Directions:
The following essential questions that I have posted are critical to help you explore and understand the assigned readings L & S Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 during Week 3. These questions are intended to drive and stimulate the discussion and move your understanding beyond the plain sense of the text. Reading my PPT and watching the posted videos will guide you to answer these questions.
Please select 2 questions (one question from L&S Ch. 2 and another one from Ch.3) out of these posted essential questions, answer them and post your responses in the Week 3 discussion forum (50 words for each question minimum). Please write your answers in your own words!!
Responses should:
· Be coherent;
· Be posted in the time allotted;
· Be respectful;
· Be scholarly
The following questions are based on L&S Ch.2:
· 1) What aspects of learners’ interlanguage are most likely to affect their ability
to use language effectively outside the classroom? Word order? Grammatical
morphemes? Vocabulary? Phonology? Pragmatics? Do you think priorities for
classroom interaction and instruction reflect the importance of these different
language features?
· 2) What was an important difference between the error analysis approach to understanding L2 learner language and the contrastive analysis approach?
The following questions are based on L&S Ch.3:
· 3) How would it help you to know the relationship between the personal characteristics discussed in this chapter and their influence on L2 development?
· 4) Describe how the existence of individual differences influence instruction in the classroom. How would you manage individual differences in your own classroom?
Videos for Big Concepts in L &S Ch 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzORpr-7FrA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npTLxjWAqi4
Videos for Big Concepts in L &S Ch 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzORpr-7FrA
OXFORD
lJNIVERSITY PRESS
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department ofthe
University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s
objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford
is a registered trade ma¡k ofOxford University
Press in the UK and in certain other countries
@ Oxford University Press 2013
The moral rights ofthe autho¡ have been asserted
First published in zor3
2077 201.6 zo1.s 2014 2oa3
10987654327
AII rights reserved. No part ofthis publication
may be reproduced, sto¡ed in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford
University Press, or as expressly permitted by
law, by licence or under terms agreed with the
appropriate repro$aphics rights organization.
Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the
scope ofthe above should be sent to the ELT
Rights Department, Oxford University Press,
at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other
form and you must impose this sarne condition
on any acquirer
Links to third party websites are provided by
Oxford in good faith and for information only.
Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the
materials contained in any third party website
referenced in this work
Photocopying
The Publisher grants permission for the
photocopying ofthose pages marked
‘photocopiable’ according to the following
conditions. Individual purchasers may make
copies for their own use or for use by classes
that they teach. School purchasers may make
copies for use by staffand students, but this
permission does not extend to additional
schools or branches
Under no circumstances may any part ofthis
book be photocopied for resale
rsBN: 978 o 19 454126 8
Printed in China
This book is printed on paper fiorn certified
and well-rnanaged sources.
AC I(NOWLE DGE ME NTS
The authors cmd ptblisher are grar,efuI to those who hqve
given permksion to reproduce the following extracts and
adaptations oJ copyight material: p.77 Extract from
Language Delelowent and Language Disorders by
Lois Bloom and Margaret Lahey (1978). Macmillan
Publishers; p.47 Figure Ílom’Some issues relating
to the Monitor Model’by Stephen Krashen, On
TESOI (1977). Reprinted by permission ofTESOL
International Association; p.49 Extract from
‘Constructing an acquisition-based procedure
for second language assessment’by Manfred
Pienemann, Malcolm Johnston, and Geoff Brindley
irt Studies in Second Longuage Acqu$üofl , Volume 10/2,
pp.277-a3 1988). Reproduced by permission of
Cambridge University Press; p.53 Extract Ílom
‘speeding up acquisition ofhisfter: Expücit L1/L2
contracts help’ itSecond Language Acquisition and
the Younger Learner: Child’s Play? by Joanna White
(2008) pp.193-228. With kind permission ofJohn
Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/
Philadelphia; p.54 Exhact ftom ‘Second language
instruction does make a diffe¡ence’by Catherine
Doughty in Studies in Second Language Acquisiüon,
Volume 13/4, pp.431-69 (7991\. Reproduced by
permission of Carnbridge University Press; p.1 36
Reprinted fr om In t ern ati on al J ournol of E duc aüonal
Research, Volume 37 by Merrill Swain and Sharon
tapkin’Talking it through: two French immersion
learners’ response to reformulations’ Pp.285-304
(2002)with permission from Elsevier; p.139 Exüact
from ‘Corrective feedback and learner uptake’
by Roy Lyster and Leila Ranta in Studies in Second
Longuage Acquisition, Volume 7917 pp.37 -66 (7997).
Reproduced by permission of Cambridge
University Press.
Cartoonsw: Sophie Grillet @ Oxford University
Press 1993, 2005, and 2012.
t
qJntu os PeuJBe[ e BrI4 4.
ruorÍr,r ruoJJ stuePnls Pu” sJarlJeel arp oI
C/
ZL
ZL
89
t9
09
L9
PEqPaaJ a^nfarroS
9€l suonf,€Jalur luepnls-luepnls :suosrJeduor tuooJssel3
6ZI suonJeJatul ruapnrs-Jer{f,eel:suosrJeduroc uoo;sse13
6T.I sel’uer{f,s uorlE^Jesgo
LT.I s8unlas Fuonf,nJtsur J rteorunuJuof, uI
9T,I s8ulllas ItuonrnJlsul pa$q-arnpnJts uI
,U s8ulues uo¡lsmbce IEJnrEu uI
gU sSunlas leuonf,nJlsul pue IErnreN
eT,l ‘/r’\al^aJd
eU ruoorssep a8en8ue¡ puof,as aqr q Srmrcear pue tulurea¡ tun-rasqg S
slualuo)
EpEueJ ‘¡g ‘oruoro¡’epedg eur¡
VSn ‘Vntr ‘qclrrr-re¡1 ‘u.,r’oqrq3r1 ‘¡¡q lsre¿
‘r{f,fteseJ pur ‘8ul
-qf,Eer ‘Sururea¡ a8en8ue¡ puof,as ol suonnglJluof, u1r\o Jraqr J>lEru or ueqr
a¡rdsu¡ pue a8ua¡¡eqf, III^{ r€qr uon€ruroJur pue smpr pug ilpi’TtrIH jo suon
-lpe snor^ord aqr pear e Er{ oqd\ asoq} pue sJepeer
^\au
qrog reqr adoq alN
‘TV’IH ur Pef,nPorlur arc l3r{1
scrdot ar{rJo eruos rnoqe Surureal anunuof, ol sJar{f¿at a8e¡norua ilynr sarJas
srqr ul qooq eqt r¿ql adog a4N’acrrre;d uoorsselr or s8urpug aqr Suqur¡ pue
I{f,J¿aseJ tue a¡ar agr Surrrral,mr ‘(uollreJerur I”Jo pue’tbenl:rl’Sulqtear aSen8
-uBI pesrg-lualuoJ ‘luarussasst se qons) :rdor cglcads E uo snJoJ III^{‘Joqlne
ruera5lp e fg uaulrn’arunlo qf,Eg’utootssq) a&rn&uaT ar,p ntstdatuo2 [ay
?otxO eqt ‘sJar{f,?at JoJ qooq Jo sarJas
^^au
E uo 8uq¡o¡’r f¡ruarrnc eJB alN
‘lEIri/rar.ll”ar¡r¡a7uro:’dno z!\1r\,{\
tB pJSSef,f,B aq ue) ?autpa7 a& sa&an8ua7 mo¡¡ JoJ alrsqa,&\ er{I
JoJ sEepr Jraql ar¿r{s or puB slaqro qrra l]E;ir?::ffj;r:””üil’l'””T1ffi;
apnord osle III/v\ rI looq ar{rJo srualum ar{rJo Sulpuersrapun pu¿ Surprer
;nol a:uequa o] seJJnoseJ pur IErJetBru peseq-qe.{\ JJr{to pue ‘s8urpear ‘sall
-r^nf,E ltuorrrppe sureluoJ r{JIr{¡A atrsgo./$ uoru¿du¡oc E sr uonrpa sr{t Jo
eJnlEeJ ,{\eu JJrltouv ‘soldot eqt Jo auros aro¡dxa ol sar}runl¡oddo sJapEaJ
a.r’13 reqr (sanr^rlf,V,
^tau
atuos pepnlf,ur a^eq a \ pue fardeqc r{JpeJo pua aqr
te (uorlregeJ;o3 suonsan|, peppe a^Eq a-&\’TV’IHJo uollrpe qunoJ srr{t uI
‘erJq
$nporlur f¡uo um a,/v\ leqr srldorSo Sulpuersrapun Jraql uadaap ot tsrl aJua
-reJal ar{r pue s8urpeal eseql ,&\olloj or sJapEeJ a8¿¡no¡ue a¿N’rardeqr qJEaJo
pue aqt te ,Surpeer Jer{unJ ro3 suonsaSSns, euJos patelouue elerl a,tr’uonrpe
srql uI fu¿ur os.&\ou er€ ereql qJIq^Uo ‘serpnls rvtau tuer¡odur pu” pleg aqr
ur sJrss¿¡f, ual \tag Sulsooqr luearu uauo ser{ qr8ua¡ elqeuos¿er E or {ooq
aqt Suldaa¡ ‘tprgrp a¡oru ulro.r8 a eq apnllul or r¿q.vr tnogB suorsrf,ep aqr
‘uonrpe
^/rau
r{JEe JoJ r{rJtasal aqr Surrepdn u1 ‘uollrsnbce a8en8ur¡ puof,es
ur r{f,r”eserJo qrr’ror8 alqnlreurarJo slep l¡rea eqr ur ilns era.t a.&\ s066I pue
s086I eql ur uorlrpa rsrg erp uo 8uq¡o¡vr. aJa/v\ a.&\ uJrltysulSr¡o asoqr ruo{
r”J pella^¿rl
^\ou
eABr{ >looq arp Jo suorrrpa aargl ‘s;eaf lueru rol pe>lro./v\
qroq alrr eJar{ \ ‘EpEuEJ ‘cegan} ur sJer.lf,Bat .to3 sdoqslro,,’t ruarudo¡a,rap
¡ruorssajord Jo sarras E sE tno pelrtrs (fVfH) paufia7 atV sa&an&ua7 moH
NOIIICIfl HIUNO{
flHI OI flf,V{ilud
‘Sururea¡ (¿1) aSen8uel puoras or uorreler ur >loog
aqr ur rarel parlsr^er a.re faqr pue rardeg: sr{t ur patuasard are Sulurea¡ (11)
atenSue¡ rsrg rnoge sarroarp IEre aS ‘a8rn8ue¡ tsrg rrar{r a¡mb¡¿ uerpllql
noq3o SulputtsJapun Jno lq pa:uangur uaeq ar’eq Sulqcear a8enSuel puocas
put r{f,Jeasar a8en8ue¡ puooes r{1og asnef,eg ruerrodul sl punorSl:Eq slql
‘pooqpplr l¡.rea ur Suru:ea¡ a8en8ue¡ uo ;ardeqr E qlr^\ sur8ag 1ooq eql
‘pJuJEal e¡¿ sa8en8uel ,/v\or{Jo Sulpuersrapun Jno r{tr^\
tuelsrsuof, eJoru eJe leql slerr,r. ur uaqt rdepz or osp rnq sprJJtBru pue $looq
-txal Surlsrxa aten[E^a or l¡uo rou ruaqr dlag leru rrr{r l{f,Jeesar uo¡usnbre
a8rnSuq ar{rJo aruos ot-peouarredxa pue af,r^ou qroq-sJar{oral arnpoJrul
ot sr looq srr{Uo ¡eo8 aq1 ‘spograu Sulql¿ar a8enSue¡ snoIrEAJo sluauodo¡d
fq aperu srurelf, alenlele ol sJarlrBel Suld¡aq ur elqenl”^ osl¿ aJ¿ uorlrsrnb¡e
a8en8ue¡ puof,as ul f;oagl pue qf,J”esal luoJj u,&\EJp wapl r¿qt e^elTag a1)N
‘sluapnls rrar{l Jo sanllge pur spaeu eqr Jo Surpuetsrapun Jlar{l sE lleff\ sE
‘sluaruturoddrslp ro sassaoons snol^erd qtvtr ecual¡adxa u¡rro ¡Iaql $ suorsloep
(sJar{feel uo ef,uengu¡ turuodul rsotu eqr ‘aJns eq oI ¿sa3n3eJd ¡euorr
-fnJlsur rueJe5rpJo ssaue nfaga p¡ruarod aql et¿np e ol sJer{3eel eJE.1v\oH
‘tuetuoJ f,nuapef,E ar{r uo snf,oJ sluepnrs se l¡rruaplf,ul peureal eq il¡,l\
3¡asrr eBenBuEI arp ter{} uondu¡nsse aqr qrvy\ laueru rralgns I{JEal ol runlperu
eqr se pasn sl a8rn8uq puof,es ar{l ‘sruooJsselc auos u1 ‘a8en8url
^\eu
eql
Sulsn a¡qz’r spalo¡d ¡o slser ul l¡er’lle¡adooc a8e8ua laqr sE sluepnts uea^\teg
uonef,runruuro: (l¿Jnleu, sa8utnocua Jeqloue ra¡’san8o¡e¡p aJrlua ezlJoluaru
pue seouelues tf,eJJof Jo las e aslr¡e.rd pue alellrm sluepnls 8ur,rerl3o an¡ert
aqt sazseqdua reglouv ‘slxJl lreJatl¡ 3u¡re¡suerl uI esn or fre¡nqtcort jo
slsr pue reururer8jo sJlnr uJeal ot stuapnts seJlnbeJ q:eordde auo ‘paruaru
-a¡drur pur pasodord uaag a,req Surgceat aSen8uq or saqceordde lue¡¡
l¡a,rrrcaga ueql esn ol lsag rrer{r op or a Er{ oqtll sJal{rrar or parnqlJ}slp
pu¿ paJepJo l¡durs are lagr ‘sJrullatuos ‘uolleluarua¡drul laqr ul 8ururc¡l
alrsuetxa JoJ senrunlJoddo qrmt aruof, slEIJalEIu.lv\ou aql ‘sauJllaurog ‘uolSar
Jo loor{f,s E ur uorletuaua¡dul a}Blporurul JoJ paglJf,se¡d a.¡e saqceo:dde
^\au
aqt ‘sase¡ furru uI ‘aJoJaq auo8 aaeg rel{r asoqr u”ql a^Ipüa aJoul
aq illr\r’laqr regr plor erE srrr{r”3J ‘lSo8epad ¡o ‘s¡rlslnSuu ‘l3o¡oqcfsd ur
qf,Jeasar rsarel er{t uo pJS”q eq ol pIES ueuo are laqr ‘parnpo¡tur e¡e 8ul
-qreel a8en8ue¡ u8laro3 pup puores roJ qooqrxal pur spoqraur ldau uaql¡
NOIIfNCIOUINI
Innoduction
In Chapter 2 we look at second language learners’ developing knowledge,
their abiliry to use that knowledge, and how this compares with Ll learning.
In Chapter 3, we rurn our attention to how individual learner characteristics
may affect success. In Chapter 4, several theories that have been advanced
to explain second language learning are presented and discussed. Chapter
5 begins with a comparison of naturd and instructional environments for
second language learning.’We then examine some different ways in which
researchers have observed and described teaching and learning practices in
second language classrooms.
In Chapter 6, we examine six proposals that have been made for second
language teaching. Examples of research related to each of the proposals are
presented, leading to a discussion of the evidence available for assessing their
effectiveness. The chapter ends with a discussion of what research findings
suggest about the most effective ways to teach and learn a second language
in the classroom.
In Chapter 7, we will provide a general summary of the book by looking at
how research can inform our response to some’popular opinions’ about lan-
guage learning and teaching that are introduced below.
A Glossary provides a quick reference for a number of terms that may be new
or have specific technical meanings in the context of language acquisition
research. Glossary words are shown in bold letters where they first appear in
the text. For readers who would like to find out more, an annotated list of
suggestions for further reading is included at the end of each chapter. The
Bibliography provides full reference information for the suggested readings
and all the works that are referred to in the text.
‘W’e
have tried to present the information in a way that does not assume that
readers are akeady familiar with research methods or theoretical issues in
second language learning. Examples and case studies are included through-
out the book to illustrate the research ideas. Many of the examples are taken
from second language classrooms. \le have also included a number ofactivi-
ties for readers to practise some of the techniques of observation and analysis
used in the research that we review in this book. At the end of each chapter
are ‘Questions for refection to help readers consolidate and expand their
understanding of the material.
Before we begin …
It is probably true, as some have claimed, that most of us teach as we were
taught or in awaythat matches our ideas and preferences about howwe learn.
Take a moment to refect on your views about how languages are learned and
what you think this means about how they should be taught. The statements
in the activity below summarize some popular opinions about language
‘seuo xelduo) eJolaq
seJntrnJls a8en8ue¡ a¡durs qJeel Plnoqs sJeqf,eal | |
‘Jaqloue ol uo 3uto3 aJoleq euo qf,ee
¡o sa¡dr,uexa as¡Dad plnoqs sJeuJeel Pu€’eutl e
lp euo selnJ lellleuue”r8 luasa.ld PlnoLls sJeq)€al Ol
‘sra¡eads el!}eu ql!^ suotl€sJeluof, ut
ated¡r¡ued ,ftsea uer laqr’e8en8u€l e ,o ernDnJN
ilseq eql Pu€ sPJo^ 000’l
^
oDl sJeuJeal a)uo ó
‘aSenBue¡ puof,as
eqt u! spunos lenpr^rpu! aql ¡¡e erunouord
ol alqE eq ol sJeuJeal Jo, l€lluassa s! rl I
‘3utpea.t
q8no.rqr sr ,fue¡nqero,r /v\eu uJ€el ol ,(e¡,r lseq eql ¿
‘a8entue¡ m-rg
Jleqt uo4 elueJeFetu! ol anP aJ€ 3)eu sJeuJ€el
e8en8ue¡ puof,as teqt selelslu eql ro lso¡ 9
‘3uru;ea¡ ur ssaf,f,ns
,o pooqrle¿!l aql rateelt eql’seuu€J3o-rd ¡ooq:s
ur pe)npoJtut st aten8ue¡ Puofes P JallJeo eql S
‘uolle^ltour st uortlslnb¡e a8en8ue¡ Puof,es
u! sse)fns ¡o ;ontpard lusuodLul rsou aql t
‘sJeuJeal
a8en8ue¡ poo8 a”re a¡doad rueS¡¡¡aru¡ llq8lU e
‘sJoJJe ¡er¡teuue;3 a¡eu
,(aqr ueq,r,r ueJpltql Sunol }¡a.l’¡or ,!¡ensn sluaJed Z
‘uolletlru! q8no-rqr l¡ureu PeuJEel a;e sa8en8uel ¡
osovvs
aar8esrp l¡Suorrs-q5
teq^ euos aa-r8esrp-6
leq^ euos aa-r8e-Y
ae.r8e ,!3uo;rs-y5
:uoruldo rnol qlrr* Peletf,osse xoq eql ul
¡ ue Suqreu lq tuaualets q)ea qr!^A aa.l3e nol q)lq/v\ 01 luelxe aqt elerlPul
sluoruolels aseql uo uoluldo JnoÍ eAlD Arl^lrcv
‘Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡ Puoias ul ,Goaql Pue q3Jeasal luoJJnf, rnoge Pear
nol sr punu ul rrJegl or suopf,EeJ rnol pue sluaruel?ls asaqr daal ‘uorurdo
gr”, qri^ aarSeslp ¡o aa¡8e nol raqtaqr’r rnoqe lun{I ‘Surgrear pue Sulurea¡
uo4Jnpo4uI
Introduction
Photocopiable @ Oxford University Press
l2 Learners’errors should be corrected as soon as
they are made in order to prevent the formation
of bad habits.
l3 Teachers should use materials that expose
students only to language structures they have
already been taught.
l4 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for
example, in group or pair activities), they copy
each other’s mistakes.
l5 Students learn what they are taught.
ló Teachers should respond to students’errors by
correctly rephrasing what they have said rather
than by explicitly pointing out the error.
l7 Students can learn both language and academic
content (for example, science and history)
simultaneously in classes where the subject
matter is taught in their second language.
l8 Classrooms are good places to learn about
language but not for learning how to use language.
¿a8en8ur¡ auo ueqr a¡otu a¡rnb¡e uerPllql tenSut¡t9
oP ./r\oH ¿PIro1( eql Punor¿ l¡re¡u¡s do¡a,rap eSenSur¡ PInp seoc ¿sasod
-¡nd lsour JoJ lryssaDns sI uolleflunluruof, a¡duls f¡rea -uaqr g8noqr ua,ra
a8en8uq ¡erlteruutr8 xa¡duro:8urdo¡a,rap uo oB ol uerPlrql seqsnd rer¡6
¿salueluas ¡ry3ulueau ul raqlaSor ureqr rnd ol lnq ‘sProlv\ uJml ol l¡uo rou
pI,{¡
”
salgeua r”qrh\ ¿srgr gsr¡druorre uarPllqr oP.u’oH ‘suorle¡aua8:o3 srs¡8
-o1oqilsd pue stslnSullJo uonuaue er{r Parf,EJrlB seq lEI{l auo-tta; Sulzeure
ue sl a8en8ue¡ e Sulurea¡ ‘paapul ‘,alq-elq, rsJg al{l PaJaDn seq p¡o-reaf-auo
asor{1rr sruarrd3o fol pur aprrd aqr ur arBl{s el/\ PuE ‘sargeg rrPloJo Sullqqrq
,Eq-¿q-Eq, IEuoltesrs^uof aqr (re.¿!\suB, pue gSne¡ a¿¡ dqeq Plo-qruou-e3rr{1
e lq apeul spunos eqr or arnsea¡d qlIA uetsll a¿¡ ‘ruaurdole^aP u”runl{ Jo
spadse 8u¡reutoseS pue a,rtssardlul lsolu eqr Jo auo sr uorlrsrnbre o8enSuel
uonrspbce a8entuel rsrl¡
‘looq slglJo snf,oJ
aqr sr r{f,rr{1vr ,(WS) uorlrslnb¡e a8enSue¡ puof,asJo uorssnf,srp el{r JoJ uollsr
-eda¡d e se f¡ruulud ,I{iJEasaJ sII{l ur slutod uleru d\al E uo l{f,nol or s¡ rardrqr
sII{l ur asod¡nd Jno .ile^\ sE r{fJessJJ I”Jntlnf,-ssoJf, puE f,nsrnSur¡ssor:3o
lpoq qru E sr erarp ‘serllureJ umdorng PuE uEf,IJOlrtV I{lJoN ss”ll-alPPltu ul
euop ueaq s”q qf,J”asar sII{r Jo qcnur g8noqr¡y ‘aBenBuBI PIIqr uo l{rreesar
Jo lunolue asuarurur uB sr aJer{I .peuJEal sl aSenSue¡./v\or{ JoJ suoneueldxa
s” paraJo ueeq e Br{ tEqr serroar{l IErrAes rePlsuof, ueqr ilI^\ a4N ‘uarPllql
Sunol3o rueurdolalop aSrn8uq aqr re fgarrq lool ill1r\ ar* terdeqc slq] uI
^.er^eJd
COOHCITIHf,,TfUVE NI
DNINUVfl-I flDVNDNVf
Language learning in early childhood
Tbef.rst three years: Milestones and
deu e lopmental sequences
One remarkable thing about first language acquisition is the high degree of
similariry in the early language of children all over the world. Researchers
have described developmental sequences for many aspects of first language
acquisition. The earliest vocalizations are simply the involuntary crying that
babies do when they are hungry or uncomfortable. Soon, however, we hear
the cooing and gurgling sounds of contented babies, lying in their beds
looking at fascinating shapes and movement around them. Even though
they have little control over the sounds they make in these early weeks of
life, infants are able to hear subtle differences between the sounds of human
languages. Not only do they distinguish the voice of their mothers from
those of other speakers, they also seem to recognize the language that was
spoken around their mother before theywere born. Furthermore, in cleverly
designed experiments, researchers have demonstrated that tiny babies are
capable ofvery fine auditorydiscrimination. For example, they can hear the
difference between sounds as similar as pa’and’ba’.
Janet’ü7erker, Patricia Kuhl, and others have used new technologies that allow
us to see how sensitive infants are to speech sounds. tü7’hat may seem even
more remarkable is that infants stop making distinctions between sounds
that are not phonemic in the language that is spoken around them. For
example, by the time they afe ayear old, babies who will become speakers of
Arabic stop reacting to the difference between pa’ and’ba’which is not pho-
nemic in Arabic. Babies who regularly hear more than one language in their
environment continue to respond to these differences for a longer period
(‘Werke¡ ‘Weikum, and Yoshida 2006) . One important finding is that it is not
enough for babies to hear language sounds from electronic devices. In order
to learn-or retain-the abiliry to distinguish between sounds, they need
to interact with a human speaker (Conboy and Kuhl 20II). The Internet
abounds with remarkable videos of infants reacting to language sounds.
rMhether they are becoming monolingual or bilingual children, however,
it will be many months before their own vocalizations begin to refect the
characteristics ofthe language or languages they hear and longer still before
they connect language sounds with specific meaning. However, by the end of
their first year, most babies understand quite a few frequently repeated words
in the language or languages spoken around them. Theywave when someone
says ‘bye-bye’; they clap when someone says pat-a-cake’; they eagerly hurry
to the kitchen when ‘juice and cookies’ are mentioned.
At 12 months, most babies will have begun to produce a word or two that
everyone recognizes. By the age of two, most children reliably produce at
least 50 different words and some produce many more. About this dme, they
begin to combine words into simple sentences such as ‘Mommy juice’ and
I
I
(
l
I
Í
:
t
? Puz aql salf,rlr?
(lddrg sz furuoyt¡) e¡ndoo
(req slppeq) s- a,rrssessod
(tuam Áqeg) suro; rsed rep8arl
(qooq ozvrr) s- prn¡d
(Suruunr furuo¡lq) &ur aqssat8o¡d luesa¡d
‘parpnls fagr saruaqd
-roru rr{t Jo eruos s.l$,oqs (11ooq g.L6l su^&\org ruor3 pardepe) .vro¡aq tsIT eql
‘aruanbas JEInuls t ur pa;lnbce eJalv\ sauragdroru ¡ecneruruer8 Vl ñqt PunoJ
laqr (qereg pue ‘elg ‘ur”py pa¡ec) ue¡P¡gr oerqrJo tuaurdola,rap a8en8ue¡
aqr3o.,(pnrs purpn¡l8uol e uI ‘sruaPnrs PuE san8ea¡or slq PuE u^\org raSo¿
fq rno paur¿f, se,/v\ serpnrs úv\oul-lsaq eI{Uo auo ‘qsrÉug u¡ saruagd.roru ¡rr
-neruu¡¿¡8 a¡mb¡e uarpllql .&\oq uo Pasnf,oJ sJatlf,JEesar FJs es ‘
‘ef,uatuas er{l1o uorsJe e^neJelf,ep aqt ut lrcqtxne ou
aq ppo^\ aJar{r r{rrrf’.r ur suonsanb ul .op, ppe ue^a uel ueJPIIqr ‘a8ers slqr rtrr
¿aru quz’rle¡d or 3ulo3 nol ary
‘rrafgns aqt aJoJaq ¡eadde ]Er{l sJIr
-Erlrxnr arp ur lrarre^ eJoru sr aJagl rng ‘E a8trg jo asoqt elqruasal suonsanb
JrlI ‘uolsJelul l¡erTrxne-t:algns lq pauro3 are suoltsenb auos ‘7 a8er5 ly
yaSwg
¿tr par{f,ref, no,( lq¿¡ ¿euo e eq r uop nol fqr¡1
¿ar¡oor E a^Br{ uel I oC ¿prrll $ lppar aqr s1
‘ruJoJ lualuelEls sll uI afuelues arpJo rsal aql Surrtea¡ ‘esualues
BJo (luo{, aqr re (protvi uonsanb ro gra,r e) Sunpauros Surrrnd lq PauroJ art
suousanb teqr eq or srueas alnJ s,pllql eqt asnef,aq ,3urluor3, a8ers qgr IIEI alN
:euurer8 tppe equo arrn¡ads¡ad eqr ruo{ uEI{l rer{rrr a,rncads¡ad EPIIqT eql
ruo;3 urarred eqt aas ot peau alr\’slql aglJf,seP oI’uosreJ 8uo¡rtr aqr ro3 lq8rr
aq &u faqr ‘uraued llnpr aqt qrtetu a8zrs str¡r te suorlsanb aruos q8noqr¡y
¿lddeq nol ary
¿o3 1 ue3
:sr l{f,ns suorlsanb acnpord or uÉag
pue ruaJaglp sr suoltsanb 3o arnnnrrs aql leqr e3llou uarPllql ‘f¡enp-erg
g aSatg
‘suortsanb pateaJf u,{\o JIaI{l eprs8uo¡e ,¿reqr
s.rerltr, sE r{f,ns sruJoJ peuJeel->lunql loerrof, aqr aonpord ol anunuoo lagl
¿rruos e^?q I ¿sn{r a>III noÁ
‘uolteuolul Sulsrr qru*’ef,uetuas alneJ”lseP
eqrJo JaPJo PJo,/\4, al{r esn ueJPIIr{J ‘suorlsanb ¡aeu sJolu 1se or urSag r{arp w
7 a8ug
¿reqr ErEt1,N ¿fppeq srraqr6
:qunql s” Peuftal uaaq arreq,bqr
esnef,aq lf,eJJof,-suollsanb lce¡¡oo auros acnpotd leru laql ‘arutl arues aql ly
¿1ooq Áuruol J ¿aDIooJ
:uolleuolul Sursr qurtr sa3uelues
pJo./v\-eeJq1 Jo -o1r\l a¡druls Jo sPJo¡a a¡8uls a:e suollsanb lseIIJEa s¡arp[Y)
¡ a8atg
Footlplltp t(ltra ut Sututral a8anSuaT
s
c
I
1
I
a
(
(
a
II
T2 Language learning in early childhood
Therefore, we may find inversio n in yes/no questions but not in wh- ques-
tions, unless they are formulaic units such as “ü7’hatb that?’
Stage 5
At Stage 5, both wh- andyes/n questions are formed correctly.
Are these your boots?
\íhy did you do that?
Does Daddy have a box?
Negative questions may still be a bit too difficult.
\X/hy the teddy bear cant go outside?
And even though performance on most questions is correct, there is still one
more hurdle. tWhen tuh- words appear in subordinate clauses or embedded
questions, children overgeneralize the inverted form that would be correct
for simple questions and produce sentences such as:
Ask him why cant he go out.
Stage 6
At this stage, children are able to correctly form all question types, including
negative and complex embedded questions.
Passage through developmental sequences does not always follow a steady
uninterrupted path. Children appear to learn new things and then fall back
on old patterns when there is added stress in a new situation or when they
are using other new elements in their language. But the overall path takes
them toward a closer and closer approximation of the language that is spoken
around them.
Zhe pre-scltoolyears
By the age of four, most children can ask questions, give commands, report
real events, and create stories about imaginary ones, using correct word order
and grammatical markers most of the time. In fact, it is generally accepted
that by age four, children have acquired the basic structures of the language
or languages spoken to them in these early years. Three- and four-year-olds
continue to learn vocabulary at the rate of several words a day. They begin to
acquire less frequent and more complex linguistic structures such as passives
and relative clauses.
Much of children’s language acquisition effort in the late pre-school years is
spent in developing their ability to use language in a widening social environ-
ment. They use language in a greater variery of situations. They interact more
often with unfamiliar adults. They begin to talk sensibly on the telephone
to invisible grandparents (younger children do not understand that their
telephone partner cannot see what they see). They acquire the aggressive or
I
I
&
1
c
o
ú
IlI
oI
TI
nel
rez
‘ca
iss
of
InL
rid
d¡¡rue3 pue spuerrj rrar{r qlrrvr, aJeqs or ar’o¡ feqr qlrq./$ ‘.salpplJ
pue ‘suonsenb >1cur ‘sa>1ol pror* ot ssef,f,E uaJplrr{f, sa¡.r8 Suru¿aru a¡dnpu
a ¿r{ uEf sefualues puE spJolv\ reqr Sumou;¡ lrlnSlque se s8ulqr r{f,ns Jo
&ertoosrp eqt sapnlf,ur osle sseuar?1(E cnsm8ul¡elary ¡Jeuor{s l¡rnuersgns sr
stuasa¡da¡ rl rralgo egr q8noqr uaAe ‘,urBJJ, uer{l pJolvr Je8uo¡ e sr ,re¡¡ldralec,
teql puetsJepun laql ‘sr (asnor{, se lsnl ‘prorrr e sr (ar{l, ter{t pu”rsJepun p¿aJ
uer or{ \ uerplrgr ‘sp¡o-reaf-aarr{r eTlun ‘stuasa¡da¡ u Sulqr egt ruo{ etEJ
-¿das sl (pJo1r\, e rtqr SulpuetsJapun aqt sef,Jo3urer Sulpta¡ ‘8ulu¿aru s¿ ila^\
sB ruJoJ seg a8en8url regr SuryurtsJapun .&\eu E ot ueJplrql spea¡ a8ed e uo
s¡oqruls rer.llo pue sJouel lg paruasardal spJoa Sulaag ‘sseuaJr^re rnsrn8url
-Eleru ol rsoog;ofuur ¿ sa¡tr8 peeJ or Sulureal ‘s^r’ro¡8 pue spuedxa lr¡lqe srgl
‘s;eal ¡ooqcs aql ut pue ‘sreaf loogcs-ard agt ur s8urueeru u1r\o rraqt ssardxa
ol pue srar{lo puelsJepun or aSen8ue¡ asn ol lrlllq” aqr do¡a,rap uaJpllr{f
sffia[ Iooqrs aql
‘luarudo¡ar’ap a8enSuel JoJ sonrunlJoddo ¡’rau s8u¡rq pur e8en8uel
Sulsn 3o s&¡rr ¡’rau sa.rrnba¡ Suuas Iooqls aql (asn a8en8ue¡ pue a8enSurl
roJ sllDIS pur a8pa¡r’tou¡ xa¡duo: a¡rnb¡e uarplrr{r ¡oor¡cs-ard q8noqr¡y
‘looqls or oB fagr arun eql lg aroru ro srnor{ 000’02
JoJ tuau¡uoJr^ue JrerFJo a8en8ue¡ eqr qrr^\ tf,¿luof, ul are larp ltr{l eterurlse
l¿ru a¡r’ ‘lep e srnoq e la \r Jo uat JoJ a>p./v\E arc uaJplll{f, JI ‘stuaruuoJl^ua
qolr-a8en8ue¡ ul puads uerplrqf, snoq lurur r’rog rsnl nof zvroqs III^ esllraxe
I¿f,ntuer{reru >1:rnb y ‘fta ‘uorsr^elar Suryrreztr ‘ol pear Surag ‘suoltesrarr
-uo3 (sJJqlo uo Sulddorpsalea ‘suonesJa uof, ur Sull¿dlrlrred-a8en8ue¡
qrvn SunceJerul srnor{ Jo spu”snor¡r ruads a^¿q ueJpllqr reql lgr.ror’r
-alou osle sr lI ‘elrssaJdrur sl s:eal ¡oorl:s-ard eqr ur uolllslnbce a8rn8url
‘(punoJe ft¡rr 3uo¡¡tr aqt, sr Jarpo eqr rnq lillt, tl auo l”ql nol ¡ar uec lagl
‘(l?a er{l e>pf,, ruo5 le,rn tuareglp ¿ ul 8uo¡¡’¡. sr (Jrer{J aql {uIJp, rEI{r r’rortl
‘pueq raqto eqt uo ‘sp¡o-reaf-arrr{ ‘suearü rr r”q.ü puersJapun uec faqr rrrp
13BJ rr{r uo l¡urcu sncoS ¡lrv’ laqr rnq ‘ppo llq e s,u .r*ou1 lagr reqr rrroqs leur
leql ‘l qrwr Suorrvr, Sulqrlue s erar{l reqr aJns ssel eJE lagl ‘,lea aqt a1to, fes
Ja^au ppol’r faqr g8noqrp ta e./ú\oH ‘asuas a>pru r,usaop tI asn”f,eg ‘,JIBqf
aqt >lurrp, fes or f¡ls, s,rr rerp nof ¡ar uEf, uarpllqr p1o-.real-aarq¡ ‘sla,ruo:
tr Suru¿aru eqr ruo5 ete¡edas roalqo ue sr aBenBuEI r”oJr or óITr9e al{l ‘sseu
-a¡e¿rre:nsrnSu[elau do¡a,rap or ulSag os[B ueJplrr{J ‘sreaf ¡ooqcs-ard aqr u¡
‘sarJel a8en8ue¡ lgr’.r put lroq pu”tsJepun or ur8aq pur aroldxa larp
‘ftrvr sr¡r uI ‘(se3ro^ ruaJ$lp asaqr 8u¡sn asnce;d faql r{3ll{,/v\ ur &¡d puarard
arerogele ur a8pa¡.,’ron1 srql asn laqr pue laqro q:ea or lpr fagr mog pue
serqsq or lpr srlnPe ^/y\oq ue3.&\tag ef,uaJaJIP aqr Paur?al ar’rq laqr 13Ip /{ogs
faql ‘punor8le¡d aql ur sfor rregr puaJap or pepaau sI rrr{r e8en8ue¡ 8ur¡ofu:
?ooqflltf [lraa wSutunal aSan&uaT
J(
JI
ar
3l
-I
SI
S:
o.
SI
aÍ
P
J:
1J
u
s:
&
ll
,l
l:
P
el
tr
t4 Language learning in early childhood
One of the most impressive aspects of language development in the school
years is the astonishing growth ofvocabulary. Children enter school with the
ability to understand and produce several thousand words, and thousands
more will be learned at school. In both the spoken and written language at
school, words such as ‘homework’ or’ruler’ appear frequently in situations
where their meaning is either immediately or gradually revealed.’Words like
population or’latirude’ occur less frequently, but they are made important
by their significance in academic subject matter.
Vocabulary grows at a rate of between several hundred and more than a
thousand words e year, depending mainly on how much and how widely
children read (Nagy, Herman, andAnderson 1985). The kind ofvocabulary
growth required for school success is likely to come from both reading for
assignments and reading for pleasure, whether narrative or non-fiction. Dee
Gardner (2004) suggests that reading avariety oftext types is an essential part
of vocabulary growth. His research has shown how the range of vocabulary
in narrative texts is different from that in non-fiction. There are words in
non-fiction texts that are unlikely to occur in stories or novels. In addition,
non-fiction tends to include more opportunities to see a word in its different
forms (for example, ‘mummy’, ‘mummies’, ‘mummified’).Th. importance
of reading for vocabulary growth is seen when observant parents report a
child using a new word but mispronouncing it in a way that reveals it has
been encountered only in written form.
Another important development in the school years is the acquisition of dif-
ferent language registers. Children learn how written language differs from
spoken language, how the language used to speak to the principal is different
from the language of the playground, how the language of a science report is
different from the language of a narrative. As Terry Piper (2006) and others
have documented, some children will have even more to learn if they come
to school speaking an ethnic or regional variety ofthe school language that is
quite different from the one used by the teacher. They will have to learn that
another variety, often referred to as the standard variety, is required for suc-
cessful academic work. Other children arrive at school speaking a different
language altogether. For these children, the work of language learning in the
early school years presents additional opportunities and challenges.
‘W’e will
return to this topic when we discuss bilingualism in early childhood.
Explaining first language acquisition
These descriptions of language development from infancy through the early
school years show that we have considerable knowledge of tahat children
learn in their early language development. More controversid, howeve¡ are
questions about how this development takes place. rVhat abilities does the
child bring to the task and what are the contributions of the environment?
¿(>pnn ar{t) ll or Pauaddeq leqAt ,\srvrr
(rerr¡)
‘1cnrr dunq ‘slaarl[\ ]f,nrr dtunq dirrild
plf,nJt dunp eqr ul sleeq/( e¡ou¡ lnd euuo8 ar¡o sIo’I
‘aJorü laD utrrad
‘uo
lool
‘enSoprp Surirro¡o3
aqr uI r1npe aqt sat¿llurl Jalad
^{‘oI{
sfllou ‘eloqe suouusaP aqr Surs¡ ‘r¡npt
Surlrsln ¿ qrl¡l pa&¡d laqr se peprof,er arar* laqr usrr{\ plo sqtuoru ,zfioqe
¡¡e aram,{aq1 ‘uÁqru¡ pur ‘lpul3 telad luoU sldr¡¡sue¡l aql eulluBxa
^\oN
‘SlOJJ¿f,
rre I{roq legl’storref, lea auo Jal{ro Jr{I ‘sloJref, lea aH ,{cNIc
‘urJoJ
Jo uonelndrutu ar’¡rpadal :af,Itf,EJd
s¡op qrrn’fe¡¿ ,\cn’I
¿slloP aqr grv”‘ fe¡d er\ II?I{S uaHrol I
.ef,ueJaltn s esla euoerüos3o rrrd ro
IIEJo uonnedar prortr-ro1-PJo1v\ :uollelllul
raprsuof, ‘srulal o u asagr rq r””r* r;]’rlllff;{I;11*i:il?J”qJtü
ur sasse¡o¡d l¡¿ul¡d eqt sE l\xlJvtd pue uotlaluat Pa/’/’JL srsIJnoI^EI{3q eI{I
$ldut?tca ?u? suo?qu{aq :qcaads s,uaty¡tqe Sutst1auy
.uJ”el or spaau pF{l egr Surqrf-ra^aJo ef,Jnos aql sE luauuoJl^ua aql ol e3uEl
-¡odu¡l rze¡8 sa,tl3-froal{r slgl’rnolleqeq a8en8ue¡ s,P¡ql aqr adeqs PFo^\
,luauluoJr,rua aql q sJJr{to lq pa-rago lualuef,JoJuleJ JIII Jo fcuats¡suoc ar¡t
s” II3./$ sE’sreallPltll 3q1 a8en8ut¡ sqrJo ó¡rurnb pue.lrnrnb aql’^\eI^
,rqio,8.rrp:o:ry:asn a3en8ue¡ DerJof,Jo ,sllq’I{, PeurroJ fagr ¡run su¡aued
pu? spunos eseql asnf,BJd pue arrr¡urr 01 anurluol pFo^, UaJPIII{3 ‘luatuuoJ
-rrr,rrlrr,{r,{q pafurnorua snql .uoneorunrurüoJ
InJssaf,f,ns lsnl ro aslerd3o
urJoJ 3I{r e{81 PInoJ slrll ‘(luauef,JoJulal a,rrlrsod,,partraf,eJ PJ”3I{ larp reqm
,r.tiorárr ór riá*ru” rraql ,uaqr punorc asoqr,(q pacnpord a8en8uq aql
pal?lnul usrpllqr uaq.&\ rEqr pazsaqrodlq slslrnol^El{e3 IBuolllPBJJ ‘(Ls6l)
rauuDIS c .g sB,/ü lroaqr ¡etlSoloqrlsd srql3o tuauodo¡d u¡¿\olDl-lseg agl
,3.trurla¡ r3*3,r”1 or prrfiar qlrlN ‘sarers perrun aql uI f¡rroadsa ‘s0l6l
pue s076I aqr ur ltrluangur se/’r rsgr Sulurra¡3o lroaqr B sI IusIJnoI eqeg
a nur a ds”ta d $t¿not a? q a q a qI
‘sa¡tpads¡ad ¡eruarudo¡a,reP/lsuolrf,EJalul
puE (ls¡euur ,tsl:nor,reqaq :ruarudolartap a8en8ue¡ ule¡dxa or PaJUB^P? uaaq
aAEII suousod prlraroaql ultru earqr’&nruel q10Z 3r{rJo slPPIlu srir muIS
Sl Footl?lltlr f,ltaa ut nurutaa1 aSan&uaT
¿r
JI
AJ
u
A1
il
a1
II
t.
SI
e’l
SJ
SI
1I
u
-l
SI
e
e:
II
tl
u
Á.
ll
e:
J(
Á
,(
e
1l
J,
SI
ll
sl
a’
I(
T6 Language learning in early childhood
nETER (looking under chair for it) Lose it. Dump truck! Dump
truck! Fall! Fall!
LoIs Yes, the dump truck fell down.
IETER Dump truck fell down. Dump truck.
(Unpublished data from P M. Lightbown)
Ifwe analysed a larger sample of Petert speech, we would see that 3040 per
cent of his senrences were imitations of what someone else had just said. \7e
would also see rhat his imitations were not random. Thar is, he did not simply
imitate 3040 per cent of everything he heard. Detailed analyses of large
samples of Petert speech over about a year showed that he imitated *otá,
and sentence structures that were just beginning to appear in his sponraneous
speech. Once these new elements became solidly grounded in his language
system, he stopped imitating them and wenr on to imitate others.
unlike a parror who imitates the familiar and continues to repear the same
things again and again, children appear to imitate selectively. The choice
of what to imitate seems ro be based on something new that they have just
begun to understand and use, not simply on what is available in the environ-
ment. For example, consider how Cindy imitates and practises language in
the following conversations.
Cindy (24 months, 16 day$ is looking at a picture of a carrot in a book and
trying to get Patsy’s attention.
cINDY Kawo? kawo? kawo? kawo? kawo?
pATsy ‘ülhat are the rabbits eating?
crNDY They eating … kando?
PATSv No, thatt a carrot.
cINDy Carrot. (pointing to each carrot on the page) The other …
carrot. The other carrot. The other carrot.
(A few minutes later, Cindy brings Patsy a stuffed toy rabbit.)
pATsy \ü/hat does this rabbit like to eat?
cINDy (incomprehensible) eat the carrors.
(Cindy gets another stufFed rabbit.)
crNDy He (incomprehensible) eat carrors. The other one eat carrots.
They both eat carrots.
(One week later, Cindy opens the book to the same page.)
crNDy Heret the carrors. (pointing) Is that a carrot?
PATSY Yes.
(Unpublished data from P. M. Lightbown)
‘$uatuJltl3
Jo suonsenb sJe>[Eads JeTro eqr uo sal?Joq?Ia PuB suollsanb sJ3^\sLrB Put
$lse er{s’pealsul ‘Ja)Frds Jaqto aql salellrul l¡arer aqs tnq ‘safueluas a:r¡:¿¡d
parelaJjo sarJas e sacnpord roj¡asraq sreadal seulltaruos uf;qte¡ ‘fpur3 a1ry
G€]:gLGI lr.lrT puu uroo¡g tuoglil
.ureJl
oor{f oor{J e sr sql (ulerr;o u¿d tno 8ur¡er) ¿ooI{J ool{l Y N,\uHrlrx
‘xoq aqr uI s,rl ‘ePrsul sIo-I
¿urEJl oor{f, ool{f, aJolu ¿ aJJqra ¿aJJqrN
‘>pnrr ulrqre¡ (1cnrr rno 8ur¡er) lf,nJr ta) ‘uIEJl oor{3
oor{f, aJoru oN ‘eJoru B leD ‘aJou ra8 1 (xoq ut Sutgcreas) N,runrvx
(:agraSor l srnd sro.1¡
‘r*og nol r’roqs IIloo’I ‘lr op uEf, noÁ ‘ll op uer noÁ ‘;4O sIo’I
‘srqr op I ‘sn{r op 1 (raqraSor urc¡l tnd ot
8uú-u) ‘slqr op rue,& I ‘srqt oC (ulerr3o sJ33 o-1r\l tno 8ur¡er) N,\uHrvx
(‘roog eqr uo epIIS aqr stnd ulrgru¡)
‘srqr oP I ‘sFlL’roou uo u1(oP rnd N,\)rHrvx
‘sI rEI{r rBIl!\^\oDl nol qg sIo’I
¿srql EtErL[\’le¡d rue¿6 (epls tno Stqtt) ‘ulerl ool{3 ool{f, I{11.&\
&¡d ruem I ‘urerr ool{f, ool{f, qrv’t le¡d turt\ I (8eq ro3 Surqeee-r)
‘urerl ooqr oor{f, al{r rr¡8norq sIo’I’sa
¿urrrl ooqr ool{l eqr rq8norq sIo-I ¿ool{r ooq3 ¿s,{or 8ur-rq 1
¿rqSnorq 1 slot aqr aas nof pl6l
(sqruour V7)uthqYY
‘sro-I
PuB urirgrr¡ uJJ \leq uollssJa^uo:8urno¡o; aql ut arnorrd
pue uonerrrul 3o saldruzxa al{l TJPISuoJ’luaf, rad 91 ueql ssal rE Parelm
-lm uaaq seq tered pue lpur3 Jo rEI{r or a¡geredurof, elrr e re papaacord
luaudo¡autap esoq,/ra ‘uaJPIItls JaIPo Jo q:aads eql uI uollelllul Jo lunour¿
aql ‘p¡p fprlf put rared se I{f,nru se asrlcr¡d PuE ele}llil uarPllqr IIE roN
‘tuaruuorr^ua aqr lq uErF ral{}Er pll{c aqt aplst{
Surgtauos fg paulrurarep peruaes asrlce¡d Pue alelllul ol ]Erl^Uo alrol{o aIP
‘/lres a^\ se ‘os ue,rg ‘uoltlslnb¡e e8en8ue¡ 3o uorreue¡dxe lslJnoll?qaq eW
or r¡oddns oruos pual ot ruaes lPttl PuB rered ruorj qraeds jo sa¡dues aq1
‘¡oBuuroru,
lpuarrnr $ aqs teq,t\ uo pasnroJ aq or .readde a¡lpe¡d PuE uoIlelIIUI JaI{
lared e{ll ,teql sl 8ur¡ns lsouI sI IP(LA’IISI^ lsel slsle¿ efuls uaas lou PEII
aqs 1ooq agr ul aSed aqt or rq8le.tts suJnl Pue ralsl >lea^\ E üossel aSenSue¡,
aql sJaqruaueJ el{s letlt sr Surlsa¡alul lsolu sdeqra¿ isessElf, a8en8ue¡ u8ra;o;
eruos uI tuepnrs E a>lll spunos reqr lem e uI saJnlJnJls PUE sPJo/( d\au sasll
-cerd aqg ‘uotllsrnbrr a8tn8ue¡ req uo preq Suurortr aq or sreadde fPtlf,
?ootl?l?qr lpaa ut &urutua1 a8anSuaT
NTUHII’}I
SIO’I
NA)THIYX
SIO’I
Pr
UI
-u
lsI
af,
eu
aB
Snr
sP.
a3.
Át,
qx
Je(
LI
18 Language learning in early childhood
Thus, children vary in the amounr of imitation rhey do. In addition, many
of the things they say show that they are using language creativel¡ not just
repeating what they have heard. This is evident in the following e*ampl.r.
Patterns in knguage
The first example shows a child in the process of learning pamerns in lan-
guage, in this case the rules of word formation, and overgeneralizing them
to new contexts.
Randall (36 months) had a sore on his hand.
MoTHER M”yb. we need to take you to the doctor.
RANDALL \7’hy? So he can doc mylittle bump?
Randall forms the verb ‘doc’ from the noun ‘doctor’, by analogy with farmers
who farm, swimmers who swim, and actors who act.
fNor l putd.-
W”!,1!brrrysetÍ !
Focus onmeaning
Even older children have to work out some puzzles, for example, when famil-
iar language is used in unfamiliar ways, as in the example below. vhen David
(5 years, 1 month) was ar his older sister’s birthday parry, toasrs were pro-
posed with grape juice in stemmed glasses:
FATHER I d like ro propose a roasr.
Several minutes later, David raised his glass:
DAvrD I d like ro propose a piece of bread.
only when laughter sent David slinking from the table did the group realize
that he wasnt intentionally making a play on words! He was concentraring
(
I
I
d
{
ts
k
lllfr
¿5
g
m
d(
let
the ptates oo
t *¡c tatle !
/Yon ,q¿a,^, I n+E
the ptates oitte
\’te.btc.,-
‘uollrsrnbfe a8en8ue¡ JoJ suoneueldxa ruaraglp JoJ >lool ol sJar{rJresal pel
suonelruJrl asaql ‘arlnbf,E ueJplrr{f ter{t JEruruE.rB xa¡duroo eJotu ar{lJo uog
-rsrnbrr erlt JoJ uoneue¡dxa,ftotcrSsnrs r tou sr rusrJnor^Er{eq lrf,rsself, ‘.a>fertr
ueiplrql t”ql uonpzrprauaSra,l,o Jo slJos aqr Surureldxa ot ,(rr’r, aruos saoB
rusrrnor^Eqaq q8noqr¡e puv ‘tol ? eletrurr oq,/!\ asoqr se l¡prde.r pue f11ry se
a8en8ue¡ a¡lnb¡¿ uouetrulr IJJ^o elurl op oq,&\ ueJplrql 1a^eaoH ‘saSets tsar¡
-rea aqr re fllelcadsa ‘a3en3ue13o slradse aulrno: pur re¡n8eJ eqrJo aruos uJ?el
ueJplrr{f,./(oq Surpuersrapunjo lem alqruoseal E JeJo ot sruees rusrJnorler{eg
‘lf,eJJof, uauo pue a¡qrsuegarduroc l¡ensn aJE seouatuas,/!\au Jraql ‘spJo,s
JO SaSn 1v\eu JO STuJOJ l1\eu atearc feql ‘slxaluof, 1v\eu ol ueql azrlEJauaS pw
su¡aued lno >pld or ;raddt uarplrql ‘reqre¡ ‘stlnpe ruoU preaq a,reg laqr r¿{¡
saf,ualuasJo suortnada¡ l¡a.rau lou tre laql’uarp¡¡¡r lq parea-rr sruJoJ Jrp
Jo aruos urc¡dxa louuer euole rfnfe.rd pue uonelnul ‘8ulurca¡ a8en8uel 3o
ssa:o¡d aql uo l’ropuuvi E g1r^\ sn aplrro;d q:aads suarplrqrJo saldruexa asaql
‘lf,aga pue asnef Jo JapJo ar{t se8uego
pro^\ E.&\oq pu”tsrapun raf rou prp eH ‘rsr5 pres aq r”g./ü ErEI{r os ‘sPueq srq
Áp or parduaue IIEpuEU ero1ag pereaddesrp sla^\ol eqt
‘le \or e roj Suqoo¡ servr (sqruoru I ‘sreaf E) Ippus¿
vuanato np.rg
‘luaurdo¡a,rap uonsanb
ul g aSrrgSo sa¡durexa poo8 are suoltsanb sIH ‘aJuelues elpJo SuruulSaq arp
te ?re,rnd or se,/r\ suorlsJnb Suuse3o >lrlJr al{r rEI{t papnpuol p”q IFpusU
¿roq sr sql arv
¿sroog fru arc asoql erv
¿slr”r rraqr a133ln uec sSop ary
‘lep e ¡o asJnof, ar{1 Ja o suorl
-Enlrs snorJBA ur suonsanb Surmo¡oj al{r pa>lse (sqruoru 6 ‘sfte/ Z) IIEPuBU
uo4au”toluo?rsanÓ
‘,peaJgJo acard e, ‘rur(uoufs-¡tau lua¡edd¿
srr qlv’r paoe¡dar aq rou plnoJ pu¿ lseor ewBS aqt lou stl’t-(tsror
-^\au>I
Jq
rq8noqr arl pro^{ aq1 tEIp azrlear or pelle3 aI{ rEI{r ,’ ‘ ‘ asodord or aTI p(I, uols
-sa¡dxa f,r¿lnruroJ ar{r pue a¡nlsa8 rvrau SuneurcsE agr Sunurol¡ad uo pr”I{ os
6I pooqpl?tp f,1wa utBuruwal a3an3ua7
3u
ez)
-o,
PI
1I
I
\
IUi
-u
lsl
lu
20 Language learning in early childhood
7h e innatist p ersp ectiue
Noam Chomsky is one of the most infuential figures in linguistics, and
his ideas about how language is acquired and how it is stored in the mind
sparked a revolution in many aspecrs of linguistics and psychology, includ-
ing the study of language acquisition. The innatist perspective is related to
Chomsky’s hypothesis that all human languages are based on some innate
universal principles.
In his 1959 review of B. F. Skinnert book Wrbal Behauior, Chomsky chal-
lenged the behaviourist explanation for language acquisition. He argued that
children are biologically programmed for language and that language devel-
ops in the child in just the same way rhar orher biological functions develop.
For example, every child will learn to walk as long as adequate nourishment
and reasonable freedom of movement are provided. The child does not have
to be taught. Most children learn to walk at about the same age, and walking
is essentially the same in all normal human beings. For Chomsky, language
acquisition is very similar. The environment makes only a basic contribu-
tion-in this case, the availabiliry of people who speak to the child. The
child, or rather, the childk biological endowment, will do the rest.
Chomsky argued that the behaviourist theory failed ro account for ‘the logical
problem oflanguage acquisition’-the fact that children come to know more
about the structure oftheir language than they could reasonably be expected
to learn on the basis of the samples of language they hear. The language
children are exposed to includes false starts, incomplete sentences, and slips
of the tongue, and yet they learn to distinguish between grammatical and
ungrammatical sentences. He concluded that childrenk minds are not blank
slates to be filled by imitating language they hear in the enyironment. Instead,
he hypothesized, children are born with a specific innate abiliry to discover
for themselves the underlying rules of a language sysrem on the basis of the
samples of a natural language they are exposed to. This innare endowmenr
was seen as a sort of template, containing the principles that are universal to
all human languages. This universal grammar (UG) would prevenr the child
from pursuing all sorts of wrong hypotheses about how language sysrems
might work. If children are pre-equipped with UG, then what they have to
learn is the ways in which the language they are acquiring makes use of these
principles.
Consider the following sentences, from a book by Lydia \X/h ite ( 1 9 8 9). These
English sentences contain the reflexive pronoun’himself’. Both the pronoun
and the noun it refers to (the antecedent) are printed in italics. (An asterisk
at the beginning of a sentence indicates that the sentence is ungrammatical.)
a John saw himself
b *HimselfsawJohn.
I
{
I
I
i
I
ir
n
I
h
ir
si
a(
oi
qr
w
‘ureqr qrl^\ rf,Eralul aldoad qrq.r
ur sluaruuorrlua ur dn rq8no.rq are laqr3l srualsls a8en8ut¡ xa¡duroc armb
do¡e,rap ór¡lge e,urruSor parnul¡,Ga,r qtl\{ ueJp¡qr ua^g ‘a8enSue¡ ualods3o
uolusrnboe s¡a-rp¡gc SurJEer{ ot Jelrrurs sl ruetsls aSenSur¡ regr3o uortrsmb:u
aqr ur ssa¡3o¡d Jraqr pu” ‘fruejur ur tr ol pasodxa are faqr 3r a8rn8uel u8.rs
ureel llrlv\JEap llpuno3ord arc oqz’r ua¡pllgf, ‘ólunruruor ¡en8ur¡r¡nur e m
a,rr¡ fagrSl a8rn8ur¡ auo uer{t eJoru ro-e8rn8ue¡ a nru rlaqr armbce I¡¡S
-sseflns uaJplrql il” rsotule r¿qr rrEJ aqr sazlseqdrua a,rn¡ads¡ad tslteuul aq1
‘uo¡r¡s¡nbre a8en8uq ro3 lla,rrsn¡cxe pasn sI usruer{f,eru ateum
er{r rer{r aJoruJaqunJ azrsagtodlq faql ‘rndul Jr{lJo suon¿trurT Jo alds m
xeruls xalduo: qf,ns relof,srp ot uaqr s \olle reqt a8pe¡mou>l ro rusruer{rarrr
al¿uur eruos e^Er{ rsnu laqr ‘tuaruuoJrlua Jrar{} jo a8en8uq aqr a.rmbru
uarplrqr IIE erurs trr{r ezr$qrodlq laq¡ ‘lndur eqt ur alqelr¿,rr secualuas 3w
-sn¡e.rd pue SunernulJo srseq eqr uo l¡a.rnd paur”al aq Ja au p¡nor reruure-6
xa¡duroc r{Jns terir an3¡e a¡.rtcads¡ad lsneuur ar{l ruo{ uonrsrnbf,E a8rn8uu¡
lpnrs oqru. sreqoreesa¿ ‘srar{lo aql Jo ólTe¡neurue;8un aqt azuSorer pun
saf,ualuas ¡ecrreruurerS aqr ra.tdratur lpcauoc or alqe aq plno^\ uarpllq:
e8e-¡ooqos lsour ‘taÁ ‘ler’r aqr 8uo¡e sror;a e>leru op uerpllql pue ‘uJEal o¡
p.leg lra,r aq plno \ tl suaes l ‘ólxa¡duol Jo pury sryr rE >lool a^{ uaqlil
‘tlasunr¡
¡o a¡nt¡rd e ¿qft{ pa,&\oqs ¿utlo[ l
:lllg ro uqof raqrta ol reJar Plnos a^Ixaua¡
er{r eJar{^\ (>1) ur se ‘a¡glssod sr luepaf,etue euo u€ql aJoru ‘sasef, aruos uI
‘ (asnr¡r alug) rua8t¡arur sr.!1 a sutt t¡ *tp sarayTag utl of * (
‘(asne¡c auug-uou) rua8r¡arur aqotllasuttc¡ sa€Ileg u7o[ t
‘(f) ul tou lnq (l) ur uorlrsod rcalqns eqr ur aq uEf, a^Ixegar eql ‘eJourJal{unJ
‘(q)
“l
se ‘slervr¡e lou tng ‘(p) pu¿ (e) ur se luapaf,elue otp sB esnrlr aIUES atp
ur aq tsnru e rxegal aqr l¡ens¡ ‘r¿qr ueql parecr¡duoc eJoru ua^a Erl puy
‘fiasru1q qser’r ot IIIS pesFuorduqof q
:Jar{lra >lJo \ l rJo \ alnJ sII{r tegt s tol{s (g) ‘ra,razvro¡1 ‘luaPef
-alue aqr sr unouo¡d elrxageJ aql or rsesolf, unou aqr rrr{r epnl3uoJ rq8lru a,n
lasryr¡ qsr.l$olrugplol urlof* t
tlasu,nq qsel,l’otlltg p¡or ugof ¡
tlasu,ttr1 peTI porC rer{r prcs uqof* a
t1asryr¡ p¿1;lr.ati ter{t ples ur{o[ p
:s” qf,ns safueluas JePrsuos eaJJ
‘ ur.1 of satoq!1a sruxq relJe 3ur¡oo1 r
:srqr sar’ordsp (c) tng ‘ot sra;ar
ll unou arF
^/\olloJ
lsnur unouord ar’rxagar er{rJr sE $lool ll ‘(q) pur (e) u1
?ooqnltp tltaa ut Sututaal a3on3uo7
(.IB:
>ISIJ
unc
esat
aser
01 e
suJ:
PIrJ
orl
lUer
eql
Ja^(
.P?:
lut
PUI
rdr
a?e
PAI
eJo
F]I
elE
orl
-Pr
Pul
Pu1
eqI
-nq
e8v
3.tI
a^E
1U3
‘do
-lal
lEI{
.I3I
IZ
22 Language learning in early childhood
Children acquire the basic syntax and morphology of the language spoken to
them in a variety of conditions, some ofwhich would be expected to enhance
language development (for example, caring, attentive parents who focus on
the childb language), and some which might be expected to inhibit it (for
example, abusive or rejecting parents). Children achieve different levels of
vocabulary creativiry social grace, and so on, but virtually all achieve the
abiliry to use the patterns of the language or languages spoken to them. This
is seen as support for the hypothesis that language is somehow separate from
other aspects ofcognitive development and may depend on a specific module
of the brain.
The Critical Period Hypotltesis
The innatist perspective is often linked to the Critical Period Hypothesis
(CPH)-the hypothesis that animals, including humans, are genetically
programmed to acquire certain kinds of knowledge and skill at specific times
in life. Beyond those ‘critical periods’, it is either difficult or impossible to
acquire those abilities.’S7’ith regard to language, the CPH suggests that chil-
dren who are not given access to language in infancy and early childhood
(because ofdeafness or extreme isolation) will never acquire language if these
deprivations go on for too long.
It is difficult to find evidence for or against the CPH, since nearly all children
are exposed to language at an early age. However, history has documented a
few’natural experiments’where children have been deprived of contact with
language. Two of the most famous cases are those of ‘Victor’ and’Genie’.
ln 1799, a boy who became known as Victor was found wandering naked
in the woods in France. His storywas dramatized ina1970 film by Frangois
Thuffaut called L’enfant sauuage (TheWild Child). ‘Whe n Vctor was captured,
he was about 12 years old and completely wild, apparently having had no
contact with humans. Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard, a young doctor accustomed
to working with deaf children, devoted five years to socializing Victor and
trying to teach him language. Although he succeeded to some extent in devel-
oping Victort sociabiliry memory and judgement, there was little progress
in his language abiliry.
Neárly 200 years later, Genie, a I3-year-old girl who had been isolated,
neglected, and abused, was discovered in California. Because of the irrational
demands of a disturbed father and the submission and fear of an abused
mother, Genie had spent more than 11 years tied to a chair or a crib in a
small, darkened room. Her father had forbidden his wife and son to speak to
Genie and had himself only growled and barked at her. She was beaten when
she made any kind of noise, and she had long since resorted to complete
silence. Genie was undeveloped physically, emotionall¡ and intellectually.
She had no language.
lEr{l pepnlfuof, sJar{f,rEasal aql’dno;8 arsT arp ueqr l¡ruarsrsuof, sJotu Il¡aqt
pasn ‘uJnl uI ‘oq^\ dno.l8,(¡reg aqr uegr.{¡ruarslsuor Jrolu sJa>lr¿lu eql Pasn
dno¡8 a^IIBN ar{t ‘sJa>lJ?ru p:ntruruer8 uo SutsnroS sls31 uo larta,”log ‘a8pa
-prou¡ f-rqng”f,ol ur a¡durexa.lo3 ,.ISVJo asn rIeI{rJo stf,eds” eluos uI sdno¡8
eql uea^\rag af,ueJeJlp ou PunoJ lt,1¡ ‘(Zt a8e lar3e 15y Sururea¡ ue8aq
or¡,,v’.) s.reu8rs arET pue ‘(a8e 3o s¡eal xrs Pue JnoJ uaa^\lJq 15y 8u¡sn ue8aq
oqm) srauSls fl.rrg ‘(,{rtlq urorj TSV or pasodxa aram, ogrvr,) s¡au8rs a^IleN
pareduroc laql ‘s.raryru I¿f,Iterururr8 puaqarduos PUE acnpord 01 ‘ISVJo
srasnJEaPJo lrnlqB al{r PaIPnrs san8ea¡oc rel{ PuE (Oee t) rrodrv’a¡ rssr¡g
‘sfuarua,roru fPoq
Jo pu”q cg¡rads q8no;gr passardxa are sJe1Jelu asaql ‘Jequnu put (asual
rt”á ,r¡á*”*a ro3) ault se s8urqr r{fns attf,rpur ot sra>lJeru ¡m¡reuruer8 3o
asn sa>lpru (15y) aEun8uul uSrg ueJrJerrrv’sa8en8url uatllJ/t\ PUE PJo ell-I
‘Hdf al{i ol Par¿ler l{f,rEasar
lueuodrut atuosJo rcalqns agt uaaq seq aSen8ue¡ u8ls Sururea¡ ul acuauadxa
ralEl s,uarpllqr esaql’PIql aql ol rlqlssaf,f,e sI lBr{r aSrnSue¡3o PIo^eP lnq
sfe,vr tsotu uI Flurou aq leru pouad PooqP¡ql f¡rea arp ‘sng1 ‘lzr* Frurou
fpua.redde uE ur lfEJalur 01 sssues Jer{lo sasn pln{t eql asnBf,eq JEaq louuef,
pplr rlaqt lrr{t ozllear tou feru stua¡ed Sutreag ‘I{uIq ruory’ISV ol pasodxa
áq ór l¡at¡¡ eJE uerplll{r asaqr l¡uo pue ‘sluarzd1″aP or urog srEJeaP f¡puno3
-ord aqr Jo luer rad g1-g l¡ug ‘slualed Sulreaq a^EI{ oq.,’r _uarPIII{l JEáP
f¡punoSoid oruos roJ asrr agt sl slql .aru’
Iensn ar¡r re aBenBuEI or ssrrrr
ri”q ro,, op ral ,slua¡¿d Jrarp ruog aJef, pue JAol a^Ief,al lagr araqn saruoq
1¡ou euros oq,/ú uarplrqf,Jo asm eql sI HdJ olpJo rser arel¡do¡dde aro.” v
.uonf,eJelur uerunr{
IEruJou ruog PereJedas a;arrr faqr aJoJag uela ‘luetu
-¡ledrur a8en8uq rgnads e ro ,sle¡ap
¡eruaudo¡anaP ‘aBBtuEP uIEJg luory
PsreJns uraql Jo JeI{rIa Jaq]3q,/v\ suI(UJJleP o1 elglssod rou sl r1 ‘a8tn8ue¡
.rr”q or lr¡¡qeul Jrar{l ol pernqrrruof, a,req tgSnu lrrJnleur ¡rer3o¡orq saPISaq
sJolf,?J Jaqro req \ /(ouI louuB3 al|t ‘seseJ lBnsnun IPns tuog ef,uaPl^a Jo
srs€g aqt uo peurguor sl sseqrod,,(q aqr reqr an8;r ol lFlgJIP sl ll ‘HdJ
,qr jo i¡oddns .rt ,r,rtpt,tt apv.,’ord ot ¡eadde alua9 PuE rolf,I¡ g8noql¡y
‘qraads aultnoJ
pu? f,rElnluJoJ pesnJe^o pue fFuarsrsuosur stuJoJ pcrrru[ue;8 Pasn eqs ‘uolr
ltttpotá put-uolsuaqa¡duoc uae \leq dr8 purou uer¡r 1a3rc1 E se,r\ eral{I
.p¡ó reaf-a,rg pordlr eJo tEr{l aIII rou ser’r a8en8uel s,alua) ‘a8en8_ue1 ol arns
-‘od”r jo tr”rf r,tg JaUE ,ssalaqlJa^eN ‘stIBJl PuE selsel IEnP_I^lPul SuoJls Pu¿
sdqsuonr¡a.r puosrad daap pado¡a^ap aqs ‘arE.&rB fla,rruuSoc PuE PazllBlf,os
Sulurocag ul ssa¡8o¡d alge>IJ¿tueJ sPrru elua) ‘slooqrs ¡rtcads PaPueuE PUE
auoq JatsoJ ¿ uI Pa^II eqs ‘erlua3 uoIlElITIqEqaJ 3 uI po¡rad JaIJq E J3!V
.(LL6l) ssunJ .t”*g Snrpr¡rul ,slsrderaql pue srar{f,Eet lueur3o uoltedl¡lt
-red aqr qtl^\ Palef,nPa PII? roJ PeJEf sE,&\ eluaD ‘POraAof,sIP sEl(\ aqs JeUV
PooqPl ltp,Qna ur Sututaa. aSanfuuaT 87,
24 Language learning in early chi ldhood
their study supports the hypothesis that there is a critical period for first lan-
guage acquisition, whether that language is oral or gestural.
Another line of research that has given new insight into the importance of
early language experience comes from studies of international adoptees.’
These aré children who were adopted at an early age by families who did
not speak the language rhe child had heard during infancy. In their review
of rtudi.r of international adoptees, Johanne Paradis, Fred Genesee, and
Martha Crago (201 1) concluded that cognitive and linguistic outcomes were
generally veiy positive. Some comparisons of their language with that of
.hildr.tr the same age who had always heard the same language showed that
subtle differences persist even after seyeral years, but these are not the kinds
of differences that most people would notice. Here again, of course, one
cannot know whethef something other than a late exposure to the language
spoken in the adoptive environment also contributed to differences between
these children and others who did not experience an abrupt change in their
Ianguage environment. Nevertheless, with continuing research on childrent
linguisiic behaviours and intuitions, as well as the neurological studies of
infánts’ speech perception that we saw above, it is becoming clearer that
lattguageácquisition begins ar birth, and possibly even before, as the child’s
brain is shaped by exposure to the language(s) in the environment.
The innatist perspectiye is thus partly based on evidence that there is a criti-
cal period foi l”ngu”ge acquisition. It is also seen as an explanation for ‘the
logical problem oil”ng,r”g. acquisition’, that is, the qu_estion of how adult
rp-.”k ri come to know the complex structure of their first language on the
basis of the limited samples of language to which they are exposed.
Interactionist/ dea e lop m ental p ersp e ctiu es
Developmental and cognitive psychologists have focused on the interplay
b.t*..r, the innate learning ability of children and the environment in which
they develop. Th.y
“rg,r.
th”t the innatists place too much emphasis on the
‘final state’ (th..o-p.t”nce of adult native speakers) and not enough on the
developmental aspects oflanguage acquisition. In theirview,language acquisi-
tion istut one example of the human childt ability to learn from experience,
and they see no needto assume that there are specific brain structures devoted
to language acquisition. They hJpothesize that what children need to know is
.rr.rály
“,raifable
in the language they are exposed to as they hear it used in
thousanis of hours of interactions with the people and objects around them.
Psychologists attribute considerably more importance to the environment
than the lnnatists do even though they also recognize a powerful learning
mechanism in the human brain. They see language acquisition as similar
to and infuenced by the acquisition of other kinds of skill and knowledge,
rarher than as something that is different from and largely independent of
97
‘7 raldEr{J ur aes
III¡\ a¡vr se ‘tuarudo¡a,rap a8en8uel puofas uo r{fJBaseJ ur IEJtuef l¡Sursea;:ur
aluofeg a^?q s./rrar^ slrsto8l¡ ‘uorlJeJatur lElf,os ul pa8rarua qcaads pue
‘qcaads pazr¡eu;arur l¡enuassa srr’rrg8noqr .Alsto8l¡roC ‘plro^\
IEclsfgd aqr
qll \ uonf,Ererur g8norgl paJrnbre e8pa¡non1 ssa¡dxa ol pesn eq plnof, ter{r
u¡elsls ¡oqruls e s¿ a8¿n8ue¡ rtr,es ra8el¿ ‘s.re8el¿ ruog sJa5rp,r*al,r sÁ1sto8l¡
‘a8pa¡zrroul ¡’rau a¡lnbce ot osle pue e^Eq lagr a8pa¡zrroul aWJo
lsoru Jr{t arytu uaqr sdlaq reqr ernlf,nJls a,rnroddns3o pur¡ e .sr trgl ,8u¡p¡o3
-J”f,s r{rr.&\ plql or1r apr,rord suonesra^uor ag1 ‘rq8noqt pue a8en8ue¡ qroq
3o sulSrro eqt suonrsJJ^uor esaqt ur 1r\Bs pue uarplrq) reqto qrv( pue sllnpE
qrr^\ a^Er{ uerplrr{J ler{t suontsreluof,Jo e¡uet¡odrul eqr pe rJsqo l¡sro8l¡
‘KJ¿n luaudo¡a,rap purxord¡o auoz aqt se f¡ruapuadapur Surop3o alqedec
aq p¡nomfaqr utqr eroru op plnof, uarplrrir r{llqr\ ul arr¡d ¡e:lroqderaru e or
perreJer llslo8l¡ ‘erueurro3red pur a8pa¡ru,oul Jo slar’a1 rag8rq 01 arue pB
or alqe aJ¿ ueJplrr{J ‘luJruuoJrrrua e^nfeJetul a,rn¡oddns E ur ter{t panSre
aH ‘uonrererul lurf,os ruor3l¡reuud sdo¡a,rap a8en8uel rErF papnpuor eH
‘s0€6I Pu¿ s0z6l eqr uI uorun lrr^os eql ur sloor{f,s ur stlnpE pue uarplrql
uaa.r\.]ag osle pue ua.rp¡qc Suoure suonf,Brarur pa^rasgo eH ‘(g/6 I ) flsro8l¡
z’a1 rsr8o¡oqclsd aqr sen’ tuarudola ep plr{r Jo rurpnls lBnuenHur rarFouv
‘lueuruoJrlua eqt qrrd\ uonf,eralur ¡errslqd g8norqr palnbre J^Er{ uaJp¡ql
reql a8pa¡moul ruasarder ol pasn aq um aSen8uel ‘pooqplql ul pado¡az’ap
eJB lrr{t srualsfs loqrufs 3o Jagunu B Jo euo sezrr a8en8ue¡ ‘ra8el¿ JoC ‘perel
-ndrueru.ro pe lasqo ag um reqt s8ulqr eql pue pllql Jql uea^\taq uonJ€retur
aql uo rlnq sr Surpuersrapun a,rrtruSor Surdo¡a,rap aql ‘ruasarda.r laqr srdar
-uof ar{t 3o SurpuetsJapun suaJpl¡lo arp uo spuadap (aJoru, ro .ra88rg, se
r{Jns suJal ureuaf,Jo esn aqt ‘eldurrxa.tog ‘a8en8ue¡ arrnbce leqr rvrog aulru
-rarap l¡rred ppo,/vl ruaudo¡a,rap artuuSoc suaJplrql r’roq eas ol lsea sl 11
‘(rarer’r uo lBoH ol sJaqlo put lurs ol spoJ auros asn?J (‘rre ‘¡e¡tateru
‘rg8¡a,,’r’azls rlaql) spoJJo tas eJo salr¡ado¡d qrlq^\ rno Sulrn8g) Surcuara3ul
¡erl8o¡ pue'(aur¡ pazaanbs l¡rq8p e ur saruuad 0I u¿ql snorerunu erour tou
aJE aurl 8uo¡ e uJoJ ol rno peards saruuad 0I ier{r Suml,oq) a:u¿.lraddr
rrerp ur sa8ueqrSo ssa¡pre8ar sapnuenbSo ó¡¡qrts agr'(araqr ¡ps are rq8rs
ruog ueppl{ s8ulqr regr 8ultllou>1) acuaueurad roafqo se s8ulqr q:ns jo 8ur
-PuetsrePun a,ulluSoc Jrar{t jo ruaurdo¡alap aqr a3eJr or elqE sE,/$, aH ‘a¡doad
pue srcalqo glr^. uorreJelur Jrar{l ur puB íe¡d.naqr ur uarplrr{J put s}ueJur
pe^rrsgo ra8er¿ ‘,(¡ntuec qrgz ar{Uo saperap l¡ree aqr uI ‘(I 16I) raSer¿ ueaf
‘tslSolotualsldaTrsSo¡oqcfsd ssrrtg eqt sE \ ruarudo¡arrap azrlr¡u8oc Jreql uo
rlmg $ a8en8ue¡ suaJplrr{r tBr{r
^\or^
or{r jo srueuodo¡d lsJrlJea ar{rJo auo
llslotl¡pue ra8erd
‘a8en8ue¡3o uonrsrnbfr Jrar{r pue tuarudo¡arrap ar’nluSoc s,ueJplrqr
uea.l*teg drqsuone¡ar esop eqr pazrsrqdua 8uo¡ a,req (gL6D ulqols ueq sE
r{fns sJar{f,Jeaser ‘paapul ‘tuarudo¡a-r’ap e,urruSoc pue a:uarradxe s pIr{J ar{r
?ooqpllqr r(1na ut Sututaal a7an&uaT
26 Language learning in early childhood
Cross-cultural research
Since the 1970s, researchers have studied childrent language learning envi-
ronments in a great many different cultural communities. The research has
focused not only on the development of language itself, but also on the ways
in which the environment provides what children need for language acquisi-
tion. Between 1985 and 1997, Dan Slobin edited five volumes devoted to
research on the acquisition of 28 languages, providing examples and analyses
ofchild language and the language-learning environment from communities
around the world. One of the most remarkable resources for child language
researchers is the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES),
where researchers have contributed child language data in dozens of lan-
guages in recorded and transcribed forms that are available as electronic files
from the CHILDES website (Mac\flhinney2000).
One feature of cross-cultural research is the description of child-rearing pat-
terns. Catherine Snow (1995) and others have studied the apparent effects
on language acquisition of the ways in which adults talk to and interact
with young children. In middle-class North American homes, researchers
observed that adults often modify the way they speak when talking to little
children. This child-directed speech may be characterized by a slower rate of
delivery higher pitch, more varied intonation, shorter, simpler sentence pat-
terns, stress on keywords, frequent repetition, and paraphrase. Furthermore,
topics of conversation emphasize the childt immediate environment, picture
books, or experiences that the adult knows the child has had. Adults often
repeat the content of a childt utterance, but they expand or recast it into a
grámmatically correct sentence. For example, when Peter says, ‘Dump truck!
Dump truck! Fall! Fall!’, Lois responds, ‘Yes, the dump truck fell down.’
Ha ,he not
Cons;dere¿ 1’1c
efr.cE9 of Stt¿t”‘
B¿l go bf’
‘ffi
‘fem prldlr aJoru E
ul a8en8ue¡ do¡amp 01 uuJID Pa./dollr uollf,EJalul asol{^{ ¡auued IEuorlESraA
-uof, B se l¡ruerrodrul arorrl ‘lng ‘¡apour e se lluo lou-Jar{lorq JaPIo sI{ PEq
aq :s.ru1f IuoS ruaJeglp se,r,r lualuuoJl^ua :nsnSul¡ s,uualD fe¡ap e8en8ue¡
3o adlr erurs ar{t feldsrp tou PP uuelD reglorg ¡e8unol s¡u¡f ‘a8e srri jo
pcldlr e¡oru aSrn8uel fq pace¡dar ‘pareaddesp Peq su¡aued graads Fnsnun
aqrJo rsoru sqluoru o^\r puB s.leal;noi3o a8e aqr lg ‘a,rordur or ue8aq san
-lllqe a^lsserdxa srq ‘r¡npe ue qll^\ suolssas leuorlesJaluor ue8ag ulf uaq¿¡
‘JapJo pJo,&\ ¡eclteruruer8un ‘¡ensnun Pasn aq ‘a8e slq or atet¡do¡dde szapl
ssa¡dxa or parduane ag qSnoqr¡y .a3en3ue13o stredse
IIE ur la^el a3r r’ro1aq
IIa,^ se.ü eq lpr{l pJlBf,IpuI sqtuoru aulu pue uraf aeJl{l l” luJlussasse a8enSuel
y .a8en8ur¡ uSrs ¡o IEJO Jarpre ul rulq qlr^t parbrunruruof, lua;¿d E r{f,rrr( ur
lueuruorrlua lerurou e ur lueudo¡a.tep olrsln8ul sH ur8aq lou plp rulf f_o3
perrr IIa^\ se,l.r aq slcadsa¡ reqlo ur q8noqrp ‘snql ‘rul[ qrur a8en8uel u8ls
asn lou plp srua.red eql IEI{I uI lEnsnun ser’r fllueJ ag1 f¡ruanba5 PaI{3rBr\
aq qllqlr\ ‘uolsl^elal q8norgr s¿z’r a8¿n8uel IEro I{1I^\ lf€luof, l¡uo srq puz
‘siuared3eapJo plqr SuliEaI{ E s”,l\ eH ‘urf pa¡¡m laql PII{I Elo ruaudo¡a,rap
aSeffiurl eql perpnts (Ig6i) san8ea¡or rer{ puB sqf,ES eullenbref ‘Sutssnu sr
uorrf,erarur r{f,ns araq^\ seser lq Peteulrunlll sl PIIqI aqr ol spuodsal oq^\ Jol
-nf,olJetu uE pu¿ p¡lqc 3uru.rca1-a8en8ue¡ E uaa,l\leg uollJeJalulJo elor agl
uollf,sJelul Jo eJu”uodul eq¡
‘uerplrqr or passarppe graads uI eletu srFP? aruos
teql suonef,glpotu el{l Jo rraJa urat-8uo1 aqr a8pnl or lFrUglP sl }I ‘snql
.a8en8uq Álunuuoc agl a;mbce fagr puv’luauruoJr^ua rreql ur ruaql ol
p3Suruuau sr lEr{l aSenSuq reag laqr r{JIqlA ur suoDBn}rs ur _aJE ueJPlrqs
i,{irrrot l¡a,re ul ;ssa¡rgrra,tr¡ .uJJpp{f, Jrerp grr^.r tf,BJa}ur sdno¡8 fruqra
puE f,[uouof,aorsos luaJeJrp u¡ s]ua¡ed sfer”r arp ur sDuaJaJIp lErluasqns
peruatunf,op a^EI{ sreqro PuB (886I) r{leaH acrrg lalrrq5 ‘solels Pallun aqr
urqlr^{ ua,rg .sre,lr8aref, Jraql sE a^ras oqm s8u¡¡qls Jeplo q¡m l¡r.reru¡.rd r:e
-Jelur uJJpllqc Sunol’sJltellos Jtuos uI reqr Pa^Jesqo e^el{ sJaI{IJEJSaJ Jaqro
‘s¡us e8en8ue¡ pado¡a,raP
aJoru e^¿g puE Jeplo arz faqr llun srppe qtr/ú suorlEsJa^uof, ur elEdrf,rl
-¡ed or peSrrnotua ro parcadxa lou are leql ‘sr¡npr 01 uals{ puE qf,rE^\ or
parrad*a are uerpllq) ‘ltanos lrnul IEuoIrIP”rl uI lsqr Pa^lasgo (ZeeD o8er3
er{uery .s¡au¡zd
IEuoIIESJa^uo¡ al¿udo¡ddz ag or uaJPIIql rlsl{l raPlsuof,
rou PrP ¿auln9 r’r,a¡ ende¿ uI srsqtou IInIE) lEI{l Punoi (066I) uneJell{f,S
Iqrutg
,a¡druexa roC ‘uaJpllqo Sunof ,ftal qrrn’ fe¡d ¡tqra,r Jo uolltsra^uof,
ui a8e8ua tou op srlnp’ ,sa’arf,os eruos uI ‘l’SJa^run su?auJ ou fq sl sauoq
u€rrreurv ssEIl-elPPItu uI Pe^rasgo qoaads ParserIP-PF{r Jo Pur>t aqr rEI{r
puno1 e^¿q >lJo \arueg cuolrezllelsos a8rn8uel, ¿ ul 3ur¡¡o1( sJal{fJeaseU
?oot/?l lqr Qna m Sututaal a8anSua’¡ LZ
28 Language learning in early c h ildhood
Jim showed very rapid acquisition of English once he began to interact with an
adult on a one-to-one basis. The fact that he had failed to acquire language nor-
mally prior to this experience suggests that impersonal sources oflanguage such
as television or radio alone are not sufficient. One-to-one inreraction gives chil-
dren access to language that is adjusted to their level ofcomprehension. tü7hen
a child does not understand, the adult may repeat or paraphrase. The response
of the adult may also allow children ro find our when their own utterances are
understood. Television, for obvious reasons, does not provide such interaction.
Even in childrent programmes, where simpler language is used and topics are
relevant to younger viewers, no immediate adjustment is made for the needs
of an individual child. Once children have acquired some language, however,
television can be a source of language and cultural information.
Usage-based learning
As more and more research has documented the ways in which children
interact with the environment, developmental and cognitive psychologists
find further evidence that language acquisition is ‘usage-based’. In this view,
language acquisition is possible because ofchildrent general cognitive capac-
ities and the vast number of opportunities they have to make connecdons
between the language they hear and what they experience in their environ-
ment. Sophisticated electronic recording devices have been used to track
and count words and phrases children hear in their daily lives. Deb Roy
documented his son’s acquisition of words, showing the frequency and the
contexts for the occurrence of language. Most remarkable, perhaps, is the
demonstration of the power of interaction between the child and the adults
and how adults focus on rhe language the child has begun to use (Roy 2009).
The usage-based perspective on language acquisition differs from the behav-
iourist view in that the emphasis is more on the child’s ability ro create
networks of associations rather than on processes of imitation and habit for-
mation. Referred to by various names, including cognitive linguistics, this
view also differs sharply from the innatists’ because language acquisition is
not seen as requiring a separare ‘module of the mind’ but rather depends on
the child’s general learning abilities and the contributions of the environ-
ment. As Elena Lieven and MichaelTomasello (2008) put it, ‘Children learn
language from their language experiences-there is no other way (p.168).
According to this view, what children need to know is essentially available to
them in the language they are exposed to.
Some of the eady research in this frameworkwas done in the context of con-
nectionism and involved computer simulations in which language samples
were provided as input to a fairly simple program. The goal was to show that
the computer could ‘learn’ cerrain things if exposed to enough examples.
