationships with others who speak the language they are learning. The more positively they evaluate their potential interactions with others, the more effort L2 learners will make to participate in them and affiliate with others. However, while the interactional instinct guarantees that children in normal situations acquire their L1, L2 learning for adolescents and adults is much more variable. This is because the older L2 learners are, not only are their social relationships more complicated, but also the intensity of motivation and emotional rewards they derive from such relationships in the L2 are likely to be diminished. For example, adult learners have extensive repertoires in their L1 that allow them to express and understand complex ideas, to build and sustain interpersonal relationships with others, and to participate in a wide range of social activities. The rewards they derive from these experiences are likely to be highly motivating. Without the semiotic resources in L2 that would allow them to participate in similar types of experiences, they are likely to be less motivated to seek out and sustain interactions within L2 contexts of interaction. Consequently, their opportunities for learning are also likely to be reduced. This is further explained by the Douglas Fir Group (2016) in Quote 4.1. There is a long history of research on motivation in L2 learning, driven by concerns with enhancing the conditions by which L2 learner motivation can be increased such that successful L2 learning can occur. The topic of motivation is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Quote 4.1 On Determining the Reward Potential of L2 Contexts of Action

To determine the reward potential that may be afforded by L2 contexts of action, humans evaluate them according to five dimensions: novelty, pleasantness, goal or need significance, coping potential, and self- and social image (Lee et al., 2009). This is part of regular brain functioning: Human brains “integrate ‘emotional’ (e.g., value, risk) and ‘cognitive’ computations (e.g., prediction error, attention allocation, action selection) in ways that support adaptive behavior” (Okon-Singer et al., 2015, p. 6). For L2 learners this may mean that the more they experience emotionally and motivationally positive evaluations of their anticipated and real interactions, the more effort they will make to participate in them and affiliate with others.

Douglas Fir Group (2016, p. 28)

Interaction Engine

Undergirded by the emotional-motivational platform of the interactional instinct is the interaction engine (Levinson, 2006; Schumann, Guvendir, & Joaquin, 2013). The term refers to the cognitive abilities and behavioral dispositions that predispose individuals to engage in collaborative social interactions (Enfield & Levinson, 2006; Levinson, 2006; Enfield & Sidnell, 2014). The interaction engine comprises several types of abilities and skills. Included are abilities to infer the motivations, stances, and intentions behind others’ actions and what they understand about individuals’ own actions. It also includes the abilities to recruit the attention of others and to share understandings of the situation at hand, skills for coordinating behaviors with others to achieve common goals, and the capacity for creating and interpreting communicative actions in multiple modes, i.e., gesture, gaze, and facial behaviors in addition to verbal modes simultaneously. This “core universal set of proclivities and abilities that human beings bring, by virtue of human nature, to the business of interaction” (Levinson, 2006, p. 40) is what makes interaction between individuals possible, and thus, provides the grounding for the emergence of language knowledge.

General Cognitive Abilities

Individual learners also bring to their experiences a set of general cognitive capabilities on which they draw to register their encounters with the various semiotic resources comprising their contexts of interaction. The set of capabilities includes abilities to select and attend to particular meaning-making components and their patterns of action, to perform statistically-based analyses on various kinds of patterns and sequences, and to create mappings or analogies and form schemas based on recurrent patterns (Tomasello, 2000, 2008). It is with these capabilities that individuals’ attention is drawn to particular resources, and with which they detect patterns in their use, and hypothesize about and test understandings of their meanings in their experiences.

The Role of Input

The structure of the language environments in which language learners participate also plays a significant role in learning. Key factors include the distribution, frequency, and salience of sequences of actions and their specific linguistic constructions in the activities in which individuals are regularly engaged (Bybee, 2003; Boyd & Goldberg, 2009). Salience refers to the relative prominence of an item in the environment such that one’s attention is attracted to it (Cintrón-Valentin & Ellis, 2016). The more frequent, consistent, and salient the use of particular form-meaning pairings is in the unfolding actions of the activities, and the more learners’ attention is drawn to them, the more likely the constructions will be perceived and stored as cognitive representations of their experiences, and the more fluently individuals will access and use them. Likewise, the more frequent and salient the use of constructions is in particular contexts, the more individuals will associate the constructions with their contexts of use (Douglas Fir Group, 2016).

