second lang acquis research stak territory

8/2/2019 Second Lang Acquis Research Stak Territory

1/37

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

Second Language Acquisition Research: Staking out the TerritoryAuthor(s): Diane Larsen-FreemanReviewed work(s):Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1991), pp. 315-350Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587466 .

Accessed: 14/03/2012 04:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3587466?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3587466?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol


2/37

TESOLQUARTERLY, ol.25, No.2, Summer1991

Second Language Acquisition Research:Staking Out the TerritoryDIANE LARSEN-FREEMANSchool for International Training

Since its emergence some 20 years ago, the field of secondlanguage acquisitionresearchhas focused on two areas: he natureof the language acquisitionprocess and the factors which affectlanguage learners. Initial research was essentially descriptive.Morerecently, researchershave been attemptingto explainhowacquisition occurs and how learner factors lead to differentialsuccess among learners. The focus has alternatelybroadened asresearchersbecame more aware of the complexity of the issuesand narrowed as greater depth of analysis was required. Thepaper suggests that the next phase of researchwill be character-ized by a unionof these two focal areas: earningand the learner.It also recommends that more research attention be given totutoredacquisition.

One could argue that the launching of the TESOL Quarterly 25years ago predated the emergence of second language acquisition(SLA) research as an identifiable field. Accordingly, my task shouldhave been easier than that of my colleagues writing for thesecommemorative issues of the Quarterly. This was small comfort,however, when faced with the daunting challenge of doing justiceto all that has transpired since the early 1970s.1What has occurredsince then, of course, is a veritable explosion of research focusingfirst upon the acquisition/learning process and second upon thelanguage learner.2 This review will be organized around these twofoci and around two subthemes: the alternate broadening and1Certainly some important studies of language learning were conducted prior to this (see, forexample, some of the early studies compiled in Hatch, 1978), but these did not constitute afield of investigation as was to emerge in the 1970s.2 It is beyond the scope of this article to treat either of these comprehensively. Interestedreaders may wish to consult overviews by Ellis (1985), and Larsen-Freeman and Long(1991) for more detail. I have especially drawn upon the latter in writing this review.I will also be unable to deal with matters concerning research methodology in this article.Interested readers should see J. D. Brown (1988), Hatch and Lazaraton (1991), Kasper andGrotjahn (1991), and Seliger & Shohamy (1989).

315


3/37

narrowingof perspectiveon the focus of inquiryand the movementfrom description(or what learnersdo) to explanation(or how theylearn to do it).THE LEARNINGPROCESS:DESCRIPTIONA Broadening of Perspective3

Before the emergence of SLA as a field, researchersconductedcontrastiveanalysesbetween the learners'L1 and L2 in orderto an-ticipate areasof divergencewhich were likely to cause the learnersdifficultyand thoseof convergencewhere one could expectpositivetransfer.Thispracticewas consistentwith the thenprevailingbehav-ioristview of languageacquisition:earningby conditioning.It wasthought that if materials could be prepared which would helplearnersovercomethe conditionedhabitsof theirL1whiletheywereimitatingthe new patternsof the L2, languageacquisitionwould befacilitated. Errorsthat might result from interferencefrom the L1were to be preventedor at leastheld to a minimum.Ironically, it was learners'errors,so threateningto behaviorists,which were to lead to the shift in awarenessthatspawned the SLAfield. Overgeneralization errors (*I eated it) typical of firstlanguage acquirerswere discovered in the oral production of L2learners.Sincesucherrorscould nothave resultedfromimitationoftarget language (TL) speech, the errors were takenas support forChomsky'sproposalthat the acquisitionprocesswas essentiallyoneof rule formation,not habit formation.Learnerswere seen to playan active role in forming and testing hypotheses in an effort toinduce the TL rules from the TL speech to which they wereexposed. With the ascribing of an active role to the languagelearner, the SLA field was born. (See, for example, Oiler &Richards,1973;Schumann& Stenson,1974).Learner errors became a major focus of study. Certainlyinterferenceerrorswere detected, but so were errorsresulting romovergeneralization, redundancy reduction, and communicativestrategies. Errorswere also analyzed to see if they reflected theunderlyingsystem that Corder (1967)claimed learnersused. Erroranalysesdeterminedthis indeed to be the case, and Selinker's 1972)term interlanguage (IL) was embraced to signify that learners'approximationsof the TL were separatelinguisticsystems in theirown right,not governedby the same rulesas eitherthe learners'L1or L2 (Adjemian,1976).3 The sequence described in this section follows from Hakuta and Cancino (1977), andvan Els, Bongaerts, Extra, van Os, and Janssen-van Dieten (1984).

TESOL QUARTERLY16


4/37

While the study of learner errors continued to be illuminating,erroranalysisalone was deemed an incomplete perspective for anumber of reasons(Schachter& Celce-Murcia,1977).Chief amongthese was that a focus on errorsneglected learners'actualsuccesses.In addition,since learnerscould sometimesavoid makingerrors nthe L2 by not attempting to produce difficult structures,erroranalysesdid not even account for all sources of learnerdifficulty(Schachter,1974).These limitationsof erroranalysiswere remediedin a type of analysiswhich took the learner'sperformance(errorsand well-formed utterances)as the focus of inquiry.Among the earliest performance analyseswere the morphemestudies. In 1974, Dulay and Burt claimed that they had foundevidence of an Englishmorphemeorder of acquisitionbased uponESL learners' relative use of eleven morphemes in obligatorycontexts.Furthermore, hey asserted,the acquisitionorder held forboth Chinese and Spanish-speakingchildren, and was thereforethoughtto be imperviousto L1influence.Dulay,Burt,and Krashen(1982) thus referredto the SLA process as "creative construction:the subconsciousprocessby which languagelearnersgraduallyor-ganize the language they hear,accordingto the rulesthey constructto understandandgeneratesentences" p. 276).Thisand otherearlymorphemestudies excitedresearcherswho welcomed the new viewof language acquisition and the empirical support of an innatelearner-generatedor built-insyllabus(Corder,1967).These studiesalso, however, came under attack, mostly for their methodologyand claims of minimalL1 interference.Anothertype of performanceanalysiswas also being conductedat the time, namely the analysis of the speech data of learnerscollected at regular ntervalsfor a periodof at least severalmonths.Data collected longitudinally enabled researchers to see thatlearnersof all types passed throughcommon developmental stagesin theiracquisitionof certainstructures.Developmental sequenceswere identified for English interrogatives (Cazden, Cancino,Rosansky,& Schumann,1975;Wode, 1978),negation (Schumann,1979), Germanword order (Meisel,Clahsen,& Pienemann,1981),Swedishrelative clauses(Hyltenstam,1984),Englishrelativeclauses(Pavesi, 1986),and a variety of other Englishstructures Johnston,1985).Since the intermediatestagesinthe developmentalsequenceslooked like neither the L1 nor L2, they reinforced the observationthatlearnerswere not merelyreshapingtheirLls to conformto theL2s, but rather that learnerswere creatively constructingthe L2througha process of gradualcomplexification.These findingsalsounderscoredthe need for researchers o examinethe learners' L inits own right in orderto understandthe acquisitionprocess ratherSECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH 317


5/37

than seeing the IL as an incomplete version of the TL (Bley-Vroman, 1983). This observed acquisition process was not a linearone; often there was backsliding or forgetting when new formswere introduced, resulting in a learning curve that was moreU-shaped than smoothly ascending (Kellerman, 1985). Sometimes,too, not all stages in a sequence were traversed, leading to arresteddevelopment or fossilized forms. Moreover, learners were freelymaking use not only of rule-governed utterances, but also of rote-learned formulaic utterances, both routines and patterns (Hakuta,1976), leading some investigators to suggest that rule-governedlanguage developed from formulaic speech, which was lateranalyzed by the learner (Wong Fillmore, 1976).Notwithstanding the insights yielded, a focus on learner perfor-mance, as with the error analyses that preceded it, was found to betoo narrow. Time and research were required to discover what inhindsight seems obvious: Performance analysis alone could notaccount for the whole picture. ESL learner Homer's (Wagner-Gough, 1975) utterances such as *what is this is truck could only beunderstood by expanding the focus of investigation to include whatwas being said to Homer prior to his response.Recognition of the need to examine not only the learner'sperformance but also the input to the learner, introduced a wholenew area of inquiry, namely discourse analysis (Larsen-Freeman,1980). Hatch has been the SLA researcher who has most promotedthe value of examining what learners could be learning whenengaged in collaborative discourse. For Hatch, a significant vehiclefor acquisition is interaction with other speakers. Rather than theusual view that learners build up to conversational competenceafter gaining gradual control of lexical items and syntacticstructures, Hatch (1978) writes: "One learns how to interactverbally, and out of this interaction, syntactic structures aredeveloped" (p. 409). Since Hatch's observation, much research hasbeen conducted under the rubric of discourse analysis: the study ofthe acquisition of speech acts (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984),communicative strategies (Faerch & Kasper, 1983) and classroomdiscourse analysis (Allwright, 1988;Chaudron, 1988;van Lier, 1988),to name a few.This brief historical review of the SLA field demonstrates aprogressive broadening of perspective. Each type of analysissubsumed without replacing its predecessor. Indeed, each type ofanalysis continues to be conducted, but with greater awareness of anecessary breadth of inquiry. After the decade of broadeningperspective, there came also a recognition of the need for a deeperexamination of specific issues raised during the 1970s: specifically,

TESOL QUARTERLY18


6/37

L1 transfer, input to learners, and IL variation.4 Thus, the 1980s sawa narrowing of focus so that each of these could be explored morefully. The following is a summary of what was learned.