The program was found to be able to sort our the parterns from the input
and even generalize beyond what it was actually exposed to. It even made the
ol uonualtE f,n¿uals,{s eluos saPnlf,ul leql uollf,nJlsul
eruos ‘sqluour ZI lg spro \ rs.lg a¡qrauSocar acnpord uarPllqr rsoru eF.tU[
‘paapul epl \ sl (leruJou, roj a8uer aW rES
puru ur Burdaal ‘l¡¡erurou a8rn8ue¡ Suldo¡a,rap rou $ pII{r
”
rerp ¡ae3 farpy
arr^p€ puolssa3o.rd leas ol pa8e:nocua ag sJar{reat pue stuared reqr l”nuassr
$ 1I ‘>looq srqrJo adors eqr ePlsrno s¡ ruarudolaztap aSrnSue¡ rfeJE serurlettro$
ttrp (uo os pue ‘exa¡sfp ‘f,usnnr ‘srua¡gord frole¡nr¡rrc ‘ssauJrep Sulpn¡ru¡¡
sJrlrlrqesrp 3o sadó snorJe aqr Jo uolssnlslp V ‘eser arlt rou $ slqt ruoq,,f,
roJ uarplrrlf, aruos er? a;aqt ‘fr¡ap ro lr¡n:g3tp ruelgluSls tnoqll^\ turur
-do¡e,rap aSrn8uq 3o sa8ets agr qSno.rr¡r ssa¡8o.ld uerplll{f, rsoru gSnorp¡y
sfe¡ap pue sreprosrp atenturl
‘aruar¡adxa q8norgr paurcJl l¡enrce are ‘p¡ag ¡ensut
Jno ur srralqo Suna¡d¡alul pu¿ uo SulsnooS ‘e¡duexa ro3 ‘paruelS JoJ e{E¡
e^,l’ r¿qr serrrlrge Fnsr^ aqr ‘s¡ reql ‘(aes, ol Sulural Surpn¡rul ‘Sururea¡ pnr
-da¡¡ad pue a,ruuSor rrr{lo ol ll a¡rdruoc lagl ‘p¡nll eql lq paqstdruorrt
rEaJ alqDlJ¿uar ,{¡uo egl rou sl ‘a¡rtssa¡dtul eIq¡A ‘a8enSut¡ 3o uolrlslnb>t
‘stsuoer{l paseg-a8esn .rog ‘dn rlng ert sruroj a8tn8ue¡ Suorue pue Sulueau
pue a8en8url uaa^\¡og siullJo Jagrunu ar¡r se ‘l¡enper8 ece¡d saler Sulurer¡
‘sasergd pur spro.,’r ureal ol sauunl¡oddo Jo sputsnoqr lueu or pasodn
ar¿ uerpllql rrr{r rf,EJ eqr $ slsaqlodÁ1 srqr ol a¡ueuodul re¡ncrrred ¡g
‘sssuel qra^ r{f,rr{^|. qu¡’r o8 sgra Ps ¡troduar qllq,& ureel osp far¡1 ‘(a>¡¡¡ am¡
suouut? snou pur (sa>¡t aq) aunu p-taqunu pue uosrad ¡reru reql suroJ grel
eqt qrrn sunouo¡d alelf,osse ol ureal ,{aqr (¡re¡nuls ‘(Iooq) atnq
‘¡ull.
oB un
pue al pua (leq:) asxoqr qtlw oB aun pue q reql urtal laqt ‘qrua.rg Sulurea¡
eJB uerPIIr{f,JI oS ‘sunou qlra sIuJoJ arr.tDah¿ PuE elf,Iue arer¡do¡dde aqr elE
-rf,osse ol uJeal repua8 ¡erpeuurrr8 aA?I{ sunou I{JII{1v\ ur sa8en8ut¡ Sulurea¡
ueJpllql ‘a¡druexa JoC ‘uraqt qtlzvr Jnf,f,o reqr saruegdJoru lef,neurue.rS qrp
spJo,4.l ro ‘rueql qtr^{ Jnrf,o ler{r saserqd pue spro,,’r Jeqto aqt qrIA seserqd pw
spror*Sulterf,ossrJo ssaf,ord r osp sl t1 ‘r0qear leuJarxaJo sluaruela qll^\ sPJo^t
Suner:osse f¡uo rou sa lo^ul uolllslnbf,¿ aSen8ue¡ ‘lapour peseg-a8esn e u¡
‘palua ‘aldutexa JoJ ‘qrazr rc¡nBarJI uE uo Sutpua pa-
re¡n8ar e Surund s¿ r{f,ns’a1eru ueJplrqt let{l (sJ>lelsru, a IlBaJf,Jo sPuD{ erues
?ooq?llqr Qtaa wEututaal a7unSuaT 6Z
30 Language learningin earfi childhood
sound-letter correspondences allows them to unlock the treasure chest of
reading. Both groups fall within a normal range. For some children, however,
reading presents such great challenges that they need expert help beyond
what is available in a typical classroom.
Childhood bilingualism
The language development of children who learn multiple languages during
childhood is of enormous importance throughout the world. Indeed, the
majority of the worldt children are exposed ro more rhan one language.
Some children learn multiple languages from earliest childhood; others
acquire additional languages when they go to school. The acquisition and
maintenance of more than one language can open doors to many personal,
social, and economic opportunities.
Unfortunatel¡ as Jim Cummins (2000) and others have pointed out, chil-
dren who already know one or more languages and who arrive at their first
day of school without an age-appropriate knowledge of the language of the
school have often been misdiagnosed as having language delays or disorders.
This includes immigrant and minority language children who do not speak
the school language at home and children who speak a different variety of
the school language. These children’s knowledge of a different language or
language variety is often incorrectly interpreted as a lack of normal language
development and a lack of background knowledge for school subjects. They
may be placed in remedial or special education classes because schools are nor
equipped to provide an adequate assessment of childrent abillry to use rheir
home language or of their general cognitive abilities or their knowledge of
school subjects, learned through another language. Researchers have recendy
made important progress in providing guidelines that can help educators
distinguish between disabiliry and diversiry (Paradis, Genesee, and Crago
20II), but much practical rvork remains to be done so that children can
make the most of their cognitive and linguistic abilities.
Children who learn more than one language from earliest childhood are
referred to as ‘simultaneous bilinguals’, whereas those who learn another lan-
guage later may be called ‘sequential bilinguals’.
‘W’e
sometimes hear people
express the opinion that it is too difficult for children to cope with two lan-
guages. They fear that the children will be confused or will not learn either
language well. However, there is little support for the myth that learning
more than one language in early childhood is a problem for children who
have adequate opportunities to use each one. There is a considerable body
of research on childrent ability to learn more than one language in their
earliest years. Although some studies show minor early delays in one or both
languages for simultaneous bilinguals, there is no evidence that learning two
‘(OOOZ sururun3) uoltf,Eralul fep-or-fep3o a8en8uel ¡eru
-JoJur aqt ueqr arlnbre ot uaJplll{f, Jo3 t¡nr$P eJotu sI esJnof,slP f,IluePm¿ roJ
pepaeu a8en8ue¡ aqr reql ‘razrerrroq ‘paar8e flap¡ru, sI lI ‘TBISJa^oJluof, uleruaJ
uonf,urlsrp aqr3o srcadse auJos Pu¿ ‘tueqt guru oB ol Pual teql sulaned uon
-JEJalur aqr pue e8un8ut¡3o saIlaIJE^ oser{l sezIJe}JPJeI{f, rEI{l $ u fpcexa req,n
re orsrp ol rg8nos a^¿q srer{}o pue (7002) ¡a.r8adda¡r1c5 frryq ‘passardxa s
uorleruJoJur fer’r aqr ul osle tng sarmbar I{rBa r¿ql lre¡nqecorl3o a8ue; agr u¡
lsnl lou 1orsl¡ug) a3¡¡ rnoq8norr¡
ól¡rqlxag a,ulluSor or Sunnqlnuor sE PagIluaPI uaeq seq sef,Ior{r 8ur{¿u ur
acuar¡adxa srqr ‘peapul ‘a¡qerclpard uaryo PuE paurarred sr Surq:urtrs apor
teqt pue sa^lasuaql sse¡dxa or l\oq lnoqe sef,Ior{¡ Suqeru lpuetsuoc are
a8en8url euo uEI{l arou Jo sra>pads lEI{l u1üoqs azteg srsrSo¡orpls¿ ‘a1of u
Suqeru ot lrlrep¡¡os Sulssa¡dxa ulorS ‘suolte^Iloul rueJeJIP lueru a,l,rq leu
r1 lcual:go.rd3o 1or¡ e3o af,uaplla lou sI txatuoJ ¡enSullg e urqrrr’r sa8rn8ue¡
r{loq3o rsn aql ‘sa8enSuel qroq .&ornl osp oII r srar{lo or leads lagr uaqm
r{frr^[s apof osle spnSur¡rq rFp¿ tuarf,goldl¡q8rg
.sasod¡nd
Fuorrr€raturJo
Áal¡e¡ e ro3 a8en8utl Jagro eqr tuoq Pro^l’ EJo asn leuoltuelur aqr ag ua5o
se lsnf uEf, lr lnq ‘uorssa¡dxa Jo PJo,/vr lre¡nqerort rc¡nrllred E Jo af,uasgr aIP
lrageJ seuJnauros leru saBtnBuEI uaa^\teg Surqrru,rs qJnS ‘
8ulurc1dxa ro3 sa,rncedsrad ¡mnaroaqr PBoJg eeJl{r P3qIJ3saP a^”q 3l[r’uonls
-mb¡e a3en3..r”1p.romr.ro rlf,J?aseJ peJuangur ser{ teqr tuaudo¡artap aSrnSur¡
l¡rea s,uarp¡lql uo r{f,JEaser er{} Jo eluos uo pasnfoJ e
“r{
3 \ rarder¡r sryr uI
lreururng
‘uoJa pue aoua¡ted
rrar{l PrB,4(\er III/\[ luslFn8ullq a^ppP¿ Jo slSeuaq lueu eqr^tel{l
^\otDI
or
paeu stuapnfr p,r” .slua¡rd ,sJal{Jpal rng ‘s;eal salzr aBenSuEI Puof,as E
Suldo¡a.rrap ,uaas a,req ar![
ry’a¡doad Suorue uoll?Jedoof, slllIouoss Pue uoll
-Ef,runruuroo ltJnlln3-ssoJf, JoJ salllunl¡oddo eseaJf,ul osle uef, a8en8ue¡ auo
uer{r aJoruJo a8pa¡mou¡ ‘saITIIU”J Jlaqr PUE ueJPilql 3q1 ol enJDE rer{r esoqr
puolaq of tuaudo¡arr,ap ¡zn8ul¡nlnru ro pn8urlq3o sDa’a a¡rlrsod raqro
‘a8en8uel puoras aqt Sururea¡ filrs a-re lagr e¡gr’r l¡rsea
pu¿lsrapun fagr aSenSur¡ e Sursn tuaurdola,rap a^lr3eJ¿ pur arrnruSos r{roq
,rr,rn.lo, ot filunr¡oddo aqr ruo5 rgauag laql ‘aBznBuBI l’rau aqr ltads rou
op oq.&\ sa^nelal ro sruarcdpuzrS qrvrr suorlf,euuof, f1¡rur; urclar 01 uaJPIrr{J
s.&olp os¡r a8enSuel f¡¡rurJ aqt 3u¡urcrurc¡,,r¡ ‘lrlunruuof al{l uI Jo ‘>lJo1t\ lE
.,*o.1 aqr ePISrno aSenSur¡,/deu eql qrrrn sa¡88nrls u1t\o JIeI{r 3^3q,{eur leql
r” l¡piraisr ,ruealsa-j¡as u,/v\o Jrarp ureturpur ot stua¡¿d roj lernrt os¡e^sl s8u¡r
-rrr’i¡r-“j ul a8en8ue¡ u^\o Jrar{t Surs¡ .lla1v\ sE l’rorDl tou op lar{r a8en8ue¡
”
,r, ,h”,r”* urc laqr ue{p etBJogEIa eJou pue Jaqf,rJ aJB ler{} sler’r ut seap¡
pue aSpaytroDl JIaI{1 ssa¡dxa ol alqB a-re fagr ‘uarp¡rqc:laql qll’/r’t’ lsag ,^t\ou>I
faqr regr a8rn8ut¡ aqt asn ot enulluos sruarrdSl ‘a8rnSur¡puooes ar{lJo sJa
-.rrL¡ ot1″ ,r”
‘.rtt”á
eqtJl anrl l¡¡enadsa q slql ‘Peureel Suleg sr a8enSuel
p.rorit eqr allq,{\ a8en8utlaruoq aI{Uo e3u¿ueluleru agr-rusqen8u1lq a p
-lpp” roJ a^rrls 01 sr gceorddz Jsrreg e rrgr srsaSSns ef,uePr^e qf,J¿eseJ aLII
‘uaJPIIql Jleqr qlld\ a8en8ue¡ looi{ls ar¡r Suqeads uo P”3}sq 3lB¡luaruof,
p,r” ,-og ie’a8″ná,r{ llUreJ eqr Suureads dors p¡nor¡s far¡r rrrp s1 sruared ot
asodo.ld tá*tp*or sJolef,npa ,uonnlos, aqt ,flarrunuoJun ‘Sulurea¡ f,IruaPef¿
rrar{l ul pulqaq ¡¡ej leur laqt ‘pouad uolllsuerl arp Suunq ‘a8en8ue¡ fllwJ
r.¡t do¡t-p or prt.ttr,to, rou arrer¡ larp pue ‘aSrn8uel looqls aqt pararseu rcl
pooqfllqr ,(paa ur Suruttal a8tnSutT EE
34 Language learning in early childhood
and six years old. Compare these to books for young readers, aged six to
eight.What does this suggest about the importance of continuing to read
to children after they have begun to learn to read at school? Finall¡ look at
the language used in textbooks for children at age l0 or I l.What can you
conclude aboutthe challenge faced by English language learners entering
school at this age?
3 lf you are or may be teaching a second language to a group of school-
aged learners with different first language backgrounds, can you think of
pedagogical tasks/activities in which children can display and use their L I
knowledge to help them learn the second language?
Suggestions for further reading
Berko Gleason,J. and N. Bernstein-Ratner (eds.). 2009. The Deuelopnnent
ofLanguage 7th edn. NewYork Allyn and Bacon.
Many of the chapters by leading expems in child language introduce
readers to the best-known findings of the pasr 50 years of research on chil-
drent language development. In addition, there are chapters based on new
research, using the kinds of technology that have only recently become
available. Thus, the rich database created by researchers with notepads,
tape recorders, and tools such as the ‘wug rest’ is complemented by studies
ofthe neurological bases oflanguage learning and language use.
Paradis,J., E Genesee, and M. B. Crago. 2011. Dual Language
Deuelopment and Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second
Language Learning2ndedn. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
The authors describe language acquisition by children who learn more than
one language simultaneously or sequentiall¡ drawing on research from edu-
cation, psychologr, and linguistics. They make the research accessible by
their writing style, the inclusion of a glossary of terms, and above all by relat-
ing the research to profiles of children who are acquiring their languages in
a variety of home, school, and community situations. The authors provide
insights into both normal and atypical multilingual development.
Pearson, 8.2.2008. Raising a Bilingual Child: A Sup-by-Sap Guidefor
Parents. NewYork Living Language (Random House).
Addressing herself mainly to parents, Barbara Zurer Pearson (2008)
reviews research from many studies and shows how children become bilin-
gual in many different environments. She also emphasizes the advantages
of growing up with a knowledge of more than one language-from the
evidence for cognitive fexibiliry to the benefits of cultural knowledge.
‘W’ritten in an approachable and humorous style, the text is supported
by Zver Pearson’s thorough knowledge of the research literature that is
included in the bibliography.
‘sosselr a8enSue¡ o¡ o3 ol lt¡unr.roddo ou turneq pu€ luauluoJraua a8entue¡
puo)es e ur Suqlom uortetrnpa petdn”rsrp Jo parlull ql¡an tuer8rur.ur llnpe uE o
Í.Duno¡ u^ o Jteql ur a8enBue¡ uSraro¡ e Sullpnls luaf,selop€ uE r
puno.r8le¡d aql uo Jo aJe) lep ur a8en8uel puo)as e Sururea¡ plrr.ltr E o
aSen8ue¡ lsrg ? Sutureal pllr{l Sunol e .
:.ra¡¡rp leu sJeuJ€el 3ur,r,ro¡¡o¡ eql Jo suogtpuor Sululea¡ pue sf,ttstJettreJeqf,
oqr
^
or{ rnoqs >lurql’sJn))o l¡¡errd,0 uorlrsrnb¡e a8en3ue¡ eq} qlrq^ ur
sluauuoJr^ue aql pue sf,tlstJelt€J€qf, rsJauJeel eql qroq,o sruJol ut anJl st
srql’a8en8uel puolas e Surulea¡ pltqt Jeplo ue.lo a8en8uel lsJU e Sur.llnbre
p¡rqr 8uno,( E uroJl sle¡l luer.u u! luaJa#rp sr JeuJeel e8enBue¡ puores V
turu.ree¡ etentue¡ puo)as JoJ slxeluo) oJoldxf
^rtltr)v
‘f3o¡ouoqd pue’scrrcruEurd
‘rfte¡nqmo,r3o tuaurdola,rep ,sJauJeelJo slf,adse aruos,/v\ar^eJ oslr e/N’a3¿n3
-uEI puof,es eql ur seJntea3 prlSoloqdJou pue ¡rlr¿luls aruosJo uonrsrnbf,E
eqr ul saf,uanbes pue sa8ers tE >lool a4N’a8pa¡rv’oul reqr esn ot ól¡qe rraqr
pue a8en8uel ariuo a8pall.oq Jreqr rnoq¿ sn ilel uBf, sJorra ter{ \ ssnf,srp pue
a>lBru sJeuJBel ]¿ql sJoJJa erpJo eruos eurruExa elN’slxeluoJ asaql ur sJeuJEel
Jo sf,rlsrJalf,?r?qf, luaJaJIP eqr sE ¡ar’r se Sulurea¡ a8en8uel puofes puE lsrg roJ
slxaluof, rueJeJrp eqt tE SuDIoo¡ lq urSaq arN’a8en8uel
^\au
rreqrJo rsn pue
a8pa¡mou1 Suldo¡a,rap
lo(tr
eq os (uoneruro3ur eqt eas
plnor laqr3¡ dlaq p¡norvr rl rerp pepn¡cuoc apmf,
aql ‘uorlerlsn.r3 ul (¡¡eurC ‘JIlrI Lrarr poors;apun spuar5 rno tnq .repnol put
rápnol Sur¡mds rdal apm8 eql’uoneu.ro3ul a8urrpxe ol rueql ro3 tlnf,Iülp
ll eperu qsr¡8ug turlsrxa-uou srq pu€ esaurq3 petrrurT.rraqr ,l¡areunuol¡q
‘suonsanb etuos ap¡n8 rraqt pe>lsu laqr os ‘>¡ooqaprn8 ¿ ruog uea¡8 p¡no
laqr ueqt uaqr rnoqe uouBrrrJoJur a¡ou la8 ol palue/( pue sa¡duar rrJolsrq
atuos Suulsr^ era-&\ laq¡ ‘eulq3 ul perl laqr acualradxa uelo sn plor spuap¡
u¿rpEuEJ etuos ¡repno¡ lur llduls larpJI rarrag pu”rsrepun sraur€al a{su
uec laqt ler{r {uqt ol ruees aldoad qllq¡ ur suorlesraluor InJured asop
Pesseutl/v\ IP e^erl e/N ‘lnJd¡ag rsotu aq
III^\ sluetutsnlpe reqm sr’rou1 euoLraa^r
lou ‘asrnof, JO ‘puersJapun sJauftal d¡ag or al”u ol paau laqr sluerulsnlpu
ter{ r. Jo asues Jlr}rntur uE J ?q ol uraes sJauJeal a8enSuq grrrvr llrepSar
tfrJetur oq.,’l. a¡doad eruos ‘uonrsrnb3e a8en8ue¡ puof,asJo slxeluof, Jqr uo
Surpuadap {Ier Jerp”ar Jo {Ipr rautra.ro¡ peller ueaq saurnaruos seq ,uop
-lsmb¡e a8en8ue¡ lsr5 ur qraads palrrrrp-p¡ql pril¿r ‘a¡fis qcaads patsnfpe
srql’rndur patdepe ro pegrporu ol arnsodxa sl-lrnu¿nb ¡o lrrcnb ¡enba u1
rou q8noqr-sa8e ¡¡ejo sraurcal ol uoruruol oq ol s¡¿adde reqr uonrpum euo
‘Pe1(ar^er aq
IIyr\ ruoorssBlf, eql ur >lJ¿qPeeJJo alor ar{l uo q3rEasar ‘gpue s
s.ratdeq3 u1 f¡ruarsrsuor paprrtord s&r’,r.¡e lou sr tr ‘araql uarrg ‘ruooJssrlf,
a8en8ue¡ agr sr buanba-r3 q8¡r¡ qr¡m ruasard l¡¡mrdlr sr rorre uo >peqpaaJ
araqn’ are¡d lluo eql ‘8uo.l¡’r auoS peg Surqrauos t¿qt plol eq ppor’r.ra>1eads
a8en8ue¡ puores aqr teqt l¡a1lpn sr tr ‘stlnpe uoe \teg l¡elradsa ‘ool esrr
slqt uI ‘PePuerul sr regrrt les ol le¡rl arrlod aqr.&\oIr)I lou saop l¡durls Jo apru
eq ol spuelu¡ ra>1eads eqr Jar{req^\ 8ul.uou1 rou ‘algruo3urorun ¡aa3 leur sror
-n3olJalur ‘a8en8uel arel¡do¡ddeur asn ol s¡¿adde ;a>1eads a8en8ue¡ puofes E
eJal{,/v\ uoll¿nrls E uI ‘Jolnf,olJalul pa¡zznd e ruo{ lualuluoo a.,lrala.l leu¡ a3ror{f
prorrr Suor,tr eqr tnq ‘uo pe>lJ”uroJ ag lou l¿u¡ uolter:unuo¡d pue reruuer8
Jo sJorJa ‘snq1 les or Surl¡t sr ra>1eads eqr rrr{^\ pu¿tsJepun touu¿r lagr3¡
JoJJa u? 01 lleeJ l¿ru s¡otncolJalur ‘sselaque^eN ‘tueql qtr^\ uontsJe uof, e
a^Er{ ol 8u¡l¡r se.,’t. or{,.rr euoeuros petfaJJof, pue perdnrrarur laqr3l alrodu¡l
Surag a;an lagr ¡aag plno^,\ aldoad lsory ‘pe>loolra^o l¡ensn a¡e Sulueau
r{lr^\ eJeJJatur tou op ter{l sJoJJe (sruooJss¿lo eplstno Surumal aSen8ue¡
puof,as ur ‘l¡.te¡rulS ‘a8en8ue¡ s,uJJplrqr.uaqr;o l:e-rnf,f,¿ lerneruruer8 aqr or
uer{t Jar{tEJ Suluraru agr or puodseJ ol puet slua;rd ‘1 ;ardeq3 ur 1v\es e¡a sV
‘uonelrunluruof I?eJ ul a8en8ue¡ ar{rJo sasn a¡uar¡adxa ol sanrunl¡oddo
jo s.raurea¡ Sulrr.lrdap snql ‘luerue8eueu uooJsself, to aur¡dnslp ro3 a8en8ue¡
lsJg ,sluePnts Jrelp ot gf,rr,ryls uar’a fetu sJar{f,¿at ‘sasse¡: a8en8ue¡ u8raro3lueu
u1 ‘s8uluas
IErJos lsou ur pesn sr lr sB a8en8ue¡ eql ol uosrJedruoc ul IEruJoJ
trl{aaruos $ leql a8en8ue¡ rg8ner ueuo aJE sJeuJeal ruooJsselo ‘a¡druexa;og
‘sadlr as¡nocslp3o a8ue.r rallerus reJ E ol pasodxa eg or puat osp fagr ‘a8en8
-uEI
^\eu
eqt qtl-&\ loeluoi ur erurl ssa¡ puads l¡uo rou sJeuJeal uooJssEIJ
Sututaal a8an&ur¡ puotag 6e,
40 S econd language learning
Ex.tttc tr€,
l’¿hffl toíl€¿¡
\ Pfsa* ? -‘
This brief discussion places the emphasis on how both the characteristics of
learners and the contexts in which they acquire a second language may be
different. In the following pages, we will focus more on similarities in how
their knowledge of the new language develops over time.
Studying the language of second
language learners
‘We have seen that childrent knowledge of the grammatical system of their
first language is built up in predictable sequences. For example, grammati-
cal morphemes such as the -ing of the present progressive or the -ed of the
simple past are not acquired at the same time, but in a sequence. Are there
developmental sequences for second language acquisition? How does the
prior knowledge of the first language affect the acquisition of the second (or
third) language? How does instruction affect second language acquisition?
Are there differences in the development of learners whose only contact with
the new language is in a classroom and those who use the language in daily
life? These are some of the questions researchers have sought to answer, and
we will address them in this chapter as well as in Chapters 5 and 6.
Knowing more about the development of learner language helps teachers to
assess teaching procedures in the light ofwhat they can reasonably expect to
accomplish in the classroom. As we will see, some characteristics of learner
llnsar er{r aq or pau¡nssB aJa./r^. sroJJe ((HVJ) srsaqrodfq slsfpue a ps?’r¡
-uoJ aq] or Sulprorry ‘a8enSur¡ raSrer aqr So uorsJe lf,arrof,ur ue se f¡durrs
rlceads (srour¿rl aSen8uel puoras aas ot papuet oldoad ,s096I arEI er{r
¡run
aSunSuE “talut ?u? $t stlaup “t o,L¿a,s1 st1aua a nq sy”t luo )
‘a8en8ur¡ re8rer aqrjo suorsJe rcaSradun sr l¡duns tou .su¡alled
pu¿ salnJ 3ur,r¡orra u.,vr,o Jrarp qtv* sruarsls Surdo¡a,rap sE pagursap tseg are
uonrsrnbcr a8en8ue¡ puores pur tsr5 qrog .ueql punorc reaq laqr a8rn8ue¡
eqr qrr^\ lf,EJelur regr a8pa¡r’rou¡ rol.rd pue sassef,oJd a¡’llluSo¡ leuJalur uo
pesrq aq or radd¿ sacuelues
^\eu
asaql ‘prEar{ arreq laqr esoqr e{I l¡rcexa
lou are rer{l sarueluas arnpord lag¡ ‘aclr:erd pue uonelrurr q8norgr fldrurs
a8en8ue¡ uJeel lou op sreurcal a8rn8ue¡ puof,as ,srauJeel aSen8ur¡ ]srg eln
‘>lunr{f, E sE pJuftel ,ualr palelosr uE
lldruls ro a8pa¡nou1 a8en8ue¡ luaJJnf, s JauJEJI e ur f,¡Erualsls Surgraruos3o
a¡lleluasa.rdal sr Jnor^Er{aq re¡nrnred E JaqtJr{,/r\ eurruJatap or r¡nlgrp uaryo
sr lr ‘seJnpaf,o;d asaqt rnoqrr/N’a8en8ue¡3o asn elg¿ Jesgo Jrar{r Surl¡rapun
a8pa¡r’,rou¡ aqr lnog¿ aroru leeler ol d¡aq leql sarnpasord u8lsap osl¿ aA\
tng ‘esn e8en8ur¡ snoau¿tuods (sJeuJ?al a^Jasqo e.&\ .uorlrsrnb:r a8enSue¡
rsrg lpnrs oq,&r asoqt e{l1 ‘op laqr reqr’r Suluasqo lq uoul sreurtel ter{.r\
JeJuI lsnu laqr os ‘spunu (sJauJ¿el pEeJ louuef, sJar{f,rceseJ pue sJar{feal
‘qsn8ugJo pedse
rn¿rualsls e 3o a8pa¡mou1 Suldo¡alep Jo af,uapr,ra paplzro;d seq ,palng,
sles oqrrt JauJEel egr rnq ‘atel¡do¡dde sr 1r eJJr{,/v\ Je>lJ?tr¡ pa- ]f;ed re¡n8ar
aql esn PFo,{\ ,rq8nog, sfes ogr* euo eql r¿qr epnlf,uof, louuBf J \ .uonelu
-roJur Jer{unJ rnorpr/N ‘,ta>lJn snq e rq8noq J, sles oqa auo ueqt rerurur.t3
gsrr8ug tnoge aJoru r’rou1 leru ,le>lf,ll snq e palnq 1, sles oq,,’r rauJ¿el e lerp
sueeur rBqI ‘re1reru pa- tsed a¡drurs rr¡n8ar agr llddr ol urcel laqt aro3aq
sgJa uoruruoo urEtJaJJo sruJoJ asuJl tsed re¡n8a;.tl eqr u.rea¡ l¡lensn sJauJeel
a8en8ue¡ puoJas ‘sJeureal a8rn8ue¡ rsJg e{q ,aldurexe ro¿ ‘ssarSordjo uolt
-Ef,rpur ue aq leru JoJJe ur eseeJf,ur uE ‘asuas srqr uI ‘pauJ?al rsJg serrr rr r{Jrr{ \
qlv’r sualr lglf,eds agr puolaq uroJ IEJnEruurerS re¡non rcd e az,letaua8 or
ól¡q” 8ul8¡aua uE uo paseg aq leru sJorre 1v\eN ‘Sulurea¡ >lunr{r Jo uon
-EzIJouIauI aloJ uo PaS”g sE,/\\ lEI{] UIJOJ lf,3JJof, E Jo 3sn aql uI aseaJf,Jp e ur
per3agal sl ssa¡8o¡d uolllsrnbc¿ a8en8ur¡ saunauos ‘surJel asaqt ur paJn
-searu ag slezrr¡e touuef, ssa¡8o¡d rng ‘atunEwl taSJEt ar{t ser{f,reru a8en8ue¡
rlaqr f¡aso¡r aor.l pue rq8ner uaeg wq ter{ { peurerl e^Eq sruepnts raqrar{ r
eurruJalap or,üt laql ‘Jlun eqt ¡e a8en8ue¡ JauJEal aslpur sreq3Eat ,asJnof,
39
‘a8en8ue¡ raurre¡ Surslpue asncrrd or &runr¡oddo up nol a¡’13 ot sa¡drurs
IEuorrrPPE eruos sE ¡arvr se a8en8u¿l JauJ”alJo salduexa3o raglunu E papnlsur
a^Br{ e^\ ‘qlr¿eseJ a8enSue¡ puof,Js 3o s8ulpug aqt Jo aruos Sunuasard u1
‘a8en8ur¡ puof,as aqr Suurnbce ur q8norgr oB s;au;ea¡ sdats
ar{rJo aJntf,rd ¡¡rra,,ro ue a^eq lou saop auo jr Suxa¡drad aunb aq uec aSrn8ue¡
3u7utaa1 a8an&ur¡ puotag l?
42 Second language learning
of transfer from learners’ first language. Detailed analysis of learners’ errors
revealed, however, that not all errors made by second language learners can
be explained in terms of first language transfer alone. A number of studies
,ho-ihat many errors can be explained better in terms of learners’ develop-
ing knowledge of the structure of the target language rather.than an attempt
ro”transfer p-att.rn, of their first language (Richards 1974). Furthermore,
some of the errors are remarkably similar to those made by young first lan-
guage learners, for example, the use of a regular -ed pxt tense ending on an
irregular verb.
A simplified version of the CAH would predict that, where differences exist,
errorsiould be bi-directional, that is, for example, French speakers learning
English and English speakers learning French would make errors on paral-
lel iinguistic f.aiur.s. H.l-ut Zobl (1980) observed that this is not always
the caie. For example, in simple English sentences, direct objects, whether
nouns or pronouns, come aftér the verb (‘The dog eats the_ cookie. The dog
eats it.’). in French, direct objects that are nouns follow the verb (Le chien
mange le biscuit-literall¡ ‘The dog eats the cookie’). However, direct object
prorri,rr* precede the verb (Le chien le mange-literally-.’The dog it_eats’).
lhe CAHiould predicr rhar a narive speaker of English m1s!t make the
error of sayi ng: ‘Le chien mange le’ when learning French, and that a native
speaker of frá.h might say’The dog it eats’when learning English’ In fact,
Éngfish speakers leaining-French aie more likely to make_the predicted
“rrá,
.h”n French sp.ak.rs learning English. This may be due to the fact
that English rp.”k”ri learning French hear many examples of sentences with
subjectiverbjobject *ord oÁer (for example , Le chien mange le b.iscuh) and
-“k th. incorráct generalization-based on both the word order of their
first languag.
“rd.l,rld.nce
from the second lanq,uage-that all direct objects
.o-.
“ñ.r
lhe rr.rb. French-speaking learners of English, on the other hand,
hearing and seeing no evidence that English direct object pronouns precede
‘,,erbs, áo ,tot t.rrd to use this pattern from their first language’
The finding that many aspecrs of learners’ language could not be explained
by the CeÉ led a rrnmb.i of researchers to take a different approach to ana-
lysing learners’ errors. This approach, which developed during the 1970s,
É..”á. known as ‘error “.”lytit’
and involved detailed descriptions of the
errors second language l.arrrárs made. The goal of this research was to dis-
cover what le”rneis ,Jdly ktr.* about the language. As Pit Corder observed
in a famous article published in 1967, when learners produce correct sen-
tences, they may simply be repeating something they have already heard;
when they produce sentences that differ from the target language, we may
assume thaithese sentences refect the learners’ current understanding of the
rules and parrerns of that language.’We saw this in the example of a learner
who says
;b,ry.d’
instead of ‘bought.’ Error analysis differecl from contras-
tive aniysis in th”t it did not ,.tlu. to predict errors. Rather, it sought to
ur oB loql’asJoq € e^Eq sJaqqoJ lta,r3’aruetsrp 3uo¡ e te oes ot sn paltrtulad
r¡ reql sere¡8¡o 3ur¡ e qlr^ asn€lJ €]u€S saas oq/v\ urslunou aql u! sJaqqoJ
eaJqt a^eq no¡’sasr.rdrns ¡o ra¡red peJ E pup eLunlsof, pal € s€q a¡1 .sasudrns
auos elr8 o¡ lt!¡ e u¡ oB asn€lJ plues rourl aues eql ul .rnog € teo asJor.l srH
‘req 3tq p seq aLl ‘esJor.l stq qlt/v\ uasap eqt ur oB loq,r,ror e fep luuns e 3ur.rn6
tuapnls looqls fuepuoras’a8en8ue¡ lsJU q)uaJJ : I JeulDel
¿.ra¡¡rp sa3enSuelJalul o/v\l aql op s,(e,r,r t€q^ ul t
¿sJoJJa ro sPut) aues eqr a>leul sJeuJEal qroq oc t
¿puetsJepun or lrlllq€ rnol qtral lsotn
aJaFelul sJoJJo,o spuq l€qM ‘JeuJeal qtee lq apeu sJoJJe aqt eutuexf ¿
¿les or 3urfut sr JeuJeal qlea leq^ puelsJepun nol ue1 ¡
:suollsenb Surrr,ro¡¡o¡ aq¡ Jalv\sue pue slxel ar{r peeu
‘ulu aF
uoas lou P?q oq/v\ ouoeruos ot tr 8ur¡¡er a.rem Áeqr ¡¡ se’8ultr”lm ul l”lols eql lla¡at
ot pe)se a;em laql’u¡g aqt Surarar,r .rar¡y ‘(epeue) lo pJeo€ ru¡r3 ¡euorre¡r¡)
,Uaqqo¿ Aollo?Jg eq! pappua ulg uoouef, e Surqursep eJe^^ sJauJ€el Lltofl
‘JeuJeal r¡npe 3ur¡eeds-aseurq3 e Jaqto aq¡’tuapn¡s loor,.l)s l;epuoras 3ur¿eads
-qluarl e auo’qsr¡3u3 ,o sJau.leel or*r lq uatltJ^ e”¡a¡,r slxel 8ur^ ollo, aql
etentue¡ JouJeel esll€uv rtltrf,v
‘a8en8ue¡ ra8rrr arp
pue a8en8uelratur rrer{t uee,{\teq seluareglp azluSora,r ot uaqt dlaq p¡noal
ltqt >lleqpegJo pupl ar{lro uonf,nrtsul epnlrur tou saop aSen8uel puof,as arp
ol a¡nsodxa esorfd sreuJtal JoJ enJt l¡¡elradsa aq leru slgl ‘Sur8uego dors or
uaas aBrnBuEI sraurEJI p ur saJnteal eruos leql IJBJ ar{r or rgeJ or uop¿z1lssoJ
urat aql peurof, osl” relurlas ‘ssa-l8o¡d Jer{un3 salelnuns Sulqraruos aroJJg
alrq^r E.ro3 neare¡d ¿ r{f,Bal uagt ‘ssarSord jo srsrng a Er{ sJauJea-I ‘uarc put
qloous l¡¡ressecau tou sr uonrslnb¡¿ a3¿n8ue¡ g8norgr qred aq¡’a8enSue¡
puoJas aql tnoqe saseqrodlq Jlegt asr^eJ pue rndur eJour e^reJeJ sJauJeel
se 8ur,r¡o,ta f¡rnunuor ‘crueulp osp eJE far¡r rnq ‘cnerualsls eq or punoJ
uaaq a^¿q seSen8ue¡ralu1 ‘suratsfs a8en8ue¡rarul
il¿ ul rnolo ol pue praua8
ag ot ruees lBrF ‘saruaqdrour ¡erneuuer8 pue spJo^\ uorrf,unJ Jo uorssnuo
al{r sB qf,ns (sf,usrJetoeJeqf, aruos pue
‘aBrnBuEI puof,es aqtJo sf,nsrJalf,eJeqf,
au¡os ‘sa8en8ue¡ peurea¡ llsnornard lq pacuangur sf,nsrJalf,EJeq3 eruos s”q rr
reqr s,toqs aSen8ue¡;arul s(raureal e3o srsf¡euy’a8pa¡z’rou1 aBen8ue¡ puolas
Surdo¡a,rap (sJauJeal or aSen8ue¡Jalul arueu aqt arrr8 (ZL6ü ra>1ulag ,{-rre1
‘alqerrlpard pue paure^o8-a¡nr sr l¿qt auo-rg8rr u^\o slr ur rualsls
e sl a8rn8uel raurea] a8en8url puof,as’a8en8ue¡ p¡r{r alll ,reqr srsagrodlq
aql uo paseg s¿,4 slsfpue JoJrE ‘¿rep a8en8uq puores ssaco¡d sJeuJeal
^\oq
Pu?rsrePun ol lJoJa ue ur sroJJe Jo sPuq ruaraJlp sglJf,sap puE Ja^of,srp
&urutaa1 a8anSur¡ puocag e.,
44 Second language learning
the way of Santa Clause, not Santa Clause but his pocket of surprises. After
they will go in a city and they go in a saloon. […]
(Unpublished data from P M. Lightbown and B. Barkman)
Learner 2; Chinese first language,adult
This year Christmas comes soon! Santa Claus ride a one horse open sleigh to
sent present for children. on the back of his body has big packet. it have a lot of
toys. in the way he meet three robbers.They want to take his big packet. Santa
Claus no way and no body help, so only a way give them, then three robbers
ride their horse dashing through the town.There have saloon,they go to drink
some beer and open the big packent.They plays toys in the Bar.They meet a
cow boy in the saloon.
(Unpublished data provided by M. J. Martens)
Perhaps the most striking thing here is that many error types are common to
both learners. Furthermore, both make errors of spelling and punctuation
that we might find in the writing ofa young first language speaker ofEnglish.
Even though French uses grammatical morphemes to indicate person and
number on verbs and Chinese does not, both these learners make errors of
subject-verb agreement-both leaving off the third person -s marker and
overusing it when the subje ct is plural (‘a cowboy go’ and ‘three robbers in the
mountain who sees’ by Learner 1 and ‘Santa Claus ride’ and ‘they plays’ by
Learner 2). Such errors refect learners’ understanding ofthe second language
system itself rather than an attempt to transfer characteristics of their first
language. They are sometimes referred to as ‘developmental’ errors because
they are similar to those made by children acquiring English as their first lan-
guage. Sometimes these are errors ofovergeneralization, that is, errors caused
by trying to use a rule in a context where it does not belong, for example, the
-s ending on the verb in ‘they plays’. Sometimes the errors are better described
as simplification, where elements of a sentence are left out or where all verbs
have the same form regardless of person, number, or tense.
One can also see, especially in Learner 2’s text, the influence of classroom
experience. An example is the use offormulaic expressions such as’one horse
open sleigh’ which is taken verbatim from a well-known Christmas song that
had been taught and sung in his English as a Second Language (ESL) class.
The vivid’dashing through the town’ probably comes from the same source,
with the substitution of ‘town’ for’snow’.
For those who are familiar with the English spoken by native speakers of
French, some of the errors (for example, preposition choice ‘in the same
time’) made by the first learner will be seen as probably based on French.
Similarl¡ those familiar with the English of Chinese speakers may recog-
nize some word order patterns (for example, ‘on the back of his body has
big packet’) as based on Chinese patterns. These may be called transfer or
uu¿uauard paüuBl/t{ pu” (uesq¿lD pler”H ‘lesrery ua8.rn[ ‘e¡duexa rog
‘ruooJsselo eqr aprstno sel’r tueruuo¡l,rua Suru¡¿a¡,fteulrd esoq,e\ sJeuJ”elJo
sarpnls ruo5 eru¿J tsrg su;arred leruaudola ap eseql JoJ a3uepr^E ‘spunorS
-ryeq aBenBuEI tuereglp ruoU sraurea¡ Suorue rtllruls rre leqr l8o¡ogdrou
pue xeruls jo ruaudo¡aztep eqr ur suraued punoS a,req laql ‘sernteal Jer{ro sE
IIe,&\ sE ‘esaql pauru¿xe os[B e Er{ uortrsrnb¡e a8en8uel pumes ur sJer{JJeasa¡
‘suonsenb pue ‘uone8au ‘sauaqdJou l¿f,neruurr8 3o uolllsmbce a8en8
-uEI rsJg qsÉug ro3 saouanbes ¡truaurdola ap aruos .rr\ES a/r\ 1 .rardeq3 u1
‘spunorSryeq a8en8ue¡ rsJU tuaJaJlp uroü sreuJea¡ Suorue rrllrurs arE
sa8ets ¡etuarudo¡a,rap aser{tJo slcadse lueru ‘afuangur uE e^Eq saop a8en8ue¡
lsrg s JeuJBe¡ arir gSnogr¡e ‘l¡¡eulg ‘stxatuoo ¡e ur lpcarrof, sruroJ asaqr Sulsn
lr¡ncgp a^Er{ sJauJeal palue^pe ua^e tng ‘(,aqt, ro e,) se¡rnre eJoru Jo auo
ser{ aJualuJs qsrÉug,üa.,ta l¡pnrrn’a¡duexa ro{ ‘tsJU paureal sfmr¡e lou are
luanba.r3 lsoru aJE tBr{t a8rn8ue¡ er{lJo saJntEeJ eqr fo^oe.ro¡¡ ‘aBenBuEI atues
aqrJo uonrsrnbr¿ a8en8uel rsr5 ur pa^Jesqo esoql ot relrurs osle pue spunor8
->1ceq aBtnBuEI ]uareglp ruo{ srrurea¡ 3o a8en8u¿lralur Suldo¡arr,ap eqr ur
r¿lrruls ere leql sacuanbas ¡eruaudo¡a,r.ep pug er\ r?qt elge>lJttuar arour sr tr
‘srgr3o rg8r¡ u1 ‘sruroJ pro \ pue saf,ueluas 8un¿a¡r ro3 su;eued rueragrp ser{
rerp a8rn8u”l Jarpou¿ rrrou>l lpearle sJeureal a8en8ue¡ puof,es ‘aJoruragunJ
‘reqro qf,ea ruo{ rueJeglp os¡e rnq ‘
3o slsl¡euz aqr uo paseq sI uu8erp aqr uI repro el{r }eq} sI f¡rea parmble
aq or s.readdr selrllre qslSug sE rlnf,SIP sr Sulgnuos lqr’r uoseer raqlouy
‘a¡o:s l¡¿¡n¡ce q8lq l¡Sulpeelsru E a^Bq leur raurea¡ aqr
‘stxaluo¡ lrore8l¡qo (JaIsBe, aqt l¡uo surcluof, pasl¡eue sI rEI{r a¡drues a8en8
-uEI aqr JI ‘sJar{ro rou rng slxatuor lroteSrTqo uIEtJaf, uI salrllJr Surllddns
q IIe^\ op leu sJauJBa’I ‘sla^al Paf,uE^PE rE ua,ra ‘qsr8ugSo roadst slqr IFIA
a¡88nrrs ot enulluof, (asauedef PuE ‘aseulq3 ‘sa8en8uel rl^EIS Surpn¡cw)
spunorS>lceq a8en8ue¡ lueur ruor3 sreureel ‘a¡uanbas aqr ur f¡rea readdt sap
-lue g8noqr ue^a puv'(gsluedg Jo I{f,uarC se qcns) a,rrssassod aqr Suluro3
jo fertr ruaraglp Ata¡e seq a8en8uel rsJg esoq^\ asoq] ueqr raIIJEa a,ussassod
gs¡¡8ug aql arrnbre ot ruaes (qslueq PuE ururaD sr qrns) q gs{8ug arp
salgluasal rBql uJoJ a¡rrssassod e seg aSenSuEI rsJS asoqd\ sJauJBal ‘a¡duexa
rog ‘saruanbas uollsrnbce uo af,uangul u” e eq saop aSenBuEI lsJg .sJeuJ¿3¡
Jr{r l”qr s,{\or{s sarPnls ¡ontsnbre aruaqdlou, aqr IIE Jo ,{aaIAeJ qSno-roqr e
‘ra,rar*og ‘HVl aql tsure8e aiuaPl,ra 8uo¡ls sE sII{l ,l\es sJal{f,rcaseJ Jruos PuE
‘a8en8ue¡ lsJg .srauJeal eqr ruory JaJsuEJrJo surral uI paurqdxa Jo PaqlrlsaP
aq louueo rapro l:ernJf,E aql teqr stsaSEns sJeuJ?el Suou¡¿ ólrr¡ru¡s aq1
aruanbas uotilstnb>o
aweqdtow ¡otnowwot7 eson&uo¡ puozasJo Atoutwns (ZgOt) quaqsor) ¡’¿ atn8¡1
q arttsSassod
s- .re¡nBurs uosrad prqt
pa- rsed ;e¡n8e.t
tsed re¡n8arrt
alf,rtJE
(,3uro8 s! aH, ur s€
arussarSo-rd) fuet¡txne
(,eq or,) e¡ndor
¡e.rn¡d
(a,rrssa.r3o.rd) 8ur-
/T?&u1utoal a8unSuq puotag
48 Second language learning
to question the adequacy ofobligatory contexr analyses as the sole basis for
understanding developmental sequences. Teresa Pica (1983) argued that
accuraq/ scores should take account ofoveruse and incorrect uses to deter-
mine a score for targetJike use rather than refect only use in obligatory
contexts.
The morpheme acquisition literature raises other issues, not least of them the
question of why there should be an order of acquisition for these language
features. some of the similarities observed in different studies r..^.d1o 6.
due to the use ofparticular tasks for collecting the data, and researchers found
that different tasks tended to yield different resuks. Nevertheless, a number
of studies have revealed similarities that cannot be explained by the data col-
lection procedures alone. As with first language acquiiition, researchers have
not found a single simple explanation for the order. Jennifer Goldschneider
and Robert DeKeyser (2001) reviewed this research and identified a number
ofvariables that contribute to the order. Salience (how easy it is to notice the
morpheme), linguistic complexiry (for example, how many elemenrs you
have to keep track of), semantic transparency (how clear the meaning is),
similarity to a first language form, and frequenry in the input all r..- to pl”y
a role.
Negation
The acquisition of negative sentences by second language learners follows
a path that looks nearly identical to the srages we saw in Chapter 1 for first
language acquisition. However, second language learners from different first
language backgrounds behave somewhat differentlywithin those stages. This
was illustrated in John Schumann’s (1979) research with Spanish speakers
learning English and Henning \l’odet (1978) work on German speakers
learning English.
Stage I
The negative element (usually’no’or’not’) is typicallyplaced before the verb
or the element being negated. Often, ir occurs as the first word in the sen-
tence because the subject is not there.
No bicycle.
I no like it.
Not my friend.
‘No’ is preferred by most learners in this early stage, perhaps because it is
the negative form that is easiest to hear and recognize in the speech they are
exposed to. Italian- and Spanish-speaking learners may prefer ‘no’ because ir
corresponds to the negative form in Italian and Spanish (No tienen muchos
librol. They may conrinue to use Stage 1 negation longer than other learners
because of the similariry to a pattern from their first language. Even at more
advanced stages, they may also use Stage 1 negatives in longer sentences or
‘srueurge5 a)uatues Jo (eEInruJoJ
‘sprorrl alSqs
I a&tts
‘af,uengur a8en8ue¡ lsJU ol elqetngunB aJB teql saf,ueragrp euros
aJe aJaql ‘ulr8¿ puv’uorrrsrnbrr a8enSuel rsJg ur pelJasqo euo aqt ol JEIrur_B
st aruanbas IIEJa^o aql ‘uoneSau JoJ 1v\Bs e.^a sV’3urp¡og se.ur (regc;easal Jrp¡
rafeld Jar{to aql a¡nrcld qlryx\ tno pu5 01 rapro ul suoltsanb >lse ol pEq
laqr qorqm ul aue8 e Surle¡d ere^\ oq.&\ sraleads qluarg tuoü aruof, (q r3″rS
ur esoqt rdacxa) sa¡drurxe eql
^\oleq 9-1 se8erg ur u^\oqs sr aruanb¡s
erp Jo uorsrel patdepe uy ‘spunorS>1ceq aBenBuEI tsrg 3o Áaue.r. E ruo{
gsrtSuE 3o sJauJrel lg suolrsenb 3o uolrlslnbre er{t ul acuenbas E peqrrlsep
(886I) lalpur.rg JoaD pue ‘uorsuqof ulocp¡zr¡ ,uueruauerd paüuel,{
suopsenb
‘aJer{l lua,& r,uPrP
I
‘qre^ aqt pue lrer¡xne erp qtoq
uo Jagrunu pue ‘uosrad ‘osuel >lJeru ol enunuoJ sJeuJeal euros ‘JaAa-1r\oH
raddns a^¿q t,upp a¿N lro^\ tusaop rI
‘a8en8uel ra8rer aqr3o esoqr el¡ rsnf aq or ¡eadd¿ sacualuas a3¿n3
-uelJalur lsoru pue’raqurnu pue’uos;ad ‘asuat JoJ pelJeur sr ,op, ‘a8els srqr tr¡
, aSqS
(asna¡¡ qryu iqrxu uaruuoq azg) ‘aruoq [or] rou auor lagl
g aSatg
6,
:sE qf,ns saluelues aonpord pue a,rne8au-gJe^ ol u¡aued
a¡tne8au-l¡ellxne er{t ezqeraua8 leru g;e,r eqr JaUE a¡.ne8au aqr sarr¡d
ler{l aJnlf,nJls E ser{ a8enSuel tsJg asorfr\ ‘sraleads uEruJeD ‘e8ers slgt ry
‘arrr a>lll r,uoP aqs
‘lddei¡ lou sE^\ aH
‘araqr oB lou uEJ noÁ
‘pasl¡eue f¡ry rou ilns sr ruJoJ .lJop, aqr ‘a8ets srqr rE rng’uBf, Pu¿ ‘.sI,
((eJ¿,
e>lll sgra,r lrrl¡xne JelJe luaruale a¡.rl¿8au aqr aceld or ulSaq sJauJEa’J
‘8uls uec tJop I
’11a>lll l,uoP aH
.(Plnoqs,
PUE ,uEf,, elll
sltpour eJoJaq pesn eq ua,ra l¿ru lr pue Jsual Jo fequrnu ‘uos¡ed JoJ pa>lJeru
lou sI (luop, ‘Ja^a.1t\oH ‘,luop, qll,lr\ Jl¿uJJlp leur ,lou, pue ,ou, ‘e8els slqr 1V
7 aSatg
‘a8ets pluatudo¡a,l,ap rr¡nrlued ¿ qSnorqr ssa¡8o¡d s rJuJEel p urrrop rttols leur
a8en8ue¡ tsJg s(JauJEa¡ e or lrrrepurs ‘sng1 ‘a¡nssa¡d Japun are lagr ueqrrr
8u1utual a8an&ual puotag
50 Second language learning
Dog?
Four children?
\7hatt that?
Stage 2
Declarative word order, no inversion, no fronting.
It’s a monster in the right corner?
The boys throw the shoes?
Declarative order with rising intonation is common in yes/no questions in
informal spoken French. French speakers may hypothesize that in English,
as in French, inversion is optional.
Stage 3
Frontin g: da – f r o nting, w h -f r o ntingwitho ut inversion, other fronting.
Do you have a shoes on your picture?
\lhere the children are playing?
Does in this picture there is four astronauts?
Is the picture has two planets on top?
French has an invariant form est-ce que (literally ‘is it that’) that can be placed
before a declarative sentence to make a question. For example, Jean aime le
cinémabecomes Est-ce queJean aime le cinéma? (‘is it that)John likes movies?’
French speakers may think that’do’ or’does’ is such an invariant form and
continue to produce Stage 3 questions for some time.
Stage 4
Inyersion in wh- + copula; yes/n questions with other auxiliaries.
\(here is the sun?
Is there a fish in the water?
At Stage 4, German speakers may infer that if English uses subject-auxiliary
inversion, it may also permit inversion with full verbs, as German does, leading
them to produce questions such as ‘Like you baseball?’ (Magst du basebalh)
Stage 5
Inversion in wh- questions with both an auxiliary and a main verb.
How do you say’proche’?
\,lhat’s the boy doing?
French-speaking learners may have difficulry using Stage 5 questions in
which the subject is a noun rather than a pronoun. They may say (and
accept as grammatical) ‘Vhy do you like chocolate?’ but not “ühy do chil-
dren like chocolate?’ In this, they are drawing on French, where it is often
9SrE(.t¿lueserd lq8noq laqr s¡ ¿
9SrEZt¿s8urqr er.uos 8ur,(nq laqr a.ry 9
z JeuJsrl
9SrEZt
¿3urop aqs
s! l?q/y\’op aqs seop leq/v\’nol op reqm’¡.rr8 aql S
9SrEZt¿3uqu¡qr eq sr leq¡¡ t
9SVEZt¿preoq ete)s srq rno Suqel aq sl €
9Sr€.Zt¿r.uooJ srrl ruooJ aql sl z
9Sr€.Zt¿Surles aq sr leq^ pue 3uro3 eq st eraqM I
I JauJ”e’l
etelg
(‘ur8aq nol a.ro¡aq suollsanb srJauJeal ql€a lo ¡¡e pea¡ :rurp)
‘uorlsenb qrra
ot spuodsarol Naq leqt luaurdola^ap uoBsenb a8en8ue¡ puof,as ¡o aSers arp
elf,Jrf,’suoDsanb .ro¡ e¡uenbes ¡etuarudo¡arrap eqt lnoqe uoD€ur.ro¡ur aql Surs¡
suollsenb.sJouJeelesÍ|euv Att^ttfv
‘sJoJJA Ja,/r\aJ
a:npord sJauJrel ter{l u¿eru sler’r.¡e lou saop e8ers raqSlq e ot ssarSord rerp
aroN ‘seq JolnrolJalur JrJqt euo aql ruory ruaJegrp sr aas u?f, laqr arnrcrd aqr
r’toq rno >lrom laqr lltun suonsenb 1se or a,rrq faqr pur sa;nud lrf,ltuepr rou
rnq Jelrruls e^Er{ sJauJeJ¡ ‘1ser srgr uI lstl .saf,uaJaglp arp tods, e ur raleads
elnru E r{rr^\ Surlr¿.ralul eJe r orf$ a8enSue¡ puoJas e se qsr¡8ug Jo sJeuJEI
asauedef r¡np” aarql ruo5 eruo3 sa¡duexa )se\L’Z’Z elqeJ ul
“r”p
eqt papr,r
-ord aqs pue ‘sarpnls aser{rJo raqunu e euop e^Er{ san8eallor raq pue lalce¡,r¡
uosr[V’9 rardeg3 ur pessnf,srp aq illr\\ q]lr{ \Jo eulos ‘serpnlsJo regunu E
JoJ srsBg ar{l ueeq s¿q suor}sanb ro3 acuanbas ¡eruaudola^ap s.uupueuard
¿lepor sr etBp er{t rer{ r aru ilet nof ue3 :uorlsanb pappaqua
¿oB nol r,uer lq¿6 :uollsanb a,rne8au
¿rl rysl ‘reueg s r1 :3rr uonsanb
sal ruaruxp nnbmo¿*) rralqns
&u1utaal a7an&ury puotag
‘suollsanb xa¡druo3
9 a8atg
‘(¿aptoqt a1 vuatua
unou E rlll1y\ uoISJa uI asn ol Ff,n¿IUuB.lSun
IE
52 Second language learruing
Photocopiable @ Oxford University Press
Toble 2.2 Questions by Joponese-speoking leorners of English
Possessive determiners
A developmental sequence for the English possessive forms ‘his’ and’her’ has
been observed in the interlanguage of French- and Spanish-speaking learn-
ers. In English, the choice of ‘his’ or ‘her’ (or ‘its’) is determined by the natural
gender of the possessor. In French and Spanish (and many other languages),
the correct form of the possessive determiner matches the grammatical
gender of the object or person that is possessed. This can be illustrated with
the following translation equivalents for French and English:
Sa mére = his mother or her mother
Son chien = his dog or her dog
Ses enfants = his children or her children
8 ls they’re ret¡rement peoplel t23456
9 ls this perfume or … I don’t know. 123456
l0 And it is necktie? t23456
Learner 3
I I Are there any shuttle? Space shuttle? 1234s6
l2 lnside, is there any girl? 123456
| 3 You dont see? 123456
l4 What are, what the people wearing? t23456
l5 And they are carrying pink boxl 123456
Answer key
Learner l: Questions 1,4, and 5 are Stage 5 questions. Question 5 is
interesting because it shows the speaker self-correcting, suggesting that
Stage 5 is still a level that reguires some greater effort. Questions 2 and 3
are Stage 4 questions.
Learner 2: Questions 6 and 9 could be Stage 4 questions. However, the fact
that questions 7 and 8 are Stage 3 questions suggests that this speaker
has not actually progressed from’fronting’ to’inversion’, particularly since
question l0 is a Stage 2 question.
Learner 3: Questions I I and 12 are Stage 4 questions. Questions l3 and
15 are Stage 2 questions. Question 14 shows the speaker apparently on
the verge of a Stage 5 question, then retreating to a Stage 3 question.
‘a8ue¡eqc aqr ot
sppB rer{unJ unou l.la,ra puE r{lBe Jo rapua8 ¡eclreuuer8 eqt ureal or peau
3r{I ‘JauluJalaP a Issassod arp3o rapua8 aqr Surulru;alapJo le,l¡. ¡”rau E uJEJI
osF tsnu faql ,s.rauruuelep e^rssessod Sursoogr JoJ srsEq aqr se .rapua8
¡e:
-neuue¡8 asn ler{r sa8en8uq Jerpo lo ,rlruerC urea¡ s.ra>leads qsr¡Bug uaq¿N
lsBq srq unq aq PUE rePlnoqs
srq uo ¡rB sq e>lel pep aqr puv :agraSor fe¡d pep req r{rr^\ 1.rr8 a¡ru aq1
‘srred lpoq pue rapua8
¡e,rnreu 8ur
-pnpur slxetuof, IIE ur (Jeq, pue ,srr{, Jo asn aaU-JoJJa e enlJe l¡euy sJeu¡BJl
‘g a8erg s¡er (ggg¿) errq4r ler{ \ ur .a8els acuaS¡arua-tsod eqtJo pue eqt ry
l3eq srq uo ,reUE puB fappoqs srq uo
¡rl3 e¡ur1.rar1tnd pep aql
dn pue rer{leJ srr{ >lool aqg ‘a¡oórq rar{ uo 11a3 ¡rr8 aq¡
:apua8 lernleu
s?q pessessod rcalqo aql uer{,4 lou rng (Jar{, puE ,slr{, Jo asn palEnuareJl(I
a Jua8t a uür -4 s o¿ : E a&a,lg
‘asl¡d.rns sr JarpeJ srr{ pue (peer{
srq uo ‘purq sq uo dn-a1eu aqr rnd eqs .lnJnneeq3¡assrq 8ur1eu
1.rr8 aql
‘qslug er{s ueqr PUE .13of,
rag’lued rer{ ‘
‘JsuruJalap e,rrssassod E uBql Jarp”J elf,rlJs erruSap
e sasn l¡e:ldlr qcuerg ‘rred fpoq E sr pessassod rralqo eqt ueq/v\ reqr etoN
€g &urutaa1 a&anSur¡Vuotag
54 Second language learning
Relative clauses
Second language learners first acquire relative clauses that refer to nouns in the
subject and direct object positions, and only later (and in some cases, never)
learn to use them to modify nouns in other sentence roles (for example, indi-
rect object and object of preposition). A summary of the observed pattern
of acquisition for relative clauses is shown in Thble 2.3.It is referred to as the
accessibility hierarchy, and it refects the apparent ease with which learners
have access to certain structures in the target language.
Part of speech Relative clause
Subject The girl who was sick went home.
Direct object The story that I read was long.
lndirect object The man who[m] Susan gave the present to
was happy.
Object of preposition I found the book thatJohn was talking about.
Possessive I know the woman whose father is visiting.
Object of comparison The person that Susan is taller than is Mary.
Photocopiable O Oxford University Press
Toble 2.3 Accessibility hierorchy for relotive clouses in English
(odopted from Doughty I99l)
Unlike the study of grammatical morphemes, negation, and questions, the
study of relative clauses was not inspired by research on child language.
Rather, it came from patterns that Edward Keenan and Bernard Comrie
(1977) observed in a large number of languages. Th.y found that those lan-
guages that included the structures at the bottom of the list in Thble 2.3
would also have those at the top, but the opposite was not necessarily true.
Subsequentl¡ Susan Gass (1982) and others found that if a second language
learner could use one of the structures at the bottom of the list, he or she
would probably be able to use any that precede it. On the other hand, a
learner who could produce sentences with relative clauses in the subject or
direct object positions (at the top of the list) would not necessarily be able to
use them in any of the clause types further down the list.
Despite the similariry of the general pattern, several rypes of first language
influence have also been observed in the acquisition of relative clauses. First,
it has been observed that for learners whose first language does not have a
particular clause type (for example, object of comparison), it is more dif-
ficult to learn to use that rype in English. Second, where learners have a first
language with a substantially different way of forming relative clauses (for
example, Chinese and Japanese, where the relative clause precedes the noun
f¡ruanbarS ssal sre>lreru tsed a¡dturs asn sraurea¡ ‘(.a1q
aqr lq us or fddeq paruees all,) sruelsuor sE pa raf,rad aq leu trr{t
,stuauqsqduorfe, sE ol paJJaJaJ aJE eseql ‘paurruJarap aq l¡rsra uec tulod pm
asogrrr SurpauJos ot JaJaJ ter{r sgJal uo asuat tsed lreru ot Jersee tl puy ol ruJax
sJauJ¿a’I ‘sqJa tuaJa5rp aqr fq passa¡dxa s8ulueaurjo spur¡ aqr’sr leql’,lf,ads
prrxal, eqr or enp ag or;eadde saruaraglp aser{I ‘
Jo ¡eJ1d rse¡ fddeg peuaes aqs, sB r{fns sef,uatuas ur uerlt ,an13 qrrzvr tl pary
ratsls f¡4¡, pue (ase arp a>loJq I, sE r{f,ns seJuJtuas ur asuat rsed lreru or f¡a11
eroul are sraureel rer{r punoJ e Eq srerpo pue (0002) 3r1re¡1-r,rop.reg uoalrpqt
‘sreal uaarSg ef,urs aJer{ pe^rr ser{ eqs
‘qsg 8lq E per{f,I”r rarsrs l¡lr¡
‘(rsed alduls aqr u”qr raqrer rra3.rad tuasa¡d aqr ‘a¡drurn
ro3) ruroS asual lsed 8uo¡rll, er{} Jo asn aqr ;o Sulpua pa- rc1n8u aqr azrlere
-ua3¡arro &ru s¡au;eal ‘sqJal re¡n8ar uo asual rsed Suqreu ur8aq laqr ragy
‘qsruedg a>1ods a¿N ‘Aep Ánt’a Iooqls ot tua \ alN
d¡qe¡¡er
pasn sr rstd re¡n8ar aql aJoJag pasn ag leu sq;a,r re¡nBaJJIJo suJoJ esuat tsed
‘dors rrro¡1 ‘aun 3uo¡ 8ur¡ro,la. ey1¡
‘Suluea¡u
ter{r JoJ sasn a8en8ue¡ ra8;er eql rBI{t euo eql ag tou leu¡ u q8nogr¡e ‘tsed
JoJ gJa aqr 8ur¡mu auagd;ou ¡ecneruruer8 B r{JEltE ol }JE}s s;au;ea¡ tarr¡
or ere¡d
ol JaJeJ
‘lueJnelseJ ur
lJoA\ eH ‘atuof, uos l¡¡
‘PJEr{ ool >lJo,/l\ a/N’rueN rel^
‘rsed agr ur paJJnJf,o luala al{l rBI{t 1üor{s
Jo erun B uonuaur Jo paJJnf,f,o laqr golq.tr uI JtpJo aIF uI slua^¡
l¡duls feu a8en8uel petlrull qrl^\ sreureel
sJoJJe ar{r ur uJas sr aluangul a8en8ue¡ rsJU ‘pJItII ‘parue PE f¡rlej sl a8en8
-uBIJeluI JIaIF ual{,l\ uela sasnBIJ eArlEIaJ Sutsn plo,Le leru lagr ‘(sagrporu u
gg &uru”raa1 a8anSual puotag
56 Second language learning
First language can have an influence here too. Laura Collins (2002) investi-
gated the different English verb forms used by French speakers. The past tense
that is most commonly used in spoken French and that is usually a transla-
tion of a simple past form in English is a form that resembles the present
perfect in English. Thus, the equivalent of ‘Yesterday he ate an apple’ is Hier
il a mangé une pomme-literall¡ ‘Yesterday he has eaten an apple’. Teachers
often comment on French speakers’ tendency to overuse the present perfect.
In Collins’ stud¡ learners completed passages by filling in blanks with the
appropriate form of a verb. As expected, in places where English speakers
would use the simple past, French speakers did sometimes use the perfect
(either present perfect or past perfect) forms. Furthermore, they used them
more frequently than a comparison group of Japanese speakers. However,
the French speakers were more likely to use perfect forms for achievement
and accomplishmentverbs than for the states and activities. Collins observes,
‘The [first language] infuence does not appear to override the effect of lexical
aspect; rather it occurs within iC (p. 85).
Movement through developmental sequences
\7e have seen in this section that, as in first language acquisition, there are
systematic and predictable developmental sequences in second language
acquisition. However, it is important to emphasize that developmental stages
are not like closed rooms. Learners do not leave one behind when they enter
another. In examining a language sample from an individual learner, one
should not expect to find behaviours from only one stage. On the contrary,
at a given point in time, learners may use sentences rypical of several different
stages. It is perhaps better to think of a stage as being characterized by the
emergence and increasing frequency of new forms rather than by the com-
plete disappearance of earlier ones. Even when a more advanced stage comes
to dominate in a learnert speech, conditions ofstress or complexity in a com-
municative interaction can cause the learner to slip back to an earlier stage.
In addition, as we have already noted, progress to a higher stage does not
always mean fewer errors. For example, a learner may produce correct ques-
tions at Stage 1 or Stage 3, but those correct forms are not necessarilybased on
underlying knowledge of subject-verb inversion. That is, correct questions
at Stage I are formulaic chunks, not sentences that have been constructed
from the words that make them up. At Stage 2, learners have advanced, in the
sense that they are forming original questions, but the word order of those
questions is not grammatical in the target language. At Stage 3, questions are
formed by placing a question form (most often a uh- word or a form of the
verb ‘do’) at the beginning of a sentence with declarative word order. This
may result in questions such as ‘Do you want to go?’ that conform to English
patterns. However, when the learner asks a question such as’Do you can help
‘1(ou>I fpear¡r e.&\ ttr{a
uo Plrnq e1r\ ?deu 8uI¡rauos 8ulu.rea1 uI .’uollng
^\au
aF
uaaluaq feldJetur uE sr eJeqt ‘e8en8ue¡ mau eqt qtu’r eoueuedxe e^EI{ sJeuJuel
sE pue ‘paqsr¡gersa lltury aJE sa8en8ue¡ rallrea esor{r;o su¡aued aq1 ‘Sururea¡
are faqr a8rn8ue¡ ,/v\au aqr Jo sarlxa¡druor eqt Jalof,srp or frr lagr s? ,/r\ou1
lagr saBenBuEI Jar{}oJo su¡aued aqr uo,/’rerp sJauJeal tel{t lqnop ou sI arrgl
‘sef uatuas a¡drurs JEIItuls pacnpord sJeuJuel uaqrvr’uorttstnb:e
a8rn8ue¡ puooesJo sa8ets tsar¡ree aqr ul rsalea.r8 eJa¡a salllJellruls aql ‘suoltst¡
-lQtuoo a8en8uel puof,as pue ]sJU aqt ut óalre,r lea¡3 aqrSo etrds ur ‘sraurea¡
eqlJo suJarred a8rn8ue¡Jarur or{l uI saIlIJelIuIS prruersqns aJaA\ eJel{l ‘uode¡
G.66ü anprad a^rlJ pue ura¡¡ 8ue83lol¡ sV ‘palpnts se¡’r saSen8ue¡ ra8ra
o^\t arp3o uollslnb¡e rlaql uI sJeurealJo ssa¡8o¡d agr ‘punor81:eq a8en8uq
rsJg r{rEa .ro3 ‘os¡y ‘pa;rduor are^\ spunor$¡ceq aSen8ue¡ tsrg ruereJlP o^\r
ruory sJauJeal ‘a8rn8ue¡ ra8rer qcea rog ‘a8en8ue¡ ueado;ng JeIpouE PeuJEq
laqt se pa./urollo3 eJa \ ‘uolrfnnsul aBenBuEI puofes ou Jo eprll PEr{ tuoq,r
Jo lsoru ‘sreureel aSenSue¡ rlnpy ‘8ulu.rea¡ a8enSuel PuoJas uo aSenSuq
tsJU eqr Jo efuangul aql aulruexa ot saltlunr¡oddo alqenp^ Jtuos Patee¡f
reqr lpnrs e lno paIJJ¿f, uoltepunoC afuaIJS ueadornE aqt lE sJel{r.Itasat
‘uolustnbcB a8enSue¡ tnoqe uoItEIrrJoJuIJo af,Jnos Flluesse uE lsol
l¡¡erruarod farp ‘os Surop u1 ‘stsf¡eue elllseJluor PaPJefsIP osl¿ sreqoJeasar
aruos ‘Lusunol^El{aq Sunrala¡ u1 ‘uotllslnbce a8en8ue¡ jo sl’rel^ lslJnol^Er{aq
qtt,!\ paterf,osse f¡aso¡o sernr stsl¡rue alllstJtuof, rEI{r }lEJ aql sE1( aSen8ue¡
raSrer aqr qrl^\ saltlnrglp s,.raurea¡ e urcJdxa rsaq PFo,&\ (ef,uareJrelul, ro
(JeJsuEJt, ler{r slseqlodlq ar¡r parcalar sJeI{)JEeseJ auos tetlt uoseeJ auo
aruanhfar aSan&ur¡ rtgfruoqp a,tory
‘uoIlEf,Iunururof
r{tr^\ ara3ra}ul tou op sJoJJa rleqt JI a8ers reqr puofaq Sul,roru ó¡nrgrp
e^Br{ osle leru faql ‘a>leru or l¡a1r¡ ssal are sa8en8ue¡ raqto Jo sraleads rerp
s.ro¡¡a Suqeru dn pua pue urarred a8en8ue¡ rsJU rlal{t azl¡e;aua8 leu lat¡l
‘a8rn8ue¡ratul JIaI{r pue aSen8u”l tsJg Jleql uea uaq ,lrue¡nuls IEIfnrl,
e a¡rre¡¡ad faqt qclqrnl le a8ers ¡eruerudola,reP E I{334J larp uagm ‘Pa^Jasqo
(Oge t) IqoZ rnuleH Pu¿ (3/6I) apo¿¡SuruueH sE 1er{re¡ ‘Puosas eql olul
a8en8ue¡ rsJg JIeI{r Jo sarnlf,nJ}s el{l JoJSuEJT l¡duls uer laqr l3l{l etunsse
or ¡eadde rou op sJeuJEO-I ‘eouangul a8en8ut¡ tsJg I{tvlt tf,¿Jalul laqr ler’t
aqr $ saruanbas ¡eruarudo¡a,rap rnoqe uoltt^Jasqo lu¿l¡odrur laqrouv
(‘aouelues aqr3o Suruur8aq agr lE PJon\ uopsanb e tn¿,
e¡11 Surqraruos sl l¡ea; a¡n: aSen8uBlJelul s,JeuJeal erp rer{r ees UEJ a^\ (¿etu
Sututaal a8an&ual yuocag LS
58 Second language learning
‘We
have seen some ways in which the first language interacrs with develop-
mental sequences. \flhen learners reach a certain stage and perceive a similariry
to their first language, they may linger longer at that stage (for example, the
extended use ofpreverbal’no’by Spanish speakers) or add a sub-stage (for
example, the German speakert inversion of subject and lexical verbs in ques-
tions) to the sequence which, overall, is similar across learners, regardless of
their first language. They may learn a second language rule but restrict its
application (for example, the French speakert rejection of subject-auxiliary
inversion with noun subjects that we saw in Stage 5 questions on page 50).
The first language may influence learners’ interlanguage in other ways as well.
As we saw earlier, the phenomenon of avoidance that Jacquelyn Schachter
(I974) described appeared to be caused at least in part bylearners’perception
that a feature in the target language was so distant and different from their
first language that they preferred not to try it.
Other researchers have also found evidence of learners’ sensitiviry to degrees
of distance or difference and a reluctance to attempt a transfer when they
perceive the languages as too different. In one revealing study, Hákan
fungbom (1986) found that the interference errors made in English by both
Finnish-Swedish and Swedish-Finnish bilinguals were most often trace-
able to Swedish, not Finnish. The fact that Swedish and English are closely
related languages that actually do share many characteristics seems to have
led learners to take a chance that a word or a sentence structure that worked
in Swedish would have an English equivalent. Finnish, on the other hand,
belongs to a completely different language family, and whether their own
first language was Swedish or Finnish, learners appeared reluctant to draw on
Finnish in learning English.
The risk-taking associated with this perception of similariry has its limits,
however. For example, Eric Kellerman (1986) observed that learners often
believe that idiomatic or metaphorical uses ofwords are unique to a particu-
lar language. Kellerman found that Dutch learners of English were reluctant
to accept that certain idiomatic expressions or unusual uses of words were
also possible in English. For example, they rejected ‘The wave broke on the
shore’ but accepted’He broke the cup’ even though both are straightforward
translations of sentences with the Dutch verb brehen.
Another way in which learners’ first languages can affect second language
acquisition is by making it difficult for them to notice that something they
are saying is not a feature of the language as it is used by more proficient
speakers. Lydia Vhite (1991) gave the example of adverb placement in
French and English. Both languages allow adverbs in several positions in
simple sentences. However, as the examples inTáble 2.4show, there are some
differences. English, but not French, allows SAVO order; French, but not
English, allows SVAO.
‘suolle8llselul Jo serors PeJIdsuI seq dlqsuolrelal sII{lJo frrxa¡druo:
eqt’^\oqs (SOOZ) o>1uel^E¿ PtauvPue su’.rr[rror5 PUB (8002) ulPO af,uaral
fg srrtevrar allsuarxe ryrndur aqt uI JelunoJua sJauJea¡ regr a8en8ue¡ ra8ra
eqr Jo sa¡dues eqr pue ‘sassaco¡d a¡’rlruSoc ‘(sa8en8ue¡ Paurcel l¡snorrtald
raqto ro) a8en8ue¡ rsJg er{r uea^\taq uoll)¿Jalul ar¡r aztseqdrua ruaudo¡ar’ap
a8rn8uel puof,esJo s¡aell tueJrn3 ‘raIIrEa PauJBal az’r (s)a8en8u¿l aqr Pu¿ls
-Japun put asn a,u fer”r eqt uo lcedu¡l ue aAEq osp uBf, uJeel e¡ regl surarted
agt ‘a8en8uel pJltp Jo puofas e a.rrnbre a^\ sE ‘sI IEI{I ‘lEuoIrseJIPIun suearü
ou lg sl drqsuolre¡ar eq1 reqr DEJ eqr Degar ot ued uI ‘Pesn uJUo 1(ou sI af,ua
-ngur rnsrntull-ssorf, uJJar eql’sePmaP tualar uI Paugal uaaq sEL{ sa8en8uq
peureel-Jalel pue -lsrg uee \taq drqsuorre¡er ar{r Jo Surpurlsrapun rno
‘9 pue g sratdeq3 uI srorra uo >lreqPag
PUB uonrnJlsurJo eloJ al{r rE >lool e1( uer{^\ slql ol uJnlal IIId\ alN’sJorrs aluss
eqr e>leru sJer{lo reaq leru faqr ‘roe3 uI ‘Pue Sulpuelslapunsllu asnec or,(1a1¡¡
lou eJE srorra u^\o rIeI{I ‘punorSlcrq a8en8ue¡ lsrg arues aql uro{ srel{ro
qtl,l\ ttrErelul sreurcol uaqm Sur8ualler{l eroru uala aq &u slql ‘pardn;srp
]ou sr uonef,runruruoo pue fq8u ¡e fpca3rad sPunos rueprrtnba uolte¡sueJl sll
uaqrrr l¡ercadsa ‘tndul eql uI luesaJd lou sl 8u¡qlauos lBqt af,Ilou ol IFISIP
sr lr’rno slu¡od erlqr6 ryOV^S tdar¡e qsr¡8ug3o srau#el Suqeads-qcuarg
pus ,lprrrrrurue¡8 s¿
OAVS rdar¡¿ ot enurluo3 r{tuarC Jo sJeuJEaI Suqeads
-gsr¡8uE ‘aSrn8uq rsJg rIaI{} uI euo or JEIItuls st rr ¡ a8en8ue¡ ra8rel eqr uI
Jnf,f,o rou seop reqr u¡arr¿d E Jo PIr Sunra8 lr¡ncgP a,reg sdnor8 qroq lnq
‘OVAS ppt ol I{ruerC Jo sreurtal Suueads-qsr¡8ug ro3 put a.rtouadar rlaql
ol OAVS ppr or risl¡8uE3o sraureal Suqeads-qcuarJ roJ fsea fpreS sruaas 1I
qq\u1 puD q)uelJ u Tuawan¡d qle^Pv yZ etqD!
ssar¿ &rs.re,rtu¡ prolxg O a¡qerdororoq¿
‘¡errleuuert tou sr atruatuas aqr leql sueau (*) ¡slrolse aql:aroN
‘?q1nP lua nosuoqeuDw
‘€al ua]lo $lulJP rfue¡*
ovs
‘gi’/¡ nP log rua nos euDw*
‘€el s)ullP uaryo rfue¡
ovs
?ue nos ?ql nP loq euow
‘uel¡o ear s¡ur”rp l-re¡
vo^s
‘?Ln np l¡oq euory ?uaano5
‘eat s¡ulJP rfue¡’uaqg
OASV
qre^pv= [ ]eefq6 = Q QJa¡\= ¡ ¡rafqnS = 5
69Sututaa1 a8an&ual puotag
60 Second knguage learning
So far this chapter has focused on the acquisition of morphology andsynrax
in the second language . \7e now turn to the learning ofsome other important
components of communicative competence: vocabular¡ pragmatics, and
pronunciation.
Vocabul^ry
In 1980, Paul Meara characterized vocabulary learning as a’neglected aspect
of language learning’. Researchers in the 1970s and early 1980s were drawn
to syntax and morphology because of the way error patrerns and develop-
mental sequences of these features might reveal somerhing about universals
in languages and language acquisition. How different things are now!Just as
Meara was commenting on the state of neglect, an explosion of research on
vocabulary learning was beginning, and the acquisition of vocabulary has
become one of the most active areas in second language acquisition research.
For most people, the importance of vocabulary seems very clear. As it has
often been remarked, we can communicate by usingwords that are not placed
in the proper order, pronounced perfectly, ot -“t[.d with the proper gram-
matical morphemes, but communication often breaks down if we do not
use the correct word. Although circumlocution and gestures can sometimes
compensate, the importance ofvocabulary can hardly be overestimated.
Do You tneAr
fRENCtt ?
a
0,0,
l;1
puB
-ssan8 ro3 patsnlpe sr segpuepl rauJeal aqr rer{r spro \ IEaUo Jegrunu eql ‘rou
are tng spJold gsl¡8uE a>lII {ool rer{l sue}I euos sePnlf,ul osle lsII qf,eg ‘PJo-ü
eqr r’rou>I laqr rou Jo Jeqlal{^\ or Sutprorre (ou, JO ,sal, ¡raqc ol Palf,nJtsln
aJE sJaureel pur’stsl¡ PJo lJo turoJ aqr a1″1 slsal esal{r3o auos’rf,EJ slq¡Jo
a8etue,rpr e>ler teqt stsar pado¡a^eP a Eq (E002) san8rc¡¡oc sq Pue ErEeI’r(
InEd
‘pJo^\ E sI rI l¿qt azluSo¡a¡ ot l¡duls sI PJo^\ E Sulrvroul ut dals rsJg eL{L
‘,acr¡druocce, ro’.pa8e¡e, ‘fuotullsal, sE qf,ns sP¡o.s,
3o aSpa¡mou1 aqr rnoqlvlr rsol ag l¿ru asec tJnof, ? lnoqt elf,IlJE rad¿ds¡v’au e
;o Suluearu aqr ‘a¡duexe JoC ‘peeJ PuE JeeI{ a,vt s8urql lueruio Sutuearu atp
ol IErf,nJ3 aJE spJo^\ ruanbarj ssel ‘stxal lef,Iul{f,al-uou lsoluJo tuar ¡ad 06-08
s” r{Jnru se dn aleru qslSuE uI sP.Io^\ ruanbari lsolu Puesnoql eaJl{l Jo o^u
aqr q8noqr¡y’uotusmbre3o sa8ets lsour tE sJeur?el a8en8ue¡ Puof,as roJ esEJ
aJEJ E-spJo^\ el{rjo tuar ¡ad 16 uetll eJoru,4 ou>l ol sPaau auo ‘lleuotlrtp e
llnsuof, ot sdots ruanbarj lnoqllm lxel e PurtsJePun ol JePJo uI ‘íl”ql Pe^\oqs
(OOOZ) uoneN InEd pur nH EIITf,TEI J ‘lxeluo3 ruog Passen8 l¡rsea lou aru
tegt s8uruearu or 8ut;ta3al ‘rlnfSIIP eJou eq l¿ru ot pasodxa a-re laqr sPJo^r
er{} ‘srlnpe ro uerpllql raPlo are laqr 31 ‘a8en8ur¡ rsr5 rlal{r Jo sPro.4 PuBs
-nor{l o^\¡ Jo Juo lsrg slil ureal uerPIILI3 tllltl,/!\ uI esoql se ¡nid¡ag sB aq lou
feu fre¡ngero^ 1r\eu Jalunofua sJeuJeal e8rn8ue¡ Puosas qllqrit ul slxaluoJ
aqr ‘osppeureel aq or a8en8uÉl al{lJo sa¡durs railEus re3 or pasodxa eg or
l¡a>1r¡ a.re faqr ‘8urqr auo JoC ‘sreureel a8en8ue¡ Puof,es roJ ruaraJlP alrnb st
,{ie¡nqeco.r. a8rr¡ e 8ul:rnboe 3o >ls¿r aql ‘uo5a alqr^rasgo aprl qrrr’r a8en8
-uEI rsrg Jlaqt uI sPro^\Jo sPursnoqr urcel ueJPIIqJ ‘I rardEI{J uI lvres e¡a ry
‘raurEal a8en8ue¡ puores E JoJ rueuqs¡¡duocce ruecgluS¡s e sl fre¡nqeco,r
rrseg E 8ul¡lnbr¿ ‘os ueAE ‘sJatf,errr{f, 000’<2 }noqe3o a8pa¡-la'ou¡ E I{1I^ Ptar
ag l¡ensn ueo lerJaleru lrf,rur{Ja}-uou pue 'aJEJ aJe tsoul 'sJatfeJeqf,Jo sPu¿s
-noquo suer a,rrq aseuedrf pue asaurq3 q8nor¡rp 'llre¡lulS 'sPro,/d 000'<2 eln
a;oru Sulqtatuos 'raqrunu Jalletus .le3 e sermbal uoIlESJaAuoo lepfra,ra lsoru
fng 'regr afltlq u"ql eJoul sI 13I{r Jequnu e rsaSSns se}Erullsa aruos Ísprorr,r
000'02 rstel lE ,/v\ou>I or Pa^eIIaq sl qsr¡8ug 3o ra¡eads llnPe Par?rnPa uV
‘Pa^rJaP
aJE sJarpo aqr qllq^. ruo{ looJ a¡8urs e-,pJo.&\ euo 3o rred sB ruel{r Jo II3
lunof, plno,/$ sJalpo allq^! sPJo.&\ ale¡edas se ,tgSnet pue ‘Surqreal ‘Jer{f,eal
,tsanbar, su?eur qrlql\ ‘”ta?uputa? uISnoJ qJuaJC stl ruo5 Sulueatu luaJaJIP
p spq (pueruep, gre^ gs¡¡8ug agr ‘a¡durexa;og ‘ulSlro arues eql uor3 fpua
-JaJIP Pe^lo e arreq leru lagl ro sulSl¡o luJreJIP IUo{ aluof, leru .saleuSo:
esl¿J, eseql ‘s8urueau rueraJlp a^EI{ rng sa8en8ue¡ o^\t aqr ul JEIIuTIs {ool
rerp spro,u glm frlncglp ;e¡nolued a,reg leu stuaPnls ‘PuEI{ ral{ro eqr uO
,’plernslg pue II{snS,JIaslI sllef, lel{l luerntlsar asauedef ¿ uI surell lrrplcads
qroq rr.oulleqr rerp aa.leat,(eu sra>1eads qsr¡8uE ‘uoltfegal s,tueruoru E JaUE
puy'(.¿qsr¡8uÍur
-8oca¡ ol rarsee aq or l¡a11 eJE spro^\’s8ulT¡ads tuaJeJIP r{lrrvr ue^g ‘(qcua.rg
pue qsrlSug ut anbrcnru pue (f,Isnlu, .ro l¡a,rrrredser urruraD pue qsrpuE ur
¿ass?A pu? (JalB.lrr, ‘a¡durexa -ro3) saSenBuEI o^\l aql uI PerEIar elr su¡alled 8ul
1¡ads moq jo a8palz’rou1 aruos a¡lnba; leru sraqto allq^\’Suluearu Pue tuJo3
ur IEJrluJpl a¡e satruSor auro5 ‘aBenBuEI puoJas Jraql uI sateuSoc Jo sPJo,ry\
pa.&\oJJog azluSo¡a¡ sle.Lrp III^,I sruepnrs regr eunsse tou ppol{s sJeqf,Ea1
drr¡nqmo,r rraqr puedxa srauna¡ dlar¡
uro Surueatu pareqs a^EI{ pue aTTE >lool rEI{r sPro.& asaq¡ ‘(sa8en8url ragro
ruo.r3 pardopt uaeg a^Eq rEI{r spro.,rn’) sPJo.^aPa.uoJJog aJE’,elualua, Pue (luau¡
-anou?p, sE l{fns’sJel{to l(roor ¡eur8lJo eures eql ruory awof, aAEI{ reqr sprorvr)
saleuSoo a¡e ‘l¡Buorlf,Ip, Pue (uolleu, s” I{Jns ‘aruos ¡aoul fpearp lagr
rrgr saBenBuEI rJr{ro u¡ tua¡e,unba uollelsueJt rlaql a>lII >lool laqr asneraq
a.rnsodxa a¡8urs e raUE rueqt uJeal ro rq8rs uo ruaql ,^\oDL ral{lle PFoly\
sluapnls lueu¡ la,rarrro¡1 ‘aBenSuEI arp ut luanbar3ul \try1 are lsoru PuE
‘peterrsnllr l¡sea rou ‘3uo1 raqrer art lar¡1 ‘rFlUIp >lool E tsI-I uI sPro^\ aql
‘ur¿al ot Buú¡t a;r lagr a8en8ue¡ aqr ulry\ou>I fpear¡e lagr
sprold lueru .uoq uJrel ol pasudrns ag fru PIro,&\ agl rnog8noJgl sluaPnls
‘sa8en8ue¡ Jel{to tuo{ spro^\ pardepe PuE (Pe,4aorrog, JAEI{ sa8en8ur¡ lueur
‘suorleorunluuro) Jo uoIlEZIIBuoItEuJaluI Sulseanul qrt¿¡ drcpqero,r
IeuolteuJerur uB Jo u¿d art laqt asneraq ‘Z rsl’I uI sPJo^’ ruroul lpear¡e
rg8ru qsr¡8uE palpnrs raleu aler{ orl,4 stuaPnts eutos (PuEq rar{ro eqr uO
‘pegsrlqersa ila,ry\ sI Suru¿au
slr puc pJol( E uee.t\rag IuII arp eJoJeq sarull luetu sn{r oP rsnru larp ‘a1nr
E se ‘pue ‘3utu¿atu Jleqt I”eAeJ lEql slxeluof, uI sPJolt\ el{r JEaq Jo aos lsnu¡
leqr ‘uagr uJeal ol aJE stuapnlsSl ‘8ulurcru Jlaql ol an¡o e sa,u8 reqr se^las
-ueqr spJo,/$. aqlJo uollelfunuord agr.ro uJoJ uetllJl’r agr ul Surgrou sI aJel{r
Sututaal a3an3ua7 puotag €9
64 Second knguage learning
is an important potential source of vocabulary developmenr for second lan-
guage learners as it is for first language learners. However, there are some
problems with the norion that vocabulary growth through reading requires
little effort. As noted above, it is difficult to infer the meaning of a newword
from reading unless one already knows 95 per cent or more of the other
words, and learners usually need to have many meaningful encounters wirh
a word before they recognize it in new conrexts or produce it in their own
speaking and writing. As we saw in Chapter 1, Dee Gardner’s (2004) research
demonstrates that certain types of words are rare in narratives. Thus, stu-
dents who read mainly fiction may have little chance of learning words that
are essential for their academic pursuits. Conversel¡ reading mainly science
texts will not provide many opportunities to learn the vocabulary of social
interaction.