Two types of frequency have an effect on the development of an individual’s L2 repertoire: token frequency and type frequency (Bybee, 1995, 2008; Bybee & Thompson, 2000; Bybee & Hopper, 2001; Ellis, 2006; Ellis & Collins, 2009; Tomasello, 2000). Token frequency has to do with how often a particular construction or set of constructions appears in the input; it leads to the preservation or entrenchment of single units. Single units can include words, phrases, and even entire clauses. The more frequently individuals are exposed to particular tokens, the more likely the items will become entrenched in their repertoires and accessed as whole units. Entrenchment refers to the strengthening of memory traces through repeated activation; high frequency constructions become highly entrenched (Roehr-Brackin, 2015). This is so regardless of how seemingly irregular the constructions are.

Boyland’s (2001) study on the use of the English construction X and I is a good example of this. In her corpus of data, she found that the most frequently occurring pronoun with I is the pronoun you in the construction X and I, i.e., you and I. Because of the high frequency of the construction’s use, she argues, speakers process the phrase as one unit. Thus, they are more apt to use the unit you and I after prepositions such as between and from rather than the grammatically prescribed object pronoun me, as in between you and me or from you and me. Idioms are another example of tokens. An idiom is a phrase or clause whose meaning cannot be deduced from any single component of the phrase or clause. They are often learned and stored as whole units. English phrases such as twenty-four seven and a piece of cake, and clauses such as run around in circles and add insult to injury, are examples of such idiomatic expressions. High frequency of use of such tokens in individuals’ input promotes their entrenchment in individuals’ repertoires.

Type frequency has to do with the frequency of patterns that call for different items in particular slots. These patterns, which are more abstract constructions, are considered productive patterns. This means that they can be used to generate a wide range of meaningful acts. The more frequently a pattern is used in an individual’s linguistic environment, the more productive it is (Ellis, 2002). A pattern with high frequency in English is subject-verb-object (SVO), as in I saw a movie and the child bought a toy. What individuals extract from its frequent use and store in their repertoires is the SVO pattern, and they draw on the pattern to create new expressions. Another example of a highly frequent pattern in English is the regular past tense verb ending of –ed (verb+ed). This item is used to create past tense for thousands of different verbs, e.g., guide, guided; help, helped; call, called; and so on. The greater number of lexical items that occur in a certain position in a pattern, the more likely a general category of items will be created and the less likely the pattern will become associated with any particular lexical item (Bybee, 2010; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006).

Also key to learning are situational cues in the linguistic input that make salient and call individuals’ attention to particular components and their form-meaning relationships. These include verbal cues such as repetitions, formulations, tone and pitch changes, and nonverbal cues such as gaze and gesture (Atkinson, 2014; Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015; Ibbotson, Lieven, & Tomasello, 2013). Emotion also plays an important role in cueing learners’ attention to key aspects of their social contexts. Cues that are emotionally charged are more attention-getting than neutral cues, while negatively charged cues can hinder or block attention to them.

Individuals are active agents in this process. They use their interaction- engine and other cognitive capacities for sharing and directing joint attention to register and catalogue their experiences with language. As they engage in their recurring activities, they actively select and attend to specific kinds of information, locate patterns of form-meaning pairings, hypothesize about the motivations of others’ actions, and test to see if their intended goals were met in their interactions. It is important to note that individuals’ attention to these cues at the micro level of social activity is not uniform across learners as emotional, motivational, cognitive, and other factors can affect the salience of cues (Cintrón-Valentin & Ellis, 2016; Okon-Singer, Hendler, & Shackman, 2015). Depending on these factors and learners’ prior experiences, what may be salient to some individuals in a particular social experience may not be to others. Resulting from the variable processes of learning are individually-based repertoires that are equally variable.

To recap, the more emotionally rewarding social activities are to individuals, the more routine, frequent, salient, and stable the occurrences of particular resources are in the activities, and the more individuals’ attention is drawn to them, the more entrenched the resources become as cognitive–emotional representations of their experiences (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). It is learners’ eventual internalization and self-regulated use of their resources for taking action in their social worlds that characterizes learning. All else being equal, the more extensive, complex, and emotionally rewarding the contexts of interaction become over time and the more enduring individuals’ participation is in them, the more complex and enduring the resources comprising their repertoires will be.