Narrowing the Perspective: LanguageTransferWe have already seen that all errors could no longer be traced toL1 interference. Indeed, the contrastive analysis hypothesis, whichstated that those areas of the TL which were most dissimilar to thelearners' L1 would cause the most difficulty, was refuted byresearch that indicated that it was often the similarities between thetwo languages which caused confusion. In fact, Wode (1978)framed this observation as a principle: "Only if L1 and L2 havestructures meeting a crucial similarity measure will there beinterference, i.e., reliance on prior L1 knowledge" (p. 116). Thisprinciple is significant in two respects. First, it reflects the growingview that transfer could be seen as a cognitive strategy: Learnersrely on what they know (Taylor, 1975). Second, it foreshadowedwhat was to occupy researchers throughout the next decade:specifying precisely when transfer would occur. The fact that fourbooks were published during the 1980s on the theme of transfer inSLA is testament to the vitality of this line of research (Dechert &Raupach, 1989; Gass & Selinker, 1983; Kellerman & SharwoodSmith, 1986; Odlin, 1989).In addition to Wode's claim that there had to be a "crucialsimilarity," work by Eckman and by Kellerman contributed to ourunderstanding of when transfer occurs. Eckman (1985) suggestedthat the markedness difference between the L1 and L2 would playa role. Where the L2 was more marked than the L1, learners wouldexperience more difficulty; furthermore, the relative degree ofdifficulty would correspond to the relative degree of markedness.Where the two languages were different, but the L2 was not moremarked than the L1, difficulty would not arise. Kellerman (1984)noticed that learners' perceptions of the distance between the L1and L2 would affect the degree to which learners would transferforms. What was noteworthy here was the extent to which the ideaof transfer as a deliberate cognitive strategy had taken hold.A second question concerning transfer, which stimulated muchresearch during the decade, was precisely what effect transfer hadon learners' ILs. We have already seen how it was responsible forerrors as well as positive transfer and underproduction or avoidance4 In fact, each of these areas was the theme of at least one conference. The series of threeapplied linguistics conferences at the University of Michigan during the decade, forexample, addressed language transfer (1982), input (1983), and variation (1987).SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 319


7/37

of certain structures.Other research demonstrated that transfermanifesteditself in the following ways:1. Overproduction of a particular TL form (Schachter &Rutherford,1979)2. Inhibiting or accelerating passage through a developmentalsequence (Zobl, 1982)3. Constrainingthe nature of hypotheses that language learnersmake (Schachter,1983)4. Prolongingthe use of a developmentalform when it is similartoan L1structure potentiallyresulting n fossilization)(Zobl, 1983)5. Substitution use of L1 form in the L2) (Odlin,1989)6. Hypercorrection overreaction o a particularnfluencefrom theL1) (Odlin, 1989)Clearly, transferis a much more pervasive phenomenon in SLAthan was once thought.Narrowing he Perspective:nput

Recall thatby the end of the 1970sresearchershadbecome awareof the need to examine the raw material or input with which thelearners had to work, recognizing, of course, that not all inputwould become intake(Corder,1967).Manystudiesinvestigatedthelink between input and output (Gass & Madden, 1985). (I havedrawn from Larsen-Freeman,1985,for a synopsisof these studies.)With regard to the quantity of the input, many, but not all,researchers adduced evidence in support of the hypothesis thatlearners who have the opportunity to use the L2 regularlyor toreceive the most input will exhibit the greatest proficiency.Researchin the area of input quality searched for a link betweencertain characteristicsof the input (perceptualsaliency, frequencyof occurrence, syntactic complexity, semantic complexity,instructionalsequence) and some aspect of the learners'output.Again,althoughnot without challenge,a recurringfindingwas thecorrelationbetween the frequencyof certain formsin the inputandtheirappearancein learners' Ls.

Studies of input also focused on conversationsbetween native(NSs) and nonnative speakers (NNSs) and those between NNSs,comparingboth to a baseline of NS-NSinteractions see Day, 1986).Some of the modifications(termed foreignertalk [FT]) which NSsmake to accommodate NNSs' level of comprehensionare slowerrate of speech, loudervolume (!), fewer false starts, onger pauses,TESOL QUARTERLY20


8/37

more restrictedvocabulary,more concrete lexicon, greateruse ofgestures, repetition, shorter length, more deliberate enunciation,andsimpler syntax(Hatch, 1983).These modificationsare not madeby all native speakers, nor are they static. The degree ofmodification of "teacher alk,"for example,variesaccordingto theproficiency of the students (Gaies, 1977). Similarly, NSs arecontinuously readjusting their speech based on their ongoingassessment of their NNS interlocutors'comprehension (Gass &Varonis,1985).Long (1980)made animportantdistinctionbetween the linguisticmodifications of FT and those madeto the interactional tructureofconversations between NSs and NNSs. The latter include suchphenomena as comprehension checks, confirmation checks,expansions, requests for clarification, self-repetition, etc., which arethe result of the negotiation of meaning between the learners andtheir conversational partners. It was shown that these interactionalor elaborative modifications may enhance NNSs' comprehensioneven more than linguistic alterations.Strong proposals have been put forth about the role of input inSLA. For instance, Krashen (1982) called comprehensible input inthe presence of a low affective filter the only causal variable in SLA.While most researchers accept the need for learners to comprehendthe input (in order for it to become intake and not just noise), fewwould agree that comprehensible input alone is sufficient. Swain(1985), for example, considered the case of the students in theCanadian French Immersion Program. These students receivedabundant comprehensible input but had not yet fully acquiredgrammatical competence in French. Since the learners couldunderstand the input without fully analyzing its syntactic structure,Swain suggested that the learners also needed practice producingcomprehensible output. Doing so may force learners to move fromsemantic to syntactic processing.Narrowing the Perspective:Variation

As are all natural languages, ILs are variable. It is not surprising,however, that this variability was overlooked in the early days ofresearch given that most attention was focused on the systematicityof IL. Synchronic variability was too obvious to be ignored for long,however. As teachers can readily attest, it is not uncommon forstudents who appear to have mastered a particular item, to revert toan erroneous form when a new challenge presents itself.In recent years, the number of books devoted to variationdemonstrates the significance of this topic in SLA circles (Adamson,SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 321


9/37

1988;Burmeister&Rounds,1990;Eisenstein,1989;Ellis, 1987;Gass,Madden,Preston,& Selinker,1989a,1989b; Preston,1989;Tarone,1988). Most of the researchhas attempted to explain variability,while preservingthe notion of an IL system (Huebner, 1985). Thishas been accomplished by maintainingthat variability itself issystematic, i.e., explicable with appeal to certain linguistic andcontextual factors, leaving only a portion as nonsystematic freevariation.One explanationproffered for the synchronicvariabilityfound in learners'performanceon taskshasbeen the sociolinguisticconstructof speech style. Tarone (1979) hypothesized that at anypoint in time a learner'sIL is really a continuum of speech styles,where style is defined in terms of the amount of attentiongiven toform in the language.With the least attentionbeing given to form,learnersrely on a vernacularspeech style, a style which shows thegreatest systematicity (Labov, 1969). When learnersare carefullyattendingto form, the style they exhibit is at the other end of thecontinuum. This style is more permeable, i.e., more open toinfluence from otherlanguages,and is thereforethe most variable,or least systematic.(Butsee Sato, 1985.)In addition to attention to form as a reason for variableperformance,otherexplanationshave been:1. Learners' monitoring their performance (Krashen, 1977)2. Sociolinguisticfactors (Beebe, 1980)3. Adjustmentof one's speech towards one's interlocutor(conver-gence) or away from one's interlocutor(divergence) (Beebe &Zuengler,1983)4. Linguisticor situationalcontext of use (Ellis, 1985)5. Discoursedomains(Selinker& Douglas, 1985)6. The amount of planningtime learnershave (Crookes,1989)7. A combination of factors: stage of acquisition, linguisticenvironment,communicativeredundancy(Young,1988)8. Learners'use of other-regulatedorself-regulatedspeech (Lantolf& Ahmed, 1989)What seems to be accepted at the moment is that what appearsatfirst to be random variation can often be accounted for withvariable (or probabilistic)rules. The notion of systematicityin IL,therefore, remainsintact. What is not clear, however, is just whatkind of systemit is. What is certainis thatbeing systematicdoes notmean simply governedby categoricalrules.I shallreturnto the theme of variationbelow; before doing so, itshould be remembered that a subtheme of this article is the shift