Research on vocabularylearning through readingwithout focused instruction
confirms that some vocabulary can be learned without explicit instruction
(see Chapter 6, Study 17). On the other hand, Jan Hulstijn and Batia Laufer
(2001) and others provide evidence that vocabulary development is more
successful when learners are fully engaged in activities that require them to
attend carefully to the new words and even to use them in productive tasks.
Izabella Kojic-Sabo and Patsy Lightbown (1999) found that effort and the
use of good learning strategies, such as keeping a notebook, looking words
up in a dictionar¡ and reyiewing what has been learned were associated with
better vocabulary development. Cheryl Boyd Zimmerman (2009) provides
many practical suggestions for teaching vocabulary and also for helping
learners to continue learning outside the classroom.
Even with instruction and good strategies, the task of acquiring an adequate
vocabulary is daunting. -What does it mean to ‘know’ a word:
. Grasp the general meaning in a familiar context?
. Provide a definition or a translation equivalent?
. Provide appropriate word associations?
. Identify its component parts or etymology?
o lJse the word to complete a sentence or to create a new sentence?
. ljse it metaphorically?
. lJnderstand a joke that uses homonyms (words that sound alike but
mean different things, such as ‘cents’, ‘sense’, ‘scents’)?
Second language learners whose goal is to use the language for both social
and academic purposes must learn to do all these things.
puof,es eqr ur seJnleal f,neruSeJd puer{aJdluof pue ellerJad or lrr¡qe ,sra
-urral pauruexe a Er{ serpnrs rar{ro ‘puno.r81oeq eStn8ue¡ tsrg rlaqr ro Io^JI
loualogord rraql uI sef,uareglp ol uollelar ur SurztSo¡ode pue Surrr^ul sE l{rns
sre qcaads ssa¡dxe sJauJeal qrry^\ ur sler’t aql uo pasnf,oJ serl I{cJ¿eseJ sII{r
Jo errlos ‘rc6GI3l.re¡1-l,rop.reg) ,srlreur8e.rd a8en8ue¡ralul, sE ot PerJeJar sI
a8en8url3o lcadse srgt arlnbcr sreureel a8en8url puoJas
^{oriJo
fpnrs eql
‘.rl gu^\ Peqsrug a¡tnol ueq,/I\looq lEI{r e^?q au Sulua¡ punu p,nof
JI Jepuo¡a I, Jo )oog rBI{l eru aAID, JBeq e \Jr luaJaglp fra,r sI Jeualsrl PuB
.ra>1eads uea \taq drqsuonrlar aqt tel{t erunsse l¡qeqord PFo,&\ arrr ‘aldruexa
rog ‘sfer’t tuaJaglp ul passardxa sr rr uer{^/’r peJarle sl Sururaru cISEg arurs al{l
‘llrEIItu¡S ‘peqJad\og sraleads erpJo lno 8op arp la8 ot lsenbal tua8rn ue ag
rq8lru t¡ ro ‘tad oAITJEJIIE uE Joj uolleJlrupe Jo uolssa¡dxa ue apace;d rg8rru
r1 .¿8op ;no.( reqr sL se l{rns uopsenb aldurs l¡rua.rrddt ue la¡d¡alur rq8¡ru
auo sle¡’r lunu aqr3o rylql ‘suoltentls tuaJeglp uI eAEq uEf, af,uatuas eUJES
ar{r rrqt s8ulueatu luru aqr azluSooa¡ ol uJeel o} Peau laql ‘suolresJeluoo
Sur8eueru pur tnorung Sulzru8oca¡ ‘sat8o¡ode ro stuarut¡duror or l¡atrlod 8ul
-puodsar ‘slsanba¡ Sutta¡d¡alul JoJ sllDIS a¡rnbcr ol Paau os¡e lag¡ ‘a8enSue¡
Sursn ur ó¡ncg¡p relunooua IIIrs utr laqr ‘a8en8ue¡ ra8rer elp Jo l8o¡oqd
-rorrl pue xetufs elp Jo a8palmou1 poo8 e Pu” sPro.&\ 000’E Jo f;r¡nqero,r
e a¡lnbce sJeurcal JI ua^E ‘eJueJa3ap PuE ‘ssauall¡od ‘ssaulca.up se s8urr¡r
qons ssardxa or rxaluol uI pasn sl a8en8ur¡
^,oq3o
lpnrs aqr st scrleru8er¿
srIrBrrISBJd
,evn
th* .rr’ffnll
r[o i ‘J
rñt W7rr”,’í
EnrW
s9Surutaal aSan&ual yuotag
66 Second language learning
language and to judge whether a particular request is appropriate or inap-
propriate in a specific contexr.
Since the early 1990s more research has directly investigated the acquisition
of second language pragmatic ability. This includes longitudinal and cross-
sectional studies describing rhe acquisition ofseveral different speech acts. One
that has been the focus of considerable attention is ‘requesting’. Requests are
an interesting pragmaric feature ro examine because there are identifiable ways
in which requesrs are made within particular languages as well as differences in
how they are expressed across different languages and cultures.
In a review of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies on the acquisition
of requests in English, Gabriele Kasper and Kenneth Rose (2002) outline
a series of five stages of development. Stage I consists of minimal language
that is often incomplete and highly context-dependent. Stage 2 includes
primarily memorized routines and frequent use of imperatives. Stage 3 is
marked by less use of formulas, more productive speech, and some mitiga-
tion of requests. Stage 4 involves more complex language and increased use
of mitigation, especially supportive starements. Stage 5 is marked by more
refinement of the force of requests. The five stages, their characteristics and
examples are given below.
Stage 1: Pre-basic
Highly context-dependent, no syntax, no relational goals.
Me no blue.
Sir.
Stage 2: Formalaic
Reliance on unanalysed formulas and imperatives.
Lett play the game.
Let’s eat breakfmt.
Dont look.
Stage 3: Unpaching
Formulas incorporated into productive language use, shift ro conventional
indirectness.
Can you pass the pencil please?
Can you do another one for me?
Stage 4: Pragmatic erpansion
Addition of new forms to repertoire, increased use of mitigation, more
complex syntax.
Could I have another chocolate because mychildren-I have five children.
Can I see it so I can copy it?
e Eq tou op oq t sraur?el a8rn8ue¡ u8¡aro3 roJ saeu poo8 sl srql .(¿69¿ asq¡
pue ¡adsr;) a rf,aJa rsou¡ sr uo’f,ursur rrJr¡durr .r”g, .rrgiilrr.r{d;.”7
pue s8unres .’ooJss’If, ur pauJBaJ f¡n3ssarcns ag u,f saJnl’al ,rr”-e”.a rrp
PaleJlsuoruop srq sf,rleru3e-¡d30 8uqf,eal er{l uo qf,J?aseJ ,eJor.uJer{rJnc .suog
-JunJ J^nef,runuruof, Jo aSuer rapu\r e or puodsal pu? ef,npord or sraurre¡
salg’ua sq1 ‘(>¡rorrr dno¡3 pue rled ‘a¡druexa ro3) sarnrcnirs uon¿aueg¡o
rued¡rlu¿d px’ saloJ ruaraJlp ul a8e8ua ol sJauJ’el roJ osl, rng rndur
¡o l¡aue¡. ¡al¿a¡8 e
ro3 l¡uo rou senrunr¡oddo ,ro- ,r”‘rrr”.p ,durqr’a¡
“s;¡ -uBI peseq-Iser pue ,paseg-lualuof, ,a nerrunruruof, u1 .(E rardeq3 ul s¡p
Jo uorssnf,srp Jar{unJ aas) toa;.toc l¡¡eclrerurue¡8 a¡aztr ler{l sJf,uelues
¡¡r5
Su,npord uo slelr¡e lsorul’ r” rtrrgd*a aqt erer.l.{\ pue xleqpaal Jaqf,E¡
-esuodsa¡ JauJ¿al-uonerlrur Jer{f,eel, r”^.rrrlt”d .tonr”nir,,,r”.rr-op,.¡,
eJar{^ry\ sluooJsself, paluo5-Jer{3?3r ur anrr l¡¡eDadse sE1ü srqr .slf,E gcaads
ruaJaJrp lueur ureal or_sruepnrs roj rrtrtunrioddo arel¡dord& apnord ,oo
plnoJ sruoorsse¡r eSen8uel puoJas tBr{r palunssB s’r\ lr ,arun á.ro1
”
,o¡
rr¡ncsrpa-”os.e^’qo,’,.,’o”Jffi l;j”T:jil?::lljjJT”?,i,il1l:il
se a,rrarrad or l¡a>¡¡ eJa,/tt. sJosr^pe Jqr rer{r r.torrmáBr,r Buncalai ,.rj ,.ror”r-,
ap¡,to:d_or pue uorlf,EJerur Sulsrztpe_ eql ut eloJ e nf,E aJouJ 3 a>pl 1¡1 peuJeal
fagr ‘a1du-exe ro{ .ólIq” rlreu¡8¿¡d
,s’tprds r,rneu-uou,ql3o ,lerdse r.rroi
ul sse¡80¡d pe^rasqo srer{f,r¿aser er{l ‘sqluoruJIEri E pue rnojJo pol.red ¿ JaAO
‘(asJnof, reql alet
IILaa. I, prES sra>1eads a^neu_uou aql seeJeq.{t ,,asJnof
srrp J>lEl ot ei1 ppol( I IUIW 1, fes ot pa,uesgo era,/r\ sra>¡eads arr.neu ,aldruexa
rog ‘uorreSlr¡u Sulsn re sra>1eads e^neu eq] ueqr rdape sse¡ qrnu osle ero \
sra>1eads e^neu-uou ag1 ‘sasuodsa¡ uollrafa¡ ra>yeads-a,ureu jo
¡ecldÁ rrou,
se \ r{f,rq \’,speau Áu teeu Janag plno^/v\ esJnof, Jar{lo srqr >lurqr
I, Jo .,esJnoJ
13rp r{rr^\ slJrHuof, elnpeqls l¡¡, 8uúes30 pralsur ‘,esJnof, 1¿r{r ur palseJalur
tou. ur? I IuHt J, Surles lg esrnof, relncrued B e{El or uonsa88ns srosr^pB u?
rcaler p¡nozrr, fagr ‘aldruexe Joc ‘ar¿r¡do¡dde,rr ro apnr pug rq8lru srosr^pe
or{r reqr sle¡l ur ¡osr,rpe agr lq apeu suollsaSSns pafa¡ or iralmds a^neu-uou
egr jo rred eqr uo lcuapuar B osp sBld aJer{r ‘lBep re¿t? e prr”rrr,r, sra>1eads
e^nBu seeJaq^\ suollsaSSns alBrlrur r_ou plp sra>pads a^rlEu-uou aqr ,e¡düexa
Jog ‘sue¡d f,rluap?f,B rlaqt Sulleno8au ur ssa3cns Jessal Jo .lal¿a¡B ,rr.¡r or
PelnqlJruol saf,ueJaJlp aseqrsuorsses Surslr\p? JrluepesE ur suorlfeles
esJnoJ Jrerp passnrsp far¡r se srossa3ord Jreqr qlr \ patefrun{uuoc qsr¡BuE
yo s.raleads a^neu-uou pur e neu rplr{ \ ul l¿zrt arp uJa.ry\tag sacua:ag¡p
pa^rasqo (e66I) proJueH l¡ra,rag pue BrrreH-r^opreg uae¡pe) .pu”Bu
-sez’ur flallsuatxa ueeg osle ser{ suollsaSSns lealar pue rr1″* or
^oq^B.ri,rr”r1
¿eqr{^r. a¡ou¡ lue erar{r sI
‘arer{t u,r\op
ryeJnlg auos lnd plnor noÁ
‘slxaluof, pue ‘s¡eo8 ‘sluedrclr¡ed ol eJJoJ arutsanbar3o Sulunt aurg
Sutuu aut¿ :g aSwg
Sutuwal a7un7ual puotag L9
68 Second language learning
extensive exposure to conversational interaction outside the classroom. The
question is no longer whether second language pragmatics should be taught
but rather how it can be integrated into classroom instruction.
Phonology
fu noted earlier, grammar has been the focus for second language teachers
and researchers for a long time. Vocabulary and pragmatics have also received
more attention in recent years. However, we know less about pronunciation
and how it is learned and taught. Pronunciation was a central component in
language teaching when the audiolingual approach was dominant. Several
techniques for teaching pronunciation were developed at that time, and
most of them focused on the pronunciation of segmentals, getting learners
to perceive and to produce distinctions between single sounds in minimal
pair drills (for example, ‘ship’ and ‘sheep’).
tVhen the audiolingual approach was replaced by other ways of teach-
ing, attention to pronunciation was minimized if not totally discarded.
Furthermore, evidence for the critical period hypothesis, suggesting that
nativeJike pronunciation was an unrealistic goal for older second language
learners (see Chapter 3), led to the argument that instructional time would
be better spent on teaching something that learners could learn more success-
fully. \X/hen communicative language teaching (CLT) was first introduced in
the late I970s,little attention was given to the teaching of pronunciation.
If it was taught, the emphasis was on suPrasegmentals (rhythm, stress, and
intonation)-aspects of pronunciation that were considered more likely to
affect communication (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, and Goodwin 1996).
Although research on the teaching and learning of pronunciation is not as
extensive as that in other language domains, there is theoretical and empirical
work to help us understand the processes involved in phonological develop-
ment in a second language and the factors that contribute to it. For example,
contrastive analysis helps to explain some aspects offirst language influence on
second language learners’ pronunciation. \le can all think of examples from
our own experiences or those of our students. Japanese and Korean learners
of English often have problems hearing and produci ng I and r because these
sounds are not distinct in their language. Spanish speakers will often say’I
e-speak e-Spanish because Spanish words do not have consonant clusters
beginning with s at the beginning of a word. French speakers may place stress
orthe last syllable of a word because French usually stresses the last syllable.
Few languages have the th sounds that are frequent in English, and learn-
ers may substitute similar sounds from their first language (for example, r
or d, s or z). Sometimes, however, learners overcomPensate for sounds that
they know are difficult. Thus, learners may pronounce a th (as in ‘thin’ or
‘this’) where a t or a/sound belongs (saying ‘thin when they mean ‘tirt’ for
‘(LOOZ tltl¿) a8rn8ue¡ Puoras eql uI sluef,f,e ¡a8uo¡ls ezreg feur
aSenSur¡ tsrg rraqrJo asn ¡alee¡3 a>ltru ol enunuof, or{^\ stlnpe r€r{r pa Jasgo
ueeq oslt ser{ 1I ‘uonercunuo¡d pa,r.ordrul or p”el uer aSen8uel puoJes aql
ol a¡nsodxa 3o sporred ra8uol reqr parrodar eler{ (1OOZ) a3a1g sauref pue
‘lq¡ceyq ue1 ‘a>1sr¿ uetsJoql ‘uonerf,unuord or srorngrJluoc Flruengur sE
pegnuapl ueeg a^eq a8enSue¡ rsJg eqr Jo asn 3o aar8ap aqr pue a8en8ue¡
ra8rer aqt o1 e¡nsodxa 3o edlr pu” tunorue arl] sE r{rns sJorce3 Jar{}O ‘alor
tu¿t¡odu¡r ue sfe¡d a8enSue¡ tsr5 s.raureel aql ler{t Jeelr osle rl pu” ruqrfgr
pue sseJlsJo seJnleal eruosJo uorlrslnbre agr ul lrrre¡lurs.roJ eJuapl^e sr eJer{l
‘ssoleqleuoN ‘uorrrsmbre ¡er€olouogd aSen8ue¡ puoces ur spunos
lenpl^lpul
;o sacuanbas ¡eruarudo¡a ap aqr tuaurnfop ol qf,JEOSeJ aptrl ueag sBr{ eJe[L
‘uonerf,unuo;d a>¡T-a,rneu elpq or pa8pnl ararrr (asarueuterA ,aldurexa
-roj) qrrnq ruory ruetsrp arour era \ sa8enSur¡ tsrg asoqa sraleads er{r Jo
auoN ‘stuof,f,e elrl-JlnBu a Er{ or paSpnl arezrL (ueu;ag.ro qsl¡8uE ,alduexa
-ro3) qclnq or perrlar flaso¡c se^\ ler{t a8en8uel e alods oq.&\ sreurcel esoql
l¡uo ‘se¡drues qraads agr a8pnl ol pa>lse eJa,/y\ qlrngJo sraleads e ntu ueqA\
‘spuno.r81ceq a8en8ue¡ rsr5Jo Áar¡e,r epra E ruog arum oq,&\ pur pooqrppe
rrarp ur r{f,rne paureal pBq or{.&\ sra>leads ruangord IUBH uro.r3 sa¡drues
qcaads patf,allof, (666D suae8uog oaql ‘sruelsls a8en8uel rar{lo s¿ ila \ sE
uolterf,unuord sragr arurtsrp a8enSuel ‘r{f,tnq Jo u¿uJaD 3o raleads r
saop ueql qslSug Sulurea¡ ur a8ua¡egr ¡alea;8 E sarBJ esaurr{C Jo .ra>¡eads e
‘a¡drurxa.rog zvronl lpear¡e lar¡r sa8en8ue¡ aqt tuo{ rua.ragrp f¡¡epuetsqns sr
a8en8ue¡ reqrSl a8en8ur¡ u8laroS ro puof,es relnrnred e ur lcuang;o 1a,ra1 q8q
B r{f,Bal ot ra8uo¡ sJaurcel se>lel tr ter{t uone Jesqo aqr ruorj l¡rred saurol srsa
-qrodlq aqr Surrroddns ef,urpr^a aq1 lrlncglp rarrar8 ot peel uec a8en8ue¡
ra8rer agr pue a8en8url a nru s,JauJeel eqr uee,/’lleg eluaJeglp ralrar8 e teql
pazrsagrodfg sl rr ‘l;e¡ngeoo^ pue ¡eruu¡e¡8 or pre8a.r qlr^\ uaas e^”q a^\ sV
‘,al¡us, pue ,uoods, se qf,ns spro,r,rjo SuruulSaq agr lE
lalv\ol¿ uasur ¡rts tq8lru
sJauJ¿el arues Jsaql ‘uortcnpord u./v\o Jrar{t ur ‘Je^arvioH ‘rus pua ds se qrns
sJatsnlr Ienru qlr^\ spro r,opnesd (uorrerrlp ruor3) arrrrvr f¡pnsn p¡nor feqr
reqt puno; aqs ‘(sprol’r qsuedg .a\eu, sp algerdacreun aq plno^\ spJo,¡( qloq
riSnoqr uala ‘üEgz, a>lll asoqt parralar pue ,snds, eTI spro,&opnasd pardaore
.bq1 ‘a41 punos or pasoddns are spro^r qsr8ug regr’r SulzruSorar re poo8
atrnb a¡a¡tr sra>¡eads qsrurd5 aql ‘
sezruSora¡ tegt le,l e ur uouer3unuoJd Surq:ear ro3 acuepm8 sepl,rord (g ¡ g¿)
ra{pl¡ ulqo¿ ‘Suqeadsjo &.u,Iaqr a8ueq: ol aJB sraurea¡3r parrnbar sr uorl
-E Iloru puE ‘afueuedxa ‘a¡nsodxe ‘uorlf,nJlsul Jo uorrBurqruof, E rEqr pu¿
q8noua lou sr uonJnJrsur uorltrfunuo.rd pazrlenlxaruooep reqr reayr lpearp
sr tI ‘uonueltE eJotu 8ururc8 sr uonErfunuord Sulrprer o1 palEler qrJrcsau
‘GOOZ oJunry pue Surr’r.raq) a8rnSuel puorrs aqrJo
sJasn s3 sa,l.rralgo pue s¡eo8 Jrarp ol lue alaJJr sp srql ,r\ar^ sJeuJEa¡ a3en3ue1
Puof,as Jer{ro ‘suosEal puolssaSo.rd pue puosrad JoJ luaf,f,e
.elll-e^llEu, sJotu
e elrrulxo¡dde or pate,r.lroru aq leur’e8en8ue¡ raSrer aqr3o srcadsB Jeqto ur
aoueuro3;ad pue a8pay’roul Jo la^al q8¡i ¿ pe^err{f,e a^Er{ or{¡a asogr l1.rr1
-nrlu¿d ‘sJeuJ?al a8en8uel puof,es aruos ‘snql ‘uon?ururrJfslp JoJ srsEg ar{r
sE pasn sl pue dlqsragueu dnorSSo Ja>lJEtu E sE sa^Jes IIls luaf,JE .suonBnlrs
atuos uI ‘uorlErf,unuord ,sraleads aSenSue¡ puof,es or f¡artrreSau puodsar sre
-uetsrl etuos ter{l lre3 ar.{r aSuerlc tou seop aJuepr^a qf,JEJSeJ .llareunrro3u¡
lfirtgrsuaqa¡duoo
ro lrrtlqrSqerur pef,npal ur llnsal l¡;essarau lou saop tuaJf,E u8laroS Buo.us
e3o aruasard eqt rer{r s.,vroqs (t tOZ) 8uv’r-laq ,bxtaput orunt { lerrn¡zrq lq
qJJBasaJ Sa ar’roH ‘palBIaJ aJE aeJql aqt reqr rrroqs 8uúrs are ualeads trq.rnr
puersJepun or ll¡qe IEnrrE rrJqt pur ‘lrllrqrsuaqarduocSo suondacrad rragl
‘luaol¿ u8rarojjo suonder¡ad ,sra>pads e^nru gsrlSuE uea \teq sdrqsuorre¡a.r
Jo sarPnts ‘pJ€^ro} e^rJrs pFoqs sJouJEal lEr{r pJ¿puEls aql sr uonBrsunu
-ord a1r1-a,rneu ueql Jarper lrr¡rqr8r¡arur rar{raq \ sl uoltsanb perpler V
‘a8en8uel tsJg E sE qsrÉug3o uer{l
C-IEJo sraleads aroru JEJ
^\ou
eJ?
erarp ‘paapul ‘(CTg) atua{ un&uu e se gsÉuE 3o eloJ aqt sserls oq.&\ srelor{rs
lueru eqr Suorur are (11g¿) raJoqlplas Eregr’g pu’ (E002) sur¡uaf ra¡uuaf
pue reues auef’p1ro.rl eql punore atua{an8uq E sE pesn eq ol eruor a Er{ ler{l
qsrÉugjosanaue.l.raqtofuetuospeJeeJaqt,,sra>¡eadse ntu,uerp¿ue3,r{snug
‘uerleJtsnv ‘uecuaury lq gspuE jo suorlerJunuord tuaragrp fueu eJerlt aJE
l¡uo ro¡ ‘anJl ruo5 JEJ sr sqt pue ‘qst8ug 3o lralrert llerror a¡8uls e srue
arerp rpqr srsaSSns tr r¿qr sl uonsanb aqt qtv’r rua¡qo;d snor^go aug ,:aleads
e lleu, B e>lll punos ol sr uonrsrnbce a8rn8u¿l pumas Jo po8 aqr Jer{rer{^ Jo
uonsanb eqr o] perEIaJ sr uon¿rfunuo.rd ul sanssr lersJaloJtuof, er{l Jo auo
‘sesself, uorlerf,unuord ul splueuSase¡dns uo slseqdua tuaJJnf, aqr uoddns
esaqt aIII s8urpulg ‘sJaqlo or graads rrer{lJo ór¡rqr8r¡arur ar{tJo uondac¡ad
(sJeuatsrl esBeJf,ur ol ruaas tou pp srqt ,spunos asoqtJo asn Jreqt ur atEJnlfe
eJour aJe \ spunos lenprlrpur uo uonf,nJtsur ue¡r8 aJa,{\ or{,la sJeuJeel eql
qSnoql ue^E ‘spunos Fnpr^rpur uo pasnro3 suossal pe ref,er or{^\ sreureel ueqr
Sututaal a3an3ua1 puotag TL
72 Second language learning
Sampling learners’ language
One of the challenges of studying learners’ language is the difficulty of col-
lecting samples of their speech or writing that are large enough to ensure
that analyses and their findings are based on more than just a few learners or
from just a few examples from a larger number of learners. Researchers often
find it difficult ro recruit learners, to obtain their consent to participate in a
study, and to persuade them to remain available over rhe time periods that
are necessary to show development. It can also be challenging to schedule
sessions for recording speech or collecting writing samples, and to transcribe
or digitize the speech samples for analysis.
Computer-based tools are making it possible for researchers to ask and
answer new questions and to revisit some of the tentative answers to ques-
tions that have been around for a long time. For example, corpus linguistics
has provided us with large collections of naturally occurring data that can
be used to discover information about the frequency of different language
features (words, phrases, grammatical patterns) in a variety of language con-
texts and registers. Some of these corpora contain language samples that have
been collected from newspapers and conversations, whereas others are more
specific to particular cypes oflanguage. In addition, there are learner corpora
and pedagogic corpora. More and more researchers are making their learner
language data available to others so that each corpus oflearner language data
can be used for a number of different studies. Some of these corpora are avail-
able in CD or DVD format or online (Tarone and Swierzbin, 2009). The
links between corpus research and second language teaching are also becom-
ing increasingly apparent (Bennet, 2010; Sinclair, 2004). For example, if a
corpus of classroom language reveals that certain features occur frequently
in classroom input, teachers might decide to focus on features that occur less
frequently. Similarly if corpus research reveals that specific grammatical fea-
tures are rarely used by native speakers in conversational interaction, teachers
(and textbooks) may devote less time to the oral practice of these features.
Summary
The language that second language learners produce and understand changes
as they have more exposure to the language and as they use it in a greater
variety of situations. Describing those changes has been the focus of this
chapter. \7e have seen that there are strong patterns ofsimilarity across learn-
ers ofdifferent ages, learning in different contexts, and starting from different
first language backgrounds. The focus of this chapter has been mainly on
these similarities. In Chapter 3, we will turn our attention to some of the
ways in which learners differ from each other and how those individual dif-
ferences affect how quickly and how well they succeed in second language
acquisition.
‘a8pa¡mou1 f.re¡ngeco,r Surssesse pue Sulqcear
ur pe^lo ur asoqr pur Sulurea¡ lre¡nqeco,r jo sa8ua¡¡erp eqr qloq puprs
-Jepun ol qsr.^\ orf’r stuapnls atrnperS-tsod pue sraqceel JoJ txel elgrsseffe
puB lelluessa u¿ sureuJeJ lr ‘auo srql ef,urs pagsrlqnd uaag a^Br{ Suru;ra1
pue Surqcear lre¡ngeco^ uo $looq lueru qSnoqr¡y .a8rn8ue¡ u8raroS
Jo puofas e ur tuarudole^ap ,ftr1ngeco,r Sunsal pue Sulgceal JoJ suon
-eorldrul Jrar{r pue ,iroaqr pue r{JJBesJJ sJelof >looq elrsuaqardruoo srql
‘ssar¿ flrs;e,uun e8plrqure3 :a8pr-rque3
‘a&rn&ua7 uqiouv ux ,hapqatol&utu”raa7.I00Z A .S .I (uolrrN
‘le^JI arenpe¡8-rsod aqr te r{f,Jeesa¡ uonrsrnb¡r aSen8ue¡ puofes
uo 8uq-reqrue aJe oq./!\ stuepnts ot lsaJelur pnads Jo aq ilv\\ looq eql
‘pasn ag uEf, slool ralndulof, .&oq uo .&\olreg
Iaeqrry{ lq rardrqr B sE IIe./d
se ‘srsl¡eue pJnllnforf,os pue ,slsl¡eue lcuanba.r3 ,srsl¡eue ;oua Surpn¡cur
‘r¡ceordde f,nllEUB .rrlnclrred e ol pato ap sr ‘tatdeqr rll€E .ErEp Sulslpue
pue Sui.raqre8 ro3 sanbrugf,at pue spoqtatu3o a8ue¡ e Sulsn gc;easal per{srl
-qnd jo./r\arleJ e rsuatxe uE sE sa Jes osp rI .a8en8ue¡ raureal Sune8rlsa,rul
or sagceo;dde tueJaglp ol srepear sarnporlur aSan&uaT uutaaT SutsQruy
‘ssar¿ Álsra,r¡un pro1xo
:pro3xo z&an&uaT uutaaT &uts,(luuv.g¡¡Z.uazprplrpg .D pue .U .sllg
Sulpear requry roJ suorrsat8n5
¿saJnlea, a8en8ue¡ lueJeJIp eseql jo eruet.rodur
eql rlaueJ uorlf,nJlsur pue uorl)pJatut LuooJsseltr Jo, satltJot.rd ¡u¡qr
nol o6 ¿ s¡rler.u3e.ld ¿l3o¡ouoq¿ ¿l.re ¡ nqero¡ ¿ sauaqdrou lef, rt€ui uer g
¿Japro pJoM ¿ruooJss€ll eLll aprstno l¡e,rrrra¡¡a a3en8ue¡ asn ot ltr¡¡qe
Jraql lle#€ or l¡a¡r¡ tsoLu aJE a8en8ue¡;alur rsJeuJeal ¡o sl:adse req¡¡ €
¿lool lnlesn e
eq Plno^ ,lset 3n^ , aqr Iu!ql nol o6 ¿llnlultp aq plno^ )utqr nol op sauo
q)!q¡¿Jo, slxatuof, eleeJf ol lsee l¡e,r,r1e¡a; eq plno A sauaqdrour auos
¡u¡qr nol oC ¿ I ‘Z a;n8r¡ ur polsll sauaqd.rou aql ¡o qlee ro, stxaruof,
l.rore8r¡qo al€eJf, ol sJauJeal Surpea¡ ul a^rl)e#a Norrl aq plno/v\ )sel
Surtr.r¡,r -ro 3ur¿eeds ¡o put) reqM¿sar.uaqdrou ¡er¡reruue.rS¡o uollslnb¡e
aqr¡o lpnS e lo¡ a3en8uel JeuJEel¡o sa¡dr.ues trallol nol p¡norr,r
^
oH Z
¿arrnbre ol uoql Jo, NapJ€Ll tuoas seJnt€e, reqM¿spJo^ ¡erred5
¿JepJo pJo^ tr sl’lsJu allou ol u¡ees s.¡auJEel teq/v\ lnoqe )urr{},uorleSau
qsr¡3u3 Jo, peqtJlsep ueeq spq leql aruanbas ¡eluaudo¡a^ep eql le 3ur¡oo1
¿qsr¡8u3 ur se)uelues arrte3eu ¡o suaned Jo selnJ ¡eleua3 aqt eJE req¡¡ |
€,1Eurutaal aSunBuE yuotag
uoll)olror ro, suollseno
/4 Second language learning
Tarone, E. and B. Swierzbin. 2009. ExphringLearner Language’ Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
The authors collected speech andwriting samples from a group of English
language learners from different L1 backgrounds ParticiPatingin the same
t”rkr. Thit created a data base showing how each learner tried to achieve
the same communication goals. The texr is supplemented by a DVD ofthe
learners engaged in the oral tasks. Exercises focus on different.ap_proaches
to understanáing th. learners’ emerging language systems, including error
analysis, developmental sequences, learners’ response to feedback, and
communication strategies. Many of the ideas that are introduced in this
chapter of How Langiaga Are Learned are illustrated in the examples of
learners’language that are presented in this book.
sasuodsar oq] daa)’aBEn?ue¡ u8re.ro¡ Jo puo)es e Bururea¡ ¡o se:uauadxa
lnoqe sJeqtleu l¡ltue¡ lo.sen8ea¡¡otr.spuat4 leJelas
^
atlJalut,a.lleuuollsanb
eqt ¡o sardor leuoDrppe Surs¡ rau”ree¡ eSenSue¡ e se a¡uar.¡adxa u¡,ro .¡nol
uo pegal or | ‘€ elqel ut aJteuuotlsanb eqr asn laldeqr stql peeJ nol e.ro¡ag
a)uelJodxe tu¡u;eel otentupl uo lfeBau ,t.rt^trrv
‘seurof,lno 8ulu.rea1 pue sarusJaJrp
IEnpr^rpur uea.^Atag sdrqsuorrelar ar¡r
puBtsJepun ol tqSnos e^Er{ tErlt sarpnls eqtJo etuos./\ .ar^eJ IIr^, a,^a :ardeg:
srr{l uJ ¿a8e rrarp Jo ‘uorls noru Jrar{l ‘saril1rge lenrsallaru cglrads pue
¡aaua8 Jrerp ‘senrlBuosrad,srauleel lnogE uorlEurJoJur aAEr{ oAUl ronrrrn’br”
a8en8uel puoJesJo sserJns aqt ur safueragrp rclpard e1,r u¿f r.trr*, r¿r{^\ or
;u13aq
Sulurea¡ qllq¡a re a8e agr pue ‘uolre,rrlotu ‘acuaSrllarur aJE Buru;ea¡
a8en8uel ul ssef,rns rcrpe.rd ol pa erlaq ueUo srnsrJarr’rerlr .reqro ,órpuoi
-.lad Sulo8rno ue ol uorrrppe uI .sraureal
Injssef,rns tsoru eql aq IIr^{ sllHs
a8en8uel aslrre¡d ol sanrunlJoddo laas pue a8en8uel puomt rqi .r¡ uonrq
-Iqur lnoqrr./v\ lf,?Jelur oq/!\ sluspnrs pelJe oJlxa rerp pefur^uof, eJ? sJer{f,Ea]
lueu ‘aldruexa Joc ‘u1’rourl a^Er{ e.tr a¡doedjo rer{r Jo arual¡adxa u^ro Jno uo
paseq eq feu sJalleq qcng ‘3ulurea1 a8rn8ue¡ ur arnllEJ ro ssef,f,ns rrpard uer
Jeureal eql ur luerar{ur are ltr{t saf,uareJlp lenpt,l’rpur t¿ql e€rleq sn3o lueyr¡
‘a8en8ue¡ puores e Suru;ea¡ ur paaf,rns or Ál¡qe
rreql o1 Psrelal ar¿ sFnpl^lpur Jo s3nsrJalfBrer{f ar{l
^\or{
Surpuersrapun ur
lsaJelur uEéA”rl sJsr{f,JEesal puB sJolE3npe qlog ‘Ápeata sarJ¿^ ssaf,fns esorl^/v\
‘sraurea¡ a8en8uel puof,es 3o aruarradxe Jno r{rr.r\ slseJruof srqr .Jruu JaAo
a8en8ue¡ arp esn ol sJnrunlroddo arenbape a^eq laqr reqr papr,r.ord ,pooq
^pllyrl¡rea
ur ueql or (pau8rs -ro) ualods ere ler{t sa8en8ue¡ -ro a8en8ur¡ agt
8ul¡lnboe ur InJssef,f,ns sle.la,¡e lsorup aJe uaJplrr{J ,1 .rerdeq3 ur ,l\¿s er\ sV
/ú.eIAaJd
DNINUVfl-I
E)VNDNVf CNOf,iIS NI
Sfl f, NiIUfl { T I CI fVN CI IAI CINI
76 Indiuidual dffirences in second language learning
to the quest¡onnaire and refer to them as you read this chapter about
individual differences in second language learning.
la What language do you speak best? Do you speak more than one
language equally well?
lb When did you begin to learn this language (these languages)?
2 Which second or foreign language(s) have you learned with the
mosf successl
3 Which second or foreign language(s) have you learned with the
leost success?
4 For the languages you mentioned in response to questions 2 and 3,
answer the following questions in the appropriate columns:
Languages learned
successfully
Languages not
learned successfully
How old were you when
you first tried to learn
the language?
Did you have a choice
about learning this
language or were you
required to learn it?
Do you currently speak
this language regularly?
Do you regularly
read this language
for information or
enjoyment?
How much of your
learning experience
with this language was
in a foreign language
classroom?
lf you no longer use this
language on a daily basis,
can you estimate how
many years you sPent
learning or using it?
Estimate how many
hours of classroom
instruction you had for
this language.
a8en8ue¡ eqr uo sarocs g8¡q J^Eq osp III^\ arreuuo¡rsanb uone^rrour eqt uo
sa.rors q3¡q qtr^\ sreur€al reqr $ l f1a1r¡ ^\or{ Jo uontf,lpur u€ sr uon¿lar
-JoJ eql ‘uopelaJJoJ E pellel arnpaco;d Ief,nsnets E sasn Jar{JJEasJJ JrF pue
‘pelo)s qtoq are err¿uuonsenb aqr pue tser aql ‘fruarcgord a8rn8ue¡ puores
Jraql ssJSsE or pasn sr tsetJo pur¡ eruos uaql ‘uone^noru Jrer{l3o ea.r8ap pur
adlr aqr aJnseeru ot aJreuuonsanb e ruaqr arrr8 pu¿ slauJeal jo dnor8 E lfelas
l¡ensn daqt ‘saruortno Suru¡¿a1 a8en8ue¡ puofas ot parEIeJ sr uonplnour
se qf,ns elq¿rJt^ E
^roq
rno Sulpug ur palsaJelur eJE sJer{JJEeseJ uar{Ar ‘auop
l¡rnsn sr Suru;ea1 a8en8uel puof,es uo saf,uaraJlp Ienpr^rpulJo aruengur aqr
uo qf,Jeasal ¡aoq aquf,sep or sr uorssnf,srp rno ur8ag ot le¡’r tsag eql sdegra¿
sJnsrJelJBJsrlJ Jaurcel uo rlJJsaseu
exa¡taQxa Swutoa¡ eF,on8luo¡ u¡ satuataltp pnpt^,pq tT eMDl
ssar¿ Arsra,uu¡ pJorxo O a¡qerdororoq¿
¿l¡rsea a8enSue¡ /v\au E suJ€a¡ oq*r uosrad e se ¡¡asrnol jo )u!ql nol oq
¿ezrl€Dos ol sa)!l oqr”r uosred e se ¡¡asrnol ,o ¿urq] nor( oq
¿snefqns loot1ls Jaqlo ul luapnls lnlsse))ns e nol erar*¡ery
¿e8en8ue¡ srqt
ur fte¡nqeror Surlpnrs
lofua nol plp/o6
¿e8en8ue¡ s¡qr
¡o rer,uuer8 eqr Surlpnrs
lofua no,( plp/o6
¿a8en8ue¡ s!qr )Peds oq^
sJaquau l¡rr.ue¡ .ro s.raed
a,req nol op’a¡dr.uexa
ro1 ¿a8en8uel srql ol
slueuqf,ell€ leuorlou¡e
ro ¡euoslad arreq no,( oq
¿ (lr¡s.ra,r¡un’fu epuoras
f.reruauala) le^al leq/v\
rV ¿loorlls le slralqns
Jeqlo uJeal ol a8en8ue¡
aql pasn nol ane¡1
¿ue>¡ods
sr a8enBue¡ eql eJeq^
ere¡d e ur Surnr¡ tuads nol
e^€q au¡p qf,ntu /v\oH
LLSututaal a8an&uq yuotas ut sacuata[ty pnrunryuJ
78 Indiuidual dffirences in second language learning
test. If the two variables (motivation and language proficien?) are found to
be correlated, the researcher will try to discover just what the relationship
between them is. Note that correlations may be positive or negative. That is,
one may find a pattern suggesting that learners with higher motivarion scores
have higher language proficiency s cores (a positiue correlation) , or one might,
in some circumstances, find that learners with lower motivation scores do
better on proficiency measures (a negatiue correlation).
Although the correlation procedure seems straightforward, it requires careful
interpretation. One problem is that, unlike variables such as height or age,
it is not possible to directly observe and measure motiyation, extroversion,
or even intelligence. These are just labels for an enrire range of behaviours
and characteristics. Furthermore, characteristics such as these are not inde-
pendent of each other, and researchers have sometimes used the same label
to describe different sets of behavioural traits. For example, in motivation
quesdonnaires, learners may be asked how often they use their second lan-
guage outside a classroom context. The assumption behind the question is
that those who report that they frequently do so are highly motivared to
learn. This seems reasonable, but it is not so simple. If a learner responds that
he or she frequently interacts with speakers of the second language, it may
not be because he or she is more motivated to learn than one who reports less
interaction. Rather, it might be that this individual lives where rhere are more
opportuniti a greater necessiry-for language practice than those who
report a low frequency of interaction. Because it is usually impossible to
separate these two variables (i.e. motivation or desire to interact and oppor-
tunities or the needto interact), we cannot conclude whether it is motivation,
necessiry or opportuniry that is being measured by this question.
Perhaps the most serious error in interpreting correlations is the conclusion
that one of the variables causes the other. The fact that two things tend to
occur together or increase and decrease in a similar pattern does not neces-
sarily mean that one causes the other. \X/hile it may be that one variable
influences the other, it may also be that both are influenced by something else
entirely. Research on motivation is perhaps the best context in which to illus-
üate this. Learners who are successful may indeed be highly motivated. But
can we conclude that they became successful because of their motivation? It
is also plausible that early success heightened their motivation, or that both
success and motivation are due to their special aptitude for language learning
or the favourable context in which they were learning.
Another difficulry in assessing the relationship between individual learner
characteristics and second language learning is how language proficiency is
defined and measured. In the L2 learning literature, some studies report that
learners with a higher intelligence quotient (IQ) are more successful language
learners than those with a lower IQ, while other studies report no such cor-
relation. One explanation for these conflicting findings is that the language
leql Sururcel ol sauof, lr ueq{\ rotf,rpeJd Suo.lls r aq leu srsar }1 puon
-rperr lq parnseau &l¡qe Jo puq er{r rer{t slsaSSns srql ‘sllDls uonrnpord
IEJO ol PerEIaJun sez’r u ‘lre¡nqEf,o PuE teruue¡8 ‘Sulpear a8en8uel PuoJas
rlf,uar{ 3o ruaurdola^ap aqt or pareler ser* aruaSq¡erur elq r ‘rerp puno3
9L6D eesauaD paJ{ ‘EpEuEJ ur seuure¡8o¡d uors¡auul qluar¿ ur stuap
-nrs qrv’r fpnls E ur ‘alduexa .rog ‘rbr¡rqe s^nefrunururor ol upr{l a8pa¡l|ou1
rnsrn8ur¡eraru ol pat¿lar l¡Suorrs aJoru rg feur srsar |1 ‘aloqe parsaS8ns se
ta aA\oH ‘Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡ puof,as ur ssa)f,ns SulrcrpardSo sueaur pooS e
a;ar”r saroos |I rEql u.^aor{s sEr{ r{fJeaseJ auros ‘s.real aql Je^O ‘Peuodar uaaq
seurrtaruos seg Sururta¡ a8en8uel puof,as pue arua8l¡elul uoa,ütag >lurT E put
‘loor{fs ur ssa3rns r{tr,t\ palErf,os$ uauo aJE slsal eseql ‘slsatJo spur¡ ul?lJaf
uo afuerrJJoJrad ot ra3ar ol pesn uaaq flpuorrrpeJl ser{ ,acuaSl¡¡atul, ruJat eql
aruaSqlaruI
‘saurof,lno Sururra¡ ur sefueJaglp.roJ suon¿ueldxa ra,rooslp or uoga aql uI
pateSltsa,rul uaeq aleq reql sf,rlslJero¿Jtql pnpl^lpul el{rJo auos lE >lool s,ra-I
‘srgeueg lelal:os Jar{ro pur ‘lulrqou ‘ruaufoldura ‘uotle:npa
JoJ sanrunuoddo Surdeqs uo seq Sulu*a¡ aSen8uel puooes loedrur snourroue
ar{r Jo asneJag pauJef,uol oslr sI Álunruuor re8rrl ag1 ‘8ulu;ea¡ aSen8ut¡
puof,es ur sserf,ns a^erqf,E ol sf,rlslJarf,eJ€qf, luaJe¡Ip I{tylr sJJuJeel Surd¡ar¡3o
sfellpug or edoq sJolernpg ‘8ururea1 uerunl{Jo Sulpuers:apun rauaq e urc3
uec laqr tBqt os ‘salual¡edxa (sJeuJeel qtl^\ tleJarur laqr rtog PuE ParEIaJ aJe
selqerJe^ lrr¡euosr:d pue a,ttttuSof, ruaJaglp ,/v\ol{ ,&\orDl ol 1aes sJal{rJease¡
‘sJolef,npe pu” sJer{fJtaseJ qroq ol acuel¡odrur rearS3o sI eaJe slql uI I{f,JEesaJ
‘ssalar{ue^eN’a8ua¡¡zqr e st Suturea¡ e8enSur¡ Puo3es uI ssaf,f,ns PuE’suollen
-lrs lerfos (sfnsrJerfeJtql
Fnpr^Ipul uaa,&uag dtgsuorre¡ar aqr SulpuersJePun
‘rrrpa-rd ppo,/’r s3nsrJarlt
-JEr{J eseqt rer¡r fcualcgord aqr a^aII{JE lou r(eru sJauJeel a8rn8url lryssaf,f,ns
3o ¡rrldfi sJrlsrJarf,eJer{J IEuoI}E^Ilotu pue a,rntuSo¡ JI{t qtl.^a a8en8uel r’lau
e greorddr or{^\ spnpr^lpul ‘suotrlpuof, Ielf,os esoqr uI ‘sJeI{JEel uela Pue
‘sen8ea¡¡oc ‘sraad qtrrn uorlefrunruuJo¡ ul a8e8ua ol sallluntJoddo rlaqr rlrurl
tEr{t salnf,Erd ¡euotrecnpe pue l”rros lq pazr¡euÉrcru uauo ool are sdno¡8
lr¡rounu pur tuer8ruuJl aruos Jo sJegruery ‘uolt¿f,Iunrutuoo uI s¡aut¡ed
panF se pa,rracrad are lagr eJer{^/rl. suorlsnlrs ur sdrqsuonEleJ lBrf,os ol ssatr3B
urc8 ol alge rou a.re faqr 3l InJssaf,rns aq rou l¿ru uoltls¡nb¡e a8en8uel JIeL{l
‘8ururca¡ a8en8ur¡ InJssef,f,ns qrl^\ porelf,osse ueeg e^EI{ rerlt scltslJalfeJeqf,
er{Uo etuos ssessod sFnpI^IpuI uaq.^aue^a’tegt an8rr (tOOZ) lagoo¡uaa¡1a;
pu” uouoN luuog ‘sa^loslueqt pug sraurml r{lf{¡ ur s8utuas Fuonef,nPa
PUE Ierf,os eql lunof,f,E olur elBl osp lsnuJ seJusJaJIP I”nPIAIPUI uo qf,Jeasau
‘a8pa¡rrroul cnsm8urptauJ eJnseeur IEI{I slset o} uerp buang leuollesJe uoJ
Jo sernwaur 01 patrlerro: l¡aso¡c ssel aq feul |1 ‘a¡drurxa .rog ‘a8pe¡,lou>1
Jo puH arups er{t aJnsearu rou op salpnrs rueraglp uI pesn stsat fcualcgord
Sutuwal a7un&ual puotas ut satuata[tp pnruaryuJ 6L
B0 Indiuidual dffirences in second language learning
involves language analysis and rule learning but may play a less important
role outside the classroom or in classrooms where the instruction focuses
more on communication and interaction. Indeed, many students whose
general academic performance is weak experience considerable success in
second language learning if they are given the right opportunities.
Many educators have been infuenced by Howard Gardner’s (1993) pro-
posal that individuals have ‘multiple intelligences’ and that traditional IQ
tests have assessed only a limited range of abilities. Among the ‘multiple
intelligences’ Gardner includes abilities in the areas of music, interpersonal
relations, and athletics, as well as the verbal intelligence that is most often
associated with success in school.
Language learning aptitude
Specific abilities thought to predict success in language learning have been
studied under the title of language learning’aptitude’. One of the pioneers
in this area, John Carroll (1991), has characterized aptitude in terms of the
abiliry to learn quickly. Thus, we may hypothesize that a learner with high
aptitude may learn with greater ease and speed but that other learners may
also be successful ifthey persevere.
Over several decades, the most widely used aptitude measures have been the
Modern LanguageAptitudeTest (MtAf) (Carroll and Sapon 1959) and the
Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PIAB) (Pimsleur 1966). All the tests
are based on the view that aptitude has several components, for example, the
abiliry to identify and memorize new sounds, understand the function of
particular words in sentences, figure out grammatical rules from language
samples, and remember newwords. V/hile early research revealed a substantial
relationship between performance on the MLAI or PLAB and performance
in foreign language learning, these studies were conducted at a time when lan-
guage teaching was based on grammar translation or audiolingual methods.
\üfith the adoption of a more communicative approach to teaching, many
teachers and researchers came to believe that the abilities targeted by these
tests were irrelevant to the process of language acquisition. However, others
suggest that some of the abilities measured by aptitude tests are predictive
of success even in settings where the emphasis is on communicative interac-
tion. For example, Leila Ranta (2002) found that children who were good at
analysing language (one component of aptitude that is targeted by the tests)
were the most successful learners in an English second language programme
in which acdvities almost never involved direct attention to grammar.
Nick Ellis (2001) and others have hypothesized that working memory
(\lM) capacity may be the most important variable in predicting success for
learners in many language learning situations. \Working memory, also called
teBJBt eqr efnpoJd tou prp tnq uonfnJtsur JEururErB paseq-epr rnr¡fu
pa^refeJ dno¡8 uonf,nJlsur tndur pa;ntcnJts eqt ur sJeuJEe’I ‘ruaqr acnpord
ol ueq] pue sunouord rcalgo rcarrp lg pafa,,’uoo s8urueau rueJeJlp aqt rno
arn8g or uaqr pa8r.rnorue leqt senr^nJe ur paredrcrrred laql peelsur :uou
-rnJlsur ¡erurue¡3 ou pe^rareJ dno¡8 a^nf,npur eqt ur sJeuJEaT ‘pauJeel pcrtr
laqr sa¡n; aqr esrlrerd ol Árunl¡oddo aqt lq pa.uo¡1o3 uor]f,nrtsur ¡eu¡u¡el$
peseg-elnJ urrldxa pa^raf,f,J dno¡8 uoulnJlsur a rrnpap aqr ur sJauJEJ-I
‘r{f,uaJC ul sunouo¡d rcalgo loeJrp uo uorlJnJtsurJo sadlr rr¡a
-¡aJIP ua,u8 pue sdno¡8 aarr{l olur pepl^¡p ueqr ara,trlagl droruaru 8ur{¡o,q
pue ‘lrr¡rqr Surpoc oruauogd ‘lrlllq” cnfpue a3en3ue1 :apnrrrde a8en8ue¡_¡o
saJnsearu aeJr{} uo pessas$ aJa \ sluepntg’ndut yatnprutlt pue’a(t4Jn?ut ‘aau
-rnpa? peller aqs qrlr{¡a ‘uortrnrtsur 3o sadlr luera5lp eaJr{r Jo ssaua^nlajg;
eqr pu¿ apnrrrde ure^\teg drgsuolte¡ar E se,vr ararp reqrer{^\ paroldxa (E002}
tuEIrE lreruaso¡ ‘puvlv¿2,/\laN ur a8enSue¡ u8la.ro3 e se qf,uerC Jo slurp
-nts lrepuoras qlr^\ fpnrs e ruo5 seuJof lerrr aues aql ur sJauJeal IIe t5euaq
touuer uononJtsur jo edlr ‘telnrrued E rer{r turelf, er{r JoJ r¡oddns JerlunJ
‘salgord apnrlrde rua.ra¡
-JIp r{l¡,l\ sJauJeel atBporuruorfp ol parJe^ lpuarcgns aff sarlr^rtfe Sulqcear
Jraqt reqr eJnsue ot elqe ag leru sJaqf,Eel ‘stuapnls Jraqt ot saf,ror{f r{fns JeJo
Plnor slooq3s ^&\aJ allrila, ‘Per{flErusru ara^\ oq,^a asoqr ueql luatue^eqrBJo
s1a,ra1 raqSrq lpuergluS¡s urelte ol elge ara./!\ sluapnts Per{rrEu reqr persl
-lpul elueprle euros ‘uotttpp€ uI ‘slueruuornua Surgcear algnedruof, r{rt,lr
PeqlrEIU aJa,&\ sluePnls uaq,/v\ uoIlf,€JSIIES JaI{fEel Pu€ ruaPnls 3o 1a,La1 q8rq
e parrodar aq3salN’sa¡go.ld epnrrrde rrerll ot puodsauoo lou plp t¿qt sasselr
ul paceld aJelr\ stuepnls ‘s8urdno¡3 elglredtuoour aql uI ‘a8en8ut¡ puof,as alp
Jo asn puonrun3 er{} punore pazrueSro ssEIf, E ur pareld ere¡a sllDIS clrf¡tue
a8e¡a¡’e tnq.{roruau poo8 gurvl sJeuJeel :seJnlfnJts pcneruue;8 uo pesn)o3
ter{l Sulr{Jeat ot pau8lsse a¡a¡’r f¡oruatu a8e¡a,re rnq lrl¡qe onl¡eue q8rq qrr,r,r
sluapnts ‘s8urdno¡3 alqp¿dtuor ar{} uI ‘a¡go.rd apnrnde rraqt qtr^/r elqlred
-uJof,ur ro alglreduol JJr{lra eJe,r\ terlt sau¡ue¡8o¡d leuortonJ}sur ur pareld
erea oq^\ sruepntsJo sse¡8o¡d eqr perpnrs (tge t) er{rsal¡ auofrel¡¡ ‘r{ruerC
Jo sJauJrel tlnpe JoJ aruue¡8o¡d aSen8ue¡ uerpeue3 E uI ‘sauue¡8o¡d
Ieuononrlsu¡ 3o sadlr luaraJtlp ur peerrns or lr1¡¡qe rreql roJ tunocce feru
stuauodruoc apnrrrdr tuaJeJtlp asaqt ur sassJrDlee,&\ put sqr8uerls (sJeuJEa’I
‘slsf¡eue e8enBue¡ ul sertrTrgE
e8e¡a¡e l¡uo rnq serJouJeu¡ 8uo¡ts a,req feu aruos ‘aldruexe Jo{ ‘apnrrrde
3o sluauodruof arpJo ¡e ur Suons eg tou peeu sJeuJEe¡ a8en8ue¡ InJSSafJns
reqr srsaSSns (686I) uer{a>ls rata¿ d;ouraru 8uq¡or’r ul ssaco¡d uer fagt uotr
-eruJoJur Jo tunoule ar{r ur JeJIp slenpr^rpur pue ‘erult ua,rr8 e te passacord
aq uEf, uolttruJoJur Jo lunorue uretJof e l¡uo ter{} sueeru reql ‘perrturl sr
‘btxdec l¡oruaru Suqrornr’peepul a8re¡ l.ra,r s¡ lrloeder f¡otuaru urer-8uo¡
q8noqrpuoneruJo;urJo Sulssaco¡d aArD¿ arlt ol sJaJeJ ,(¡oruau uJJet-lJoLIS,
8uru”taa1 aSan&ual puotas ur satuau{tp pnrun?puJ I8
82 Indiu idual diferences in se co nd. language learn i ng
forms. Instead they participated in activities that exposed them to spoken
and written examples of direct object pronouns.
f I wo¡ulcr if Wu’ve ever (
L A*t, ürtd,’üwt’ thirlpeñrorrt’T!W’Yñ
q
a
Erlam found that all learners benefited from the deductive instruction
regardless of differences in aptitude. This was interpreted as support for Peter
Skehan’s (1989) hypothesis that more structured teaching may even out indi-
vidual differences compared with less structured teaching. Erlam’s findings
also showed that learners with greater language analytic ability and memory
capacity were able to benefit more from the inductive and structured input
instruction on written (but not oral) tests. This supports the hypothesis that
learners with greater aptitude can figure out the rules of language based on
input, and that they are able to consolidate this knowledge without the need
to produce language-at least in terms of their written abiliry.
Before we leave the topic of language learning aptitude, it is perhaps appro-
priate to look at two extremes of the aptitude continuum. Some people
whose academic performance is usuallyvery good find themselves frustrated
in their attempts to learn a foreign language. Lenore Ganschow and Richard
Sparks (2001) and their colleagues have studied many cases of young adults
who find foreign language learning exceedingly difficult. They identified
several ways in which these students differ from successful learners. Most
perform poorly on at least some of the measures that make up aptitude tests.
Some have problems with certain kinds ofverbal skills, even in their own lan-
guage. \What is perhaps most important about this research is that, with great
effort and instructional support, some of these students are able to succeed
in spite of their difficulties. The challenge is to find instructional approaches
that meet the needs of learners with a variety of aptitude profiles.
‘drgsuonela; aqrJo erntru agr.,frruapr ot pepeeu aq
III^\ r{rreesrr eror.u ltr{r epnlf,uor ot (9002) uEr{eIS retad pue raluroq ug\oz
Pel r{J.rceseJ 3r{1 Jo ./v\er^al E ,Je^a \oH .8urureal a3en3ue1 puof,es ur ssas3ns
puB aJuapuedapur plag uae.^uaq dlqsuonelar 8uo¡ls e sE,4a erar{t tEqr par:odar
l¡aplr’r se,u rr ‘srraf3o regurnu E JoC ‘JUo xaldruoc eJouJ E ur pappaqua adeqs
cr.nauoa8 a¡drurs e pu5 ol pa>lsr a¡e slurdnrlred rlcrgm rJr. <$a satn7{ pry
-?aqua ar¡r sr a¡lrs a,r¡rru8o: srrluo ernsEeur pcldlr y d¡Ef,rrsrloq aroru s8urqr
aesot ro punor$1ceq praua8 eqr ruo5 slrerap eleredas or puar larp ragraqrrr
ot Sutprorce 'tuapuadap pla5 ro ruepuodepur plrg se paqrrrsep uaag a Er{
slunpr^rpul 'sa1ós Sulureal a,LrrruSof, tuareglp uee^/úteq suorlrurlsrp uo
pesnroJ osle ser{ r{f,reaseJ elqereprsuo3 .sa/is Sururea¡ paseq-l¡¡enldar.lad s¿
ot perre3eJ ere esaql 'ssaro¡d Sururea¡ aqr d¡aq or sruaas fe¡d-a1or ¡o Sululru
se qlns uonoe pcrslqd 'sJoureel .JnaqtsaeuDl sE ot perJeJeJ ,sJer{lo JoC .(JBe
lq, rseq uJeal ot ruaes 's¡au¡ea¡ ,frotrpne, pellel eq leru oqr'r ,sraqrg .sra
-ureel (lensr^, pellef, dno¡8 eql olur IIEJ plno^\ laq¡ 'u ueas eleq laqr ¡run
Sunpauos ur'el rouu'r lagr reqr les a¡doad pr¿er{ IIE e^Er{ e/N'(llp :t66t
p¡a¿) ,s¡¡11s PuE uorlEuJJoJuI .i\\au Surulrta¡ pue 'Surssacord 'Surqrosqe 3o
(s)fen parraSard pue (lentrg?q ,prnl¿u, s
Fnpr^rpur uE s¿ peugep ,,a/rs 8ur
-uJeal,Jo sruJe¡ ur safueJaglp lEnpr^rpur paleSnsa,rur e Eq sJer{f,JtaseJ eruos
sa4tts Sutu¿paT
,o'u,,oqoo,,,o^'oÍ;1'J,T?#:1il'#Jif ;:lrt;j:l:,T,T;'#tri
r{lr1Y\ PelErf,ossE oslE sE./v\ tuelB} IEnsnun Jrerp lEq] s.r\oqs sa8en8ue1 a¡dlrpru3o
sraureal In3ssaf,rns tsou slrorsnlJo euosJo sasm erpJo,vreyret (7¡g7) s pJEJE
IeEr{Jrl/^{ 'sseler{}JalaN '3uru.rea¡ InJssefJns qtr^\ pererJosse ueuo JJE ter{l scrl
-srJalf,EJEr{J lrlTeuos¡ad pu¿ 'lerfos 'e,rnruSor jo ruapuadapul f¡ued ls¿al tE
sr Suru;ea1 a8en8uel ro3 apnrrrde ue ter{r rsaSSns sJauJeel ¡euondarxa rlcng
'patnurl allnb e¡azrr sllDls IErJos pue Suluolrcunj a,rnruSoc
IIEre o srr{ ter.p rreJ Jqr Jo rq&1 ur Sulqsuorse ll.reporrred se1ü tueruelerr{f,e
srql 'esee tua¡edde r¡rul saSen8uel lueru paurBel oq.,r.r. IuE^ES topllod e
pa.lrrolloJ G66I) r¡drursaer.rel J-lqluEI pue qtnus IIaN .,$learvrJo relteru E, ur
a8en8ue¡,/v\eu e ur óuang pro alnbce ol elqE paruaas oq \ ueru ue3rJaruv
auo Jo esef, erp uo pauodar (686I) Jalqo eurerro-I .Sulurea¡ aSen8uel
puoras ul algrssod sr lerl.^a tnoqe uonf,rpard l.ra,r.a,!ap or ureas stuaurelerqf,e
JSor{,4ó. slenpr^rpur pu5 a,&\ urnnurluor apnrrrde arp Jo pue Jerpo aqt tV
Sututaal aSan&uq puocas ut satuata{tn lpnp?n!?uI E8
84 Indiaidual dffirences in second language learning
:]-.--
There are many questions about how learning styles interact with success in
language learning. For one thing, it is difficult to determine whether they
refect immutable differences or whether they develop (and thus can be
changed) through experience. There is a need for considerably more research.
Nevertheless, when learners express a preference for seeing something written
or spending more time in a language laborator¡ we should not assume that
their ways ofworking are wrong, even if they seem to be in conflict with the
pedagogical approach we have adopted. Instead, we should encourage learn-
ers to use all means available to them. At a minimum, research on learning
styles should make us sceptical of claims that a single teaching method or
textbook will suit the needs of all learners.
Personality
A number of personality characteristics have been proposed as likely to affect
second language learning, but it has not been easy to confirm in empiri-
cal studies. As with other research investigating the effects of individual
characteristics on second language learning, studies of a similar personality
trait produce different results. For example, it is often argued that an extro-
verted person is well suited to language learning but research does not always
support this conclusion. Although some studies have found that success in
language learning is correlated with learners' scores on questionnaires meas-
uring characteristics associated with extroversion such as assertiveness and
adventurousness, others have found that many successful language learners
would not get high scores on measures of extroversion. Lily'W'ong Fillmore
(1979) observed that, in certain learning situations, the quiet observant
learner may have greater success.
Another aspect of personality that has been studied is inhibition. It has
been suggested that inhibition discourages risk-taking, which is necessary
.uroorssBlf eqr eprslno puE eplsul
suonf,EJalur lErsos (sJeuJEal eql or parBIeJ osp s3^\ tr ]Eqt puE
lBruJurJlep puE
IBrfSausq rltoq s¿ pe^refrad sE¡a {pnls Jrerp ur sreurcel 3r{r lq paruerradxa
sB (uorsuat
rer{r punoJ laql ',uorsuel, rulel eqt pasn ( t OOZ) lls3oupe¿ lre¡rr¡
pue uutrulaldg fng 'aurue¡8o¡d Jeruurns alrsuetur ue ur r{JueJg Surureel
sllnpe Sunol 3o lpnrs E uI 'lelneu aroru eg ot Japrsuor faqr srurar raqro
esn ol uesoqJ e Eq sJer{f,J¿aseJ etuos ,urJeJ a,rne8au E eg ot peJJprsuof, uauo
sr óarxue esnef,eg 'paaf,fns ol snf,oJ pue uonelrloru Jo uoneurguoc rqSrr
agr apr,ro-rd uer uo[Eluesa;d pro uE Jo lsel e eJoJag óarxue Sulrual;adxg
'8ulu.rea¡ aletrlrf,E3 uele pue tfeJa alnrsod e a,req urf uorsuel Jo tunour¿
uretJar e terp pue peq sr lrarxue IIE lou reqr panS.rr uaeq osle seq 1r ,asrnorJo
'(qe 'd) (stuapnls paxeler se lp¡crnb sE ureal lou
III^ Ér,{l]
... tr ot suonrear
JrarP PUE Pusr{ rE >lsBr ar{l qlog uo pasnfoJ aJE stuepnls sno^Jeu asnB)eq,
teqr senSre G66D arlrulcey,q ralJ¿ ‘ssa3ord Sururea¡ eqr qtr.^a ereJratur uEf,
óarxur (txeluof, ar{r Ja^eterlt\ ‘1roru dnor8 ur s¡ead
qtvtr Surre;elur uaq !
rou rng ssBlf alor{^\ aqrJo ruo5 ur uoueluesard ¡ero ue 3u.l,u8 ueq.& snorxue
3ur¡aa3 ‘aldruexa Joj uee.&\taq eprru ag ol suonounslp sr¡ru.rad srql .saf,urts
-urnfJrf pu¿ suortenlrs re¡noltrrd uo tuapuadap pue f,nutulp se flaxur aas
sruooJsself, a8en8ue¡ puocas ul ftarxue raurea¡ Sunegrlselur sJer{f,Jea$J Jer{tO
‘cgroads-ualuof, pue l¡e¡odruat ag uEf, Áaxue ter¡r
lrrTlglssod er{rJo runoJfe a{Et rou op sasuodsa¡ aJrcuuonsenb qons te a,raoH
‘ruooJSSEIf a8en8ur¡ puof,es aqt ul
leads ol a^Bq I uaq,u sno Jeu euoJaq I, sB
r{f,ns slualuelEls r{tr1y\,aa.r8e l¡8uorrs, laqr3l (snorxuB, eg or palunss? JJE stuap
-nls’a¡druexa roj ‘o5 lem srrp ur Áalxue eJnseauJ (9961 ado3 pur .zlr,&uoH
‘zlmrog) a¡erg lralxuv ruoorsselJ a8en8uel u8larog aqt e>lrl sa¡ecs ltarxue
a8en8uel 3o lrrroleu aqt ‘IJEJ u1 ‘fi¡¡euosrad s,raurca1 e Jo ernteal tuau
-eru¡ad e se &arxue 3o rg8noqr sJarlfJeaseJ ,ault 8uo¡ e rog .pate8ltsa ur
f¡arrrsuatxa ueeg str{-a8en8ue¡ puoJas e Sururea¡ ueq,&\ a3ueuadxa sruap
-nls fueu lerlt ssaJts Pu¿ ‘sseusno,r¡au ‘,(¡¡o¡u.3o s8ullaay-lrarxu¿ JauJEa-I
¡PelErorralaP
l¡plder uonerfunuord ‘paratsrulrupe eJe \ Ior{oJIEJo sesop ra8re¡ uaq,&\ ter{l
‘Surssed ur ‘elou os¡e leru a¿¡’3uru;eal qty( ueqt ef,u¿ruro3.rad qll^\ op ol
aJoru e Eq leru laqr ‘Sullsa¡atul aJE asaql sE qJns stFSeJ JIIII/N fue >1ulrp
tou prp oq.,nl. esoqr ueqt slsat uortrr3unuo.rd uo rarraq prp IoqoJIEJo stunorue
IIErus 1uerp oq,ra. sruedlrrrred lpnrg ‘uonerrunuord uo .uo¡l¡qFlul elnpaJ
or lrrTlge str JoJ u^\oDI (lor{mle
Jo sesop IIErus jo slJage aqt Jo srsf¡eue ue
pe^lo^ur lpnrs aug ‘of,urruJoJJad uon¿r¡unuo¡d a8en8uel puoras roJ tseel
t¿ ‘ef,roJ alne8au E sr uorlrgqur ler{t urelr aqr ro3 rroddns puno3 (T,L6l)
sanSra¡oc sry pur Erorn3 JJpuExa[V’sOL6l eqr ur serpntsJo serJas E uI .sre
-u;ea¡ ra8unol ueqr snorf,suof-Jles aJouJ aJE or{^\ ,slueJsalope .roj rua¡qord
re¡nrnred B eg o¡ paraprsuoJ uarJo sr srql ‘Sulurea¡ a8en8ur¡ ul ssarSord.roS
Sutunal aBanBuE puotas ut satua.ta¡ftp pnrult?puJ E8
B6 Indiuidual diferences in second language learning
A learner’s willingness to communicate (\MTC) has also been related to
anxiety. \fe have all experienced occasions when we tried to avoid commu-
nicating in a second language. \fTC may change with the number of people
present, the topic of conversation, the formaliry of the circumstances, and
even with whether we feel tired or energetic at a given moment. A colleague
in Canada, who works in the area of second language learning and speaks
several languages, recently confessed that he avoided the corner store in his
neighbourhood because the proprietor always spoke French to him. He rec-
ognized the proprietor’s efforts to help him improve his skills in this new
language, and was grateful for it, but, as he told us with embarrassment, it
was just easier to go to the store where he could use English.
This is consistent with research carried out by Richard Clément, Peter
Maclntyre, and their colleagues, who argue that learners who willingly
communicate in a wide range of conversational interactions are able to do
so because of their communicative confidence. In a series of studies they
have shown that communicative confidence is shaped by rwo variables: how
relaxed L2 learners are and how competent (or incompetent) they feel about
their L2 abiliry. These factors are directly infuenced by previous contacts
with L2 speakers and are considered to be the main contributors to commu-
nicative confidence (Clément, Baker, and Maclntyre 2003).
Several other personaliry characteristics such as self-esteem, empath¡ domi-
nance, talkativeness, and responsiveness have also been studied. The research
does not show a clearly-defined relationship between one personality trait
and second language acquisition. And, as indicated earlier, the major dif-
ficulty in investigating personaliry characteristics is that of identification and
measurement. Another explanation has been offered for the mixed findings.
Personaliry variables seem to be more consistently related to conversational
skills than to the acquisition of grammatical acctrnacy or academic language.
Finally, most of the research on personality variables has been carried out
within a quantitative research paradigm, that is, an approach that relies
heavily on relating learners’ scores on personaliry questionnaires to their
language test performance. Some researchers have argued that a more quali
tative approach to understanding and investigating personality variables is
needed to adequately capture their depth and complexiry especially as they
emerge and evolve over time.
Despite the contradictory results and the problems involved in carrying out
research in the area of personaliry characteristics, many researchers believe
that personality will be shown to have an important influence on success in
language learning. This relationship is an intricate one, however, in that it is
probably not personality alone, but the way in which it combines with other
factors, that infuences second language learning.
I{sruEdS tear8 E rnoqE lurr{ sllal puerU e ralEl {ea,{\ V ‘asrnof, eqt dorp ol
seproap llpr5 pur (uone,ulour elnnoaxa) sasselc or Suro8 sdors ‘asrnoc agr
r{rr,la pet€Jtsn{ seruooag aq suossal reruurrS3o srpuoru ,/(aJ e JaIV ‘(uortr,r
-rlou Jf,roqr) asrnor gsruedg B e>l€l ol saproep pue uredg ot dl¡t Sunuo¡dn ue
tnoqe parrrxa $ puelod ur raureel Ioorlrs frepuoras E :eg ppo,/r\ saseqd asaqr
r¡Snorqr alcfr rq8nu auo rnror.{Jo a¡druexa uV’af,uer.uroJ.rad rlagr ot uonf,eer
pue Jo ¡esre.rdde (stuapnls ol sJeJaJ ‘,uonf,edsoltal uon¿^noru, ‘aseqd prrqr
aql pue (uonE rlour urclureuJ of $lsel l¡¿ssaceu aqt tno Sull¡¡e¡ lnoqB sr
‘,uorJelrloru alnnf,axe, ‘aseqd puofas aqr ‘s¡eo8 Suuas ol pue palJels Sunra8
ot sJaJaJ (uonBlnour elror{J, ‘aseqd rsJy aql ‘saseqd aaJqt Jo stsrsuof, ler{l
uorl¿ noruJo Iaporu paluerro-ssaco.ld e padola,rap (¿tOOZ) lafurog ugtloz
‘arun Ja^o aceld a>1er regr sa8ueqr erp JoJ tunoJft ol serJl
pue uonelnoruJo aJnteu crueufp aqr sazrseqdue >lJo1d tuef,al eJotrAJ ‘JeuJEal
aqtJo fnsrJetJEJEr{J elq”ls e se uonelrlouJ azr¡entdaruoo or pepual r{fJeasar
flrea ‘arorurJqunC ‘ólunuruoc str pue a8en8ue¡ ra3;er aqr ol uollerualJoJo
sadó o¡u esaql uaa.ülag qsn8urrsrp ot rlnJgrp sr lr ‘stueluuoJrlue Sulu;ra¡
euros ur’JeAa^\oH ‘8uru;ea1 a8en8ue¡ puof,as ur ssef,Jns or poteleJ ag ol punoJ
uaag a^Er{ uone^noruJo sadlr qroq (snql rorcrpard rauag E eq or punoJ se^\
uollelllour FlueurnJlsur ‘rarrarrtoq ‘slxaluof auJos uI ‘8uru;ee¡ InJSSaf,f,nsJo
rorrrpard ¡a8uo.rls eql aq ol paJeprsuof se,^a uorlelrloru a,ule¡3atul arurt 8uo¡
e ro¿ ‘(a8en8u”l rarpo ar{tJo sJa>l¿ads grrr’r netuor q8norqr luaurllrrua Iernl
1nl pue grmor8 ¡euosrad ro3 Sururea¡ a8en8ue¡) uone lloru a,rne¡8elur pu¿
(spo8 ¡ecrrcerd ro atelpaurul rol Sururral aSen8url) uone,rnoru pluerunJlsu¡
sural aql peurof, (Z¿et) urqrue-I aTEIIB/N pue raupre) lrago¡ ‘uaqr qtr.&r
]f,Bluof, eJou eJrsaP lllzu laql ‘a3en8ue¡ er{rJo sJe>leads arp spre,,vtol sePnlrue
elgEJno^EJ e^Er{ sreuree¡ jr ‘l1re¡ulS ‘u ur lcualcgord errnbx ot pale^noru
aq or lla1l aroJeraqt are pu¿ aSenSue¡ puores arpJo enlel alnerrununuor
agt a,uar;ad ¡rrvr lagr ‘suonrgru? ¡euorssajord HInJ ot Jo suollBnlrs lBrfosJo
a8ue; aprr’r e ul e3¿n8uel puofes er¡r >1eads 01 paeu sJauJeol JI ‘ltrunuruoc
aSen8uel puofes eqt spJpaor sepnrrut rrar¡l ‘raqlo eqt uo pue ‘spaeu elrluf
-runuJurof, (s.rauJEal ‘puEr{ auo eqt uo :srolJej o,^atJo suJJal ur peuyep ueaq
ser{ tI ‘uouaruouagd xa¡druor e sr Sulu¡ea¡ a8enSue¡ puof,es ur uone rlory
‘Sururea¡ daa>1 or ssau8ul¡lr’l e qtl^\ parerf,osse
eJE sepnlntB a,r.llrsod lErp afuePr^a eldrue sr eJar{r ‘8uru.rea¡ ur ssarf,ns asnBf
sePnlrDE a,rrlrsod rerp a,rord louuEf r{sJEeseJ arp gSnoqr¡y’sJolJEJ raqro lq
parla5¿ erc qtog Jer{req.^a Jo ‘sapnrlue a,ulsod srapua8ua Suturea¡ InJssaffns
ro Sururea¡ InJssef,f,ns arnpord seprunle a,rrlrsod Jer{reqa auruJetep ol ls¿e
lou sl tr ‘selgeuel rarpo qrr^\ asm ar{t sl sV'(€002 JauprED pue ra-ro8se¡n¡)
Sulu;ra1 a8en8uel puofas ur ssef,Jns pue ‘firunruluof, slr pur e8enSue¡
u8laro3 Jo puooas eql pJe,ry\ol sepntnle s JeuJEal p uea,4 teq drqsuorre¡a.r Jr{r uo
r{f,JeesaJJo auue¡8o¡d e }no perJJEf a,rer¡ san8ea¡lof srr{ pue JeupJEO ueqo¡
uotlpa4out ?u3 srywglv
Sututaal a8anSuq puotas ut satuataftp pnplalpul LB
88 Indiuidual dffirences in second language learning
conversation course she is taking, and his ‘choice motivation’ is activated
again. He decides to register in the conversation course and in just a few
weeks he develops some basic Spanish conyersational skills and a feeling of
accomplishment. His satisfaction level is so positive (motivation retrospec-
tion) that he decides to enrol in a more advanced Spanish course when he
returns from his trip to Spain.
In a book devoted to helping second language teachers generate and maintain
learners’ motivation, Dórnyei (2001b) proposes and describes concrete and
innovative methods and techniques that can help teachers motivate learners
throughout these three phases.
Motiuation tn tbe classroom
In a teacher’s mind, motivated students are usually those who participate
actively in class, express interest in the subject matter, and study a great deal
Teachers also have more influence on these behaviours and the motivation
they represent than on students’ reasons for studying the second language
or their attitudes toward the language and its speakers. Teachers can make a
positive contribution to students’motivation to learn ifclassrooms are places
that students enjoy coming to because the content is interesting and relevant
to their age and level of abiliry the learning goals are challengingyet manage-
able and clear, and the atmosphere is supportive. Teachers must also keep in
mind that cultural and age differences will determine the most appropriate
ways for them to motivate students.
Little research has investigated how pedagogy interacts directly with moti-
vation in second/foreign language classrooms. One exception is a stud,v
by Marie Guilloteaux and Zoltán Dórnyei (2008) who explored the links
between teachers’ motivational practice and students’ motivation for L2
learning. It was a large-scale study with 27 rcachers and over 1 ,300 learners
in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms in Korea. The teach-
ers’ motivational strategies were described using a classroom observation
scheme-the Motivation Orientation of Language Teaching (MOLT).
MOLI identified 25 motivational practices used by the teachers that
relatively easy to define and to observe. They were divided into four cat-
egories that are described below along with examples of the motivational
behaviours included within each.
Teacher discourse: arousing curiosity or attention, promoting autonom)’,
stating communicative purpose/utiliry of activiry
Participation structure: group work/pair work
Activity design: individual competition, team competition, intellectual
challenge, tangible task product
Encouraging positive retrospectiye self-evaluation and activity design:
effective praise, elicitation ofself/peer correction session, class applause.
2
3
sannuepl pau8rsse lplornb a.la.,’r laqr reqr pa^resgo (0002) laqoo¿ uaallay
‘sass”lr uarre8rapuu¡ unrpau-qsr¡8uE u1 uerpllql tue¡3lu¡u¡t qrrm Suqro¿¡
‘ruooJsselo er{r eprsrno a8en8uel puofas
aqt do¡ar’ap ot anunuof, or pue esllo¿¡d or peq farp salllunr¡oddo ar{r pallturl
suonrntrs asoql ul sacuar.radxa Jreql ‘aouelequl ramod E se,,’r eJer{t L{Jlq \ ul
sauo f¡¡ecrdlr ere^\ eseqt pue leads or luelrnleJ ara,la.laqr qrlq \ ul suollenlls
Ierf,os are,^a erar{t tele.&\o11 ‘gslSuE uJeal or pal¿ noru fU8ry ararrr lpnts
;ag ul sruedlr¡r.rtd aqr ilV'(Ot ,166t af,rrad uorro¡) ,’Plrold ¡ercos 8u€ueqr
aqr or (rrruepr rar{/srq pue] rau;ea1 a8en8uel aqrSo drqsuolteler agr arnrdm.
ot (tuauJtsalur, urJet eql sesn aqs ‘peelsul ‘8uturee1 a8en8ue¡ pue ‘lrrruapl
‘remodSo suoneleJ xa¡druoc aqr arnrdec f¡arenbape rou op uolte^Ilou a,rrlr¡8
-elur Pu¿ lEluaujnJlsur sE qlns sldacuoc terp sanS;e aqs ‘EPEuEJ uI ueuro^\
lue¡Slrurul 3o sacuarredxa Suturea¡ a8en8ue¡ el{r Jo lpnts aser ¡eurpnrr8uo¡
E ur parf,allof ErEp ruorS SulalrJq ‘af,Jled uolJoN fuuog Jo >lJo,/v\ aqr ruo5
seuroJ sra>¡teds a8tnSuel ta8rer pue sJeuJeal a8en8ue¡ Puofes uea^ taq uoll
-f,EJelur r3eJE PIJO/\{ IBrf,os eqr ul ra,Lrod jo suoIlEIaJ
^\oI{Jo
a¡durexa pooS y
‘sdrqsuorre¡a¡ ¡a,trod pue srrueufp pr:os
ol J nrsues aJE srlnpe se IIea sE ueJp¡rl3 ‘8ulureal uI ssef,fns tJaJ¿ teqt salqe
-rJE^ eql PuelsJaPun 01 >lees 3,&\ uel{1l\ Pa>loolJe^o Jg louuEs slxaluof, IEIfos
ur tsrxa sa8en8uul trqr rf,¿J agl ‘8utu.rea¡ a8en8ue¡ Puoras uo sJotf,EJ Flalfos
r{Jns jo traJe rf,Exe aqr rclpard or a¡qrssodrul sl tr g8noqt ua g ‘a8en8ue¡
&r¡ourur e Surureay sJegruotu dno¡8 ll:oleur jo asoql ruo5 uollelltoru Pue
sapnlrrre ruaJeglp a,teq leru dno¡8 lrl¡oleru e3o aSen8uel arp 3ururca¡ dnorS
ltr¡oulru EJo sJegtueru ‘aldurexa rog ‘saSenBuEI uee \teq drqsuorre¡a.l ¡a¡’rod
ro rnueulp Frf,os aqr sI rolf,eJ l{f,ns auo ‘sserrns Sulu;ea1 aSen8ue¡ pue
‘sepnuup (uoltrlltour rf,eJE osle urc &lunruruo) JaPI^\ eql uI sJollEJ
I3l3oS
aottptl{p dno¿7 nuqo ?uP ,Qgaap7
‘ (Z
L tgOOZ raluroq pur xnearoilmS),sat8aterts Puollelltrour (sreqf,eal
a8en8uelSo pedrur cglrads-ruooJsselo ‘ateJJuof al{l Suru¡a¡uo¡ eluaPl^e IEI
-r¡rdrua lue, apr,ro;d or,{pnrs rsJg arp sI stqt asnef,ag ruerrodul are s8urpug
ar{r ‘ssalar{ua,r.a¡ ‘sdrqsuoDelal lfega-esnel atEfIPuI lou oP sllnseJ uollel
-eJJof, t¿ql a8pa¡mou¡re sJeqfJ¿esal eql ‘aJlEuuottsanb eq1 uo srrodar-3¡as
,sJaurcal aqt pue’srnol,teqaq tuarua8e8ue (sJauJral aql ‘sa)I]f,eJd IeuoIlE^Iloru
(sJaq)Eat aqr uaa.&\teq suolrplaJJoJ a,rrtrsod tuerglu8ts PunoJ sJeqf,Jeesal ar{I
‘sstll T{E rrarp 01 perelar f¡¡erglcads sle^el uolle^Ilotu rleql lnoqt eJIEuuoIl
-sanb r para¡druoc oslr sJaureeT ‘(sruapnrs el{rJo sPrlqt o^\l uer{l a.rou) q8lq
pue (sruapnts eqrJo sprlrll o/v\t ot Prrql auo) mo¡ ‘(sluapnrs ma3 e) r’ro¡ fra,”
:uossel pa^Jesgo qf,Ea uI luaruaS¿8ua eJns?auJ ol Pasn sE \ elB)s lo^al-aaJl{r V
‘palrln3l¿J se,l\ sellllllf,e Sulrnp PeJeelunlol l¡re8ea oq,/v\ PuE ‘paltdtrlued
fya,rlrce ogl”r’uonueur pred oq.{\ sruepnrslo uonrodo.rd aql ‘ruauaSe8ua;o
Ia^al JrerFJo suJJal ur PeJns”au sElv\ uoll¿ Iloru (sJJuJEal aql ‘uossel r{f,Ba uI
&urutaa1 a&anSuu1 puotas ur satuata¡f1p pnru(t!?ul 68
90 Indiuiduatdffirences in second language learning
I
such as successful/unsuccessful, big/small, talkative/quiet, etc. in their firstl
year of school. of course, they also had the identity of ‘being ESL. Becausel
learners’ identities impact on what they can do and how they can participarel
in classrooms, this naiurally affects how much they can l.”in. Fo, .*”-pl.,l
one of the ‘ESL children was consistently excluded from imaginative interac- |
tive activities with her peers; another learner was perceived as someone who
I
never lisrened or did the ‘right thing’. Toohey argues that these identities
]
could eventually lead to their isolation and to restricted or less powerful par-
I
ticipation in their classroom communiry. \7hile Toohey is careful to point
l
out that identities are not sratic and can change over time, it is equally impor-
l
tant to keep in mind that ‘classrooms are organized to provide occasions I
upon which some children look more and some less able, and judgem.tttr
“.. Imade which become social facts about individual children’ (Toohey 2000: I
‘;’* *rsrudies above describe how issues of idenriry and investm”n, or”” I
important roles for both children and adults when learning a second lan-
|
guage. Research has also documented how these factors contribute in I
complex and sometimes contradictory ways when learning a foreign lan- |
guage. For example, it has been observed that Japanese students are often I
reluctant to speak English in communicative lessons despite high levels of
I
motivation to learn the language. Furthermore, when students with high
I
levels of English language proficiency do communicate they often speak with
I
a strong Japanese accenr and intentionally produce grammarical errors for I
fear that they might be perceived as considering themselves to be superior
I
(Greer 2000).
I
In a study with secondary school Japanese learners of English as a foreig.r lan- |
guage, Yasuyo Tomita (201 1) observed that the students were more willing to
I
communicate during activities that combined a focus on form and meaning
I
than in exclusively meaning-based activities. In observations and interviews
I
with the students, she concluded that learners were nor willing to invest in
I
English communication with each other unless they were able to establish
I
their identities as ‘learners’ by discussing language form and raising qr.r.r-
|
tions about grammar. In exclusively communicative activities learners *.r.
