Introduction: Cognitive Perspectives on Difficulty and Complexity in L2 Acquisition

Abstract

The theme that runs through the contributions to this special issue is diffi culty , an important yet challenging theme in second language acquisition (SLA) that, after the demise of the contrastive analysis hypothesis (e.g., Stockwell, Bowen, & Martin, 1965), has only been latent in second language (L2) research; however, it has been attracting renewed and more explicit interest in the wake of the recent surge of research on language complexity (e.g.

The Desirable Difficulty Framework as a Theoretical Foundation for Optimizing and Researching Second Language Practice

“…As described in the previous section, Housen and Simoen () propose that L2 difficulty is a multi‐componential concept that is broadly categorized as (a) linguistic difficulty, (b) learner‐related difficulty, and (c) context‐related difficulty (for a similar view, see DeKeyser, , ). We adopted their framework and illustrate how an array of factors influence L2 difficulty (Figure ).…”

“…In terms of formal complexity, for instance, ‐ ing has no allomorph (simple), whereas ‐ ed and ‐ s have more than one allomorph (complex). Functional complexity concerns “the number and nature of the meanings and functions expressed” (Housen & Simoen, , p. 168). The meanings of English articles, for instance, are more abstract than plural s for many L2 learners.…”

Empirical Feasibility of the Desirable Difficulty Framework: Toward More Systematic Research on L2 Practice for Broader Pedagogical Implications

“…Their commentary was overall positive toward a theoretical framework for systematic and deliberate second language (L2) practice that we proposed in the chapter. Our framework is derived from (a) the cognitive difficulty framework in the area of L2 acquisition research (Housen & Simoens, ), and (b) the desirable difficulty framework proposed in the realm of cognitive psychology (Bjork, ). Rogers and Leow's commentary consists of the following three major components: (a) the lack of descriptions of concurrent learning processes, (b) empirical (in)feasibility of our framework, and (c) difficulty in drawing pedagogical implications from empirical research.…”

The Impact of Short-Term Strategy Training in Requests for Clarification in the Japanese Classroom

“…In light of the methodology proposed by the preceding studies, the present study used information gap tasks with enough difficulty to promote RC use. However, there is no consensus on what aspects of an L2 are difficult (Housen & Simoens, 2016), and the issue is usually looked at from the point of view of grammar (i.e., specific targets), not necessarily RC use. While this study followed the advice of various scholars in its choice to use the direct approach and information gap tasks, the adopted model of difficulty had to be developed by the researcher in the absence of any specific literature on the subject.…”

“…In order to study RC use, this study attempted to create opportunities for participants to naturally use RC to resolve comprehension problems likely to arise when the participants would need to understand unknown vocabulary during communication. To ensure the need for RC use, the unknown vocabulary had to be seen as difficult in that it was above the participants' current proficiency level (Housen & Simoens, 2016). As such, the study intentionally used words that were above the participants' developmental level (and would be considered difficult) in the tests and strategy training materials.…”