TESOL QUARTERLY22


10/37

from description to explanation. While the early days of SLAresearch were appropriatelyconsumed by descriptions of whatlearnersdo (andstill muchmore is needed atall levels of language),by the mid-1980scallswere being made for theoryconstructionandexplanationsof the acquisition process (see, for example, Long,1985). (Of course, it should be acknowledged that the questionsposed and data collected in describing anythinghas "thebeginningof an explanation embedded in it" (Long, 1990b) and thatexplanation s a complementaryextensionof description.)THE LEARNINGPROCESS:EXPLANATION

We have already seen with regard to descriptionhow the SLAfield has moved from a narrow focus on erroranalysisto a broaderone on discourseanalysisand back to a narrowfocus on the areas oftransfer,input, and variation. Since the latterhalf of the 1980s,wefind a more or less narrow approach being taken with theoryconstruction as well. Following Ellis (1985) and Larsen-Freemanand Long (1991),I will adopt a threefold classificationschema fortheoreticalperspectivesin the SLAfield: nativist(learningdependsupon a significant, specialized innate capacity for languageacquisition),behaviorist/environmentalistthe learner'sexperienceis more importantthan innate capacity), and interactionist(bothinternalandexternalprocessesareresponsible).I will illustrateeachcategory with one theoretical perspective in SLA research,recognizing that through my selectivity I will have unavoidablyslightedmany others.5Nativist:UniversalGrammarUG)

For many years, linguists operating within the tradition ofgenerative grammar have taken as their primary objective adescriptionof the knowledge or competence of the ideal speaker-listenerof the language.Withthe advent of Chomsky'sgovernment-binding theory, more attention has been concentrated on thequestionof how thecompetence of the nativespeakeris attained.Amajor assumption Chomsky makes is that the linguistic input tochildren acquiring their first language underdetermines or isinsufficientto account for language acquisition.Moreover,children5 Some of the more prominent among these being Krashen's monitor model (1985), Hatchand Hawkins' experiential approach (1985); Bialystok and Ryan's knowledge and controldimensions (1985); McLaughlin's cognitive theory (1987); the multidimensional model(Pienemann & Johnston, 1987; Clahsen, 1987); Andersen's cognitive interactionist model(1988), and the functionalist perspective (Tomlin, 1990).SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 323


11/37

do not receive negative evidence (they are not told that a givenutteranceis ungrammatical)and thusmust learnfrom the positiveevidence instantiated in the input alone. Since the input issupposedly inadequate, it is assumed that the childrenpossess aninnate UG which constrainstheir grammaticaldevelopment. TheUG consists of a number of fixed abstract principles whichpredispose children to organize the language they hear in certainways (White, 1990). The principles, in turn, have parametersassociated with them which differ fromlanguageto language.Oneexample which has often been cited as a principle in UG is thesubjacency principle, which limits movement of constituents withinsentences so that, at most, one boundary can be crossed at a time.This principle is held to apply to all languages. What counts as abounding node, however, is determined by a parametric settingtriggered by exposure to a given language. Thus, in English thebounding nodes are S and NP, whereas in Italian and French NPand S' are bounding nodes, but not S (White, 1990).The impact of Chomsky's theory on SLA can be measured by thenumber of books that have been published of late dealing with theapplication of UG to SLA (Flynn, 1987; Flynn & O'Neill, 1988; Gass& Schachter, 1989; Pankhurst, Sharwood Smith, & van Buren, 1988;White, 1988). Some researchers maintain (Felix, 1985; Flynn, 1983;Hilles, 1986; Mazurkewich, 1985; Tomaselli & Schwartz, 1990;White, 1988; Zobl, 1990) that UG is in fact still available to secondlanguage learners such that their resulting grammar is shaped by itsprinciples. White points out that the adult second language learneris faced with the same challenge as is a child first language learner:trying to learn a language from degenerate and limited input.(Although just how degenerate the data are is a matter of somedebate [cf. Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991].) Felix adds thatsequences of development and paucity of input data suggest thatthere is good reason to expect that UG may continue to operateeven after puberty.As Schachter (1990) reports, Bley-Vroman (1989), Clahsen andMuysken (1986), and Schachter (1988) (see also Jordens, 1988) havearrived at somewhat different conclusions. These researchers haveargued that the results of the SLA process differ so dramaticallyfrom first language acquisition (where native speaker competenceis always achieved, there are no transfer effects or fossilization, etc.)that it is not likely that UG is present in its entirety in postpubescentlearners. It is possible, however, that if language learners do nothave direct access to UG, they do through their knowledge of theirL1 (Clahsen & Muysken, 1989). Another possibility is that L2learners initially adopt L1 parameter settings but, if necessary, at

TESOL QUARTERLY24


12/37

certain points in their development, reset the parametersto thevalues inherent n the L2 (Hulk,1991).For now, the question of UG accessibility in SLA is stillunresolved.Thereisevidence that thereis at leastsome accessibilitythroughthe learners'L1, althoughthe access may be only partial(Felix & Weigl, 1991).Environmentalist:onnectionism/ParallelDistributedProcessing PDP)

AlthoughPDP/connectionistmodels are fairlynew to the field, Ihave chosen to discussthembecause of theirstrikingcontrast o theUG approach,and because some researchers,at least, believe thatthey have much to offer the SLAfield (Gasser,1990;Sokolik,1990;Spolsky, 1988).Sokolikpoints out that connectionistprinciplesareby no meansnew; what is new is theattemptto build connectionistmodels to test their explanatorypower in a number of differentfields. PDP theorists(Rumelhart,McClelland,& the PDP ResearchGroup, 1986a, 1986b) have built computer models of humancognitionbased on what is known about the structureof the humanbrain. PDP theoristsassume no innate endowment (although, asGasserpointsout, theseresearchersareincreasinglyconcerned withthe initialstate of the networksthey have constructed).Learning sheld to consist of the strengtheningof connections in complexneuralnetworks.The strengthof theirconnectionsortheirweight isdeterminedby the frequencyof patterns n the input.As the inputis encoded, the computerreorganizes tself to reflectthe new statisticalrelationshipspresent in the input. After beingpresented with a number of correctly matched input and outputpatterns,the computeris presentedwith a novel set of items to seehow it generalizesbeyond what it has received as input (Sokolik,1989).Interestingly,whatresults s performance hat lookslikerule-governed behavior (some forms are produced correctly,some areincorrect due to overgeneralizations), but which is simply areflection of the connections formed on the basis of the relativefrequency of patternsin the input. It has also been pointed out,however, that some of the computer output is not consonantwiththe performanceof child LI learners i.e., some of the errorsare notplausiblefrom a humanstandpoint [Pinker& Prince,1988])."Onepossibilityis that L2learningmaybe associative n theconnectionistsense, whereasL1acquisitionmay be moreruledrivenin the gener-ative sense"(Sokolik,1989,p. 358).In any event,a model thatlearnswithoutrulesand whichwill accountfor at least"someperformanceSECO)NI) LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCHI 325


13/37

withoutpostulatingcompetence" (Spolsky,1989,p. 227) clearlyhasthe potentialto force us to rethinkearlierassumptions.Interactionist: VariableCompetence Model