I
reluctant to use English to communicate their ideas or opinions for fear that
l
they would be identified as ‘show offs’ and pretending to be someone other
I
than Japanese.
I
i
Learner beliefs
i
Second language learners are not always aware of their individual cognitive or
I
perceptual learning styles, but virtually all learners, particularly older learn-
]
ers, have strong beliefs and opinions about how their instruction should be
l
delivered. These beliefs are usually based on previous learning experiences
]
‘((uoneredard ur) g1g¿ ¿rurT solues pue ryedg) s.,r,rarl.sluep
-nts rraqr areqs or papuot lagr reqr pe,/\ .oqs sarpus eqr ur patednrr.red os¡e
orl^l sreqreal ‘ICE pue ‘ISg aqr ruo5 sllnser aql ‘ef,n)Erd e,r.lr¿¡runruu¡o¡
r{]r1v\ JEurtuE¡8 Sulle¡8alur roJ efuaJaJard e snqr-uorlsfrunuluoc ro3 ace¡d
lpo aqr se uees sr ruooJsself ar{} ‘alqelre^E ere Z’I eqt ol aJnsodxa roj sauru
-nr¡oddo.&\eJ eJer{^\ te^a \oq ‘lxeruoJ -ICE eql uI ‘ruooJsself erp ur are laqr
uer{^/v\ uoneJrunuruJoo uorj llareredas ¡nuue¡8 uo snco; or llunr¡oddo
aqr are¡rardde sraurca¡ ‘ruoorssep eql aprslno uoDrfrunruuroo JoJ sarlrun¡
-.loddo aJour oJE oJeql aJaq,r txeluof -ISE aql ur leqt ua,rr8 asuas J nrntur
seleur srql ‘sJeuJEel -IJE erp uBr{l aJoru qf,nlu uor}fEJalur a DefrunfrrrrroJ
ruo5 reruure¡8 Sune¡edas penlr^ laqt reqr pauodar osl? sraur¿al TSE ar{l
1a^a./üoH ‘a¡n¡r¡d elrlef,runu¡ruof urr{tr^r, Jruru¡e¡8 ol uorluelle Sune¡8atur
parraSard sreurealJo sdno¡8 qroq rrr{t peterrpur stpsar IIEra^o aq1 ‘acnoerd
alnef,runururo3 urr{}r^/( pappaque Jo ruoü l¡are.redas ¡eruru¿¡8 uo snfoJ ol
perre3ard lag] reqtaq^\ uaqr 8un1sr ‘sJeureel 0E7 or pararsrunupe ara-&\ serreu
-uonsanb ‘a8enSu¿l uB BI utsreJoJ E sE r.{sr
(s-raqcear pur) srau;eal qrv!\ sarpnrsJo selros E u1 ‘rq8ner eq ppor{s tt uaqm rcJ
saouara3ard a,reg fagr3l JeI{tEJ rng InJesn sE uoltlnJlsut ¡eurue¡8 a,rta¡¡ad s¡a
-urc”I¿aqpqr? lou paultuexa a^¿q GOO) urtat I{rrraser rJr{ PuE epedg eur¡
‘qfuaJg pue ‘ueru;a5 ‘gslued5
‘a¡drurxe roJ ‘ueql ureal ol sra>1eads qs¡¡8ug JoJ rlnlsrp arou snql PuE
ueadorng-opul uou a¡e sa8¿n8uel o^u ei{t esnef,eg aq tq8nu slql teill parsa8
-8ns sraqrreasel aql ‘qtoq panp otl^\ rIqErV pu¿ asaurl{J 8uturca¡ asoqr
roj tdacxa uonf,nJlsur ¡euur¡8 sE I{fnul sE >lleqpaal eAI}feJJo) enle^ rou PIP
sJauJeal ‘¡¡erang ‘uonef,lunruulo3 uo snf,oJ aJouJ ro3 lpear PuB lI lnoqe f,IlsE
-rsnqtua ssal aJa^\ laqr snqr pue srauJeel aSrn8ue¡ u8raroS oqr or paredruor
uonf,nJlsur ¡rruu¡e¡8 snouord jo s¡eaf a¡ou¡ pet{ sJeuJeal TSE aip tBt{t IJEJ
arp or par?lar ueaq a^Er{ tg8¡ru s¡q1 ‘sa8enSue¡ u8rarojSo sraureal plp sE r{f,nru
sB tr anle^ tou plp aBEnSuEI puof,as E sr qsr18ug3o srauffel ‘alduexa JoJ ‘uoll
-rnrtsur ¡euru¿¡8 penlel sreureal IIE rou lng auos rerp punoS faql lleqPeaJ
e rlreJJoc pue uonf,nJlsur JEuJuJEJB rnoge sJelleq rtagl ssa.rdxa or saSen8uel
ruaraglp Jo sreurral gIzL p¿1se (6002) san8ealloo slr{ PuE ua^\aoT u^\eI{S
‘^\er^ srql paJEr{s sJar{fBel eqrJoJIEq ¡a,ro lsnl’,a8en8ue¡ aqr;o Áarseu IEnl
-ua e er{t or pnuesse sr a8en8ue¡ aqr jo lpnrs IEruroJ, tEI{r pe^arTag stuePnls
rsotu alq \’uorlrPPE uI ‘algErISeP sE,&\ slqt rleJ sraqf,ear r’taj,{-ra,r elll{.,!A Palf,aJ
-Jof sJoJJa Jraqr e^eq 01 eJISep e passardxa stuepnts ¡e f¡pnrrlrr’ ter{t PunoJ
(t OOZ) zpqls at¿ua¿ sarpnls elrf,s-a8re¡ olu uI ‘s^\eIA (sJeI{rEe} Pue (stuaPnls
uaa,^ teg r{fterusnu E uauo sI eJeql r”qr sruJ5uoc Suturea¡ a8en8uel puofes uI
>llBqpaa3 J^nJaJJoJ pue Jeuure;83o aloJ aqr rnoge sJaIIag JJuJ?JI uo I{fJtesad
sr uonf,nrlsur jo adlr rr¡nclued e reqr (8uo.rm ro rq8lr) uoltdrunsse aqt Pue
I6Sututaal aSan&ual puotas ur satuata¡ftp /an??nlpu]
qsl¡8ug pue a8en8uel puoras e sr qsr¡8ug3o
‘urcal ot ruar{r JoJ fer’r rsag aql
92 lrudluldual dffirences in second lang,tage learning
Indiüdual differences and classroom
instruction
There are many questions about how the exisrence of individual differences
should infuence instruction. On a simple practical level, it is not possible
for a teacher with 50 5¡uds¡¡5-sr even one with 10 students-to customize
instruction to suit the abilities or preferences of each one. Neverrheless, there
can be little doubt that an instructional approach that rigidly adheres to a
single way of teaching all students and an expectation that all srudenrs can
learn in the same way will deprive some students of learning opportunities.
Zoltán Dórnyei (2005) has reviewed the research on individual differences
and proposes a number ofways for educators to help learners make the most
of their individual abilities and learning preferences.
Learners’ instructional preferences, whether due to inherent differences in
their approach to learning or to their beliefs about how languages are learned,
will influence the kinds of strategies they use in trying to learn new mate-
rial. Teachers can help learners expand their repertoire oflearning strategies
and thus develop greater fexibiliry in their ways of approaching language
learning.
Ag. and second language learning
‘W’e
now turn to a learner characteristic of a differenr rype: the age at which
learning begins. Age is easier to define and measure than personaliry apti-
tude, or motivation, but the relationship between age and success in second
language acquisition is hardly less complex or contror¡ersial.
It is frequently observed that most children from immigrant families even-
tually speak the language of their new community with nativelike fluency,
while their parents often fall short ofsuch high levels ofproficiency, especially
in the spoken language. ‘Io be sure, many adult second language learners
achieve excellent language skills. One often sees reference to Joseph Conrad,
a native speaker of Polish who became a major writer in the English language,
and it is not uncommon to find adult second language learners with a rich
vocabular¡ sophisticated syntax, and effective pragmatic skills, even though
there may be subtle differences between their language use and that of those
who began learning the language while very young.
As we saw in Chapter 1, the Critical Period Hypothesis is that there is a
time in human development when the brain is predisposed for success in
language learning. It has been hypothesized that there is a critical period
for second language acquisition just as there is for first language acquisi-
tion. Developmental changes in the brain, it is argued, affect the nature of
language acquisition, and language learning that occurs after the end of the
¿uonlslnbf,E a8en8uel puolas roj polrad PJITIJO ou sI aJeql leq¡
ueatu slqt saoq ‘aBenBuEI puores eql uI aruallerxe eAaII{r¿ oqu, (sr¡npe pue
sruacsa¡ope) sJeurcel JaPIo rnoqe satoPf,aue ssallunof aJE eJer{l ‘aJotuJeI{lJnC
‘af,uaf,selope ul uÉaq oq,/v\ asoqr uEI{t unJ 8uo¡ aqr ut lcuatogo¡d ¡at¿a¡8
o^Jrr{f,¿ slezrr¡r tou op IJ^al loor{fs f¡¿ur¡d re a8en8uel Puof,as e Sulurea¡
ul8ag ogrtr sJauftal ‘s8uluas Fuonef,npe uI ‘uollonJtsul a8¿n8ur1 u8laro3 ro
puof,asJo lsou aqr a>¡eru laqt ‘slllls 8ul^los-uelqoJd pue ‘sar8are¡ls l¡oruaru
‘a8pa¡ltou1 rnsln8ul¡etaru JIaIp Sulsn lg ‘sJeuJeal ¡a8unol ueql luelfga
aJour eJE sJauJ?al Jeplo terp u^\oqs elpq saouetsuInf,Jlf, JEIItuls u¡ Suturea¡ sra
-u;ea¡ raSunol pue rap¡o3o ruarudo¡a,rap a8en8url Puoles al{rJo solPnts aruos
ta^a^\oH ‘3unol l¡a¡’ aJE sJauJeal uagrrr sulSag IIJI Peaons ot l1a>1t¡ tsouJ st
uorlfnJlsur a8rn8uel puooes terp Jpnlluoo or stua¡ed lueur sB IIa^\ s¿ sJa>pu
frr¡od pur srolernpe aruos pel srq sarrFlSIP (sreureal lFPeJo uollelrasgo
IrurroJur ¡o acua¡¡adxa puosrad or uolllppe ul H¿f, eqr uo Paseq r{lrcesa¡
‘a8en8ue¡ ¡aeu eqt asn ot Peeu ¡lu,(agr eJeI{,{, suollenlls uI salles
-ruoqt aceld or ssau8ut¡nr pue uolte^Iloru Jleql rcage feru s8uqee3 a,rtle8au
rpn5 ‘ueaur lagr reqr’r l¡rcexa les or 3ur1¡r uI uolteJlsn53o sarualradxe JaUe
fcenbaprul30 esues e do¡a,rep,{eru laqr pue a8en8uel el{lJo lrarsetuSo >1oe1
rrar¡r fq passerregrue uauo eJe stppv’seePl Palmr¡duoc arouJo uolssa¡dxe
eqr pu” aSenSut¡ xa¡druoo aJou puttuaP r?qt suoll?nlls uI sJllesuaqr Puy
or l¡a41 aroul aJB srauJeel raplo ‘pardarrr tsBal 13 ro ‘pasrerd ua5o Jre slroga
rra3radurr l¡rea rraqr ‘aJotuJequn¿ ‘Suluur8ag lra,r aqr uor3 f¡arrrn3f,e PUE
l¡ruang >pads ol a¡nssa¡d 8uo¡ls acuat¡edxa rou op laqr oJaq.&\ sluauIuoJllue
ur a8rn8ur¡ aqr esn pue J¿eI{ ot salllunt¡oddo a¡ou a,teq uaryo laql ‘aSen8ue¡
Sulurea¡ ol eto ap ol aulll eJou aAEq f¡ensn sluauIuoJllua Sulurea¡ a8en8
-uEI IBruJoJuI uI sreuJral ra8uno¡ ‘ruJráJIP lral uatjo are Sutu;ee1 a8enSur¡
JoJ suotrtpuof, al{t ‘stsagrodfll Polrad I¿f,IrIrJ ar¡r fq parsaSSns saf,uaJaJ
-jrp pcrSo¡orq a¡qrssod or uonIPPE uI ‘sreureel a8en8ue¡ Puof,es sE sllnPe
put uaJplrqc a¡eduoc ot IFISIP sl 1l ‘Z rardeq3 uI /\eES 31r\ sE ‘asJnof, JO
u”r{r rarlr¿e pue teru aarnaue¡.ry\au EJo *rffJ;H;;:l*:H:fiml
or lrr¡qr aqt’e¡druexa ro¿ ‘Sulurea¡ a8en8ur¡3o sroadse ruaJaJIP or PalEIer
‘sporrad IErItIrf, a¡dn¡nu aq leru arelp reql af,uePl^J Pug sreqlo ‘JaIIJEa ue e
eq plnoJ u rsaSSns sJaI{f,JEasaJ eruos tnq útaqnd PunoJE aJer{d\euros sPua
porrad lef,nrr3 al{r rpqt perulelr ueuo lsotu sI lI ‘PIIql Sunol eql o1 elqele^E
eJe ler{t sarlnedrc ateuul ‘rgtcads aJotu eqt se 8ulurca¡ a8en8ue¡ JoJ alllf,aga
se lou arc senITIgE Sutu;ea¡ ¡erauaS asalP tBql pan8re sI lI ‘uoll¿luJoJul Jo
sllplsJo spuDl rer{ro a¡rnbce 01 asn tg8¡ru lagr sauo eurBs ar{l-saltr¡rge 8ul
-uJrel Iereue8 a¡oru uo puadap leru s¡au¡eal JePIo ‘Jerpe¡ ‘PooqP¡¡{l llJee
ul uorlrsrnbre e8en8ue¡ puo3as ¡o uorlrsrnbce a8en8ue¡ lsJg or elnqlJluof, ol
pa^arTeq sarnrf,nJrs porSo¡olq el¿uul Jql uo Paseq aq tou leru porrad PrIlIrf,
&utu”raa1 a7an&uol puotas ur satuata[tp pn?laryul g6
94 Indiuidual diferences in second language learning
Tlt e critical p erio d: Mo re th an j ort pronunciation ?
Most studies of the relationship berween age of acquisition and second
language development have concluded that older learners rypically have a
noticeable ‘foreign accenr’ in the spoken language. But what about other
linguistic features? Is syntax (word order, overall sentence structure) as
dependent on age of acquisition as phonological development? \lhat abour
morphology?
Mark Patkowski (1980) studied the relationship berween age and the
acquisition of features of a second language other than pronunciation. He
hypothesized that, even if accenr were ignored, only those who had begun
learning their second language before the age of 15 could achieve full,
native-like mastery of that language. Patkowski studied 67 highly educated
immigrants to the United States. They had started to learn English ar various
ages, but all had lived in the United States for more than five years. He
compared them to 15 native-born Americans with a similarly high level of
education, whose variety of English could be considered the second language
speakers’ target language.
The main question in Patkowskit research was: ‘lVill there be a difference
between learners who began to learn English before puberry and those who
began learning English later?’ However, he also compared learners on the
basis of other characteristics and experiences that some people have sug-
gested might be as good as age in predicting or explaining a person’s success in
mastering a second language. For example, he looked at the total amount of
time a speaker had been in the United States as well as rhe amount of formal
ESL instruction each speaker had had.
A lengthy interview with each person was tape-recorded. Because Patkowski
wanted to remove the possibility that the results would be afFected by accent,
he transcribed five-minute samples from the interviews and asked trained
native-speaker judges to place each transcript on a scale from 0 (no knowl-
edge of English) to 5 (a level of English expected from an educated native
speaker).
The findings were quite dramatic. The transcripts of all native speakers and
32 out of 33 second language speakers who had begun learning English
before the age of I 5 were rarcd 4+ or 5. The homogeneiry of the pre-puberty
learners suggests that, for this group, success in learning a second language
was almost inevitable. In contrast, 27 of the 32 post-puberty learners were
rated between 3 and 4, but a few learners were rated higher (4+ or 5) and one
was rated at2+.The performance of this group looked like the sort of range
one would expect if one were measuring success in learning almost any kind
of skill or knowledge: some people did extremelywell; some did poorly; most
were in the middle.
‘ur”al uaJpllgo Sunol le^\ eql tuo{ rueraglp sr rzgr ft,n
¿ ul a8rn8uel ureel leu s¡au¡¿al rlnpe rer¡r slsaqrodlq aqt ruJguoo or ¡¿add¿
s8urpug ase[L ‘pooqplq] ul gs¡pug paureel oq./ü asoqr roJ uonelerror r{rns
ou se,ry\ eJer{t tala,l\oH ‘ssaof,ns qrvv\ pateleJJor oJe-/v\ saJof,s epnlrrde ‘st¡npr
se qsr¡8ug Sururea¡ ue8aq oqrrr sruednlued ro3 ‘reqr puno3 pu¿ slsJl apnrrrdr
aSen8ue¡ a>ler or sluedrcll¡ed pe>lw eq ‘uolrrppe uI lsel tuaruaSpnl eqr uo
a:ueruroj;ad pur uorte;Srturur Jo a8r uaaz’rrag drgsuorre¡a.r 8uo¡rs E punoJ
oslt eH ‘serels perlun aql ot stue¡Sltuur uelre8un¡1 qrr,l Buq.ro,n ‘lpnrs
rrodrc¡ pue uosuqof aqr3o uonecqder ¿ tno parrrro (ggg¿) rasfe)aq ueqo¡
d¡epvnr eJou parJe^ lsal
Jr{t uo arutuuoSrad.ueqr pue l¡rrerror serualues agr a8pnl or l¡a1l ssel are,&\
rare¡ ueSaq oq.&\ asoql ‘1ser ruauaSpnl aqr uo sarof,s rsag8ry eql pa^err{r¿
ISaIIJBJ ue8aq oq./!\ sJeuJEa-I ‘rsel eqr uo ssassns 3o rorrrpard tuecglugls e
sE./v\ sarEls Palrun eqr ur P^r.rr? jo a8e leqr PunoJ rrodrvta¡ pue uosugof
‘lou eJe,{UIEg ‘¡ecnruue¡8 a.rarrr sef,ueluas
er{uoJI?H ‘lf,eJJo3 sE^\ ef,ualuas r{f,Ea Jer{req./( al?f,rPur or PEr{ PUE sefueluas
peprof,er p.reaq faql ‘xetuls pue l8o¡oqdroru gsrr8ugJo salnr ZI petsar rer{l
seluetuasJo Jagrunu a3;e1 e3o sruarua8pnl lrr¡errreuruerS a>pru ot pa>lse
a¡a¡nr slu¿dnlued agl ‘qsl8uE3o sreleads e^nEu 97 p dnofi uosl¡¿druoc e
papnlf,ur osp fpnrs aq1 ‘sreal aa;qr rseel tE ro1 selets palrun eqt ur ueaq peq
IIE pue &ls¡a,rrun uerrJeuv uE tE sJagruaru A¡n:e3 Jo sruepnts arar’r ¡¡y’sa8e
rurraJlp re qsrpug ureel ol un8ag prq otl^l sra>1eads uearo) pur aseulr{J
97 3o lpnrs ¿ pat3npuof, (ege t) uodrc¡ Essrlg put uosuqof aurlenbref
,&q a nla uuta ñ to sa o trynt uI
‘uorlerounuord or l¡uo lldde rou saop uorrelnurl srqt reqr
pue a8enSurl puof,as e3o lrarseru e1r-a^rreuJo tuaudola,rap aqt uo srr{ulT
Suntas ur JotfEJ lueuodrur uE sr uorlrsrnbcz3o a3¿’ruaruuoJrlua (l¿Jnleu, eqr
ul f¡rrerulrd a8en8uel puoras e a.rtnbce ol{,/v\ sJeuJeal JoJ ler{r punoJ pls \o{r¿d
‘snq¡ ‘plp uolte.r8nurul 3o a8e se ile \ se sse3Jns rclpard rou prp ‘a8e tuorS
paterrdas uaq./v\ ‘uollfnJlsul Jo tunouJ¿ ‘llre¡rul5 ‘a3r rat*a uE lE PaAIJJE
osle per{ afuaprsal .re8uo¡ qtr^ asoqr reqr esef, er{r uarJo sE^{ rI laleldoH ‘Jor
-crpa.rd pooS l1-rrc3 E ag ot perueas saurnauros sarers petlun al{l ur af,uaplser
jo rp8ual ‘a¡duexa ro¿ f¡ara¡durol ueqr ale¡edas or algrssod lllear lou se^\ tI
r?qr srorf,eJ rJrllo aqr ol pereler llaso¡c os selr\ a8r reqr rno paurnl uauo rr rnq
‘ssofrns Sururea¡ pue sJor3eJ asoqt uee,l\tag drqsuolrelal eruos ‘l¡¡ernreu ‘serur
eJar{L :rralf ssel qf,nru s¿,tt. a¡ntcld agl ‘uorlrsrnb¡e a8en8uel puoJes uI ssafons
rceg¿ ol rq8noqr aq rq8lru rEI{t srorf,¿J rarflo alp peulrutxa Ils^\o>pe¿ ueqA\
&u1utaal a8an&ual puotas ut sacuata[tp pnrultryul 96
96 Indiuidual dffirences in second language learning
Rate of learning
Some research suggests that older learners may have an advantage in terms of
the rate oflearning. They appear ro learn faster in the early stages ofsecond
lTgy”g. development. In 1978, Catherine Snow and Mariañ Hoefnagel-
Hóhle published a study on a group of English speakers who were learning
Dutch as a second language while living in the Netherlands. The learneri
included children as young as three years old as well as older children, ado-
lescents, and adults. on tests administered when learners had been in the
country for less than ayeaf,adolescents were by far the most successful learn-
ers. They were ahead of everyone on nearly all of the tests. Furthermore, ir
was the adults, not the children, whose scores were second best. In other
words, adolescents and adults learned faster than children in the first few
months of exposure to Dutch.
By the end of the yea¡ the children were catching up, or had surpassed,
the adults on several measures. Nevertheless, the adolescents retained the
highest levels of performance overall. The fact that the young children were
catching up, together with evidence from other studies, suggests that they
would probably surpass the older learners if they continued to have adequate
opportuniry to use the language. However, this study shows that adults and
adolescents can make considerable and rapid progress in their proficiency in
a second language in contexts where they use the language in social, personal,
professional, or academic interaction.
One view of critical period research that has had an important impact on
the way we look at studies of language acquisition has been expressed in the
work ofVivian Cook (2008). He makes a srrong case for the inappropriate-
ness of using the criterion of indistinguishable from a natiye speaker’ as the
basis for success in second language acquisition. Indeed, Cook argues that
a second language speaker or bilingual person should not be compared to
monolingual native speakers because the real goal is ‘multicompetence’, that
is, knowledge of multiple languages that inform and enrich one another.
Research on the long-term ourcomes of second language learning as well as
the rate of learning at different ages brings us to a question that is probably
ofgreatest interesr ro mosr readers ofthis book tü/hat can we conclude about
the role of age when learning takes place primarily in an educational setting?
Ag. and second language instruction
Many people who have never heard of the critical period hypothesis believe
that, in school programmes for second or foreign language teaching, younger
is better’. However, both experience and research show that starting early is
no guarantee ofsuccess and that older learners can arrain high levels ofprofi-
ciency in their second language. In considering the best age at which to begin
ue8aq a8en8url puo3es e se qsr¡8uE uI uoltJnnsul ql¡Il’r re a8e aqr ‘srua¡ed
ruoü aJnssaJd or Sulpuodsar ‘ragan| ur ‘e¡dtuexa Jo{ ‘uollf,nJtsulJo sJnor{
plol eJour fueu ¡etua f¡¡enrce rou leru JarlJEe uollfnJlsul 8un¡¿ls ‘s8uluas
Ieuonef,npa lu¿ru ur ‘aJoruJar{lJnC ‘uoruruof,un IIE tE lou sI uoItEntIS sIqI
‘pareaddeslp.,(¡ertuassa sluapnrsJo sdno¡8 o^u aql uee./v\tag sorueJeJlp puÉ
.Jot¿urruouop uoruruof, Ja^\ol E ot r{f,”al ol pJpuat uortfnJlsulJo sJnol{
IElol
reaal per{ per{ oq,&\ stuapnls eqr pue stuepnls uers-l¡rea parue^pe arou aql
rFoq P?q oq,^A sreqf,eel’uonfnJlsur snor,ta¡d ou P?I{ PEq oq^r sluaPnrs q}uv\
sass¿lf loor{3s ,ürpuocas ur pace¡d se^leslueql PunoJ seruneuros ‘sarutur.lS
-ord r.rers-l¡¡ea ur ssa¡3ord epru per{ oq,/v\ sluaprus lpnrs lreupuel $LGI)
s,lleisrng erclJ uI’rarlree ulSeq oqzrr esoqt qrl&\ dn qrrec uaryo (¿1 ro’II
‘g 1 a8e ]E ‘aldruexa .ro3) rarq rJers oq^\ esogl ¡aarrr ,red uollf,nJtsulJo sJnol{
ru.a3 e.,{¡uo aAreJaJ sJauJeal ‘sruoolsse¡l a8en8ue¡u8raJoJ pur -puofes tsoru uI
:ate¡ Surqctar a8en8ue¡ u8laroj
Jo puof,as ur8ag or luanse aJoru eg leu l ‘seAII JralpJo ued lu¿uodrut ue
eg ol enurruof, III^\ a8en8ue¡ e^Ileu s,p¡ql eqr reql paurnsse sr tI uaq,t\ Pue
‘ruatsls Fuon”Jnpe uE ur sluapnrs IIe JoJ ÁIlq” a lleflunururof, f,Iseq sr po8
eql uat¡,tr\ ‘a8en8ue¡ rs.]g Epllql aql Jo tuaurdo¡a,rap ara¡druooul ro ssol eql
¡¡erua leru a8en8ue¡ puof,as ar{r or a¡nsodxa ellsuatul{1tea ‘y rardeq3 ur
,ry\ES e¡ sE tale,ry\oH ‘a¡qrssod se l¡rea se a8en8ue¡ agr lq pepunorrns l¡ara¡d
-ruor ag ot reureel el{t JoJ alqerlsep aq peapul leu r1 ‘a8en8ue¡ raSrer aqr u¡
lruarcgord aIII-a neu sr Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡ puores 3o a,trrralqo eqt uaqrk\
‘uon?rrunuo.rd a>1r¡-erttreu qrl,t\
>¡eads or uer{l JeI{tEJ asJnof fIrueP¿JE uE JoJ stxel PeaJ ol Jo ‘suoIl?uIuIEXa
a8en8ur¡ u8raro3 uo paalons ol (uoltef,IunuruJof feplra,l,a ro3 aSrn8ue¡ agr
asn ot sr ¡eo8 asoq,l.r sreuJeal lueru 3o spaou aql ,fsrres ill^\ arup 3o por.rad
rroqs l¡a,r.rrelar E ur a¡lnbce 01 elqe ere srauJeal replo reqt s¡qs puz aSpa
1^lou>I agl ‘Sulurre¡3o sa8ers f¡rea agr ur flrr¡n:rued uarp¡qr.ra8unof urql
l¡prder a¡ou ssa.rSord sruacsa¡op¿ pue ueJpllt{r rJplo rer{r uaoqs seq l{f,rBaser
‘s8uluas asaqr uI ‘tuaudo¡a,rap e8en8ut¡ PuoJes JoJ eIqEIIE E saf,Jnosal eql
pue qeo8 eqt ssesse ot luel¡odrur ll.relnrlr.red sl tt ‘s8uluas IEuoIlEf,nPa uI
‘l:uarogord alll-a^neuJo tuauruletlt elp uo pue a8e
uo lpo sasnro3 qJlr{¡a ‘slsaqroddq porrad I”f,IlIJr aqr uo I{rJEaseJ uo f¡a¡os
paseq aq louurr ulSaq p¡noqs uollrnJtsul ql¡I¡a re a8e agr tnoq¿ suoISIreP
‘snql ‘Surureel JoJ suolrlpuof ¡e¡cos arer.rdordde agr PuE ‘uolle^IlouJ ‘ePnl
-nde sa,r¡orrur lcuarcgord a8rn8ut¡ puof,as Jo s¡e,ra¡ q8¡g Sutrlcear ‘sJeuJBOI
raplo ro3 l¡er¡adsa ‘teqt uaas osle a^Br{ e/N ‘3uturea13o a8e qrut parelsosse eJE
saruorlno SuruJeel ur saoueJeJlp IEI{I aouaPt,ra Suotls st atagl ‘uaas azreg ar*. ry
‘(¿SOOZ umoqrq8rl) rrers a¡qlssod lsallree
aqrSo-ll¡lgerlsap aql ue^a ¡s-Á¡ss333u egt rnoqe suolsnlf,uof, or dunl
a/ur aJoJeg sJn3fo U qf,Iri,{\ ul txaluoo erp PuE auue¡8o.ld leuoltfnJtsul ueJo
qeo8 aqr rnoqe l¡1ryaJef, 1ulqr ot Ieltuasse sI lI ‘uolllnJlsul a8en8uel Puof,Js
Sututaal aBanBuE puocas ur satua”ra¡[ty pn?ruryuJ L6
9B Indiuidual diferences in second knguage learning
was lowered in recent years from about age 9 or i0 to age 6, but the total
number of hours of instruction was not increased. Rather, the number of
minutes of instruction per week was spread over more years (Lightbown,
2012). Thus, after years of classes, learners who have had an early start may
feel frustrated by the lack of progress, and their motivation to continue may
be diminished. Clearly the age at which instruction begins is not the only
variable that determines success in the second language classroom.
For many years, it was difficult to compare early-start and later-start learners
because of all the variations in their educational contexts. Since the 1990s,
many more studies have allowed us to investigate this question more effec-
tively. Some large-scale research projects have been particularly useful in
separating the effect of age and other factors in school-based foreign lan-
guage learning. For example, in Spain, the Barcelona Age Factor (BAF)
project studied the effects of changing the age of beginning to teach English
to Catalan/Spanish bilingual students.
V/hen the starting age for teaching English was lowered, Carmen Mu ñoz and
her colleagues took advantage of the opportunity to compare the learning
outcomes for students who had started learning at different ages. They were
able to look at students’ progress after 100, 416, and 726 hours of instruc-
tion. Those who had begun to learn later (aged 17,14, or 18+) performed
better on nearly every measure than those who had begun earlier (aged B).
This was particularly true of measures based on metalinguistic awareness or
analytic abiliry. On listening comprehension, younger starters showed some
advantages. Muñoz suggests that this may be based on younger learners’ use
of a more implicit approach to learningwhile older learners’ advantages may
reflect their ability to use more explicit approaches, based on their greater
cognitive maturiry. She points out that, in foreign language instruction,
where time is usually limited, younger learners may not have enough time
and exposure to benefit fully from the alleged advantages of implicit learning’
(Muñoz 2006:33).
One of the advantages of the BAF project is that the researchers were able
to follow the same learners’ language development over several years. This
enabled them to examine whether the early learners would eventually surpass
the older learners as has been observed in the ‘natural’ setting. This did not
happen-although the younger learners caught up, the older learners main-
tained their advantage over time.
Decisions about when to start second language instruction in schools should
be based on realistic goals and on realistic estimates of how long it takes to
achieve them. One or two hours a week will not produce advanced second
language speakers, no matter how young they were when they began. Older
learners may be able to make better use of the limited time they have for
second language instruction.
66
.a8rn8ue1 puof,es e
Bururea¡ ur In;ssef
-fns aq uEf, ssf,ueJaJerd Sururea¡ pu’ sarrrlrq’ luaJeJlp r{1r.4 sJeuJ’al
‘Eq]
0s
senr^r138 leuorlfnJlsulJo lrarre,r apr,r\ E rfr^\ lueuJuoJl^ua Sulurea¡ B alEaJf,
o1 sr JJr{f,¿ar a rlrsues ar{l Jo ¡eo8 aqr ‘ruoo.rsselc e ur ,ssa¡agreuoN .JeuJeeJ
aSenSue¡ B s¿ ssaf,f,ns JJr{ Jo srr{ af,uangul
III^\ sflrsuatoeJpr.l3 s pnpnrpur JEI
-nclued E,&oq rrlpa.rd orflnlslP r,tt”*rrJ, rng ,suor:e-rrrl,
“r¡d*or
esaq¡
Jo JJnrsu aqr aroldxa or Suluursaq aJp sJar{f,J’es’U .seurt ruaJeJrp
]E suorl
-lpuoc erues aql or f¡ruaragrp treer
IIr,,!\ raureal etues er{l ,paepul.suorlrpuor
Sururea¡ arues eqt_ot l¡ruaragrp rr”r, ¡r^ sJauJ¿al tuaJaglp p.r” .”r1á-o,
aJB stueu¡uo¡lnua Sulu¡eel pue sfnsrJelJeJer{J
lenpr^rpur ueel\teq sdrqsuon
-EI’J ‘uoDrpp’ uI Jarpou’ auojo ruapuadapur 10u e.r’ sfrlsrJarf’rer{r aql leql
rlEJ erp o1 pue srnsrralf,ErBqJ
lenpr^rpur 8ur¡nsraru pue Sulugap
30 lr¡nr5
-JIp eql or enp l¡rred sl sFlI .la¡d¡atur ol lsea slezvrp ro,, ,i” ,rrurrrgrp
I’npr^rpur uo r.lJr’esal Jo srFser ar{t r¿qt peuJEJI a^eq e.&\ tarderlc srql uI
,fteululng
¿suottenlts luaJa#tp ut seulof,tno
luaJe#tp parueuadxa arreq lq8rtu slenpt^tput eqr r€L{r
)utqr nol oq g
¿slenpt^tput aql ut luaJequt sef,uaJa#tp
ot enp aJe euof,tno ur saJueJa#rp aql lulLl¡ nol op luetxe leq^ oL
¿sauo)tno aql Jo, a¡qrsuodsal are are¡d
)ool 3u!u.¡eal ar{r qltq^ ur s¡xetuof, aqt ¡€r{¡ ¿u¡qr nol op }ua¡xe reLl/v\ oI €
¿suoneDedxa asoql e8ua¡¡eqr ol uaes seuo qrq6 Z
¿3uru.rea¡ e8enSue¡ puof,es ut-tt,o )lel eq¡ Jo-ssof,f,ns ql!/v\ poleooss?
erp leqt selqetJe^ eql moqe suollel¡adxa lnol ulguor sese) q)tr.l^\
|
‘spuatJl pue sanSea¡¡or lnol¡o t€r]l pu€ e¡uar.¡adxa
Sutulee¡ a8en8ue¡ “rnol lnoqe l.€ alq€f ul eper.u nol salou eqt re
)rpq )oo-l
sse))ns tululee¡ etentue¡
pue sofuero#lp |Enp!^!pu! uo ltoBeu ,l.rt^trcv
nro./$, pu’ ,l’rros ,¡euos.red3o lrrrr,A e ur sa8en8uey rreql esn
;’,’rtl’# ilf lueru
reqr pu’ ssaf,rns Jo la^el rsaq8rq aqr a^erqf,e op sreur¿al raplo a.,,os
lEql sa^IesJno pullueJ ol lu¿uodrul sr t1 ‘Surureal ur sssJfns
Fnluo^a pue 8ur
-uJEell_o erEr {poq lfeJE r3q1 srolfeJ rueuodru¡ osp are Suluma¡ aSenSue¡ roj
apntrrde ur sefueJaglp pnphrpur pue .uJeal ol uone^nou eql ,(ruoorsselo
aqr eprsrno pue aplsul qroq) Surureel roJ sanlunt¡oddo eql .Burureal regr
Jo ssesf,ns l¿nlu3^e eql pue 8uru.ree1 a8en8uel puofes sarpeo.rdde pnphrpur
u¿ rpq^\ ur fe¡r. aql eurr.uJalep reql $rlsrralf,BJer{l er{l
Jo auo ljuo’t, ,3y
&ututaal a&anSuol puotas ut satuata¡ftp pnplal7ul
100 Indiuidual dffirences in second language learning
Questions for reflection
I Think of an example of a member of a majority group learning the language
of a minority group and one of a member of a minority group learning a
majority group’s language. How might the power relationships between
groups of speakers affect the attitudes of language learners? How might the
status of the languages affect opportunities for learning?
2 As a second/foreign language teacher or learner,what are your views about
teaching grammar? Do you have any specific preferences for how it should
be taught or when? Do you know what your students’ preferences might
be for grammar teaching. lf not, do you think it would be useful to find out?
3 lf you were teaching English as a foreign language in a country with limited
opportunities for secondary and post-secondary education in English, what
recommendations would you make regarding the age at which English
instruction would begin? What research would you draw on in supporting
your recommendations?
Suggestions for further reading
Dórnyei, 2.2005. The Psychohgy of the Language Learner: Indiuidual
Dffirences in Second LanguageAcquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates.
Dórnyei reviews decades of research on how individual differences affect
second language learning. The book covers personalityvariables, aptitude,
motivation, learning sryles, learning strategies, and other individual char-
acteristics such as anxiety and willingness to communicate that may vary
according to the learning environment. Both thorough and accessible, this
review concludes by emphasizing the evidence that individual differences
are strongly affected by the situation in which learning takes place rather
than being’context-independent and absolute.’
Muñoz, C. (ed.). 2006. Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
The Barcelona Age Factor study is the basis of this edited volume. Ten
chapters report on various aspects of students’ learning of English, com-
paring the outcomes for students whose foreign language instruction
began at different ages. In addition to the specific research reports on, for
example, the students’ oral fluenry, vocabular¡ and rate of learning, there
is an overview chapter in which Carmen Muñoz, the project director and
editor of the volume, discusses the project in terms of broader issues of age
and language learning at school.
‘Sulurea¡ Z’I perJnJrsur snsJal IEJnlEuJo sarprus pu? uonfnJlsurJo
sadlr ruaraglp or uorrelal ur selgErJEA rau;ea¡ SururuJexe sarpnrs lroreroqe¡
pue ruooJSSEIf, sepnlfur srgl ‘SurureelZ-Itc¿üa ol lxJluoJ Sulureal JEInf,rl
-;ed e qrvrn rf,EJerur selqerJe JauJEJI lenpr^rpur,&\oq Sunr8nsa,rul qf,JeesaJ
segrJcsep uortf,es puof,as agt ur rardeqr r{)BE ‘uonoura pue ‘ltarxue ‘uorl
-e^rtour ‘apniltde or PelBIeJ {Jo-ry\ IEfrleJoaql uo snfoJ uonf,es 1sJ5 aqr
ur s.rardeq: eql ‘sualuoc Suru;ra1 put srusrJetreJer{3 raureel lrnpl^¡pul
uee \teg suonssJelur uo snf,oJ uortfallof PerrPe srqr 01 sJotngrJtuof, aql
‘sururefuag uqof :urpranruy’8utu.taa7
a8an&uaT pattn”¿$ul ?up saruata[rq pnpta?pul ‘7,007, ‘(pr) U .uosurgo¿
Sututoal a8anSual puocas ut sacuata¡{tp pnruaryul IOI
pesn llepr,&\Jo ruaudole^ap eqr ur lpf,errp tlg sE,/!\ aruangur rrer.Ll .a^’reds
-red srgr 3o sruauodo¡d o¡u ann $r96y) ope-I ueqo¡ pue (096I) s>loorg
t^otlt_N ‘s0/-61aqr 01 s076I eql ruo5 ‘Eruaurv r{uoN ur f¡ercadsa ,Surgcear
a8enSue¡ uSraro3 pue puof,as uo esuangur pjiaz*od ¿ peq rusunor^Eqeg
uotlvztloutau¿
Fu? hcptl¡1y :saouprtlddp a&pnsupl ?uoras
‘suslunr{ JoJ
aluEs eql aq 01 pezsaqrodlq se,ryl ssaco¡d SuruJeel eql rnq ,sprurue,(ror”toq”¡
r{11&\ auop serur. ,fioagr lsrJnor^Er{ag urqrl,r\ q)JEeseJ l¡.rea agr jo r{f,nw .uon
-EruJoJ rrqBr{ puE ‘(ssaoons uo >lfEqpaaj ro) tuaurac;ojura¡ ,acllce¡d ,uollsllrur
Jo suJel ul Suru;ea¡ paure¡dxa lroaqr lsrJnor^Eqeg ;1 -rardrq3 ur ,ryr’s e¡a s\y’.
e lpeds¡ad lsr¡nol,wqeq eql
‘lxatuof pnos re8.re1 e ur uollrslnbce
a8enSurl puoras sare¡d reqr a,rnrads;ad e ,lroaqr p.r.rproiros tE >lool
III \
arvr’l¡eurg ‘uonBtuJoJur sa erJreJ pue ‘sazruesJo .surcleJ ,sa,Lla¡¡ad p”t- rqt
le-vr aqr azrseqdrua sarJoeql asaql ‘sreal ruafal ur r{f,J’aseJ a8en8ue¡ puofes
paurJojur llSulsea;cur J^Er{ rer{r l8o¡oqrlsd a,rnruSoc ruo{ sJrJoer{l au¡os
tE lool oslE IIr^r e/xt ‘uorlrsrnbce aSenSuel puof,as roJ lunoffp 01 pepuerxe
ueeq e^Eq 1 rardeg3 ur
^\ES
a1rr’ ter{l uoursrnb¡¿ a8en8ue¡ lsJg JoJ suoneu
-e1dxa rsrleuul pue rsrJnorler{eg eqr ,llor{ rB
{ool IIp\ e/N .rr-orrndBuruJpel
IEug puE ssa¡8o¡d ¡eruarudo¡a,rap a3rn3ur1 puores roJ lunoff,E o1 paJaJo
ueag e Eq lBr{l ssrJoaqr eql Jo eruos surtrrExe e1v\ rardrgr srqr uI .slxeluof
1o fial.re,r E ur srnsrJerf,¿JBqJ Jo óel¡¿,r. E r{rL!\ sJauJeal lq uorrrslnbre a8en8
-uEI JoJ tunorre ot speau uonlslnbr¿ a8en8ue¡ puof,as3o lroagt ¡eraua8 y
^.eI
eJd
DNINUVE] EDVNDNV-I
CINOf,flS DNINIV]dXE
t04 Exp laining second language learning
audiolingual teaching materials and in teacher training. Classroom activities
emphasized mimicry and memorization, and students learned dialogues and
sentence patterns by heart. Because language development was viewed as the
formation of habits, it was assumed that a person learning a second language
would start offwith the habits formed in the first language and that these
habits would interfere with the new ones needed for the second language.
Thus, behaviourism was often linked to the contrastive analysis hypothesis.
However, as we saw in Chapter 2, researchers found that many of the errors
learners make are not predictable on the basis of their first language, nor do
they always make the errors that would be predicted by a simple comparison
oftheir first and second languages. This discovery led to the rejection ofboth
the contrastive analysis hypothesis and behaviourism, leading to a period
during which both the role of the first language and the role of practice
in learning a second language received limited attention in both research
and pedagogy.
In Chapter 2, we saw ample evidence that second language learners draw on
what they already know-including previously learned languages. However,
we also saw that they are sometimes reluctant to transfer certain first language
patterns, even when the translation equivalent would be correct. And we saw
ihat first language infuence may become more aPparent as more is learned
about the second language, leading learners to see similarities that they had
not perceived at an earlier stage. All this suggests that the infuence of the
learnert first language may not simply be a matter of habits, but a more
subtle and complex process of identifying points of similariry, weighing the
evidence in support of some particUlar feature, and even refecting (though
not necessarily consciously) about whether a certain feature seems to ‘belong’
in the target language.
By the 1970s, many researchers were convinced that behaviourism and the
contrastive analysis hypothesis were inadequate explanations for second lan-
guage acquisition. As we shall see, however, as research on second language
á.q,rirition has evolved, the explanations offered by behaviourism and the
contrastive analysis hypothesis have been revisited and understood in terms
of new learning theories.
The innatist perspective
fu we saw in Chapter 1, the rejection of behaviourism as an explanation
for first language acquisition was partly triggered by Chomsky’s critique of
it. Chomsky argued that innate knowledge of the principles of Universal
Grammar permits all children to acquire the language of their environment
during a critical period of their development. \X/hile Chomsky did not make
specifrc claims about the implications of his theory for second language
learning, Lydia \X/hite (2003) and other linguists have argued that Universal
EOI
8uil1rapun aouaradruo¡ aqr selquesal a8en8url puof,as er{Uo esn aqr serTJepun
tegt acuatadruof, ar{r Jer.parÍ\\ ur pelsaJalul a.re laql ‘sJauJBal Suruurseq 3o
a8en8ur¡ aldrurs aql ur u’r{r rar{r’r-r,ruruerS xaldruor 3o a8palz*o’I rraql
-sJerTJEal-pafuB
pE 3o acuaradruor a3en3ue1 aql uI pelseJalur l¡ensn arr
a,tlpads-lad on B ruo5 uorllslnbre a8enSuel puofas lpnrs oqn sJar{f,Jtasau
‘sarnlBal aSen8uel r{rns uo
lleqpeeJ pue uon)nJrsur
Jo rraJa aqt uo rlrreeser eruos eas ill^\ e-^a , (te pue g
1 salpnrg) 9 ratdeq3 u1
‘sra4eads gruarc lq parnpord sacualuas ur sqra^p’ qsq8ug 3o l.’-ri”1á
aqr3o lpnrs serrrl6 u,r srqrJo aldurexa poo8 e./v\Es a1ü .¿ rardeq3 uI .tou op
laqr ‘rcej ur ‘uaqrvl a8en8uel puocos eqr ur sruap,unba a,t”q já”du’I rsrg
er{r Jo seJnlf,nJls auos leql erunssE feru laqr (esr.&ueq}o .a3en8ue¡ puof,es
3r{l ul ImnEuru¿¡8 lou sr lBr{ \ lnoqE uorleu;o3ur rl]rTdxa peJu saurrlauJos
leu s¡au¡ea¡ a8en8ue¡ puores’a8enSue¡ rsJg er{rJo uolusrnbce aqr rq parerl’
sl DOJo arnteu ar{l JSnE3aq ,regr rsaSSns os¡e laqr ta,rarvrolq ‘a8en8ue¡ aqr
Jo esn ¡nSSuluearu ur pa8e8ua are sraurpal uaqm llprnreu aceld rrr1″l rá”n’B
-uEI ,\\au eql Jo saJnleej ¡rcrteruure;8 lueu 3o uorlrslnb¡e reqr aarSe sJer{lo
puE (I66I) ellqrt\ ep/1 .a8en8ml ar{rJo ernlrnJts Surl¡rapun aqlJo uop
-lsrnbce agr .ra38rrr ot luarf,gns sl a8enSuel terpJo s.ra>1eads r{tr^\ uonf,EJetuJ
‘lueuJuoJr^ua sJauJeal aqr ur aSenSuel
IEJnlEuJo Ál1lqe1re,re aqr uo pesEg sr
uonrsrnb:e a8en8uel regt san8rc aqg .aBenSuEI ,ryreu er{r
Jo a8palzrroul crre
-ruatsls Surl¡rapun eql rf,aJE rou op pue arueurojrad a8en8url
¡[o srcadse
¡elrg:adns lluo a8uegr ll?qpaal puB uoDrnrtsur leql sepnlf,uor .alduexa
roJ'(€66I) zu¿^il{3s aruuog .a3en3ue1 puof,es ar{rJo a3pa1.,r,rou1
(sreurEsl
tf,eJe llrlv\ >flEqpaal Jo lrr¡qe1re,re eqr Jo uorlfnrlsur IEtuJoJ ,r\oq lnoqe sese
-podlq rrar{l ur raJrp oslu >lro,&etup{ Dn ar{l urqtl/v\ 8uqro,l.r. sJer{f,reese¡
‘sa8en8ue¡ Jer{loJo uortrsrnbre aqr lq paratle uaog ser{ eJnleu
lfexa slr rEr{l }ng ‘sJeuJBal aSenSue¡ puoJes or 3lgelrc^B pue ruesa.rd aq leru
Dn lBr{t an8re sragrc) ‘uolllslnbce a8en8uel puof,as puE tsJg ur eurEs ar{r aJE
OnJo lrrlrge¡e,re puE aJnleu erp ter{r rurEIJ./\4,er^ srqr ploq oq,&\ slsrroer{r eqt
Jo eiuos ‘sJauJEal a8en8ue¡ tsJg ot se
ila,/v\ s3 sJeuJ¿el a8en8ue¡ puo)es ol alqB
-lleñ aq rsntu DnJo a8pa¡r*orq ler{l sr uorrecr¡drur aql .or pesodxa ere laqr
rndul eqr un llarnua puedap ot peq feqr 3¡ peurrel a,teq l¡geuosear plnof,
lar¡r uegr a8en8ue¡ aqr lnog’ aroru moul llpnrue^a sreur’al reqr rlEJ er{r roJ
uorteue¡dxa up paau e./v\ ,sr lEr{I .uorllslnb¡e a8en8uel puo3as
1o ,.ua1qorá
¡ecr8o¡ aql, ilrls sr erer{l rBr{r rno lulod s;aqro pue (€002) loo3 uer^rl
?t\oleq pegulssp ssuoer{r pclSo¡oqolsd ¡e.raua8 erolu arpJo auo sdeqrad
‘l.roeqr Jar{to auos lq peuleldxe aq ol seq uonrsnbce a8en8ue¡ puooes reqr
sutaru srql ‘aer^ rreqr u1 ‘pol.rad Ipf,rlrrr agr passed a,req or{,4 sraurea¡ lq llpn
-adsa ‘eSenBuEI puofas ¿Jo uorlrsrnbce aqr JoJ uoneueldxa poo8 E JeJo tou
saop lr ‘uorllsrnbc¿ a8en8ue¡ rs.rg SurpuersJapun JoJ lJod\aruerj arerrdo;dde
ue aq leru 3¡ q8nogr¡e ,reqr parsaSSns azreq (9661) rerr{rerps ullanbref
pu¿ (066I) ueruo-r¡-fa¡g ueqo¡ a¡druexa ro3 (srar{ro .uolllsmb¡e a8en8
-uEI Puof,as puelsJepun o1 r{Jrrl^\ uro.I3 a,urads.rad rseq 3rF sJeJo JptutuEJS
&urutua1 a&an&ual puotas 7ururuldxE
r06 Exp kining secorud language learning
the language performance of native speakers. Thus, their investigations often
involve grammaticality judgement or other methods to probe what
know about the language rather than observations ofnatural language use.
Second langaage app lications : Kras lten’s
‘Monitor Mod¿l’
Perhaps the best known model of second language acquisition infuenced by
Chomskyt theory of first language acquisition is Stephen IGashent (1982)
Monitor Model, first described in the early 7970s, at a time when there was
growing dissatisfaction with language teaching methods based on behaviour-
ism. Krashen described his model in terms of five hypotheses.
Inthe acquisitionl learninghypothesis, Krashen suggests that we ‘acquire’ lan-
guage as we are exposed to samples of language that we understand in much
the same way that children pick up their first language-with no conscious
attention to language form. \We ‘learn’ on the other hand through conscious
attention to form and rule learning. In Krashent view, far more language is
acquired than learned.
Next, according to the monitor hypothesis, second language users draw on
what they have acquired when they engage in spontaneous communica-
tion. They may use rules and patterns that have 6een learned as an editor
or ‘monitor’, allowing them to make minor changes and polish what the
acquired system has produced. Such monitoring takes place only when the
speaker/writer has plenry of time, is concerned about producing correct lan-
guage, and has learned the relevant rules.
The natural orderhypothesis was based on the finding that, as in first language
acquisition, second language acquisition unfolds in predictable sequences, as
we saw in Chapter 2.The language rules that are easiest to state (and thus to
learn) are not necessarily the first to be acquired.
The comprehensible input hypothesis is that acquisition occurs when one
is exposed to language that is comprehensible and contains i + I .The’i’ rep-
resents the level of language akeady acquired, and the’+f is a metaphor for
language (words, grammatical forms, aspects of pronunciation) that is just a
step beyond that level.
Krashen’s ffiuiue fber hypothesis is proposed to account for the fact that
some people who are exposed to large quantities of comprehensible input do
not necessarily acquire language successfully. The ‘affective filter’ is a meta-
phorical barrier that prevents learners from acquiring language even when
appropriate input is available. Afect rcfers to feelings of anxiety or negative
attitudes that, as we saw in Chapter 3, may be associated with poor learn-
ing outcomes. A learner who is tense, anxious, or bored may fber oulinput,
making it unavailable for acquisition.
¿os aq rq8ru slqr lq^ suosper eruos Jo )ulqr nol u€J I
‘Surqreat e8en8ue¡
Puof,as ul lelluanUul Peul?uel aAeq s/v\alA EuaqsEJ) ‘sseleqilaAaN’salPnls
l€lrJrdua ur saseqlod,(q a^U aqr lset ol flnlu$tp st lt leqt stsEq eqt uo ll!€d
‘lapo¡ Joiluoh quaqseJ) ro lllprle^ aqt pauotlsenb elpq sJaltJ^ ,o Jeqrunu V
lepol^l Jolluol,^l eql autuexf Art^trcv
‘os aq leru srqr lqr* ure¡dxa or dleq l8o¡or¡clsd a¡rtruSo¡ ur prdola^rp
sarJoJrll Suru;ea1 ruorS srq8rsur auos ‘uonf,nJtsur paprn8 ot ssef,l¿ aAEr{ oslB
laqr ssa¡un a8enSue¡ puof,as eqr Jo saJnreal eruos uo ssa¡8o¡d JequnJ e>ltru
or 1rr3 laqr qrrq.^a ruo5 turod e qcear leu sluapnls ler{} le^e
^.oq
‘u./v\oqs os[E
a^Er{ serpnts ‘uonf,nJtsur DeJrp lnoql.u lndur a¡q¡suaqarduor ol a¡nsodxa
q8no;gr ssarSordSo pap rea;8 e aletu uer sluapnts ]eqt parurguor seq r{f,reesar
ruooJSsEIJ ‘uonrsrnbf,E a8en8ue¡ puooas ur qJJEeseJ.roJ sueprJo afJnos e uaeq
e Eq ‘srsaqtodlg tndur algrsuar¡ardruor ar{l l¡plradsa ‘sasar¡rodfg s,uaqsrr)
‘paruarualdrur l¡apr,l uaaq seq ‘Surgrear a8rnSue¡ pasBg->lsel pue ‘pJseq-tuJt
-uo:
a^rJp ot Buúrr3o’a¡duexa JoJ ‘.{ulql’tr3o ef,utruJoSrad qroous aqr srdnrsrp
l¡¡enrre llr,ts aqr ruroSrad or Sull¡r alrqr’r a8pa¡noul e^nerellap ar{r rnoqe
Suqurqr ‘pazrteruotne eruofag silDIS af,uo ‘a¡’ncads¡ad srql or Sulprory
‘a8pa¡z’,rou1 a^rl¿relrap sz lsr5 tr paureal 8uu’eq ra8ro3 leur
JauJEel eq] pue pazrleruolne auof,aq uec a8pa¡r’rou1 leJnpelo;d aqt ‘aonoe;d
penulluo3 grr¿¡ ‘a8pa1,trou>I lll asn ol lrlllq” er{r ro ‘a8pa¡,rtou1 lurnpef,
-ord aruooaq leu a8palmoul a^nerelf,ap’acrrorrd q8norgr ‘trr¡l sr srsagrodlg
ar{I ‘elnJ ¡trurue¡8 e ‘a¡druexa to3 ‘8uv’eq Jo eJ¿,tre aJE e^\ rrr¡r a8palmourl
‘sr teqt ‘a8pa¡r’lou1 a lleJelf,ap r{lr1rt stJels ‘Sururea¡ a8en8ue¡ Surpn¡cul ‘8ur
-ureal tsoru regr rsaSSns laql ‘,Sulureel IIDIS, se uonlsrnb¡t aSrn8ue¡ puoras
pareSnsa,rur e er{ srerpo pue (L007,’IO0Z’966I) raslayaq uaqo¡ ‘<>lro1d
G6GD suosrepuv ‘U ‘I uo Sulz*erq ‘sJeqf,reasal lueu lq paro¡dxa uaaq
eler{ uonrsrnbce aBrnBuEI puolas ot saqcro;dde Sulssacord uonrru;o3u1
‘euJn auo le ul a8e8ua uEf, e,4i\
lr¡,rrrre lelueru pesnloJJo tunoruB arlt or trurl E sr aJaql regr srsaSSns Iepotu
Sulssaco¡d uoneuroJur a{L ‘rl puagardruoc f¡ry op l¡enrua,r.a faqr3l ua.ta
‘lxat E puetsJapun ot aurrl aJouJ pJau sJepEaJ a8en8uq puocas lqr’r urc¡dxa ot
sd¡aq Sulueaur ot sseJJE Jneruotne Jo lJel aql ‘rueql uaa.&\tag sdrqsuolre¡ar
erp pue spro.,’l’ Fnpr^rpur 3o Suluearu aql Sulssaco¡d uo uonuauB rraql Jo
aJoru esn sJauJeal tuarcgord ssal seaJer{.&\’uoDes¡eluor Jo rxet r3o Suruearu
IpJe^o eqr ot uonuene IInJ rraqr a,l.l8 ue¡ s¡asn a8en8ue¡ ruarcgo.rd ‘sngl
‘uoneurJoJul ¡*au Sulssaco;d ro; papeau sa)Jnosal Jo pupl agr dn esn lou
op sasuodsal Jnrurotnr r{lns ‘rr puelsJapun rnq d¡aq touue) lagl ‘puoras
r{ds e JoJ ua^a ‘pJo1v\ JBrlruEJ E JEer{ sJeuetsrl rualrgord ueqAys8urueau
pJo,/úJo I”AarJleJ aql sr Surssaco¡d e8en8uel ur llorteuolneJo rcadse raqrouy
.(SOOZ preuley¡¡
pue (ql¿l¡-uosdrulg ‘sr¡E) a.rua8 cglcads e ul e8en8uel uanrr^\ pue a8en8ue¡
IeuorlesJa^uol r{Jnru ol oslt lnq ‘suolssa.rdxa rneruorpr or l¡uo rou sar¡dde
suraued jo esn srql’raqraSor rncco l¡ecldlr ]Erp spro^\Jo s8ur¡rs Sursn lq
Jar{l¿J tng aurn ¿ te pJoA\ euo Sursoor¡: lq sacuetuas ¡aeu aleeJr rou op s.raleads
rueng ‘sr lEr{I ‘f,relnuroJ f¡r.red rsEal le JrE reql a8en8ue¡3o su¡erl¿d alqerf,rp
-ard ruo.r3 ur’reJp sr les sraleads aseql rer.{,&Jo r{f,nru ‘aJoruJaqunC ‘f,neruolne
l¡eltuassa sr sJa>fJEru porteruruerS are¡.rdo.rdde eq] qrv!\ .raqraSor uagr 8ul
-8ur¡ls pue ‘rueql Surcunouo.¡d ‘spror’r Sursoogc ‘sra>leads ruatcgo.ld ;o¿
‘f,lteruolnr auof,aq l¡¡enprr8 ‘uJnt ur ‘tBr{l
aSen8ue¡ agrjo snadse raqto efnou ol sa:¡nosa.r Surssaco¡d a¡.rlru8oc dn saar3
&ulutaa1 aSan&ual puotas &uturu1 dxE 60r
110 Exp laining second knguage learning
Sometimes changes in language behaviour do not seem to be explainable
in terms of a gradual build-up of fluenry through practice. These changes
have been described in rerms of restrucruring (Mclaughlin i990). They
seem to be based on some qualitative change in the learner’s knowledge.
Restructuring may account for what appear to be bursts of progress, when
learners suddenly seem to ‘put it all together’, even though they have not had
any new instruction or apparently relevant exposure to the language. It may
also explain apparent backsliding, when a systematic aspecr of a learner’s lan-
guage incorporates too much or incorporates the wrong things. For example,
as we saw in Chapter 2, when a learner finally masrers the use of the regular
-ed endingto show past tense, irregular verbs that had previously been used
correctly may be affected. Thus, after months of saying ‘I saw a film’, the
learner may say’I seed’ or even ‘I sawed’. Such overgeneralization errors are
not based on practice of those specific items but rather on their integration
into a general pattern.
Another concept from psychology offers insight into how learners store and
retrieve language. According to transfer-appropriate processing (TAP),
information is best retrieved in situations that are similar to those in which it
was acquired (Lightbown 2008b). This is because when we learn something
our memories also record aspects of the context in which it was learned and
even the cognitive processes involved in the way we learned it, for example,
by reading or hearing it. To date, most of the research on transfer-appropriate
processing has been done in laboratory experiments, for example, comparing
the learning ofword lists under different conditions. However, the hypothesis
seems to offer a plausible way of explaining a widely observed phenomenon
in second language learning: knowledge that is acquired mainly in rule learn-
ing or drill activities may be easier to access on tests that resemble the learning
activities than in communicative situations. On the other hand, if learners’
attention is drawn to grammatical forms during communicative activities
in which their cognitive resources are occupied with a focus on meaning,
the retrieval of those forms on a grammar test may be more difficult. In
Chapter 6, a classroom investigation of L2learning influenced by transfer-
appropriate processing is described in Study 40.
Uage-based learning
As seen in the discussion of first language acquisition in Chapter 1, cognitive
psychologists, unlike innatists, s€e no need to hypothesize the existence of
a neurological module dedicated exclusively to language acquisition. They
argue that what is innate is simply the ability to learn, rather than any specific
linguistic principles. Some usage-based theories also attribute less impor-
tance to the kind of declarative knowledge that characterizes skill learning
and traditional structure-based approaches to second language instruction.
As Nick Ellis (2002) explains, the emphasis is on the frequency with which
uo Sursnf,oJ ‘xoq lun e gsnd ¡1op loq e Surleru lq rno lr ltrE IIr^\ lagr ,loq
qsnd xog, sE r{3ns spJo^\Jo 8ul¡ls e rraq laqrJI’snr r.’sef,uetuas ppo rard
-rJlur ot plJo,&\ eqr ur >lro1( s8urqr len agt jo a8pa¡mou1 rraqr pue l¡erurue
Jo san3 asn l¡¡ensn uer uarpllqr Sunpads-qsl¡8ug p¡o real-ae;gr pup -o1{
‘rrefqo eqr uaqr’qJa eql uarll ‘tsrg
rralgns eql suorluau aruatuas gsrpuE pcrdlr aq] ‘sr tEqL ‘(O S) ralqg
-qra¡-roalqns JapJo er{l a^Eq saf,uelues qsllSug tsory ‘srueuoduoc ef,ueluas
uae,{ueg sdlqsuonelal aqrJo Jorrf,rpur uoururof, lsou eql s¿ JapJo pJo,tr sasn
qsr¡3ug ¿Surueau eqt tno arn8g nof sdlaq req¿6’snorlqo l¡arerparuul rou
sI af,ualuas e 3o Sulueau eqr eJeqa uonentrs e ur Jealf seruof,eq srql ‘r{rea
jo lrerurrd eqr ur JeJrp lagr rnq ‘sano a¡dn¡nuJo esn a>pru saBenBuBI tso4
‘Jcuatuas or{l ur sunou agr;o lrerurue er.lt pue (sJa>lJeru
¡erlreruuetS tap:o
p.roll, lq pa¡eu8ls aq leu erualues E ur spro^/d uae uaq drqsuonela.r aqr
‘aldruexa JoC ‘suonlun; oylcads pu8ls rerp (senf,, er{t asn ol /(oq puetsJepun
01 aruof aSen8ue¡ re¡nrnred e 3o sraleads ‘s8uluearu relncnred qrr^\ peterJ
-osse a8en8uel3o sa¡duexeJo spuesnoqt or ernsodxa qSnon¡1 ‘asn aSenSue¡
pue Suruearu a8enSue¡ osp tnq ruro3 a8en8ue¡ l¡uo lou lunoroe olur sa>pl
leql uonrsrnbce a8en8uel puores pue rsrg r{¡oq roJ uorreue¡dxa uE s¿ (lapou¡
uolr¡redruoc, eqt pagrr3sap (I86I)lauun¡¡trery uerrg pue saleg qteqezrlg
P?otlt uoqtQdruor aql
‘sJoJJe uorltzrlEJeuaS¡a,ro
3uu¡eru ua^e ‘azrleJaua8 os¡e uec tng rndur uror3 ,urea¡,lpo tou uer ‘ue¡8o¡d
¡atndruo¡ e lq pare¡nurs (ursruer{f,au Sulurea¡ e rer{r u,r\oqs seq qf,JpasaJ
pasrg-a8esn ‘1 rardeq3 ur patou sV ‘arun E tE pJol( auo raqtaSot ]nd lllensn
lou eJE saserrld Jo seJuelues pur ‘spJol’r a18urs ueqr ra8re¡ suun ur pauJeal
l¡rred rsea¡ re sr a8en8uel ‘srar{lo pue (1002 ‘t007) sr¡191cr¡ lq parsaSSns ry
‘qunrp Jo slrun rrEInuJoJ uo paseg luetxe algeJaprsuof E or pue ‘e¡gerclpa;d
sr saJuaS re¡ncnred ur Jo uonesJeluoJ freulpro ur asn a,l¿’ aSenSuel eql Jo
I{3ntu rBI{r 3 og¿ PauollueuJ uollB^Jesgo aql uJoü seluol sr’ral,r paseg-a8esn
JoJ ef,uepila Jqr Jo ewos ‘JaqteSor uragr af,ueuedxe ol serlrunlJoddo .rarvta3
uaaq a Er{ aJar{t asnBraq .ra>pan flalrl¿ler aq leu laqr ro f¡ruanbarS raqraSor
peJJn)fo aler{ saJnlpa3 a8en8uel eqt esnereg Suo,lls aq feru suonJeuuo3
‘tuJoJ qJe^ tfeJJor er{l selelufB unouo¡d rcalgns qoea
reqt uerJo os .sl¿s aq, pu¿ les 1, se qcns sa¡druexe pJrar{ a,reg lagr asntf,eq
rnq elnJ
”
1üoDI larp asneraq lou ‘tfaJJof luauaa¡3e gra,r-rcefqns ra8 tq8ru
sreuffal ‘a¡druexa rog ‘punu s,reur?el aqr ur (s)raqro aqr erp^ltlB III^I erntrcJ
cnsm8ur¡ Jo leuonenrrs auoJo acuasa¡d aqr l¡enrualg ‘Jnf,Jo lar¡r gcrqi’r ur
stxaluof er{r pue saJnleeJ a8en8url uea,l\tag s¿ ila,tr sE saJnleal asaql uae,r\teq
suonf,euuof, Jo suonErf,oss”Jo >lJo1v\tau ¡e8uo.ns pue raSuo.lts e do¡a,rap sra
-ureal ?’rerl srql ot Surp.roly :aqtaSor rn)f,o sarnl¿a3 e8en8uel qf,rq \ qrv\{
lcuanbar3 ar{t pur tndur eqt ur saJnreal :rrsrn8urT f,glleds Je}unorua sJeuJtal
Sututaal a8an&ual puotas Sututal dxE TII
r12 Exp laining second language learning
the fact that the’boy’ is the natural agent ofaction in this situation. However,
the SVO pattern is so strong in English that, by the time they are four years
old, children hearing this sentence will ignore the fact that boxes dont nor-
mally move on their own, and carefully demonstrate how the box pushes the
boy. For English speakers, word order patterns are srronger than animacy
cues at this point. At this age, children may attribute the SVO relationship
to sentences in the passive voice. That is, ‘The box was pushed by the boy’
may be interpreted as ‘The box pushed the boy.’ Only later do they learn to
pay attention to the grammatical markers that distinguish the active voice
sentence from the passive word order.
In contrast, Spanish and Italian have more fexible word orde¡ and speak-
ers of these languages rely more on grammatical markers (for example, the
agreement of subject and verb, the case marking of pronouns) or on the
animacy of nouns to understand how sentence elements are related. \lhen
English speakers are learning these languages, rhey may have difficulry sup-
pressing their tendency to rely on word order as the basis for interpretation.
For example, an English speaking learner of Italian may find it confusing to
hear sentences such as Il giocanolo guarda il bambino (the toy-is looking
at-the boy). An Italian speaker, accustomed ro more fexible word order,
focuses on the animacy of the two nouns and concludes rhat the most rea-
sonable interpretation is that the boy is looking at rhe roy. According to the
competition model, second language acquisition requires that learners learn
the relative importance of the different cues appropriate in the language they
are learning (Mac\flhinney 1997).
AcTtvlTY Look at how different cues lead to sentence
interpretation
Consider the following sentences:
I The boy eats the apple.
2 The apple eats the boy.
3 The dog sees the ball.
4 The ball chases the dog.
5 The ball is chased by the dog.
I Do they all follow the patterns of English grammar?
2 How can you tell which noun refers to the ogent (the one who performs
the action)?
3 ln each sentence,what cue tells you which noun is the agentl
4 ls there more than one cuel
5 Howare sentences 4 and 5 above differentfrom each other?
‘eJnleuraJd eJE Surqf,Eel a8en8ue¡ puofes JoJ r{f,ftaseJ
urtrg pue a8en8ur¡3o suonecr¡dur lue aroJaraql ‘sSurpug pexru parnpord
seq porlnpuor uaaq seq l¿qt qf,rcaser patrrurl aql ‘eJourregrrng ‘aur¡dlrslp
Sunol B sr srql reqt punu ur da>>1 ot tuer.rodur sr lr (ureJg arp pue Sulureal
aSen8uel puofas uaa^\teq suouleuuol lnoge lurqt ot Sulteurcse3 sr rr alrr¡A
‘(tOOZ euq€H) saseerrur Zaeqt ur bualrgord sr sassa:
-o¡d ¡n:etuls lq pano¡1o; su¡aued Sulssaco¡d Il alll aJotu >lool ot rsJg ar¡
a¡e sassa¡o¡d Jrlueuras ler{l ef,uJprle osle sr eraql ‘Sulssaro¡d a8en8uel rsJg
Jo reqr alll aJor.u uloo¡ lrrarrce urEJq aqt ‘sasearour fcualcgord sJauJEol Z-I
uE se teqt u./(oqs ser{ r{rJeeseJ srqtJo aruog ‘tndul a8enSue¡3o Sulssacord arp
uI saf,uaJaJlp aroldxa ot sa^E^\ ureJq ur fllrrnre IEJrJtJela aqr paJnseeru a ¿q
sarpnls Jer{ro ‘(t tOZ Er}ereg) Surssaoo¡d I’I roJ seare ar{t ur l¡uo uorrr^nf,a
.&\oqs oq./( sJauJEel ¡aSunol qlra es¿f ar{l 10u sl slql ‘urEJq eqlJo s€aJE Jeqlo
ur uorle^rtoe osle rng Surssaco¡d I-I JoJ pele rtfe aJE tpr{l sBeJE leJneu eures
eql ur uone^noe
^\oqs
laqr ‘rralduoJ ol >lsel pcneuruer8 ¿ ua,rr8 eJe e3rl ul
rarel aBenBuEI puofas r a¡rnboe oqlv\ sJauJeal uer{^\’a¡duexa ro¿ l:ualcgord
Jo Ia el pue a8e (sJauJeal eqt uo Surpuadap ‘pa Jesgo ueeg e^Er{ sarueJeglp
:ala \oH ‘sa8en8ue¡ puof,as pu¿ rsry r{roq roJ anrl sr slql ‘Surssaro¡d a8en8
-ue¡ Sul.rnp urerq ar{tJo sa.laqdsluag qrog ur suonef,ol tueraJqp ur uorlelrlre
,,vroqs serpnls SulSeur ureJq tuafal ‘sse¡aqrauo¡ ‘urcJg er{r 3o areqdsnuarl
UJI er{l ul pal¿lol a.re^/nr suorlrun3 a8en8ue¡ lerp sE^\ uondrunss¿ aql arurl
3uo1 e rog ‘rndur a8en8uel rsrg ruo5 f¡ruaraglp rndur aBenBuEI puof,as
sassa¡ord urcJg ar{r Jer{req,&r pue urcJq elp Jo sEaJE aures JI{l uI patuasa.lda.l
pue parlnbre a¡e sa8enSuel puoras pue rsrg Jeqleq.t\ apnlrur pate8nsa.tut
suoltsanb erp Jo aruos ‘urerg er{r pue Suturea¡ e8en8ue¡ qlv( peuraJuor sI
a.tncads¡ad a,rrlluSoc aqt or parrurl rou tng urytra >lJo^,\ Jo EaJE Jarpouv
uryrq aql ?u? a3un3uu7
‘a8en8ue13o asn aql q8norqr surauedSo uorreurrurerep pue
‘uorlezr¡o8ater ‘l¡a¡.o¡slp aqt sa^lo^ul Suru;ea¡ a8en8ue¡ ‘Suturea¡3o slcadse
Jeqlo il” e>lrl reqr pue seruelJedxa a,uuu8oc pue ¡enrdac¡ad ¡no q8norqr
peureel sr a8en8ue¡ reql srsaqlodlq aqr uouJuro) uI aAEI{ reqr saqreo.lddt
ruaraglp Jo Jegrunu E uo spgnq pur ruog s,&\EJp srlrsln8ur¡ a,uuu8of, terp
rsaSSns (SOOZ) slllg >plN pue uosurgo¿ rata¿ ‘a;rnbre suerunl{ terp sruatsfs
a8pa¡mou¡ xa¡druor arp3o euo tnq s¡ aBenBuBI reqr ,&\eIA erp srg8r1q8ry pue
pa8rarua seq ,srrlsrn8ur¡ a,rrtruSor, urJel aql ‘srcal luereJ u1 ‘acuatradxa 3o
srseq eqr uo-a8en8ue¡ Surpn¡cul-uolleruJoJul uJeel pue ssaoo;d ol sall
-lllge ueunq praua8 Jo eloJ arp sazrsrqdrua a¡’ltceds¡ad a.r’ltluSol aql
¿uo snloJ sra¡eads esoql plno/v\ req¡¡¿qsr¡3u3
u€ql repro pJoM elqrxall aJou e qr¡r* a8en8uel € lo sra¡eads lq pate.rd.ralur
aq satruoluas asaql tq8rlu
^
oq ¡lepou/ uolllpdun aqt ot Surp.rol)V
9
Sututaal a&an&ual puota s &uturu1 dxE 8,rt
rr4 Exp laining second language learning
S e co nd langaage app lications : Interacting, no ticing
processin& and practising
A number of hypotheses, theories, and models for explaining second lan-
guage acquisition have been inspired by the cognitive perspective.
The interaction hypothesis
Evelyn Hatch (1978),Michael Long (19S3, 1996), Teres aPica(1994), Susan
Gass (1997), and many others have argued rhar conversational interaction
is an essential, if not sufficient, condition for second language acquisition.
These researchers have studied the ways in which speakers modi$’ their
speech and their interaction patterns in order to help learners participate
in a conversation or understand meaning in a new language. Long (1983)
agreed with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for language
acquisition. However, he focused on the question of how input could be
made comprehensible. He argued that modified interaction is the neces-
sary mechanism for making’language comprehensible. That is, what learners
need is opportunities to interact with other speakers, working together to
reach mutual comprehension through negotiation for meaning. Through
these interactions, interlocutors figure out what they need to do to keep the
conversation going and make the input comprehensible to the less profi-
cient speaker. According to Long, there are no cases ofbeginner-level learners
acquiring a second language from native-speaker talk that has not been mod-
ified in some way.
Modified interaction does not always involve linguistic simplification. It may
also include elaboration, slower speech rate, gesture, or the provision of addi-
tional contextual cues. Some examples of conversational modifications are:
I Comprehen5izT¡ ¿hs¡ps-efforts by the native speaker to ensure that the
learner has understood (for example, ‘The bus leaves at 6:30. Do you
understand?’).
2 Clarifcation requestt-efforts by the learner to get ¡he native speaker to
clari$’ something that has not been understood (for example, ‘Could you
repeat please?’). These requests from the learner lead to further modifica-
tions by the native speaker.
3 Self-repetition or paraphrase-the more proficient speaker repeats his or
her sentence either partially or in its entirety (for example, ‘She got lost
on her way home from school. She was walking home from school. She
got lost.’).
Long (1996) revised the interaction hypothesis, placing more emphasis on
cognitive factors such as ‘noticing’ and corrective feedback during inter-
action. ‘When communication is difficult, interlocutors must ‘negotiate
for meaning’, and this negotiation is seen as the opportunity for language
aq¡Jo >llerr rdal pue >1;or’r;rcd ur sreur¿al peprof,ar (866I) uqdrl uoreqs
pue urc-&\S IIuraW ‘pe>lro^\ laqr se o8en8uel rnog¿ pelnou laqr ter{^\ olur
rq8rsul aruos Surpr,rord snrp ‘
perl (0002) q8nouoqcy,q rury pue ,sffi) uesns (a1oe¡¡ uosrlv .a¡durexa
Jo{ ‘uonfeJatur aBenBuEI puof,as ul a8e8ua farp se uonualte (sJeuJeel >lf,EJl
ot sfe-/y\ punoJ eAEq sJer{fJeeseJ IEJaAaS .r{f,JeasoJ
3o rcalqo aqt eq ol enur}
-uof, uorluerre puE ssaueJelv\E 3o aruerrodwr aqr lnogE suorlsanb asagl
‘tndul agr ur SurqraruosJo ssauaJe./v\e s Jeurcel agr lq lou .Sulssacord ro3 alqe
lle^e sl Sulqrauros r{rlr{^a guzur buanbarj eqr lq parcrpard lsaq sr uorlrsrnbre
Jo pooqrle>lll aql ‘e^nrads-rad paseq-a8esn E ruorC ‘3ulureal ol Jtnqrrtuor
uec ‘f¡euonualul tr or SurpuaDe Jo tr3o eJE.&\E tou eJe e \JI ua,ra .,aceds 8ur
-ssaoord, Ietueru, Jno dn sasn teqr Surqilut ,seuoeql Surssaro¡d uonetuJoJur
or Surp.ro:ry ‘arugap alq¿reprsuor 3o rralqo aqr sl rndur Jqr ur Surqraruos
,8urcnou, a.re lagr layt a¿amp aq rsnru sJeuJeel Jeqleq,&\ 3o uolrsanb eql
‘a8en8uel aqr3o a8pa¡uoul rrar{l ur dr8 ¿ sllg rer{l;o peloadxa
faqt teqrvt tuo5 ruaJeJrp sr 13qr aSenSuq puosJs aqr ul Sulqteuros af,nou sJa
-uJeal ueq/r\ suÉag reqr ssarord Surureal E paqrJrsap osp (886I) sse) uESnS
‘lndul eqt ur tr Jo JJEIv\E atuooeq peq lagr ¡tun aJntEeJ a8en8uel E aJrnbre
or ur8ag tou plnof, sreurrel a8en8ue¡ puoras ter{t pazr$qrodlq lprruqls
‘sauoeql Sulueal prlSo¡ogclsd uo Sulme.lq ‘ruarps rueqt operu ef,ueuedxa
Jarpo aruos Jo sself, ur uonuene sry or rq8noJq aJa.& laqr asnmaq se./r\ srql
‘uraqr Pef,nou pBq er{ uaqr’r f¡uo u¡arsfs aSrnSue¡ puof,3s u.&o srq Jelua 01
ue8aq eurr elor{ \ ar{r ro3 luauruorrlua arp ur ruasa¡d ueaq peq rerp a8en8ue¡
Jo saJnteal urttJef ñqt ¿ztla¿J or ue8ag ag ‘lrerp e Surdaa>1 pue (lrzeJg ul
8ur,rr¡’sesselc 8ur1er;o sqtuoru rar3.y’asan8nlJodJo JauJEel e se aluar¡adxa
u,&o srq ruo5 eurer srsaqrodlg Surcnou er{r Jo ¡esodord pulSlro s.lpnuqls
‘aJnl¿al a8en8utl -re¡ncn¡¿d eJo ere^\E saruoJeg JauJ”el eqt ssalun aSpa¡ruroul
a8enSue¡ u¡ qrmor8 ol peal lou saop tndur alqrsuagarduroo ‘arlncadsrad srgr
ruor¿ ‘rurod 8u¡l¡rls lenuassa eql sr tr lnq (uonrsrnbce ur tFsal
Jlastr tou
saop SunnoN ‘(paruou, uaaq seq rl ssepn paurcel sl Sulgrou tBr{t Surlseg
-8ns ‘srsaqroüq 8u¡rrrou eql pasodo.rd (tOOZ ‘066I) tprrur{rs prer{rDr
srsaqrodÍq8ulcnou aq1
‘tuaudola,rap Jrerp ur peeqe sJauJeel ¡snd ‘pazrsa
-r¡rodlq aqs ‘tndlno a¡qrsuaga.rduor Sunnpord jo spueuap eql ‘Suluratu
rragr ssardxa ol sfe¡vl ¡auaq pug ol paeu eqr pue Ánrqe a8rn8ue¡ puof,as Jrar{r
Jo slIuII eql aas or l¡a>1¡¡ rsoru err faqr ‘puelsrepun uEf, rolnrolralur rrar.lt leql
a8enSuel arnpord tsnur sJeureal uar{^\ rpqt penBJE er{S ‘srser{rodfg rndrno
a¡qrsuaqardruor (186I) EulE \S IIrrreW sr srql ol petBIeU ‘rueudo¡a,rep
Sutuwal a8un&uul puotas &ururu1 dxE III
116 Exp laining second language learning
language features they mentioned. These research designs cannot tell us if
learners noticed things they did not mention. However, they do make it pos-
sible to identify some things that learners were aware of and to look at how
this awareness is related to measures oftheir language knowledge. The extent
to which learners’ noticing oflanguage features affects their second language
development will come up again in our discussion of research on second
language acquisition in the classroom in Chapters 5 and 6.
Input processing
In his research with American university students learning foreign languages,
Bill VanPatten (2004) observed many cases of students misinterpreting sen-
tences. For example, as predicted by the competition model discussed earlier
in this chapte¡ when English speakers heard sentences in Spanish, they used
word order to interpret the relationships among the nouns in the sentence.
Thus, they interpreted’La sig,re el señor’as’She (subject pronoun) follows
the man. The correct interpretation is ‘Her (object pronoun) follows the
man (subject of the sentence). In otherwords, rhe correct English translation
would be ‘The man follows her’. In order to understand that, students need
to learn that in Spanish, a pronoun object often precedes the verb and that,
rather than rely on the word order alone, it is essential to pay artenrion to
whether the form of the pronoun indicates a subject or an object.
VanPatten argued that the problem arose in part from the fact that learn-
ers have limited processing capacity and cannot pay attention to form and
meaning at the same time. Not surprisingl¡ they tend to give priority to
meaning, overlooking some features of the language form. \X/hen the context
in which they hear a sentence helps them make sense of it, that is a good
strategy for understanding the general idea, but it may interfere with learners’
progress in acquiring the language. In Chapter 6 we will see how VanPatten
developed instructional procedures that require learners to focus on the spe-
cific language features in order to interpret the meaning, thus pushing them
to acquire those features.
Processability theory
Jürgen Meisel, Harald Clahsen, and Manfred Pienemann (1981) studied the
acquisition of German by a group of adult migrant workers who had little or
no second language instruction. They analysed large samples of their speech
and described the details of developmental sequences in their production of
simple and complex sentences. They concluded that the sequence ofdevelop-
ment for features of syntax and morphology was affected by how easy these
were to process. Ease of processing was found to depend to a large extent on
the position of those features in a sentence. Features that rypically occurred
at the beginning or end of a sentence were easier to process (and learn) than
those in the middle. All learners acquired the features in the same sequence,
Jrer{} lq ‘r{c¡{¡n senrlnre urooJsself uo paseq sr pue a,rncads¡ad a¡l}lu3or
aqt uo s,^aeJp tI ‘(sruau8ag qcaadg lenuessgJo stxatuoJ a^nefrunuJuroJ ur
uorlezneulotnv) SSEIfV peller Surrpear a8en8ue¡ or qreordde ue pado
-lo^ap a^Eq (1002 ‘BB6i) zrr.no¡e8ag ueuroN pu¿ uotuogreD r{raqezrlg
‘sruJoj
lEnuessa->Is?l uo sn3oJ E aq PFor{s araqll €
‘:’:’H,’:il il ilffi: :liillÍ í
:a,rncads¡ad (lsruonf,BJelur-a,Lllru3oo, aqt sllE3 ar{s tBri,/v\ ruou lno perJJEJ
qlreeser arp qrr^\ algrredruoc sE sees aqs rer{r uroorsselr a8enSuel u8ra-ro3 aqr
ul acncr.rd ;o3 sa¡dnur.rd aarrp pasodo.rd seq (/002) e8ar.rg seprnoT ‘e)n
-crrd ro3 saluuuroddo lq parcege osle a.re Sulpea.r pue Suluarsrl ‘a8en8ue¡
Jo uollcnpord arp ot perrrurl tou sr 1r pue ‘lef,ruerlf,eur tou sr ruaudo¡a,rap
a8en8ue¡ JoJ papaou acllce¡d aqt ‘a,rrrcads¡ad a¡rlru3or ar{t ruo5 rer{r aloN
‘erueurroJJad cneruotne ot ueqr pue a8pe¡r’roul lernparo¡d ot a8pa¡nou1
e nBJEISap slJaluo3 f,f,n3erd mog re l¡aso¡c arou SuDIool.lvrou eJE sJer{fJeese¡
‘uraqt qtr.&\ paterf,oss€ (s)Buluearu aqt pue pelllrp Surag su;ar
-r¿d aBenBuEI eqr uae \lag uonoouuor erp e>pru ot pelltJ ueuo uonf,nJlsur
pn8ul¡orpne pezrrerf,¿rpqf, rer{r sllrJp arp ‘9 .rardeg3 ur ees illu a¡,r sV’ur”al
ot seqsra auo rBrll Jnol^Eqaq aqr sasrtr¿¡d auoJr a lDega lpo sl acrtce;d terp
rulod aqr pessrtu ursrJnorler{eqJo suorrele¡d¡alul ruooJsself, eruos ler.ll stJesse
(866I) .rasla;¡ag uagod ‘Sururea¡ a8enSue¡3o tuauodtuoc prluesse uE tou sr
acltce¡d leqt ‘Jale,lrroq ‘ueeru lou seop srql ‘afualadruor a,,tlleclunulluof, ol
pea¡ l¡rnsn lou seop asn a8rn8ue¡ ¡nj8ulueau ruou af,ItreJd sateredas ttgr
pue Ilrrp uo paseg sr reqr Sururea¡ or qceordde ue ‘a¡llcads.rad rsrrnor,regag
er{t Jo suorssnlsrp ur ,l.res a1’r ryarltrerd sl a,rrlrads¡ad a,rnluSor aqt urgrft\
lseJelur Jo IE^\euaJ E uaas srr{ reqr Surureal a8en8url 3o ruauodruof, auo
erl]f,¿rdJo elor eql
‘7:etdeq3
ur suoltsanb pue sarlrtr8au Jo uonrsrnboe agr ut slql 3o saldruexe 1v\Es alnr
‘a8en8ue¡ lsry Jraql ur lslxe ,(pea4e leqr sernree3 agr 3o a8pa¡r’rou1 rrarp esn
uer lagr eroJag a8en8ue¡ puoras agr ur llced¿c Surssa¡o¡d3o ¡a.La¡ ur?lraf, E
dola,rap or a,req lagr ‘pealsul ‘uolllslnbce3o se8ers llrea tt aSen8ue¡ rsJg Jlar{t
ruo{ sernt¿eJ re3suerl f¡drurs tou op sraurEal lgz’r sulrldxe lroagr srr{ rel{r
sanS¡e eH ‘aouangur a8en8uel lsJg qrr^/\ sacuanbas ¡eruarudo¡a,rap3o uorre.r8
-atur aqr sr lroagr slg jo rcadse tuel¡odrut auo ‘lEtuJoJuI pu¿ FuoIlJnJlsuI
qrog ‘s8unras 3o ltaue,r r ul saBenBuEI ruaJaglp Jo sJauJeal I{lt.ry\ r{3rceseJ
Jo srseg ar{t uo lroeqr A¡¡¡qussacord padola,rap GOO7 ‘GGGI) uupueuerd
‘saJnlBal IEuoIreIJ¿^ sE ol PaJJaJaJ eJald esaql ‘saSers ¡rr
-uarudola,rap ruaJeglp tE era.4a oq,/$, sreurea¡ fq pasn pur peurcal aq ppot pu”
slureJtsuoJ asagr lq parfegt eq ol uJJes rou ptp saJnlral a8en8ut¡ eruos lrr{r
punoJ osl” srer{f,reeser ar{I ‘sater ruaraJlp re passarSord farp g8noqr ua,ra
&uruwa1 a8anSual puotas Sututal dxE LII
118 Exp laining second language learning
nature, require learners to use meaningful units of language repetitiyely
in contexts where there are genuine exchanges of meaning. The goal is to
provide opportunities for using these units with sufficient frequenry that
they will become automatic. Segalowitz (2010) has emphasized the impor-
tance of increasing the amount of language that can be used automatically,
thus freeing more cognitive resources for learning new things. Paul Nation
(2007) has suggested that automaticity, which he,like Segalowitz, refers to as
‘fuenry’ may be the most neglected aspect of language teaching in contexts
where instruction focuses primarily on meaning.
