Difficulty and Complexity of Language Features and Second Language Instruction

Abstract

Since the 1990s, researchers in applied linguistics and second language acquisition have given increasing attention to how instruction affects the acquisition and mastery of language features, and whether some types of language features are more effectively instructed than others. Type of language feature has typically been considered in terms of whether features are somehow complex, hard, or difficult or, rather, simple or easy to learn or use. Accordingly, the debate has centered on two issues: what are the simple and complex features of language and what features—simple or complex—should be the main target of second language (L2) instruction? This entry reviews the different and often contradictory views that researchers have on these issues as well as the inconclusive findings of a large body of empirical studies comparing the effects and effectiveness of instruction on simple versus complex features. The entry argues that these contradictory theoretical claims and inconclusive empirical findings are largely due the inconsistency with which the notion of L2 feature complexity and difficulty have been interpreted, defined, and operationalized across studies. L2 complexity/difficulty is a multifaceted and multidimensional construct that can be defined and operationalized from at least four different perspectives: developmental complexity, psycholinguistic complexity, structural complexity, and pedagogical complexity. These four approaches to L2 complexity/difficulty and their putative link with instruction are described, and directions for future research in this domain of research are formulated.

Learning second language morphosyntax in dialogue under explicit and implicit conditions: An experimental study with advanced adult learners of German

“…The effectiveness of particular learning conditions might further be modulated by the nature of the target structure (DeKeyser, 1995;N. C. Ellis, 1993;Housen, 2020;Robinson, 1996;Spada & Tomita, 2010). Few studies have directly investigated the extent to which the learnability of grammatical features under explicit and implicit conditions is mediated by properties that are often subsumed under the rubric of their 'difficulty'.…”

Why Plato needs psychology. Proposal for a theoretical framework underpinning research on the cognitive transfer effects of studying classical languages

“…To summarize the training task, classical language education teaches pupils structurally complex languages one (Housen, 2020): Complexity then refers to the cognitive effort and resources deployed to process language features in second language learning and use. The complexity a learner experiences emanates from the language features themselves, from a multitude of learner characteristics, among which age, motivation and the distance between the first and the second language, and from the learning context, where second language acquisition theory makes a distinction between explicit and implicit settings.…”

“…The inconstant sum of feature-related, learner-related and context-related complexity is sometimes called relative complexity, as opposed to absolute or structural complexity, which is an unchanging property of individual language features. Linguistically speaking (Housen, 2020), phonological, lexical, and grammatical features are complex or not, depending on the internal structuring of linguistic units and their interconnections with other linguistic units. Structural complexity can be of a purely formal nature or rather of a functional nature, the latter being determined by how many functions a linguistic unit has and how transparent the form-function mappings are.…”

“…The categories are adapted fromHousen, 2020;Housen & Simoens 2016;and McWhorter, 2001. The examples are our own.…”

“…The literature reveals at least four approaches to defining complexity(Housen, 2020;Housen & Simoens, 2016). Some define it in terms of developmental timing (1), a central concept in the Processability Theory on second language acquisition (see for examplePienemann & Lenzing, 2015).…”