Another theoreticalperspective which would requirea reexami-nationof the performance/competencedistinction s a model whichattempts to account for the external and internal processesresponsible for SLA (Ellis, 1985). Recall that Tarone (1979)hypothesized that learners control a continuum of styles rangingfrom a superordinate style produced when the speaker pays themost attention to form, to a vernacular style produced when theleast attention to form is given. Interlanguage data, Tarone (1983)argued, contradict what is called the "homogeneous competence"model of Chomsky, which assumes that there is a homogeneouscompetence of an ideal speaker-learner available for inspectionthrough intuitional data. Instead, Tarone interprets the IL data tosuggest that learners develop heterogeneous capability, which issystematic and which is composed of a range of styles, and Taronemaintains that the proper data for the study of this capability isnatural speech.Ellis (1985) is in substantial agreement with this position. Ratherthan viewing variability in the data at best as an inconvenience, Ellisplaces variability at the heart of his model. In the variablecompetence model, Ellis hypothesizes that free variation is crucialbecause it serves as the impetus for development. (But see Preston,1989.) New forms, he believes, first enter the learner's IL in thecareful style of speech when learners are attending to form. Tarone(1990) suggests that they may enter the learner's IL due to

conversational interactions with native speakers or possibly due tosocial convergence or Sloblin's (1973) operating principles. Oncethe learner starts using them, the new forms are in free variationwith existing forms, the new and the old coexisting withoutdefinably separate functions. Because this state is in violation of theefficiency principle (Ellis, 1990b) or Andersen's (1984) one-to-oneprinciple, a second phase follows. During this replacement phase,learners seek to make maximum communicative use of the L2resources they have by mapping one form onto one function.Therefore, each form in a pair is gradually restricted in use, i.e.,takes on a particular range of target- and nontargetlike forms. InEllis' model, free variability is the force driving development;systematic variability then comes into play, determining whatsubsequently happens to newly acquired items.TESOL QUARTERLY26


14/37

A BroaderView?The variable competence model rejects the customary distinctionbetween competence and performance that is held to be axiomaticby UG researchers. It is this rejection that has led Gregg (1990) to

assert that "variation ... is not the duty of an acquisition theorist toexplain" (p. 379). Gregg insists that a theory of acquisition shouldexplain the acquisition of a speaker's knowledge, not merelydescribe the speaker's output.Tarone (1990) rebuts Gregg's criticism, arguing that research onthe acquisition of competence has not been particularly elucidatingas so much of what is acquired is attributed to an innate capacity.Further, acquisition research from the two perspectives hasdifferent objectives, Tarone contends. The variationists seek toexplain how knowledge gets realized as use, whereas those whoprefer a UG approach take as their objective an explanation ofcompetence or grammatical knowledge, "not the ability to doanything" (Widdowson, 1989, p. 129).Theoretical perspectives, therefore, need to be assessed in termsof their purpose (Ellis, 1990b). Clearly, at the current, still earlystage in SLA research, both perspectives (and others) are welcome.The argumentas to what kind of explanation,mentalistor functional,best fits the facts is an old one. Doubtlessly,it will continuein the yearsto come. It is an argumentabout what needs to be explainedand whatfacts need explaining. Any explanationthat ignores what language isprimarilyfor-communication-is incomplete and, therefore,unsatis-factory.Butthisdoesnot meanthatthereareno aspectsof languagethatarepurelyformal.Some undoubtedlyareand will need to be explainedin terms of abstract inguisticprinciples.Do we reallyneed to engage inarguments about the relative merits of formal and functionalexplanationsof language?Can we not accept that both are needed?(Ellis,1990b,p. 390)Certainly I would concur that multiple perspectives onacquisition are useful, especially since not all theories can beexpected to do everything (Bialystok, 1990; Long, 1990b).However, there is reason to be circumspect in this regard: Despitethe value of multiple perspectives (see, for example, Beebe, 1988),when we borrow perspective from other fields, we inherit their

problems as well. (For example, UG principles keep changing, andwithin linguistics the theoretical status of variable rules is underdebate.) Moreover, extant theories are not always complementary,and we have not yet agreed upon criteria by which to evaluate them( Beretta, in press; Schumann, 1983). I would also, therefore, agreewith Gass (1989), who notes that it is important for the vitality of theSECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 327


15/37

field that we establish some common ground regarding theintellectual basis and goals of the field. Althoughwe have yet toachieve complete consensus on these, it seems to me thatdefinitionalissues arewhat these past two decades of researchhavebeen about:stakingout the territory.Some have suggested we need a generaltheory to encompass awider area than our theories to date (Spolsky, 1989). Othershavesuggested thatwe may have to accept that a theory of SLAwill bemodular, each module explaining different domains of language(Lightbown & White, 1987). Hatch, Shirai, and Fantuzzi (1990)have called for an integrated theory of acquisition. Whileresearchersmustof necessityrestrict he scope of their nvestigationand usually do so to one domain (most often it has beenmorphosyntax, ess commonly, phonology;see Ioup & Weinberger,1987),the dilemmais thateveryone recognizesthat the domainsareinterrelated (Eisenstein, Bailey, & Madden, 1982; Nunan, 1987;Pennington, 1990; Sato, 1988). To cite just one example of theproblem, Odlin (1989) observes that transferin one subsystem oflanguage (lexis,syntax, morphology,etc.) will sometimes conditionits occurrencein othersubsystems.Thus, accordingto Hatch et al.(1990), a theory must include a much broader scope of researchthan thatcenteredon two modules-syntax and phonology. It mustalso include semantics, conversationalstructure,event scripts andrhetoricalorganization,but it must do so in a way thatintegrates hemodules on the one hand and also allows them to be viewedseparately.It follows, then, "thatan attempt to explainacquisitionby recourse to a singlefactor (for examplemotivation,comprehen-sible input,or the workingsof an innateLAD [languageacquisitiondevice]) ... lacks face validity" (Long, 1990b, p. 661). Indeed,given the complexity of language, why should we expect anexplanationof its acquisitionto be simple (Larsen-Freeman, 991)?We will return o thisthemelater,but for now we should considerthe othermajor ocusin SLAresearcho date:the focus onthe learner.THELEARNER:ESCRIPTION

The question of differential success is one of the majorconundrums of SLA: Why is it that all individuals with normalfaculties successfully acquire their first language but meet withdifferent degrees of success when they attemptto master an L2? Arelated issue is indeed whethercomplete successin acquiringan L2is even possiblewhen studyis begunbeyond a so-calledcriticalage.In this section I will deal with the matter of age first,followed by abrief look at the othermajorfactorswhich have been hypothesized

TESOL QUARTERLY28


16/37

to explainthe factsof differential uccess:aptitude,social-psycholog-icalvariables,personality, ognitivestyleandlearning trategies.Age

As with so much in the fledgling SLA field, the issue of age-related effects in SLA is a contested one-in fact, even their veryexistence is controversial. (My sources for this section are primarilyLong, 1990a, and Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, chapter 6.) Thethree books published in the last few years which explore the linkbetween age and SLA will serve to illustrate the controversy. Thefirst position is that only children, not adults, can attain native-likepronunciation in the L2 (Scovel, 1988a); the second finds that thedata are ambiguous or mixed (Singleton, 1989). The third positionholds that older learners enjoy an advantage over younger learners(Harley, 1986, reports evidence showing older learners are fasterthan younger ones). Opinion also varies about the scope of thealleged effects (only accent or other domains as well?) and thecauses of such effects (affective factors, identity, cognitivematuration, input differences, neurological causes?).Early on, Krashen, Long, and Scarcella (1979) (see also Krashen,Scarcella, & Long, 1982) reviewed the literature on age differencesin second language acquisition and came to the conclusion thatolder learners are initially faster than younger learners when itcomes to the acquisition of morphosyntax; however, youngerlearners outperform older learners in the long run. According toLong (1990a), despite the fact that numerous studies have beenconducted since this early conclusion, the generalization seems tohold, "with the exception of some fuzziness in the area ofphonology" (p. 260).Aptitude

Obvious to the casual observer is the fact that individuals learn atdifferent rates. Not so obvious to even the careful observer,however, is whether or not there is a special language learningaptitude which is the source of the difference. Certainly it has longbeen presumed that there is such a thing as language aptitude, andin fact there are several major tests which are commonly employedto measure it (Carroll, 1981). Some researchers, however, havequestioned the existence of an innate linguistic aptitude (Neufeld,1979). A solution to the dispute may lie in the distinction Cummins(1980) makes between cognitive/academic language proficiency(CALP) and basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS). ItSECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH 329


17/37

may be that aptitude tests are a good measure of CALP, or anindividual'sabilityto deal with decontextualized anguage(Skehan,1982), which is a learned ability, but not a particularly goodmeasure of BICS, an innate capacity. The fact that so muchschoolwork involves CALPcould explainthe predictive power ofaptitude tests on foreign language achievement. This is essentiallyKrashen's(1981) position when he proposes that aptitude relatesonly to learning, not to acquisition. In a more recent account ofaptitude, however, Skehan (1989) arguesthat aptitude plays a rolein both informal and formal acquisition environments. He alsoproposesthattherearedifferentprofilesof language aptitude;somelearners possess an analytic aptitude, others are more memoryoriented.Wesche (1981)has shown how matchinglearners'aptitudewith methodology can lead to success,while mismatchingcan havedeleterious effects.Social-Psychologicalactors:AttitudeandMotivation