The sociocultural perspective
As we saw in Chapter 1, Vygotskyt theory assumes that cognitive develop-
ment, includinglanguage development, arises as a resultofsocial interactions.
Unlike the psychological theories that view thinking and speaking as related
but independent processes, sociocultural theory views speaking and think-
ing as tightly interwoven. Speaking (and writing) mediates thinking, which
means that people can gain control over their mental processes as a conse-
quence of internalizing what others say to them and what they say to others.
This internalizing is thought to occur when an individual interacts with an
interlocutor within his or her zone of proximal development (ZPD)-that
is, in a situation in which the learner can perform at a higher level because of
the support (scaffolding) offered by an interlocutor.
In some ways, this approach may appear to restate some of the hypotheses
encountered elsewhere in this chapter. In fact, people sometimes wonder
whether the ZPD is the same as Krashent I +1.
‘$7’illiam Dunn and James
Lantolf (1993) addressed this question in a review article, arguing that it
is not possible to compare the two concepts because they depend on very
different ideas about how development occurs . The ZPD is a metaphorical
location or ‘site’ in which learners co-construct knowledge in collaboration
with an interlocutor. In Krashen’s i + 1, the input comes from outside the
learner and the emphasis is on the comprehensibiliry of input that includes
language structures that are just beyond the learner’s current developmental
level. The emphasis in ZPD is on development and how learners co-con-
sffuct knowledge based on their interaction with their interlocutor or in
priYate speech.
Vygotskyan theory has also been compared to the interaction hypothesis
be cause ofthe interlocutor’s role in helping learners understand and be under-
stood. These two perspectiyes differ primarily in the emphasis they place on
the internal cognitive processes. In the interaction hypothesis, the emphasis
is on the individual cognitive processes in the mind of the learner. Interaction
facilitates those cognitive processes by giving learners access to the input they
need to activate internal processes. In Vygotskyan theor¡ greater importance
a8en8ur¡ puoras u¡ tueuodrur s¿ uortf,EJelur
^\ar^
oslr orfy\ sJer{fJeasal Jarlto
Jo lBqr pue a,rn:adsrad prnrprorlos eql uaa \teg afuaJaJlp eql eJoJsJeqI
‘(L6 ‘d),lrrnrrre IErJos sr rl pue ór^rlf,e a¡.lllu8o¡ sr 11 ‘8ulurca¡ a8rn8ue¡ 8ur
-lerpJru asn a8en8uel $ lI ‘Jn)f,o-of, uEf, Sururea¡ a8en8uel pue asn a8en8ue1,
arar1lvr rxeluof, etp sE aseqr se qf,ns sanSo¡urp e^rrtJogBllof, sraprsuof, (OOOZ)
ulE^&S ‘8uru¿aru laqt ssardxa ot lseg aJa,{a sruJoJ reqrtr Sulprcap pue reqraSor
uaqt Sulssnfsrp ‘asn ot sruJo; lf,aJJof, Jrp rnoqe sasaqrodlg Sunsat eJe \ sJa
-uJeel ‘l rerdeg3 ur g >lser uon¿rrunruruo3 ur u./!Loqs sy’Surueaur pue r.uJoJ
ot uollualle rrar{t ./’rerp l¡snoaurr¡nurrs ter{t (8uur,la. pue 8ur¡eads ‘a.l) slsrr
uorrnpord ul SulSe8ua alrr¡rvr a8payz’rou1 onsrn8ull DnJlsuof,-of, sJeuJ¿el
aSen8ue¡ puoces ^,’l’oq auruJetep ol serpntsJo serJes E tno parJJef, a,req san8ea¡
-lof, rrer{} pue ur1de1 pue ur¿1úS ‘an8o¡elp a^p”roqeilof, urrar aqr Suls¡
d.roagr leJntlnforfos lq parenlrou ueeq seq >lJo^t tuefeJ aJou tng ,l.roagr
a,rnruSo¡ lq paruangur se.lvr slsaqrodfg tndtno eqr uo >1.rorvr l¡rea sJIerAS
‘Sulurea¡ a8en8uel puof, as
uo tndlno Jo srf,age arp ele8nse^ur ot r{JJEaseJ a^rsuatxa tno parJJEf a Er{
san8ea¡¡oc Jer{ pue aqs ‘uaql aJurs ‘suJooJssEIJ uorsJeruur r{JueJC ur (rndrno
‘a’r) uonrnpord ¡egra,r ul a8e8ua ot sJauJ¿al JoJ senrunlJoddo a.rou parec
-o^p¿ eqs ‘uolsuaqa;druor Surualsll pue Surpear rrarp ur urgr uoncnpord
uJllrJlr\ pue ua>1ods Jraqr ur JelEa./v\ l¡qe.raplsuof, JJe,r\ sluapnls uorsJJuJurr
qruarg ter{l uone^resgo aqt uo paseg srsarpod&¡ rndtno algrsuaqardruof, aqr
pesodord lsrg (Eg6I) ur”.e\S ‘a8en8uelJo uorsueqe;duoc er{r ro; op llrrru
-rpro fagr ueqr a8en8ue¡ q8norqr passardxa sr Suluearu ¡aoq ot uonuetle
a¡ou f¿d rsnru laql ‘a8en8url arnpord ol eABq sJauJeal uJr{^\ ter{r uonou aql
pue srsagrodlg rndtno a¡qrsuagardruof, EurE/lrS u¡ sulSrro slr s”q >lro/rl, rraql
‘sarurur¡8o¡d uors¡aruul {rua-rg uerpeueC ur Sururra¡ a8en8ur¡ puoles JoJ
suorteur¡dxa lernllnf,orf,os palr8nsa,rur a Er{ or{,4 ‘(ZOO1) uu1de1 uoJer{S pue
urE.^^s llrrretr { Jo >lJo-/ú 3r{1 ruo5 u aldruexa ar[L ‘saJnlsrd uor3 auqlrots e
tf,nJtsuof, or lrr laqt sB sqJa e rxegal qJueJC grru.8ur¡88nJls eJe sJaurcel aql
‘rdracxa reql uI ‘(LgI ‘d) g rardeq3 ur g >lser uonef,runruruo3 ur $ srrltJo
a¡druexa uV ‘suon3tJetur JeuJEal-JauJEel Jo ef,r^ou-ef,rlou apnlour ol uJJel
aqr peuepeoJq ser{ >lJo,&\ lua)al ‘JaAe.&\oH ‘oJr^ou e pue uadxe uB a^lo ur
ol poorsJapun ueag s¿q C¿Z agr ‘l¡euonrpe[ ‘sJe>leads raqro qrl^/\ rre
-Jalul pue areroqellor laqr uar¡rvr a8rn8ue¡ errnbf,e sJaurpel a8rn8uel puof,es
r’rog Surrv’ogs ur palseralur arc srar{to pue ‘(y66I) orEUoC preqrrx ,(OOOZ)
JIoluBT rurf ‘uorlrsrnbo¿ a8en8uel puoJas ot lroaqr url¡sro8,(¡ Sulpuarxg
3u7q7w tq SuVutuaT :suott?rtlddy a8unSury ?uoras
‘Ál,ulo¿ pf oos Sulrnp pazrleuJarur
sl a8pay*ou>l sE uorlerpau Sulrnp sassaco¡d a,rrt¡u3o¡ ;raqt ezrue8JoeJ pue
Jo Iorruof, ule8 a¡doad lEr{l sploq l-roagr prnllnf,orf,os ‘uourrJelul IEIros aqt
g8norqr 8ul¡.rnc¡o Sulurea¡ qlw\’sa^lesueqt suorlesJaluof, erp or peqr¿ue sr
&urutua1 aSanBuE yuotas SututrydxE 6II
t20 Exp laining secorud knguage learning
acquisition is that sociocultural theorists assume that the cognitive pro-
cesses begin as an external socially mediated acdvity and eventually become
internalized. Other interactionist models assume that modified input and
interaction provide learners with the raw material that is interpreted and
analysed through internal cognitive processes.
Summary
In the end, what all theories of language acquisition are intended to account
for is the ability of human learners to acquire language within a variety of
social and instructional environments. All of the theories discussed in this
chapter and in Chapter 1 use metaphors to represent something that cannot
be observed directly.
Linguists working from an innatist perspective draw much of their evidence
from studies of the complexities of proficient speakers’ knowledge of lan-
guage and from analysis of their own intuitions about language. Cognitive
and developmental psychologists argue that it is not enough to know what
the final state of knowledge is and that more attention should be paid to cor-
pus-based studies of the input, as well as to the developmental steps leading
up to the achievement of high levels of proficiency.
Recent cognitive perspectives have often involved computer simulations or
controlled laboratory experiments where people learn specific sets of care-
fullychosen linguistic features, often in an invented language. Manylinguists
argue that this does not entitle psychologists to generalize to the complexities
of the linguistic knowledge that learners eventually have.
Interactionists emphasize the role of negotiation for meaning in conversa-
tional interactions. This perspective and the sociocultural perspective provide
insights into the ways in which learners can gain access to new knowledge
about the language when they have support from an interlocutor. Some
linguists challenge the interactionist position, arguing that much of what
learners need to know is not available in the input, and so they put greater
emphasis on innate principles of language that learners can draw on.
Both linguists and psychologists draw some of their evidence from neuro-
logical research. At present, most of the research on language representation
in the brain and specific neurological activity during language processing is
inconclusive. However, advances in technology are rapidly increasing oppor-
tunities to observe brain activiry more directly. Such research will eventually
contribute to reinterpretations of research that previously could examine
only the observable behaviour of learners speaking or performing other lan-
guage tasks.
Educators who are hoping that language acquisition theories will give them
insight into language teaching practice are often frustrated by the lack of
¿lueilodu¡r (os¡e) sr rndur pag¡¡du¡s reqr >¡u¡qr nol
oC ¿uor]leJaru! pagrpotu uro4 rgaueq or l¡a>¡r¡ lsour aJE sJeuJeel a8en8ue¡
puof,as qf,rq/v\ ur slxatuo) aql aJe req¡¡¿3uru.rea¡ r.roddns tou leu teql
seJntee, euios eJaqt aJV¿sJeuJ€e¡ or ¡n¡d¡aq l¡¡erradsa eJ€ )u!t{t no,( reqr
uoDf,eJalur paurporu lo saJnleaj aqt Jo euos aJ€ req¡¡¿qree ¡o sa¡duexa
auos lo >¡u¡qr nol ue3’tndur (pagr¡drurs .ro) pagrporu uor¡ paqsrn3urlsrp
sr srql’sJauJea¡ a8en8ue¡ puof,es Jo, afJnosal lelluassa ue s€ uaes sr
uorlf,eJetur paurpoLu’srsaqrodlq uorlreJalur aqt lo alrlf,ads.rad eql LuoJl €
¿sluepnts “rnol ¡o asoLlt rrroJ,
ro ‘secue¡radxa Suru.rea¡ aBen8ue¡ ur”ro.lnol wot¡8,ut>rlou ¡o se¡duexa lue
arreq nol oC ‘s)Jo^ e8enSue¡ le3;el aqr /y\oq rnoqe 3u¡qrauos puplsJepun
,(¡uappns laqr uaqan sluau.¡or..u .eqe, e^€q op l¡ureilar sJeuJeal e8en8ue¡
puolas ‘Jenel oH ‘uJ€el ol uorluatur u€ uala Jo sseuaJe^ e lue lnoqlr¡”r
‘,{¡¡otuapout uJeal o} a¡qrssod osle s! l! teqt panS”re ueeq seq rl ‘sl reql
‘l€rsJeloJluof, l€ql euos sr-peuJeol Suteq st l€q/v\,o ssaueJe^ e sa^lolu!
sllnpe ur Sururee¡ a8en8ue¡ puof,as lle leqt-slsaqrodlq Surcrlou srlprurqls Z
¿^ ar^ srql ot nol rq8no-rq
reuJeal Jo Jaqf,sot e se saf,ualJadxe “rnol aAEq
^
ot{ ‘os }l ¿pauJeol aJ€
sa8en8ue¡ l orl ,o Surpuetsrepun u/v\o rnol qlrr”r luelsrsuof, aJou uaql jo
auo s¡ ‘laldeql slrlt ur pesodo.rd uaaq a^Eq Sururea¡ Zl Jo, serJoeqt l€JaAeS I
uolpoEeJ ro, suollseno
uo,,,srnboea’rn’uelJl”JiyffilTlfi ‘JJ”;1,::J”;]?H”;T,X’i:ü;
suonf,egeJ (sJeqf,eel Sulpln8 ul p3d¡ag aJoru sI teqt uolteuJ.rojur epnord
leru gcreasal slr{I ‘par¡dul l¡arau seuruaruos ‘perels lplrr¡dxa seurrlauros
(suonetuarJo
lrlrleJoer{r Jo a8ue¡ epllr\ E uo s,e\EJp I{3J€asJJ par¡dde 1o lpoq
3ur,no;8 y ‘8uru.rea¡ a8en8uel puof,esJo lroaqr a,l,lsuaqardruor EJo aruesge
aql ur arueurojrad (stuapnls sses$ pue suossal ue¡d pue r{Jtel or enulruol
¡¡rs rsnru laqt ‘tsaJatur grrz* ruaudo¡alap,{-roaqr I{J}E1’\ sJaqf,eer eruos elI[DA,
‘acn¡e¡d Sulgoear a8en8ue¡
roj parardrarur aq ppor{s lroaqr aql,t\oq lnoge suonsanb aq ilns ppo,/nr erel{r
‘per{JEaJ aJe{\ tueruea;8e gcns JI ue g go lerrr 3uo1 e ‘lsJg lB ,{¡qeqord sl
uorlrsrnbr¿ a8en8ue¡3o lroaqr ,ala¡druoc, ¿ uo lueulaar8e rnq ‘8ulurea1 pue
Surqrear aSen8ue¡ roJ arurr5lu8ls ru¡at-8uo¡ tueuodrul seq po8 sll sp tuJur
-do¡a,rap lroaqr sBq t¿qr qf,Jeese¿ ‘autr 8uo¡ E roJ uo lJol’t ol enunuor III^\
slsnuarls teqr sapznd tuasa¡da¡ ‘uolllsrnb¡e a8en8ur¡ lsJgJo esol{t DIIT ‘uoll
-lslnbr¿ a8en8ur¡ puof,asJo sanua¡duror ag1 ‘,slradxa, agt Suorur ruau¡aa¡8¿
&utu”raa1 a&an&ua¡ yuota s &ururu1 dxE t7,l
122 Expkining second language learning
Suggestions for further reading
Dórnyei, 2.2009. The Psycholog\ of second Language Acquisition. oxford:
Oxford Universiry Press.
This overview of the theories that have been proposed to explain second
language acquisition is both comprehensive and.”ry ro read. óórnyei pro-
vides detailed treatment of the theories that are discussed in this .t
“p,.r,focusing particularly on those arising from the research in cognitive
psychology. In addition, the book intioduces the work in neurobiology
that provides a new level of explanation for language acquisition
“rd
ur!.
swain, M., P. Kinnear, and L. steinman. 2070. sociocurtural Theory and
sen.nd Language Education: An Introduction through Narratiues. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
In this book the authors cover rhe key concepts ofsociocultural theory
(for example, mediation, zone_ of proximal development, privare ,p…h,
collaborative dialogue) through the use of narratives. The narratives come
from the voices oflanguage learners and teachers from different educa-
tional contexts. The book is of particular interest to readers motivated to
understand how sociocultural theory relates to the teaching and learning
ofsecond languages.
vanPatten, B. andJ. tülilliams (eds.). 2007 . Theories in second Language
Acquisition: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
vanPatten and \Tilliams set our a list ofobservations that have arisen from
research studies in second language acquisition. Then, well-known authors
discuss how the theoretical framework in which theyhave done their own
research would explain these obseryations. For example, there are chapters
on ljniversal Grammar, sociocultural theor¡ skill acquisition theory, pro-
cessab.ility, and input processing. The chapte* ate biief (about 20 pages,
including discussion questions and readings) and wrimen in a style lrri, i,
accessible to those with limited background in research and theory. The
final chapte¡ by Lourdes ortega, ptorrid., a concise overview of the differ-
ent theories and identifies some ongoing challenges for explaining second
language acquisition.
a^Eq l¿.u sass’If,^pes”g-arnrJnrrs ur sluJpnls e.’os .egen8ue¡ ra8rer aqr
Jo
salnJ Ff,rt”rurue¡8 p_ue lre¡nqeoor\ aqr uJEel sluJpnls rBr{l rl ot eas ol ,,
¡”óe
s,rer{reat aq1 ‘aSen8ue¡ aqr lq parrJef, sa8esseru aql uo uErF rerper
Jlastr
a8tn8ue¡ aqr uo sr snf,oJ aql ‘sJaufta¡ a8en8ur¡ u8raro3 ro p.rorrr’jo dlord
e or rqSner sr aSen8ue¡ eql ‘sruauuoJr^ua
lEuonJnJrsul pasBg-aJnrf,nJrs uI
se s¡aa d ql r^, u o rlf, Eral u r ur,’,”,; :ilL’JlH:iffil
” *i*T*: ; Jl:il E qfns uJ ‘a3rn3ue1 ar{rJo sJeuJEel pJE./r\o] ,r”qr
rr,F”, sraleads a nEu pJE \o1
ParraJrp sr uonf,nJlsur aqr eJar{./$. pue aSenSue¡ raSrer ar{t
Jo sraleads e^n¿u
aJ¿ uaJplrr{f, Jer{ro eqrJo lsolu eJeg^,!\ uorlEntrs
Ioor{JS e ul ,p¡qc E sr JauJEel
aqr gr ‘.ro uorlf¿Jelur lEr)os ur Jo >lJo,e\ re a8en8ur¡ eqr or pasodxa sr JeuJEel
3r{r q)rq^{ ur esoql sE poolsrepun eq pFoqs slxaluof, uollsrnb¡e
[EJnrEN
s8u¡rtas puorpnrlsul pue IBrnreN
¿apY’ord uer
a¡nsodxa leJnleu lou pu¿ uonf,nJlsur f¡uo rer¡r suorlngrJluof,
lBnuesse eJar{]
1″ tO ¿al!\ PFoqS ¿uooJsself aqr uI luauluoJrAua aurcs aqt elBaJJ e./r\ u¿J
¿8u¡urea¡ a8rn€ue1 (l¿Jnleu, slqr rnoqe ¡e,ads sr r,qAr .*ooirr”¡, eql eplsrno
o8en8ue¡ agr Sulsn acuar¡adxa prq e^¿q sJaureal InJssa¡ns lsoru r’r{} r,eJ
eql uo péseq eq leru jar¡aq sql .a^nf,agJ aJour sr (leerts aqt uo, Bururea¡ rrqr
azrarlaq lue¡A¡ ‘ruooJSsBIJ arp ur Sulu;eal woü rueJaJrp sl Sunlas
lEuonf,nJlsur
-uou B ur a8en8uel puo3es r Sururea¡ ‘7 ntdeya ul ól,rrlce Jr{l ur
^\ES
a \ ry
‘uorlsnJlsur lnoqll1ü
a8en8uel
^\au
B urea¡ aldoad arar{.{\ s8uuas Jeqro pue Bururea¡ a8effiuef ro3
s8unras ruooJsself uee \leq saJueJeJrp eqr uo DeHaJ or luau¡our e a{Er sn rel
‘snp op a./\^, eJoJag ‘stuooJssBl3 J8en8uel puof,as ur uo sao8 rer¡rrt paquf,sep puB
Pa^Jasgo e^sr{ sJer{f,JEasal qfrr.l./ú. ul slex\ luoJeJlp aro¡dxa az* rerdegc snp uI
/r4.el eJd
WOOUSSVff,
ECVNDNVf CINOf,iIS
IIHI NI DNIHf,VEI ONV
DNINUVEf DNIAUESSO
r24 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second kngudge classroom
opportunities to continue learning the target language outside the class-
room; for others, the classroom is the only contact with that language. In
some cases’ the learners’ goal may be to pass an examination rather than to
use the language for daily communicative interaction beyond the classroom.
Communicative, content-based, and task-based instructional environments
also involve learners whose goal is learning the language itself, but the sryle of
instruction places the emphasis on interaction, conversation, and language
use, rather than on learningaboutthelanguage. The topics that are discussed
in communicative and task-based instructional environments are often of
general interest to the learner, for example, how to obtain a driver’s license.
In content-based language teaching (cBLr), the focus of a lesson is usually
on the subject matter, such as history or mathematics, which students are
learning through the medium of the second language. In these classes, rhe
focus may occasionally be on the language itself, but the emphasis is on using
the language rather than talking about it. The language that teachers use foi
teaching is not selected solely for the purpose of teaching a specific feature
of the language, but also to make sure learners have the language they need
to interact in a variety ofcontexts. Students’ success in these courses is often
measured in terms of their abiliry to ‘get things done’ in the second language,
rather than on their accuracy in using certain grammatical features.
fn natural acquisition settings
‘W.hen
people learn languages at work, in social inreracrions, or on the play-
ground, their experiences are often quite different from those of learners
in classrooms. CompleteThble 5.1 on the nexr page. As you look at the
pattern of + and – signs you have placed in the charr, you will probably find
it matches the descriptions below.
. Language is not presented step by step. The learner is exposed to a wide
variety of vocabulary and structures.
. Learners’ errors are rarely corrected. If their interlocutors can under-
stand what they are saying, they do nor remark on the correctness of the
learners’ speech. They would probably feel it was rude to do so.
. The learner is surrounded by the language for many hours each day.
Sometimes the language is addressed to the learner; sometimes it is
simply overheard.
. The learner usually encounters a number of different people who use
the target language proficiently.
. Learners observe or participate in many different rypes of language
events: brief greetings, commercial transactions, exchanges of informa-
tion, arguments, instruction at school and in workplace interactions.
lndur peurpoLu
ol ssef,f,v
)eads
ol aJnsseJd
sad& as.rno¡srp
pue aSenSue¡
¡o lra¡.re¡
sJeuJeel 01
s;e¡eads e,rrleu
lo one.¡ r.l3rH
Surutea¡
rol aull a¡druy
SJOJJA
uo )f,eqPaa,
tuanbar¡
eurlt E re 8u¡qr
auo Surureal
luaPnls
-luoPnls
luapnls
-Jeq)eel
uollfnrlsu!
a^!l€)!unl”ul.rloc
uo!lrnJlsu!
Pes€q
-eJnlfnJls
uo¡1¡s¡nbee
leJN}?Ns)!lsuelf€JPtl3
Swutoa¡ aSon&uo¡ toJ s?xaluo, l.g amq[
ssa.r¿ llrsta,tu¡ pJorxg O e¡geldotoroq¿
¿ uorlf, eJatu r luap nls-Jaqf, Eal ut suaddeq lEq/v\ LuoJt luaJa#l p
reql sl ¿Jeqto qf,ea ot )lel sJauJ€al ueqr* sueddeq leq6’uortl€Jotur luepnts
-luePnls PUE luaPnls-JeqlPel olu! PePtNpqns uaaq sPq ut!nlol (uotlJnJlsut
a^rlef,runuuo3, aqr leql eloN ‘aJns lou aJ€ nol ¡r ,¿, alr.r¡¡?xeluof, teqt ur
pug tou op l¡¡ensn nol Surqtauos s! l! ¡r (-) snurur e lreN ‘txaluof, reqt ro
¡errdft st f,nstralf,eJeq) eql l elqer aql u¡ (4) snld € IJEN ‘tuesqe ;o luasa.ld a;e
Tal aqr uo sf,DsrJalf,eJeqr eql Jaqleq^ aPDep’ualuof, r,.l)ea Jol’uunlof, qlee
lq patuasa.rdoJ slxeluof, Jno¡ aql to sf,tlstJalf,eJeql aLlr rnoq€ >¡u¡q1.3uru.rea¡
a8en8ue¡ puo)as Jo, slxetuof, leuotl)nJ¡sut pue leJnleu a.ledulo¡ e^ .auo
slr.ll ul ‘sJeuJ€a¡ a8en8ue¡ puoles pue rsJUro sa¡go.rd eqt pe.redr,uof, e^ ,upqf,
teqr ul’¿.retdeq3 ur l’Z alqef ur auo eLF ol relr.urs sl l’S elqelul lJ€q) eql
slxoluo)tulu.lea¡eJedtuo) AItAtIf,v
g7l utootssplr aSun&uq yuocas ar¡t ut Sutr.ltaat yua Surutaal Sumtasqg
126 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second knguage classroom
Older children and adults may also encounrer the written language in
the use ofvideo and web-based materials.
Learners must often use their limited second language ability to respond
to questions or to ger information. In these situations, the emphasis is
on getting meaning across clearl¡ and more proficient speakers tend to
be tolerant of errors that do not interfere with meaning.
Modified input is available in many one-ro-one conversarions. In situ-
ations where many native speakers are involved in the conyersation,
however, learners may have difficulty gerring access ro language they
can understand.
In structure- b ased insnuctional s ettings
The events and activities rhar are rypical of strucrure-based instruction differ
from those encountered in natural acquisition settings. In grammar transla-
tion approaches, there is considerable use of reading and writing, as learners
üanslate texts from one language to another, and grammar rules are taught
explicitly. In audiolingual approaches there is little use of translation, and
learners are expected to learn mainly through repetition and habit formarion,
although they may be asked to figure out the grammar rules for the sentences
they have memorized.
. Linguistic items are presented and practised in isolation, one item at
a time, in a sequence from what teachers or textbook writers believe is
‘simple’ to thar which is ‘complex .
. Errors are frequently corrected. Accuracy tends to be given priority over
meaningful interaction.
. Learning is often limited to a few hours a week.
. In situations of foreign language learning the teacher is often the only
native or proficient speaker the student comes in contact with.
. Students experience a limited range of language discourse rypes. The
most typical of these is the Initiation/Response/Evaluation (IRE)
exchange where the teacher asks a question, a student answers, and the
teacher evaluates the response. The written language students encoun-
ter is selected primarily to provide practice with specific grammatical
features rather than for its content.
. Students often feel pressure to speak or write the second language and
to do so correctly from the very beginning.
. Teachers may use the learners’ native language to give instructions or
for classroom management. \flhen they use the target language, they
tend to modify their language in order ro ensure comprehension and
compliance.
JoJ slsanbeJ te^a1y\or{ ‘8ulu¿aru uo sr snf,oJ aql esnEJag ‘arll¡e¡d a,r¡t
-EJrunuruoc ul pa8z8ua ere lar¡f uaq./v\ sJoJJe s(Jal{fo I{rEe lf,eJJoJ
l¡rra,ro ol lou pual sruepnrs ‘tuJoJ JJAo pezrsEqdrua sl Sutuearu pue
:Ieqf,¿el aqrSo ued eql uo uonf,errof, roJreJo tunorue parrurrl
”
tt.lltj* .
snoauoJJe seruuaruos pue pagl¡drurs qlr^/r\ Jar{lo r{f”a apyrord ,r.rrp.rg
‘Eulpe.r6 lp.rnlrnrls g8norgr uer{l rJrlter ‘se¡nlsa8 pue ‘sdord ‘sanc
IenrxeruorJo esn aqt lq a¡qrsuaqa¡druoc aperu puu paglldruls sl rndul .
‘uortrsrnbr¿
IEJnI¿u
or Jellruls sr lBqr len r ul a8en8ue¡ aqr elnbcr ill^\ sJJuJEel ‘Surueatu uo 8ul
-snfoJ ur ‘ttr{t sr uorrdrunsse aql ‘Sururaur rllJEIr ol rapro ur fluo uo pesnf,oJ
JJe suJoj I¿3nE{rJruEJg ‘>Porur -.rred -lo -dno:8 ur se^lasuaqr sluaPnrs eqr
Suorue pue sluapnrs pue Jer{feat uea^\req rpoq ‘SulueauJo uollef,Iunururof
aqr uo sl slsegdrua Jr{r (uonJnJrsul pJseq-rueluof, pue alltef,Iunruruol uI
sSalaas 1?aouJnu.sat a ntTsJtunrautoJ uJ
‘slxeluof uolllsrnbcr
IEJnlEu 3o ¡ecrdÁ aJour esoql qll^\ uon3nJlsur pas”g-eJntlnJls Jo sJItsIJal
-f,¿rer{f, er{r Jo aruos are¡dar or rg8nos a EI{ sarurue;Sord Sulgcear a8rn8uu¡
e^rltorunruruo: 3o srau8rsaq’sanbtuqlar pue spoqraru Sutgcear a8en8ue¡
Jreql ur sraqf,Eal aprn8 reqr sa¡drcurrd eqrJo sural ul raJP oslt stuoorsselJ
‘selqerJt^ raqro lueru put ‘Sutureel JoJ alqEII” B arun Jo lunoure 3I{1 ‘sluaP
-nts eqr Jo uolrtllrotu pu” a8e aqr ‘luaruuoJltua ¡errslqd aql Jo stuJal uI
ragrp Surur€al roJ suolllpuoo aql ‘a>llle ]lB lou aJE surooJsse¡r a8en8uel
-F=-
a>t4rJry, q ?Otr 7S¡tw ,t¡efea|
eq+ aúv sntd¿n fi1i.rou
lr¡l{rtr ‘gtrn Cro.1¡xea ,q!
ffi2rñmrrrahl
¿ iJrr v t(7A(4
f,=
LT,l ruoo$solr a7an&ual yuoras aqt ut Surqtaal pua Surutaal Suxnasqo
l28 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second langaage classroom
clarification may ser”’e as implicit feedback. Negotiating for meaning
may help students see the need to say something in a differenr way.
o Learners usually have only limited time for learning. In a typical teacher-
fronted classroom with 25-30 students, individual students get very
little opportuniry to produce language in a 60-minute class, and when
they do, it is usually in the form of a short response to a teacher’s ques-
tion. \lhen students work in pairs or groups, they have opportunities
to produce and respond to a greater amount and variery of language.
Sometimes, however, subject-matter courses taught through the second
language can add time for language learning. A good example of this
is in immersion programmes where most or all the subject marter is
taught to a group of students who are all second language learners.
. As in structure-based instruction, it is usually only the teacher who is
a proficient speaker. Learners have considerable exposure to the inter-
language of other learners, particularly in student-student interaction.
This naturally contains errors that would not be heard in an environ-
ment where the interlocutors are native speakers, but it provides many
more opportunities for students to use the target language than is the
case in most teacher-fronted activities.
. A variery of discourse rypes may be introduced through stories, peer-
and group-work, the use of ‘authentic’ materials such as newspapers and
television broadcasts. Text materials may include both those modified
for second language learners and those intended for native speakers. In
the latter case, teachers use instructional strategies to help learners get
the meaning, even if they do not know all the words and structures. In
student-student interaction, learners may practise a range of sociolin-
guistic and functional features of language through role-play.
. There is little pressure to perform at high levels of accuracy, and there is
often a greater emphasis on comprehension than on production, espe-
cially in the early stages of learning.
. Modified input is a defining feature of this approach to instruction. The
teacher makes every effort to speak to students in a level of language
they can understand. If students speak the same first language, they may
have little difficulry in understanding each other. If they come from dif-
ferent language backgrounds, they may modify their language as they
seek to communicate successfully.
General descriptions of classroom instruction such as those above cannot
capture the individual characteristics of particular classrooms. For this
reason, researchers have developed a number of ways to study classroom
learning and teaching.’W’e will discuss two approaches to classroom research
in this chapter.’Sl’e will look first at observation schemes, in which research-
ers anticipate the occurrence of particular events and behaviours and make
note of them within pre-planned frameworks or checklists. Then we will
q3eoJdd¿ Jrar{r ur JeJIp rEI{r suooJsself, uJo{ arrlof, sldufsuBJl aql’uollfBJelul
tuapnts-Jar{f,Ear ruasaJd o,l\t rsJU aI{I ‘uonf,as Suvtro¡o3 al{l Pue sgt ut uaru8
eff uortfrJatur ruooJSSEIf, a8en8uq puof,esJo std¡rcsuert JnoJ Luo{ srdraoxE
suotlJp¿a|u? |u”pn| s-.¿a q J?aJ : suost¿? dutoz uto o¿swl J
‘sluaPnls PUE
sluaPnls uee \leq Pu” sruePnls Pu? sJer{f,Eal u3e \leg uollfsJelul Jo eJnl”u
aqt azrJaloereqf, or eruaqos ITOf, el{r uI pasn esoqt or rcl¡uls sal¡o8ale¡
paurruJerep-a.rd 3o lJs E esn ot pe1se a¡¿ nol glll{¡a ul &l¡tlcr u” sI
^\olag
‘seuo pef,uarredxaSo luarudo
-la^ap ¡euorssajord eql uI pu” sJel{f,”el ,&euJo Suru¡e.rt oqr ur Pasn ueag osp
e^Er{ seuaqf,s uor}E^Jesqo ‘Sulurea¡ aSen8ue¡ puofes uI safuaJeJlP or PalEIeJ
a¡e sarll:¿¡d Sulqcear uI sarueJaJlp ,l\oq re >lool ot PePuarul sI IEI{I rlf,JeesaJ
ruoorss¿lr ul l¡.rtrurrd pesn uaag e eq tI aIII sraqro PUE stual{f,s JTOI aql
‘sJoJf,e (sJauJeal ot puodsar sra
-qf,”ar ,/v\or{ Pue Jar{req^\ PuE ‘1s3 sJel{f,Ea] suonsanbSo sPuDI aqr ‘lertr lue ul
pet3rJlsal sr uoltJnpoJd a8en8ue¡ JIaI{r JeI{teI{ \ ‘acnpo;d sluePnls a8en8ue¡
(a¡ur¡ rvroq ro) qenu r’toq ‘aldurexa ro3 ‘sluapnls PuE sraqf,Ear fq pacnp
-o¡d a8rn8uel elpJo spadse:grcads sequf,seP g ued’uolssnrsrP;o; scrdor
eql asoor{f, ol sruepn}s JoJ selllunlJoddo e¡¿ eJaql Jerpeq.,’r Pu” ‘8utu¿atu
Jo tuJoJ a8en8ue¡ uo sr snloJ aqt Jer{raqa’panuac-rauJrel Jo -JeI{J¿al eJ¿
sanrAItJE ¡errSo8epad elp Jaqral{^\ ‘a¡dtuexe JoJ ‘PJoraJ utf Ja^Jasgo eqt
‘y tre¿ Sulsn uar¡6 ‘sadÁ lrlrrrrf,E Jo uollezlu¿8¡o pue ‘snco3 ‘lualuoc 3o
surral ur sarrl¡r¡d Surgrear saglJrs:P Vu¿d ‘surd oruu olur PaPhIP sl I-IO:)
‘G661r{r1r{grC EIrEW pue epedS eur¡ lq PaqlrsseP aruel{f,S uonelresqo
OfOC) Surgceal a8rnSuel Jo uoltetuelro elll?slunruruoJ aql sI suloor
-ssr¡o aBenBuEI puo3as .roj l¡pcglcads pado¡a,rap Jruer{f,s e jo a¡druexa euo
‘sSurprocar qlnsJo sld¡lcsuen ro s8utptorar
oapr^ Jo orpne aslpua ot urooJssell agl ePISlno JatEI Pasn Jo ‘luooJssell eql
ul are laqr allq^ ,erult IeaJ, uI sJa^Jasqo lq pasn arr farp JeIFaq \ 01 uoll
-elar ur reJlp osp seluer{f,s ar[L .uorlfErelur uroorsse¡c
io saldruEs pel3elas
uo Jo uossel e rnog8noJql Pasn are laqr J3qrel{ \ put ‘suotldufseP eAIlEl
-gruenb Jo e^IlElII¿nb uo snroj faqr raqreqz\t ‘uleluoc fagr sarro8alm Jo
raqunu agr Surpn¡cu¡ ‘sl:adsat pre^as ul raJIP lagl ‘sruoo;sse1c a8en8uel
puof,as ur asn JoJ padola,l,ap ueaq e^Er{ soruer{Js uolle^resqo ruareglP fuelt¡
seueqJs uorls Jasgo
‘suonrtcadxa ¡o
sarro8ateo paunuratepa;d lu¿ ot uoltelJasgo aqt IIUII ol lou Sutl¡l rng ‘sdrgs
-uonEIoJ put suraued ro3 Sunlool ‘ruooJssels eI{} ur suaddeq req^\ aqlJf,seP
or ra^resqo aqt salnbar trgr rprordde ue ‘fgderSouqra ruoorssrls 13 >lool
u,tol$sap a7an&uq puotas aql m &utcltaal puu Sututual &um’tasqg 6T,t
r30 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second knguage ckssroom
to second language teaching; one ofthem represents structure-based instruc-
tion; the other, a communicative approach. Structure-based approaches
emphasize language form through either metalinguistic instruction (for
example, grammar translation) or patern practice (for example, audiolingual).
‘S7’ith
each transcript, there is a chart where you can indicate whether certain
things are happening in the inreraction, from the point ofview of the teacher
and that of the students. Before you begin reading the transcripts, study the
following interpretations of the categories used in the charts:
I Errors: Are there errors in the language ofeither the teacher or the students?
2 Feedback on errors: \7hen students make errors, do they receive feedback?
From whom?
3 Genuine questions: Do teachers and students ask questions to which they
dont know the answer in advance?
4 Display questions: Do teachers ask questions that they know the answers
to so that learners can display their knowledge of the language (or lack
of it)?
5 Negotiation for meaning: Do the teachers and students work to under-
stand what the other speakers are saying? ‘S7’hat efforts are made by the
teacher? By the students?
6 Metalinguistic comments: Do the teachers and students talk about lan-
guage, in addition to using it to transmit information?
In the following excerpts, T represents the teacher; S represents a student.
(The first two examples come from unpublished data collected by P M.
Lightbown, N. Spada, and B. Barkman.)
Classroom A: A structure-based approach
(Students in this class are 15-year-old French speakers.)
Teacher Student
Errors
Feedback on errors
Genuine questions
Display questions
Negotiation for meaning
Metalinguistic comments
Photocopiable @ Oxford University Press
r OK, we finished the book-we finished in the book UnitI,2,3.
Finished.’S7’orkbook l, 2, 3. So today we’re going to start with
‘rooP eql asolc
¿8urop eq sI rEI{/v’
‘apnEIJ ¿PrEuraB ‘asrald rooP aqr aso¡o nof Ppo^'(preoq ar¡r uo
,rtt”rt 7*’qt¡,r. Buúe1d ru,I, sellJ^\) ¡osz¡a ¡nol qrv’r 3uúe1d er¡oÁ
‘ser\.
‘Pallrxe eJ
‘seÁ
3-,t-l
3-u-a
¿leql s,l”tl[\ ¿snonulluof lueseJd
snonulruor tuesa;d’g¡
¿Yg
‘rrq aFlnv
‘1rq alulT
¿rI sI lstlN ¿srÁ
seÁ
¿sI rl rEr{1ü lv\ou>l ]üoP noÁ
¿)O-snonu[uor tuasa.rd ‘a,ussa¡8o¡d luasa¡d ‘luasa¡d eql uI >lJo.t\
or Suro8 et,el”\’r,\un’, rru¡ ‘(,rse¿ E-Z-I,PJeog uo sartrrvr) ptq
‘PIC
¿rsed agr ul,fie¡¡txne rrl¡1-rsed aql uI
lse¿
¿>IO ¿uo >lrod\ a1V\ PIP esual 18tLA ¿asual lEq^\ uI Pa>lro/( e’&\
€’Z’I uI ‘$looq rnof a>1el lrrop ‘taf qooq rnof a>1el luoc ‘7 llun
ruoo¿ssryr aSon&ual puoeas aql ut Sutt¡taal pur &urutaa1 Sumtasqg
I
s
J
s
I
s
J
S
J
s
I
S
I
s
I
s
I
S
I
s
I
s
I
s
I
s
I
s
J
s
I
s
J
S
r8,r
132 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second knguage classroom
r He is closing the door (writes ‘He’s closing the door’ on the board).
\lhat are you doing, Mario?
Classroom B: A communicative approach
(Students in this class are 10-year-old French speakers. In this activiry they
are telling their teacher and their classmates what ‘bugs’ them. They have
written what bugs them’ on a card or paper that they hold while speaking.)
Photocopiable @ Oxford University Press
s It bugs me when a bee string me.
T Oh, when a bee stings me.
s Stings me.
T Do you get stung often? Does that happen often? The bee stinging
many times?
s Yeah.
T Often? (Teacher turns to students who aren’t paying attention) OK.
Sandra and Benoit, you may begin working on a research project,
hey? (Teacher turns her attention back to’\(/hat bugs me’)
s It bugs me (inaudible) and my sister put on my clothes.
r Ah! She borrows your clothes? \lhen you’re older, you may
appreciate it because you can switch clothes, maybe. (Tirrns to check
another studentt written work) Mélanie, this is yours, I will check-
OK. It’s good.
s It bugs me when I’m sick and my brother doesnt help me-my-my
brother,’s¿115s fig-rne-.
T OK. You know-when (inaudible) sick, you’re sick at home in bed
and you say, oh, to your brother or your sister: ‘\7ould you please get
me a drinkof¡y¿¡s¡:’-‘Ah! Drop dead!’you know, ‘Go play in the
traffic!’You know, it’s not very nice. Martin!
s It bug me to have-
T It bugs me. It bugzzme.
s It bugs me when my brother takes my bicycle. Every day.
Teacher Student
Errors
Feedback on errors
Genuine questions
Display quest¡ons
Negotiation for meaning
Metalinguistic comments
‘sluaPnls 3rl1 ruoü suonsanb oN ‘lueura8?u¿ur ruooJ
-sselr 01 pereler slez*¡e lsorulp rre laql tnq
^
aJ B
Z
‘uossal aqr fq
pauull l¡pnsn sr les lagr rer{^\ pue JIll¡ ,{ra,r les loqt JSnEraq s¡o¡¡a lu¿ru
ool eTeru l uop sluapnts ‘(,¿sl U tBrfl\1r\orDl t
‘a¡durrxa ro3 ‘SulgoearSo adÁ srr{rJo ¡erldÁ srnsrJatlerer{c rer¡noad aruos
JAEr{ seop gcaeds rer{ Ja er’roH ‘reqf,Eal eqr;o rred aqr uo m,a3 l.ra¡ :srorJg I
vutoo,tssq)
¿ruaraJIP
larp are no¡1 ¿,,flldulexa sldl¡osurJt eseql ler{l stueuuoJrlue arpJo rlf,Be ur
sJauJrel ot JIqEITE^¿ aJ¿ uonf,eJalur JoJ sauunl.loddo pue rndul a8enSue¡
Puo)esJo SPUDI r?Yll\’J”J os paro¡druoo az’rg nol slrellf, oll\t Jtll aredruo3
uonrsJelul puu rndul Jo sf,psuelJBrBrl]
¿)O ‘roJ sern8g eq ueql
sar{rlerrs rrou a^Er{ leru ag puv ¿allq srq eler ¡lm nol a>¡q rnol
se{Er aq ueq.& reqr rar{rorg rnol ¡ar nol ruop lqzrr .¡a¿¡’uaelrnog J
‘uaelJno{ s
¿aq sE^\ PIo /Y\oq Puv J
¡rfiaÁ s
¿lepqrrrq sr¡1 r
.€zq)rBw s
¿rerporq ¡nol sl plo
^/\oH ¡e¡clclq sr¡1 J
‘a1có¡q (a¡qpneur) s
¿auo plo rnol saler rar{rorq rnof puy r
(alqrpneuil s
‘euo plo uE a eq nol puy r
‘raqrorq lyr¡ s
¿rerporq ¡nol ¡o no¡ ¿a¡cfrrq
^\eu
E sBq oq.&\ ,urrJEtrAJ r
-sBr{
Jer{rorg s,uluBl ü s
¿ueaf ¡arnulur e rsnl’eoq^rrl’lag r
¡so¡. s
‘oo1 euo./v\au 3 spaau JeqloJq srq lng ‘a¡ilr¡q
^\au
3 ser{ aH J
(alqrpnruil s
‘raqtorq ;nol roj a¡clc¡q
^,\.au
E aleno8au aqleT,q ‘tr lnoge pEp pue ruoru ¡nol ot >lle¿’lla \ ,yV r
‘a1cb¡q (a¡qpneur) alclc¡q.&\au V iq¿eÁ s
¿a¡cfr¡q B eAEq luseop rarporq rnol ‘q¡ ¿a¡rfrrq srq puel rerporq
srq plno3 ¿a¡clclq srq (alqrpneul)-orq rnol tusaog ¡gy ¿lep lrarg r
ruoo$splr a8an&uq puocas aql ut &uultual pua Sututaal Suuuasqg €,tr
r34 Obseruing learning arud teaching in the second langudge classroom
4 Display questions: Yes, almost all of the teacher’s questions are of this rype.
Interestingl¡ however, the students sometimes interpret display ques-
tions as genuine questions (T: \X/hat are you doing, Paul? S: Nothing.).
The teacher wants students to produce a sentence-any sentence-in
the ‘present continuous’ but the student worries that het about to get in
trouble and asserts that he is doing’nothing’. This is a good example of
how the teacher’s pragmatic intent can be misinterpreted by the student,
and of how strongly, even in this setting, students seek to find genuine
meaning in language.
5 Negotiation for meaning: Very little, learners have no need to paraphrase
or requesr clarifications, and no opportuniry to determine the direction
of the discourse; the teacher is focused only on the formal aspects of the
learners’ language. All the effort goes into getting students to produce a
sentence with the present continuous form of the verb.
6 Metalinguistic comments: Yes, this is how the teacher begins the lesson
and lets the students know what really matters!
Classroorn B
I Errors: Yes, students make errors. And even the teacher says some odd
things sometimes. Her speech also contains incomplete sentences, simpli-
fied ways of speaking, and an informal speech style.
2 Feedback on errors: Yes, sometimes the teacher repeats what the student
has said with the correct form (for example, ‘hebugzz me’-emphasizing
the third person singular ending). However, this correction is not consist-
ent or intrusive as the focus is primarily on letting students express their
meanings.
3 Genuine questions: Yes, almost all of the teacher’s questions are focused on
getting information from the students. The students are not asking,ques-
iiottr itr this exchange. However, they do sometimes intervene to change
the direction of the conversation.
4 Display quesrions: No, because there is a focus on meaning rather than on
acc;Jracy in grammatical form.
5 Negotiation for meaning: Yes, from the teacher’s side, especially in the
long exchange about who has a bicycle!
6 Meialinguistic comments: No. Even though the teacher clearly hopes to
g.t stud.nts to use the third person ending, she does not say so in these
words.
You no doubt noticed how strikingly different these t\vo transcripts are,
even though the activities in both are teacher-centred. In the transcript from
ClassroomA, the focus is on form (i.e. grammar) and in Classroom B, it is oq
meaning. In Classroom A, the only purpose of the interaction is to practisd
the presént continuous. Although the teacher uses real classroom events an-d
,o*. h.r-our to accomplish th1s, there is no real interest in what studen(
¿Prrq aeJql zs
‘erar{r dn sr
laarr] eql puv (ure8r ral sturo¿) .aru1
eqr sr srql (ure8r dn sruro¿) ‘erDI aqt sl sIlL (.rrr aqr ur dn sturo¿)
‘dn sr arq eqr ‘-pl eql ‘B -e s r1 ‘[aarr] B sr aJar{t .rq8u arp uo-o puv r s
sser¿ lrrsreruu¡ pJoJXO O a¡qerdororoq¿
sluourulof, r¡tsrn8u¡¡ela¡
Surueeu .ro, uoDeDo8eN
suonsanb le¡dsr6
suo¡lsanb eutnueg
sJoJJa uo )l€qPaal
sJoJJ3
z luePnlsI luePnls
(‘uerueel ra3luuafpue
‘ra,rr1g Bpuorlu ‘larye¡¡ uosrly lq parca¡oe etep pai{srlqndun ruo.r; sauror
ldl¡osue¡l slql) ‘uorrelcunuo¡d ta8¡et-uou atef,rpur sra>lopJq arenbg .aeJl ¿
¡eau sse¡8 aruos uo Sulpuers are sern8y {lrrs eql .pueq srq Sulp¡oq
1rl3 e
pue erDI e Surlg log e-sarn8g ¡clrs Suru¡eluoo eurpno llrlq E sr Suwrerp
sl 15 arntrld aq1 ‘arnrcld sJer{to r{JEe tou tng,(ernlsa8laqr uaqll) spuer{
pue saf,EJ s rar{lo r{f,Ea aas uec lagr rpql os teur¿q IIEus ? lg pareredas ,a¡qet
e le Sururs a.re leql r\Erp ot ZS JoJ a¡ntrrd e Surgrrcsap sr I S erar{./y\ >lse} E
ur pa8e8ua a;e fag¡ ‘Erleruos ruog sr (¿g) puocas agt fSuo;¡ 3uo¡1 ruo{ sr
(19) raurea¡ tsrg eql ‘Erlerlsnv ur gsrÉug SururealSo real rsrg rrer{t ur sra
-ureel -ISE r¡rog ‘srcal U-U pa8r slrr8 o \t Jo sr rdr¡csue¡l 8uv’ro¡o; agl
uoltdlJcseP eJnlJId :v Is¿] uorlBsrunuruoJ
‘uortf,¿Jatur aqt ur Suruadderl are s8ulgr uretJar Jer{raq,/v\ etef,rpur
uec nol aragzvt ]dl¡csue¡l qf,Ea qlrl\ lJer{l E sr aJer{l (uonJes snol¡a.rd Jqt ur sV
‘$lsEl e^nBf lunurtuo3 luaJeJ
-JIp ul pa8e8ua sreureal a8tn8ur¡ puores uae^\teg suorrreJelur eqr uo pa5¿q
eJE slduosueJf er{I ‘suorlfeJetur luepnls-luepnls aruos sluasa¡d uonf,os srql
su o rlJ 3n1. ut lu arynl s-|ua?rys : sa o sr¿? dut o J ut o o”c s snl )
d¡essacau sr rr slJal Jer{3eel aqr uag.,’rlcEJnfJE ¡ecneruuer8 ot saf,uaJaJaryerJq
eulos aJe araqr q8norllle ‘suortsenb aumua8 pue ‘uonf,EJetur FuontsJe^uo)
‘Suruearu uo sr snfoJ erp ‘g tuooJSSEIJ uor3 ldl;csuBJl ar{l uI ‘V urooJSsEIJ
uorS ldrnsueJl ar{l ur uortfaJJor JoJJe pue ‘suorlsenb &¡dsrp ,¡eturue¡8
lf,JJJoJ uo snloJ &nul¡d E sr aJeql ‘ruJoJ gJe^ lf,aJJof, agr Sursn .8urop are
laqr reqru.les ol úlllqe rlar¡r Sunq8l¡{3rg sr raqreat aql roqred ‘8urop are
ruoo¿ssap aSan8ual puoras aql ut Sutqnat yua &urutaa1 Suxtuasqo stt
r36 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second language c/.assroom
sr Huh?
sz Is a three bird?
s1 Huh?
s2 Up, up-up the kite?
s r Yeah, the kite is u-, the kite is up and the ltree] is down. (Points
directions)
sz The lbird] down?
sr The kite-, the [tree] is down.
sz \What’s the [tee]?
s1 Huh?
sz \lhatt the ltree]? (Imitates Learner 1’s production)
s1 Feel?
s2 Fell?
Fell down? (Points down)
s 1 No, it’s not the fell down. No, it’s just at the bottom.
sz The bird?
s 1 No, the tree.
sz The tree? (Emphatic stress)
s1 Yes.
s2 It is left and right?
s 1 It’s right. (Points)
sz Itt long? It’s llinle]?
S 1 It’s-what?
sz It’s long and fiittle]?
s I lJm, a little-. It-, um, a middle size.
s2 Middle size tree?
s1 Yes.
s2 It’s little. (Says as drawing the tree)
Communication task B: Jigsaw
The following transcript is of two students in a Grade 7 French immersion
classroom. They are engaged in a jigsaw activity based on a series of eight
pictures telling the story of a young girl being awakened by her alarm clock
áarly in the morning. One student has pictures 1,3,5, and7, and the other
student has pictures 2,4,6,and 8. They take turns telling the story portrayed
by the pictures and then they display all the pictures in sequence and write
the story they have just told. Telling the story requires the use of a number of
reflexive verbs in French. In the third person, the form sr is placed between
the subject and the finite verb. Thus, elle se llue (she gets up) and elle se souuient
(she remembers) are correct. The learners are called Dara (D) and Nina (N).
In the transcript incorrect uses ofthe refexive verbs are in italics; other errors
are not marked. (The data are from Swain and Lapkin 2002.)
[acnoe;d rlogf, E saJaql
lBIp sJequaruor eqs uaPPns ¿Jo IIE ‘ou “‘ rloqc ro3] ‘aleror{l aP
anbrrB¡d aun r .{ y.¡b ruamnos a1la dnot q lnot ‘uou “‘ aproqs a¡ rnod
[se¡.1 ‘no
[pea.r ra8 or seq ar¡s reql] :ared9-rd es lIoP ella,nb
[loq: seq eqs iEI{r sJeglueurar aq5] ‘eproqc a1r a¡e,nb ruam’nos allg
[raqruaruar “‘ Jagruatuer qo] ‘lualrnos “‘ tuel^nos ‘qo
[raqruaruar
s
elltoaJrof, Jo sadlr ruaragrp aqr Surnrasqo lq aruel{rs rraqr padole,r,ap fagl
‘uonrnrtsur a8en8ue¡ puoresJo sadlr reqro ur >p¿qp3eJ eglJrsep
ot pasn uaag osle seq r1 ‘(Sulgrear aSen8uel peseg-tueruoc ‘a’r) uonf,nnsur
ranru-rralqns e¡,r a8en8uel ra8rer eqr uJeel stuepnls aSrn8uel puores araq,4^
suJooJsself uorsJerurur r{fuaJ{ ul pado¡a,r.ep se^\ eruer{f,s slql ‘lJeqpaa3 aql
paf,nou ser{ luapnls eqt trr{t uouerrpur ut-alerdn ruaprus seururexa osle
puE sJoJJe uo a,u8 sJer{f,Eal >llBqPaej aAnf,eJJoJ 3o sada lueJsJIP seglJf,seP
qrlrl¡A aruer{f,s uorlelresgo ur pado¡a.tap (L661elue¡ BIIe-I pue rarsr(1 lo¡
sutoolsvlJ ?arpq-lualuoJ ut stsuJaü :I [?rug
utoo,tswlr aqL a? qr?q?aa! an?pa”¿ro)
‘Surura¡ Z-I roJ arunJo uonngrrtslp
pue tunou¡E ar{r seglJlsep euo pue suousanb3o asn (sJaq)Eat ateSttsa,rut rno3
(>l3BqpeeJ e^nfeJJo3 eururExe sarpnts aAIC ‘Paultuexe uaaq sEI{ uollrnJtsul
Jo eJnfEaJ re¡notUed euo r{f,Iq-/y\ uI tloJ¿3sal uooJss¿If ,^ eI^eJ e \ ‘suollf,es
Surmo¡o3 er{r uI ‘uonf,EJetul pue uollfnJrsul ruooJssul3 Jo eJnrEeJ 3glf,eds
auo uo snJoJ sJer{to ‘sarnparord pue saf,Ilf,EJd puonrnrtsut 3o a8uer peorq
e 8ur¡a,ror ‘sar¡oSateo a¡oru lu¿ru asn seuaqts uorltlJesqo aruog ‘satro8alec
uonB^Jesgo xrsJo suJal uI uollf,eJaluI luaPnls-luePrus PUE luePnls-Jar{3″e1
pa;rduoo pur pequf,sep e^EI{ ar”r ‘sa8¿d Surpacard eqt uI saItIAItJB aqt uI
úors agr jo luetuoJ agr ssnJSIp ot anulluof lar¡r se ruJo3 slr{l
Jo esn JraqtJo lce¡nccr ¡roneuuer8 agt uottsanb llpnunuor PUe¿tuanruot at
qJe a^rxegeJ er{rJo uIJoJ lf,aJJor aqr Sursn a.re lar¡r Jaqtel{^\ lnoqe stuaruettts
uor¡dxe IEJa JS a¡eru lagr ‘lrors aqr Sutlrn¡tsuo¡al alrqr6 ‘Sutueau pue
tuJoJ qroq uo pasnf,oJ aJE sJauJeel oql ‘Jo^a,^aor{ ‘ld¡rosuerl luePnls-luePnts
puoras eqt uI lset sr{t uI Surueau¡ ro3 areno8au lagr se slsanba¡ uonmglJtlf
pue uorsueqa¡druo¡ Sursn l¡ruttsuoJ eJE ,,(aq1 ‘lrr,uror de8-uoll¿tuJoJul aqr
alaldruoc ot repJo uI Jotllo l{f,ee puetsJapun or Sutlrl uo pue Suluearu uo r(1a,rts
-nlf,xe pasnf,oJ eJE ueJpllqf, aql ‘>lsrt uollef,IunuruJoo rsJg Jqr uI ‘Jal{lo I{fEa
ruo5 luaJeJrp,fta,r aJ? uonJEJalul luePnls-luaPnrsJo slduf,su¿J] o/yu asaql
‘urro3 rg8rr aql pug ol Surl¡t uo
sn:oj laqr se a8en8uel rnoge 8uq¡rt eJE stuapnts ar{t ‘,unouo:d, lo ,gla,t,
sE r{f,ns spJo^\ Sulsn lou ert lagr q8noqrry :sruJuruJof, clrsln8ul¡era¡lq 9
‘l¿s ot ruer’r fagr paar8e a,r lagt rrqrvt les or
sruJoJ tJaJJoc aqr Sursn arr faqr Jalpaq/ú.Jo uorssn3slP aJotu ‘sI lEI{l ‘tuJo3
3o uoneno8au aJoru sr aJalp ‘snql ‘Aots al{rJo rueruof aql uo paa.r8e azttg
sluapnls er{l (uortfrJarul aql u¡ ru¡od sq1 rV :Suluearu JoJ uoItEIloStN
5
utootssqr aSan&ual puoJas aof w Sutqnal puu Sututaal &un”¿asqO 6et
r40 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second language classroom
language learning. They adjusted some of the categories to fit their data,
and they also developed additional categories. This resulted in the identi-
fication of six corrective feedback types, defined below The definitions are
taken from Lyster and Ranta (1997: pp.46-8). The examples come from
i0-1 1-year-old students in ESL classes that we have observed.
Explicit correction refers to the explicit provision of the correcr form. As
the teacher provides the correct form, he or she clearly indicates that
what the student had said was incorrect (for example, ‘Oh, you mean …’,
‘You should say …’).
s The dog run fastly.
T ‘Fastly’ doesnt exist. ‘Fast’ does not take -ly. That’s why I picked
‘quickly’.
Recasts involve the teachert reformulation of all or part of a studentt utter-
ance, minus the error. Recasts are generally implicit in that they are not
introduced by’You mean’, ‘Use this word’, or’You should say.’
s1 \X/hyyou dont like Marc?
r \Mhy dont you like Marc?
sz I dont know I dont like him.
Note that in this example the teacher does not seem to expect uptake from
S 1. It seems she is merely reformulating the question S t has asked 52.
Ckrifcation requests indicate to students either that their utterance has been
misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is incorrect in some way
and that a repetition or a reformulation is required. A clarification request
includes phrases such as ‘Pardon me …’ It may also include a repetition of
the error as in ‘\7hat do you mean by … ?’
r How often do you wash the dishes?
s Fourteen.
:r Excuse me. (Clarification request)
s Fourteen.
:r Fourteen what? (Clarification request)
s Fourteen for a week.
:r Fourteen times a week? (Recast)
s Yes. Lunch and dinner.
Metalinguisticfeedbackcontains comments, information, orquestions related
to the correctness of the studentt utterance, without explicitly providing the
correct form. Metalinguistic comments generally indicate that there is an
error somewhere (for example, ‘Can you find your error?’). Also, metalin-
guistic information generally provides either some grammatical terminologv
that refers to the nature of the error (for example, ‘Itt masculine’) or a word
definition in the case of lexical errors. Metalinguistic questions also point to
ol srarpo pue (886I) ur¿./v\S IIrrreW pel ser{ Surqrear a8enSue¡ pesrg-luetuoo
ulqrr,ry\Jlasrr a8en8uel puoras ar{rJo aSpa¡uou1 Sulcuer¡ua pue algrsuaqa-rd
-uror relleur-rcalgns aqr Surleru 3o a8ualpgr elqnop aqt ‘peapul ‘qceads
JIaIp Jo ruJoJ eqt utr{r Jarp¿J lueluof ar{l or Surpuodsar sr Jar{f,¿at aqt ter{l
euJns$ feru laqr asneoeg ‘
a8en8ue¡ peseq-lueluoc 8ul¡’leca¡ sluepnls regr pan8re s¿q (866I) rars/1
‘ef,uerarln ¡rur8lro arpJo ruJoJ palf,arrof, e or peal or fla>¡t aroru
os¡e ara,tr.lagl ‘a>1erdn eJour ur pelFSeJ dluo tou >1ceqpaa3:lrsrn8urplau pue
suonetrfrla ‘aJoruJaqlJng ‘suoruradal pue (>lregpaaj onsln8ulletatu
‘slsenbaJ
uon¿f grJEIf JeUE Jnf,f,o or l1a>1r1 a.rour pue slseteJ ;JUE Jnf)o or l¡a>¡1 tsra¡ seru.
a¡erdn ruapnts ‘uae.4 tag ur IIaJ {reqpaal elnf,rrrorSo sadlr raqto aql ‘papl^
-o¡d adlr >llrqpaeJ ruanbarj rs”al eqt se¡a rorra3o uollrada¡ ‘sasselr rnoJ ar{r
ul papl,ro-rd >llBqPaaj l¿1or aquoJler{ uEqr arou JoJ Pelunof,f,E stse3er ‘peepul
lleqpaaJJo adlr raqro lue utqr rrou¡ slstf,er pesn pe^Jesqo faqr sasself, uors
-reunur qlueJC peseg-tuaruor ar{l ur srer{reel Ip reqr punoJ €rupU pue -rarsll
‘(eJE a
^. Err ¡ern¡d s,rr ueqr6 ¿JoJJe
aqt eas noÁ ¿a>lrtsnu.rnol aas no¡ ¿rg8lr ‘a¡doad o^\t s,rr rng ¿sr e/N r
… sl e/N s
:uortoaJJof rrcr¡dxe pue
lueuruJof, JnsrngurTeleu lq paz’ro¡loJ sr uonrledar aqr ‘aldruexa rxau eql uI
‘ruoorPeg aql ur seH ‘tuooJPag ¿uooJr{rEg r
‘ruooJr{rBg ar{r ur s eH s
:tsEf,al e fq pa/|o¡oj sr uorlrledal agr ‘a¡durexa srql uI
.JOJJE
aqr rgSr¡q8lq or se os uoneuolur Jraql rsnlpe sJer{feel ‘sespf, rsoru uI ‘af,ue
-Jelln snoauoJJe sluepnrs er{tJo uorlnade¡ sJOrlfEa} aqt or snlet uotltlada¿
¿selEld s
¿- eqt su”alf aI{ ‘eru asnlxg r
‘are1d aqr su”elf, ragre3lT,q s
‘efueJaltn Jrerp atEInuJoJaJ ot stuapnls 1se l¡¡euorsef,f,o sJaqf,¿el
‘prlql ‘(,¿qs1¡8uE ur x les errr op
^\oH,
“‘ ‘a¡druexa .ro3) sruro3 lrarror trrrlr
ot suoltsanb esn sJer{frat’puof,as'(,”‘” s,r1,’a¡duexa ro3) aouerelln ul\o
Jrer{r3o uona¡duoc }rorle sJer{reet ‘lsJrC ‘stuapnls aql ruoü ruJoJ tf,eJJof, er{t
rrcrTa lprarlp ol esn sJer{Jear ter{r sanbluqcat aaJql rwal lE or sJeJeJ uoxl?lxJxlg
P-e s
¿rsed agr rnoge >llel a r uarlr* sqre^ uo rnd e-a,r Sulpue ar{r Erer{/6, r
frp-rarsal a¡doad aqr r€ >lool a/N s
‘(,¿aulunua; ll sI, ‘JIduBxa roj)
]uapnts aqt tuog uonrruJo1ur Jr{r rrorle or tdu¡ane lnq JoJJe arpJo eJnrtu aI{}
ruoo$sap a7an&ual puocas aql ut Sutqwal pua &urutaa1 Sumtasqg Tr’I
r42 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second knguage classroom
conclude that’not all content teaching is necessarily good language teaching’
(p. 68). The challenges of content-based language teaching will be discussed
further in Chapter 6.
Since Lyster and Ranta reported their findings, many more observation
studies of corrective feedback in second or foreign language classrooms have
been carried out. Some of them report similar results-that recasts are the
most frequently occurring type of feedback and that they appear to go unno-
ticed by liarners. However, othefs report that learners do notice recasts in the
classroom. Below, two studies are described in which learners were observed
to notice and to respond to recasts provided by their teachers.
Study 2: Recasts andPriaate sqeech
In a study with aduli foreign language learners of Japanese, Amy Ohta
(2000) examined the oral language that learners addressed to themselves
during classroom activities. She was able to obtain this private speech by
“tt”.hitrg
microphones to individual students during classroom. interaction
that focused or grammar and metalinguistic instruction. In this context’
Ohta discov.r.d ih”t learners noticed recasts when they were provided by
the instructor. Furthermore, learners were more likely to react to a recast
with private speech when it was directed to another learner or to the whole
class iather than when the recast was directed to their own errors. On the
basis ofthese findings, she concluded that recasts do get noticed in classroom
interaction even iftñey do not lead to uptake from the student who originally
produced the error.
Study 3: Recasts in dffirent instructional settings
Roy Lyster and Hiráhide Mori (2006) compared learners’ immedi-
ate responses to corrective feedback in French and Japanese immersion
cl”rrroornr. They found that the teachers in both contexts used correc-
tive feedback in similar ways. However, the effects of recasts on learners’
uptake were different. In the Japanese immersion classes, learners frequently
repaired their utterances after réceiving recasts whereas learners in the French
iÁmersion classes rarely did. Instead, the greatest proportion of repair came
after prompts, that is, the feedback rypes that indicated to students that a
correition was needed and that encouraged them to self-correct’
In their efforts to understand these differences Lyster and Mori carried out
a detailed analysis of the instructional characteristics in these classes’ Using
the COLI observation scheme described above to caPture differences in the
pedagogical practices, they discovered that there was an analytic orientation
i” thi J””p”tt.t. classrooms leading the teachers and learners to focus their
attenti;; on language form and accuracy. The orientation in the French
immersion cl”rrei was more experiential with a greater focus on content
and communication of messages. Lyster and Mori argued that because the
Japanese learners’ attention was regularly drawn to form, they were primed
‘slxaluof, pasnloJ-e8″n8ue¡ uor¡dxa Surrnp l¡ruanbar3 pue’sa8ueqcxe
uouefrunruulof, pue ‘luarua8eueru ‘tueluof, Surrnp paprzrord l¡aJEJ sE^&\ >lJEg
-pee3 a rDer¡o¡ trcrTdxa lsa8ueqcxa pasnco3-e8rn8uel rlrr¡dxa ur os ssal rng
‘sa8ueg:xa luatuof, pue ‘uoDefrununuor ‘tuarua8ruetu ur etEJ q8rq l¡rua
-lslsuof, E 1B Pasn eJa,/v\ slsEfal :slxeluof, ssoJJB PaIJeA oslE >ll”qPeeJ e^Ilf,eJJof,
3o sadlr arp ‘l¡Sunsaratul ‘sa8uegcxa tuarua8eueuJ ur Ja au pur ‘saSuegcxa
uonef,runuJuof, pue luetuol ur euJn arp Jo auros fpo ‘sa8uegrxa pasnf,oJ
-a8rn8url ucr¡dxa unplzr’uauo lsorrl tndrnorlagr paglporu sJaur¿elter{t punoJ
leqr ‘lceqpaal J noerro3 er{r ot peDear sraureel ,4aoq peurru¿xa fagr uar1t\
‘luarua8eueru pue ‘uorte3runururoo ‘tuatuor lq pa.d{olloJ ‘sa8uegoxa pesnJoJ
-a8en8ue¡ trclTdxa aqr ul ruanbeu tsoru sB^\ rl terll lnq stxatuoo leuonfnJtsur
IIE ur papr^o¡d sr¡* >lleqpeal rer{t punoJ sreqrreesar er{I ‘txatuor srr{t ur lse
-tear3 a;am >lleqpeal JoJ senrunlJoddo snql ‘sa8ueqrxa uourrrunuruol eql
ur srorra a;ou l¡luecgluS¡s pacnpord sraur¿Jl leql puno3 laryery pue Ja^rTO
‘l8o¡ounural rltsln8ur¡etaru Jo esn eql
put JEturuBJB uo s¿ztr srseqdrua agr :saSueqoxe pesnf,o;-e8en8ue¡ trcr¡dxa 7
pue’sle,,rr p;Surueau
ur r¡srÉug Sursn stuepnls uo se,l\ srseqdrua aqr :sa8uegcxa uorlef,runuruo3 g
Jnor^Eqeg uooJSSEIf, atel¡do¡dd¿ pue uossel
er{rJo uonea.ueBrc eqr rnoqe pe>llrl JaI{JEat aqr :sa8uerpxa tuarua8eueru ¿
uJnlnfrJJnf, ar{rJo luaruof er{r lnogE
suonsanb pa>lse ro a8pa¡mou1 parredur raqf,Ber agr :sa8uegcxa lueruoJ I
:PalsEJalur sJeuJBel PUE sJaqf,Eal qrlqlA uI slxeluof, JnoJ Pa5Il
-uapr laql ‘uossal e ur uonf,eJetur JoJ stxatuoo Sull¡e,r uo Sulpuadap pararglp
lleqpaal eAnJaJJoJ Jo asn (sJeuJeel pue uorsrlo.rd ,sragreal Jer{taq,&\ pare8lr
-sa,rul lar¡1 ‘sp¡o-real-¿I-9 qll¡a uroorsselr 1gg lrerurrd uerprrsny ue 3o
lpnrs a,r¡rdrrf,sap e lno perrrer (t00d lapeyrq uosllv pue ra^IIO Epuoq¿
Trcaluor m qnqpaalanqra.uo) :, [pnts
dplcr¡dxa eJoru ruroJ
or uorlualle rrer{r srf,eJrp rer{r >lleqpaal paeu tuaruorTSulueeru uo pasnf,oJ sI
tBr{l uorlf,nJtsur zl e^ref,al oq,ry\ sJauJEal lEql aq PFolv\ sII{lJo aldruexa aug
‘luaruuoJr^ue Fuon)nJlsur Jrar{l ur ol Peuolsnf,f,E auof,eq a,req laqr lEllv\ o1
alsoddo sr terll uonf,aJrp e ur petuerJo eJe sJauffelJl pallrou eg or l1a>¡t a;oru
sr 1reqpaa; ‘srsar¡rodlq sr{t 01 Surproccy ‘srsar¡rodfq ef,u”Iegralunof, eql
asodo¡d ol rrory pue.rarsr(1 pel r{rreeser raqlo tuog asoqr put s8ulpug asaq¡
‘pres prq laqr
rtr{ l,Jo uoneruJ5uor e l¡duls stlrr lsef,eJ (sJerlf,Eal aql reqr porunsst sJeuJeal
reqr l¡eryt sr snql ro¡¡a a8¿n8ue¡ e or Sulpuodsa¡ s¿rv’ ¡al{reet aql tel{l reuJeel
arp or ¡eu8ls or f1a>1r¡ ssa¡ aJolü slsef,al ta^a,&\oq ‘sosself, uolsJeunul qlueJg
paluarro-Surueeu¡ eJoru eql uI ‘slsEJaJ Jo uonf,unJ a^Itf,eJJof, el{r erlrou ol
Moo¿ssqr a3an3ua1 yuotas atp ur Sutc¡trat yua &urutaa1 Sum.tasqg E,’T
r44 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second language classroom
Oliver and MackeÉ study emphasizes how differences in the insrruc-
tional context affect teachers’feedback and learners’ response to it. It is also
important to keep in mind that different corrective feedback rypes can be
interpreted differently depending on how they are delivered. Recasrs are a
case in point. In a study of corrective feedback in four different instruc-
tional contexts, Younghee Sheen (2006) observed many conrrasting rypes of
recasts, including recasts that were declarative versus interrogative, reduced
versus non-reduced, single words or short phrases versus long phrases or
clauses. Recasrs can also differ according to whether they are delivered with
or without stress or emphasis. In a study of adult learners of English, Shawn
Loewen and Jenefer Philp (2006) found that recasts containing ‘prosodic
stress were thirteen times more likely to result in successful uptake’ (p. 547),
that is, uptake in which the student produced the corrected form. However,
these interactions were not associated with improved performance on a sub-
sequent test.
Other factors that may affect learners’ reacrions to different rypes of feedback
include age and learning goals. For example, adults may be more likely to
interpret recasts as feedback on language form, particularly if a high level of
accuracy in the second or foreign language is one of their goals.
In this chapter we have examined the role of correcrive feedback primarily
in terms of learners’ oral production. Most of this research has been con-
cerned with the effects ofcorrective feedback in relation to learners’ linguistic
growth and more specificall¡ learners’ grammatical development. There is
also an extensive body ofresearch that has investigated the role ofcorrective
feedback on learners’written production. This research has been primarily
concerned with whether corrective feedback can help learners improve their
writing performance. Less atrention has been given to whether and how
written corrective feedback contributes to learners’ linguistic development.
One recent study which has done that is Younghee Sheen’s research described
in Study 5 below.
Study 5: Oral anduritten correctiuefeedbach
Younghee Sheen (2010) compared the effects oftwo types oforal andwritten’
corrective feedback on adult ESL learners’ accurare use ofarticles. The oral
corrective feedback consisted of recasts or metalinguistic information; par-
allel written corrective rypes were direct correcrion or direct metalinguistic
feedback. Five groups participated in the stud¡ of which one was a controll
group. The other groups each received one of the following: 1) oral recasrs,i
2) oral metalinguistic feedback, 3) written direct correction, and 4) writteni
direct metalinguistic feedback. I
I
All groups participated in rwo 30-minute activities in which theywere askedl
to t.”d
”
rtory
“.rJth.n
,.tell it either in the written or the oral mode. Learners]
in the oral corrective feedback group received either recasts or metalinguisticl
9I7I
‘peetsul ‘JeuJEel agrSo r,red aqt uo tJoJa a,uluSoc a¡rrr1 arrnba; tegt sasuodsar
a¡drurs ‘]ror{s ot peal or rq8nor¡r a;r larp asnereg suonsenb le¡dsrp ra^{g asn
or pa3.rn ueag a^Eq sJar{ftel ‘Surqceat a8enSue¡ elnefrunururor Jo lxatuo)
aqt uI’suonsanb le¡dsrpJo sragtunu.reqSry l¡areuon¡odo.ldslp pruodar osle
eAEr{ Jnor^eqaq Suruonsanb ,srar¡ceat uo sarpnls ruooJSsEIJ rarpo ‘lpnrs oreg
pue 3uo1 aql erurs pa8uego a^Eq spoqraru Surgceat a8en8uel q8noqr uarE
‘pa8ueq: aq pporls uontsJe^uol
r.uooJSSEIrJo eJnrrnJls lruonreJetur aqt ter{t panSre laqr pua'(rBZ ‘d) ,p¡.ro,,’r
IEeJ ar{l ur tuap.rrnba str Jo uorsJel peuotsrp l¡rear8, e sr uonreJalur JauJeal
-rer1f,Bot terp papnlruor sreqrJeesar erll ‘suonsanb feldsrp uegr ruanba.r3
aJour eJo \ suoltsanb IEItuaJaJeJ ‘ruooJsself, erp aprstno suonesJaluoc raleads
a^rteu-uou/ra>pads elrleu erp uI ‘suonsanb uorteruJoJur ueqt suortsanb
,(r¡dslp eroru pelse srer{ieel rtqt pape^eJ sesselr -ISE llnpr xrs ur stuapnts
pue sJeqleet uaa^\teq suonf,eJalur erp jo apeiu s8urpJof,eJ orpnv ‘suon
-sanb (.plrueJeJaJ, ;o ,eurnua8,) ,uoneuro3ur, pup ,f”ldr1p,3o lrrruenb aqr
uJe \taq saf,ueJaglp ur pelsaratur f¡-relnclrrrd era,ulagl ‘sra>1eads elnru-uou
pue e rleu uee^llag uooJsself, eql aplslno pa^Jesgo sJnoIAEI{eg Suluonsanb
qtvur uaqr pa.reduoc pue sruooJSSEIr -ISE ur srar{f,eJl lq palse suonsanblo
suonrunJ pue sruroJ eqr pauru?xa (EB6I) orES auelreq3 pue 3uo1 ¡aeqor¡¡
sutoorssryz TS’I u! suot$anb.staqrual:9 [pn6
raqunu E ur peururExe ueaq sEI{ uol}rErarul uroorss’¡c ur leld td’,ttot:tj.]|
‘(.te,lsue eqt.{\ou>I lou l¿u Jar{feat er{r qlry./ü ot) suonsanb .plluata3er, ro
,eulnua3, pur (rarvrsue aql sr’rorDf lpear¡r Jarlf,Eat eqr lprq^! or) suonsanb
,l”ldrlP, se ot PerraJar aff Paurlusxa llarrrsuatxe uaeg arcq lBr{1 suo¡lsanblo
sadlr orrr¿’purlsJepun lagr gonu trog Surroldxa ur pue uollf,EJetul uI stuep
-nrs 8uÉe8ue ur letueruepunJ eJE suousan$ ‘stuooJssel3 a8en8uel puofes uI
r{f,fteseJJo pep poo8 e;o sn3oJ er{r ueeq seq rnol^Er{eg Sutuonsanb ,sraqcra¿
utoolswp aql u? suot$anb
‘(ryeqpaa3
rnsln8ur¡etaur snsJel stsecar) >l3eqpaal a nreJJof aIFJo sseurlcr¡dxa aqr uEI{r
lueuodrul ssal sr papr^ord sl ¡cuqpJeJ a^Ilf,aJJoo riJII{.^a ul (uautrrvr snsJa^
¡e.ro) runlpau eqt trr{r of,uapr^a se sSulpug asarp sla;d;etul ueeqs ‘stsal-tsod
pefe¡ap pue ertrperurur IIE uo dno¡8 lorruof, el{r peuroJredrno fpuergru8rs
‘stsp)eJ I”Jo pa^refer ler{l euo er{r JoJ ldecxa ‘sdno¡8 ilVr’lsel uoI}faJJoJ-JoJJa
uB put ‘e neueu ualllJld E ‘uonetf,rp Pepeads e papnlf,ul slsal aI{I ‘JarEI $lee^\
V-e ute?e pue ‘tuaruleeJr er{t .rage f¡atelparulur ‘tuaruleaJl leuonf,nJlsul eql
aJoJag petsal sE1!\ salfnJe Jo a8payrroul rlagr ‘fpoarrof salJnJB asn ol Áilq”
.rraqr pa,ro.rduJr sJeuJEal Jeqler{^\ euluJaleP oI ‘Ja13l slep omr sJoJJe elf,IlJ¿
JoJ suonf,eJJof, r{lv![ seAI]EJJBu JIeIp pa^ref,a¡ l¡ols Jql a]oJ1d ol{1v\ sJeuJEe’I
drors aqr Ploler laqr a¡q,,’r Jorra el3rlft ue aPE1¡ laqr arurr lra.,’a >1ceqpaa3
ruoo$spp aSun&ual puotas acp ur Suuytual yua &urutaa1 Sutatasqg
\46 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second language classroom
they have been encouraged to ask more referential (or genuine) questions
since the latter are thought to require more cognitive processing and to gen-
erate more complex answers.
More recentl¡ howeve¡ a re-evaluation of display quesrions has taken place.
This is based on the observation that there are differentways inwhich display
questions can be asked in classrooms. One is for the teacher to ask a series of
questions in a drill-like format such as ‘Do you have a brother?’, ‘Does he have
a brother?’, ‘Do you have a sister?’, ‘Does she have a sister?’ In this context,
display questions do not have a meaningful or communicative purpose. In
other contexts, however, display questions can serve important pedagogic
and interaction functions. The study below describes reachers’ use of display
questions in a more positive light.
Sr”dy 7: Scffi lding and dispky and referential questions
In a case study of one teachert adult ESL class, Dawn McCormick and
Richard Donato (2000) explored how the teacher’s questions were linked to
her instructional goals. \X/orking within sociocultural theor¡ the researchers
chose the concept of scaffolding to investigate teacher questions as ‘media-
tional tools within the dialogue between the teacher and students’ (p. 184).
As we saw in Chapter I and Chapter 4, scaffolding refers to a process in
which, for example, a more knowledgeable (or expert) speaker helps a less
knowledgeable (or novice) learner by providing an inreractional framework
that the learner can build on.
McCormick and Donato identified six functions of scaffolding (for example,
drawing the novicet attention to the task, and simpli$’ing or limiting the
task demands). The researchers examined another function-the teacher’s
use of questions during scaffolded interactions-and how it contributed to
class participation and learner comprehension. In the example below, they
argue that the teacher’s use of the display question *Who usually lives in
palaces?’ serves an important pedagogic function because it draws the learn-
ers’ attention to the word palace’ through the display question and facilitares
the learners’ comprehension of the word.
T Palace?
s 1 Like castle?
s2 Special place, verygood.
s: Very nice.
r Castle, special place, very nice. \7ho usually lives in palaces?
ss Kings.
r Kings, and queens, princes and princesses.
ss Yeah
s4 Maybb beautiful house?
r Big, beautiful house, yeah, really big.
LIrl
.Psureel eq or
IrrJeleru aqt Sulssaro¡d lllnJssef,f,ns aJoru pue ‘seepr rlaql Surpurdxa ,sJa1v\sue
.ra¡n3 Surpl,ro;d sruapnts or peel uEf, ef,uEIEg rg8l.r agr Surpug ,uoll¡n¡lsur
Jo sPuDI luaraJlP ur Pu” s¡a,,’a¡ a8e ruereJlP le sluaPus qlr-&t stuoorssElt uI
‘(lge t ‘¡e ra 3uo1) suorlsenb leldsrp¡pasolc rpr.tr pared
-uro) suonsanb pnuara3arTuado ql,u:a8uo.ns eg ot pe Jesqo ueeg s¿q rf,aga
srgr ‘l¡Sulsrrdrns ro¡ ‘xeldruoc eJoru pue ra8uo¡ osle eJE sasuodsa¡ Jrar{t tng
sasuodsa¡ aJou a)npotd sruapnrs op f¡uo lou ‘suonsenb or puodsal ot eurrl
eJoru sluJpnts Jrer{l a,r.r8 ot paurcJt aJe sJar{3eer uaq,tr reqt u./\^.oqs seq r{JJ¿eseU
‘a8ua¡erp per e ag or sureas sef,uells
pJE^r>I.,taE Sullea¡r pue fplcrnb puodsar ot sluapnts uo a¡nssa.rd r{f,nru oor
Sulce¡d uaal\taq aruEIEq e Surpurg ‘uorlJnJlsur e^npf,runuJurof ur Jnff,o osle
,bqr ‘sasse¡r pnSurlolpne3o ¡ecrdlr a¡e su¡allBd ra¡asue/uonsanb prde.r qcns
g8nogr¡y ‘asuodsa¡ E al¿Fruro3 ol luepnrs ar{t roJ ue-Lr l¡rua¡rs ueqr rer{rrr
saun IEJeAas uorlsanb aqr asen¡drred ¡o leada¡ ot pepual os¡e laql ‘sa las
-ruaqr uo¡tsanb erp paJeasue Jo luapnls Jer{loue ol uonsanb eqt perf,eJrp
fagr aroSaq o,&\.1 Jo puof,es B utrll aJouJ ou stuepnls a,re8 l¡eordlr sJar{f,Eel
leqr punoJ laql ‘sasse¡i TSg pn8ul¡orpne ur eu¡n lre^\Jo srsl¡eue e^nelll
-uenb e plp (786I) u.anoqtq8rl lsre¿ pue arrq r euueof ‘puodsa.r ol aulrl
luapnls agr ar’r8 ot uonsanb E pe>lsB Sur,reg rage sasned Jar{f,Eel aqr elun Jo
lunoru” eql-(aurrJ JrB,r\, sr Jnor^Er{Jg Suluollsanb (sJer{f,eeuo lcadse ragrouy
san4tutdSuquo4sanb ,s,taqr?at Fu? auft ry?/l¡:6 [pryS
‘rer{f,Eal aqr3o rred aqr uo a8en8ue¡ u8larol
Jql ur a¡uatadtuocJo le^el ,{31,{
”
sa¡¡nba¡ uor}f,EJalur asuodsa;Tuolrsanb3o
13^31 srqr r¿gr rnq suroorsself,’IIT3 esew ur sJauJ¿el l5auaq PIno \ suo¡lsanb
uado xa¡druo) erour 8uu1se t¿ql pJpnlf,uof, ragnd-uorpq ‘satuof,rno cpsln8
-ur1 xa¡duof, tsour eq¡ or pel suoneue¡dxa .ro suoseal JoJ osle rng sDeJ JoJ
tsnl rou sJauJral pa>lse tBr{t suollsanb uado ‘uonrppe uI ‘suonsanb uado rarye
rndrno 3o ll¡enb pue ónurnb ¡area¡8 e parnpo-rd sluapnts ‘uagr or a,rr8
stuepnls sasuodsa¡ aqr sE IIaa sE ‘sreqf,Eet qsrpug lq pals” suonsanbjo sadlr
aql paprorer orpne pue pe^resgo (9002) ra5nd-uorleq euerrsur{J ‘er.rlsny
ur sess¿lr (fIfC) Euru.rea¡ palre.rEalu¡-aEen8ue¡ pup luatuoc u1 ‘Suruosear
pu? uoneut¡dxa ‘a¡druexa ro3 ‘8urpn¡f,ur ‘sJa^\sue xaldruor JJoru pue ra8uo¡
or Sulpra¡ f¡ecldlr ‘uoneroqela etllur pue Je./v\sur a¡qrssod auo uer{l aJoru
e ?q suonsenb uadg ‘or puodsar ol lsea pue 1:lnb ruaqr Sunpru ‘sasuodsa.¡
pro,lt-auo a¡durs ot peal l¡ensn lerp pue reldsu¿ a¡qrssod auo l¡uo ar’eq
Á1pcÁ’h suorrsanb pasolC ‘suo¡tsenb pasolf, pue uado uaa.&\tag teql sr suon
-sanb aulnua8 pue le¡dslp uaa^uag euo aqt ot rplnuls uorlrurlsrp raqtouv
suousanb pasqt ?u? uado :g [pus
‘uonf,EJetur Jo uossel;e¡ncurd e ur s¡eo8
sJal{f,Eal 3I{r or ef,uaJgeJ I{1I1r\ Pu” uollf,”Jelul PaPIoJ€JsJo >lJo^/v\3IUEry aI{]
uqlLv\ peurru¿xa eq ppoqs suollsanb regt tsa8Sns ol¿uoq pue >llrruro3Jry
utoottsryr a8un&uq puotas aql ur &wo¡tnat pua Sututaal Sum.tasqg
148 Obseruing learningand teaching in the second langudge classroom
Study 10: Tirnefor learning langaages in school
Earlier in this chapter we talked about the differences between learning a
second language in the natural setting compared with the classroom (see
Thble 5.1). One of the major differences is the amount of time available for
learning. In the natural sefting there is ample time to learn whereas in the ;
typical classroom setting, learners have limited time. One of the ways to
provide more time for learning a second/foreign language is via content-based
instruction. However, this is not always feasible or desirable (Lightbown
2Ol2). Other alternatives include increasing the total instructional time or
distributing time more intensively over the school year.
