PSYCHOLIONGUISTICS

CODE: D61D722
CREDIT: 2 SKS
MATA KULIAH SEMESTER PENDEK
TAHUN AKADEMIK 2008/ 2009
BY HASTO B SANTOSO

The subject is called psycholinguistic – the study of language in

relation with psychological factors. Relevant to the nature of
psycholinguistic our short semester program will discuss about the
psychological factors affecting one success in language learning/
acquisition. It tries to introduce how children learn first language and
second language.
First of all, we will browse some references on if children learn or
acquire a language. Some experts have been proposing different views
on this question. Dunn (1983 in Rachmajanti, 1996) debated whether
children acquire or learn the new language. This linguist agreed that
children both acquire and learn language simultaneously, especially
where the situation and environment permit them to explore and
experience to use language for their real communication either as an
interaction or as transaction among fellows.
In addition to Dunn’s view, Krashen (1981:37) states that a good
language learner is a good acquirer. Children, he said, tend to acquire
rather than to learn the language consciously where they have the
opportunities to use the language to interact with others. They love
doing trial and error in acquiring the new language. Krashen ensured
that process of acquiring the language run well where peer approval
and acceptance exist. He also said that children focus more on
meaning than grammatical correctness. The children language is
sometimes incorrect according to adult norms but that was the process
of acquiring the language. Then, van Els et al. (1984:107) confirms that
children have a greater empathic capacity. Children have not
developed inhibition about their self-identity, and are, therefore, not
afraid to sound ridiculous and are prepared to take risks when
experimenting with their imperfect new language. Many young children
are assured to still acquire first language although they learn second
language. They will attempt to use sounds, words, and even longer
expression without feeling afraid of making mistakes. In second
language or even third language, Dunn (1983 in Rachmajanti, 1996)
says, they will also apply the same approach.
Children in EFL and ESL or bilingual environment are believed to
all undergo approximately the same stages, they acquire all languages
in more or less the same order, acquisition of phonological system,
semantic system, syntactic system (Brumfit, Moon, & Tongue
1991:215-216)
 In short, children will learn best when they go through authentic
situation, where they are given chance to explore and experiment with
their language they are learning.

Factors Affecting Success in Second/ Foreign Language

Acquisition
Van Els et al. (1984:102) states that there are two types of
factors to bear in mind affecting one’s success in L2 learning, namely
learner characteristics (such as attitude, motivation, age, personality)
and environmental characteristics (such as the nature and degree of
contact with native speakers, socio-economic status, the quality of L2
instruction). In addition to factors mentioned by van Els et al., Larsen-
Freeman and Long (1991:154) added aptitude, cognitive style,
hemisphere specialization, and learning strategies as other prominent
factors in L2 learning. The following sections discuss each factor
referring to some experts’ perspectives.

Learner Characteristics
In the preceding section it was pointed out that all normal
children, given chance to explore and to experiment with their
language they are learning, will learn best. They will learn or acquire
language optimally where they are provided this learning situation. In
this respect, learning is not differed from acquiring.
However, many researchers debate on various factors attached
to the learners that affect the speed or success in second/ foreign
language learning (Lightbown and Spada, 1993; Larsen-Freeman and
Long, 1993; van Els et al., 1984). One of the most obvious potential
explanations for the comparative lack of success of second language
learners, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993) say, is that second
language learners begin acquiring the language at a later age than do
first language learners. Thus, the effect of age is the first explanation
considered in this section. In addition to age, language aptitude, social-
psychological factors, and learning strategies will be discussed
thoroughly in the following section.