Along with aptitude, the social-psychologicalfactors of attitudeand motivation have long been thought to have an importantbearingon languagelearningsuccess.In 1959 GardnerandLambertwere able to identify two factors which were responsible for theFrenchproficiency of Anglophonestudentsof Frenchin Montreal:aptitudeand a constellationof attitudestowards French Canadiansincluding motivational intensity and integrative motivation. ForGardner and Lambert (cf. Gardner, 1979), there is actually anindirectrelationshipbetween attitudeand successfulSLA.Attitudesaffect motivation,which in turnaffects SLA.Since Gardnerand Lambert'spioneering research, much workhas been done on refining the relationshipamong the constructs.Just in the area of attitudes alone, for example, learners'parents'attitudes towards speakersof the TL, attitudes of peers, learners'attitudes toward theirlearningsituation, eachers'attitudestowardstheir students, and one's attitudestowards one's ethnicitywere allstudied for theirinfluenceon SLA.In the area of motivation,the strengthof learners' nstrumental autilitarianmotive for learningan L2) versusintegrative(identifica-tion with L2 group) motivation has been measured to testpredictions of their differential effect on L2 learning outcomes.Different researchers have reached different conclusions abouthypothesized correlations depending upon the learner context;perhaps the only reliable finding is that the intensity of themotivationis more importantthanthe type. Clearlymore researchis needed on the differentinfluenceson motivation.Forexample,in

TESOL QUARTERLY30


18/37

a studyconductedby Strong (1984)on the acquisitionof English bySpanish-speaking children living in the United States, it wasconcluded that motivation does not necessarily promote acquisi-tion, but ratherstems from it. The children in his study who metwith success became more motivated to continue theirstudy thanthose who were less successful.Personality

Various personality traits have been thought to facilitate or inhibitSLA: self-esteem (Heyde, 1979), extroversion (Busch, 1982),reaction to anxiety (Bailey, 1983; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989), risktaking (Ely, 1986), sensitivity to rejection (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern,& Todesco, 1978), empathy (Guiora, Brannon, & Dull, 1972),inhibition (Guiora et al., 1972), and tolerance of ambiguity(Chapelle & Roberts, 1986). Some of these traits have correlatedpositively with success in SLA; other findings have been inconclu-sive.Two generalizations can be drawn from a review of the literature.First, often it appears that the optimal personality "setting" is apoint midway between the two extremes, i.e., moderate anxiety canbe facilitating (Scovel, 1978); moderate risk taking is linked withachievement (Beebe, 1983). Second, it is difficult to predict anindividual's behavior in a particular situation based on a global traitmeasurement. Although there no doubt exist some fairly consistentpersonality traits, more attention must be given to the relationbetween states and traits.

Cognitive StyleClosely aligned with personality attributes is work on cognitivestyles. A cognitive style is the preferred way in which individualsprocess information or approach a task (Willing, 1988). A fewcognitive styles have been investigated for their SLA implications:field independence/dependence, category width, reflectivity/impulsivity, aural/visual, and analytic/gestalt. Cognitive styles areoften presented in this fashion-as polarities. In actual fact, humansmore commonly exhibit a tendency toward one pole or the other.Of the cognitive styles which have been studied, fieldindependence has most consistently shown a significant positivecorrelation with language learning achievement (Chapelle &Roberts, 1986; Hansen & Stansfield, 1981; Tucker, Hamayan, &Genesee, 1976). One puzzling consequence of this finding is thatfield dependence is often linked with empathy, and empathy has

SECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH 331


19/37

also been found to be correlatedwith language learningsuccess.H. D. Brown (1977) offers a solution:He observes field independ-ence may be more importantto classroomlearning,whereas fielddependence and empathy may be more beneficial in an untutoredlanguagelearningsituation.Learning trategiesThe lastlearnerfactor to be discussed is one which hasstimulatedmuch interestrecently.Again,we can look to the number of booksthat have been published as one sign of the vitality of this area(H. D. Brown, 1991; Cohen, 1990; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990;Oxford, 1990;Stevick, 1989;Wenden& Rubin,1987).

Rubin (1975) used the term learningstrategies to refer to "thetechniques or devices which a learner may use to acquireknowledge" (p. 43). Rubin compiled a list of strategiesemployedby good language learners. For example, good language learnersare willing to guess when they aren'tsure,attend to both form andmeaning, and monitor their own and others' speech. FollowingRubin's initiative, much of the research has focused uponidentifyingandclassifying learningstrategies.A second focus of theresearchhas been on determiningthe effect of strategytraining.Aswe have seen in other areas, the results are not straightforward. tseems that the performance of students tutored in strategies issuperior to the performance of students with no such training;however, the degree to which the training has been effectivedepends on the task, task difficulty, and the level of support forstrategytransfer.

A Broadening f Perspective:LearnerFactorsMost of the researchjust reviewed involves simple correlationsbetween a singleindividualvariableandlearnerproficiency.This isproblematic for the same reason that studying one subsystem oflanguage cannot fully illuminate interrelatedacquisition processes.As d'Anglejan and Renaud (1985) point out, learner variablesinevitably overlap and interact. Thus, we are likely getting adistorted picture if we study one factor in isolation from others.Morepowerful multivariateanalysesexist and shouldbe employedto examine the relationship among learner factors. (See, forexample, Gradman& Hanania,1991.) Exacerbating he problem isour awareness that some of these variables may affect languageproficiency only indirectlyas has been postulatedby Gardnerwithrespect to attitudesand L2 learning.

TESOL QUARTERLY32


20/37

AsSeliger (1984)contends,"whilemanycharacteristics avebeenrelated correlationally to language achievement, we have nomechanism for deciding which of the phenomena described orreported to be carried out by the learnerare in fact those thatleadto language acquisition"(p. 37). Perhaps if our sights were sethigher-aspiring to explainhow learnerfactorsplay a causalrole inthe acquisition process-we would be able to identify the trulyimportant factors. This is precisely what some theorists likeSchumannand Gardnerhave attemptedto do.LEARNERFACTORS:EXPLANATIONThe Acculturation/Pidginization Model

Perhapsthe earliestmodel to award centralityto learnerfactorswas Schumann'sacculturation/pidginizationmodel (1978a, 1978b).The model developed from Schumann's observation of theuntutoredacquisitionof Englishby Alberto,a33-year-old,working-class Costa Rican living in the Boston area. Alberto lived in aPortuguese-speaking eighborhoodandworkedin a factorystaffedby NNSs of English. Due to his limited contact with Englishspeakers,it is not surprising hat Alberto was not a very successfullanguagelearner.SchumannexplainedAlberto's imitedacquisitionof Englishby pointingto Alberto'ssocialandpsychologicaldistancefrom speakers of the TL. Social distance comprises eight group-level phenomena:socialdominance, ntegrationpatterns,enclosure,cohesiveness, size, cultural congruence, attitudes, and intendedlength of residence.Psychologicaldistance is a construct nvolvingfourfactorsoperatingat the level of the individual:anguageshock,cultureshock, motivation,and ego permeability.Noting the similarities which existed between the social andpsychological dimensions of Alberto's learning context and theconditions associated with pidginization,Schumannclaimed thatthe processes underlying pidginization and the early stages ofnaturalisticSLA were analogous. With acculturation(social andpsychological proximity),the IL elaborates and develops much asin creolization.Schumann summarizedhis position by suggestingthat SLAis one aspectof acculturation nd thus the degree to whichthe learneracculturates o the TL groupwill control the degree towhich the learneracquiresthe L2.TheSocioeducationalModel

What Schumann labels acculturation s similarin many ways toGardner'snotion of integrativeness,a central feature of Gardner'sSECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 333


21/37

(1985)socioeducationalmodel. Gardner'smodel also confersa highstatus on learner factors-attitudes and motivation, in particular.Also, like Schumann,Gardneremphasizes the social dimension oflanguageacquisition:"Theacquisitionof a languageinvolves socialadjustment ... Languagesareacquiredin orderto facilitate com-munication,either active or passive,with some culturalcommunity.... Emotional adjustmentsare involved and these are sociallybased"(p. 125).Like the other models examinedhere,the socioeducationalmodelwas not intended to explain all of second language learning. Itpurportsto account for a significantand meaningfulproportionofthe variance in second language achievement. If it withstands thetest of time, it will certainly help to broaden our perspective onlearner factors.BROADENINGTILL