Differences Between L1 and L2 Learning

The implications from findings on first language learning are fairly straightforward for L2 learning: the more exposure a learner has to frequently used, salient constructions, the greater the chance the constructions will be learned. However, while first and second language learners have access to the same mechanisms for learning at the micro level of social activity, L2 learning is, in fact, highly variable for several reasons (Cintrón-Valentin & Ellis, 2016; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006; MacWhinney, 2004; Schumann, 2013).

First, adolescent and adult learners come to L2 learning with firmly entrenched perceptual mechanisms and well-formed and entrenched constructions in their first language. The degree to which L2 constructions are similar to L1 constructions, the L1 can serve as the basis for learning the L2. However, despite any apparent similarities, differences in details between the L1 and L2 can block learners from perceiving these differences in the L2 (Ellis, 2006; Ellis & Sagarra, 2010; Five Graces Group, 2009). Blocking is a phenomenon of learned attention. That is to say, although there may be cues present in the L2 input for expressing meaning, they may be blocked from uptake by L2 learners because the cues learned in their L1s block their attention to the cues in the L2 (Ellis, 2015; Sagarra & Ellis, 2013).

It can also be the case that constructions in the L2 are of low salience, that is, difficult to detect, and thus difficult to learn. For example, for learners with English as their first language, preceding nouns with adjectives is an entrenched pattern of expression, e.g., the blue house, the appreciated donation. In other languages, such as Spanish, the adjectives conventionally follow nouns, e.g., la casa azul, la donación apreciada. Expressing such meanings using the conventions of the L2 can be difficult for the learners. Similarly, cues that are more salient in the L1 may overshadow or block cues in the L2. For example, lexical cues in the L1 that reliably reference time, such as ayer in Spanish, may block the acquisition of verb tense morphology when both cues for referencing time occur in the same utterance in the L2, such as the English expression yesterday, I went to school (Ellis, 2006; Ellis & Sagarra, 2010).

Another reason that L2 learning is more variable is because, as mentioned earlier, the social environment and conditions of learning are significantly different from those of a child acquiring a first language (Five Graces Group, 2009). Children learning their first language depend on an intense system of social support from their caregivers. In comparison, L2 learners have already been socialized into particular social activities and social groups and they may not have the same levels of support or motivations for engaging in L2 social groups and contexts of action. They may even desire to learn the L2 but lack the willingness to communicate with others using the language (MacIntyre, 2007). Even if they are motivated to engage with others who speak the L2, they may lack adequate exposure to a full range of L2 experiences, and thus have insufficient linguistic data from which to detect patterns (Bybee, 2008; Douglas Fir Group, 2016). It is useful to note that the relationship between learners’ first and second languages is dynamic and reciprocal. This means that in the case where L2 learners’ motivation for learning an L2 may be weak early on, learning experiences can increase their emotional and motivational attachments and result in reinforced connections to the second language, to their learning experiences and so on (Pavlenko, 2013).

Summary

Language learning begins at the micro level of social activity as we participate in recurrent activities with others within the social contexts of our daily lives. As we engage in our social experiences, we draw on a range of emotional and cognitive capacities that bring our attention to constructions in the making of meaning, allowing us to detect patterns in their use, hypothesize about their communicative meanings, test our understandings, and so on. Also playing a role are the cues used by more experienced participants to focus our attention on relevant meaning-making resources. The more routine our social experiences are and the more frequent, predictable, salient, and stable the uses of particular constructions are, the more likely the constructions will become part of our repertoires. Resulting from the ongoing process are individually-based organizations of language knowledge, i.e., collections of “largely prefabricated particulars” (Hopper, 1998, p. 164) that are “variable and probabilistic” (Bybee & Hopper, 2001, p. 219).

While L2 learners rely on the same processes they use to learn their first language, L2 learning for adolescents and adults is more variable. The more similar that L1 meaning-making constructions are to those in the L2, the easier it may be for L2 learners to learn them. However, even slight differences between L1 and L2 can complicate the learning of L2. Also more variable is L2 learners’ motivation for seeking out opportunities to use the L2 with L2 speakers. However, while there are challenges to learning another language, they are not static or deterministic, but rather dynamic (Douglas Fir Group, 2016).

Implications for Understanding L2 Teaching

It is at the micro level of social activity where the detailed work of L2 learning occurs. From an understanding of L2 learning as situated, and attentionally and socially gated, we can derive four implications for understanding L2 teaching.