Age
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) say that the question whether
the age at which someone is first exposed to an L2, in the classroom or
naturally, affects acquisition of that language in any way is still an
extended debate. Some writers claim that L2 acquisition is the same
process and just as successful whether the learners begin as a child or
an adult and/ or that adults are really better learners because they
start off faster. Others think the data ambiguous and / or that adults
are at a disadvantage only in a few areas, especially phonology. Still
others are convinced that younger learners are at an advantage,
particularly where ultimate levels of attainment, such as accent free
L2, performance, are concerned.
Referring to some recent research findings, Larsen-Freeman and
Long (1991:206) conclude whatever the explanation for a critical or
sensitive period turns out to be, the documented age-related decline in
L2 acquisition abilities suggests that foreign language programs should
begin in elementary school, where feasible, if eventual native-like
attainment is important. The data of older versus younger children
suggest, however, that the optimal timing is not the earliest possible,
but may be around nine, although being this specific, they say, is
probably a little premature. Where adult beginners are concerned,
appropriate instruction helps, so the teacher and students still have
many things to do.
On the other hand, Steinberg (2001:187-188) suggests that
adults can learn a second language. He says that there is no
demonstrated critical age for learning syntax. He also says that
presumably there is a critical age for pronunciation, though for
particular adults they still have a chance of being able to sound their
second language truly like the native speakers. In his view,
complicated system of grammatical cases of the target language can
be learned by a normal adult who is willing to devote the time to
learning them. He also ensures that there is no critical age in terms of
acquiring the syntax of a second language. It implies that even a
young learner can learn syntax if he is given details using meaningful
contexts and interesting ways. At the last idea, they affirm that a
careless conclusion saying pronunciation likeliness to native speakers
can only be achieved by those who learn the target language from the
very beginning of their lives is not recommended.
Prior to Steinberg, van Els et al. (1984) conclude that there is not
enough evidence to support critical period hypothesis-associated with
Lenneberg (1967:175-182) who argues that natural language learning
‘by mere exposure’ can take place only during the ‘critical period for
language acquisition’, roughly between age 2 to puberty. Before 2 he
said, language learning is impossible due to lack of maturation of the
brain, while by the time of puberty lateralization of the language
function to the dominant hemisphere is complete, resulting in the loss
of cerebral plasticity needed for natural language learning. Based on a
number of the research findings, van Els et al. et al. conclude that
children who proved to be successful in second language have usually
been directed at second language learning in a native speaker’s
environment. It suggests, he reminds, not age, but the learning
situation in combination with age-related affective and cognitive
factors could account for some of the variation in success between
child and adult in second/ foreign language learning.
To sum up, the early learner has greater opportunities to attain
native like pronunciation- though it is not the main goal of language
learning – provided they obtain ample comprehensible input and
chance to use the language in situational context. Because children
have not yet developed inhibition about their self-identity, they are not
afraid to sound ridiculous and are prepared to take risks when
experimenting with their as yet far from perfect L2 knowledge.
Children do not have negative attitudes toward the speakers of the
language. Children generally have a strong integrative motivation to
learn the language. However, formal correctness should not be the first
focus of the learning; their cognitive awareness has not yet developed.