Despite the broadeningin perspective that has occurred withinour two foci, furtherexpansionis desirable-and we arebeginningto see signsof it in the SLAfield. At the XthUniversityof MichiganConference on Applied Linguistics n 1983,I said:I believethat[questions bout earning nd thelearner] houldnot beaddressedndependentlystheyhavebeen.I think twillnotbethecasethatwe willcome to someunderstandingf the SLAprocessandthenintroduce earnervariablesand calculate heir effect on the process.Likewise, thinkwe cannotullyunderstand hat nfluenceshe earnerapartfromhis or her engagementn the processof learning. 1985,p. 434)To cite one example in support of my observation on theinterdependence of variables,Scarcella's(1990)review of Young's(1988) work highlights their independence: As L2 proficiencyincreased, social variables (learner) replaced linguistic ones(learning)as the more powerful influenceson variation.The use ofpluralmarkersby low-proficiency learners was influenced by themarkers'phonological environments.The performance of high-proficiency learnerswas more likely to be affected by the learners'

degree of convergence (adjustmentof speech toward) and identifi-cationwith theirinterlocutor.We cansee how intertwinedare socialand linguistic factors! (Even UG researchers,who choose to dealwith linguistic factors only, will have to account for individualdifferences in some way. Language acquisition is not only alinguistic phenomenon.)Also implicitin this finding is the dynamicTESOL QUARTERLY34


22/37

quality of the influentialfactors;they do not apply continuously,but ratheraffect learnersat differentpoints in theirdevelopment.Krashen, n his monitormodel, recognized the need to take bothlearning (the acquisition/learning distinction) and learner (theaffective filter) factors into account. More recent evidence of thistrend is Schumann's (1990) attempt to introduce a cognitivedimension to his acculturationmodel and Sokolik's(1990)appeal toPDP models to explainlearnerdifferencesdue to age. I predict thatincreasing numbers of researcherswill accept the challenge ofintegratingthese two foci: learningand the learner.Broadeningourperspective to include tutoredacquisitionwouldalsobe desirable.Most of the research o date has dealtwith naturalor untutoredacquisition,as researchershave operated under thetacit assumptionthat instructionwas a variable (see, for example,Schumann,1978c) which could be factored in after we arrived atsome understandingof the naturalprocess. While it is commonpractice when faced with complex systems to deal with onedefinable part at a time (Spolsky, 1988), I do not think thatinstruction can be factored in later, any more than learner factorscan be included after we have deciphered the learning process.Thus, researchersshould not limit theirgoals to specifying what isminimally necessaryfor untutoredSLA to occur, but rather,workwith teachers in a collaborative manner to help define what ismaximallyeffective in tutoredacquisition.Besides,we have reasonnow to believe that tutored and untutored acquisitionare moresimilar than different, at least in terms of exhibiting commondevelopmental sequences (Ellis, 1989; Pienemann, 1984; Wode,1981) and some, by no means all, common error types (Felix &Simmet, 1981;Lightbown,1983;Pica, 1985).SLAresearchhas not directlyansweredquestionsaboutteaching,which is why a researchagendais needed for pedagogicalconcerns(Larsen-Freeman,990;Lightbown, 1985). Nevertheless, t has, andshould,continue o offer enhancedunderstandingf the learningpro-cess and learners(Cohen, Larsen-Freeman,& Tarone,1991; Cook,1986; Ellis, 1990a;Hatch, Shirai,& Fantuzzi,1990)and provide ex-planatory upportfor accepted teachingpractices(Lightbown,1985).The next section will distill from the researchto date observationswhichshouldbe relevant o teachers,although realizethatthe "rele-vance resides n the individual"G.Brown,1990,p. 156).ISSUESOF RELEVANCE O TEACHERS

There are general characteristicsof the learningprocess and oflanguage learnersthat teachers should be aware of. I list ten hereand suggest some pedagogical implicationsfor each.SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 335


23/37

1. The learning/acquisition process is complex. As has beenevident throughout this review, simple solutions have evadedresearchers for more than 20 years; I would not expect them inthe future. There are many complex elements in the SLApuzzle. It is probable that acquisition/learning is not monolithicand that there are multiple subprocesses, multiple routes, andmultiple causes. Teachers, therefore, cannot seek simplisticsolutions. As Spolsky (1988) has written: "Any intelligent anddisinterested observer knows that there are many ways to learnlanguages and many ways to teach them, and that some wayswork with some students in some circumstances and fail withothers. (This is why good language teachers are and alwayshave been eclectic . . ..)" (p. 383).2. The process is gradual. Learners do not master forms with theirfirst encounter. Even if they start using the form soonthereafter, the function for which they use it might not coincidewith its TL use. Acquisition is a gradual process involving themapping of form, meaning, and use. Form/functionalcorrespondences do not simply appear in the IL fully formedand error-free. In a pedagogical situation, it makes sense torecycle the presentations of forms (e.g., grammar structures) so

that learners will have ample opportunity to work out form-function correspondences. A corollary to this is the acknowl-edgment that language learning takes time. A conservativeestimate of the number of hours young first language learnersspend "acquiring" their first language is 12,000-15,000(Lightbown, 1985); our expectations of second languagelearning should be realistic.3. The process is nonlinear. Learners do not tackle structures one

at a time, first mastering one and then turning to another. Evenwhen learners appear to have mastered a particular form, it isnot uncommon to find backsliding occurring when new formsare introduced, presumably due to an underlying restructuring(McLaughlin, 1990) which is taking place. Teachers should notdespair when such behavior is exhibited by their students, butshould rather expect well-formedness to be restored eventually.4. The process is dynamic. The factors that influence the learner

and the cognitive strategies the learner adopts change overtime. As Gleick (1987) put it: "The act of playing the game hasa way of changing the rules" (quoted in Diller, 1990, p. 238).Teachers should know that what works for learners at one levelof proficiency may not do so when learners are at a later stageof proficiency.TESOL QUARTERLY36


24/37

5. Learners learn when they are ready to do so. What evidenceexistssuggeststhat learnerswill only acquirethat for which theyare prepared. One empirically supported explanation wasoffered by Pienemann (1985), who demonstrated thatdevelopmental sequences arise from speech processingconstraints. The sequences themselves do not appear to bealterable through instruction, so it may not be realistic forteachers to expect students to masteraspects of the languagewhich are too far beyond their currentstage of development(Brindley, 1987).

6. Learners rely on the knowledge and experience they have.Second languagelearnersare active participantsn the learningprocess. They rely on what they know (their L1 or otherlanguagesthey have mastered,or whatthey know of the TL) toformulatehypotheses.They then test these againstthe input towhich they areexposed, or at least thatpartof it thattheynotice(Schmidt, 1990).

7. It is not clear from researchfindingswhat the role of negativeevidence is in helping learners to reject erroneoushypothesesthey are currently entertaining(Carroll & Swain, 1991). It isintuitively appealing, at any rate, to believe that learners canmake use of such feedback when it is judicious and they areready and have time to digest it (Birdsong, 1989;Schachter,1991).Anothertentative conclusionwhich can be drawnis thata deliberate focus on the formal properties of language or"consciousnessraising"(Rutherford& Sharwood Smith, 1988,p. 3) does seem to promote accuracy, at least (Lightbown &Spada, 1990).8. For most adult learners,complete mastery of the L2 may beimpossible. Learnerscan get very good, of course, and a fewmay even be indistinguishablefrom native speakers in theircommand of the L2;however, for most, some aspects of theirILwill likely fossilize before acquisition s complete, and for all(nearly all?), there appearsto be a physiologicallydeterminedcritical period for pronunciation.Teachers obviously shouldencouragelearnersto go as far as they are capable of going inthe L2,but teachersshouldalsobe realistic n theirexpectations.9. There is tremendous individual variation among languagelearners.Teachersneed to take into account these differencesand learn to work with them in the classroom-herein lies theinterpretiveartistryof teaching.

SECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH 337


25/37

10. Learninga languageis a social phenomenon.Most(althoughbyno means all) learners seek to acquire a second language inorder to communicate with members of the TL group or toparticipate in their institutions.Much of what happens in theclassroom, too, is attributable to the social needs of theparticipants,both students and teachers (Breen, 1985;Prahbu,1991).

As I have indicated above, none of these generalizationsshouldbe startling o teachers,nor arethey preciseenoughto beprescriptive. They might fit more into the category ofexpandingawarenessor affirmingcustomarypractice.What isimportant is that teachers integrate these and any othergeneralizationsdistilledfrom research nto theirown experien-tial framework in guiding their decisions as teachers (Scovel,1988b).