!íe know that it takes a great deal of time to learn a second language, but
little research has been done to investigate how the distribution of instruc-
tional time affects L2 learning. Exceptions to this include the work of some
Canadian researchers who have examined different amounts and distribu-
tions of time in English and French as a second language programmes. In one
study in Quebec, learners receiving intensive ESL instruction for five hours
every day for five months of one school year (in Grade 5 or 6) were compared
to learners at the end of secondary school who had received the same total
amount of instruction spread over 7-8 years of schooling. On a number of
measures, the students who received the intensive instruction performed as
well as or better than those whose instruction was delivered in what has been
called a ‘drip feed’ approach (Lightbown and Spada 1994) ‘
In subsequent research, comparisons were made between grouPs of Grade 5
and 6 students who participated in intensive English language instruction
during a single school year, but with the time distributed differently: some
students received five hours of English a day for five months; others received
the same total number of hours, doing two and a half hours of English each
day for 10 months. The researchers found that both groups benefited from
the overall increase in hours of instruction with some additional advantages
for learners receiving the more intensive instruction (Collins et al. 1999;
Collins and \X/hite 2011). The advantages were evident not only in superior
language abilities but also in attitudes toward the language and satisfaction
with language learning experiences. Similar findings have been reported
for different models of intensive and core French programmes (Netten and
Germain 2004;Lapkin, Hart, and Harley 1998).
The classroom observation studies we have described in this chapter focus
on specific features ofclassroom interaction. In these studies, the feature of
interest was determined in advance of the observation on the basis of some
hypothesis about what aspects of classroom instruction and interaction are
important for learning, that is, whether a particular type of corrective feed-
back led to more learner repair, whether a particular type of question led
to more learner output, and how the distribution of time affected learning
Sulssa¡dxa ‘looqfs re sacual¡adxe u-/ro :larp Surlerrrod lla,rrre8au srua¡rd
pepnlrur eruoq lE acual¡adxa uonezrlerlos a8rn8ue¡ suarplrqr eqr 3o ued
,(¡ruapl,tg ”irr-1d rc sJotrEJ lerluangur aroru ,raqto palealal txetuor
leJntlnf
puE lErros aqr3o srslpuE rapEorq E ‘arnllBJ suarplrr{r aql ot sJolf,EJ Surrnq¡rr
-uof aJelr\ sanssl aBenBuEI esaql q8noqrry .gsr18uE jo uorsJe^ lf,arJoJur ueuo
pue pal:rrtsar e qtr.&\ paceldar sez’r a8enSu¿l tsrg rrer{I .looqls ur aSen8uel
]sJg suaJPlrql er{rJo asn ou s?./v\ aJeql .Sulllas
Iooqf,s puB e(uoq aql uaa \taq
sanlel pu¿ asn a8enSuel ur seruareglp lueru paJalorun slslpue pelretap V
‘loor{3s ul pallt3 uerplrql er{rJo requnu a3rc1 E ,ssalar{trele¡ .ruarudo¡a,rap
a,rrrruSoc pur clrsln8ur¡ qrog ro3 SurreFluns puE r{f rJ eJe,e\ lEr{t stuauJuoJr^ua
PalEe^eJ seuoq eqt ur suon?^Jasgo ‘looqls eqr ur pur eruor{ 3r{1 ur sacrlle¡d
asn-e8en8uel pa-roldxa ar{S ‘spuEIsI uoruolos eqr ur ser¡rue3 auru gum sreal
Iere^as ra,ro fpnr ¡eu¡pnr¡8uol e tno parrr€f, (2661oa8eg-uosre¿¡ uere)
Iooqrs pu? auoq aqt u? a3an3ua7 :I I t?n$
‘adornE
ur auo puE ‘
uonelresgo ruoorsselr or greordde srql ‘a8raua ter{t suJaued aqr roJ siool
pue suoDlpJatur pue’saon¡r¡d’serlrlnf,p er{Uo selou elrsuetxe sa>let Ja Jasqo
Jr{t ‘peersul ‘sal¡oSalec peuruJeteperd3o ras E tnoqtt.&\ suJooJSSEIf a8enSuel
uSlaroj .ro puores ul Sururea¡ pue Surgrear Sunresqolo ferrr e sr fgderSouqtg
fqderSourpg
‘Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡ puof,as;o3 s8untas puoncn.nsur 8ur
-taJdJalur pue Surgl.rcsap or qreordde ruaraglp E 01 uJnl .,’rou e/N .saurof,tno
ruoo$sqr aSon&ual puotas aql ut Suto¡taal pua &uruna1 Sumtasqg 6rr
150 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second knguage ckssroom
fears about their children’s abiliry to succeed and raising fundamental ques-
tions about the value of school in their lives. The researcher concludes that
these factors were central in contributing to the childrenb lack of continued
cognitive and linguistic development in school.
Study 12: Separation ofsecond knguage learners inltrimary schoob
In a longitudinal stud¡ Kelleen Toohey (2000) observed a group of chil-
dren aged 5-7 inkindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2 inVancouver, Canada.
The group included children who were native speakers of English, as well as
children whose home language was Cantonese, Hindi, Polish, Punjabi, or
Thgalog. A1l the children were in the same class, and English was the medium
of instruction. Toohey identified three classroom practices that led to the sep-
aration of the ESL children. First, the ESL children’s desks were placed close
to the teacher’s desk, on the assumption that they needed more direct help
from the teacher. Some of them were also removed from the classroom twice
a week to obtain assistance from an ESL teacher. Second, instances in which
the ESL learners interacted more with each other usually involved borrow-
ing or lending materials but this had to be done surreptitiously because the
teacher did not always tolerate it. Finally, there was a’rule’ in the classroom
that children should not copy one another’s oral or written productions.
This was particularly problematic for the ESL children because repeating
the words of others was often the only way in which they could participate
in conversational interaction. According to Toohe¡ these classroom Prac-
tices led to the exclusion of ESL students from activities and associations in
school and also in the broader communiry in which theywere new members.
Furthermore, such practices did not contribute positively to the children’s
ESL development.
Stu¿y 13: Sociopolitical change andforeign knguage classroorn ¿iscourse
In an ethnographic study of English-medium content classes in Hungarian
secondary schools, Patricia Duff(1995) examined the impact of sociopolitical
changes on pedagogical practice. She compared the structure and participa-
tion patterns of two classroom activities. One is a traditional activity called
afelrhs which is a heavily ritualized recitation format closely associated with
Soviet-oriented policies that were rejected after the fall of communism in the
late 1980s. As a result, in many English-medium classes in Hungary thefeleht
was replaced by a more open-ended activity called’student lecture’ in which
students prepared and presented material to the class in a less ritualized way.
l
In an examination of the kind of language produced by students when par’
ticipating in student lectures, Duffobserved a large number of spontaneoul
comments and questions produced in English rather than Hungarian. Sh{
also noted how students appeared to incorporate feedback provided by thd
teacher (and other students) in their subsequent production, how the teache{
and students worked together to negotiate meaning and form, and how theJ
‘a)uarJedxe
Surqreal u¡,ro.rnol uo.ro raldeqf, srql ur paprao.rd stdr.r¡sue.rl aqt uo
uorsr)ap ;nol eseq uel no ¿t.teqf, stqt ur papnlf,ut aq plnoqs teqt saJnlea,
Jeqlo aJe aJeqr ¡ulqr nol oq'(Suruear.u .ro¡ uoDerlo8eu’suollsanb aulnuaS
‘s.ror;a’a¡duuexa .ro¡) seJnt€al xrs epnlf ur .reldeq¡ sr¡t ur )ler luapnls
-ruaPnts pue ¡ler luapnrs-Jeq)eel aqt asl¡eue ol pesn nol leql s}¡eqf, eqI €
¿ uorsoep Jeqr!a,o sa8eluenpesrp
/seSelue,rpe eql erE ¿u¡qr nol op leqM¿sspll eqtJo Ner aql qlt^ ueql
eteJ8elur nol op Jo speeu Jreql ot puodsu o1 raq¡a3ol stuepnts asaql
dno.¡8 nol oC ¿uon)nrtsur ¡o aSen8u€l aqr upqr.raqto a8en8u€l lsJU € e^€q
sluapnls .rnol ¡o luer.u aleqa,r suooJsself, ¡en8ur¡rt¡nr.u ur Surqreal nol a.ry ¿
¿rno pug ol op nol plnor l€q¡¡¿sedlr ¡reqpaaj luaJar¡p lo
a3ue”r e asn nol >¡urqr nol op .ro ,retduold, € Jo .Jals€f,er, e aq ol ¡¡atno,(
Jeprsuof, nol plno^ ‘a¡duexa.rol ¿Surqreal .lnol ut IJ€qpao, eltlf,eJJof,
¡o adó “reln¡rl.¡ed e Sursn JoJ e)uaJeleld e a,req leu nol ¡u¡qr nol o6 ¡
uollfeBoJ Jo, suollseno
‘suolusod asagt
01 lue^eleJ r{JJEesaJ au¡os auruJexe pue s8untes ruooJsstlo ur pauJeel tseq aJE
sa8rn8ue¡ ,/v\ol{ tnoge s,&\el^ luaJeJlp aurruexa ill¡vr arr,r tarderlo lxou erp uI
‘acllr¿¡d ¡errSo8epad
urvr.o ¡nol lnoge suorsrf,ep e>l¿ru nof d¡aq leru r{f,rceseJ elefs-llerus srqt ur 8ur
-8t8ua ruo.r3 ure8 nol uoltetu¡oJul aql ‘an8ea¡1oc EJo leql ro ruooJSSEIr u,&\o
¡nol ur suonJeJetur agr aqrJ3sep pur a Jesqo ol sloot esaqrJo auo lno l¡t ol
nof a8¿¡nooua elN ‘Suntas ruooJsselJ aql ur sruapnls pue sJaq)Eet uae.&\teq
aoeld a>¡er rer{l suorlreJerur erp Jo stf,edse tuaJoglp aqrrf,sJp pue elJesgo ol
pasn eq uer ter{t serruouoxel pue str”r{rJo sa¡duexa papr,ro.rd oslr e^Er{ e/[r
‘Sururea¡ a8en8
-ue¡ u8laroj Jo puof,as or drqsuonelal slr pue lxotuoJ ¡errl¡od puB ‘lrJntlnf,
‘lerf,os repeorq agt Sururuexa asoql sE IIa.& sr (sadlr uorlsanb pue 1leqpeeJ
eAuJeJJof, ‘a’l) sa;nrea3 prrSoSepad rgllads Sululru¿xa sarpnls Jo sarJBuI
-runs PePnpur e^er{ alN’lno Perrr”f ueag sEq uons^Jesgo uIoorssBlf, r{llq^\
ur sl¿1d ruereglp Jo salduexa papr,tord pue snroJ leuoltf,nrlsul IpJa o rraqr
Jo sr.uJal ul JeJIp sruooJSSEIJ
^\or{ Jo saldurexa pue suondrrcsap paruasard
e^Er.l e^r ‘pata;dratul pue pegrJosap ag uef uon)nJtsur a8en8uel puo3as Jo
seJnlea3 tueJeJtlp qllq¡ ur sfervr aqr;o euros pa \er^al a,req arn ratder{l srqr uI
lrerurung
‘8ulurca¡ a8en8ur¡ puoras flarerulrp pue arncrrd ruooJsself, spage uoneru
-roJsuert ¡erulodolcos lerfl papnlruor JnC ‘sSurpug asaqr Jo srseg erp uO
‘ssa¡o¡d eql ur sllpls uorsuJgardruoc pue ‘fcerncre ‘fcuang rlaqr pado¡a,rap
ruoo.¿ss?fr a&an&ual puoras aqt ut Sutqtaal puo Sututaal Suxarasqo IEI
152 Obseruing learning and teaching in the second knguage classroom
Suggestions for further reading
Spada, N. and M. Fróhlich. 1995. 7he Communicatiue Orientation
of Language Teaching Obseruation Scheme: Coding Conuentions and
App li catio ns. Sydney: Macmillan.
This book describes the origins and purposes of the Communicative
Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation scheme. COII
describes the pedagogical practices and verbal interactions that take place
between teachers and students with the aim of describing the instruction
as being more or less communicatively oriented. It also provides detailed
guidelines and illustrations for using COLI including how to collect data,
how to code the data, and how to analyse it. Also included are descrip-
tions of how COLT has been used in second/foreign language classrooms
throughout the world.
Toohe¡ K. 2000. Learning English at School: Identi4t, Social Relations and
Classroom Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
This book addresses a common educational practice in many countries
in the world in which children from minority language backgrounds are
taught in mainstream English-medium classes. Through a longitudinal
description of a group of children learning English from kindergarren ro
the end of Grade 2 ín a Canadian school, the reader is introduced to a
range ofsocial and critical perspectives on education and how they can be
applied to child second language learning. The book provides important
insights and useful guidance about how teachers and schools can support
minority language children in their efforts to become educated through
the medium of English.
W’ajnryb, R. 1992. Classroom ObseruationThshs: A Resource Boohfor Language
Teachers and Tlainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This book is mainly addressed to teachers to illustrate how they can use
observation to learn about their own teaching. Readers are guided through
a variety of different tasks and shown how to observe, analyse, and refect
on various aspects ofinstruction including learners, language, lessons, and
teaching strategies.
uauo sarPnls aseql ‘slf,aJa asaql SuunsBauJo slE,/v\ pug pu¿ sluauuoJr^ue
tuaJaglp ur llrelrruls Surureal nagr leru reqr salgerre ryrcads ,flruepr or
l¡ensn sr sarpnls ¡eluarurradxa3o po8 aq1 ‘Sulurea¡ aeuangur feru ler{r selq¿
-IJE al{rJo IoJluof, InJeJm 8un¡o,rur ‘ptuarurradxe eq osp leur tr ‘Jelel’roH
‘a,rndrrcsep l¡¡enuassa ag leu q3JeeseJ a,rnelltuenb ‘g .rardeq3 ur
^\es
a^\
ryserpnrs a.trteu¡enb grdap-ul ol alrrelrlu¿nb a¡rcs-a8rel ruo5 ‘saqceo;dde
qiftaseJJo a8u¿¡ ¿ esn ol paau arrL’acltl¿¡d uooJsself ro3 s¡esodord ssesse oJ
‘8ulurea1 pue 8ur
-r{reat uee^uag sdlqsuonelar salegnse^ul l¡eogrcads ltql rlf,Jeesar q8norqr sr
(¿sruooJSSEIl ur Sururea¡ a8en8ue¡ eloruo¡d or lernt rsag aqr sr rer{lN, uonsanb
aqt Je rsue or fe,Lr.l¡uo aql rng ‘sar.roeqt asar{t tueueldrul or padola,rap uaaq
aAEr{ slcrJeteu pue spoqrau Sunpear eJoru ualg ‘ruooJssel3 eqr ur egen8
-u?l puof,as e uJ¿al or &,tl rsaq aqr ro3 pasodo.rd ueaq eler{ serJoar{l luryq
Eulgceal roJ spsodord
pua eqt ur rqSrr tr la3 9
elgEr{rEel sr leq,/( qrEel 5
euo JoJ o1!\1 taD 7
>lpr Eral €
e”,u”,a,{l{“J:;;rr’i:l l:J Í
:arr s¡esodord
asaqr ua.tl8 a^Eq er’l’ slaq¿l aql ‘ssauelnraga .rraqt ssess¿ ot d¡ag reqr s8ur
-pug r{fJeesal ssnfsrp pur’a3r}f,EJd ruoorsse¡e otur peltlsue¡l ta8 s¡esodord
ar{r
^\oq
eteJtsnill ol uonf,EJatur uooJssel3 ruor3 saldruexa apu.ord ‘8un1cear
a8en8ue¡ u8laro3 pue puof,es ro3 s¡rsodord xrs aurturxa a¡r tatdrqr srqr uI
A er^eJd
WOOUSSVff,
EHI NI DNINUVE-I
EDVNCNVT CNOfflS
t54 Second language learning in the ckssroom
involve large numbers of learners in an effort to avoid the possibility that
the unusual behaviour of one or two individuals might lead to a misleading
conclusion about learners in general.
Qualitative research, including ethnographies and case studies, often involves
small numbers, perhaps one class or only one or two learners in that class.
The emphasis is not on what is most general but rather on a thorough under-
standing ofwhat is particular about what is happening in this classroom. As
pointed out byAnn Burns (2010) and others, while quantitative and qualita-
tive research are important in assessing theoretical proposals, action research
carried out by teachers in their own classrooms is also essential to answer spe-
cific local questions. In this chapter we focus mainly on experimental studies.
These are studies that were designed to test hypotheses about how teaching
affects second language learning. Readers are encouraged to follow up with
further reading but also to explore related questions through research activi-
ties within their own teaching and learning environments.
I Get it rightfrom the beginning
‘Get it right from the beginning’ is probably the proposal that character-
izes more second and foreign language instruction than any other kind.
Although communicative language teaching has come to dominate in some
environments, the structure-based approaches discussed in Chapter J, espe-
cially grammar translation, remain widespread.
The grammar translation approach has its origin in the teaching of classi-
cal languages (for example, Greek and Latin). Students were presented with
vocabulary lists, often accompanied by translation equivalents, and grammar
rules. The original purpose of this approach was to help students read lit-
erature rather than to develop fuency in the spoken language. It was also
thought that this approach provided students with good mental exercise to
help develop their intellectual and academic abilities.
In a rypical grammar translation activiry students read a text together line
by line and are asked to translate it from the target language into their native
language. Students may answer comprehension questions based on the
passage, often in their first language. The teacher draws attention to a specific
grammar rule that is illustrated by the text (for example, a certain verb form).
Following this, the students are given an exercise in which they are asked
to practise the grammar rule, for example, by filling in the blanks with the
appropriate verb form in a series of decontextualized sentences that may or
may not be related to the text they have read and translated.
Audiolingual instruction arose in part as a reaction to the grammar transla”1
tion approach. The argument was that, unlike grammar translation teachingl
in which students learned about the language, audiolingual teaching would
‘s8uqr Jarpo orJo repu¿,r\
spuru Jrer{r allr{^{ ‘Aenttue ruagr teadar l¡n¡ssarrns ill^\ uBalu safua}ues aql
rEr{,/v\ EaPI ou a^EL{ oqa sruePnls auJos (PaaPuI ‘Sulles are larp rEr{1l\ rnoqB
>lun{r or Jo pa lolul ra8 ot uoseeJ ou e^Er{ sruePnls eql ‘uollllada; a’rn¿
(uern¡reg’g pue unoqrqS¡1’W A tuoryel¿P Patlsllqndu¡)
‘ruol4tr ‘rrra; lra,r aJB aJeql ssvr:)
‘tuory ‘rvral .(ta,r eJB eJal{l r
¿;otera8tr3ar eql uI saoletuol lue aJaqt arv ssv’Ic
¿roteraSt.tSar aqt uI saoteruot fue aJel{r eJV r
‘ruory ‘aptr¡ fra,t s,eJeql ssvr)
‘IuoIAtr ‘a¡rr¡¡ Lra,r s arar{I J
¿rotera8u3ar aqt uI Jeunq fur araqr s1 ssvr:)
¿rotera8trje; aqr uI rertng fue araqr q ‘aru rage leada¡ r
(‘a8en8ue¡ uSraro3 e se qsr¡8ug30 sreureel pp-rca’L7¡3o dnor8 y)
7z|duruxg
¡g.ra,r ruasard a¡duils eqlJo asn lfaJJof,
eqt set\ pareDeru rErLA ‘lue^rlerrl stm (3op e a eq lou PIP ro PIP aq rEI{r rf,EJ
eqt ua^e ro) 8op slq qruv\ acuar¡adxa IEeJ s.ruePnrs aql ‘asrc sIrP uI {¡rca¡3
(uerulreg ‘g PuE uz’roqrq8rl ‘1z.{ A ruo{ E}EP Peqsllqndu¡)
(¡op am les uer a^\ rnq ‘oN =) ¡arlP a¡ rnad uo sIE{u ‘uoN I s
(¡8op r e^eq rusaop a¡1 =) ¡uanp ap sed e,u ¡1 zs
[uaq] ‘o¡ Is
¿8op rnol qsrrr,r nof ,'(rp lra,rg r
‘8op l¡r¡ rs
‘r{se \ I J
‘8op fur Surgse.t
‘qn I ‘qn
(qn
PUB euoq aulof I ‘I{n ‘uoouJeuB ar{r uI ‘.qn PUV I s
(‘sqra,r gsl18ug3o tuasa¡d
a¡durs aql uo peseg aslrraxe ue ut Pa^lo^ul sluaPnls p¡o-real-g 1io dnor8 y)
t a\duaxg
.’sutuut8aq eqr ruo5 rq8u rr toD, PuB uaddeg laqr a-ro3aq sllgeq PEq asaql
lua,ra¡d or Jaueq sr lr os ‘sllqeq oluofeq PInoJ (PIes sI ll ‘s¡oJJe aql ‘sJoJJa
a>lEru ot uaqr
^\ollE
plno,&\ sryr lEr{l suJesuo:3o rno l¡aar3 leads sraurea¡ Sutu
-ul8aq Sulrra¡ pro E sraqf,ta¡ d¡snoaueruods a8¿nBuEI eql asn flartl sluaPnts
,a8en8ue¡ pJo aqr uo sl slsrqdrua aqr g8noqr uala’ter{t luePIAa sr r1 ‘Surgcrar
¡en8urolpne pageJ ,/r\oleq sa¡duexa ag1 ‘ssf¡eue elllseJluof, Pue usIJnoI
-^Brieq uo PesEg sernr qreoldde pn8urtorpnE aI{} lBql 1ú3s arrr ‘7 lardeq3 u1
‘Fzgg opel :9961 sloorg) a8en8ue¡ agr >pads f¡enrce ol sluaPnrs PEal
ruoo$cryJ aql utSurutaal aSan&ual puotag t9t
r56 Second knguage learning in the ckssroom
ftE?W:TIT€
Soox tS
ox’TH6 -D¿5|<
\
-¡1¡g tpfi 19
cN{ THE DESK
Research findings
Many adult learners, especially those with good metalinguistic knowledge
oftheir own language, express a preference for structure-based approaches.
Learners whose previous language learning experience was in grammar
translation classes may also prefer such instruction. As we saw in Chapter 3,
learners' beliefs about the kind of instruction that is best can influence their
satisfaction and success. The grammar translation approach is useful for the
study of grammar and vocabulary and can be valuable for understanding
important cultural texts. The audiolingual approach with its emphasis on
speaking and listening was used successfully with highly motivated adult
liarners-in intensive training programmes for government personnel in the
United States. However, there is little classroom research to support such
approaches for students in ordinary school programmes that must serve the
needr of students who bring different levels of motivation and aptitude to
the classroom. In fact, it was the frequent failure of traditional grammar
translation and audiolingual methods to produce fluency and accuracy in
second language learners that led to the development of more communica-
tive approaches to teaching in the first place.
Supporters of communicative language teaching have argued th-at language
is nát learned by the gradual accumulation of one grammatical feature aftel
anorher. They suggesi that errors are a natural and valuable part ofthe lan-
guage learning process. Furthermore, they believe that the motivation ol
i."rn.tr is often stifled by an insistence on correctness in the earliest staget
perelosr-paf,uauadxJ PEr{ sruePnls uoltrnrlsul Jo adlr 3qr rBqr PalsaSSns
s8ulpuy aseql 'uaqr paonpord sJaureal ruooJssrlr aseql I{rrI{^\ gllm frernore
a^nslsJ er{r PuE aJaql
^\"s
e¡rr sacuanbas pruatudola^aP aqr uee \leg seJue
-reglp pa.{\oqs srpsar ¿gL'gy'd'7 ntdeq3 aas) srauftal a8en8utl Puoras
pelfnJlsurun 3o aSrn8uelJelul eqt uI pelJesqo sauregd;oru ¡ecrreurtue.r8 3o
uorlrslnb¡e aqr qrv'r parrduor ser'r (8ezz- a,Ltsse¡8o.rd eqr PuB t- IeJnld 'a¡druexa
ro3) sauaqdJou Ief,neuJruer8 qsr18ufl ul"tJef 3o uotttstnbfe (sJauJeal aql
'ZpuE 1 sa¡duexE ur.ry\ES a^\ IIIJp acnc¿¡d
u¡anBd pue uonpader etorJo sadlr aqr ul parrdlr¡rrrd l¡errdlr saruue¡8o¡d
eseqt ur sruopnrs 'epEuEJ 'cagan| ul 9I-I1 pa8e sraureel Suupads-qruatg
uo pesnfoJ suone8rlsa,rul egl 'tuarudo¡ar'ap a8en8ue¡rotul uo uollsnJtsul
pn8ur¡orpne Jo pega ar{r otul suoneSllsarrul ltuollras-ssoJo PuE ¡eulpnrr8
-uol3o sarres E lno parrref, (q9ege} u.,rtoqrr¡811 lsre¿'sg¿61 elel eqr qI
lr¿P u¿a$?d \an8uq otpnv :, I t?ws
.191tpnr5)
uorlrn.rlsul pasuq-8u¡rreeru pue -tuJoJ Jo suolleurgruoo ruaraglP 8ur¡laoa¡
sruapnlsJo sdno¡8 uaa,t\teq óuarcgo;d a8enSurl Puof,esJo ruarudo¡a,rap eql
1o suosrrcduof, pue '(71 lpnrg) saruue¡8o¡d pn8ul¡olpne ut sraurea¡ e8enS
-uEI puolas Jo tuarudo¡a,tap a8en8ue¡rarul ar{l Jo salPnls a,utdtrosap aPnPuI
esaql 'qr¿ordd¿ ,suluur8aq aqt ruot3 rq8rr lI la), eqr ol Paruauo llSuorrs sl
teql uoltfnJtsurJo srage eqt ssass¿ ot sn llru¡ad oP l{fJeeseJ uroorsst¡c a8en8
-uEI puooes uorS s8ulpug aruos'sseleqleuoN'Poseq-eJnlf,nns l¡a,usnlf,xa eJ¿
teql suroorsselr pug or tlnJSIp sI lI 'Plro¡a Jr{l Jo sued raqro ul Suryceat
a8un8ue¡ e^nrf,IunuruJoc 3o uotldope pea.rdsapl.&\ eqr qrl^\ 'Pueq JeIPo eql
u6 'Suruearu uo slseqdrua ue sare¡d Sulqf,eer aqt aJar{^/r\ sluooJsselJ (r'ra3 l-ra,r
.ro) ou err erer{l s8ullras asaql ul pue 'Sutqreat a8en8ue¡ or saqoeordde Paseq
-aJnlonrrs l¡rueunuopard spug auo aJal{./v\ PIJolv\ aqr3o srrrd lueru are araqt
esnef,aq sl s¡ll 'sdno¡3 uost¡rduoc ¡ado¡d PuU ot sJeI{fJEesaJ ro3 lsea tou
sr tr 'Jela,rroH 'eAreJaJ laqt uoncnrlsurJo adlr aqr ro3 ldaoxa srcadsar ¡¡e ur
JEIIruls aJE ltql sdno¡8 a¡eduoc ot ,(¡rssarau aq PFo,/t\ 1I 'srsaqlodlg lelp lset
o¡'sa8ers f¡rea aqr ut Suluearu uo st stseqdrua eqr ueq.^a PaAaII{f,e esoqr ueqr
stlnseJ raueq or peel'unr 3uo¡ aqr ul '¡l,v'Sulureal a8en8ue¡ puoras3o sa8ers
l1.rra aqr ur uroJ uo slsegdrua u¿ ragraq^\ rser ol rln3glp sl u 'f¡areunrroJufl
',8uruul8ag aqr ruo5 rq8u rr la9, sraureel rEI{t erns 8ur1tu JoJ IIEf, eqr r"el{
a¡l ure8e a3uo 'sJoJJa Jo uoIlEzIIISsoj l¡ree ot PEel III^I uollsnJlsur lr¡rTdxa
put uonf,aJJof tnoqtl,r\ ,tuopae{, qfnur oot sJauJrel Surrtro¡e reqr an8re
lagl 'Surueaur uo snf,oJ a^Isnloxe uE salBJoAPe reqr Surgoear a8en8ue¡ a,rtr
-sf,runruruoJ Jo uoIsJeA aIP or PalsEaJ AA¿r{ SJolEfnPe PUE sJJr{3J¿as3J auos
',r()e JnJ)e, eJ o3aq,lcuang,
do¡a,rap ol sJeuJeel a8e¡nooua ol Jeuag sI tI t¿ql an8.rr ¡esodold ,Suruut8aq
ar{1 ruo5 rr¡8u rr ra9, al{rJo srueuoddo asaql 'Surulea¡ a8en8uel PuolasJo
utootssplr aql ut &uruna1 a8an&ury puotag L9I
158 Second knguage learning in the classroom
pattern practice drills-resulted in a developmental sequence that appeared
to be different from that of learners in more natural learning environments.
For a time after their instruction had focused on it, learners reliably pro-
duced a particular grammatical morph.eme in its obligatory contexts. For
example, after weeks of drilling on present progressive, students usually sup-
plied both the auxiliary be and the -ing ending (for example, 'He's playing
ball'). However, they also produced one or more of the morphemes in places
where they did not belong ('He's want a cookie'). The same forms were pro-
duced with considerably less accuracy in obligatory contexts when theywere
no longer being practised in class and when the third person singular simple
present -s was being drilled instead. At this point, many students appeared
to revert to what looked like a developmentally earlier stage, using no tense
marking at all (for example, 'He play ball'). These findings provided evi-
dence that an almost exclusiye focus on accuracy and practice of particular
grammatical fbrms does not mean that learners will be able to use the forms
correcdy outside the classroom drill setting, nor that they will conrinue ro
use them correctly once other forms are introduced. Not surprisingly, this
instruction, that depended on repetition and drill of decontextualized sen-
tences, did not seem to favour the development of comprehension, fluency,
or communicative abilities either.
Study I 5 : Grammar p las communicatiue practice
In one of the earliest experimental studies ofcommunicative language teach-
ing, Sandra Savignon (I972) studied the linguistic and communicative skills
of 48 college students enrolled in French language courses at an American
university. The students were divided into three groups: a'communicative'
group, a'culture' group, and a control group. All groups received about four
hours per week of audiolingual instruction where the focus was on the prac-
tice and manipulation of grammatical forms. In addition, each group had a
special hour of different activities. The 'communicative' group had one hour
per week devoted to communicative tasks in an effort to encourage practice
in using French in meaningful, creative, and spontaneous ways. The 'culture'
group had an hour devoted to activities, conducted in English, designed to
'foster an awareness of the French language and culture through films, music,
and art'. The control group had an hour in the language laboratory doing
grammar and pronunciation drills similar to those they did in their regular
class periods.
Tests to measure learners' linguistic and communicative abilities were
administered before and after instruction. The tests oflinguistic competence
included a variery of grammar tests, teachers' evaluations of speaking skills,
and course grades. The tests of communicative competence included meas-
ures of fuency and of the abiliry to understand and transmit information in
a variety of tasks, which included: discussion with a native speaker of French,
a8en8uq puof,es tegr srsaSSns tl asnmag ¡esodo.rd prsJe orluof, E sr srql
'(6Se t 'l86I) urqser) uagdarg sr ¡rsodord sryt qtra pererrosse f¡aso¡c rsoru
sr erueu esoqa lEnpr^rpur agr '7 rardeqC ur parou sy'Surpear Jo/pue Sulual
-sr¡ gSno.rgr tndul a¡qrsuaqarduor ot pasodxa aJE sreureal uaqrrr are¡d se>1er
uo¡lsmbce a8rn8uq rrqr srsaqtodlq aqr uo paseq sr (pEeJ pu¿ “‘ uatsr¡ tsn[,
??a¿ Pu? ” ‘ ualw rn[ e
‘¡esodord ,pue aql
ur rq8rr lr lJC, eql or uonEIeJ ur lrelep aJour ur passnf,srp aq IIIr\ uononJlsur
pesnf,oJ-Jerurue.r8 pue acrtce¡d alnef,runururoJ Jo suonnglJtuof, ar{I’lou sr
uonf,nJtsur paseq-uJoJ leqr lou ‘snoa8elue,tpe sr uononJtsur paseq-8uru¿eur
teqr ruarun8Je er{r JoJ r¡oddns srago lpnrs slgt ‘sp;orrr Jer{ro uI ‘rueuoduor
aonce¡d elnef,runuruJol leuorrrppr ueJo af,uasg¿.ro aruese¡d aqlJo suJel ur
l¡uo paragp lagl ‘uonrnrtsur pasnloJ-¡euu¡e.18 te¡n8a; rlaqt elraf,oJ or pen
-unuo3 stuaprus ¡r ‘fpnrs uou8l,reg aql ur reqr azrsrqdrua ot turuodul sl t1
‘Suluearu Surssa¡dxa pue SulpuersJepun uo sl srsegdrue erp eJeI{ \ slxeruof uI
arllce¡d a¡,nrfrunruruof JoJ sarlrunlJoddo uo-r3 rgauaq sJauJeal r”qr ef,uapna
apl,rord sJrpnls asaqr ruoU sllnseJ eql ‘uollBf,Iunulluor ro3 o8pa¡mou>l Jlaql
Sursn ur sef,ueqf, a>let or luelrnloJ pu? perlqlqul IeeJ ol sraurral speal uarJo
l¡r¡n¡cr uo ssegdrua tuooJsself, aq1 ‘a8en8uel ra8.rtr eq] rnoge,t\ou>I sruap
-nls teqzvr auruJJarap ol lFr5t¡p lra,r uatSo sI rI ‘rf,BJ u1 ‘a8pa¡.tou¡ cnsln8ur
pue lrerncrp Jo sla al q8rq do¡a,rap sJeureal reqr eeluertn8 tou op Sulgcear
or sagcrorddt pe$q-ernrrnns l¡arrtsnlf,xa ro f¡reulrd reqr u,l.lor{s osp seq
arual;adxg ‘a8rn8ur¡ puof,as e ul l¡a,rrrcaga suolluelul pur sa8essaru ;tagt
atef,rununuof, 01 elqeun uauo aJ? uoltfnJlsul uoltelsueJt-Jetutue¡3 ro ¡rn8
-urlorpnE 8ur¡lara¡ sJauJBaT ‘suoIrEtIruII luel¡odut seg ¡esodord ,SutuulSag
aql ruo5 rgSu rr reD, aqr uo paseg uolr3nJtsul leql sJauJrel pur sJeqJeat
Jo suonrnlul egr uoddns ol afuapl^e ap¡.nord e^oqe pa.&al^al sarpnrs eql
qrreeser agl Sunerdrerul
‘lc¿¡n:oe onsmSu{3o seJn$eur uo IIa^\ ssal op or sJouJ¿el
esnef, rou plp uorreJrunruurof, Jaa{ JoJ sauun}¡oddo rEI{l efuept,ra al{l se/’r
qcro.rdde ,SuruulSag aqr tuo5 rg8rr rr rag, el{rJo lxaluor al{t ur luet¡odrul
aJoru ueAE ‘a8en8ue¡ puof,as e ur setttllqe uoll¿f,Iunuuor do¡a,rap ot Álunl
-¡oddo luarlgns sluepnls a¡’t8 tou op tuJoJ pue lrerncce uo l¡uo sn3oJ teql
serurue¡8o¡d a8en8ue¡ puof,as regr ruaun8Jr aql JoJ uoddns sE stlnseJ eseql
paterdratur uou8lreg ‘lpnrs aqr roj padola,tap slsar elltBoluntuuroo JnoJ aqr
uo sdno¡8 o,/$l raqro aqr uEI{t raq8lq l¡rueoglu8¡s Paross dno¡8 e^IleJlunur
-ruof, er{l fe,l,ervrog ‘saJnseeul acualadu¡or rnstnSull eql uo sdno¡8 ueer’t.taq
saJuaraglp rueog¡u8¡s ou eJe r aJal{l (uoltf,nrlsulJo porrad er{r3o
Pua aW tV
‘r.{f,ueJ{ ur sanIAI}fE Suro8uo Sulgl-rcsap pue ‘sallllllf,? tuef,eJ
s auo JoJlesauo lnogr srcr3 Suruodal ‘q3uaJCJo.ra>1eads a,rrteu t Surrvtal^Jelul
utoo.tstap acp ut &utu”taa1 a8anSual puotag 69r
r60 Second knguage learning in tbe classroom
learners do not need to produce language in order to learn it, excepr perhaps
to get other people to provide input by speaking to them. According to this
view, it is enough to hear (or read) and understand the target language.
Read Example 3 to get a feel for how this theory of classroom second language
learning can be implemented in a classroom. This description shows that
one way to obtain comprehensible input is to provide learners with listening
and reading comprehension activities with no (or very few) opportunities to
speak or interact with the teacher or other learners in the classroom.
Example 3
It is time for English class at a primary school in a French-speaking com-
munity in New Brunswick, Canada. The classroom looks like a miniature
language lab, with about thirry small desks, on each of which there is a cas-
sette player and a set of large earphones. Around rhe room, shelves and racks
display scores of books. Each book is packaged with an audiocassette that
contains a recording of its content. The materials are not strictly graded, but
some sets of books are very simple, and other sets are grouped so that they
are gradually more challenging. There are pre-school childrent books with
a picture and a word or two on each page; illustrated stories with a few sen-
tences per page; picture dictionaries; ESL textbooks for children; illustrated
science books about animals, weather, vehicles, etc. Students (aged B-10)
enter the classroom, select the material they want, and take it to their indi-
vidual workspace. They insert the cassette, put on their earphones, and open
their books. They hear and read English for the next 30 minutes. For some of
the time the teacherwalks around the classroom, checking that the machines
are running smoothly, but she does not interact with the students concern-
ing what they are doing. Some of the students are listening with closed eyes;
others read actively, mouthing the words silently as they follow each line with
a finger. The classroom is almost silent except for the sound of tapes being
inserted and removed or chairs scraping as students go to the shelves to select
new tapes and books.
Research findings
Research relevant to the ‘Just listen … and read’ proposal includes studies of
comprehension-based teaching and extensive reading (Day et al.2011). \7e
will also look at some comprehension-based instruction in which the input
is manipulated in ways that are intended to increase the likelihood that stu-
dents will pay attention to language form as well as meaning.
Sndy 1 6: Comprehension- based insnuction for cbildren
Example 3 was a description of a real programme implemented in experi-
mental classes in a French-speaking region in Canada. From the beginning
of their ESL instruction at age eight, students only listened and read during
their daily 3O-minute ESL period. There was no oral practice or interaction
leqr punoJ ar{S ‘peal l¡enrre tuapnls r{f,Ea qooq er{rJo suJat ur passass” aq
p¡noc Sulureel teqr os seJnseaur l.repgeco,r pazrpnpr^rpul pado¡a,rap rsroH
‘u1v\o rlel{l uo uaql PEaJ Pu¿ euoq qoog >loor
sluapnls ‘pol;ad >lea1v\-xrs e JeAO drerqr¡ ssEIf, E ur elqelre^E eperu aJe.& leql
srepeer pe5lldurs asor{r sluapnts(sself,’ISA reln8ar rreqlJo sanrlnf,¿ aqr ol
uorlrppe u1 ‘s¡ale¡ louangord pue spuno.rSlceq a8enSu¿l lera^as paluasarda;
stuedlrlued lZ¿qL ‘EpBu€J ‘leaJtuory ur aJtue3 Álunruruo¡ E ur erurueJ8
-ord 1gg u¿ ur pelloJue aJa^\ oqrrl sruerSrulrur llnpe Suou¡e ruarudo¡a,rap
l.rrlnqero,rjo lpnrs e ur srapear pegrldurrs pasn (ggg¿) rsroH esrlrery ‘eldrurs
ureural a/rs Surrrrr* pue lre¡nqef,o arlt allq/v\ ‘lueluor arel.ldo¡dde-e?e
pue Sunsaratur JaJo sJallrJr{r pue ‘sef,ucruo; ‘sargdrrSorq ‘sfrsstlr l¡e¡all
pagldurs eseql ‘elqelle,re l¡Sulsearf,ur ere sreureel’ISE llnpe .ro3 pau8lsap
llprcads sJep¿al paperS tng (ool Sur8ua¡egc sr uonrsrnbf,r a8en8ue¡ puooas
3o sa8ers l¡rea ur stpp€ roJ Ierrereru Surpear Sulpurg ‘8uÉua¡erp sr aSen8
-uBI puof,es r Sururea¡ stuapnrs loor{Js l¡erul¡d JoJ I?rJelEu Surpear Surpulg
swoot “tot8uryoa¿ :/ I [pus
‘uorlfEJalur ruooJssEls Pu? ‘ú>lf,EgPeej Jagf¿al ‘slueu
-odruoc Sulu¡¡’r pue Suqeads rarpo osle rng uonrnJtsul ¡en8ulorpne lluo
tou papnlJur arurue.rSo¡d .re1n8a.r eql eJer{,ll sesse¡f, ur aJe l, sluepnts asoql
‘8ultr¡zvt ul l¡elcadsa ‘sse¡8o.rd ¡alea¡8 eperu p?q aruur¡8o¡d re¡n8a; eqr uI
sruapntsJo sdno¡8 aruos ‘seJns¿eru Jeqlo uO ‘au¡ru¿¡8o¡d;e¡n8ar aql ur sruap
-nts sE IIa^\ sE ruroSrad ol panunuoc lagr ‘uoltcnpord I”JoJo saJnspau¡ euros
uo pue seJnseeru uolsuaqardruof, uO ‘arun ler{r rnog8norgr auruerSord l¡uo
-uolsuaqa;duof, eql ur panunuof, peq stuepnts aruos ‘B epEJD ut arazrr laqr
ueq.&’JelEI s;eaf aarqr passesseal eJa \ sant¡tge a8rn8uel qsl¡8uE (sluJpnls eql
‘6OOZ ‘lE le l{rr^oruAo¡-:2007 ‘¡e ra ur*oqrq8r1) sasse¡r rraql ul
r¡sÉug ua>1ods pasrrce;d Jaleu perl aruue¡8o¡d ¡etuarul;adxa aql ur sreur?el
ap g8noqr uela ‘Suupads ro3 os¡e tng uorsuaqa¡druoc.roS l¡uo rou anJl s¿,44
srql ‘auJuJerSord re¡n8al erp ur sJauJeel (ueqr arour sespJ euJos ur pue) se
qsl¡8ug r{f,nru sE ^/r\au1 euuBrSo.rd paseq-uolsuarla.lduof, eq} uI sJeuJeel
‘s¡eef orrrt ra¡ry lep ¡ad satnulru 0E persel r¿rp sesse1f, prq serurueJSo;d qroq
ur sluapnls eql 1¡V ‘qceordde ¡en8uuolpne ue f¡uleu se,tr l{f,Irl.,lr ‘atutu¿.18
-o.rd 1gg re¡n8ar aqt ur stuepms Jo rer{r qrpr Suturral rrrqr paredruoo pue
arurue¡8o¡d paseq-uorsuaqerdruoc sr{l ur uJrplrrlo Jo spoJpunq 3o ruarudo
-le^ep a8rn8ue¡ puof,as aqr pare8rrsa,rul sanSral¡of, raq pue urttoqrq8rl lsre¿
‘JeAo3 >lf,eg
s,>looq E aplsul padel ‘sp.ror’r ,/rcJ E Jo slua¡e,unba uoIlEISuEJt ot JeJeJ PInoJ
larp l¡euorserro ‘qsl¡8ug pu? r{ruaJC uI rellruls ere IEI{I spro \ ateuSoc 8ul
-zlu8ooar fg ¡o sa.rntcrd aqr Sulsn dq Sulurau¡ re passan8 faql ‘sraureel ral{to
Jo raqf,eel eqr qrlry\ qsrlSug ul uollJeratul ou l¡¡enrrr,r perl faqr rnq qooq pue
sedet ruorS rndur raleads-allteu pe^Iaf,eJ sJeuJ?el ‘sng1 ‘rroddns pfluqf,al
pu¿ leuonezlueS¡o papl.to.rd lnq ,r{reat, tou plp sral{f,eeJ’¡p re qslSug ul
utootssqJ aqt ut 8urutua1 a8unSual yuotag r9t
r62 Second language learning in the ckssroom
there was vocabulary growth attributable to reading, even over this short
period, and that the more students read, the more words they learned. She
concluded that substantial vocabulary growth through reading is possible,
but that students must read a great deal (more than just one or two books
per semester) to realize those benefits. As we saw in Chapter 2, when we
interact in ordinary conversations, we tend to use mainly the 1,000 or 2,000
most frequent words. Thus, reading is a particularly valuable source of new
vocabulary. Students who have reached an intermediate level of proficiency
may have few opportunities to learn new words in everyday conversation. It
is in reading a variety of texts that students are most likely to encounter new
vocabulary. The benefit of simplified readers is that students encounter a
reasonable number of newwords. This increases the likelihood that they can
figure out the meaning of new words (or perhaps be motivated to look them
up). If the new words occur often enough, students may remember them
when they encounter them in a new context.
Other research that explores the ‘Just listen … and read’ proposal includes
studies in which efforts have been made to draw second language learners’
attention to language forms in the input, for example, by providing high-
frequenry exposure to specific language features through an input food,
highlighting the features through enhanced input, and/or providing pro-
cessing instruction. All of these are described in more detail below but the
emphasis in all cases is on getting learners to notice language forms in the
input, not on getting them to practise producing the forms. The next three
studies are examples of this research.
Stady 18: Inputflood
Martha Tiahey and Lydia \,X/hite (1993) carried out a study with young
French-speaking learners (aged 10-12) in intensive ESL classes in Quebec
such as those described in Chapter 5, Study 10. The goal of the research was
to determine whether high-frequency exposure to a particular form in the
instructional input would lead to better knowledge and use of that form
by the students. The linguistic form investigated was adverb placement in
English (see Chapter 2, p. 58). For approximately 10 hours over a two-week
period, learners read a series ofshort texts in which theywere exposed to liter-
ally hundreds of instances of adverbs in English sentences-so many that the
investigators referred to this study as an ‘input food’. There was no teaching
of adverb placement, nor was any error correction provided. Instead, stu-
dents simply read the passages and completed a variety of comprehension
actiYities based on them.
Although learners benefited from this exposure to sentences with adverbs
in all the correct positions, their learning was incomplete. They improved
in their acceptance of sentences with word order that is grammatical in
English but not in French (‘The children quickly leave school’). However,
‘GOOZ arrr.¡,1\ pue ‘unoqrq8rl
‘eped5) sJauruJalep a¡tlssassod l3eJJof, ar{t pug or raqraSor paTo^\ ueqr puE
a¡nr a¡duls e ua¡r8 araz’r lar¡r uag,u ssarSo¡d a¡oru aperu sJauftel rer{l punoJ
elrq¿\’r{fJeasal ruanbasqns u¡ :ossassod ar{rJo.lapua8 Jr{r qf,turu ol Jaurur
-Jelep alrssassod agl asooql ot 1(oq uJeal lou plp sluepnts ”rta ‘sJeltal ¡eudeo
‘adó p¡oq3o asn aqt fq parqS¡q8l{ ara,,n sturoJ er{r q8norp ua^a’sr IBIII’sra
-uruJeleP a¡trssassod ot uorluJllP (sJeuJ¿el er{f
^,\BJP
ol UrlTdxa lFualcgns
selr\ lue(uaJurr{ua eqr Jer{ler{ { suortsanb errqrh\ ‘sSurpug asaqt Sunardratur
uI ‘uraqr uae \req ef,uereJlP eFtrl sBld erar{r reqr PUE sruJoj asJqrJo esn PUE
aSpa¡mou1 rrer{t ur pa,rordul sdno;8 qtoq teqr punoJ er{S ‘luetuorutqua
lnoqlra slxat Jluss er{l P?JJ orl^\ sJauJ¿elJo lBr{1 gtv’r saSessed pacuegua f¡ec
-qderSodÁ ar{t pEaJ per{ oq,/!\ sreureelJo a:ueuro;rad aqr pa.redruof, etrqr6
‘sxet ar{t pear laqr sE sJaurruJatep
a,ussassod aql a:nou ol sreureal aql peal pFo,&\ srql teqr ser’r srsegrodfil aq1
‘sJeDal
¡rudec ur uaurJ^/\ Jo ‘pazrfrlell ‘paul1;apun ‘adlr p¡oq ur s¿,l.r lr ‘slxel
aql ur peftedd¿ ¡aulu¡atap a rssassod ¿ eult l¡a,ra ‘sl terll ‘peppr selv\ luaru
-eruequa ¡ecrqde.rSodlr ter{} sr poog rndur Eerrqr6 put laqera pue lpnls srql
uae^\lag e uaJeJIp ¡oleu aq1 ‘porrad >leJ
^.-o^\r
E JaAo poplrto.rd sJnr^nfe
uolsuaqardruof, pue slerJet¿ru Sulpear3o a8elced e g8norqr sJeuruJJerap alrs
-sassod3o sparpunq or arnsodxe3o sJnol{ g1 l¡arrurxordde pa,rra:ar sluapnrs
‘sessrlr TSg a^rsuetul ul ZI-I1 pa8e sreur¿el Suurads-r¡ruarg fq G5 ‘d’f,
rardeq3 eas :.Jar{, pue ,slq, f¡ngrcads) sJauruJelep a,ussassod3o uolrlslnbf,E
eql peuruexa (866I) etrqr6 euueof ‘tndut Parueque Sutrt¡o,rut fpnrs e u1
‘paurEal aq p¡no,,rr laqr rBqr saf,uer{f, aqt Sutsearcur snql ‘a8en8ue¡ Puof,as aqr
ur saJnleeJ ol uonuelte (sJauJ?el me.rp rg8rru reqr sSulqr 3o lral¡e,r B ol JaJaJ
ot ,tueurorurqua lndur, rurar aql peulor (eGGl) qrltus poo,llrel{S IeeI{3rI{
tndut pacuaqul :6 I tp”tS
‘,pue eqr ur rq8u 1l tag, uollres eqt uI ¡erep oJour uI passnf
-srp sr srql ‘tuarudo¡e,rep prnunuoo (sJauJeal ro3 lressarau aq leru a8en8ue¡
puof,as aqt ur Imrrtuu¡e¡8 lou sr lerllv\ rnoge uolleurJoJut llolldxa aJo(u ‘snql
‘(oSrn8ue¡ rsJg Jraqt pue) a8en8uelralur rrJrp ur luasa¡d eJE tEI{r sluorueloJo
a8en8ur¡ ra8rer aqr ur ef,uesqt er{l arltou or sJauJeel r¡urrad ot g8noue tou
sr ef,uepr^e e plsod ‘(¡ecrtrrurue¡8 rou sr lerllv\ lnog? uolteruro3ul) af,ueplle
e,rnrSau ueqr ar’13 01 slrej l ‘(a8en8uel Puoes aqt uI ¡ectteruurerS sl req^{
tnoqr uorlrrrJroSur) aruapr,ra a,rnlsod qrlu’r sJeuJea¡ sap¡,rord rndul aSen8uel
or e¡nsodxa g8nogr¡e regr pan8re (I66I) errqA\ eplq’T..rerdrq3 uI perou
rya8rn8uq tsrg rrarp uo peseg rorra uBJo pu ra8 ol rueqr pral lou p¡p lnq
‘a8en8ue¡rarur Jrarp ol
^,\.eu
Sulqrauos ppe tuaql d¡aq p¡nor poog tndur aqr
reqr srsaS8ns r¡sr¡8ug ur lerrleuue¡8un a¡e uoll¡sod slql ur sqra^pe teql azlu
-8ooa¡ or lllrgeur ,sluapnts eql ‘(,¡ooq:s fppmb ar’ea¡ uarPllqr eql) qsl¡8uE
ur tou tnq qf,uaJC ur lefueruruer8 are reqr sa¡uetuas lda3f,¿ ot panurruor faqt
utoo¿stplJ aqt ut Sututaal a7un&ual puotag t9r
r64 Second knguage learning in the classroom
Enhoncing the input
Study 20: Processing instruction
Bill VanPatten (2004) and his colleagues have investigated the effects of pro-
cessing instruction, another approach to comprehension-based learning. In
processing instruction, learners are put in situations where they cannot com-
prehend a sentence by depending solely on context, prior knowledge, or other
clues. Rather they must focus on the language itself. In one ofthe first studies,
adult learners of Spanish as a foreign language received instruction on differ-
ent linguistic forms, for example, object pronouns (VanPatten and Cadierno
1993). As noted in Chapter 4, VanPatten found that English-speaking learn-
ers of Spanish tended to treat the object pronouns, which precede the verb in
Spanish, as if they were subject pronouns. Thus, a sentence such as La sigue
el señor (literally’her (object) follows the man (subject)’) was interpreted as
‘She follows the man.
Two groups were compared in the stud¡ one receiving processing instruc-
tion, the other following a more traditional approach. The processing
instruction group received explicit explanations about object pronouns and
did some actiyities that drew their attention to the importance of noticing
that object pronouns could occur before the verb. Then, through a variety of
focused listening and reading exercises, learners had to pay attention to how
the target forms were used in order to understand the meaning. For example,
they heard or read La sigue el señor andhad to choose which picture-a man
following a woman or a woman following a man-corresponded to the sen-
tence. A second group of learners also received explicit information about
the target forms but instead of focusing on comprehension practice through
processing instruction, they engaged in production practice, doing exercises
to practise the forms being taught. After the instruction, learners who had
received the comprehension-based processing instruction not only did better
,
Ar
,ffi
‘E JetdEr{J ur V>ls”r uorl¿f,runruruoJ ur uonr?Jalur
luaPnls-tuaPnls eqr I.uou PuB g ruooJss¿lJ ruo{ }drJf,suBJl aql ur Jnor^¿r{ag
luepnrs-rer{reat eql Surllrapun ,/v\ar^ Ief,naJoerp eqt sl slql ‘ol Surpuaue
are fegr Surueatu aqr f.r.rec leqt-saJntf,nJls lpf,neruuer8 agr pue spJo,l.r.
al{t-sruroJ a8en8url agr arrnbrr ot sJeuJeel speel uoneno8au ‘slseqrodÁ1
uollreralul eqt ot Surproroy ‘(ffgf) Sulgcear a8en8ue¡ paseg->lset ur
a¡duexa ro3 ‘¡to8 rr¡ncrued r gsrldruoccr ot rarpaSot Sunlrorvt aJE sJauJeal ar{l
uarl,/ú. enJt l¡eloadsa sl sFlL ‘Surpurrs:apun Fntnru lE aATJJE ol ruaqt sr¡rurad
reqr fe,tr e ur ”ote ‘suolurdo ‘srq8noqr ‘suorluelur rlagr r$rre¡c pue ssa.rdxa ot
‘sr ltr{l ‘8ulu¿aru ro3 alenoSau or pa¡adulor are.(eqr
qlw slaT E
‘suorletnurl asogt Suruocra,ro ul d¡aq
puonrppe paau leu fagr fr¡noglp rnoqrr¡a uaqr pu¿rsrepun seleursself,
Pue sJal{fBal JIaI{1 sJal{./y\ suollsnlls uI eJE sJauJEa¡3¡’psodo.rd ¡¡tr slel, eql
Jo uorssntrsrp oqr ur aas III^\ e^\ s¿ fa e,e\oH ‘(7 rardeg3 aas) a8enSur¡rarul
JreqrJo suonetrrurl eqt ees or ur8aq laqr regr a8en8uel acnpord ol eAeI{ sruep
-ms ueqa sr tr ltr{t sanS¡e eqs ‘slseqrodfq rndrno a¡grsuarla.rduor (186I)
s,ult^\S IITJJaI/\ sr saqceordde pesug-uolsuaqa;druoc ot asuodsa¡ Jerpouv
‘uotrnpord
a8en8ue¡ puoras u,{\o Jrarp ur seJnleal esegl asn ot alqr aq plno^\ lagt rrqr
sefuer{r erp peseeJlul Suruearu ta¡d¡alur ol JJpJo ur saJntBeJ crtsrn8ur¡ cgtc
-ads uo l¡a.r or stuepnts 8urc.ro3 terp pe \oqs qf,Jeesal s.uatltdut¡’q8noua sr
rndul alqrsuagarduroc rrqr slsaqrodlg aqr a8ua¡eqc acuagradxe pue r{)reeseJ
elqtJeprsuof, ‘ssalar{ua aN ‘saoncB¡d pc€o8epad (s.ral{3eal uooJsself Jo
sluauodruor alqenle^ a¡e Suruearu ro3 Sulpea.r pue Suluats{ e ItcV’uonrs
-mbre a8en8uelJo uorr¿punoJ aqr sr a8en8ue¡ ¡n33uruearu3o uolsuaqarduro3
‘sJauJBel
PDUE^PE
eroru ro3 8uru.rea1 jo spur¡ rerpo or ruaualddns E se pue Sururea¡ ur8aq or
&rnl rua¡¡arxe uE se uees ag rsag drru sanr^nfe pes¿q-uorsuarlarduoo rerp
ie^a^roq ‘slsa88ns osle ef,uapr^e eql ‘puelsrapun fagr a8rn8ue¡ ot a;nsodxa
pauretsns a Eqlar{Ul ssarSord a¡geJeplsuof a>leru uEf, sJeuJeel leqr s.&\oqs uoll
-rsrnbcr aSen8ue¡ puofas or saqreordde paseg-uorsuagardruor uo qf,Jease¿
rff,Jeesar aqt Sunardratu¡
‘qs”l uorDnpord uo IIa,t\ sE paru-roSrad
os¡e faqr ‘dno¡8 uonrnpord ar{t ur sJeuJ¿el ueqr $lser uolsuaqardruoo eql uo
ruoo$sqr arp ut Sutuwal a&an&ual puotag s9r
r66 Second language learning in tlte ckssroom
Negotiation for meaning is accomplished through a variety of modifications
that naturally arise in interaction, such as requests for clarification or confir-
mation, repetition with a questioning intonation, etc.
Look for negotiation for meaning in the examples below and compare this
with the examples given for the’Get it right from the beginning’proposal.
Example 4
(A group of ).2-year-old ESL students are discussing a questionnaire about
pets with their teacher.)
s And what is ‘feed’?
r Feed?Tofeedthedog?
s Yes, but when I dont have a …
r Ifyou dont have a dog, you skip the question.
Example 5
(Students from Classroom B, as they settle in at the beginning of the day.)
T How are you doing this morning?
sr I’m mad!
sz \X/hy?
r Oh boy. Yeah, why?
s 1 Because this morning, my father say no have job this morning.
T Your father has no more job this morning? Or you have no job?
s I My father.
How different these examples are from the essentially meaningless interac-
tion often observed in classrooms where the emphasis is on ‘getting it right
from the beginning’. Such genuine exchanges of information must surely
enhance students’ motivation to participate in language learning activities.
But do they, as advocates of this position claim, lead to successful language
acquisition? Note, for example, that, although the conversation proceeded in
a natural way, the student in Example 4 never did find out what’feed’ meant.
Research findings
Most of the early research that examined the ‘Lett talk’ proposal was descrip-
tive in nature, focusing on such issues as: How does negotiation in classrooms
differ from that observed in natural settings? How do teacher-centred and
student-centred classrooms differ in terms of conversational interaction?
Do task types contribute to different kinds of interactional modifications?
Several studies also examined relationships between modifications in conver-
sational interaction and comprehension.
In the mid-1990s researchers began to directly explore the effects of interac-
tion on second language production and development over time. Most of
‘uonrsrnb)E a8en8ue¡ JoJ pnuessa sr lrqr Suruearu JoJ uorl
-ello8au slqt f¡asrcard sr lr leql anSre ¡esodo.rd ;¡er s,reT, aqtJo srauoddng
‘8u¡uearu JoJ uon?no8au sapn¡cur ltr{t af,rlf,E¡d a¡llecrunuJruof aurnua8
Jer{lo r{f,ea JaJo uEf, legr ‘rndur ¡erneuuer8 elEJnf,f,B aql qrr^\ Jer{ro rlJea
apnord sle,ut¡e touuBr sJauJEel g8nogr¡e teql papnpuor Jalrod pue 3uo1
‘llEJe^O ‘sroJra ra^/deJ alnpo.rd lagr teql ernsue ol sarun il¿ lB (Jar{leale’r)
Ieporu 8uu¡eads-a,urru E 01 pesodxa eg ot peeu sJauJeal regr ruarunSft aqt
uonsanb orur pelleo lr asnef,eg t¡nsa; SunsaJalur ue se,l\ srql ‘raleads e nru
ro peru¿Ape uE r{tr^\ prp legr ueqr ;a>1eads le^al-Jterpeurratur reqroue r{rrr*
sJoJJa aJouJ lue a>leru tou prp sJeuJeel lalel-ererpauJJatur (sr teql ‘stxetuof,
ssoJf,¿ saf,uaJaJlP ou Pa,/\\or{s qcaads JauJ¿el rErF Punoj PuE slJBls eslEj PuE
s;o;ra lrepqmo^ pue prrrerururrSJo rJgunu eqt peuruexa JerJod pue 3uo1
‘ra8uol parsel sJauJeel pef,ue^p” qrrr’r suop
-esJeluof, arp asntf,ag l¡rred ‘s¡aut¡¿d Ia el-arerpeuJelur qtr^\ ueql sJauJeel
Ia^el-paJu” p” qtra >llel eJoru parnpord sraurra¡ ‘os[V ‘sJa>l”ads a,uteu qtvrr
plp laqr uer{} sJauJEal Jar{}o qlr^\ aroru pa>llel sJaureal regr puno3 fag¡ ‘srrcd
uonesJe uol ur sla^el frualcgord ssoJf,e saf,ueJa5lp aqr 8uls,(pue ‘suonesJe
-uof, ur sraleads aln¿u-uou put e^neuJo qcaads aqr paredruo) JJlJod pue
3uo1 ‘qsr18uE 3o raleads alneu E I{rl.ry\ raqtout pue 1a>lteds Ie^al-peJue^pe
uE r{lrlrr Jar{roue ‘re>1eads Ie^al-aterpatuJetul JOr{touE tpl^\ uolresJe^uol E petl
raleads la^al-alerpauJalur uE ‘a¡druexa roC ‘sle^al earqr JI{l Jo I{rEe uroü
ra>1eads E r.{tL![ suorssnosrp ate¡edas ul patedtrtued raurml IEnpI^Iput I{]EA
‘qsr¡3ug3o
sJeuJeal paf,u” pE Jo elerperuJalur aJe \ sra>1eads a^Il¿u-uou ag1’sra>¡eads
qsl¡8uE alneu xrs pue ‘qsuedg ser’r a8¿n8uel lsry asoq,& qsr¡8ug3o sra>1eads
alneu-uou ¿1 :sruedrclued 91 aJa./( aJeql’s¡led ul >lstr E Sutur;o3rad sra
-ureal tlnpe fq parnpord aSen8ue¡ eql paurruexa (E86I) r:uod EIrInEd pue
3uo1 ¡aegcrry ‘uonJeJalur JeuJEal uo selpnrs a,rtrdlnsap f¡rca agr jo auo uI
sra.ur?q o7 3u141w srauruaT : I Z tpryS
‘psodo.rd ,pue eqt ur rq8rr rl rJ), arp qrv’t aurl
ur eJour sr srsar¡rodlq uorlfeJelur parepdn eqr or luelalal qf,Jeesal .rardrgc
srql ur JatBI ees III¡I am se ‘lJeJ u1 ‘Suturau pue tuJoJ uae.üteg suoltf,auuof,
a>leru ol sraurea¡ Surdlaq ur aloJ ¡ennrc e le¡d or percIlag sI teql aJnrEeJ auo sE
pagriuapr ueeq ser{ >prqpaal e^nf,arJoJ ‘8ulurca1 oTEIIIIf,EJ or l¡a1r¡ lsour are
lerlt uonf,eratur Jo seJnlreJ pue (uolrualle ‘aldluexe ro3) Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡
puooas ot alnqrJluof, ler{l sal}IJedeo raurea¡ sale¡8alur uoIsJeA parrpdn aqr
‘(€g6t 3uo1) ruaudo¡a,rep aSen8uel puof,as satouo¡d uolrreJalul lruolres
-raluor teqr 8u¡rers uorsre ¡tutSuo eqr qrl^\ paredruo3 ‘(7 -rardeq3 aas)
srsaqrodlq uonrerelur eW Jo uorsral perepdn (9G6) s,3uo1 ¡aeqcry.q lq
pate rtoru aJE pue s8untas froreroqe¡ uI lno paIJJ¿f, uaoq a^EI{ selpnts osaql
utoottspp aql ut Sututaal a&an&ual puotag L9I
168 Second language learning in the classroom
Study 22: Learner language andproficiency leuel
George Yule and Doris Macdonald (1990) investigated whether the role
that different proficienry-level learners play in a two-way communication
task led to differences in their interactive behaviour. They set up a task that
required ñvo learners ro communicate information about the location ofdif-
ferent buildings on a map and the route to ger there. One learner, referred to
as the ‘sender’, had a map with a delivery roure on it, and this speaker’s job
was to describe the delivery route ro rhe ‘receiver’ so that he or she could draw
the delivery route on a similar map. The task was made more challenging by
the fact that there were minor differences between the two maps.
To determine whether there would be any difference in the interactions
according to the relative proficiency of the 40 adult participants, differ-
ent types of learners were paired together. One group had high-proficiency
learners in the ‘sender’ role and low-proficiency learners in the ‘receiver’ role;
the other group had low-proficiency’senders’ paired with high-proficiency
‘receivers’.
\lhen low-proficiency learners were senders, interactions were considerably
longer and more varied than when high-proficiency learners were the senders.
The explanation for this was that high-proficiency senders tended to act as
if the lower-level receiver had little contribution to make in the completion
of the task. As a result, the lower-level receivers were almost forced to play a
passive role and said very little. \X/hen lowerJevel learners were the senders
however, much more negotiation for meaning and a greater variety of interac-
tions between the two speakers took place. Based on these findings, Yule and
Macdonald suggest that teachers should sometimes place more advanced stu-
dents in less dominant roles in paired activities with lower-level learners.
Study 23: Zhe dynamics ofpair uorh
In a longitudinal study with adult ESL learners in an Australian universiry
Neomy Storch (2002) observed the patterns of interaction between 10 pairs
of students completing different tasks over one semester. She identified four
distinct patterns of interaction: ‘collaborative’ interaction consisted of two
learners fully engaged with each other’s ideas; ‘dominant-dominant’ inter-
action was characterized by an unwillingness on the part of either learner
to engage and/or agree with the othert contributions; ‘dominant-passive’
consisted of one learner who was authoritarian and another who was willing
to yield to the other speaker; and ‘expert-novice’ interaction consisted of
one learner who was stronger than the other but actively encouraged and
supported the other in carrying out the task. To investigate whether the four
rypes of interaction led to differences in learning outcomes, Storch iden-
tified learning events that occurred during the interactions (for example,
learning that the definite article is used with the names of some countries).
Then she looked at whether that language knowledge was maintained in
JoJ slxaluoJ alBJauaS pFo.{r l?ql auo se uasor{f, sE^\ 3rdol aql dJlunof Jrer{l
ur suJalgoJd lrluaruuoJrlue passnf,srp lagr gcrqm ur sanrlnf,E leuonf¿Jelur
ur paSe8ua s¡uepnrs ‘puelreql ur sesselr a8enSue¡ u8laro3 e se gsr¡3ug ur
sellr^n3e dnorS-¡eus pue -.rred3o esn eql pare8rrsa,rur (VOOZ) q8nouoqcla¡
rury ‘srsaqtodlq uolrceralur erpJo uorsral petepdn aql ol tue^elal lpnrs e u1
uoo¿sstp x?ql ? ut uotlJ?talu, Jaut?”1-¿auJ?aT :97 [?wS
‘tuaudo¡a,rap Zjot spEJI uorlreratur peterlo8au reqr slsaqrodlg aqr
.roj rroddns se pata;dratur aJE stlnseJ esaql ‘qser luaul¿aJt aql JerJe qruour
auo paJatsrurup¿ slset-tsod pafe¡ap aqr uo paure¡ureru sB^\ sJolo?Jatul eqr
ro3 ruaudo¡a^ep ur eseeJf,ur tuecglu8ls eqr ter{r salou os¡e la>1ce¡rq .a¡rrr¡ l.ra,r.
pa8uegc orfv\ ‘sJauJEa¡ dnor8 IoJruoJ arp or relrturs eJa.&\ spardr.ro5 ar{t pu¿
sre^Jesgo ag1 ‘(¡orruo3 pue’spardlrcg’s.rauasgg ‘a’r) uoncerarur ul aSe8ua
tou pp oq^, sJauJeel ueqr ruarudola^ap uorteruJo3 uollsanb Jreqt ur ssa¡8o¡d
PeurElsns eJou PslEJtsuouep sJrp?JJun Jotf,¿Jalul puE sJolf,BJerul qrog
‘slset aql
¡e para¡druoc
tnq qs¿l er{t Jo fu¿ ul aledlclued rou prp orl,{a sJeureel jo dnorS lorruo3 E
oslB sB,/v\ eJeql ‘are1d >1oot Suruselu JoJ uollenoSau ou snq] pue JnDo lou plp
su^\op>leaJq uonef,runururof ter{l Jauueru palletap e r{fns ur pardl.rcs prc pe5
-r¡druls ueeq ptr{ rrqr aBrnBuEI pesn s;aleads elrleu er{r tnq sra>1eads a neu
eql qrl^\ $lsel arues aqt tno parJJef, ,spaldrrcg, aqr ‘7 dnorg ur sraureal ‘le,na.
lue ur toeJalur rou pp laqr rnq >lsel er{t tno palrrer lagr se ra>1eeds alneu eql
Pue JauJ”al aqt or uelsrl or Pa>lsE eJe,/r^. ,’sJe^Jesqo, aqr ‘E dnorS ur sJauJEe-I
(‘sarpeeJufl Jotf,eJelul eql sE ol paJJaJaJ JJa \ snqt pue sruJoJ uonsanbjo uon
-lsrnbce Jrar{r ur perue^pe se lou a.rartr laqt rnq 1 dno;g ur sJauJeel se lndul
pa5lporu atues er{l palraf,al ¿ dnorS ur sJeuJea-I ‘sJeuftal ar{r JoJ Suluraur
‘$rrcp
ot rq8nos laqr se a8en8uel rrar{r pa5poru or{ \ ‘sra>1eads e neu r{1r,&
s>lsel aqr lno parJJEf ,’sJolreJetul, se oJ peJJaJeJ’1 dno.r3 ur sJeuJ?al aql
‘sdno¡8 alg otur pepplp ueql eraly\ ÁtyL’Z.rerdeq3 ur paqrJ3sap s? ‘suorl
-senb Sulu¡tal ur peqleal peg laqr a8ets aqr3o suJJal ur passasse eJe.&\ sJauJ¿al
aqt ‘DISEI agr ur Suned¡on¡ed ot JorJ¿ ‘suonsanb acnpord ol sJauJeel JoJ slxal
-uoc apu’ord or pau8lsap are,4a S>lsEl aql ‘gsr¡8ug 3o sra>1eads e^nBu r{tr^r
Sulcuanbas a¡nl¡rd pue uorralduoc l¡ots ‘alduexa -lo3 ‘$lset eln€f,runruuror
rueraglp ur a3¿3ua ol -ISg Jo sreur”el rlnpe pe>lse (666D falce¡¡ uosrly
ruautdo¡anap aSanSuq puoras?u” uolltpratuJ :re [?n4S
‘a8pali’rou13o
uonfnJtsuof,-of, aqr ul a8e8ua l¡n3ssaccns uec faqr ‘drqsuone¡ar ef,rlou
-l¡adxa ue ur eJe sJauJeal pue f¡a,urerog¿llol suonlunJ >1rom rrcd uaq^\ tBr{r
trrrclf, ar{r pue (r/ rarderl3 aes) ruarudola,up a,rnruSoc 3o ,,lroeqt s,Qslo8l¡
ro; rroddns sE srr{} sle¡d¡elur qlJots ‘tseal aqr paurelur”ur s¡r¿d a,rrssed-tueu
-ltuop pue lueurruop-lueunuop aqr ur paredl¡lued oq./( sJeuJEeT ‘aru¡ Je o
a8pa¡,lou1 Z-I JrerpJo eJou paurelureu s¡¡¿d acl,rou-l¡adxa pue a^nrJogel
loo aql ur paredlcnred ogz’r sreureel rBr{r punoJ r{Jrors ¡ser ruanbesqns E
ruoo$spp at¡l ut Sututaal a&arcSuq yuotag 69r
t70 Second language learning in the classroom
the use of conditional clauses such as ‘If people didnt leave water running
while brushing their teeth, they would save an estimated 5-10 gallons each
time’ (p. 213).Learners were audio-recorded as they discussed the environ-
mental problems.
The recorded conversations were examined to see the extent to which stu-
dents used interactional features that are believed to facilitate second language
learning, for example, negative feedback (i.e. clarification requests, explicit
correction, and recasts) and modified output (i.e. a learnert more accurarcl
complex reformulation ofhis or her previous utterance). Learners were tested
on their abiliry to produce conditional clauses in a pre-test, an immediate
post-test, and a delayed post-test.
McDonough found that learners who had used more negative feedback and
modified output in their interactions significantly improved in the accu-
racy of their conditional clauses. Those who made less use of these features
did not. McDonough also explored opinions about the usefulness of pair
work and small-group activities, asking whether such activities contributed
to learning. She found that the students did not perceive pair- and grouP-
activities as useful for learning English. This was true both for students who
seemed to have made effective use of the interaction for learning and those
who had not. The fact that learners were sceptical of the benefits of group-
and pair-work activities suggests a need to take account of learners’ beliefs
about learning (see Chapter 3) and to share with them our reasons for using
these activities.
Interpreting the research
Research based on the interaction hypothesis has investigated factors that
contribute to the quality and quantity of interactions between second
language learners. It has provided some useful information for teaching.
Certainly, the studies by Long and Porter, Yule and Macdonald, and Storch
contribute to a better understanding of how to organize group and pair work
more effectively in the classroom. The Mackey and McDonough studies are
two examples of research that have measured second language development
in relation to different aspects of conversational interaction. Mackey’s study
used one-on-one pair-work activities between trained native speakers and
non-native speakers focusing on a single grammatical feature in a laboratory
context. Thus it is difficult to relate the findings to the kind of interactions
that take place in classrooms. The McDonough study helps to fill this gap
because it is a classroom study that also demonstrates the benefits of interac-
tion on second language learning over time.
Recentl¡ a number of laboratory studies have also examined the effects ofl
different interactional features on specific aspects ofsecond language learn-i
ing over time. Several studies have shown that implicit corrective feedbackl
‘&l¡q” a8en8ue¡ puof,as pue sllDIS f,ruapef,B rreqt qroq dole.nap ilyur stuepnls
reql peunsse l¡durs sr tr ‘uonf,nJtsu paseg-luetuof JoJ slxeluof lueur u1
s8urpug rlrrtasa¿
‘o¡4] JO
rc¿(, e urpr^r aprru l¡ensn sr a8¿n8ue¡ lrrroleru aqr 01 uonrsu€rl Jr{1 lnq
‘.,nou1 fpea-r¡e laqr a8en8ue¡ e30 esn euJos 1y\ollE tEqt saruu¡e¡8o¡d uonef,npa
F.Srlllq ol ssef,f,e a,reg leu stuapnls rar{to ‘a8en8ue¡ Ál¡oleu aqr g8no.rgr
lluo 8ul¡oor{Js ot sseJJE eAEr{ ueuo stuapnls ‘uone¡Snurur Jo serJlunol uI
‘uonernpe;o a8en8ue¡ aql se uasoqo sr a8¿n8uel auo os ‘sa8en8uel IEOoI IIE ur
alq”lr¿Ae lou aJe slerJJleru leuonef,npa ‘sJar{to u1 :a.,vrod FruoloJ snol,ra¡d e
3o a8en8ue¡ aqr sr Surloogcs jo e8en8uel l¡uo rr{l (sernunof, aruos ur ‘a¡druexe
JoC ‘alqEIrEAE sr uorldo raqto ou ta J^{oq ‘suortenlrs leuorruJnpa lueu uJ
‘a8en8ue¡ puo3es B ur uononJtsur poseg-ruetuof elrarer or (ruagr JoJ asoor{f,
slua¡ed .uaqr ro) Jsoor{f, stuapnls ‘saruu¡e¡8o¡d fIfC pue uorsrauul uI
‘erun e(ues aqr re a8rn8u?l eql pue tuatuof, JatlEuJ rralgns aqt 8ul
-uJeel ‘,auo JoJ o^\1, la8 u¿¡ sluapnls rrr{r sr rpeordde srq¡Jo uortetoadxa aq1
‘e8en8ur¡ aruor{ (stuapnts or uonrppe ul sa8en8ue¡ aJour Jo o./r\-l ur uonf,nJtsur
Sul.rego lq raqrrry srqr puarxa slooqls ueadorng aql sE rlrns saurue¡8o¡d
Ieuorlrf,npa rar{ro ‘g rardeq3 ul g lpnrg ur paqrrf,sap adornE ur sarurue¡8
-ord (1¡3) Sururea¡ pater8arul-a8enSur¡ pue rueruof, el{r pue saruru¿¡8o¡d
uorsJeurrur ‘a¡durxa ro3 ‘s8ulDas IruollJnJtsul Jo óalre,t lea¡8 r uI petuaru
-aldrur s¡ r1 ‘aBenBuEI rer{t ur rq8ner rall¿ur reafgns lpnrs faqr se a8en8uel
u8laro3 Jo puof,es e a¡lnbce sJauJral ‘Surgcear aSen8ut¡ peseq-ruJruof, uI
auo ¿o{oml pg ,
‘8ulu.ree¡ a8rnSue¡ puof,as uo >lreqpaal elnrarrof, rrcrldxa
eJouJo sloaga aqr pare8nsa^ur e^eq leqt uorllsod (pue eqr ul rq8rr lI leg, eqt
or Palsler sJrPnls luoorssBlJ lE >lool III¡I a¡,r rardegr srql uI ratel ‘8urgt arues
aqr 3uúes jo le,r rarpoue lsnl se Jaqler rng uroJ a8en8ue¡ rraql rlerrof, ol
ldu¡eur uE sE sJeuJEa¡ aqr lq pallac;ed ag rou letu stse¡a¡ (sJaqf,Eat eql ‘uoll
-f,nJlsur Jelleru-relgns g8norgr Suru¿au Surssa¡dxa uo sI snf,oJ lruolrfnJrsul
eqt uaq.4 ‘g .rardeq3 ur pauJeel a,t\ sV’Ja^a,l.loq ‘es?J al{t sfe,r’r¡e tou sI srql
‘f:e¡nrre uo snfoJ E pue uonf,nJlsul rrruuer8 ¡euoltlpeJt ol peruorsnf,f,E aJJ \
sraureal rEqL egr asnrreq pef,rlou uaeq a eq or l¡a1t arour ere.&\ (ryrqpaa;
e nJaJJof Jo sruJoJ raqro pur) slsEJaJ ‘lpnts uoorsse¡r suBnouoOlIAJ uI
‘(tOOZ rpedg pur ‘uz’roqrg8rl ‘se¡oqer¡)
lpualssuor tseral sr ruJoJ auo l¡uo3l l¡-re¡ncrrred ‘>lrorvr. rred uI ruaIIBS aJouJ
ere stsef,ar esnef,eq aq feru s¡lt ‘(/002 oo3 pue da1:eyrq) Suluas frort.loqel
aqt ul tsa8uoJls aJ? slsef,al JoJ sr3eJe a,ulsod eq] reqr sruJguol qf,Jeesal sII{l
Jo ^/v\ar^al tueseJ v’lBrsgaueq sr suorlBnlrs >porvl-rrcd ul (stsmar ‘alduexa.roj)
utoo”tssyp aql ut &urutaa1 aSan&ual Vuocag tLt
172 Second language learning in the chssroom
In recent years, researchers have sought to examine this assumption more
critically.
Study 26: French immersionprograrnrnes in Canada
Research in Canadian French immersion programmes is often cited in
support of the’Get rwo for one’ proposal. Most immersion programmes are
offered in primary and secondary schools, but some universities also offer
content-based instruction that expands opportunities for students to use
their second language in cognitively challenging and informative courses.
tü/hat have the studies shown?
In terms of populariry and longeviry French immersion has been a grear
success. Thousands of English-speaking Canadian families have chosen this
option since its first implementation in the 1960s (Lambert and Tucker
1972), both in areas where French is spoken in the wider communiry and in
those where French is rarely heard outside the classroom. Numerous studies
have shown that French immersion students develop fluenc¡ high levels of
listening comprehension, and confidence in using their second language.
They also maintain a level of success in their academic subjects that is com-
parable to that of their peers whose education has been in English (Genesee
1987). Over the years, however, educators and researchers began ro express
concern about students’ failure to achieve high levels ofperformance in some
aspects of French grammar, even after several years of full-day exposure to the
second language in these programmes.
Some researchers argue that the difficulry French immersion learners experi-
ence in their L2 production shows that comprehensible input is not enough
(Harley and Swain l9B4). They claim that the learners engage in too little
language production because the classes are largely teacher-centred. Students
are observed to speak relatively little and rarely required to give extended
answers. This permits them to operate successfully with their incomplete
knowledge of the language because they are rarely pushed to be more precise
or more accurate. tü/hen students do speak, communication is usually sat-
isfactory in spite of numerous errors in their speech because the learners’
interlanguages are infuenced by the same first language, the same learning
environment, and the same limited contact with the target language outside
the classroom. Teachers also tend to understand students’ interlanguage, so
there is rarely aneed to negotiate for meaning. Such successful communica-
tion makes it difficult for an individual learner to work out how his or her use
ofthe language differs from the target language.
Another explanation for students’ lack of progress on certain language fea-
tures is their rarity in French immersion instruction. For example, Merrill
Swain (1988) observed that even history lessons, where past tense verbs
might be expected to occur, were often delivered in the ‘historical present’
(for example, ‘The ships go down to the Caribbean; they pick up sugar and
stxel eql pEeJ ol aruoo stuapnts euJrl aql lq ter{t os rq8ner-ard l¡¡enuassa are
laqr ‘parelsueJl tou eJp slxel aqr, elrq,tr’regt pa,uasgo uosugof ‘uorsuaqard
-uor rrer{l tsrsst ol asaurr{J ur stJeql pue satou f.reruaua¡ddns qlr,l.r. stuapnts
peprr\ord pue (serJpuonf,rp
lEn8urllg Jo asn arp pa8eJno3ua ‘JEruruErS aqr
pegllduls ‘peo¡ ,{.re1nqe)o^ eqt parnpeJ 13 rT ‘stxet puaqarduof, stuapn}s
d¡ag or sar8ale.ns 3o lrarrr,r e palo¡dua s.raqf,Eat ‘srgt roj aresuaduoo o¿
‘gsll8uE ur sllDls lcerarrl fue tnoqrr.u looqrs lrepuo:as jo ,reaf rsrg er{r or
eruef, sluepnrs lue14¡ ‘slez’r
¡etululru ur lluo qsrlSug ur rarpo r{f,Ea qtr^\ pue
reqf,Eot eqt qtr^\ pelrtrelur sluepnls reqt pue sraqf,EelJo qraads eqt ur pereu
-ruoperd xrry puc JSaurqC ter{r pal”J^eJ serpnls uJooJSSEIf IEuonE^JasqO
‘(asaurg3 pur qsl¡8uEjo uorreurquor e)
(xrry, pue ‘eseurr{J ‘qslSuE jo palsrsuof, leqt >llet Jer{feel se,/\l. uJar{rJo auo
‘seruue¡8o¡d uors¡au¡rul qsrpug aseqt ur ssa¡8o¡d cnsrn8url arenbape aleru
ol sreureel Jo lllrgrur eqr ot petngrrtuor sJnor^Er{eg crSo8epad lera^as teql
pan8re a¡1 lcuarcgord qsrpuE u,,’to Jrer{t ur suonelruIllJo asneleq tueluoo
agt Surra,rrlap lla,rrrrage ur sauprll¡p (sreqreet pa^rasgo osle eH d¡nyssac
-f,ns runln3u.rnr ¡a,ra¡,fiePuof,as aqr
^\olloJ
01 PePeeu fruarcyo.rd gsr¡8ug aqr
pe>ptl sluepnts ter{t patou eH ‘seuur€r8ord qcns roJ spuptuep aqt taeru ol
uarsls Fuonernpe agrSo lrr¡q¿ ar{r rnoqe sureruor pasrer (¿661) uosuqof
qrra¡ ‘s¡ooqcs frepuoras 8uo¡ 3uo¡1 ur sesselr uorsreururr qsr¡3ug arrl
ur sJnorlerleq Sulu.ree¡ pue Surgoeal uo r{fJ¿asal er{t Jo atuos Sulr’terlal uI
‘usr¡en8urlrq qsrlSuE
-eseurr{J Jo 1a,o1 g8¡q e Sululrtureu jo po8 s lueururelo8 SuqE 3uo¡1 et¡r
rllr^\ luJlsrsuor Suraq se uaas osle eJa,,’r laql ‘lrrunuruoo I¿uorlEuJatur eql
ul l¡eclruapele pue l¡euorssa3ord paacrns ol ueJpl¡{f, rrarp patur,l.r or{,l.r
slua¡ed asaurr{J qrrr’r re¡ndod a¡artl. saruue¡8o¡d uorsJeuruJl qsr¡8ug are¡
asaql ‘(91-¿ saperS) Iooqrs l.repuocas re qsr¡8ug ur pue (9-1 saperS)
Iooqrs .&eul¡d ur aseuolue3 ur perpnrs stuepnrs 3o lruofeur aqr qlrqr’r ur
auo or asauotue3 ur ro gsr¡8uE ur lla,rtsn¡cxe JeIpIe palpnts sluapnrs qllq¡a
ur euo ruo5 peloru 8uo¡ 3uo¡1 ul ruatsfs puonernpe eqt s096I aqr uI
Suoy 3uo17 ut ssa”qs n?un uorsrautu? awT :/e t?us
‘(lesodo.rd
,pue aql ur rq8lr tl ta3, aqr aas) sarnlraJ
a8en8ue¡ re¡nrnred uo uonf,nJlsu pasn)oJ-ruroJ ruorj rgaueq plp srau#el
‘serpn¡s ¡etuarulradxa euros u1 ‘a8enSue¡ ar{lJo seJnlea3 :rreru8e.rd Sulpn¡cur
‘ruro; aBenBuEI uo pesnroJ terp uononrrsur lg patuaua¡druor eg ol papeau
uonf,nJtsur Jeuerrr rralqns reqr parsaSSns se,l\ rr ‘l¡8utsea.rru1 ‘a8e arues agr jo
sraleads alrleu Suoru¿ uonfeJaturJo prldÁ Jq plno,/v\ reqr sa¡lrs gceads agr
ol ssaof,E eAEr{ tou plp a8en8uel aqr ol a¡nsodxa ruooJsstlf, l¡uo rplm sJaurcal
reqr parou (566ü ul” \S IIuraW puE euorel euIEI[ d¡erurdordde tI asn tou
plp sluepnrs (uononJlsur uorsJauul
Jo s¡eaf JaUE ua^a teqr sasself ut ,(1art.t
os pesn se,&\ pnpr^rpur uE ssaJppt l¡arr¡od or snoa unouo¡d uos¡ad puores aql
Jo asn aql reqt punoJ Oeeü rars/1fo¿ ‘(,”‘ pue¡8ug or >prq rr aler laqr
ruoo¿sspp at¡t ut Sututaal a&an&ury puocag 8.Lt
t74 Second knguage learning in the chssroom
for themselves the more able students at least are sufficiently familiar with
the content to be able to deal with them’ (p.177).Although these strategies
helped students understand the content, they may not have helped them
learn to use the syntactic and discourse structures in the second language to
establish form-meaning relationships. Therefore it is not surprising that the
standards of reading in English at age 15 were reported to be significantly
lower than those for Chinese. At the same time, however, the educational
outcomes for Hong Kong students in content subjects continued to be high,
comparable to, and in some areas superior to, achievements in other devel-
oped countries. In addition, the levels of Chinese Ll reading proficiency
remained high.