Language Aptitude.
Generally speaking, aptitude means natural ability or skill at
doing something. Language aptitude, thus, means natural ability at
doing something related to language. There is evidence that some
individuals have an exceptional aptitude for language learning.
However, research does not show that human being exhibits a wide
range of aptitude for learning a second language (Lightbown and
Spada, 1993).
Controversy exists around the issue of whether or not language
aptitude can be developed. Neufeld (in Larsen-Freeman and Long,
1993:207) believes that one’s ability in L2 is not innate, but rather is
dependent upon prior learning experience. Carroll (in Larsen-Freeman
and Long, 1993:207), on the other hand, asserts that language
aptitude is relatively fixed over long periods of an individual’s life span,
and relatively hard to modify in any significant way. To support Carroll,
Skehan (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993:207) citing other
researchers’ research findings says that aptitude is not particularly
trainable. Whether language aptitude is innate or not, there is
somehow indisputable evidence linking performance on language
aptitude tests with classroom achievement in a new language.
Therefore, its impact may not be ignored.
High-quality language instruction, Caroll says further, may
eliminate aptitude differences. With high-quality instruction, most
learners’ needs will be met. In contrast, when the quality is not
particular high, students may have to compensate for the lack of
suitable instruction, and that is when aptitude differences may be most
apparent.
In addition, Wesche (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993:207)
found that when students were matched with the methodological
approach that suited their aptitude profiles best, positive attitudes
were encouraged and students’ achievement was enhanced. Thus,
matching students’ language aptitude profiles with particular
methodological approaches might improve the negative consequences
of working with groups of students with heterogeneous aptitude
profiles.
Social-psychological factors
Two important points are to be elaborated here, motivation and
attitude. To discuss motivation, Gardner and Lambert’s proposition (in
Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993; van Els et al., 1984: 117) is worth
reviewing. They propose two construct of motivation, i.e. integrative
and instrumental motivation. A learner is said to have integrative
motivation when the learner wishes to identify with native speakers of
the target language. On the other hand, a learner is said to have
instrumental motivation when the learner is motivated to learn an L2
for utilitarian purposes, such as furthering career, improving social
status or meeting an education requirements.
According to Gardner and Lambert (in Larsen-Freeman and Long,
1993), an instrumentally oriented learner can be as intensively
motivated as an integratively oriented one. They hypothesized that
integratively oriented leaner would be better in the long run for
sustaining the drive necessary to master the L2. Regarding with the
two constructs of motivation Larsen-Freeman and Long conclude that
both play its role in the success of L2 learning.
However, Strong (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993) explains
that motivation does not necessary promote acquisition, but rather
result from it: those who meet with success in SLA become more
motivated to study. Lightbown and Spada (1993) added that research
cannot indicate precisely how motivation affects learning. Whether
motivation produces successful learning or does success enhances
motivation, there is still doubtful explanation.
Alpetkin (in Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993) admonishes
language teachers to be sensitive to the motivation type of their
students. Some teachers may be operating under the questionable
assumption that students’ integrative motivation brings better result
than instrumental motivation. Such teachers may be tempted to use
methodological approaches that encourage assimilation to the target
culture in a second language context. Teachers should be encouraged
from such practices that ‘even in cases of instrumentally motivated
language learning, a person is forced to take on a new identity if he is
to become competent in second language. Alpetkin rejects the notion
that successful learners must assume new identities.
Concerning attitudes, van Els et al. (1984:116) quoting Lambert
(1964) wrote that attitudes have often been considered in terms of
three components: (1) a cognitive component, which refers to one’s
belief about the object; (2) an affective component, which refers to the
amount of positive or negative feeling one has towards the object; and
(3) a conative component, which refers to one’s behavioral intentions,
or to one’s actual behavior towards the object. Gardner is said to have
claimed a linear relationship such that attitudes were said to affect
motivation which in turn affected second language acquisition. Thus,
according to Gardner, based on correlation, attitudes were said to have
an important but indirect effect on second language acquisition, wrote
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993).
Anyhow, Le Mahieu’s (1984) schema depicting the reciprocal
relationship between attitude and L2 proficiency is best to refer here.

