Introduction to L2 attrition

Abstract

As the introduction to the section on second language (L2) attrition, this chapter provides a broad presentation to research on attrition of L2 and foreign languages (FL). We will first discuss the terminology used in the field, focusing on some important differences in the terminology used in first language (L1) attrition studies. It provides a short overview of the development of the field, outlining major challenges and obstacles that research on the topic has to deal with. Next, it briefly describes the major findings and knowledge amassed on the subject before reviewing in more detail the findings of some of the most significant and large-scale projects carried out on L2/FL attrition. A final presentation of several theoretical frameworks of interest for L2/FL attrition research will allow us to show how L2/FL attrition is commonly explained but also to provide some ideas for future research directions.

Attrition and Reactivation of a Childhood Language: The Case of Returnee Heritage Speakers

“…The association between AoTest and INCUB means that the older the participants at the moment of testing, the longer they had lived in Portugal without exposure to German. Since the length of incubation is predicted to be a crucial factor in L2 attrition (Mehotcheva & Köpke, ), INCUB was maintained in the model and AoTest was excluded from further analyses. As for the association between LoExp and AoRet, this means that, as expected, the older the speakers at the moment of return to Portugal, the longer they had lived in Germany and had been exposed to German.…”

“…The development of returnee HSs’ language competence after moving to the parents’ home country is a largely unexplored research topic, particularly in comparison to research on “common” HSs, who live in the migration context (Putnam, Kupisch, & Pascual y Cabo, ). The most obvious reason is the absence of large, homogeneous groups of returnee populations (see Mehotcheva & Köpke, , for a discussion). A significant part of research is, therefore, based on (multiple) case studies (e.g., Kuhberg, ; Tomiyama, ; Yoshitomi, ).…”

Foreign Language Development During Temporary School Closures in the 2020 Covid-19 Pandemic

“…We stress that this paper does not represent a controlled study that was designed to explore FL development when no FL input is available; rather, it charts early FL development in a real-life pandemic situation when FL instruction and input temporarily ceases, drastically reduces and becomes more varied. It is clear from other research that complete and long-term reductions in input lead to arrested development and regression in the first language (e.g., Montrul, 2016) and foreign languages (e.g., Mehotcheva and Köpke, 2019), yet short-term interruptions of the nature experienced in the spring of 2020 did not have measurable effects on general FL skills.…”

The final frontier? Why we have been ignoring second language attrition, and why it is time we stopped

“…However, in contrast to the study of L1 attrition which has grown and flourished (see e.g. Schmid, 2016), investigations of L2 attrition remain few and far between, with the bulk of them being conducted in the form of Ph.D. projects, which tend not to be easily available and therefore do not inform subsequent research as much as they ought to have done 4 (overviews of the available research can be found in Bardovi-Harlig & Stringer, 2010; Mehotcheva & Köpke, 2019). Matters are made worse by the fact that there is no commonly adopted methodology and that population size in most studies is small, which makes comparisons between investigations or generalizations to the broader context difficult and attaining an overall picture of the linguistic and extralinguistic drivers of attrition impossible.…”

“…There are few but notable exceptions to the blinkeredness within the field of second language acquisition (SLA), learning, and teaching to the problem of FL attrition, mainly consisting of a small number of widely known early and large-scale studies (see below, Section 2). Over the past two decades, however, investigations of L2 attrition in general and instructed FL attrition in particular have been few and far between (see Mehotcheva & Köpke, 2019, for a recent overview). The field thus continues to suffer from the same shortcomings pointed out for first language (L1) attrition research two decades ago (Köpke & Schmid, 2004) – a lack of empirical evidence, theoretical frameworks and methodological coherence – compounded by problems that are specific to this field and do not apply in the same way in L1 attrition research (see below, Section 3).…”