A FINALREMARKIn an editorialI wrote for LanguageLearning n 1980,I describedthe field of SLAin transition rom infancy to adolescence. In 1985I wrote in the same journal that SLA had arrived at olderadolescence-surer of itself as a separate discipline while stillenjoying the vigor of youth. If I may be permitted to extend theanalogyonce again,I would have to say thatdevelopmentallySLAhas entered young adulthood. Mattersof identityshould no longerbe of central concern. As the field enjoys the privileges ofadulthood, however, we must also remember the responsibilitywhich accompaniesprivilege. Forced to adopt a narrowperspec-tive in our research due to practical constraints, we need toacknowledge the limitationsof our points of view. What I hope

researchers will be able to achieve is what teachers must alsoaccomplish: preserving a detailed focus on the particular orindividual,while simultaneouslyholdingthe whole.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTI am grateful to the skillful editing of Sandra Silberstein.

TESOL QUARTERLY38


26/37

THE AUTHORDiane Larsen-Freemans a SeniorFaculty Memberin the MATProgramat theSchool for InternationalTraining n Brattleboro,VT. Herbooks includeDiscourseAnalysisin Second LanguageResearch(Newbury House, 1980), The GrammarBook:An ESL/EFL Teacher'sCourse (with M. Celce-Murcia,Newbury House,1983),TechniquesandPrinciples n LanguageTeaching(OxfordUniversityPress,1986), and An Introductionto Second Language Acquisition Research (withM. Long, Longman,1991).Dr. Larsen-Freemanwas Editor of LanguageLearningfrom 1980to 1985.

REFERENCESAdamson, H. D. (1988). Variation theory and second language acquisition.

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Adjemian, C. (1976). On the nature of interlanguage systems. LanguageLearning, 26(2), 297-320.Allwright, R. (1988). Observation in the language classroom. London:Longman.Andersen, R. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguageconstruction. Language Learning, 34(4), 77-95.Andersen, R. (1988). Models, processes, principles, and strategies: Secondlanguage acquisition in and out of the classroom. IDEAL, 3, 111-138.Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second lan-guage learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. Seliger& M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second languageacquisition (pp. 67-103). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Beebe, L. (1980). Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in secondlanguage acquisition. Language Learning, 30(2), 433-447.Beebe, L. (1983). Risk-taking and the language learner. In H. Seliger &M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second languageacquisition (pp. 39-66). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Beebe, L. (Ed.). (1988). Issues in second language acquisition: Multipleperspectives. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.Beebe, L., & Zuengler, J. (1983). Accommodation theory: An explanationfor style shifting in second language dialects. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 195-213).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Beretta, A. (in press). Theory construction in SLA: Complementarity andopposition? Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Bialystok, E. (1990). The competence of processing: Classifying theories of

second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 635-648.Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E. (1985). A metacognitive framework for thedevelopment of first and second language skills. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition,cognition, and human performance (pp. 207-249). Orlando, FL:Academic Press.SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 339


27/37

Birdsong, D. (1989). Metalinguistic performance and interlinguisticcompetence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies:The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1-17.Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). The logical problem of foreign languageacquisition. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives onsecond language acquisition (pp. 41-68). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (Eds.). (1984). Pragmatics and secondlanguage learning [Special issue]. Applied Linguistics, 5(3).Breen, M. (1985). The social context for language learning-A neglectedsituation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(2), 135-158.Brindley, G. (1987). Verb tenses and TESOL. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applyingsecond language acquisition research (pp. 173-204). Adelaide, Australia:National Curriculum Resource Centre.Brown, G. (1990). Pit Corder: A personal memory. Second LanguageResearch, 6(2), 155-158.Brown, H. D. (1977). Cognitive and affective characteristics of goodlanguage learners. In C. Henning (Ed.), Proceedings of the Los AngelesSecond Language Research Forum (pp. 349-354). Los Angeles:University of California, Department of English.Brown, H. D. (1991). Breaking the language barrier: Finding your path tosuccess. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Brown, J. D. 1988. Understanding research in second language learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Burmeister, H., & Rounds, P. (Eds.) (1990). Variability in second languageacquisition (Vols. 1-2). Eugene: University of Oregon, Department ofLinguistics.Busch, D. (1982). Introversion-extroversion and the EFL proficiency ofJapanese students. Language Learning, 32(1), 109-132.Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign languageaptitude. In K. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals inlanguage learning aptitude (pp. 83-118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1991, February-March). Negative evidence insecond language learning. Paper presented at the 11th Annual SecondLanguage Research Forum, University of Southern California.Cazden, C., Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1975). Secondlanguage acquisition sequences in children, adolescents and adults.(Contract No. NE-6-00-3-0014). Washington, DC: National Institute ofEducation.

Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and fieldindependence as predictors of proficiency in English as a secondlanguage. Language Learning, 36(1), 27-45.Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teachingand learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Clahsen, H. (1981). Spracherwerb in der Kindheit. Tiibingen, Germany:Gunter Narr.

TESOL QUARTERLY40


28/37

Clahsen, H. (1987). Connecting theory of language processing and(second) language acquisition. In C. Pfaff (Ed.), First and secondlanguage acquisition processes (pp. 103-116). New York: NewburyHouse/Harper & Row.Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1986). The accessibility of universal grammarto adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German wordorder. Second Language Research, 2, 93-119.Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition.Second Language Research, 5(1), 1-29.Cohen, A. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers andresearchers. New York: Newbury House/HarperCollins.Cohen, A., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Tarone, E. (1991, April). Thecontribution of SLA theories and research to teaching language. Paperpresented at the RELC Regional Seminar.Cook, V. (Ed.). (1986). Experimental approaches to second languagelearning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. InternationalReview of Applied Linguistics, 5(4), 161-170.Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 11(4), 367-383.Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency:Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOLQuarterly, 14(2), 175-188.d'Anglejan, A., & Renaud, C. (1985). Learner characteristics and secondlanguage acquisition: A multivariate study of adult immigrants and somethoughts on methodology. Language Learning, 35(1), 1-19.Day, D. (Ed.). (1986). Talking to learn: Conversations in second languageacquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Dechert, H., & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1989). Transfer in languageproduction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Diller, K. (1990). The non-linearity of language-learning and 'post-modern'language teaching methods. In H. Burmeister & P. Rounds (Eds.),Variability in second language acquisition (pp. 333-343). Eugene:University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics.Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second languageacquisition. Language Learning, 24(1), 37-53.Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York:Oxford University Press.Eckman, F. (1985). The markedness differential hypothesis: Theory andapplications. In B. Wheatley, A. Hastings, F. Eckman, L. Bell, G. Krukar,& R. Rutkowski (Eds.), Current approaches to second languageacquisition: Proceedings of the 1984 University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeLinguistics Symposium (pp. 3-21). Bloomington: Indiana UniversityLinguistics Club.Eisenstein, M. (Ed.). (1989). The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studiesin second language variation. New York:Plenum.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION RESEARCH 341


29/37

Eisenstein, M., Bailey, N., & Madden, C. (1982). It takes two: Contrastingtasks and contrasting structures. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 381-393.Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Ellis, R. (Ed.). (1987). Second language acquisition in context. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? Astudy of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 11(3), 305-328.Ellis, R. (1990a). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: BasilBlackwell.Ellis, R. (1990b). A response to Gregg. Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 384-391.Ely, C. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, andmotivation in the L2 classroom. Language Learning, 36(1), 1-25.Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1983). Strategies in interlanguagecommunication. London: Longman.Felix, S. (1988). UG-generated knowledge in adult second languageacquisition. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Linguistic theory in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 277-294). Dordrecht, Netherlands: KluwerAcademic.Felix, S., & Simmet, A. (1981, May). Natural processes in classroom L2learning. Revised version of a paper presented at the IIIeme Colloque

Group de Recherche sur l'Acquisition des Langues, Paris.Felix, S., & Weigl, W. (1991). Universal grammar in the classroom: Theeffects of formal instruction on second language acquisition. SecondLanguage Research, 7(2), 162-181.Flynn, S. (1983). A study of the effects of principal branching direction insecond language acquisition: The generalization of a parameter ofuniversal grammar from first to second language acquisition.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Reidel.Flynn, S., & O'Neil, W. (Eds.). (1988). Linguistic theory and secondlanguage acquisition. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Gaies, S. (1977). The nature of linguistic input in formal second languagelearning. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77(pp. 204-212). Washington, DC: TESOL.Gardner, R. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second languageacquisition. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and socialpsychology. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.

Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: Therole of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1959). Motivational variables in secondlanguage acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.Gass, S. (1989). Language universals and second-language acquisition.Language Learning, 39(4), 497-534.TESOL QUARTERLY42


30/37

Gass, S., & Madden, C. (Eds.). (1985). Input in second languageacquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.) (1989a). Variationin second language acquisition: Vol. 1. Discourse and pragmatics.Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1989b). Variationin second language acquisition: Vol. 2. Psycholinguistic issues.Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.Gass, S., & Schachter, J. (Eds.). (1989). Linguistic perspectives on secondlanguage acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language transfer in languagelearning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnativenegotiation of meaning. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Gasser, M. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second languageacquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(2), 179-199.Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York:Viking.Gradman, H., & Hanania, E. (1991). Language learning backgroundfactors and ESL proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 39-51.Gregg, K. (1990). The variable competence model of second languageacquisition and why it isn't. Applied Linguistics, 11(4), 364-383.