Variance cause Variance

in in
attitudes cause L2 proficiency

Source: Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993:183

Personality
When discussing personality as suspicious factors for success in
second language learning, van Els et al. (1984:121-124) mention
extroversion and empathy as the aspects to consider. On the other
hand, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993:184-191) added those two
aspects with self-esteem, anxiety, risk taking, sensitivity to rejection,
inhibition, and tolerance of ambiguity.
Extroversion. When asked to describe a typical extrovert pupil,
Brown (1980 in van Els et al., 1984) wrote that a teacher would
probably use labels such as outgoing, adventuresome, talkative, and
sociable. An introverted pupil would very likely be described as being
reserved, shy and quiet. Brown (1984) and also Larsen-Freeman and
Long (1993) wrote that it is a popular belief that extroverted learners
learnt at a faster rate than introverts. However, they say, the result of
empirical research are inconclusive.
In some cases extroversion seemed positively linked with
language learning success; in other cases, the more introverted
learners outperformed their extroverted counterparts (Larsen-Freeman
and Long, 1993). Wong-Fillmore’s classroom-centered research (1982)
provides one clue as to why no clear pattern emerges. The type of
instruction an individual receives might make a difference as to which
personality type is favored, and therefore, more successful. For
example, Wong-Fillmore (1982) was reported to have observed that
shy children progressed more rapidly than more outgoing children in
classrooms which were more teacher-oriented and structured, rather
than oriented towards group activities. It suggests the need to
investigate how personality characteristics interact with type of
instruction.
Empathy. Van Els et al. (1984) quoting Brown (1980) defines
empathy as the projection of one’s own personality into the personality
of another in order to understand hi better. Van Els et al. wrote that the
superiority of children over adults in learning an L2, especially in
pronunciation, often thought as the result of the children’s greater
emphatic capacity. It is lost to a smaller or greater extent in the
process of growing up. Empathy was mostly measured using Micro
Momentary Expression (MME). It measures the frequency of subjects’
perception of changes in facial expression in a film of a woman to give
the indication of the subjects’ empathy (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993;
van Els et al., 1984). They conclude that empathy has beneficial
influence to second language learners especially in pronunciation. It
suggests that learning a language requires learner’s acceptance
toward the social context where the language is used, as a result it
also demands the learners’ empathy to the target language attaching
properties, acculturation in Krashen words (1987:45).
Self-esteem. Self-esteem is defined as the feeling of self-worth an
individual possesses (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993). At the highest
level is global self-esteem, or the individual’s overall self-assessment.
At the medial level is specific self-esteem, or how individual perceive
themselves in various life contexts (education, work, etc.) and
according to various characteristics (intelligence, attractiveness, etc.).
At the lowest level is the evaluation one gives oneself on specific tasks
(writing a paper, driving a car, etc.). Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993)
reported that a significant correlation between three levels of self
esteem with the students’ performance was found.
Anxiety. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993) say that all humans
presumably experience anxiety at one time or other. It is said that
certain people might be anxious more often than others, or have
severe reaction to anxiety-producing situations such that language
learning would be impede. Anxiety thus, they say, may be facilitating
or debilitating. Facilitating anxiety motivates the leaner to fight the
new learning task; it gears the learner emotionally for approval
behavior. Debilitating anxiety, on the other hand, motivates the learner
to flee the new learning task; it stimulates the individual emotionally to
adopt avoidance behavior. Based on various research findings, it is
implied in their analysis that anxiety may either encouraging or
discouraging learning depending on how the learner reacts to the
anxiety.
Risk taking. Risk taking is often defined as willingness to try to
use target language utterances though one is not really sure he is
right. Rubin (1975 in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1993) characterized a
good learner as willing to guess, willing to appear foolish in order to
communicate, and willing to sue what knowledge the do have of the
target language in order to create novel utterances. Just as anxiety
does, risk taking may either encourage or discourage learning. Too
much risk taking will cause inappropriateness of expression, while to
little risk taking will make learners do not say a word, Larsen-Freeman
and Long (1993) conclude.
Sensitivity to rejection. Sensitivity to rejection is defined as the
antithesis of risk taking. Mehrabian (1970 in Larsen-Freeman & Long,
1993) defined it as the subject’s expectation of the negative
reinforcing quality of others for himself. Naiman et al. (1978 in Larsen-
Freeman & Long, 1993) hypothesized those individuals who were
sensitive to rejection might avoid active participation in language
class, fearing ridicule by their classmates or teacher. This lack of
participation was then translated into less successful second language
acquisition or learning.
Inhibition. Describing the possible relation between inhibition and
language learning, Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993) quoted the
research finding of Guiora and his colleagues (1972). They were
reported to have studied that a certain amount of alcohol lowered
inhibition and thus heightened empathy and permeability of ego
boundaries. As a result, the subjects have better performance in the
target language pronunciation. Other study attempted at knowing the
effect of hypnosis and benzodiazepine (valium, a sort of pill with low
composition of anesthesia) were reported to have been done but there
was no convincing conclusion.
Tolerance of ambiguity. Tolerance/intolerance ambiguity was
reported as the last personality variable (Larsen-Freeman & Long,
1993). They reported Naiman et al. (1978) who found that tolerance of
ambiguity significantly related to the score of listening comprehension
task but not on imitation task. To describe how tolerance ambiguity
relates to language learning is not difficult, Larsen-Freeman and Long
say. A language learner is confronted with new stimuli, many of which
are ambiguous. Clarity is not usually forthcoming, and person with a
low tolerance of ambiguity may experience frustration and diminished
performance as a result. A person with low tolerance tends to (1) make
frequent appeals to authority, such as requesting a definition of every
word in a passage, (2) categorize phenomena rather than to calibrate
them along the continuum, (3) and jump to conclusion.