In spite of professional development efforts to help teachers achieve the dual
goals of language and content instruction, Philip Hoare and Stella Kong
(2008) find that many teachers in the Hong Kong immersion programmes
continue to have difficulty implementing immersion pedagogy. They attrib-
ute this in part to the pressure teachers feel in a society where performance
on examinations is paramount. To ensure that their students do well on the
content exams, teachers often feel that they must teach in Chinese or in a
simplified English that does not give students access to the language that is
appropriate for highJevel academic work.
Study 28: Dual immersion
In recent years, legislation has limited the availabiliry of bilingual education
for most minoriry language students in the United States. In most states,
English language learners’ education must take place entirely in English, or
with only minimal support for learning through their first language. As we
saw in Chapter 1, the result ofthis approach is often subtractive bilingualism.
Children gradually lose their first language or fail to develop it for academic
purposes. In addition, they often fall behind in their academic work because
they do not yet have the English language skills needed for dealing with the
gradeJevel subject matter.
Some jurisdictions allow ‘dual immersion’ as an exception to the strict
enforcement of instruction through English only. In dual immersion, minor-
iry language students learn English in classrooms where English-speaking
children also learn the minority language students’ home language. Patsy
Lightbown (2007) observed classroom interaction and learning outcomes
in a school where an equal number of native English- and native Spanish-
speaking students shared the classrooms. Starting in kindergarten, half their
instruction was delivered in English by an English native speaker and half in
Spanish by a native speaker of that language. Teachers coordinated closely
to ensure that the subject matter instruction in the two languages was com-
plementary rather than redundant. Students’ performat.. ot a variety of
measures administered through Grade 3 showed that the programme was
9Lt
>lJo1!\ ot Peq Jar{lEer aqr rErfl tuaPne sE,/r\ 1I (uossal salPnrs
FI)os ¿ tuoS ErEP
uone^rasqo eqr q ‘qruaJC uanrr^\ arnpord ol pue puersrapun or ÁIIqe
-ur¡q .lrxa f¡rra, .ro f¡uo qsl¡8ug uI esoql roJ uer{r sa8en8ue¡ aruol{ (stuaPnls
aqt rroddns ler{r seuue¡8o¡d ul sluaPnts a8rnSue¡ Áuoulru ro¡ ‘a8pa¡rrroul
rJll?ur nalqns pue Sulurea¡ a8rn8uey qsr¡8ug qtoq uI ‘satuof,lno raueq slurg
-uof, qf,reaser egl ‘(9002 ‘F ta aaseuaD :8002 uEL{Euer{S PuE lsn8ny) sarer5
perrun eqr ul sraurtal a8en8uel qsr¡8uE Sulrecnpa or sarpeordde tuoraglP
JoJ af,ueplla aqr peullurxe eAEL{ s,!\el^eJ r{sJtasal IEJeAas ‘s.real luaoal u1
‘(1OOZ ‘lE re prel(oH) sanr¡rge a8en8ue¡ Puores PImq ol qrll{1’r uo
uorrepuno3 Suorls ? sl a8tn8uey auoq s p¡n{) ¿3o ruarudolaleP Penulruof, ar{l
regr a¡dlrul.rd agr uo pesrq are ¡e fagr rnq ‘padola,raP uaaq e Eq uolsraurrul
IEnp Jo slaporu rueragrp Jo requnu e ‘.paepul ‘a8en8uq lr¡rouru aql tuo5
stuapnls Jo Jaqwnu pnuetsgns e a Eq or a¡qrssod tou $ ll oJaq \ s8ulllas ul
pe.r.ra3a.rd sl qcrordde srgl ‘a8en8u¿l Puooas rlal{r ul uoltrnrtsul l¡rea rraql
¡e llreau a raf,eJ sruepnls Suqeads-qsr¡8ug aqr JJaI{^\ ‘sI l¿ql ‘saruu¡e¡8o¡d
uorsJeurrur r{rueJC uEIpEueJ erp salquaseJ rEI{t a8en8ue¡ Ál¡outru eqr uo
srseqdrua ^l1tea ue qll^\ sarultaruos lnq ‘qsr¡8uE jo Sururea¡ pur Sulqoear aql
or paro^ap eurrl aJoru tlll^\ ueuo ‘f¡ruaraglp ParngIJlsIP aJE aurllJo lunouJe
er{l pue sruepnls Jo Jequnu ar¡l ‘satutue¡8o¡d uols;arurul FnP Jotllo uI
‘a8enSue¡ eruol{ rlaqt ro3 uoddns apl¡,ftar’
st,,’t aJar{t erer{z’r sassel3 pn8ul¡19 IBuoItISuErl ur .ro l¡uo qslpug ul Jarllle sE^{
uorlf,nJlsur osoq./v\ stuaPnrs ol algslls E lou eJe.&\ reqr sle-,’r ur sllDls a8en8uel
gsruedg rraqr do¡a,rap ol panulluof osle stuaPnls tegr rlEJ eql sernraru¿l¡odrur
re¡ncnrrd 39 ‘Sulpear ur sse¡8o¡d plder f¡¡e¡radsa aperu sluaPnls Surleads
-qsruedg pue ‘sl1r¡s aStn8uel qst8ug 1o ruarudo¡a^eP rleql ro; IEIf,Seueg
LuootssplJ aqt ur Surutual a&unSuq puotag
176 Second language learning in tlte classroom
very hard to help students understand a text on beluga whales. He did this
in many ways-by paraphrasing, repeating, simplifying, checking for com-
prehension, gestures, etc. Despite his efforts it was clear that most students
understood very little of the text. In their French language classes, these same
students also lacked the terminology they needed to talk about grammatical
gender in relation to adjective agreemenr.
lVhen the students’ performance on a wide range of measures was examined
to assess their knowledge of French (for example, vocabulary recognition,
reading comprehension, writing), it was evident that the students áid rrot
have the French language skills they needed ro cope with the demands of
typical secondary-level instruction. Furthermore, even though many of the
students were able to speak French informally outside class, their oral abili-
ties were limited when they had to discuss more complex academic subject
matter. As we saw in Chapter 1, teachers are sometimes misled by students’
ability to use the language in informal settings, concluding that their aca-
demic difficulties could not be due to language problems.
The students’ lack of age-appropriate academic French is a serious problem.
Solving it will involve complex educational, social, and cultural questions.
One pedagogical element that might contribute to a solution is a better
balance between language and subject matter instruction, focusing on the
language that the students need to succeed in school. Another possibiliry is
that further development of the learners’ Ll literacy would better prepare
them for second language and subject matter learning. There is another good
reason to support students’ development of Inuktitut. There are increasing
concerns that Inuktitut will be lost as future generations shift to English or
French as their preferred language. An educational system that encourages
the development of both first and second languages may ensure the survival
of this heritage language (Thylor, Caron, and McAlpine 2000).
Interpreting the research
Content-based language teaching has many advantages. In general, it
increases the amount of time for learners to be exposed to the new language.
It creates a genuine need to communicate, motivating students to acquire
language in order to undersrand the content. For older students, there is the
advantage of contenr that is cognitively challenging and interesting in a way
that is often missing in foreign language insrruction, especiallywhere lessons
are designed around particular grammatical forms.
Nevertheless, there are also some problems with content-based instruction.
Our research with Inuit children adds further evidence to Jim Cummins’
(1984) claim that students need 5-7 years before their abiliry to use rhe
language for cognitively challenging academic material has reached an age-
appropriate level. For students from disadvantaged minority groups, this
‘apntrtde a8en8url ‘lrrruaplSo esuas (srauJeel eql ‘uorle^Irour sE r{fns slolre3
uo puadap or s¡eadde soJnt¿g IpuorlEIJ¿A esar{rJo uonrslnble (sJeuJ?J’I ‘eurrl
.Kue rc rq8ner aq uer-sruau lre¡ngeoo^ Fnpr^lpur ‘a¡duexa ro3-a8en8ue¡
jo snadsr Jar{lo urelJaf rrr{r urEIf, osle ,,r.rar^ srqr Sulr¡oddns sJar.lf,Jease¿
:eaq,(aqr gcaadsjo ureeJls Jr{t uI stuaruela JagrueruaJ
pue af,rlou or lrrlrge Surdo¡a,lap (sJeuJeel uo ued ul rseel r¿ peseg aq leru
lagr regr srsaSSns (7 raldeq3 aas) l-roeqr lrr¡rqessarord rng ‘paurc¡dxa f¡n3
ueJg lou seg sa8ers ar{lJo esner Surl¡;apun aq1 ‘sruarsfs a8en8ue¡rarur rraql
orur parer8arur í11ry lou a.re larp asnecag JatEI urerfl esn ol eseef, tnq ‘sself, uI
uaqr rg8nel uaag e,reg larp JaUE saJntonJts uIElJaf, arnpord leru sruapnrs
‘,8uruul8aq aqr ruo5 rq8rr u laD, uI 1v\ES eÁ\ sy ‘7 a8erg te sI teql( a.rrnb¡e
or fpear are laqr eroJeg E a8rrg or ra8 pue ¿ a8erg g8norqr ssed ol a Er{ sre
-ureal esnef,eq 1ro.,’r rou ¡l,tr 1 a8rrg rE sraureel ot u¡aued repJo-pJo \ 7 a8erg
B r{Jeal ol lduaue lue (9961) uutrueueld or Surproccy ‘I{rr€asJr slr{r uo
paseg ere ¿ rardeq3 ur ,l\ES e.t.r’ reql suonsanb qsr¡8ug3o sa8ers ¡eruaudo¡a,r.ap
aql ‘sernlseJ ¡eruarudo¡a,raP PelleqEl arE aseql ‘rped pluarudo¡a,rap a¡qe
-rcrpa.rd e Suop dola.tap (xa1du-ror pue a¡durs qrog) saeuaruas uI rapro pro.4
crseq ‘eldurexa ro3 ‘sarntlnns rlrs¡n8ull atuos teql eJuePIAa sap¡,rord qJJeesaJ
Jraql ‘peJrnbreun urpural ot uleas ‘Sulgreat a lsualul Jo allsuatxa JeUe uele
‘s8urgr Jeqlo seeJer{.{\l¡ryssacrns rq8ner aq ueo s8uryr eruos teql suaas uauo
rr lq,,’r uleldxa ol perrr a.r,eq san8eallor slq pue (886I) uuBuraueld peuuew
alquqr?4 s? wqm qrpal I
a’en’ue¡ pue sanlrralqo lueluof I{roq e^EI{ reqr suosselrt ,*”r^,t’:;”’11:
,/v\or{s leqr saruu¡r¡80¡d uowf,nPa Jer{f,Eal pado¡a,rap PuE tlf,JEeseJ euoP a^Er{
OOO) uor{S r{Eroqaq pue ‘r3o¡ ua¡g l.re¡4J ‘errrenaqrE euef’a¡druexa;o¿
‘Surqcear a8en8ue¡
¡rrs sr Surgrear a8en8ue¡ peseg-luaruor rer{r llef,ar ol peeu
aqt pas$Jls e eq uollfnJrsul pe$g-tuetuof, 3o stuauodo¡d ‘s¡Bal tuJf,er uI
‘rcrpard rq8rur aSen8ue¡ agr ur But¡ooqos jo sreal rlal{r teql
Átetntte:nsrn8uq3o s¡arra¡ g3¡g er{rJo uoqs II¿J ueuo.{agr ‘aBenBuEI Puores
aql ur óuang eruos qtl./ü ar?Jrunruuror 01 elge aJE uollf,nJtsul a8en8url paseq
-tueluof, ur sluepnls q8nogt¡e ‘tanaltoll ‘a8en8uel teql uI lualuoJ Jetleur
rcafgns Sururee¡ enurluoo or pue aSen8ue¡ etuor{ al{rJo tuaudo¡a,LaP enult
-uol ol dno¡8 a8en8uel I{fEa tuo5 stuepnls.{\oll¿ sauue¡8o¡d uolsJaulurl
¡enp ‘f1re¡lrurs ‘sraere3 Jrluápef,” Jreqt Jo esJnof, IInJ eql ¡a,ro a8en8uel lsJg
.uagr g8norqr uon3nJlsul Jatteur rcafgns Jo tunorur leltuetsqns e aAIeJeJ
laqr reqr filuomatou osle sI tl pu” ‘¡eueu¡ rcalqns Sutu;ea1 uI IIe^,\ oP or
ruees-8uo;q 3uo¡1 ur pu¿ epEuEJ ul-seuruJe¡8o¡d uots¡eururl uI stuePnls
a8en8ue¡ lrlrolelnq ‘1 rardeq3 ur tustpn8ulllq a^prertqns Jo uolssnlsrP eqr
ur 1y\Bs e^\ sE ‘stfaJe Surrse¡ aABI{ uef, 8ur¡ooqcs qrrrrr sduS ol Sulruor ur fe¡ap
uootstplr ao¡t ut &urutaa1 aSan&ual puotag LLI
178 Second knguage learning in the classroom
and the qualiry of instruction, including how learners’ identities and cultures
are acknowledged in the classroom.
In Example 6 below, we see a teacher trying to help students with the word
order of questions. The students seem to know what the teacher means, but
the level oflanguage the teacher is offering them is beyond their current stage
of development. Students are asking Stage 3 questions, which the teacher
recasts as Stage 5 questions. The students reacr by simply answering the ques-
tion or accepting the teacher’s formulation.
Exarnple 6
Students in an intensive ESL class (1l-I2-year-old French speakers) inter-
viewing a student who had been in the same class in a previous year (see
Classroom B in Chapter 5).
s1 Myléne, where you put your’Kid of the \Weeli poster?
r tVhere did you put your poster when you gor it?
s2 In my room.
(Two minutes later)
s3 Beatrice, where you put your ‘Kid of the \7eeli poster?
r \[here did you put your poster?
s4 My poster was on my wall and it fell down.
In Example 7 , the student is using the ‘fronting’ strategy that is rypical of
Stage 3 questions. The teacher’s corrective feedback leads the student to
imitate a Stage 4 question.
Exampb 7
(The same group of students engaged in’Famous person’interviews.)
sr Isyourmotherplaypiano?
T ‘Is your mother play piano?’ OK.’Well, can you say’Is your mother
play piano?’ or’Is your mother a piano player?’
s r ‘Is your mother a piano player?’
sz No.
In Example 8, the teacher draws the studentt attention to the error and also
provides the correct Stage 4 question. This time, however, the feedback is not
followed by an imitation or a reformulation of the question, but simply by
an answer.
‘uJeal 01 lpea.r f¡eruaudola,r.ap lou are lagr reqrrl. rg8nrr ag louueo sreurcJl
‘seJntJnJls rnsrn8ul¡ auros JoJ rrgt s¡saqrodlg agr roj rroddns sE sllnsJJ srrl
sla.rd¡alur uueueuerd ‘acuanbas ptuarudola,rap aqr ur a8els e ,dr¡s, ol alqt
rou ara,Ll lagl ‘sl teql ‘g a8etg orur l¡uo pe oru ro selnr ¿ a8erg esn ol panurl
-uof, JeqlrJ salnJ 7 a8erg uo uonf,nJlsur pa^reoal oq,,rt sJauJeal asoqr ,ra,tarrto¡1
‘¿ a8etg ruorS a8ers srqt olur l¡sra pa,roru salnJ g a8erg uo uonrnJlsur
pelrafeJ orÍv\ sJeuJral eql ‘suonf,nJlsuof, fz pua E a8rr5 JoJ sesrrJexa pue
sep.r Ief,nerurue;8 troqdxa qu^\ pap¡,rord aJa.&\ sJJuJEal arurr srqt Surrnp pur
$laa \ o \t re^o aoe¡d >1oor uorlrnJrsur ag¡ dla,urcadse.r 7 aSerg pur E a8erg
I{tr^\ pater3osse selnJ arp rqSner aJe.&\ rapJo pJo e uEruJeS 3o uolusmbce
JIOI{I ur ¿ a8erg tE eJe l. oq^\ uEruJeD Jo sluapnrs Áls¡a,rrun urrleJrsnv Jo
sdno¡8 or’r¡’ruarudola^ap3o acuanbas IEJnlEu aqr ur aSers e ,dn¡s, ol sJauJeal
pannurad uonf,nrlsur reqtaq \ pare8nsarlur (886I) uueureuard pa5uel I
u”t?q q [poa¿ :gE [pntg
‘srsaqrodlq sryl parsat a Er{ ler{r sarpnts aruos aunuexe sn lel ‘txau
auror f¡¡e.rnreu plno \ terl \ rlreer pue la^el ¡eruaudo¡a,rap (sraureal eql ssesse
ol sr uon¿pueruuroJeJ er{I ‘esJnof, ¡eruaudolanap ,leJnleu, aqr a8uegc louue3
uollrnJlsur ‘sasrflaxa ¡ecrSo8epad panlrlsar Áea ur Jo slsat uo suuo3 pef,ue pe
eJou af,npord or alqt aq leru uaureal q8noqt[E ‘aJourJar{trn{ ‘eppaq]s Furelur
(sJeuftel aql ot Surprocrr rq8ner lsaq aJE seJnleal ¡eruaudola,rap ‘ruaudo¡a,rap
(sJauJeel aqr ur slulod snorre tr f¡nSssaccns tg8ner eg uEf, a8en8ue¡ arp Jo
saJnleej PuorlerJe^ elrqd\ lEql srseSSns ,{\er^ ,algErlf,sal sr leq^\ r{3EaJ, aql
s8ulpug rlf,ruasa¡
¿>lsep rar{rrel eql aprseq foq eqr s1 s
¿>lsap sraqf,eal eqt aprsag loq aqr s1 J
¿>lsap reqreer eqr rprsag sl loq aqr oq s
(aue8 ¡eas pue aplH,)
g aqduuxg
‘lln3SIP lra,t pug sraleads
r{3uary reqr Surgrauos ‘s, a^rssessod aqr el¿lrurr lou saop ruepnrs eqr reqr
tela,l\oq’aloN ‘suonsanb 7 a8er5 Sulcnpo;d ulSaq or lprar tsorule sr luapnls
aql terp srseSSns uonf,BJatur aql’satetnul ruapnrs aqt teqr uouraJJof, 7 a8rrg
e sapnord reqf,Eal aql pue ‘uonsanb E a8er5 E $lse ruepnts ar{r 6 alduexE uJ
)or ‘¡a,ra1-rr¡ds
y r s
,¿1e,ra1-rr1ds E asnoq alrJno^EJ rnol s1, ‘JEep salun o^\t ,sl, Sulles rr,:on I
¿¡a,ra1-r¡ds E sr asnoq alrrno eJ r”Jt+ ::
(sacuarajard asnoq tnoqe Jagto l{f,¿e Suvrrarrrrarul)
g aTduoxE
ruoorsspp aql ut Sututaal a8an&ual puotag 6LT
180 Second knguage learning in the ckssroom
Study 31: Readies, unreadies, and recasts
Alison Mackey and Jenefer Philp (1998) investigated whether adult ESL
learners who were at different stages in their acquisition of questions could
advance in their production of these forms if they received implicit nega-
tive feedback (i.e. recasts) in conversational interaction. fu described in
Chapter 5, recasts are paraphrases of a learner’s incorrect utterance that
involve replacing one or more of the incorrect components with a correct
form while maintaining a focus on meaning. The researchers were interested
in discoveringwhether adult learners who received modified interaction with
recasts were able to advance in their production ofquestion forms more than
learners who received modified interaction without recasts. Furthermore,
they wanted to explore whether learners who were at more advanced stages
of question development (‘readies’) would benefit more from interaction
with recasts than learners at less advanced stages of question development
(‘unreadies’). The results revealed that the’readies’ in the interaction plus
recasts group improved more than the ‘readies’ in the interaction without
recasts group. However, the ‘unreadies’who were exposed to recasts did not
show more rapid improvement than those who were not exposed to recasts.
Study 32: Deuelopmental stage andfirst l”anguage influence
Nina Spada and Patsy Lightbown (1999) have also investigated the acqui-
sition of questions in relation to learners’ developmental ‘readiness’.
French-speaking students (aged ll_12) in intensive ESL classes received
high-frequency exposure to question forms that were one or two stages
beyond their developmental level. Learners who were judged on oral pre-
tests to be at Stage 2 or 3 were given high frequency exposure to Stage 4 and
5 questions in the instructional input.
The materials that contained the more advanced question forms were
designed ro engage the learners mainly in comprehension practice. There was
no student production and thus no corrective feedback, nor was there any
explicit instruction on question formation. The researchers wanted to know
whether Stage 3 learners (i.e. those considered to be developmentally’ready’)
would benefit more from the high-frequency exposure to Stage 4 and 5 ques-
tions than the Stage 2 learners, who were not yet developmentally’ready’.
Learners’performance on an oral post-test measure indicated no advantage for
the Stage 3 learners. In fact, there was little progress for either group. However,
on a task that required learners to judge the grammaticaliry of written ques-
tions there was evidence that all students had some knowledge of Stage 4 and
5 questions. A more detailed examination of the learners’ performance on this
task showed that students tended to accept Stage 4 and 5 questions when the
subject ofthe sentence was a pronoun (for example, ‘Are you a good student?’ or
”When are you going to eat breakfast?’). \W4ren the subject of the sentence was
a noun, however, there was a tendenry for students to reject higher stage ques-
tions (for example, Are the students watching TV?’ or ‘V/hat is your brother
‘ (ySSt uolllruEH :886I uoslaN pue’¡ag’uErU>Irg :8002
umoqrq8ll pue reuury) rq8ner a.rar’r lagr la^al aqt puolaq sesnelf, rllt€lar
esn ol ,/vror{ uJeel ua,ra lagr seouetsur auos uI .Lrau1 fprarp laql (s)auo agr
pue rq8ner euo aqr uaa^\taq (s)uorrrsod asnell elnelar arp arrnbce os¡e larp
‘tq8net sr l€q.lvr ureal lluo rou faqr ‘le^al tuaJJnJ .rreqt puolaq sa8rrs ¡era,Las
aJ€ tpr{l sasnElf a,urrlar rq8nrt are (uorrrsod rralqns ur lluo sosnelf eArtEIeJ Jsn
or{./v\ asoqt ‘aldruexa ro3) s;au.rea¡ la^el-aol uar{^\ rEr{r rsaSSns serpnts asaql
Jo stpsed ‘sesnelf, e^neleJJo uorlrsrnbce Jrerp ur ssa.lSo¡d (sJeuJeel a8en8ue¡
puof,es egrrosep or (¿ raldeq3 aas) lgcre.rarq lrr¡rgrssecrr eqr pasn e Erl terp
serpnts Iera^es sepnlrur srql ‘ueu llpruaurdo¡elep sr teq^\ qrear ot ler3ge
-ueg sr rl ]er{t rurclf, eqr ot af,uapr^a-Jetunof JaJo ot s¡eadde r{JJ”esJJ aruos
‘uolllnJlsul Pesnf,oJ Pe Iaf,aJ oq-/’r sJeuJEa¡ se a8uegr ptuarudola,rap
r{fntu sE ^&\oqs tou plp lagr
srlnsal er{I’tou pp fpear, tou aJa \ oq.u sJeuJeal seeJeq,t\’ruarudo¡a,rap3o
a8els lxau eqt otur pe^oru ,lptar, JJa^\ or{,^ sJeuJeal reqr pa^\oqs slpsal aql
‘,lprarun, pue lpear, qrog aJe.&\ oq-/rr. sJauJral o] uollrnJlsut ltct¡dxa tsoru
aqr papv’o.rd uuBr.uauar¿ ‘serPnls aeJrp eqr sso¡re lndur IEuorlf,EJelur/lBuorl
-)nJlsurjo sadlr aqt arrduror am;1 ‘sle,Lrxa¡duo3 ur sseulpear pruaurdola,rap
(sJauJ¿el qlr^\ tf,?Jalur u?J eluengur a8en8ur¡ tsJg pue rnduljo adlr se gons
srotre; raqto ta^a/$.oH ‘lerl5Juag eq uer eSen8ue¡ puo?es aqr ur Jar{unJ
ssa¡8o¡d or lpea.r l¡eruaudolalep eJE laqr uagr’l sJaureal or rndul ¡ruon
-f,EJatur Jo leuonf,nJrsur 8una8¡er reqr rsaSSns serpnls esaql Jo stFSaJ ar{I
qrrDesar aqt Sunardralul
‘suoltsanb
IIE ol uorsre^ur3o a8pelmoul
Jrer{l azrpJeua8 or lrr¡rqeul (sJeuJeal ar{r JoJ a¡q¡suodsa-r ag or sueas afuengul
a8en8ue¡ rsrg lpnrs srql uI ‘srolreJ raqro lq palra5e aq ¡rrs feru acueuro3rad
Jrerp tnq ‘sa8els paf,ue pe eJouJ otul ruol{l e^ou leru .ssaurpeeJ, Irtueur
-dolarrap (sJeuJ¿JI r{Jteru ol parun uonf,nJtsur rer{r alef,rpul srln$J aseql
‘(,¿asnoq ftu ol auro3 aI{ uEJ, = ¿rou zaqJ
¿xuaa f-lna¿’aldruexa .ro3) parlur.rad sl uors¡a,rul ‘JaAe \oq ‘ncafgns unouo¡d
rprlv\ suorlsanb gcua.rg u1 ‘(,¿asnoq lru or eruos ugof ur3, = ¿xou zzqJ fiuaa uaaf
-lna¿*’a1durcxa ro3) peuelur tou aJ? uollsod nalgns uI sunou qurrr suonsanb
‘r{f,uaJC ur ‘sr lEr{I ‘¿ .rardeq3 ur,/$ES e1’r leql a8en8ue¡ rs.rg JIeI{r uI alnJ uonsanb
E ot petelar ag or sreadde arueurro3rad (stuapnts aqr uI urened q{L ‘(,¿8ulop
utoo$tap aql ut Sututual a8an&ual puocag IBI
t82 Second language barning in the classroom
At first glance, this research seems to contradict Pienemannt claim that
learners should be taught what is ‘next’. However, it is also possible that
the developmental paths of different linguistic features are based on differ-
ent sorts of processing abilities. For example, Catherine Doughty (1991)
suggested that once learners have learned to use relative clauses in one posi-
tion (usually the subject position), there is no constraint on their abiliry to
learn the others. \X/hat all the studies of relative clause teaching and learning
have in common is that learners acquire the relative clauses in an order very
similar to the accessibility hierarchy. That is, whether or not they learn what
is taught, they make progress by learning subject, then direct object, then
indirect object, and so on.
The ‘Teach what is teachable’ position is of great potential interest to syl-
labus planners as well as teachers. However, it must be emphasized that a
description of a learnert developmental path is not in itself a template for a
syllabus. There are numerous practical reasons for this, not least the fact that
only a small number of language features have been described in terms of a
developmental sequence. \,X/hile Pienemannt work on processabiliry theory
(see Chapter 4) provides insights into the principles that may make some
features more difficult than others, those principles are not easily translated
into instructional sequences.
As Patsy Lightbown (1993) has suggested, the ‘Teach what is teachable’
research is important primarily for helping teachers understand why stu-
dents dont always learn what they are taught-at least not immediately.
The research also shows that instruction on language that is ‘too advanced’
may still be helpful by providing learners with samples of language that they
will be able to incorporate into their interlanguage when the time is right.
However, many other factors need to be taken into consideration in choosing
language features to focus on. \We will return to this point after we discuss the
final proposal for language teaching, ‘Get it right in the end.’
6 Get it right in the end
Proponents of the’Get it right in the end’proposal recognize an important
role for form-focused instruction, but they do not assume that everything
has to be taught. Like advocates of the’Lett talk’, ‘Two for one’, and the’Just
listen … and read’ positions, they have concluded that many language fea.
tures-from pronunciation to vocabulary and grammar-will be acquired
naturally iflearners have adequate exposure to the language and a motivation
to learn. Thus, while they view comprehension-based, content-based, task-
based, or other types of essentially meaning-focused instruction as crucial
for language learning, they hypothesize that learners will do better if they
also have access to some form-focused instruction. They argue that learners
will benefit in terms of both efficiency of their learning and the level of pro-
ficienry they will eventually reach.
srql ur To,,vr orl^\ sreqf,Eel ‘,lo¡aq sa¡duexa aqt ur aes III^\ a,&\ sV raleads
ruangord eJou EJo rer{r uroU sJeJIp asn e8en8u¿l Jrerp./y\or{ af,¡ou ol paau
sraureal eqr reqr f¡durs rule¡e lar¡1 ‘8uo¡rtr ¡o rg8rr sl Surqraruos fgm ulrldxe
01 elqe aq or parcadxa sJeuJeel eJ? Jou ‘suoneue¡dxa cnsn8ur¡etaru e^lolur
sltrrr¡e tou seop uorlrsod sn{l ul poolsJepun sr lr se uonf,nJlsu pasnf,oJ-ruJog
‘uonfeJalur puz rndur ruenbasgns ur saJntea3 ra8;er aqr
ef,Ilou ol sJauJeel ./r\oll3 IIL/I\ uollsnJlsul PasnloJ aqr f¿ql rsaSSns laqr taqrr¿
‘rr{8ner sr lr sE uoos se ruroJ E Sulsn ur8aq ¡1vrr laqr teqt Jo s.ro;;a 8ur1eu
ruou sJeuJEa¡ tua,rard ¡lr’r sturod a8en8ur¡ re¡ncrued uo SulsnroS teqt ur¿lr
tou op psodord srr{t Jo s¡auoddns eql ta J \oH ‘aSueqr jo acuereadde ue
ol tsnl lou’ ‘srualsls a8en8ur¡ralur Jreqt ur sa8uer¡c ol ptal l¡¡entue,ra uec
uo snf,oJ sJJuJEal req,/v\ 1¿r{r anSJ¿ ,Pue aql ur 1q3u rr leD, Jo stuauodor¿
‘gslSuE ur a1eru ueqtJo ¡e f¡enr.u.,’ teql rorJe ue or ume.rp Sulag
sr uonueu? (sluepnts eqt tel puv ¡uossel .¡etuue¡8 ¡erldlr e lpreq sl spll
ielqrrroH rs
¿tqBU’elgrrroH’Sunsn8srq r
¡Ápn¡ es
Á1:nl spunos tI ‘rer{r op lüef, a,l.t.
.oN
J
oN €s
‘sa1eo pooS serurlauJos sa>leru raqroru l¡,aq r
¿poo8 aro3ag zs
‘sa>lBluJeuv r
¿se>lEru rauv rs
¿qra^pe ¡no lnd or aoe¡d reqrouv r
et apuuxE
‘(se>leo poo8 saleru Jer{totu
ftu serullaruos, :prrog eqr uo pace¡d ueeg sEI{ eruerues SuIAolloJ eql’saf,uet
-ues 1v\eu ruJoJ ol PaJePJoeJ aJE sefualuas ul sPJol( aql eJer{,& &l,ulre ue ur
paSr8ua arc laqr ’91 a¡druexg u1 ‘qsr13uE Sururea¡ are s;aleads qf,uarC plo
-rceÁ-7¡y dnor8 e a;agrrr ruoorsselo E ruo5 ue>let are ZIpue ‘I I ‘0I saldruexE
‘u^^.o Jrer{l uo sJoJJa erp Ja^ofsrP
ot sJeuJ¿el .ro3 alqlssodurr l¡¡enr.rr,r eq illr\r tl ‘leeJg uonef,runuluroo
Jo pull lu¿ ot peel ot l¡a>¡¡ rou are srorra arp esnef,eg ‘a8en8uel parel{s r¿q}
ruory JeJsuerrJo llnsar aqr l¡rred aJB tetp srorre a>leru ¡rm laqr ‘a8en8uel rsrg
eluEs erF aJBr{s ssBlf E ur sJeuJeel uaqzn’aldruExa Jo{ ‘luel¡odrur l¡¡eloadsa aq
ol patcadxa sr-peqpeeJ a nf,eJJof Jo uolrrnJrsul pesnooJ-ruro3-aoueprn8
qllr{¡a ur suonenrrs3o raqunu e aJE arer{I f¡ucl¡dxa arrnb rg8ner eg ot poeu
leu pue rq8ner eg tsnru a8en8ue¡3o st¡adse eruos teql EepI aqr saztserldua
tr reqr ur ‘rela \oq ‘¡esodord ,alqerlJeer sl rer¡,l\ I{JEaL eqr ruo5 srag¡p ¡esod
-o.rd slgl ‘tunof,f,e orul (tuaurdola^epJo a8ers) ssaurpeer sluapnts aql e>pt
or slrrJ Surqcrar aqr JI rq8ner aq touuef, s8urqr aruos tEI{l ,/v\el^ (alqel{real
sr leq^\ r{f?al, arp Jo satBf,o Pe gr¡rrr ae.r8r osp ¡esodord slgr 3o ser?f,o^Pv
ruoo¿stplJ ar,p ut Sututaal a8an7ual yuotag E8I
t84 Second language learnirug in the classroom
approach look for the right moment to creare increased awareness on rhe
part of the learner-ideall¡ ar a rime when the learner is motivated to say
something and wants to say it as clearly and correctly as possible.
Examplc 11
(The students are practising following instructions; one student instrucrs,
the others colour.)
sl Make her shoes brown.
T Now, her shoes. Are those Momt shoes or Dadt shoes?
s2 Momt.
r Mom’s. How do you know itt Mom’s?
s I Because it’s her shoes.
As we saw in Chapter 4, French-speaking learners of English have difficulry
with’his’ and’her’ because French possessives use rhe grammatical gender of
the object possessed rather than the natural gender ofthe possessor in select-
ing the appropriate possessive form. The teacher is aware ofthis and-brief¡
without interrupting the activity-helps the learners notice the correct form.
Example 12
(The students are playing’hide and seek’with a doll in a doll’s house, asking
questions until they find out where ‘George’ is hiding. Although a model for
correct questions has been written on the board, the game becomes quite
lively and students spontaneously ask questions that reflect their interlan-
guage stage.)
s 1 Is George is in the living room?
r You said ‘is’ tvvo times, dear. Listen to you-you said’Is George is
in?’ Look on the board. ‘Is George in the’ and then you say the name
of the room.
s 1 Is George in the living room?
r Yeah.
s1 I win!
Note that the teacher’s brief intervention does not distract the student from
his pleasure in the game, demonstrating that focus on form does not haye ro
interfere with genuine interaction.
Proponents of ‘Get it right in the end’ argue that it is sometimes necessary
to draw learners’ attention to their errors and to focus on certain linguistic
(vocabulary or grammar) points. However, it is different from the ‘Get it
right from the beginning’ proposal in acknowledging that it is appropriate
for learners to engage in meaningful language use from the very beginning of
their exposure to the second language. They assume that much of language
acquisition will develop naturally out of such language use, without formal
instruction that focuses on the language itself.
slsel-lsod 3r{1 IIE uo PunoJ sBlv\ srql ‘rou PrP or{1v\ sraureel eql Paurojrsdlno
l¡ecrreuerp ruauare¡d gJe^pe uo uonf,nJlsul ucrldxa pelraf,eJ oq \ sJeuJEa-I
‘senrlnf,e aonce¡d aqr Surrnp ryeq
-peeJ a^nf,aJJoo sE IIa^! sE aJnronJrs r{f,Ea r{tr^\ palerJosse selnJ ar{tJo Sulqreat
ucrldxa etuos papnllul slql ‘porrad >¡aazu.-o,/üt e JJAo suoltsenb ro sgrar’pe uo
uonf,nJtsurJo sJnor{ rqSra l¡arerurxo¡dde pa^refal sdno¡3 ptuarurradxa ag¡
‘uonf,nrtsur pasnf,oJ-ruro3 ¡eroads arp roJ pasn oq o] slEIrarEU polSo8epadSo
les E Jar{JEal gcea a,l,e8 sJar{rJEesJJ ar{I ‘uonf,nJlsur Jrer{lJo ¡ecldlr e.ra,&\ leql
sarlr^nf,e elnef,runuruJoc re¡n8ar eqr ur aredlcn¡ed or panunuof, sruopnls
IIE’stueruuedxe aqrSo porrad aqr rnoq8norrT ‘uonfn;rsut ptcads jo por.rad
erp JerJE pue aJoJeq parset aJa¡a sdno¡8 uosl¡edtuo¡ pue letuaul.radxa qrog
‘(¿ rardrq3 aas) sa8ers ¡eruaudo¡a,rap
or pre8ar grrm llre¡ncrr-rrd ‘a¡qe¡¡EAE aJa,^a etrp uostredruof, olqrJaplsuof,
pur eJnt?Jelrl aqr ur pale8usa,rut l¡a,rrsualxa ueeg e^Er{ laqr asnereg.,(pnrs
puoles erp roJ parcales ara^\ suonsen| ‘qruar¿ pue qsl¡8ug ul raglp ruaru
-are1d q.ra pE .roJ salnr
^\oq
plol f¡rrcr¡dxa ]ou are,r faqr 31 (a8en8ue¡ rsry
.rrarp) rlcuarC qllr\\ luelsrsuof, selnJ tueruef,eld qra,tpe Sutsn ul tslsrad ppo,&
sraureal lpql sE,^ó, srsagrod,(q aql ‘(,pear pue “‘ ualsll lsnf, uI ¿1 fpnrg pur
¿ rardeq3 aas) passnrsrp ueeq lpear¡e e^el{ rEI{r I{ruarC pue gsr¡8uE ueaataq
seruereglp aqr Jo asnerag uolt¿Sllsa,rul roJ tuaruaoeld qra.Lpe porrales
JtrqlN erpÍ1 (pnrs rsry er{r ul ‘uolr¿ruloj uonsanb put luaruaf,e¡d q.ra,rpe
or lcadsa¡ qtv’r paultuBxe eJa.^a >lleqpea; alllf,aJJor pue uoltf,nJrsul PasnJoJ
-ruJoJJo slrege agr ‘sasse¡c30 JJqunu Jalltrus e qlvvr selPnts ¡etuarutradxa u1
‘lrxalduoc pue loerncce cttstn8ul¡ gttrtr
srua¡go;d aAEq ol panulruof, feqt ‘ra,ra,Lro¡1 ‘qsl18ug uI eJuePguor e IlEf,Iu
-nurruol pue uorsuaqe¡druo¡ Sutuarsrl poo8 pado¡a,rap sJeuJeel ‘sJSs?lJ aseql
u1 ‘rndur a¡g¡suar¡arduoo paIJEA pur I{IIJ Jo uorsl,ro¡d aql PuB ‘uollf,eJalul
snoaueluods JoJ seltlunr¡oddo ‘tuJo; uttlt JeqtEJ Sutuearu uo Pasnf,oJ rEI{l
sanr^uf,E uo se/r\ Surrlcear arf Jo stseqdrua aql ‘IUJOJ a8en8uel uo Pasnroj
f¡a.ru sraqcerl rer{r pa^rasqo (y66t ‘066t) epedg EuIN PuB u.t.r.oqrq8rl
fste¿ ‘sasse¡J ge ut sluapnrs ggg’1 rsoru¡e 3un1o.tut sarPnts a,rttdttcsap u1
.SAIIIAIlf,E E^I133
-relul a^Ilsf,Iunlu[UosJo ‘{1¿ ]f-¡’v q8norqr qsr¡8uE Suru.rea¡ lep ¡oogcs lra,ra
Jo tsoru ruads (¿1-g1 pa8e) sruapnts <9 ePerD ro
I ePErD rer{lla uI sqluou
a g JoC 'caqan| ur sassEIJ -ISE e^Isuotul ut Sunedrctl¡ed sluaPnts 8ur¡eads
-r{ruer{ 3o qsrlSug Surdola,rap eqt uo >llzqpoeJ a^It3errof, PUE uolllnrlsul
pesnroJ-ruJoJJo srlaga aqr pare8rrsa ul eAEg srer{Jreesar’s086I aql af,uIS
TSg antsuaiu! ut stuautt¿adxa sncol-u-to¿ :Eg t?us
‘serpnls ¡etuaur:adxa pue a,rttduf,sep qroq sJpnloul
slgl ‘¡esodord srqr ot palelar senssl pJulruexa sEI{ tlf,reaser Jo FaP rear8 y
s8urpug rIJrBeseU
ruoo”tssqr aql ut Sututaal a8an&ual puotag 18r
186 Second language learning in the classroom
(immediately following instruction and six weeks later). In the follow-up
tests a year late¡ however, the gains made by the learners who had received
the adverb instrucrion had disappeared and their performance on this struc-
ture was like that of uninstructed learners (\íhite 1991).
In the question study the instructed group also made significantly greater
gains than the uninstructed group on the written tasks immediately follow-
ing instruction. Furthermore, they maintained their level of knowledge on
later testing (six weeks and six months after instruction). The instruction also
contributed to improvement in oral performance that was sustained over
time (\Vhite, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta 199I).
The difference in long-term effects of the two studies may be due to a differ-
ence in the availabiliry of the target forms in the classroom input to which
learners were exposed. Analysis oT.lasrroo- language rho*.ithat adverbs
were extremely rare in classroom speech, giving learners little opportunity
to maintain their newly-acquired knowledge through conrinued exposure
and use. In contrast, there were hundreds of opportunities to hear and use
questions every day in the classroom. Once learners had been given some
focused instruction, it seems they were able to continue to advance in their
knowledge and use of questions (Spada and Lightbown 1993).
In several of the studies carried out in intensive ESL programmes, there is
evidence of the strong influence of the learner’s first language on their second
language development. In Study 32, we described the tendenry of intensive
ESL learners to reject inversion in questions when the subject is a noun but to
accept inversion when the subject is a pronoun, consistent with their first lan-
guage. The infuence of the learners’ first language in their acquisition of the
possessive determiners ‘his’ and’her’was observed with this group of learners
(see Chapter 2 and Study 1B). This led to the question of whether form-
focused instruction that includes explicit contrastive information about how
the first and second language differ would help in their development of ques-
tion formation and possessive determiners. In a study to explore this, learners
who received instruction on possessive determiners improved more in their
knowledge and use of this feature than did learners who received instruction
on question forms. This finding appeared to be related to differences between
the form-meaning connections of these two features. That is, a misused pos-
sessive determiner (‘Het going home with her mother’) is more likely to lead
to a communication breakdown than an ill-formed question (for example,
‘V{here he’s going?’). Results like these point to the importance of consider-
ing how instruction may affect language features in different ways (Spada,
Lightbown, and \ü/hite 2005 ; \Vhite 2008).
As we saw in the discussion of the ‘Get two for one’ proposal, there is
growing evidence that learners in content-based programmes such as French
immersion need more opportunities to focus on form and receive corrective
af,nrrJd papmg Jo Surr{f,”J1 pesn)o; lue rnoqrvrr uonf,nJtsur re¡n8er ;laqr
r{rra panunuof sesstlf uosl¡rdtuo¡ olyu eql ur sluapnts ‘s;aad pue sJer{f,Eel
ruou >lleqpeeJ a^nreJJo3 pue stxetuoo IEr.uJoJur pue IEuJJoJ jo lrarre.t e ur
sle¡d-a¡or pepnlrur rer{r salll^rrf,r a¡n¡t¡d papln8 ur paSeSua pue uonf,nrrsur
rlcrldxa ua,rr8 a¡artl sasself ¡zluaurrradxe ar{r ur sruapnls ‘arun sn{t Surrnq
‘polrad 1aa \-e g e ra^o srnor{ ZI rnoqe JoJ acr¡d loor uoprnJtsur agl
‘slxeluoJ er¿udo¡ddr ur (sraqro ot uoDIppE ur) sru.ro3 asagl azluSooar
pue acnpord or lrrlrqr rraqt uo petsel aJa \ sJaureal al{r letel l{ruow auo ule8e
pue ‘JaW l¡arerparurur (uonf,nJlsur ot JorJd ‘sra>pads uee \taq af,ue$lp
IErJos
ro ‘ssauaulod ¡ngroadsar3o re>lreu B sE pesn st. snoa eltywlruenlrues pue ól¡eru
-JoJur arerrpur ol pasn $ al ‘ltnpl^lpur uE Sulssarppr uI’snoa pua ru sunouo¡d
uos¡ad puofes Jo esn aqt uaa,&\rag uonf,urlsrp Jr{r se.{l ,(pnrs slq uI paulruexa
sernlea3 ureru ar{tJo aug ‘(p¡o s.real E1 rnoqe) sluapnrs uoISraIuuJI l{tuar{ B
eprr3 Jo sesself, aerqt ul suoIlEIrEA a¡lrs rrrsn8ulolf,os Jo asn pue a8pa¡zttou¡
aql uo uorl3nlsur pasnroJ-ruroJ Jo spage alp pouruex) (r/66I) rars.{1 fo¡
uots¿aututx qruaq ut sut¿otrtlnnSuqopos uo Sutsnto¿ :gg t?ws
‘(eqf ‘d) ¡onsanb ur s8urpue
unou er{}Jo af,ut^alJr a.trtclpard alir qsllq¿tsa or sruepnlsJo lrt¡ofuru aqr roJ
Ársuatul pue ólruenb luarf,Uns uI alqplrt^E rou l¡drurs seru, s8ulpua unou uo
lndul agr, ‘a;o3araq1 rapua8 ot drqsuonelar rlaqr pue s8urpua unou aqt uer{l
spJo./ruo Suruearu agr Sulqcear auJn aJour luads s;aqceor rBI{1 luEeuI slqr PuE
sanr^nfe Sulqeear Jerel Jr{r ur paf,npoJlul szzvr l;rpgef,ol ,t\eu qf,ntu ool teqt
sr snpJo uonela¡d.ratur sla¡reg ‘sunou ¡aau ol Sulu.rea¡ Jlar{t azII?JauaB ol
sJeuJEal alqEua rou pIP uoltfnJlsul eqr te^e,/v\oH ‘uol¡fnJlsul aAIefaJ lou PrP
oq.^a asoqr uer{t sunou JEIIITuEJ JoJ suollf,ulrsrp rapua8 eteJnff,B Sulcnpord
pue SurzluSof,al lE Jalrag qf,nru eJal( uolrf,nJlsul pe Iaf,aJ oq./ú sJJuJEe-I ‘JatEI
sqluoru a,rg urc8e ueql PuE uollf,nJlsul rage flarerpauJrul PaJalsIuIluPE aJe \
slsal aurts er{r pue ue8aq uolr3nJrsul eqt eJoJaq srsat Suqeads pue Suluarsr¡
er,r rapua8 ¡rcneuluer83o a8par’rou>l JIaIF uo Palsel-aJd a¡a,l¡. sluePnrs eql
‘(aurTnrseu JoJwapq al vnaa- pue’aululrua¡ rclaaaphtq E u\aila-
‘aldurxa ;o3) rapua8 rnoqe sanlf, epl^ord s8utpua unou uleuet
^roq
rg8ner os¡e
aJa,tl stuapnts ‘(r/ Jo trl ‘un Jo aun) sapprc auIInJSeu PUE sulurruoJ uea \lag
esoorlf, or uaqr pelnbar q)rq^\ pue suoltf,ullslp Jepue8 or uoltualte JIaI{t
^\BJP
ot pegrporu ara./d ler{l (ldt I, ‘a¡drurxa ro3) saue8 suaJPIIql uo Paseq seItI^IlrE
lueru tno parJJEf, uaJplrqo asegr polred lee,{a-a g e ra,ro r(rp E sotnultu 0Z JoC
:apue8 ¡erneuurrrS-stuepus uolsJeururl l{fuaJ{ ro3 ua¡qord tualsts.rad e
aq or u.rvrou>I sI IEI{I eJnleal a8en8ue¡ ? uo uollfnJrsu PasnfoJ ua,u8 erarrr (p¡o
s.real g-¿) uaJplrql Z ¿per) Jo sassell xrs ‘seuuerSo¡d uots¡aruul qf,uerC ur
uorpllqr Sunol Lpl^r uorDnnsurJo srf,ega ar{r pauluexa (866I) lalre¡l rr8rrg
uo?sraututt qrua¿{ ry upuaS uo Susnto¡ :vg [Pus
‘paqsr¡druorf,E aq rsaq
uef, srql
^\or{ Jo uonsanb eqr pa.ro¡dxa eAeI{ salpnls Jo Jagulnu V lleqPeaJ
ruoo.tssqJ aqt ut 8urutaa1 a&an&ual puotag LBI
1BB Second language learning in the classroom
in using sociolinguistically appropriate forms. On the immediate post-test,
learners in the experimental classes performed significantly befter than learn-
ers in the comparison classes on both written and oral production tasks and
the multiple-choice test, and these benefits were maintained when learners
were tested a month later.
Study 36: Focusing on aerbforms in content-based science clnssrooms
Catherine Doughty and Elizabeth Varela (1998) carried out a study with a
group of ESL learners in their science classes. One class of middle-school stu-
dents ( 1 I-I4 years old) from a variety offirst language backgrounds received
corrective feedback on past tense and conditional verb forms in English.
For several weeks, while students were engaged in oral and written work
related to a series of science reports, the teacher provided corrective feed-
back on their errors in past tense and conditional forms-both explicitly and
implicitly. Students’ ability to use these forms was assessed before and after
the experimental period and again two months later. Their performance was
compared to that of a group of students who were in another science class
doing the same science reports but who did not receive correctiye feedback
on the verb forms.
Students who received the corrective feedback made more Progress in using
past and conditional forms than the comparison group both immediately
after the period of focused feedback and two months later. Their progress
was assessed in terms of both increased accuracy and the presence of inter-
language forms that showed students were doing more than repeating forms
they had heard.
Study 37: Recasts andprornpts in French immersion classrooms
In Chapter 5, we saw some of Roy Lyster’s descriptive research on the dif-
ferent types ofcorrective feedback provided by teachers in Canadian French
immersion programmes and learners’ immediate responses (uptake) to that
feedback. More recentl¡ Lyster (2004) explored the effects of form-focused
instruction and feedback typ. on second language learning in an experimen-
tal study with Grade 5 students in French immersion classes. There were
three experimental groups and a comparison group. The experimental groups
received approximately nine hours of explicit instruction over a five-week
period, during which their attention was drawn to grammatical gender and
the fact that word endings can give a clue to grammatical gender in French
(see Study 34). Students in two of the experimental groups also received cor-
rective feedback in the form of either recasts or prompts when they produced
errors in grammatical gender. These feedback rypes differ in that recasts
provide learners with the correct model, whereas prompts signal the need
for a correction and require the student to produce the target form through
clarification requests, elicitation, and metalinguistic clues (see Chapter 5
for definitions and examples of these different rypes of feedback). The third
roJ sarlruntroddo a¡dn¡nu eqr rtr{} epnpuor sJer.lrJBesJr er{I ‘rfuors aqr 3o
uorsJal lsal-lsod eql uo alBJnf,fe eJou r{Jnru aJa.&r sJeuJeal qtog ‘lsat-tsod r
sE palfnJlsuoo JeuJEel r{f,Ea teqr sarJols aqr pue lsal-a¡d e se raqteSot pelEeJJ
sJauJeal o^\t Jr{l regr Aors ¡eur8r.ro eqr pasn sJer{f,J¿esal a rT, ‘saJnleeJ asJnol
-srp Jo ‘¡ecneruruer8 ‘¡erxa¡ uo pasnro3 feqr JaqleqaJo sruJal ur papof, aJaa
sTU-I aql ‘g >lsEJuorlr3runuruoJ ‘g ratdeg3 ur patuasa:d sl lpnrs srql tuo5
IFt a^rleroqtllor (sraureel erpJo ld¡acxa uV'(7.62 ‘d) ,asn a8en8ur¡ rreql uo
Dagar pue (paf,npord lagr a8en8uq aqr rnoqe >llel sreur¿al araqa anSo¡elp
agr3o r.redfur, ‘(sg¡1) saposrda pare¡ar-a8en8uplroJ papor pue pegrrrsuert
‘poprof,ar selv\ rlf,reesar er{l Jo saseqd Ip ur pmnpo;d srau;ea1 trr{l >llrr eql
‘ uorsJaA
ParEInr.uJoJaJ
aqt lnoqe lpt a^rreJogtllo3 Jrarp uo peseg serJols ¡eulSlro Jrer{r or suorsrlaJ
apeu ,(aqr rar{taqa pue euo patrlnr.uro3er eqt pu¿ uorsral ¡eur8rro rlaqt
uae^ tag seruaraJlp lnoge pef,nou sluapnls rBI{^\ tno pug or peruB./$. up¡de1
pue urE.{\S ‘&lupe 8ul¡llou Jrar{r Jo Ile3ar parelnlults B ul ued 1oor oslt
stuapnts aq1 l.lors er{t3o uorsra porelnruJoJeJ E LIlIld ueulrl’l peg laqr req,,vr
paredruor sluapnls aqr ‘ll,urre ,Sullllou, B uI telr I d¡a,ure.roqr¡¡oc lrors
E eloJ,&\ lagr se sluepnls uorsJelurul rlf,uaJ{ L epeJ1 o^\t Jo ruaurdo¡a,rap
a8en8ue¡ eqr pe^resqo (ZOO) upldel uoretls puE ulervis IIIrreW’en8o¡erp u¡
s¡nr¡o Suru¡ea¡ a8rnSue¡ ltrp Bepl aqr pue,üoaqr Frnrlnrolros fq pere^Irory
an&oryatp amtproqrllor q8notqt untuo swol :g€ [pus
‘erns¿eru
I”ro alp uo f¡.repu¡s paruro3rad sdno¡8 aarqr ¡¡e lgm
uosual aqr eq feru snqt pue arnreal ra8rer aqr uo uoltuaur paznrnpl^¡pul
r{]r1v\ sJauJEel IIB PaPr^oJd sa¡crrre;o uonslnf,nJE JBalf, al{r uo srseqdue sgl
‘eururueJ ro eurlnf,srru reqtra s¿ patardrarul aq ppol leqt ,elf,rue plrQlq, e
Pesn seunauJos sJeuJEel rEI{l ul\oqs PBI{ qfJEaseJ snol¡ta¡d asnBseg a¡qrssod
se llrea¡e se leads ol stuapnrs pa8ernocua JeqJJEasaJ alp ‘BIBP aqt3o loernle
aql eJnsua ol JePJo uI ‘suorssas euo-uo-euo a^Isuelul eaJr{t uI JeI{JJEasaJ eql
r{rl^\ letu sruapnls asaql dpnrs ar{r Jo rrrd sgr ut patrdlctued sruapnrs 3o
a¡drues-gns perf,elas l¡ruopuer e lluo ‘qstt pro Jo aJnleu Sutu¡nsuo¡-arutt
er{r Jo asnef,ag ‘sr lerll ‘rf,ege >lser e se Sulpug sltp stardratur .rarsr(1 ‘qser
IEJo er{r uo af,urruJoJ.rad ,sraurea¡Jo suJel ur sdno¡8 ¡etuautradxe aeJqr eqr
uee^uaq salueJaglp ruecgruS¡s ou eJe^\ eJar{t te^e^&\oH ‘saJnsraru uaulJl(
aqr uo dno¡8 slsef,er + uollrnJlsul eqt uEI{t Jauaq l¡ruecgru8ls plp dnor8
srdruo¡d + uononJtsur ar{r ‘uolrlppe uI ‘Japua8 polteruue¡8 Sulu8tss¿ ut
dno¡8 uosl¡edu¡oc arp ueqr alEJnf,f,E aroru lpurcgru8rs a.razrr (uorlrnrtsut
pa^ref,er or{,&\ esoqt ‘a’r) sdnorS ptuarutradxa eeJl{t ¡e srsar-rsod aql uO
‘JatBI sgluoru aerqt urc8e pue lege l¡alelparurul ‘lueruteaJl IEuonJnJlsuI aql
eroJeq parsar Ip a;ar*.lagr pue fpnrs agr rnoq8norl{l uolDnrlsul pas¿q-luet
-uof Jo arurue¡8o¡d uolsJeurrul qruaJ{ re¡n8a; Jrer{r Panunuoc sdnor8 ¡¡y
peqpaal elnf,aJJof, Jou uonrnJrsul Jaqlrau pe Iaf,eJ dno-13 uosl;edruoc aql
pue ‘<>peqpeeJ e^nf,aJJof, ou rng uoltf,nJlsul aql pa^raf,eJ dno¡8 ¡etuaulradxa
ruoz$stp aql w Sututaal a&an&ual puotag 68I
r90 Second language learning in the classroom
learners to engage in collaborative talk on the language features in question
led them to a greater understanding oftheir correcr use.
Study 39: Focus onform in tash-based instruction
In a descriptive study investigating the importance of the teacher’s role in
task-based instruction, Virginia Samuda (2001) explored ways of guiding
adult ESL learners’ attention to form-meaning relationships by focusing on
expressions of possibiliry and probabiliry (for example, ‘mighr’, ‘could’, ‘irt
possible’). In a task design that took learners through a’meaning to form to
meaning progression’, learners were first asked to work in groups to speculate
on the identity of an unknown person (for example, age, gender, occupation)
by looking at a set of objects thought to have come from that persont pocket.
In carrying out this task, learners were observed to produce expressions of
probabiliry and possibiliry such as ‘It’s possible that he smokes’ and ‘maybe
it’s a girl’, but few instances of modal auxiliaries (for example, ‘must’, ‘-“y’)
were used.
In the second phase ofthe task, the students were asked to come rogether as a
whole group to tell each other what they had decided. During this phase, the
teacher acted as a co-communicator and maintained the focus on meaning
but gradually shifted to form by using the language that the learners had
produced on their own and providing them with alternative ways of express-
ing uncertainry. Initiall¡ this was done implicitly. For example if a learner
said something like ”We think uh 50 per cenr he smokes’, the teacher said
‘So you’re not certain that he smokes?’ After each group had presented, the
teacher provided a more explicit focus. She drew the learners’ attention to
other ways of expressing possibiliry and probabiliry by overtly talking about
language form as shown in the excerpt below (p. 131).
sr Businessman
r Businessman ninety? OK So you’re 90 per cent certain he’s a
businessman, right? Heret another way to say this. You think itt 90
per cent certain, so you think he must be a businessman. He must be
a businessman (writes it on the board). So this (points to ‘must be’ on
board) is showing how certain how sure you are. Not 100 per cent,
but almost 100 per cent. 90 per cent.
In the final stage of the task, the students prepared and presented a poster
based on their conclusions about the identity of the unknown person to
the whole class. During this time, the teacher responded to the content and
not the form of their work. ‘When the researcher examined the differences
between expressions of probabiliry and possibility that the students used in
the first stage of this task and compared it with the final stage, there was evi-
dence of improvement in that many more instances of modal auxiliaries were
present in the learners’ speech.
purur ur daa;¡ #elnrle pue Sururea¡ alnJ uo srseqdua s¡! ql!/v\ qreo.rdde
uopelsueJl Jetuu€JB eqr,o Flldlr aJe sasrf,Jexe ¡er¡letuua8 qlns esnelaq
¡esodold .Suruur8eq eql uo4 rq8¡.r r¡ teg, aLp sluesaJdeJ rqJe^ aqllo turoJ
tf,eJJo) eqr qrl/v\ s)u€lq aql ur llrJ, sE qrns órruDe ue’a¡durexe JoJ ‘uorsnlf,uof,
l€qt peqf,EeJ nol r*oq ure¡dxa pue stuesardar lr ¡esodord Surqreat aqr ql/v\
lr¡,r¡rre qf€a qlle¡’sa!l!^!lle ¡errSo8epad ¿ ¡ ¡o suorrduf,sep rerrq eJe
^
oleg
stEsodord
tu¡qtee¡ qllrn se!l!^!p€ l€)ltoteped qrle¡ ,l.ttltrf,v
‘seruF ruaraJlp rE rreqp ‘Suluearu pue uroJ
uo snf,oJ e apr,,’ord qroq lar¡r r€ql ll¿J ar{l ol anP l¡a>il¡ ‘uoncnrrsur3o sadlr
o.&tt ar{t 3o órretuarua¡druo: aql ot rurod lpnrs srqr Jo slpsal II”rJ o Jr{l
‘lsat JEruuJe¡B uau¡rn
eqt uo sJauJ”al parrrSarul aqr pauroJradrno 1gg per”losl pellaf,ar oryú sJa
-ur¿al aqr PuP >lsEr uonBf,runuruoc IEJO eqr uo srJurEal Icc ParElosr aql
paru.ro3radrno 1gg pater8elur pe ralar oq^\ sraureal rEIp ur .IVI Joj ¡¡oddns
aruos peltelal osle s8urpug aql ‘etun relo saJns¿aul a8en8ue¡ qroq uo l¡rueo
-glu8rs pa,r.ordur sasstlr I{{ pel¿losr pue parzr8arul aqr qloq uI sreurraT
‘1g¿ pere.rSarur pelra3er orfü sraureel
aql ueql tsat J¿unuEJS uenl¡r”r ¿ uo a8pa¡r’rou¡ laqt SulralrteJ t? Jatlaq aJar\
(1gg pare¡osra’r) arnrerd a¡.neclunuuof, uJog parercdas aJa./v\ lerp saIlI^IIJE
¡euue¡8 ur aJnlJnJls arussed aqr 3o a8pa¡r’rou>l JIeI{r paurelqo orl.&\ sJauJeel
Jaqtaqa aro¡dxa or parue,llaqr ,{¡re¡rulg ‘ICC patrlosl pe^lereJ oI{1ú sJeuJeel
erp urr{r >lsr} uorlef,runuJuJo3 IBJo ue uo a8pa¡lr.ou>l teql Sur,rar¡la¡ le Janag
aram (1gg pere;8atul ‘a’¡) uolrrerarul alllmlunuruJor ut Sult¿dtcltred a¡rgrrr
a,rrssrd aqr 3o aSpa¡rrroDl Jrarp PaurErgo og,4a sJeuJsal Jeqlaq,&\ uI PelseJalul
aJa./!\ sJeq3fteser ar{r ‘snql ‘(7 rardeq3 aas) ¡emrnar Suunp PaIE IDE asoql
sE áruts er{l aJe ssa¡o.ld Sulurea¡ aqr Sulrnp pate^Irf,E aJE IBI{I sassa¡o.rd a¡¡l
-ru3oo aql JI peuJ¿el a^¿q ar’r Sulgrauros Jegrüaua.r ot l¡a1l¡ eJour eJE a^\
reqt Eapl arll pue lroaqr Sulssaco¡d arel¡do¡ddB-JaJsueJl lq paruro3ul sem
uoltsenb srql ‘a8pa¡r’rou>l ZT Jo spuDl luaraJtlp or peal rq8nu uoll3nrlsul
jo sadlr o,l\t aql Jar{reqa s¿ \ r{fJraseJ aqt Sune.tnotu uorlsanb puof,as V
‘JerEI $leal\ aarqt urc8e pue ‘uoltonJtsul JatJe f¡arrrpauul ‘uollJnJlsul
eJoJag u3o a8pa¡lLorDl Jrel{r uo palsal eJe.&\ sJeuJeal pup uoltonJlsuof a,uss¿d
er{l sBly\ aJnrEaJ ra8rcr ag¡ ‘uollf,nJlsul Pesnf,oJ-luJoJ P313losl pue parerSarul
sE 01 peJJaJar a.re lag¡ ‘acllce¡d allteflunurruoo IuoU pareredas Jo saltllltf,e
a^Il?3runruruof, ur PePPague sB^\ luJoJ ol uolluell? JaI{reI{^\ Jo suJal uI
paraglp IEI{I uolrrnnsulJo sJnol{ ZI qru’r pepl^o¡d a¡aztr sJeureel lsg llnPe
Ia^rl-ar¿rpaurerur Jo sass¿lr ol.r’L'(ZrcZ ‘¡e ra rpedg) ruroj ot uolluotte
.sJauJEal ./\^.eJp ol acuanbas lEuonf,nJtsur aql uI Jr.un Jeueg e ag leru araql
Jer{rar{ \ auruJtxe or lpnrs E rno paIJJEJ ul”et r{fJeesal Jer{ PuE epedg eur¡
uo?pn4su? ?aswo!-u,totlo &uruu atil :0, t?o8
utoo”tssqJ aqt ut 8urutua1 a&anSual puotag I6I
r92 Second language learning in the classroom
that in some cases,an activity is compatible with more than one teaching
proposal. For example, if the sentences in the’Fill in the blanks’ activity came
from an earlier draft of a letter written for a communicative activity, it might
be consistent with the’Get it right in the end’ proposal because it integrates
attention to language form in a meaning-based activity.
I Role-play a conversation between a travel agent and a tour¡st.
2 Memorize a dialogue about buying airline tickets.
3 Underline the past tense verbs while reading a story.
4 Arrange illustrations in the correct sequence after listening to a story.
5 Work with a partner to write a story based on a cartoon strip.
ó Rearrange a set of scrambled words to form correct questions.
7 Debate or discuss a topic that was featured in a newspaper article.
8 Watch an episode of Sesome Street.
9 Demonstrate and describe the steps in a science experiment.
| 0 lnterview a mystery guest and try to discover his or her occupation.
I I Play a game of ‘Simon Says’.
l2 Work in small groups to choose the ideal candidate for a job.
Interpreting the research
The overall results of the studies described above provide support for the
hypothesis that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback can help
learners improve their knowledge and use of particular grammatical features.
There is also compelling evidence that more explicit attention to form is par-
ticularly useful within communicative and content-based second and foreign
language programmes. This has been confirmed in reviews and meta-analy-
ses of many studies that have investigated the contribution of form-focused
instruction to L2 learning (Norris and Ortega 2000; Spada 2011). Some
results also show, however, that the effects of instruction are not always
long-lasting. This may be related to whether there is continued exposure ro
a linguistic feature in the regular classroom input after the experimental treat-
ment ends.
-We
have also seen that form-focused instruction may be more effective with
some language features than with others. For example, the successful learn-
ing of the tuluous distinction in Lyster’s (1994) study could be due to the
fact that learning tu and uous is essentially a matter of learning two impor-
tant vocabulary items and thus may have been less difficult to learn than
syntactic features that affect meaning in less obvious ways. In the intensive
ESL research, learners may have been more successful after instruction on
uolrnJtsul Zauory slFSaJ a8pa¡nou11o adlr t¿q^Uo uoltsanb aql ot ra^\sue
rcell e eAEr{ luo,lr e,&\ ‘sselaqlauoN ‘(1r rnoqr 1urqt, 01 aurn Surrteq lnoqtr,l.r
lplcrnb a8pa¡rrroul -rraqt elarJtor ol sraureel a¡lnba.r teqr qser pa;nsse;d-arun
pue $1s31 uorlssrunuJurof IEJo s3 r{f,ns aSpa¡nou1 zT e nrnlur (sJsuJrel olur
der or saJnseaur a8en8uel jo lrarre,r ¡alra¡8 E papnllur serl qf,Jeasal tueoaJ
,(¡areunr-rog ‘stsel rcruru¿¡8 rulod-ara;cslp ‘aldruexa JoJ ‘8ursn aSpay’rou1
l¡¡lTdxa peJnseauJ eAEr{ serpntsSo lrrroleu aqt ur ssarSo.rd,sraureal ssass¿ ot
pasn srset eql reqr rlEJ eql ol anp erc uonrnJrsul ZT JoJ srre5a elllsod Sutrrloqs
sasl¡eue-eraru ruo5 slFSeJ ar{r teqr an3-re lagr ‘aroruJar{lJn¿ d¡uo a8pa¡ltou1
ucr¡dxa ot peel uel uonfnJtsul Z’I r¿ql rupp sJar{f,J?aseJ pue slsrJoer{r aruos
‘pasl¡eueun pue elnrnlur eq ol peJaprsuof,
sr a8pa¡zrroul ucl¡drul seerar{^,\,’pasfpue pue snorf,suor sE peglrrsap f¡¡mldlr
sr a8pa¡rv’ou1 lcr¡dxE ‘a8pa¡zrrou>l trcr¡dur snsJe^ urr¡dxa se ro’r.rardeg3 ul
pessnJsrp se ‘uolllslnbf,E snsJe^ Sururee¡ pue lrJnpolo¡d sns¡a,r elneJelf,ap
sE or parraJer l¡snorre,r ueeq e^Erl a8pa¡mou1 Zl uI sarueraglp esaql ‘uolr
-cnpord aSen8ue¡ snoaueluods pue ¡n;Suluealu uI selnJ arp asn ot ll¡ge aqr
tou tnq reruuer8 3o selnr arp Jo a8paproul poo8 l¡le; E ol peal or l1a1r1 sl
a¡n¡e.rd e^nrf,runuruJof, rnoqlrlv\ Surqcmr ¡eutue¡3 peseq-elnJ uct¡dxa regr
r’rouq saSrn8ur¡ u8raro;/puof,es Jo sJar{f,Eel ‘sI lEqI ‘sJeqf,Eel fueru 3o acua
-r¡adxa aqr qlLlr seleuoser pue Surn8urul sr a8pa¡,r,r.oul Z’IJo spuDl rueraglp
ol peel 1¿g parerSarur puB paltlosr reqt Sulpug aql ‘uoltrnrtsur pastg-Iser
urqtv( ruJoJ ol uonualre (sluepnls rra:lp lle,rtrJege urf sJel{feel moq 8ur
-lpJrsnlll’1g¿ pare,r8arurSo a¡druexa poo8 3 sI sreureal’ISE llnP” grl¡llpnrs
s€pnrrres ‘Bu1una171ur eruaraJlp e e>leru os¡e leru uotDnJrsul PasnroJ-LuroJ
3o Sunun aqr terp rapulureJ E sl ICC pet¿losl pur paterSatul uo I{rJEesaU
‘sarnleal aSen8ue¡3o sadó qloq ro3 8uturca¡
paroruord uoltJnnsul rror¡dxa reqr uoda¡ (O t OZ) etlruolPuE Eped5 ‘ra,rar*og
‘seJnl¿al a8en8ue¡ ,a¡drurs, pue ,xa¡druof, uo uoltf,nJlsulJo adfr3o stfeJe aqr
jo srsf¡uuu-eleru ruef,eJ p uI ‘uolrfnJlsul JoJ ta8rcl rartag e ag feu ,¡zrn¡d rr
e>pu ol unou BJo pue aqr r€ t- uB tnd, sE qlns ,grunqtJo alnl, a¡durs E pueq
Jeqto aqt ug ‘rndur eqr uI a¡nsodxa eI^ salfllJe tnoge SuturBJI Jo Jarrag
aq leu sJauJeel ‘sng1 ‘urea¡ pue ql”ar or rplgllp f¡snot.totou PuE tlertsgr
pue xa¡duor r{toq sr r¡sr¡8uE ut u¡atsds alJIlrE aqr ‘a¡druwe roC ‘sral{to ueql
xa¡duoc aJouJ eJE saJnteal a8en8uel auJos qll^\ patelfosse salnJ al{r f¡eurg
‘sJoJJO paseq-aSen8wl lsJg s(Jal{to qfre efJoJuIaJ pue aSen8ue¡
]sJg aur¿s eqt aJEI{s sJauJeal eJar{^\ sruooJsself, a8en8ur¡ Puof,as uI PesEeJfuI aq
lru ó¡ncg¡p aql ‘Zapue IT uea lteq selllrellruls Sulpealsru erc aral{l uaq/!\
l¡-re¡nrlrred ‘a8en8ue¡ lsJg (sreureel aqr lq pef,uengur are teqt asoql ere elor
plrnrc e &¡d &ru uo¡r¡n¡lsu pasnoo1-ruJoJ qrII{ { roJ saJnleal a8en8ue¡.raqrg
‘suortsenb qtr./( uer{t sJauluJalep anlssassod qllry\ uollf,auuo¡ Sutuearu
-ruJoJ ¡a8uo¡ts E sr eJJr{r asnefaq suorlsanb ueql sJaulutatap a,rtssassod
utootttylJ aqt ut Sututual a8an&ual puotag e6t
194 Second language learning in the classroom
until valid and reliable tests of both implicit and explicit knowledge are used
in a larger number of studies (Ellis et al. 2009).
Similar issues have been raised about research on corrective feedback but the
central focus of this work has been on investigating whether certain types of
corrective feedback are more effective than others. The results from Lystert
study in French immersion programmes suggests that learners benefit more
from feedback that pushes them to self-correct (i.e. prompts) than from feed-
back that provides the correct form (i.e. recasts). Research in other contexrs,
however, has produced different results. For example, the majority oflabora-
tory studies ofcorrectiye feedback report benefits for recasts over other types
of corrective feedback including prompts (Mackey and Goo 2007). These
conficting findings are likely related to differences in conrext-the labora-
tory is a more controlled environment than the classroom, where there are
competing demands on learners’ attention. As a result, learners may notice
certain rypes of feedback in the one-on-one laboratory interactions more
than they do in the classroom in communicative or content-based classes,
where the primary focus is on meaning.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the specific pedagogicalactiviq, in which correc-
tive feedback is provided also plays an important role in terms of whether
learners recognizeit as corrective feedback. The timing ofcorrective feedback
may also be importantinL2learning. To date little research has explored
whether it is preferable, for example, to provide feedback during or after
communicative practice. One study of this issue was carried out by James
Hunter (2012). He investigated the effectiveness of feedback that the teacher
provided afier students had participated in student-led conversations. His
findings show that such an approach can result in a higher proportion of
repair than feedback provided in whole-class teacher-led activities.
Recently there have been a number of meta-analyses of studies investigat-
ing the effectiveness of L2 corrective feedback on L2 oral production. The
results are mixed, with some reporting benefits for recasts over other rypes of
feedback (Li 2010) and others reporting advantages for prompts over recasts
(Lyster and Saito 20 1 0). Until there is greater consensus on the contributions
of different types of corrective feedback on L2learning, a prudent approach
would be to provide learners with a variety of different rypes of correctiye
feedback and to keep in mind the counterbalance hypothesis presented in
Chapter 5, which suggests that more explicit corrective feedback may be
effective in contexts where the learners’ attention is focused on meaning/
conrent while implicit feedback may be sufficient to attract learners’ atten-
tion in contexts where the focus of instruction is typically on language form.
feru s¡au.rea¡ ‘stsecarSo ruJoj ar{l sa>lrt JoJJe uo llEqPJaJ ual{^\ ‘aJoluJegun{
‘r¡ les or /(oq rou ‘,(es,,bqr tel{/’r uo l¡ernreu sI snJoJ (sluePnls aql ‘uollf,t
-Jalur FuonesJe uo uI uoll¿f,Iunrutuo3 (leJnleu, alelnuls ol srduane pue
Surueaur sazseqdua ,lpr s,ta’L asnef,eg ‘sJoJJe JIeIpJo allds ut f¡1n3ssa:rns
alef,runluluof, ot Luaqt ,l\olle spunor8¡erq Sururee¡ pue aBrnSuEI Parer{s
.sluepnls eJeI{,& sasself, uI anrt f¡ucadsa q slql ‘ruroJ uo sn)oJ ou sI aJeqrJI
aSrn8ue¡ perrclrslqdos pue etBJnJf,E eJour Suumbce uo ssa¡8o¡d.{\ols e>lelu
leru s¡eu¡¿al teqr srvrol{s osle r{rJeesal eqr te,rarrrog ‘a8en8ue¡ puoros E uI suoll
-EsJe^uoJ e8euru ot ll¡lqe aqr put a:ualadruor a lleslunu¡luof, Pas¿aJf,ul ol
p”el uEJ sanr^nf,B paled pur dnor8 uI suollf,¿Jalul IsuollesJeluof, uI a8r8ua
ol sJauJeal JoJ salrlunrJoddg ‘suJeJuoJ JEIItuls sasler ¡esodord ;pr s,re’I, eql
‘uonf,nJlsurJo luauoduof, E se seJnleeJ aSen8ur¡ ol uolluallr PaPFB
apnllur faqr uaqrtr InJssamns rsour ere sagreordde Paseq-uolsuagardruo3
.rndur a¡q¡suagardruoo ur Suturaru uo snro3 l¡duls sraurea¡ a8en8ue¡ Puof,as
JIJlesrrJo arm 3>lBr IIy( uoluslnbre aSenSuel ]¿qr slsaqlodlq aqr ro3 r:oddns
pug rou op a^{‘saruu¡e¡8o¡d paseg-uorsuagardruoc uI uollf,nPold pue uots
-uaqarduo: qtoq ur ssa¡8o¡d olqeJeplsuor e)pru sJauftal reqt ef,uePFa
poo8 sr aJer{r elqrtys¡esodord (auo JoJ o^\t leg, Pue (PEeJ PUE “‘ uarsll
rsn[, aqr Jo suoISJa^ eulaJlxe uorlsanb olul sllef sIqI ‘uollf,nJlsut Pasnf,oJ
-ruroJ ou ro alull re5o lttlt saurue¡8o¡d ul a8en8ue¡ ar{r Jo sarnpnJls f,IsEq
qrl¡^ lrp:glp aleq ol enunuof, sJauJBal lBql ef,uapr^e Sulsea¡cul sr aJer{I
‘JBJ ool auo8 arreq leur uorln¡o,rar
a^nr)runlutuof,, eqt ‘aruepln8 Pu¿ suollrueldxa onsln8ullelsu PuB toJJa uo
¡l¿qpeal ‘srsl¡eue elllsEJluof, tno 8uv’rorql ul ‘PuEI{ rel{ro aqr ug ñualrg
-o;d rraqt patlnbce e^sq sJeurEe¡ a8enSue¡ puof,es InJsssf,f,nsJo ólroleru agr
frrvr aqr or puodsarror lou saop ,SutuurSaq aql uor3 rq8rr ll reD, reqr srsa8
-8ns aruap¡ra eqr rnq ‘pasn eg 01 anulluof, IIII$ sei{leordde ¡tn8urlolPnt PuE
uoDEISupJl JEuIIUEJD ‘sesself, 3o sreal JaUe ue^a ‘SuollesJa^uoc lreulpro ut
aledlclu¿d or elqeun pue pelertsnry sreuJ¿el fueu a,tea¡ sPoqreu asaqr l¿ql
-s8ulpug
tlf,rcaser pue aouauadxa puosrad uo5-,&\ou>l osle a,&t, t3 e \oH
.s;a>1eads JBenSue¡ puof,as luerf,go.rd l¡g8rq parnpord wq uorlrnrlsur ¡en8ull
-orpne l1-repurS ‘sesself, r{fns ur ecual¡adxa JreqlJo rno pado¡a,rep aSenSur¡
uSlaro3 e ut lcualcgord paeue,rpe asoq,/ú slrnPl^lPul lJru aA¿I{ snJo lsolu PUE
poqraru pardde l¡aplzu, tsoru eqt rqnoP ou sI uoIlEIsuEJl JEIuurerS ‘p¡:o,t
erp Jo slool{3s el{r uI ‘poqteru Sulgcrar el{r Jo ssa¡prr8ar Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡
puofes ur Peaf,f,ns III^[ sJeurcal pag13 f¡euorrdacxs eruos reqr l!\oul a/N
‘r{f,JeaseJ uooJSSEIJ ruo;3 rroddns lsou¡ aqt eAIef,sJ uoll
-f,EJalur Pas”g-rualuo3 PuE o^Ileflunlutuof, uIqlIA\ luJoJ Ol Uolluarre apytord
tEql saqf,eoJddy .pepuauruof,al eq rou um auo¡e Surusaru uo snsoJ a^lsnlf,xa
rsotult uE SultuasaJdar asoqr Jo uIJoJ uo snf,oJ ellsnlsxo lsolule u¿ Surluesa¡
-dar qusodord reqr ruepl^e suraes lI ‘op ol >lJo^t l{f,nru llrls sI ererp q8noqrry
slesodord aqr tutssassy
s6ru¿ooJssqJ atp ut Sututaal a7an8uq puotag
196 Second language learning in the classroom
interpret it as a continuation of the conversation rather than focus on form.
Thus, programmes based on the’Let’s talk’ approach are incomplete on their
own, and learners’ gains in confidence and conversational skills may not be
matched by their development of more accurate and complex language.
It is important to emphasize that the evidence to support a role for form-
focused instruction and corrective feedback does not suggest a return to the
‘Get it right from the beginning’ approach. Research has shown that learn-
ers do benefit considerably from communicative interaction and instruction
that is meaning-based. The results of research in French immersion, other
content-based language teaching, and communicative ESL are strong
indicators that learners develop higher levels of fluency through primarily
meaning-based instrucdon than through rigidly grammar-based instruction.
The problem is that certain aspects oflinguistic knowledge and performance
are not fully developed in such programmes.
Research investigating the ‘Teach what is teachable’ proposal is not yet at a
point where it is possible to say to teachers: ‘Here is a list of linguistic features
and the order in which they will be acquired. You should teach them in this
order’. The number of features that researchers have investigated in experi-
mental studies within this framework is far too small. On the other hand,
there has been no strong evidence that teaching according to the develop-
mental sequences is necessary or even desirable or that it will improve the
long-term results in language learning. \Vhat is mostvaluable about this pro-
posal is that it serves to help teachers set realistic expectations about the ways
in which learners’ interlanguage may change in response to instruction. The
implications of ‘Teach what is teachable’ may be seen primarily in the fact
that genuine progress in second language development must be measured
in ways that include, but are not limited to, increased accvfacy in language
production.
According to the ‘Get it right in the end’ proposal, classroom activities
should be built primarily on creating opportunities for students to express
and understand meaningful language. However, this proposal is based on the
hypothesis that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback are also
essential for learners’ continued growth and development. The challenge is
to find the balance between meaning-based and form-focused activities. The
right balance is likely to be different according to the characteristics of the
learners. The learners’ age, metalinguistic sophistication, prior educational
experiences, motivation, and goals, as well as the similariry of the target lan-
guage to a language aheady known need to be taken into account when
decisions are made about the amount and type of form focus to offer.
Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that
form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the
context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective
‘suorlEluarJo o.&\t aseql uae^\taq ef,uEpq rseg
ar{l Pug or sr a8uallBr{J aql ‘rar.F?u ‘uonfnrtsur pasEg-SuruEeu puB pes¿q
-ruJoJ uee ueg Jsooq) ol ÁBssa3eu tou sr lr tng ‘SurrIJBar a8en8ue¡ puof,as
ur uonoeJJof,-JoJJe pue tuJoJ ot uorlualte3o uoncelar atalduoc e ur palpseJ
saurneuros srr{ spoqretu Sulgrear a8en8ue¡ a nelrunururof,Jo uorlrnpoJrur
aql (aun erues eql lV’ruooJsselt aq] ur asn a8en8u¿l snoauetuods sapn¡rxa
l¡enrrl,r leqt l¡rrnoce uo slseqdure uB sr eJerF eJar#\ slueuruoJr^ue ur >lJo \
IIIrs sJer{Jear lue¡¡ ‘slxaluof leuonef,npe Jrar{t ul spua;l Suqle,rard agt tsurESE
oB regr sacnce¡d ruooJsself, tno l¡t ol tprgrp aq uec lr ‘aJoruJer{lJng (¿srqr
rnoqe oB ol lez’l a nreJe lsow aql l¡uar s srr{l Jr Japuo,^a 1, ,les pur sacn
-ce;d rer¡rueJ uroü >peq dars or ls¿a s&rrr¡e lou sr lI ‘po8 rraqr gsr¡durorce
01 rseq^ror{JoesuesJEalf,Ea EqsJer{3eetIIeter{lasrf er{l ,{p.reqsrlr,luelxa
auros ot ann aq feru slgr g8noqr¡y’acnce¡d uooJsself, tuaJJnf, Jrar{l ruJguof,
llduls qf,reeseJ uo peseq suonepueuruoral rer{r IaaJ &ru laqr pue ,snf,oJ
Surutau¡ PuE snf,oj ruJoJ ef,uBlBg o] Peau aql Jo aJE.l!\E eJE sJaqf,Eal lury,q
lreululng
‘looqls lE leea E sJnor{
^\eJ
e ro3 a8en8uel u8laroS e 8uúpnrs sluef,salope pue ‘aBenBuEI u.lur.o rrer{} aru^\
PuE P”aJ touu?f, oqrtr sturrSluurr JaPIo pue ra8unol qloq ‘ruauuoJr^ue
e8en8ue¡ puof,as r ul Surlooqrs rrarp Suluur8aq uarpp{f, Sunof ‘a8en8ue¡
qug Jo l{unoJ e Sururea¡ srsrn8ur¡ peureJl ‘fts to3 arel¡do.ldd¿ eq ppo,/ü
saqceordde tueJeglp aun| ‘asJnor Jo ‘sonsrJetf,EJer{f, Jeurcel ur sefuaJoJlp
lunoJf,? olur a>lEt tsnlu snf,oj uroj apl,ro.rd ol ,/Vt.orl Pue uagd\ lnogE suolsrf,acl
‘a8en8ue¡ lnoqe suonsanb >1se 01 tueql Sur8e¡nocua lq pue ‘<>lJeqpaaJ
r{rl^\ Jeqro qcea apt,rord uec lagr qllqrYt ur slxaluof, Surdo¡a,rap fq ‘saltr,rnoe
alnef,runuruJof, ur esn laqr surroj ar{r or uonueDe Jraqr A\eJp ler{l seFr^rpe
Sullea.rc lg ssacord aql ur r.red aler ol sJeuJeel a8e¡no¡ua ot InJesn eq osle
u?J tI ‘sruJo3 esar{rJo asn aql ur uonfnJtsul papln8 atuos epl^oJd pue sruap
-nts Jrarp Jo ruaudo¡a,l,ap a8en8ur¡ puo3es aqt ur aSrarua ol Suruur8aq rsnl
eJE teql seJnlm3 a8en8ur¡3o eJE.lr\E aJoru a{uof,ag or lrr os¡e tq8nu sJer{ftal
‘a8en8ue¡ ra8rer aqr ruog sragrp a8enSue¡ tsrg sraur¿el e ur aJntrnrls rEIn
-crurd E
^\oq
lnoqe uoneuJoJur e^nseJtuof, ap¡,rord ot aletrseq tou ppoqs
laql ‘punorSlceq a8en8uel rsJU arues aqr aJer{s lagr uagm 3ur{eru ere ssEIf,
E uI sJauJee¡;o lrrroleru aqt reqt sJoJJe Jo a;ez’re ,{¡elcadsa ag osp plnoqs
sJeqJeaJ’uorluellB PasnloJ lnoqlra ef,nou ol lou u¡aas sJeuJEel lEql sJoJJe
luatsrs¡ed lceJJof, ot arerrsaq rou ppor{s sJer{f,¿el ‘elduJexe Joü ‘sef,uels[unJJrJ
ureuaf, ur >lleqpeeJ e nf,aJJof, pue uonfnJtsur pesnf,oJ-urJoJ’pepm8 apr,rord
(p¡noqs pue) ueo srer{f,”el a8en8uel puof,es regr en8re ppo^\ e^t’snql ‘euop
Átetntte ro ‘fruang ‘uolsuegerdruof, uo slseqdure e rsnlf,xa f¡enl.llzt e ol
parr{urT eJ” ler{t sarurue¡3o¡d ueqr Sulureal a8en8ue¡ puof,Js Sullou¡o¡d ul
tuootssvlr aql ut Sututaal a&an&ual puocag L6I
198 Second language learning in the classroom
Classroom-based research on second language learning and teaching has
given us partial answers to many questions. Through continuing research
and experience, researchers and teachers will fill in more details, always rec-
ognizing that no single answer will be adequate for all learning environments.
Among the questions we will continue to ask are these:
. How can classroom instruction provide the right balance of meaning-
based and form-focused instruction ?
. \Vhich features of language will respond best to form-focused instruc-
tion, and which will be acquired without explicit focus if learners have
adequate access to the language?