Guiora, A., Brannon, R., & Dull, C. (1972). Empathy and second languagelearning. Language Learning, 22(1), 111-130.Hakuta, K. (1976). A case study of a Japanese child learning English as asecond language. Language Learning, 26(2), 321-351.Hakuta, K., & Cancino, H. (1977). Trends in second language acquisition.Harvard Educational Review, 47, 294-316.Hansen, J., & Stansfield, C. (1981). The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement.Language Learning, 31(2), 349-367.Harley, B. (1986). Age in second language acquisition. Clevedon, Avon,England: Multilingual Matters.Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. InE. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings(pp. 402-435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Hatch, E. (1983). Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Hatch, E., & Hawkins, B. (1985). Second-language acquisition: Anexperiential approach. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied

psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 241-283). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual. New York:Newbury House/HarperCollins.Hatch, E., Shirai, Y., & Fantuzzi, C. (1990). The need for an integratedtheory: Connecting modules. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 697-716.SECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH 343


31/37

Heyde, A. (1979). The relationship between self-esteem and the oralproduction of a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Hilles, S. (1986). Interlanguage and the pn-drop parameter. SecondLanguage Research 2(1), 33-52.Huebner, T. (1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax.Language Learning, 35(2), 141-163.Hulk, A. (1991). Parameter setting and the acquisition of word order in L2French. Second Language Research, 7(1), 1-34.Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions aspredictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronominalcopies in relative clauses. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Second language: Acrosslinguistic perspective (pp. 39-58). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Ioup, G., & Weinberger, S. (Eds.). (1987). Interlanguage phonology: Theacquisition of a second language sound system. New York: NewburyHouse.Johnston, M. (1985). Syntactic and morphological progressions in learnerEnglish [Research report]. Department of Immigration and EthnicAffairs, Australia.Jordens, P. (1988). The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German asL1 and L2. Second Language Research 4(1), 41-65.Kasper, G., & Grotjahn, R. (Eds.). (1991). Methods in second languageresearch. Studies in Second Language Research, 13(2).Kellerman, E. (1984). The empirical evidence for the influence of the L1 ininterlanguage. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.),Interlanguage (pp. 98-122). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Kellerman, E. (1985). If at first you do succeed ... In S. Gass & C. Madden(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 345-353). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.Kellerman, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1986). Cross-linguisticinfluence in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. InH. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL '77 (pp. 144-158).Washington, DC: TESOL.Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second languagelearning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.Oxford: Pergamon Press.Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. NewYork: Longman.Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate, and eventualattainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4),573-582.Krashen, S., Scarcella, R., & Long, M. (Eds.). (1982). Child-adultdifferences in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

TESOL QUARTERLY44


32/37

Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of theEnglish copula. Language, 45(4), 715-762.Lantolf, J., & Ahmed, M. (1989). Psycholinguistic perspectives oninterlanguage variation: A Vygotskyan analysis. In S. Gass, C. Madden,D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second languageacquisition: Psycholinguistic issues. Clevedon, Avon, England:Multilingual Matters.Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed.). (1980). Discourse analysis in second languageresearch. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1985). State of the art on input in second languageacquisition. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second languageacquisition (pp. 433-444). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1990). On the need for a theory of language teaching.In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languagesand Linguistics 1990 (pp. 261-270). Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 279-296).New York: Newbury House/HarperCollins.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to secondlanguage acquisition research. London: Longman.Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental andinstructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger & M. Long(Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition(pp. 217-243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisitionresearch and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 173-189.Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and correctivefeedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on secondlanguage learning. Studies in Second Language acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.

Lightbown, P., & White, L. (1987). The influence of linguistic theories onlanguage acquisition research. Language Learning, 37(4), 483-510.Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, LosAngeles.Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Long, M. (1990a). Maturational constraints on language development.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 251-285.Long, M. (1990b). The least a second language acquisition theory needs toexplain. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 649-666.MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1989). Anxiety and second-languagelearning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39(2),251-275.

Mazurkewich, I. (1985). Syntactic markedness and language acquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7(1), 15-35.SECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH 345


33/37

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London:Edward Arnold.McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113-128.Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981); On determiningdevelopmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 3(1), 109-135.Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The goodlanguage learner (Research in Education Series No. 7). Toronto: TheOntario Institute for Studies in Education.Neufeld, G. (1979). Towards a theory of language learning ability.Language Learning, 29(2), 227-241.Nunan, D. (1987). Methodological issues in research. In D. Nunan (Ed.),Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 143-171). Adelaide,Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in languagelearning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Oiler, J. W., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (1973). Focus on the learner:Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher. Rowley, MA:Newbury House.O'Malley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second languageacquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher

should know. New York: Newbury House/HarperCollins.Pankhurst, J., Sharwood Smith, M., & van Buren, P. (Eds.). (1988).Learnability and second languages: A book of readings. Dordrecht,Netherlands: Foris.Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clauseformation in a formal and an informal context. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 8(1), 38-55.Pennington, M. (1990). The context of L2 phonology. In H. Burmeister &P. Rounds (Eds.), Variability in second language acquisition (Vol. 2,pp. 541-564). Eugene: University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics.Pica, T. (1985). The selective impact of classroom instruction on secondlanguage acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 214-222.Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability oflanguages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186-214.Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. InK. Ilyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.,), Modelling and assessing secondlanguage development. Clevedon, Avon, England: Multilingual Matters.Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing thedevelopment of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applyingsecond language acquisition research (pp. 45-141). Adelaide, Australia:National Curriculum Resource Centre.

Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysisof a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition.Cognition, 28(1-2), 73-193.TESOL QUARTERLY46


34/37

Prahbu, N. S. (1991, March). The dynamics of the language lesson. Paperpresented at the 25th Annual TESOL Convention, New York City.Preston, D. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL

Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.Rumelhart, D., McClelland, J., & the PDP Research Group. (1986a).Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructures ofcognition: Vol. I. Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Rumelhart, D., McClelland, J., & the PDP Research Group. (1986b).Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructures ofcognition: Vol. II. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.). (1988). Grammar and

second language teaching. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.Sato, C. (1985). Task variation in interlanguage phonology. In S. Gass &C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 181-196).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Sato, C. (1988). Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(3), 371-395.Scarcella, R. (1990). [Review of Variation in second language acquisition(Vols. 1 & 2)]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 458-460.Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24(2),205-214.Schachter, J. (1983). A new account of language transfer. In S. Gass &L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 98-111).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship touniversal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9(3), 219-235.Schachter, J. (1990). On the issue of completeness in second languageacquisition. Second Language Research, 6(2), 93-124.Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. SecondLanguage Research, 7(2), 89-102.Schachter, J., & Celce-Murcia, M. (1977). Some reservations concerningerror analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 11(4), 441-451.Schachter, J., & Rutherford, W. (1979). Discourse function and languagetransfer. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 3-12.Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.Schumann, J. (1978a). The pidginization process: A model for secondlanguage acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Schumann, J. (1978b). The acculturation model for second language

acquisition. In R. Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition andforeign language teaching (pp. 27-50). Washington, DC: Center forApplied Linguistics.Schumann, J. (1978c). Social and psychological factors in second languageacquisition. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second & foreignlanguage learning (pp. 163-178). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.SECOND LANGUAGEACQUISITIONRESEARCH 347


35/37

Schumann, J. (1979). The acquisition of English negation by speakers ofSpanish: A review of the literature. In R. Andersen (Ed.), Theacquisition and use of Spanish and English as first and second languages(pp. 3-32). Washington, DC: TESOL.Schumann, J. (1983). Art and science in second language acquisitionresearch. In M. Clark & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL '82: Pacificperspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 107-124).Washington, DC: TESOL.Schumann, J. (1990). Extending the scope of the acculturation/pidginization model to include cognition. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 667-684.Schumann, J., & Stenson, N. (Eds.). (1974). New frontiers in secondlanguage learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: Areview of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129-142.Scovel, T. (1988a). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into thecritical period for human speech. New York:Newbury House/Harper &Row.Scovel, T. (1988b). Multiple perspectives make singular teaching. InL. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition (pp. 167-190).New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.Seliger, H. (1984). Processing universals in second language acquisition. InF. Eckman, L. Bell, & D. Nelson (Eds.), Universals of seco

second lang acquis research stak territory

Documents