Cognitive Style
Cognitive style has been defined by Ausubel (1978:203) as ‘self-
consistent and enduring individual differences in cognitive organization
and functioning’. A number of different cognitive styles is said to have
been identified in the psychological literature, with few of these being
investigated for their SLA implication (Larsen-Freeman and Long,
1993). They suggest terming cognitive style as tendency, not as a
permanent trait due to the fact that those usually favoring one
particular cognitive style may switch to another in some
circumstances. Several cognitive styles which have been investigated
are asserted below.
Field independence and dependence. Field- independence and
field dependence are among other cognitive styles which are thought
to be essential in foreign language learning. Field independence and
field dependence is usually measured by one of the various forms of
the Embedded Figures Test (EFT). This test asks the testee to locate a
simple figure within a larger complex figure (the field) in which it is
embedded (van Els et al., 1984:113; Larsen-Freeman & Long,
1993:193). Those testees who have little difficulty in locating the
simple figure are labeled field independent and those who have great
difficulty field dependent. Based on various research findings, van Els
et al. hypothesizes that the field independent person is the better L2
learner, as he would be better able to focus on the relevant variables in
a language lesson or a conversation than a field dependent person.
However, van Els et al. say, it can also be hypothesized that field
dependent persons are superior L2 learners. Van Els et al. closed their
discussion with referent to Brown (1980) speculation saying that field
dependence may be more serving in traditional classroom settings with
strong emphasis on analytical activities and that field dependence may
be more serving in the natural setting.
Reflectivity and impulsivity. Of the very limited studies
concerning the relationship between these cognitive styles, van Els et
al. (1984:114) and Larsen-Freeman & Long (1993:195) write that an
impulsive person tends to make a quick, or gambling guess, whereas a
reflective person tends to make a slower, more calculated decision.
Reflectivity/impulsivity is usually measured by the Matching Familiar
Figures Test (MFFT). Subjects are presented with a figure and then a
number of facsimiles. Subject’s response time in making a match is
considered a measure of the cognitive style. Subjects who take longer,
but fewer errors, are considered reflective; those with opposite
patterns are considered impulsive. It has been reported that reflective
persons tend to be more anxious about the quality of their
performance than impulsive persons. Reflective persons are also more
capable of sustained attention. It has been found that impulsive
children made more errors in reading than reflective children. Anyhow
they concluded that a learner should try neither to be too reflective or
too impulsive. Both of the styles may hamper language learning when
a leaner is too much depending on one style.
Broad and narrow category width. Larsen-Freeman and Long
(1993:195) and van Els et al., (1984:114) write that the cognitive style
of category width refers to certain people’s tendency to include many
items in one category, even some that may not be appropriate (broad
categorizers), or to other people’s tendency to exclude items from
categories even when they may belong (narrow categorizers).
Category width is often measured by Pettigrew’s Width Scale. In
relation to language learning, van Els et al. citing Brown (1980), say
that L2 learners who are broad categorizers tend to produce lots of
overgeneralization errors, in that they tend to subsume too many items
under one linguistic rule, whereas narrow categorizers have difficulties
in making the generalizations efficient for L2 learning, in that they tend
to create rule fro every item.
 Aural and visual. This cognitive style refers to a person’s
preferred mode of presentation: aural or visual. Levin et al. (1974 in
Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993) are said to have observed that many
learners could be considered bimodal, i.e. learning via one mode or the
other does not contribute appreciably to a different outcome. Other
researchers convince that when students are taught through their
preferred modality, they perform better. It implies that a teacher
should have the ability to create teaching and learning process in such
a way that particular student’s learning mode is accommodated. This
cognitive style can best be measured using Edmond’s Learning Style
Identification Exercise (ELSIE) developed by Reinert, Larsen-Freeman
and Long wrote.
Analytic and gestalt. Hatch (1974 in Larsen- Freeman & Long,
1993: 197) is reported to have made distinction between learners who
are data gatherers and learners who are rule-formers. Data gatherers
are fluent but inaccurate producers of the target language whereas
rule formers are more halting in their use of the target language but
more accurate as well. Some children seem to take language word by
word, analyzing it into components; others approach language in a
more holistic or gestalt like manner. In other words, learners approach
the task of second language acquisition differently; they approach it
from either an analytical or synthetic perspective.