1. To learn another language one must be involved in contexts of interaction using the language. The inextricable link obtaining between L2 learning and use highlights the critical role that the contexts of L2 classrooms play in L2 learning. These contexts do not just simply awaken what is already in learners, facilitating some kind of fixed, stable course of development. Rather, they give fundamental shape to the paths that learning takes and the compositions of learners’ repertoires. To state another way, what learners take away from their classrooms in terms of their developing L2s is intimately tied to the kinds of contexts of use that teachers create in their interactions with learners. L2 teaching is inextricably, inexorably related to L2 learning.

2. No two L2 learners experience the same contexts of language use in exactly the same way. Learners in our classrooms come with different histories of L1 learning and use, and consequently different L1 repertoires. They also come with varying abilities to detect patterns (Douglas Fir Group, 2016), and varying levels of motivation for participating in L2 social contexts. Despite our best efforts to create rich L2 learning environments in our classrooms, L2 learners’ trajectories of learning and their developing L2 repertoires will inevitably differ. This observation helps us understand why our L2 learners end up in different places at the end of a lesson, a unit, a semester, and at the end of the entire course.

3. The challenges of L2 learning for older L2 learners at the micro level of social activity notwithstanding, there is much we can do as teachers to assist them, particularly in recruiting their attention to components of the L2 that may be blocked or less salient. One way is to enhance the linguistic input to increase availability and accessibility of those components that may not be readily available (Collins, Trofimovich, White, Cardoso, & Horst, 2009). Integrating multiple modes of meaning making into the linguistic environment can also help to focus learners’ attention. Finally, explicit instruction can increase their awareness of those components that they would otherwise ignore or miss. The matter of explicit instruction is taken up more fully in Chapter 8.

4. As L2 teachers, we are not solely responsible for designing a rich learning environment and supporting learners’ development. L2 learners play an equally significant role. They need to be active in co-constructing L2 learning spaces in the classroom and in designing projects that push them to maximize their learning opportunities (Eskildsen & Theodórsdóttir, 2017). For them to do this work, learners need to be positioned as agentive project makers and problem-solvers. The matter of individual agency is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Pedagogical Activities

In this series of pedagogical activities, you will engage in different knowledge processes that will assist you in relating to and making sense of the concepts that inform our understanding of L2 learning as situated, and attentionally and socially gated.

Experiencing

A. Salience and Learning

Recall your most salient memories of learning a second language. Describe the contexts, the materials, the people involved, the places and so on. What did you find yourself paying attention to? What difficulties did you experience? Compare your memories to those of a classmate and together construct a Venn diagram that represents the relationships between your memories. Figure 4.1 contains examples of Venn diagrams. What can you conclude about the links between salience and L2 learning?

B. Classroom Contexts of Learning

Summarize four or five main ideas from your reading of the chapter. Based on your summary, design a tool that can be used to gather data on how language teaching is accomplished in a language classroom. The purpose is not to evaluate the teaching, but to observe various features of the learning environment that the teacher creates through the spatial arrangement of desks and chairs, her/his interactions with learners and her/his use of written or visual materials, digital technologies, and other artifacts. If you cannot find a classroom near you, search the internet for a video of a language classroom. To get enough data, the video should be at least six minutes long. Summarize your findings and compare them with those of others. What can you conclude about the relationship between teaching and the design of language classroom learning environments?

Figure 4.1 Examples of Venn diagrams.

Conceptualizing

A. Concept Development

Select two of the concepts listed in Box 4.1. Craft a definition of each of the two concepts in your own words. Create one or two concrete examples of each concept that you have either experienced first-hand or can imagine. Pose one or two questions that you still have about the concepts and develop a way to gather more information.

Box 4.1 Concepts: L2 learning is situated, and attentionally and socially gated

(blocked) attention

domain general cognitive capabilities

interaction engine

interactional instinct

token frequency

type frequency

salience

B. Concept Development

Choose one of the concepts you selected from the list in Box 4.1 on which to gather additional information. Using the internet search for information about the concept. Create a list of five or so facts about it. These can include names of scholars who study the concept, studies that have been done on the concept along with their findings, visual images depicting the concept, and so on. Create a concept web that visually records the information you gathered from your explorations.

Analyzing

A. Contexts of L2 Learning

The article by Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir (2017) reports on two cases of L2 learning, one inside the classroom and one outside, in the “wild”, showing how different learning environments were constructed in the two contexts. Read the article and then write a report that 1. identifies the main argument, 2. describes the features of each learning context, 3. summarizes the findings from each case, and 4. concludes with a discussion of what you consider to be two or three significant implications for your own teaching.