Learning Strategies
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1993) say that the product of one’s
personality, cognitive style or hemisphere preference might be termed
‘learning strategies’, which by other experts deserved different term
such as learning behavior, cognitive processes and tactics. Learning
strategies refer to the technique or devices which a learner may use to
acquire knowledge. Good language learners are willing and accurate
guessers who have a strong desire to communicate, and will attempt
to do so even at the risk of appearing foolish. Even though they are
highly motivated to communicate they also attend to form and
meaning. Good language learners, moreover, practice and monitor
their own speech and the speech of others.
Learners’ strategies are said to change due to over. Of the three
defined learning strategies (metacognitive, cognitive and social
mediation), beginning and intermediate ESL students use different
range, type and frequency of learning strategies (O’Malley 1985 in
Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1993). He claims that intermediate students
tend to use proportionately more metacognitive strategies than
students with beginning-level proficiency. They concluded that
students who develop greater target language proficiency are more
able to attend to metacognitive control of learning than are the
beginners. The succinct description of each learning strategy can be
seen in Table 1
References
Brumfit, C., Moon, J., and Tongue, R., (Eds). 1991a. Teaching English to
Children. Musselburg: Scotpoint Ltd.
Els, T van., Bangoerts, T., Extra, G., Os, C van., and Dieten, A-M J-van.
1984. Applied Linguistics and the Learning and Teaching of
Foreign Language. New York: Edward Arnold (A Division of
Hodder & Stoughton).
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. 1991. An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition
Research. London: Longman.
Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. 1993. How Languages are Learned.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rachmajanti, S. 1999. Promoting the Mastery of Language
Components through the Mode of Reading Adapted Stories to
Elementary-School-Age Learners. Tesis tidak diterbitkan. Malang:
Program PPS IKIP Malang.
Santoso, Hasto Budi. 2005. English Performance of Junior High School
Students with Different
Educational Background. Thesis unpublished. PPS Universitas
Negeri Malang: Malang.
Steinberg, D. D. 2001. Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman
Linguistics Library.
 Table 1 Learning Strategies
Learning Strategies
A. Metacognitive Strategies
Advance Organizers
Directed Attention
Selective Attention
Self-management
Advance preparation
Self-monitoring
Delayed production
Self-evaluation
Self-reinforcement
B. Cognitive Strategies
Repetition
Resourcing
Directed physical response
Description
Making a general but comprehensive
preview of the organizing concept or
principle in an anticipated learning
activity
Deciding in advance to attend in
general to learning task and to ignore
irrelevant distractors
Deciding in advance to attend to
specific aspects of language input or
situational details that will cue the
retention of language input
Understanding the condition that help
one learn and arranging for the
presence of those condition
Planning for and rehearsing linguistic
components necessary to carry out an
upcoming language task
Correcting one’s speech for accuracy
in pronunciation, grammar,
vocabulary, or for appropriateness
relate to the setting of to the people
who are present
Consciously deciding to postpone
speaking to learn initially through
listening comprehension
Checking outcomes of one’s own
language learning against an internal
measure of completeness and
accuracy
Arranging rewards for oneself when a
language learning activity has been
accomplished successfully
Imitating a language model, including
overt practice and silent rehearsal
Using target language reference
materials
Relating new information to physical
actions, as with directives
Table 1 Learning Strategies Definitions (continued)
Learning Strategies Description
Translation Using a first language as a base for
understanding and/or producing the
second language

Grouping
Reordering or reclassifying and
perhaps labeling the material to be
learned based on common attributes
Note-taking

Writing down the main idea,

important points, outline, or summary
Deduction of information presented orally or in
writing

Recombination Consciously applying rules to produce

or understand the second language

Constructing a meaningful sentence

Imagery or larger language sequence by
combining known elements in a new
way

Auditory representation Relating new information to visual

concepts in memory via familiar,
easily retrievable visualizations,
Key word phrases, or locations

Retention of the sound or similar

sound for a word, phrase, or longer
language sequence

Contextualization Remembering a new word I the

second language by (1) identifying a
familiar word in the first language
Elaboration that sound like or otherwise resemble
the new word, an (2) generating
easily recalled images of some
Transfer relationship between the new word

Placing a word or phrase in a

meaningful language sequence
Inferencing
Relating new information to other
concepts in memory

Questions for clarification Using previously acquired linguistic

C. Social mediation
Cooperation
and/ or conceptual knowledge to
facilitate a new language learning
task
Using available information to guess
 meanings of new items, predicts
outcomes, or fill in missing
information

Asking a teacher or other native

sPaker for repetition, paraphrasing,
explanation and/or examples.

Working with one or more peers to

obtain feedback, pool information, or
model a language activity.
Source: O’Malley, et al. 1985 in Freeman and Long (1999:201)