B. Classroom Materials

Language textbooks play a central role in classroom L2 learning. Given their importance, it would be useful to conduct an analysis of their content in terms of how well they appear to support usage-based understandings of language and learning. In pairs or small groups, select two or three textbooks that are used in a language course you are familiar with or aspire to teach. It can be for any grade and any group of L2 learners. Create a list of criteria about language and L2 learning derived from the material in Chapters 2, 3, and 4 to use in the analysis of the textbooks. Once your criteria are determined, use the list to evaluate the content of each textbook. Compile your results and prepare a multimodal presentation on them for the class.

Applying

A. Classroom Contexts of Learning

Building on your report of the article by Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir (2017), together with your classmates, in pairs or small groups, brainstorm at least four ways that you can build links between learning spaces inside and outside of the classroom. Design a multimodal project that represents these ways and, together with the rest of the class, consider ways to disseminate your projects to a wider audience. Suggestions include holding in-class presentations and seeking feedback from your classmates via online blogs, holding a workshop for other language teachers at your university, presenting your projects at a local or statewide professional organization and uploading your projects to a language teacher website that allows teachers to share their work. One such site is Share My Lesson, where members can contribute content and share ideas (https://sharemylesson.com).

B. Learning Outside of the Classroom

This activity is an extension of the previous exercise. Design a project for your learners that takes them into the community for extended opportunities to use the target language. Use the case of Anna, presented in the article by Eskildsen and Theodórsdóttir (2017), as an example. If the language you are teaching or hope to teach is not prevalent in the community, design a project that utilizes online social media. For a list of social media sites, visit this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites.

Once the project is completed, consider ways to share your project with others.

References

Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbodyworld: A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 47(4), 467–483.

Boyd, J., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.

Boyland, J. T. (2001). Cognitive processes that account for pronoun usage. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 45, 383.

Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.

Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In R. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell.

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.

Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). London: Routledge.

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (2001). Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In J. Bybee and P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J., & Thompson, S. (2000). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 23, 65– 85.

Cintrón-Valentín, M. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, article 1284.

Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., Cardoso, W., & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 336–353.

Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.

Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.

Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24.

Ellis, N. C. (2015). Implicit and explicit learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, N. C., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 329–336.

Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589.

Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 553–580.

Enfield, N. & Levinson, S. (Eds.) (2006). Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and interaction. London: Berg.

Enfield, N., & Sidnell, J. (2014). Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. The social origins of language, 92–104.

Eskildsen, S. W., & Theodórsdóttir, G. (2017). Constructing L2 learning spaces: Ways to achieve learning inside and outside the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 38(2), 143–164.

Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 268–297.

Five Graces Group. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26.

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.

Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), New psychology of language (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2013). The attention-grammar interface: Eye-gaze cues structural choice in children and adults. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 457–481.

Lee, N., Mikesell, L., Joaquin, A. D. L., Mates, A. W., & Schumann, J. H. (2009). The interactional instinct: The evolution and acquisition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levinson, S. (2006). On the human “interaction engine”. In N. Enfield & S. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality (pp. 39–69). London: Berg.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576.

MacWhinney, B. (2004). A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31, 883–914.

MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the unified model. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). London: Routledge.

Okon-Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., & Shackman, A. J. (2015). The neurobiology of emotion–cognition interactions: Fundamental questions and strategies for future research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, article 58.

Pavlenko, A. (2013). The affective turn in SLA: From “affective factors” to “language desire” and “commodification of affect”. In D. Gabryś-Barker and J. Bielska (Eds.), Affective dimension in second language acquisition (pp. 211–225). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Roehr-Brackin, K. (2015). Long-term development in an instructed adult L2 learner: Usage-based and complexity theory applied. In T. Cadierno & S.W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 181–206). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Sagarra, N., & Ellis, N. C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing verbal morphology: Language Experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 261–290.

Schumann, J. H. (2010). Applied linguistics and the neurobiology of language. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 244–260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schumann, J. H. (2013). Societal responses to adult difficulties in L2 acquisition: Toward an evolutionary perspective on language acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 190–209.

Schumann, J. H., Güvendir, E., & Joaquin, A. D. L. (2013). The interactional instinct and related perspectives. In A. Joaquin & J. Schumann (Eds.), Exploring the interactional instinct (pp. 256–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 156–163.

Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.