. \Vhich learners will respond well to metalinguistic information
and which will require some other way of focusing amention on
language form?
. tülhen is it best to draw learners’ attention to form-before, after, or
during communicative practice?
. How should correctiye feedback on language form be offered?
. $lhen should learners be allowed to focus their attention on the content
oftheir utterances?
Continued classroom-centred research, including the action research by
teachers in their own classrooms, will provide further insights into these and
other important issues in second language teaching and learning.
Questions for reflection
I Keeping in mind that individual learner differences play an important role in
second language learning, do you think a particular learner profile might be
more compatible with one of the teaching proposals than another?
2 lf you were going to experiment with a new approach to teaching in your
classroom,which of the six proposals described in this chapter would you
choose?Why?
3 This chapter concludes with the suggestion that’Get it right in the end’ is
the best approach.ls this consistent with your own views?Why/why notl
‘uSrsep unlnf,rrrnf, or perelar sanssrJo a8ue.r ¡n; eql uo sarerogela 1oog
srql pue ‘seapr aql sJf,nportur (tO0O uoneN ‘runlnf,rrrn: ¿ ua^e Jo ‘sngel
-¡ls e ‘uossal EJo sruetuJle eql sE uaes aq osp lew spueJts JnoJ aqt ‘Sulureay
,fie¡nqeco,r ur r{f,Jeasal suoneN uo paseg llpulSrrg ‘Sururea¡ uoo.r
-ss?lf, uo qf,rEasar qtrrtr alqlrrdruor sr tegr Surqcear a8en8uel or grrorddr
paou¿pq e tuasa¡da.r laqr .raqraSo¡ ‘ruaudo¡a,rep louang pue ‘8ulurra1
pasnroS-a8enSur¡’rndrno pasnroS-Surueaur’lndur pasncoS-Sulutaru :eJE
spuerls rno3 aql ‘auue¡8o¡d Surqceer a8en8ue¡ E ur-ef,uet;odul ¡enba
Jo pue-lenuassa sE uees eJE ter{l (spueJts, rno3 pasodord srq uoneN InBd
‘ a8pa¡rn o¿ :>lJoÁ,r\aN
‘u&1saq urynrt¿tn) a&an&uaT’0I02 ‘rersl¡ere¡4¡’f pue U ‘S ‘I ruor¡ra¡
‘arllre¡d pue l.roaqr uaa,r\tag epeul suonJauuoo InJasn Jqr
ur tuapne sr Jaqf,Jeasal pue Jar{f,eet qroq se acuar¡adxa s Joglne aq1 d¡sno
-auetlnurs tualuor pue a8rn8ue¡ Surrlcear 3o sa8ua¡pgf, er{l or suonnlos
rq8nos s¿q reqr >1.rorrr prr.udrueJo sapef,ep sazrsaqruls rars/1 lo¿ ‘epeue3
ur sau¡tue¡8o¡d uors¡aruur qf,uaJC uI r{f,Jeasal uo snroJ allsnlf,xJ lou
rng lrerulrd E r{ll,4N ‘sruooJSSEIr pe$q-ruaruoc ur Suru¡eal pue Surqcear
a8en8ue¡3o slsfpue pue uoltdrnsep elrsuaqa¡duoc e saptzro;d looq srql
‘ surur lua g ugof : rueple $trry’ q r ? o.t ddV p a t uap q urun o ) V
: ruaruo ) q7n o.r t¡t a8anSuaT 3u! r/ na¿ pua SututaaT’ L007,’¿’rars,(1
‘a¡rt¡e¡d u,e\o Jrar.ll ot uonEIaJ
ul paruesard seapr aqr uo llegal ol sJap?eJ atelllour 01 slEIJatEIu 8ul¡cear
pue ‘seDrArtJE ‘$ls¿tJo esn e^rsuelxe sr aJaql pue suoneJePlsuof, ¡eolrce.rd
ol Ief,rlaJoer{r tuo5 seloru rardeqc rpeg ‘8ulu;ee1 Sutssasse pue ‘8uruueld
‘s¡¡1s a8en8u€l aql Surdo¡a,rap ‘tuatsls a8en8uel aqr Surqceal ‘Suturua¡
pue Surqoea] roJ >lro \erue{ e :suoltres rnoJ orul papr,rlp sl r1 ‘sa8en8ue¡
u8lerojTpuoras 3o Suru.real put Sulqcear eqt or ruE^alal s¡ldol 3o a8ue.r
aPr^\ e sJa^of rI ‘JerPEar uooJssslf eqr JoJ >looq ef,ueJajal Injasn 3 sI sIqI
‘ssar¿ ólsra,rrun pJoJxO
:proJXO ‘ruoo$sq) a8rnSuaT aqt ur SututaaT pua Sutqtaa¿’0002 ‘I’atpa¡¡
‘l8o8epad a8en8uel roJ suonef,rldur slr
pu¿ r.lf,reaser ar{r uee,&\tag ep¿ru are $luII ‘>loog eqr rnoq8norql ‘plro.^a eql
punoJe Sulqcear a8en8ue¡ Sune8nsa,rur aJE orlld sJorrfnpa pue sJEIoI{JS
Jo >lro.{l, eqt seqsrlqnd gr¡qm ‘quaasa¿ Su1cpaa¿ a&an&uaT purnol el{l jo
Jolrpa sE puB Jar{fJEesal e se sa,uloads.rad ¡enp srq tuo5 >ls”l aqr sagreo;dde
srllg ‘sarpnts Jo reqrunu tse^ E uro{ s8urpug eqr pue spoqraur al{r qroq
slder^ar ag ‘3ulurea1 a8rnSue¡ puof,as ul Sulqcrat Jo aloJ aqr areS¡rsa,tur
or l¡ecglrads pau8rsap sr terlr qf,reaseJ uo sasnf,oJ sITIg ‘.erunlo^ slqr uI
‘
¡1a.r,u1ce¡g -fallA, :Vntr
‘uapplA¡ ‘l8o&apa¿ aSan&uaT pua r1uaasa¿ &u1qna¿ aSan&ul7 ‘Zl0T, ‘U’sIIg
tulpear rerlrrry roJ suorrsaSSn5
66tutoo¿ssplJ aql m &uru”taa1 a8un&uq puotag
per”rrrurJo tsrl e8r¿l E ezllBurelul uer{t erou op srauJtal a8en8ue¡ teqr aruaP
-l,ta apnord srar.{lo fueur pue sa¡druexa asar¡1 ‘f.r8ue sI rulq or a>1ods 1 reqr
ueur aql Jo ‘ü,^ .ol orur peplJ log-aloc at¡¡, les oq^\ sJeuJBe¡ e8enSuel Puof,as
r{rr^\ puE ‘,rq8¡r aprsdn tr pauJru I rnq u11\oP aPlsdn s3^\ lI, pur ‘,dols l,uec
1 pue dn Surcclq ur(I, s? r{Jns sarualues sueJpllql uI luaPl^e sl sIlL ‘$lro1y\
rualsls a8en8ue¡ eqt ,/$oq 3o Sulpuersrepun Suldo¡e,rap JIaI{I uo Paseg ere
sarueluas aseql ‘eroJaq pJraq aAEI{ lou p¡noc laqr leqt sef,ualuas ¡a,rou luru
acnpo;d sreu;ra1 aSen8uel puoles pue lsJg esnmag ‘uotlet¡rut q8norqr l¡ureur
peurrel a¡e saBenSuEI rtqr ruatunS.re el{l roJ r¡oddns pug or TFIUIP sI rI
uoDellurl r¡tnorqrl¡uTPur Peureel eJ? setBnSwT I
qf,JBasal ruory
Suru¡eaT :seepl re¡ndod eql uo tulrcaga¿
¿s.ratdeqr Surparald aqt ur p€eJ arr.nol req,r,r {q PauJUuol -ro pe8ueqr uaaq
uo¡t¡srnbre a8en8ue¡ puof,as uoqe s^ et^ Jnol e,re¡1 ‘r*ou a,rtB p¡noa,r no{ esoql pue
uaqr a,re8 no¡( sasuodsa”l aqr a.reduo3’ute8e al¡euuo¡fanb aqt erc¡duor pue ¡req
oBterdeqr stqt Sutpea.r anurluof, nol a.rolag’SuluJeel a8en8ue¡ moq€ s€aPl *¡ndod
euos qtfv\ paa.r8e nol l¡8uo.rrs
^
oq elef,lPul ol nol Pe¡se a/v\’uolDnPoJlul aql ul
suo¡u¡do JnoÁ rv\al^eu
^ll^llf,v
‘suoluldo .re¡ndod
asaqr tnoqe s \aIA u^\o JnoJo auos Sulreqs’>looq snp ut PessnfslP JAEq a,tt
regr Áoarp pue I{fJEasaJ perEIoJ al{t Jo eu¡os ezlJeuruns PUE uorlfnPoJlul
aqr ur ol papuodsat nol regr sluauralrts B I 3I{r ol uJnleJ ar’r tarderp slql uI
/$.eIAaJd
CIflIISIAflU
CNINUVfl-I flDVNDNV-I
INOSV SVflCII UVfNdOd
202 Popular ideas about language learning reuisited
and memorized sentences. They also identify patterns in the language and
extend them to new contexts.
Ifwe use a narrow definition of imitation (the immediate repetition of all or
part of another speakert utterance) we find that some children imitate a great
deal as they acquire their first language. Even these children, however, do not
imitate everything they hear. Instead, they selectively imitate certain words
or structures that they are in the process of learning. Furthermore, children
who do little overt imitation learn language as quickly and as well as those
who imitate more. Thus, this rype of imitation may be an individual learning
strategy but it is not a universal characteristic oflanguage learners.
Some second language learners also find it useful to imitate samples of the new
language. Classroom researchers have observed students who repeat what they
hear others sa¡ and some advanced learners who are determined to improve
their pronunciation find it helpful to spend time carefully listening to and imi-
tating language in a language laboratory or tutorial. However, for beginning
learners, the imitation and rote memorization that characterizes audiolingual
approaches to language teaching is not effective if learners do not also use the
sentences and phrases they are practicing in meaningful interaction. Learners
need to do more than recite bits of accurate language in drills and dialogues.
Nevertheless, recent findings from corpus linguistics have provided a new
appreciation for formulaic language use. \7e know from the discussion of
usage-based theories discussed in Chapter 4 that a great deal of natural lan-
guage use is predictable on the basis of the frequency with which words or
phrases occur together. Learners create strong associations between language
features that tend to occur together. Thus, language is partlylearned in chunks
larger than single words. However, this internalization of the input does not
depend on the learner’s imitation of all or part of another persont utterance
in a rote-repetition fashion. it is the combined exposure to language features
in the input and their use in meaningful exchanges that leads to learning.
2 Parents usually correct young children when they make
grammatical errors
There is considerable variation in the extent to which parents correct their
childrent speech. The variation is based partly on the childrens age and
partly on the parents’ social, linguistic, and educational background. \Mhen
children are very young, parents rarely comment on grammatical errors,
although they may correct lapses in politeness or the choice of a word that
doesnt make sense. As children reach school age, parents may correct the
kinds of non-standard speech that they hope their children will outgrow, for
example, ‘Me and Fred are going outside now’.
Extensive observations of parents and children show that, as a rule, parents
tend to focus on meaning rather than form when they correct children’s
Sururea¡ ol alo ep uef JauJEal aql erun qJnru .^aor{ ‘8uru.rea1 ro3 saruara3ard
pue sa¡lrs (sJauJeal lenpr^rpur qtr.&\ stf,EJalur uonf,nJtsur aqt ,ta.oq .apntnde
8ulu.real a8en8uel sE r{rns sef,ueraJlp lenpr^rpur raqlo Jo ro a8e qtr^! aruoo
rer¡r sa8ueqf, Jo uonJagal e eq leu tJ ‘uJeal ol petplrloru lou aJE sJauJeal
a8enSue¡ puof,es rppe ler{l ef,uep4e sB ue>pt eq rou ppoqs srgl’uonrsrnbce
aSen8ue¡ lsJg ur op uarplrql terp lrrrnooe pur louang eqr e^arqle ,(1arct
srppe se a8en8uel puofes r Sururea¡ ur8aq oqlr sJruJerl reqr .alduexa ro3
ru.ou1 a¿¡’8ururea1 a8en8ue¡ ur sa8ua¡eqc rearS :atunof, u) sJauJ”al palE^notu
fn8ry ua^e’sarunaruog lpr8rr oor slqt rardJatur tou tsnru a./\4.lng ‘tuop oq./(
asoqt uerll lauag op o] puar uJeel ol lue.&\ oq,^a sJeuJeol teqt searSe auol;a,rg
uope no(u sr
uoplslnbre e8en8ue¡ puoras ul ssef,rnsJo ronlpard rseq ar{l 7
‘luouJuoJrlua Suru.rea¡ agr or Surrq stuapnts leql senrlrge luoJeJrp Jrlt a8e8ua
ol slezvr pug ot sl pnuessa sr rErLA’a8en8uel puofas e Suru;ea1 lnoqe efroqJ
ou al¿r{ sdno¡3 ór¡ounu ¡o tue¡8nuu¡l ruog sluapn}s (stxatuof,
leuone3npe
.{ueru u1 ‘paaDns or llllqe rrrueprlr ar{r e^Eq lou op laqr trqr spuno.r8 agr
uo a8en8uel Jer{toue ur?al ol sauunl¡oddo ruory pepnlf,xa aq rou ppoqs
stuepnrs ‘stsat|1 lq parnseau lou are reqt sanrlrgt put sllDls tuaragrp lueur
teat? e sello ur Sururea¡ a8en8ur¡ ]Erp pellerer eg lsnru U ‘lueuodtul tsotr {
‘a8paproul clrsln8urpraru u¿ql Jer{tEJ sllpls uorlef,runururo:
IEro uo sl srsegdua aqtJr anrl l¡ercadsa q qql ‘sJeureal a8enSuel InJssalf,ns
og urf sanrTrgt Fnlfellalu jo lral;r,L apr,r\ E r{¡r1’r sJeuJEel teqt u,r\oqs srr{
r{JJ¿esaJ ‘pezlsegdua sr asn e8en8uel e nf,EJetur aJeq,4a sruooJSSEIJ ur pue
s8untas Sulurea¡ a8enSuel IEJnlEu ur ‘.ra,rarvro11 ‘lle^\ sE stsauo spur¡ Jaqro uo
Ila,ry\ op leru stsarbI ,ro ile \ op oqm aldoa¿ ‘(sa¡nr ¡eruru¿¡3 ‘a¡druexa ro3)
e8en8uel agtryoqaBuruJEel uo sl srseqdrua aql aJeq,4 sruooJss€ll ur ssaf,fnsJo
rorrpard pooS e ueuo sr stsar|1fq parnseeu sr teqt a:ua8r¡1arur;o pur>t eql
sreurual a8en8ue¡ poo8 eru aydoadluaSrqaturtq8g g
‘sreel ro3 sruJoJ
IeJneruu¡r¡8un urElJJJ Sursn ul tsrs¡ad leru sraurra¡
a8en8url puo)as ‘aruep¡n8 put >llBqpaal elnf,arrof, lnoqlr^\ ‘regr srsaSSns
efuaprle aql ‘putq Jeqlo eqr uO ‘JoJJe uo >lfeqpaa; Jo uonf,nJlsu FruJoJ
lue rnoqrlr’t aSrn8ue¡ 3o ¡eap rea-r8 e a¡lnboe uEf, srlnpe pu¿ uarpllql qroq
‘pu”r{ auo ar{r uO ‘xa¡duor aJour sr sJauJ¿al a8en8ue¡ puoles JoJ asrf ar{I
ptqpaal rrcrldxa ou ro eprll r¡u.r aSenBuEI ar{lJo ruroJ tlnpe
aqr armbcr or alqe ag or ;eadde leqr ‘flareunuo¿ ‘aBenBuEI rrer{r jo (surar
-ted uolleuotur aql ‘sauaqdrotu pc¡reuruer8 aqr tapJo prom aqr) aJnlonJls
Jrseq aqt uJeal ol JapJo ur 1reqpaal e^nf,eJJof, lualsrsuor uo puadap louu?f,
uaJPIrI{f, IEI{] sI sn sller slql IEILA ‘uoll?f,IunuluJof, tllur\ aJeJJeluI rou oP
ler{l sJoJJe ol tJEeJ ueuo lou op laqr tng ‘í>lJrtueJ epnJ E Jo ‘slf,EJ ar{lJo ruaru
-ot¿ls loeJJof,ur u¿ ‘e3roqf, pJolv\ lfeJJoour uE lf,eJJof feu feqr ‘sng1 ‘graads
paunnatSutu”taal a8an&uq tnoq? saap wlndo¿ e0z
204 Popular ideas about language learning reuisited
the new language, and what opportunities the learner has to use the language
outside the classroom.
Teachers have no influence over learners’ intrinsic motivation for learning a
second language. Students come to classrooms from different backgrounds
and life experiences, all of which have contributed to their motivation to
learn and their attitudes toward the target language and the communitywith
which it is associated. The principal way that teachers can influence learners’
motivation is by making the classroom a supportive environment in which
students are stimulated, engaged in activities that are appropriate to their age,
interests, and cultural backgrounds, and, most importantl¡ where students
can experience success. This in turn can contribute to positive motivation,
leading to sdll greater success.
5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school
programmes, the greater the likelihood of success in learning
The decision aboutwhen to introduce second or foreign language instruction
must depend on the objectives of the language programme in the particular
social context of the school. tWhen the objective is native-like performance
in the second language, then it may be desirable to begin exposure to the
language as early as possible, as long as learners have extensive exposure to
and opportunities to use the second language in a variety of contexts. The
research evidence is fairly strong that those who begin second language learn-
ing at an early age are most likely to eventually be indistinguishable from
native speakers.
However, even in cases where native-like proficiency is targeted, it is impor-
tant to recognize certain disadvantages ofan early start for second language
learning. ‘ülhen an early start means that children have little opportunity to
conrinue to develop their first language, the resulting subtractive bilingual-
ism may have lasting negative consequences.
For children from minoriry-language backgrounds, programmes promoting
the development of the first language both at home and at school may be
more important for long-term success in the second language than an early
start in the second language itself. Research shows that a good foundation in
the child’s first language, including the development of literacy, is a sound
base to build on. Children who can begin their schooling in a language they
already knowwill have more self-confidence, will be able to learn more efFec-
tively in the early school years, and will not lose valuable time in a period of
limbo during which they struggle just to understand what is happening in
the classroom.
For many children, there is no opportuniry to have their early schooling in
their first language. They are members of small minority groups where it is
not practical for schools to offer them an educational Programme in their
‘luaJeJIP ag tsnlu
sa8en8ue¡ aqt regr ‘lpcarroour sauJrleruos ‘etunsse leqr esnerJg sJItIJelIuJIsJo
a8elue,l,pe e>pr or 3u¡¡¡e3 ‘Surreulrul¡csp l¡ra,r.o eg uEf, sJeuJEa’I ‘tuaqt or rno
parurod are laqr sselun senrJelrruls Jo a8etue,r.pe e>lel 01 alqt aq sler’t¡e tou
leru s¡eu¡eal ‘rl¿J uI ‘seruetues a8enSuel-rsrg orur spJo^\ aSen8ue¡-puoras
Sunrnd3o ssa¡o¡d e flduls tou sr Suru¡ea¡ a8en8uel puoles ‘JEIIIuls aJE rel{l
stoadse esoqr ueqr lr¡nrgrp aroul qtl^\ Jo ralel parrnbce ag l¡;essarau tou
fipr a8en8uel tsr5 er.p ruo5 ruara5lp are rrr{] a8en8ue¡ puof,as aqr3o sreadry
‘sJoJJe arues er{t e>leru oq.& sJauJeel Jer{}o qrl.{\ toeluof, ur l¡ruanba.rS
aJ¿ sJauJ¿JI uagru. l¡ercadsa ‘aruol¡a^o or rlnf,srp aq ltru larp ‘sa8en8ue¡
puofas pu” rsJg er{r uae \rag ll.re1¡ru¡s ¡errred aruosJo uolldac¡ad (sJeuJral
,{q pasnec aJE sJoJJa uaq/tya8enSuel JauJEal uI sJoJJaJo sofJnos roleru arp3o
auo sl a8¿nBuEI a nEU arp ruo5 suraned3o reJsuBrr aqr ‘pueq raqro aqr uO
‘xerufsSo sa¡drcurrd f,rseg eulos sE IIe,^ se ‘sprorrL aleuSo¡ ‘raqeqd¡e aqr
Sulpn¡rur-Aou1 fpearp sreureal rEI{r qrnu sI arrqt ‘(qruarg pue qsrurdg
‘ueruJag pue qsrÉuE ‘a¡duexa ro3) sursnor aso¡r fla,rrreler are sa8en8ue¡ aqr
31
‘Sururea¡ a8en8url u8ra.ro3 ro puoresJo sr¡adse lueu ol llar’nlsod alnqlrl
-uof, uer sa8rn8uq eJour Jo euoJo a8pay’rou1 teqt azuSooal plnoqs e^\’tsJld
aSenSuey tsrg rlar{r ruory ef,uaraJratq ol anp
ar¿ eTE(u sreurEel aSunSue¡ Puores ]eql sa)Plsru¡ eqlJo lsotr\l 9
‘srql rnoge rg8rr uago
are laqr (¡peg ‘ssarSord qcnur 8ur>lrru lnoqlunr ,s.real.roj, Sullpnrs uaeg a^¿q
laqr reqr IeeJ srauffal sE ‘uollensn{ ot sPeal uar3o gceordde ,peai-dl.rp, sltl¡
‘sra>¡eads a8en8ue¡ puof,as parup p? arnpord tou III^\-srea,( rg8ra ro uelas
JoJ us^a->lae,&\ E sJnor{ o1v\l Jo aug ‘a8en8uEl Puof,as E uJEel ol se>lEl lI
8uo¡ ,noq Jo ser?urlsa rnsllear uo paseg eq ppor{s saruu¿¡8o¡d Iooqts ¡¡V
‘e8rn8ue¡ ¡ eu eqt or a¡nsodxa e^Isualul eJoruJo porrad E sePnloul esJno3
a8en8uel u8ra.roS agr3l anrr l¡¡etcadsa sl slql ‘uollrnrtsulJo >lea./’r ¿ sJnol{ /(eJ
e l¡uo Sulrago sau¡rur¡8o¡d ul (plo srca,t ¿-9 te ‘a¡druexa ro3) rar¡rea ur8aq
or{,&\ esoq} qrrr’r fpprnb dn qum or olqe are (sp¡o-rea,(-g 1 ‘a¡druexa -ro3) uarp
Tr{J raplo ‘rare¡ Sulq:ear a8en8ue¡ puoras uÉaq or luel)Ue erou aq uEf, tI
‘a8rn8ue¡ rs.rg s,ppll ar¡r Suldola.tap pue Sulureluleu¡ ot luaut¡uuor 8uo¡ts
B sr aJar{l eJar{^\ pue ‘sruepnls IIe JoJ IIHS elltef,Iuntutuof, JISEq sl aurur¡8o¡d
Ipuonmnpe aqr 3o po8 aqr uaqr6 ‘tuaJaJIP atmb st uollsnlls aql ‘sluePnls
¡e lg aoueuroS.rad a>lll-a^Irru tou s pata8Jet sI t¿ql fcuarogo.rd 30 la^el eql
eJaql( uonJnJtsul a8en8ut¡ puof,es JoJ ro uollf,nJlsul a8en8ue¡ u8ra.ro3 rog
‘uoJa pue erun salet Suturta¡ a8en8utl puores reqr PuelsJaPun oI{^\ Pu¿
‘a8en8uq etuoq aql urclurtru ot stua¡¿d a8e¡norua oqn lrpeglP s,uaiPllql
erp rradsar oq \ sJolBf,npa a^Itlsuas oAEII ot IEIJnJf, sI 1I ‘uaJPIIqJ esel{r JoC
‘puno.r$loeq rrer{iJo ssa¡pre8ar (uarpllqf,
II¿ roJ uoltef,nPaJo a8rn8ue¡ a¡8urs
e pJrepueru seq uonelst8el araq.{ suollrlpslrnl ur ertl¡ fagr .ro ‘e8en8ur¡ rsry
patTslaat Bututaal aSan&uq ffioqu s?apt nlndo¿ 902
206 Popular ideas about language learning reuisited
However, the first language is not the only infuence on second language
learning. Learners from different backgrounds often make the same kinds of
errors, and some of these errors are remarkably similar to those made by first
language learners. In such cases, secondJanguage errors are evidence ofthe
learners’ efforts to discover the structure ofthe target language itselfrather
than attempts to transfer patterns from their first language.
7 the bestwayto learn newvocabularyis through reading
This statement is true but it does not tell the whole story. Children expand
their vocabulary dramatically during their school years, and reading is the
major source of this growth. Second language learners can also increase their
vocabulary knowledge through reading, but few second language learners
will read the amount oftarget language text that a child reads in the course of
more than a decade of schooling.
Research evidence suggests that second language learners benefit from oppor-
tunities to read material that is interesting and important to them. However,
those who also receive guidance from instruction and develop good strate-
gies for learning and remembering words will benefit more than those who
simply focus on getting the main ideas from a text. \What is perhaps most
striking in the research is the evidence that in order to successfully guess the
meanings of new words in a text, a reader usually needs to know more than
90 per cent of the words in that text.
8 It is essential for learners to be able to pronounce att the
indiüdual sounds in the second language
Research on pronunciation has shown that second language speakers’ abiliry
to make themselves understood depends more on their abiliry to reproduce
the phrasing and stress patterns-the ‘melody’ of the language-than on
their abiliry to articulate each individual sound. Another important empha-
sis in current research is the undeniable fact that most languages of the world
are spoken in many different varieties. Thus, it no longer seems appropriate
to insist that learners be taught only one language variery or that only native
speakers ofa particular variety are the best teachers. Rather, learners need to
learn to understand and produce language varieties that will permit them to
engage in communicative interaction with the interlocutors they are most
likely to encounter.
9 Once learners know 1,000 words and the basic structure of a
second language, they can easily participate in conversations
with native speakers
It is true that most conversational language involves only a relatively limited
number of words and sentence types. However, learners will find it easier to
qseads rrar{r .úrporu ot sltnSurlrg lueng pur sra>lrads a nru Jo suoge eqr
ruo5 rgauag sraurre¡ aSenSue¡ puoras rer{r rqnop ou sr aJar.{t ‘etun Jrues ar{l lV
‘saJnlmJ xa¡druo:, ol .a1drurs,3o arnoerd pue ‘Suuapro’uoltetuesaJd pare¡osl
aql sallolur srqr uaqr* l¡re¡ncltrtd-,a¡drurs, ag ol sruJal rnsln8ull ur pe^ref,
-¡ad a¡e ler{l saJnlf,n¡ls ol a¡nsodxe (sJauJeel lJrJlsal ot alqeJrsap Jou,(ressacau
Jer{rleu sr 1r ler{l srsaSSns srql ‘sJar{ro eJoJoq parrnbre aJE saJnlf,nJls urElJJf,
‘sraurea¡ or paruasa.rd sl a8en8ue¡./v\or{ Janeu ou reqr u.{\or{s srr{ rlf,Jeese¿
sauo xaldruoc
aroJaq ssrnlruls atentue¡ eldturs rlrsal pForls srerl]eal II
‘rsEI eqr eroJeq 3uo1 uano8ro3
ueag a^Er{ IIr{\ lrun rsJg arp ur peur¿al sernteal a8en8ue¡ aql ‘tueqt Sulsn pue
‘Suleas ‘Surreaq enunuof ol senrunuoddo rnor¡rvrn’rer{t lla>lll osle sr lI ‘esn
a8en8ue¡ puJou ur lseJluof, pue aledruoo seJnteal a8en8url tueJegrp
^/\or{
Ja^of,srp or lr¡unrroddo ue grml sJeuftel aprnord lou saop auln ? lB eJnlf,nJrs
auo Jo a¡lroe¡d pu¿ uorl?luasard pare¡osl s¡ll ‘rqSner l¡snol,rard sauo eql
asnre.ld ol sJauJeal JoJ saurunlJoddo ere.r lluo qll^\’aJnrEeJ rxau eql uo e oru
ueql pue ‘sllun luanbesqns IEJa es ur lr ef,JoJureJ pue rlun rsJg eql ur aJnlea3
a8rn8ue¡ re¡nrued E a3nporlur teqt qoogrxatJo uonezlue8ro aqr ur uaas aq
uEf, srr{I’salnJJo uollelnrunlf,¿ uE sr ruaudola,Lap a8en8ue¡ puof,Js reql uoF
-drunsse aslej ar{r uo p:szq are Sulqcrat or saq:eo.rdde poseq-ernlJnns atuos
‘rg sacald eqr IIE lllun SuunpnrlsaJ
pue Surrsnlpea¡ ‘a8en8uelJatur Sunslxa ue orul su;aned pue suroS a8en8
-uel ^/y\eu Surter8arur 30 sassaco¡d se lo^ur 1r ‘Jerpsu ‘JarpouE JauE alnJ auo
Sulppe lsnf lou sr ruaurdo¡a,tap a8en8url ‘owlr retel e tB (¿lBI{t qrrm Sulop
ar,nof l¿Llrtr, alll suorrsanb acnpord uaqr pue .¿qs1¡8uE u aqto”td,(es no.{ op
A¡\oH, Jo ,¿l¿ql s(l¿r.LA, SB r{3ns suollsanb sIBInLuJOJ lf,eJJOf, ¡se feur sJauJeal
rvroq ‘e¡duexa JoJ ‘1$.es a¿¡’a8en8uelJelur Jreqt otur a8rn8ue¡ aqr rnog¿ uoll
-EruJoJur ¡ttau 8u¡le¡od¡ocul aJE sJeuJeal fegl rtrogs leru ¡f a8efs le lce¡nc¡e ur
aurlrep aq¿’z a8zrg re ure8e f¡are;nf,f,? rr ef,npord pue ‘/a8erg re (r1 rduaut
faqr uaqlt srorra a{Eru .lo) u.ro3 ar¡r a:npord or IIeJ ‘(uro3 rBI{r paureal
a,,teq faqr rrqr SurrsaSSns) x a8erg re l¡atrrncce LuroJ Jelnf,n¡ed e esn leu¡
sJeuJEa’I ‘tuaudo¡a,rap srl uI reaur¡ fldruls lou sI Sulu.rea¡ a8en8uel puoles
Jeqloue ol uo 3uro3 eJoJeq euo IPEa aslpsJd Plnoqs sreureel
puB rarup B lE euo se[nr
ImIrEIrIurpJS tueseJd Plnoqs sretlrEel 0I
‘tJeJJor aJE saJnlf,nJrs ef,ueruas aqr pu” spJol\ eql uaq.{! ue^a ‘s8ulpuers;apun
-srur Jo u^\oP>leaJq uortef,runuruJof ot PEal sarulleruos suollf,EJarul3o sadlr
asaql ul sef,uaJaglp leJnrlnf, ag1 ‘stsanbeJ a>IEIu ro ‘azt8o¡ode ‘lcedsat r*oqs
s;opads,/rrorl sE s8ulqr r{Jns uo uonualle Jlerp snooJ ot uaqr JoJ Injesn sI rI
‘a¡durexa rog ‘a8en8ue¡ rvrau aqrJo sernleeJ f,Ileru8rrd aqr3o auoslo Surpuers
-rapun ue eler.l os¡r faqr 3l poorsJapun sa^lasueql aleru ot pue puersJopun
patTs1rtat SuTutaal aSunSuq moq? raapx wlndo¿ LOZ
208 Popukr ideas about knguage learningreuisited
to help them understand. The language used in modified interaction may
contain avariety of linguistic structures, some ‘simple’ and some ‘complex’.
However, it also includes a range of adjustments that enable second language
learners to engage in interactions with native and more advanced speakers
of the second language more easily-more repetition, slower rate ofdeliver¡
paraphrasing, etc.
Teachers must also be aware, however, that some linguistic forms are so rare
in classroom language that learners have little opportunity to hear, use, and
learn them if the teacher does not make a point of providing them. These
are not necessarily difficult or complex forms. As we saw in Chapter 6, some
‘simple’ language forms turn out to be extremely rare in classroom language,
even in content-based instruction.
12 Learners’ effors should be corrected as soon as they are made
in order to prevent the formation of bad habits
Errors are a natural part oflanguage learning. This is true ofthe development
of a child’s first language as well as of second language learning by children
and adults. Errors refect the patterns of learners’ developing interlanguage
systems-showing gaps in their knowledge, overgeneralization of a second
language rule, or an inappropriate transfer ofa first language pattern to the
second language.
Teachers have a responsibiliry to help learners do their best, and this includes
the provision of explicit, form-focused instruction and feedback on error.
-When
errors are persistent, especially when they are shared by almost all stu-
dents in a class, it is important to bring the problem to their attention. This
does not mean that learners should be expected to adopt the correct form
or pattern immediately or consistently. If the error refects a developmental
stage, the instruction or feedback may be useful only when the learner is ready
for it. It may be necessary to repeat feedback on the same error many times.
Of course, excessive feedback on error can have a negative effect on motiva-
tion; teachers need to be sensitive to their students’ reactions to correction.
The amount and rype of correction that is offered will also vary according to
the specific characteristics of the students, as well as their relationship with
the teacher and with each other. Children and adults with little education
in their first language will not benefit greatly from sophisticated metalin-
guistic explanations, but university students who are advanced learners of
the language may find such explanations of great value. Immediate reaction
to errors in an oral communication setting may embarrass some students
and discourage them from speaking while others welcome such correction
as exacdy what is needed to help them notice a persistent error at just the
moment when it occurs.
esoql lseJJol or dlaq PIno^! IEI{] uoIlEluJoJuI I{rI^{ Jal{lo qf,Ee oPI^oJd lluEu
-lPJo louuEf sla^al JEIItuls le srauJEal IEI{I te^a,&\oq
(s,/v\orls
osp I{fJEasaJ aql
‘sJo>ltads eln¿u ot Jo slalel pefue^pe eJoul tE sJeuJeal ot Suqeads ueq.^a oP
faqr ueqr lcuarcgordSo slercl rellruls tB sleureel or 8uq¡er uarl.Lr qcaads rlaqr
ur sJorJa a.¡oru fue acnpord rou op sJeuJeel r¿qr u^\oqs seq qcreasar ‘f¡3ur
-sr¡d¡ns teq^eauos ‘plnof Ja^a ssEIJ paJruaf,-Jaqf,¿al E uetlt suollesJaluor uI
Surr¿dlrrr¡ed pur 3ur¡eads ul acltce¡d eJour JEJ sapr.tord >1ro¡vr dno.l8 pue rred
‘peqrleru llarelrdorddr are sreuJtel pue pau8rsap IIa¡a eJE satrl^Irre al{l JI
‘pau8rsap,(1rado.rd ere Dlsel agr jr l¡ercadsa ‘saBelue^PESIP
aqt q8la.,r,rrno rEJ >lro,4^ dno¡3 pur rredSo stgaueq eqt ‘sselel{ue^eN ‘sauo e>lII
-ra8¡el aJour qll^\ su.ralted a8en8ue¡;arul JIaIF are¡dar ol ruaql pee¡ iq8nu
rugt Sulueeu .to; uottetto8eu JoJ paau aqt Sutreutrulla ‘lle¡a lra.t raqto qrra
puelsJapun or f1a>1r1 are laqr ‘fcuarcgordjo le^al aru¿s eql l¡q8nor lB are PuE
puno.rS¡ceq a8enSue¡ lsJU erues erlt uJoU au¡oJ sJauJeal uer{,44’aJouJJI{unC
‘rndul rf,aJJoful aruos apIAoJd feru faqr ‘raqro I{)Ea qll&\ lferelul sJauJeel
uaq.Lr ‘sng1 ‘sJauJeel Jer{ro qtvrrBunce¡alul a¡e.{aql ueq,&\ (u¡aoP lnqs, lou aJe
rndur uor3 uJral ot tuJr{r
^\olle
IBI{I sassaf,o;d a¡lrtuSoc ag1 ‘ruarudole^eP
a8en8ue¡ Jleql ot tndul se selJes PeaJ PuE reaq sraureal reqr aBenBuEI aql
sa{p}sFu s(retllo rlrEe fdo) faql ‘(sannrlr? rred ¡o dno¡8
q (aldurpxe roJ) f¡aer¡ ]J?relur ol Pe
^.o[P
ere sraureal uarl4N 7I
‘PaJelsBLu lou a,req lar¡r
seJntfnJls pue sruJo3 3o &arre,r lea¡8 e or pasodxa are flurcuac suooJSSEIf,
aprslno a8en8ue¡ puof,Js e a¡lnbce l¡nlssarrns oq1ü sJeuJ?el rEI{r JaquJuaJ
ppoqs a/N dpueururopard ua,ra ro l¡a.trsn¡oxa slBlJelsru qf,ns asn 01 sluaP
-nls ot af,r^iasslp E Jq plno^\ rI rng ‘lsea tuaas s8ulrp JaIFo eJal{.,ur lxeluof,
e ur luaruela euo etplosl terp splJat¿ru sn)oJ-.^aoJJeu asn ol alel¡do¡dde sl
r¡ ‘uralqord lualsls¡ad e Jo uollfaJJof, JoJ Peeu 3 sI eJer{l slaeJ JeI{f,EJr el{r
uaq,4 Jo ‘erurl tsJg eqr JoJ Paf,nPoJrul sI eJntEaJ a8enSue¡;e¡ncltrrd ¿ ual{lN
‘fcuapuadep JIeI{r sPueua a8en8
-uel arp o1 a¡nsodxa dars-lq-dars or stuapnts Sullf,Irtsad fpuapuadapul ueql
pue aou”prn8 s.ragceat aql rpr.^¿\ rsJg slqr op laql ‘ruoorsself, el{l ePISrno esn
a8en8ue¡ ,ro3 pareda;d aq or Suro8 l¡enrua,ra are lagl3l IelJeleru ,Jllueqlne,
ro
patTs1rtat 3u7ur.aa1 aSan&uq ffi oq? wap wlndo¿ IT7.
2t2 Popular ideas about knguage learning reuisited
and task-based instruction start from the principle that we learn language
by using it to achieve a goal, for example, understanding a stor¡ making
a medical appointment, writing a science report, or joining the fun on the
playground. \lith this in mind, classroom activities are designed to prepare
students to continue learning outside the classroom, by giving them experi-
ence in language uses that are like those they will encounter there.
As we saw in Chapter 6, some theorists argue that second language instruction
can only lead to knowledge aboutlanguage (explicit knowledge) and question
whether instruction can lead to the ability to use the language spontaneously
and fluently (implicit knowledge) in a wide range of communicative contexts.
Contemporary approaches to L2 instruction target the development of both
rypes of L2 abiliry by ensuring that students use the language in meaningful
interaction inside the classroom and that they learn effective strategies for using
the language outside the classroom when they have opportunities to do so.
AcTlvlTY Support your op¡n¡on
Choose two or three of the’popular ideas’ that you find especially important.
For each of these, identify and discuss how one or more of the research
studies you have read about in this book has strengthened your agreement/
disagreement with the statement or has led you to change your views.
Conclusion
Knowing more about second language acquisition research will not tell you
what to do in your classroom tomorrow morning. tü/e hope, however, that
this book has provided you with information that encourages you to refect
on your experience in teaching.’We hope, in addition, that this refection will
contribute to a better understanding ofyour responsibilities as a teacher and
your students’ abilities and responsibilities as language learners.
As we have seen, language learning is aflected by many factors. Among these
are the personal characteristics and experiences ofthe learner, the social and
cultural environment both inside and outside the classroom, the structure of
the native and target languages, opportunities for interaction with speakers
of the target language, and access to corrective feedback and form-focused
instruction. It is clear that teachers do not have control over all these factors.
Nevertheless, a better understanding of them will permit teachers and learn-
ers to make the most of the time they spend together in the twin processes of
teaching and learning a second language.
Jrer{t ur JEaq laqr a8en8ue¡ aqr readar PuE etetlrur sJauJeal uaq,^ ‘^\eI^ slql
or Surpromy’stIqEI{Jo tuaruqsllgersa aqr q8norgr are¡d salet ‘pgre,r-uou
Jo IEqTJA rar{ral{^\ ‘Sururea¡ IIE tBql f.roaqr ¡ror8o¡ogclsd y :rusrrnol,ruqeq
‘daar1s¡drqs se qf,ns srrcd ¡tutulu aldruexa
roJ ‘spunos aSen8uel qsm8utrsrp ot llllqe aql :uoneu¡ru¡rtsrp Lror¡pnu
‘asn pSSulueauJo slxJluoo tuou PUP Jeqro l{ree ruog
uonelosr ul su¡artrd af,uetuesJo uoltrzlJoruaru PuE’acrl¡e¡d’uolltlada¡
aqr q8norqr srlq”r{Jo uolteruroJ aqr sazrseqdua qceotdde leuoll3nrlsul
srql ‘srseqtodfq srsl¡eut e^IlseJtuor agr l¡eroadsa ‘srrlsln8url lrJnlf,nJls
uo pue Sulureal3o lroaqt lslrnolleqoq aqt uo Pes?g sr reqr Sulrpear
e8tn8ue¡ u8ta.ro3 ro puoras or qceorddr uy :r¡cuorddu ¡un8u¡o¡pnra
fpoq pue spu”q aql3o suonou q8norqr passa.rdxa
¡e ,fuelnqrcol qf,u E pue aJntJnJtsJo salnJ xaldruoc qutr’aBenBuEI anJl e sI
rI JEaP aJE or{ l sJeqlo qll,^a lf,eJalul oq.^a JoJEaP aJE ol{-/v\ suef,IJellrv qlJoN
luetu lq pasn a8en8uel ¡e.rnrsa8 eql :(-ISV) a8unEuel ut¡5 uec¡reury
‘tsrg aqr Sulso¡ rnoqrv’r a8en8uel puocas e Sutueal :rus¡¡en8u¡¡Iq a pIPPlt
‘sasuodsa¡ rlaqt lq uotsuaga;druof JIeIp ¡aotls oslr lnq
uarsr¡ f¡uo rou sluapnts qJIq^\ ut anbtuqcar Sulgeear y :8urua¡srl e ptle
‘luaruuoJrlua Surgrear u./(o Jlar{l or lglfáds PuB Ielol a¡¿ suorlsanb
pue s¡eo8 qJJEesaJ aql ‘sJaqtear Jal{ro qtl^\ uoIlEJoqEIIos ul Jo suJooJss?lf
u,!\o Jlaql uI uauo ‘sJatloeal lq lno PeIJJEf, r{JJEaseU :qJJBasaJ uollf,u
‘eruanbes ptuarudo¡a,reP B or rua¡e,rmba sr JePJo
f¡e.rn:o¿ ur ler{l paJJaJuI a^EI{ sJaI{lJEJsaJ eruos ‘s a¡.rssassod Sutsn ul urgl
s- ¡e.rn1d Sursn ul al¿Jnff,E aJoru ueuo aJE sJauJeel ‘a¡druexa;og ‘a8en8uel
JeuJEel ur sruJoJ ¡tcnnuruerS3o fre;ncce s IlEIeJ er{I :JaPJo -(re¡ncru
‘uosr¡eduor3o nalgo elp roJ ureql ,rr\olle sa8en8ue¡ Ja^\eJ elll{^r’srrafgns
aruetuas JoJ sasneP e^IleleJ ruro¡p saBenBuEI lsolu ‘a¡dtuexa.to3 lg:re.ralq
&qlgrssale aqr ot SurproJJV’selor prtteruruer8 ruaJeJtlP uI sunou
{po- ol sesn€¡3 elneler asn sa8en8u¿l ruereJICI ‘(LL6I) elruro3 PUE
uruea) fq pado¡e,rap srsnrlr eAItEIarJo 8un¡uer y :fqcrera¡q lr¡¡¡q¡ssame
‘Tooq qw ux ru2q1 asn 2m sE surral aql rf,eHal ol PaPuerul arE
suolllugap ag1 .Surgcrar aSenSue¡ puof,as pue r{fr?eser uonrsrnbfB aSrnSue¡
puooas ul Surureu IBf,IuI{:at 😮 pt:ads E el€q reqr suJatl suleluor frtssolS eq1
,TUVSSO-ID
214 Glossary
surrounding environment and are positively reinforced for doing so, habit
formation (or learning) occurs.
bilingual education: Schooling in which students receive instruction in
two (or more) languages, usually their home language and a second
language.
bilingualism: The abiliry ro use more than one language. The word itself
does not specify the degree ofproficiency in either language.
brain imaging: A variety of techniques that allow researchers to observe
and track activity in the brain.
child-directed speech: The language that caretakers address to children.
In some cases, this language is simpler than that which is addressed to
adults. In some cultures, it is also slower, higher pitched, more reperitive,
and includes a large number of questions.
chunk: A unit of language that is often perceived or used as a single unit.
Chunks include formulaic expressions such as Tbank yu or What’s that?but
also bits of language that frequently occur together, for example, ice cream
cone or signifcant dffirence.
classroom observation scheme: A tool (often in the form of a grid) that
consists of a set of predetermined categories used to record and describe
teaching and learning behaviours.
cognate: Aword in one language that comes from the same origin as a
word in another language and has the same meaning, for example, ‘nation’
in English and nation in French or uACd and uache (cow) in Spanish and
French. Thetermfalse cognate is used to refer to words that may come from
the same origin but have evolved to have different meanings, for example,
librairie (bookstore) in French does not have the same meani ng as library in
English.
cognitive: Relating to how the human mind receives, processes, stores, and
retrieves information. The focus is on internal learning mechanisms that are
believed to be used for learning in general, not just language learning alone.
cognitive maturity: The abiliry to engage in problem-solving, deduction,
and complex memory tasks.
collaborative dialogue: A conversation between learners in which they
work together to solve a problem, for example, reconstructing a story they
have heard. \fhile the focus is on the task, learners may also focus on the
elements of language that they need to complete the task.
communicative competence: The abiliry to use language in a variety of
settings, taking into account relationships between speakers and differences
al{r teqt elg€ue^ eÉurs ar{rJo sruJal ur lluo dnor8 ¡eruaruuadxa aqt ruo{
sreJlp lEqt sJeuJeeljo dnor8 e ‘serpnts ¡rtuauuadxa u1 :dnorE IoDuoJ
‘rueJagrp aJE ter{t esoqt uer{l a8rn8ue¡ rsJg eqrJo asoqr
ot JEIIruls er? ler{t su¡aued a8enSue¡ la8¡el 8ul¡lnboe fr¡nrgrp ssel e^Br{
ill^ sreuJeal lrqt uoltelredxa aql :(HVl) s¡saqrodfq slsf¡eue e rlspnuol
‘a8en8uel puof,as JrJr{l ul ‘cla ‘sf,rleruaqreu ‘lrorsrq
‘af,ueros lpnrs sruapnls ‘sarurue¡8o¡d uors¡aruul ul ‘a¡druexa JoC ‘slulod
a8en8ue¡ uerp Jeql€J Jaueru rralgns punoJe pazrueS;o eJE suossel r{f,rq,4 ur
uonf,nrtsur a8en8ur¡ puores :[‘Igf) Eu¡qnm¡ aten8uu¡ pespg-lualuor
‘adorng ur sloor{f,s lrepuooes
ul l¡rerulrd padola,r.ap ueag ser{ regr Surg:ear a8en8ue¡ poseg-tualuof,
or qoeordde uV :(-II’I3) Eu¡urea¡ palur8elu¡-atenSuu¡ pue lualuor
‘rar{ro eqt
Jo uonelnre aqr or peal IIrr\ auoJo acuasa.rd aqr reqt sl rr f¡a1l¡ arou
agr ‘;arpaSol uees Jo pJear{ aJE slrun ueuo eJoru aql ‘raqraSor paJalunof,ue
are faqr sE puru eql ur perfauuooJalur auof,aq reqr strunJo u¡atsls
xe¡druoc e se (a8en8ur¡ 8ulpn1:ul) a8pa¡noq3o lroaqr V :usruonrauuor
u o sr u orf, n’r su r J o r”r r* u, i:ffi t”:tfJ:;ffi’;:ffi;i:::
3o óalre,r E agrJJsap ot urJat ¡eraua8 V :uorlonJlsú pesug-uorsuagardruor
‘srsegrodfq rndur a¡qrsuaqa;duoc (lS6I)
s,ueqser) ot asuodsa¡ ur srsagtodlq sqr pasodord (gge t) urc.r\S ‘(uaurrzvr ro
p.ro) e8en8ue¡ Sulonpord sJeureel uo spuadap uon¡srnbce a8en8uel puof,es
Iryssarrns reqr s¡saqrodf,{ rql :srsaqlodfq lndlno a¡q¡suaqa.rduoc
‘acuauadxa¡a8peproul ¡or¡d ¡o’uoneruJoJul lenrxatuof, ‘sarntsaS;o esnereg
ued ul a¡glsuarlarduror aq leu lI ‘puersJepun uer JeurBel E lrr{t aSen8uel
ot raJar or ueqseDl uaqdarg lq pef,nporrur rurer V :¡ndu¡ a¡g¡suaqa.rdruoc
‘ef,ueuJoJJed uor3 aJnleu str JeJur ol e^Bq
arn ,(¡rcalp a¡uatadruor elJesgo louutf, e¡a esneJeg ‘8urlr¡¡L.ro ‘8ulpea;
‘Suluats¡ ‘3ur¡eads JoJ Jal{teq,/v\-a8en3ue1 sasn f1¡entre uos.lad r ferrr
aqr sr q3rq./1\’acueruro3.rad rpvrr perserluof, sl slql ‘e8en8ue¡io a8pa¡r’rou1
ot JeJaJ ol ruJat sr{t pesn llsuog3 ruroN tslnSurl :arualadruo¡
‘uorlrlosr ur sruJoJ pclterurue.t33o uolre¡ndrueu pue acnc¿¡d eql ueqr
Jar{lEJ uonfeJelur ul Sulueau30 uorleJrunruruof, eql sazlsegdura Sulrlceal
or rpeordde sn¡1 ‘sSunras elnelrunruruoo tuaJeglp ur salJas a8en8ue¡ e
rrgt sasodrnd pue suorrrunJ ar{t osp rng ‘a8rn8uel BJo sruroJ pue seJntrnrrs
agrjo a8palz’rou1 e l¡uo tou sa^lolur Sulurua¡ a8en8ue¡ InJsserrns reqr
asnua¡d ,ql uo peseq sr ¿-Il !(¡T]) Eurgcear etentue¡ e rlerrunruruof,
‘lc¿.lnrce ¡ecneturuerSJo llel e3o artds ul sa8essau¡ le,,ruo¡
or lrr¡rqe aqr sr parardJatu uaeg seurneruos seq ruJer eql ‘suonenlrs ur
,0asso1g stz
216 Glossary
researcher is investigating. Performance of the control group is used to show
that the variable in question is the best (or only) explanation for changes in
the experimental group. Also sometimes referred to as ‘comparison group’.
corpus (plural: corpora): A principled collection of oral or written
language samples that can usually be accessed and explored with computer-
based tools. Some of the most famous corpora contain millions ofwords
from, for example, newspapers. Samples of the language produced by
learners have also been collected for second language acquisition research.
corpus linguistics: An approach to the study of language that is based on
the analysis oflanguage corpora. See corpus.
corrective feedback An indication to a learner that his or her use of the
target language is incorrect.
correlation: A statistical procedure that compares the relative frequency or
size of different variables in order to determine whether there is a
relationship between them.
counterbalance h¡rothesis: The hypothesis that learners’ attention will
be drawn to classroom events that are different from those they are
accustomed to.
critical period hypothesis (CPH): The proposal that there is a limited
period during which language acquisition can occur.
cross-linguistic infuence: The effect on knowledge of one language by
the knowledge of another. This term is preferred over previous terms such as
interference to indicate that knowledge of one language can be beneficial to
learning another. The term also refects the fact that the infuence can go
from a known language to the one being learned but also from the new
language to one already known.
cross-sectional study: A study in which participants at different ages and/or
stages of development are studied. This contrasts with longitudinal studies.
declarative knowledge: Information that we have and know we have. An
example would be a rule such as ‘the verb must agree with the subject to
form a correct sentence’. In some skill learning theories, it has been
hypothesized that all learning begins with declarative knowledge. This
contrasts with p ro c edura I hnow ledge.
descriptive study: Research that does not involve any manipulation,
change, or inrervention in the phenomenon being studied. The researcher’s
goal is to observe and record what is happening. This contrasts with
experimental study.
lou sr e8¿nguBl raBJEr erF aJaq^\ ueluof, 3 uI ‘Sultles uooJSSEIs e uI fllBnsn
‘a8en8ue¡ e3o Sururcal eqr ot sre3ar slgl :tu¡u.rea¡ atentue¡ u8¡e.ro¡
‘llel relpBol sI llEl
rau8raroSSo,{¡o8arrc ¡elrads V’sJeureal e8rn8ue¡ Puores or ssarPPE s;a>leads
e IrEu aruos IEI{I a8en8ue¡ pe5lldurls ro PeglPotu aql rller raut¡a.ro¡
‘a8en8ue¡ (rsJg, euo ueqt arour aAEI{ ol PIES aq
&ru pue r{lJlq uro5 a8zn8ue¡ auo u”qt arolrr uJeel uaJPIrI{r lutyr¡ ‘P3uJEel
rsrg a8en8ue¡ eq1 :(a8en8ue¡ arrnru ‘an8uol reqtoul ’11) atenEuu¡ rsrg
‘su¿d olul rt 8u¡rercdas
lrprgrp a BI{ pue 8uv’rerp alol{ .\ aql ees or PauITf,uI Jrour ere (ruapuadap
pleg pa¡ec) sreqro ‘8urrv”erp perrclduoc e ur sarn85 uaPPIq aql
rno ryrd or >lcrnb l¡a¡. a.re (ruapuadapul PIeg Pell¿3) a¡doad eruos ‘sI letll
‘seeJl aql ro tsaJoJ el{l aas ot buapuar JIeI{l uI raJIP oli./’r aldoad aglJf,seP
ol pasn ueeg s”q uollrullslP sIII :ruePuadap p¡ag¡ruapuadapul PIeU
‘Sutnas leuollef,npa uE uI
alq€rJr^ a¡8urs e ett8rlsalur ot eperu uaaq sEI{ tdruaue uE r{JII{^! uI LIf,J€aseJ
ot JaJeJ ot esues Iefluqf,el-uou 3 ur Pesn sI tuJel aql ‘>looq slql u1 ‘lpnls
¡etuarutradxa ,Jutnua8, E sE ParuJat aq or lpnrs e ltu¡¡ad lErP suonlPuo)
ar{]Jo IIE elEaJtr 01 rlnlstp ueuo sr ll ‘r{f,rEaseJ lEuonEfnPe uI ‘lsarelul
3o (s)alqerre^ el{tJo ef,uasge ¡o acuasa¡d aqr ur l¡uo rar{lo r{f,Ee ruo5 reJIP
reqr sdno.rS (loJluof,, pue (leluarurradxa, aleq p¡nor’r.,(pnls ¡etuarurradxa
l¡r:urs V’elqEIrE^ reqloue uo salgelr”^ cg¡cads aJour ro euoJo l¡edul
aq] rnoqe slsaqrodfq E lsel ol pau8rsap I{3J”esed :r(pnls ¡utuaru¡.radxa
‘suortdl;osap s,Ja Jasqo aql etBPII”^ ol sJagrueru dno-r8 qurvr
uonrllnsuo3 sE IIa \ sE uonr^JasgoSo spor.rad e^Isuelxa sa¡lnba¡ I{JJEasJJ
agl ‘a,urcads.¡ad uzrro sll ulqlllr{ uor3 lttunuulof, Jo dno¡8 E PuersJaPun
o1 $laes Ja^lasgo eqt qlrq,/!\ ur r{fJeesar ar’lrdrDsaq :fqdu.rtouqra
‘8ur¡rads ur ssans pare.raSSrxa.ro (Sururt.rapun ro adlr ploq)
tuJuref,urqua ¡mlqderSodlr or sruau¡ruo¡ ollsrn8ulltletu rtcl¡dxa uor3
8ul8ue¡ ,lnl¡dxa ssel Jo JJoru ag UEJ lI ‘sJeuJeel ol lualps eJoru seJnlraJ
a8en8ur¡ eruos a>leu 01 uoga uE uI PeJellE sI lEI{r rndul :1ndul PerrrBrlua
‘a8en8ue¡ aqr jo a8pa¡moul rel{ ro srq feldsrP ol rrureel aqr ra8 or
(¿nr1s mo[ n ¿nolor pq6 ‘a¡duexa ro3) suonsanb asaqr >lsr ueuo sragral
‘raldsuE aqr s^\oDI lpear¡e ra>l$ aql qlll{¡a ol uo¡tsanb y :uorNenb fu¡dslp
‘uolusnboe30 raPJo ¡o se3¿1s pruarudola,LeP Pallel
osly.Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡ ul paJnb:e a.rr (uone8au ‘a¡durexa ro3) aSen8url
EJo seJnltal uIEtJaJ l{llq1’r uI JJPJo eg1 :acuanbas ¡eluaurdo¡a,rap
.uonualJalul
leuorDnJlsur Jo ‘uollelDoru JauJEal ‘uolleue^ tndul3o
ssa¡prt8ar ‘a¡uenbas;e1n:nred e ul do¡arrap ‘san8ea¡¡or slq PuE uuer[euald
or Surprore ‘qclglrr a8en8uel e3o stcedse asoql :samleal ¡uruarudo¡e,rap
LIZ ,kassolg
218 Glossary
widely used in the communiry (for example, learning French in China).
This is sometimes contrasted with ‘second language learning’, where the
language being learned is used in the communiry (for example, learning
Italian in Florence).
form-focused instruction: Instruction that draws attention to the forms
and structures of the language within the context of communicative
interaction. This may be done by giving metalinguistic information, simply
highlighting the form in question, or by providing corrective feedback.
formulaic Expressions or phrases that are often perceived and learned as
unanalysed wholes. For example, a child or second language learner may
first hear ”What’s that?’ as a single unit of language rather than as three
units.
fossilization: This term is used to describe a persistent lack of change in
interlanguage patterns, even after extended exposure to or instruction in
the target language.
function words: ‘Words that are used mainly as linking or supporting
words for nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. For example, prepositions
(‘to’, ‘for’, ‘by’) and articles (‘d, ‘the’) are two rypes of function words. Th.y
have little or no meaning when they occur alone, but they have an
important effect on the meanings of the words they accompany.
generalization: Extending a pattern learned in one context to another
one. See also overgeneralization.
genuine question: A question to which the asker does not know the
answer in advance (for example , What did you do last weekend?). Also called
‘referential’ or’information questions. Contrasts with display question.
grammar translation: An approach to second language teaching
characterized by the explicit teaching of grammar rules and the use of
translation exercises.
grammatical morphemes: Morphemes are the smallest units of language
that carry meaning. A simple word is a morpheme (for example, ‘book’)’
but when we talk about ‘grammatical morphemes’ we are usually referring
to smaller units that are added to words to alter their meaning (for example,
the -s in ‘books’ indicates plural) or function words (for example, the) which
are ordinarily attached to another word.
grammaticality judgement A test or task in which participants are asked
to make a decision about whether a sentence is grammatically correct or not.
h¡Aotüesis (plural: hypotheses): A statement of a possible fact that can be
tested through research. Most empirical research starts from one or more
hypotheses and involves the design of a study that can either show stlpport
for the hypothesis or disprove it.
puE r{3eeds JIaI{1 rglPotu sJe>leeds Jagro qllq.{\ uI asoql uauo (suolltsJe uof,
ul a8e8ua ot saltlunlJoddo uo PuE saIrIIgE aleuul (slauJeal uo qlog
poseg sr uoltlslnbre a8en8uq regr srsaqrodlq aql :slsatpodfq uopce.ralu¡
‘Sulqoear a8rn8uq Pesrq-lu3luo3
apnpul l¡¡ensn tou oP sassel3 -ISE e^Isualul ‘satuureJSoJd uolsJerutul
or lseJluof, u1 ‘Sulqrear a8en8ue¡ a IlsslunuruJoc l¡rueuluopard
sI sasself, eseql uI Pa^rasgo qoeo-rdde pclSoStpad aq1 ‘polrad
reqr Sulrnp uoltrnrtsul’ISA or slep ¡ry elo^aP pue rca(Iooqls 3uo ul
aurlJo lJolq qruotu-J^5 euo ePISB 1as qfJEesarISE e^Isualul uI Pe lasgo
sess”lo ar{rJo rsory ‘auIll JJotu q3nuJ aPl^o;d sasselc -TSE aAISuaruL
laa1v\ qf,Ee uolllnJlsul -ISgJo o-lt\l Jo JnoI{ u3 l¡uo a,req dno.l8 a3¿
srql ur sruapnls caqan| rsoyq’a8enSu¿l Pumes e se qsr¡8ug urcal sluePnls
Sur4eads-gcuerC plo-rca Á-U-Ol ererld\ :aqan| ur gceoldde leuollrnrtsul
ue ot JeJaJ ot Pasn sl -ISg (eAISueluI, ‘looq srql uI :TSg aarsuelul
‘dno¡3
r?r{rJo sragluaw e{ll aJou ag or arrsep 3 ue^a pue dnorS aSenSur¡ raSJBl
arir jo ólunuluof, pue aJntlnf, arfl lnoge aJoru
^\ou>l
ol eJISaP e uo Paseq
,, r”gr Sururea¡ aSenSue¡ puoJes JoJ uo¡E^now :uopte rloru a,r¡lerEalu¡
‘qof;arraq e la8 ol rePro uI a8tn8uq egr urral or Peau aql
sE qf,ns’¡ecncerd l¡pnuassa sr lEI{l uonelllory ¡uolle l}oru l¿lueurn.rlsur
‘uollrstnbct a8en8ue¡ JoJ rualf,Sns sl lndul
a¡grsuaqardurof, JaI{tJIf$ or PeleleJ suorlsanb aro¡dxa or sl:alo¡d l{fJeeseJ
ur pesn uaaq sEr{ rI .sreuJBel ol lndul eqt ur JrruEaJ a8en3url re¡ncrrred
e3o sa¡drurxaJo raqunu aSrr¡ e Surpnord ro3 anbluqcar y :poog rndu¡
‘lueuruoJl^ua aqt uI (ua>1ods
Jo ualtlrlr\ raqrra) or pasodxa sI rauJEel aqr rBqr a8rnSue¡ aq1 :rndu¡
‘a8en8ue¡jo uotllslnbce agr -roj l1¡ecgrcads pau8tsaP ert rer{r
seJntf,nJls IEruaru qlL!\ uJog arz sSulag uElunr{ tegr srsaqrodlr{ 3r{1 uo Paseq
a.upads¡ad [EJrreJoeqr aql $ sn{l ‘I{sJEesaJ uorttslnbcr a8en8ue¡ uI :lsDeuul
‘as¡a Surqratuos uo snf,oJ JoJ elqelle^E uollueue
a¡ou¡ Sur,rra¡ ‘:ttetuolne aruooeg uolluatls pallnbar lsJU rB q3ry^\ s8u¡qr
,a:ll¡e¡d pue a:uarradxa pateadar qrv!\ rng ‘arull sIuBS aqr re Surr¡rfrarra
ot uonuJlle led f¡ec laqf pur PefIuII aJE sef,Jnosa¡ a,rtltuSoo (sJauftel
r?r{r Eepr aqt uo paseq.{-roaqr ¡ecr8o¡orlclsd y :8u¡ssa¡o¡d uoperuroJul
‘sJeuJtal a8en8uq PuoJesJo sPaeu
Jqr 13eu 01 slBrJslErrr pue aSenSuel FuonJnJlsur Jrer{l rsnfpe sJaq)Eel PUE
a8rn8uel tsJg arues aqr aJrqs saruue¡8o¡d uoISJauIluI uI sluePnls ‘l¡rcldfa
.r8ená.re¡ puof,as Jraqt ur sarpnls
Fllos pu’ sr’€ueqrEu w grns srcafqns
lpnrs sruapnls ,sr tegl .uo¡fnJlsul
Paseg-luaruoo u,r tg8ne_t sr a8tn8uel
puofes 3 r{3¡l \ ul au¡(uer8o;d ¡euolteonpe uv :auru¡e¡Eo¡d uorsJerurur
úassolg 6rz
220 Glossary
their interaction patterns to match the learners’ communication
requirements. The innate abilities are not seen as being specific to language
or language acquisition.
interlanguage: A learner’s developing second language knowledge. It may
have characteristics ofthe learnerb first language, characteristics ofthe
second language, and some characteristics that seem to be very general and
tend to occur in all or most interlanguage systems. Interlanguages are
systematic, but they are also dynamic. They change as learners receive more
input and revise their hypotheses about the second language.
interlocutor: A participant in a conversation.
language acquisition/language learning: In this book, these two terms are
most often used interchangeably. However, for some researchers, most
notably Stephen Krashen acquisition represents ‘unconscious’ internalization
of language knowledge,which takes place when attention is focused on
meaning rather than language form, and learningis described as a’conscious’
process that occurs when the learnert objective is to learn about the language
itself, rather than to understand messages conveyed through the language.
language-related episodes (LREs): Parts of conversational interactions in
which language learners talk about the language forms they are using and
engage in self- and peer-correction.
longitudinal study: A study in which the same learners are studied over a
period of time. This contrasts with a cross-sectional study.
meaning-based instruction: See communicative language teaching.
meta-analysis (plural: meta-analyses): A statistical procedure that allows
researchers to combine the findings from a large number of quantitative
studies in order to assess the overall patterns of findings on a similar topic.
metalinguistic awareness: The abiliry to treat language as an object, for
example, being able to define a word, or to say what sounds make up that
word.
mitigation: In pragmatics, a phrase or tone ofvoice used to reduce or
soften the possible negative impact ofwhat is said.
modified inpuc Adapted speech that adults use to address children and
natiye speakers use to address language learners so that they will be able to
understand. Examples of modified input include shorter, simpler sentences,
and basic vocabulary.
modified interaction: Adapted conversation patterns that proficient
speakers use in addressing language learners so that the learner will be able
to understand. Examples of interactional modifications include
comprehension checks, clarification requests, and self-repetitions.
‘elq”ts aJou¡ sr taleads a ItEu aJnteu aql
JoJ lseal t¿ ‘acualadruof, sEeJaI{/’t an8rre; Jo uoltuetleul ol anP suoItEIJs ol
roalqns sr erueruJoJra¿ ‘a8en8uel esn 01 lrtllq” rno sellraPun teqr a8pe¡r’rour1
aql sr r{f,rryr\’arualadruol qlr^\ PalseJruo: l¡ensn sI sf,uEluJoJJa¿ ‘Sulrurnr
‘Sulpea; ‘Suqeads ‘Surualstl ul a8en8ue¡ asn a¡vr lervr ag1 :erueruro¡.rad
‘ goro.rdde ¡en8ur¡orpne aqr
3o ¡erldl¿’sruJoJ cltsn8ul¡;elnorued tuasa¡da.r ol uasol{J soJuatuas asrlo¿¡d
or pe>lse ar€ sreuJeel r{rlq1n ur anbluqcar Sutr¡oear V :llIJP ecpcerd uJeDEd
‘,rq8nog,3o ppalsul .palnq, uI s? ‘qJeA Jeln8aur ue uoButpua pa’
;ep8a; ¿ Surund ‘aldurrxa .ro3 ‘8uo¡aq lou seop lr aJaqd\ lxetuoJ E uI u¡au¿d
ro elnr E esn ol 8uúrr3o rlnser el{r sI rorreJo adlr slql :uolluzlfuJeuaS¡a,ro
‘acuanbas pruarudola,rap ees :uopls¡nbcu¡o .rapro
‘txeluof, regl uI qra^ aI{}Jo uroS parlnbar
aqr pesn rou sEI{ lnq ‘¡ee,&\ tse-LJo esn eqt lq esual rsed aql JoJ lxatuof,
lroreSrlqo uB petEeJJ seq .ra>pads el{l
(,JEf E
tual JaqloJg Áu ‘laarrr lse1,
af,ualues aqr ut ‘aldruexa JoC ‘tfeJJof ag o] sI ssuetues aqr3l pa-rrnbeJ sI luJoJ
¡mrteuruer8 repcnred e eJaq./v\ af,ualuas E uI saJBId :$xaluoc l¡oruE¡go
‘lndul aqt uIJo eJErv’B
aruo3eg Jo (pef,nou, rsJg e^EI{ laqr r1clq.,ra. reqr l¡uo urcel sJauJEa¡ a8en8ur¡
rErF (rprurq3s preqrDl lq pasodo.rd ‘srsaqrodfq aql :srserpodfq tu¡rpou
‘uonf,EJelul PsglPour oslE e3s ‘uollEflunurluof, uI
u,t.ropltaJq e ¡rrda¡ ot sanbturpal Jarpo asn PuE graads Jlaql ol sluaulsnlpe
aleu or{^\ s.ra>pads uaa^uaq uoltf?Jetul :Surrruau¡.ro¡ uopupoteu
‘ruar{l roJ l Surpr,rord3o pealsul ruroS rq8¡.r eqr PuU
or sluapnrs aprn8 or qeas eqs Jo aI{ ‘uollf€Jelul aql uI Pe^lo^ul sr Jel{f¿al
eJI ‘poolsJapun sI Suruearu aJag \ txeluof, E uI tuJo3 llaJJof, aqr PJE,t\ol
>lJo,{\ sJJuJpe¡ e8en8ue¡ qrl{¡a uI uolt3eJalul uV :rr¡JoJJo uoperlo8au
‘a¡uanbas ptuarudo¡ar’ap ees :raPro IPmlEu
‘sa8en8ue¡ lsoru Jo,sra>leads
a^rleU, Suoue uoIlEIJeA ePIl\ sl eJerlt asnsseq dnor8 f,Iluouof,aolfos
¡o uor8al olqdeJSoa8 rgtcads 3 ull{lv!\ PoolsJePun eg sftz’r¡e lsnu
,re>¡eads a IIBU, uoltou aq¡ ‘aBenBuEI aqr3o ¡rutur¡8 f,IsEg el{r uo ea¡3¿
or pual laqr rnq ‘asn e8en8uelSo sradse rrrsr¡lrs pue lrelnqerolJo sluJel uI
ragrp sra>lrads a,rrre¡ ‘a8en8ue¡ teqr uI tuanyord f¡ry aq or PauaaP sI oI{^\
pue a8e l¡:ea ue uo.t3 aBenBuEI E PeuJEal set{ oqlr\ uos¡ad y :ra>pads eapeu
ra>1eads e^Iteu EJo ter{r ruo{ alqeqsm8unstput sI leqr aouerurolradJo Ia^el
e le a8en8uel pumas e acnpord pue puaqardu¡or ol &lllq” aql :aTI-e Deu
‘sauraqd;oru prtteruurrr8 aag :aruaqd.rou
[tassolg rzz
222 Glossary
phonemic Small differences in language sounds that can change meaning
within a particular language. For example, the consonants p and b are
phonemic in English, but not in Arabic.
pragmatics: Aspects of language use that go beyond vocabulary and
grammar to include rules of how to use language appropriately in different
contexts and with different speakers. It also includes an understanding of
the implied as well as the explicit meaning of language.
private speech: The language we use when we are talking ro ourselves, not
expecting anyone to hear or respond.
procedural knowledge Knowledge that underlies fluent or automatic
performance. It is contrasted with declarative knowledge.
processability theory: Manfred Pienemann’s theory of learners’ developing
ability to process linguistic elements in different senrence positions.
processing instruction: An approach to instruction in which learners are
given explicit information about the language feature to be learned and
their practice activities involve the comprehension (not production) of
sentences or texts that cannot be understood without a focus on the
language itself, The approach was developed by Bill VanPamen.
qualitative research: An approach that uses detailed descriptions of the
phenomena being studied rather than counting or measuring the exact
amount of some specific variable or variables. Qualitative research requires
extensive observation and insightful interpretation.
quantitative research: An approach that requires precise counts or
numeric measurements ofvariables. In a quantitative stud¡ both the
variable that is believed to affect learning and the learning itself are
measured or’quantified’. Quantitative research requires careful selection of
the measurements that will be used to represenr the variables being studied.
rate oflearning: The speed with which learners progress in their language
development.
recase To repeat a learner’s incorrect utterance, making changes that convert
it to a correct phrase or sentence. ‘Recast’ is also used as a noun, that is, a
recast is the interlocutor’s modified/corrected form of the learner’s utrerance.
register: A style or way of using language that is rypical of or appropriate
for a particular setting. For example, speaking and writing usually require
different registers; the register used in writing a research report is different
from that used in writing a letter to a friend.
restructuring: Cognitive activify that is seen as causing changes in the way
information is organized in the brain, even though no new information has
been learned.
aqt eprsrno ur a8e8ua rq8rur sJauJeal esoql ot JEIIruls ($lset, aJE sanr^nfe
ruoorsself, r{rlq^\ ur uonf,nrlsul :[-IgJ) Eu¡gcuar aSunEue¡ pesuq-{spr
‘a8en8ue¡ (quno; Jo prrqt.ro) puooas e ro a8en8ue¡
rsJg ar{r sr lr rer{ler{ r ‘pau;ea¡ Suraq aSenSuEI er{I :a8un8ue¡ raErer
‘spunos pnplrupur Jo uonelcunuo¡d
arp urr{t raqrer ‘(uorreuolur pue ssaJls ‘3’a) a8en8uel erpJo uqrfgr
pue fpo¡au aql eAIoAur regr a8en8uel EJo spunos rr{l :spluau¡Eesp¡dns
‘parlnbre sl a8en8uel puof,as ? s¿
a8en8ue¡ rsrg erp Surso¡ llara¡duor -ro llprrre¿ :rusr¡enEur¡Iq e lrf,prrqns
‘saJnteeJ prrteruuerS 3o lrrxalduroc
ur eseaJlur pnprr8 E sr uonezrueS.ro arp JoJ srseq eql ‘suossel Jo 1ooqlxal
E ur l?rraleur 8ur¡uanbas rcSutztue8to ro3 anbluq:ar y :Eu¡oe.rt ¡e.rnlrn.rls
‘sallarJel f,ruJouooaorf,os pue’¡euol8a.r’f,ruqle
snoJeurnu sB IIe,t se ‘ltar¡e,r pJepuers u1v\o stl sBI{ I{f,Ba qslSug uEIpuI pu”
‘qs¡¡8ug uErpEuEJ ‘gs¡¡8uE r{snrrg ‘qs¡¡8uE uef,rreruv’a¡durtxa rog ‘saoe¡d
ruereJlp uI ruaraJlp aq leru saSrn8url ua>¡ods llaprm3o &ar¡e,r prepuers
aql ‘(Sunserprorg Sulpn¡our) 8uu¡eads crlqnd IEruroJ pue Suntrrnr IBturoJ
ur pesn l¡¡ecldlr sI reqr a8enSue¡ ua,tr8 e jo Áet¡err aq1 :&arre,r preprrers
‘lenpr^rpur arp lq
pazrTruJetur sr r{f,rr{,l aSpa¡.la.ou1 lf,nJlsuoo lpulol sJeuJeel ‘uollef,tunrutuo¡
Surrnp ler{r $ rurelr JqI’uonreJerul ace;-or-ef,EJ ur anSoprp uo ruapuadap
sr tr ‘sr rerp ‘palerperu l¡plros sI lel{l ssaco¡d E sB Pa,t\el^ st Sulureal
‘lBnpl^¡pul uaql IEIJos tsr5 sr Suturea¡ IIE lEI{t uolldunsse er{t uo Pesrg
$ reqr Sururea¡ pue a8pa¡zvtonl JoJ uoneue¡dxa uy :Lroeqr [pJnl[nJorJos
‘(,leprarsal
oB a¡1 frpor oB 1,) asuar ‘ragrunu ‘uosrad3o ssalp-re8a.r qre^ BJo ruro1 arues
aqt Sursn ‘a¡druexa JoJ ‘ef,ualues EJo sruaua¡a tno SuneaT :uoDeJ5¡¡dru¡s
‘azrs Jraqt sB IIe.&\ s” safuaJeJlp eqlJo louarslsuoc eql or enp sI ,ef,u¿Jylu8ls,
rraql ‘e8rrl ro llerus eg uE3 serueraglp I{lnS ‘aoueq: lq pauadd¿q a^eq o}
f¡e1¡un eJE ‘slser lzf,nsnelsJo ke\rc¡e ot Sutprooce ‘,{rl.l^ sdno¡8 uea uag
sef,uaJaglp ol sJaJeJ lrr{l ruJal Ff,rur{3al E sr sql :ef,uaJeju[P ruurg¡u8¡s
‘ uoneuolur Jo su.rallrd aJe rlf, IrlA{‘,s¡rtuatuSasrt dns,
qrl/( perserruo3 ‘aSen8uel EJo spunos lenpl^lpul eq1 :¡uluauSas
‘a8en8ue¡ qunoJ
ro prrqr aqr or reJer l¡enrre leru u ‘snql ‘paur¿a¡ a8en8ue¡ tsrg aq] u¿qt
raqro a8en8ue¡ fue ot srajer ruret eqr (>loog slqr uI :(ZT) aEen8ue¡
Puoras
‘eoueluas ata¡duorul s ra>pads arpJo uolsurdxa aqr ro ,fte1nqeco,r Sulssrru
3o uolsvtord eqr ePnllur,ftu r1 :aleeds JaqrouEJo ssaf,fns e^IlEf,IunuJluof
agt rroddns ol sasn rolnrolratul ue teql a8en8ut¡ aq1 :Eum¡ogrcs
fuassolg 8,27,
224 Glossary
second or foreign language classroom. Tasks may be complex, for example,
creating a school newspaper, or more limited, for example, making a phone
call to reserve a train ticket.
teacher talk: See modified input and foreigner talk.
transfer: The infuence of a learnert first language knowledge in the
second language. Also called’interference’. The term’cross-linguistic
influence’ is now preferred by many researchers. It better reflects the
complex ways in which knowledge of the first language may affect learners’
knowledge and use of another.
transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) : Cognitive psychologists have
observed that when we learn something new, we also internalize some aspects
of the circumstances and thinking processes that were present when we
learned it. The TAP hypothesis is that knowledge is easier to retrieve ifwe are
returned to or can recreate those circumstances and thinking processes.
universal gramm¡ü (UG): Innate linguistic knowledge which, it is
hypothesized, consists of a set of principles common to all languages. This
term is associated with Chomsky’s theory of language acquisition.
uptake: This term is sometimes used in a general sense to refer to what a
learner notices and/or retains in second language input or instruction.
Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) definition refers to a learnert observable
immediate response to corrective feedback on his/her utterances.
variabls An element or characteristic that can be measured or defined.
Variables can differ in different groups or change over time within a group
or individual. Some examples ofvariables that are commonly examined in
language acquisition research include the amount of time a person has been
learning the language, scores on aptirude tests, and performance on
measures of language knowledge.
variational features: In contrast to the developmental features in the
framework developed by Pienemann and his colleagues, variational features
(for example, vocabular¡ some grammatical morphemes) can be learned at
any point in the learnerb development.
variety: Away of speaking and using language that is typical of a particular
regional, socioeconomic, or ethnic group. The term’dialect’ is sometimes
used. Some language varieties are stigmatized as ‘uneducated’ but each
language variety has its own rules and patterns that are as complex and
systematic as those of the so-called ‘standard’ language. Among the most
studied non-standard varieties of English are British Cockney and African-
American Vernacular English.
willingness to communicate (\WTC): The predisposition of learners
toward or away from communicating in a second/foreign language. Several
‘CdZ s,JauJeel aqt ur uonreralur 8ul-rnp pue qSnorqr are¡d
sa>pt Sulu;ea1 ‘l.roerp s,llsro8l¡ uI ‘JolnoolJalur uE r{tr,r\ uonf,EJetur ruory
r¡oddns sr aJaql esnef,aq ecueru;ojradJo Ie el raq8rq ejo a¡qedec sr JauJEal E
qrFI^A ur ,ace¡d, ¡eorrogdztau aql :(CI¿Z) luaurdo¡a,rap prurxo.rd lo euoz
‘l¡oruaru uJer-iloqs, pelpf,
os[V’snJoJ ur lpua;rnr sr reqr uolltruJoJur Jo uoneruJoJur 1v\au ssaco¡d
f¡anrrre e \ qllq^\ ur ,aoeds, a,rrtruSo¡ aql :(nL4¡,.) lrouau Suptron
‘lEuonEADoIU
pue ‘¡euonenrrs ‘lenpl^lpur ‘lerios Sulpn¡rul fIlN ol alnqrJluof, sroDe3
ttassolg SZZ
‘ssard u?8rr{frwJo
&rsre,rru¡ :11¡¡ ‘roqry uuy ‘saqraaJ.tot sulnn&utT snúoy :ruoo”tstal)
&uru.taa7 a8anSuaT aqt ur andto7Suln ‘0rcT, ‘U’g (rauueg
’17IZ-06l óLe ‘P ‘3f,ualrsJo fuapeoy
>lroÁ
^\eN
:>lro ,/daN ztuangto truapacV 4to¡ ma¡¡ aqlto tl?uuv ‘uotfinnbtV
a7an&uaT u8tato¿ put aSun&uuT aatxa¡¡:(‘pa) zuur¿¡’g ut ,sar8alerls
¡enrdacrad pue ‘Jnuerues ‘ltt¿ru8e¡¿ :e,utcadsrad tst¡euotlcunJ E lrroü
uortrsrnbce a8rn8ue¡-puoras, ‘I 86I rbuu¡r’¿j([c¿W ‘g PUE ‘y ‘g (sarug
‘L;-Stt, ‘dd ‘ssa.r¿ órsra.ttu¡
pro3xo :proJxo z&an&uaT “rautaaT Suts[luuV ‘$pa) uazmlPlrtg ‘D Pue
slllg ‘d ur ,a8en8url raureel3o sasl¡eue paseg-rarndruo3, ‘1002 ‘W .naolreg
‘ 17
0e- G LZ
:
€ | g I u oxtx stn btV a8anSua7 pu ora S
ux sat?nls’luaudo¡arap rneurSerd30 fpnrs ¡eurpnuSuol v qlEt rlluaPef,E
Jo salnr aqr Sururtal ,’€.G6I ‘ProprBH’S’g PuE’X’EI¡eH-I^oPrBB
‘113./vDIrEIg :ProJxO ‘an ?u? Buruaa¡\¡’ru.r0¿
: u o tl t s m b ty a&a n&ua 7 pu o t a g u t e a dsv ? uv a s u aJ’ 0 0 0 Z’X’8ureH-r,loPreg
‘
EI L- LL9 :V ¡ 6y &uru”raa7
a&an&uu7,’scrleur8r.rd ¡euouslnbce ro3 rpua8e I{JJ¿asaJ y :scneur8rrd
a8rn8ue¡rarul Jo a8enSuelrerur eqr 8ur.ro¡dxg,’ 6 6 6 I’>l’8¡re¡¡-¡,top.reg
‘ a8pa¡rn o¡ :>lr oÁ ./rcN’ u a uta a 7 afla nflua 7 -y u o t a 5 ut
Sur r t¡X¡ p ua Bulpa a¿ S u T dol a a a e’ g002′ (‘sPa) uPTPrrBqS’I Pue’ q’rsn8ny
dtl¡,4N qro¡.&\aN
‘ r’pa oddV patatSatu¡ uy : úo rua¡¡¡ pua &urutua7’ t 66I’¿’f (uos.rapuy
‘B6-L9l ‘dd :a/n.rg ep uornory :uePratsurv ‘uotltsmbtyaSan&uaT puotag
pzpn4sul ut suoqaStlsartu¡ :(‘spa) PrErraI¿ ‘ntr PuE uasnoH ‘y ur ¡sr¡8uE30
sJauJtel qr-ryfq sesnelf, e^nEIaJJo uotllsrnbre aqt tnogr aJour-saJnl3nJls
crrsm8ur¡ pelrctu Surqcra¿, ‘1002 ‘u¡aoqrrlSn’W U PuE y (reruury
‘
1B-eS
:
¡ ¡ Et7 stunn&utT
pallddylo maxnaY lauoxj?u¿ajuJ,’a8en8ue¡ Puofes e uI sJalsnlf lu?uosuof,
Jo uorrrnpord puz’uorldac.rad’ruau8pnl ¿gL,’ t¡OZ ¿’g’8.raguarly
‘Sulpear ral{unJ.ro3 parsaSSns uaaq e^Er{
1″q1 esoql se ile./r^. s€ lxal 3q1 uI PalIf, slJo1v\ eql IIE raqraSor sSur-rq lsII sn{I
I.HdVUDOITgIg
228 Bibliography
Beretta, A. 201 1. ‘The language learning brain’ in M. Long and
C. Doughry (eds.): The Handbooh of Language Teaching. Oxford:’$liley-
Blackwell. pp.65-80.
Berko Gleason,J. ‘The childt learning of English morphology.’ Word 14,
150-77.
Berko Gleason,J. and N. Bernstein-Ratner (eds.). 2009. The Deuelopment
of Language7th edn. NewYork Ailyn and Bacon.
Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualisrn in Deuelopment: Language, Literacy, and
Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok E .2009. ‘Effects of bilingualism on cognitive and linguistic
performance across the lifespan’ in I. Gogolin and U. Neumann (eds.):
Streifa ll Zweisp rac h igh e it-Th e Bi lingua lis m C ontrou ersy. Wiesbaden,
Germany: VS Verlag fur S ozialwissenschaften . pp. 5 3 -68′
Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. ‘The logical problem of foreign language learning.’
Linguistic Analysis 20ll-2: 347 .
Bloom, L.l99l. Language Deuelopmentfom Two to Tltree. Cambridge:
Cambridge Universiry Press.
Bloorn, L. and M. Lahey. 1978. Language Deuelopment and Language
D is o rders. New York John’Sfliley.
Bongaerts, T. 1999. ‘Ultimate attainmenr in L2 pronunciation: The case
ofvery advanced lateL2learners’ in D. Birdsong (ed’): Second Language
Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesls. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates. pp. 133-59.
Brools, N. 1960. Language and Language Learning. NewYork:
Harcourt Brace.
Brown, R.1973. A First Language: The Early Sages. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Burns, A- 2010. DoingAction Research in English Language Teaching: A
Guidr for Practitioners. New York Routledge.
Burstall, C.1975. ‘French in the primary school: The British experiment.’
Canadian Modern Language Reuiew 3l I 5: 388402.
Carroll, J. 199 1 . ‘Cognitive abilities in foreign language aptitude:
Then and nov/ in T. Parry and C. Stansfield (eds.): Language Aptitude
Reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice hall.
Carroll, J. and S. Sapon. 1959. The Modern Languages Aptitude Tbst.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation’
‘ssard rruapBf,v :>lro^ .4^¿ N .?l 1 tl
) ?l la
[ag-u.tayo¡71¡ ato r(prug nlun&uqotpb¿ V:axuag ‘LL6I’S (ssnrnJ
‘sreuery ¡en8unnpyq :uopa^al3 ‘a”q[ssot3 ar¡t
ut uWyl) pnSuutg :,(So8rya¿ pu? ¿amo¿ u&un&ua7’0002 .Í.suluum3
‘srauery pn8urp¡nyr¡ :uopa^elJ ‘lSo8upa¿ puu
tuau¿stastv u! sansq :uoxtprn?g lauadg pua wvTanSu1tg ‘7g6I .[,sulturun)
‘
9 09- LB,
:
E ¡ 97 r(1taua”Ó rc SE¿,’alduexa rlnul uV :uorlrsrnbce
a8en8ue¡ puolas pue uonf,EJetur elnef,runuJuro3, ‘7.66I .W.o8e.r3
’69-19I :e-T1g stusm&utT yalddVto maxnaü
l?uottryunluJ (.sJorJa (sraur8olJo aouecyluS¡s eyL,.Lg6l a .s ÍepJo)
‘uonefnPg raPPoH :uoPuoT
‘upa qttT Sutqtaa¿ aSan&uaT puu &urutaa7 a8an&uu7 ?uoras ‘8002 71.{oof,
‘
IZ-I 07,
; g
¡ 1r7 tc un n&utT
paqddylo mat(taü /puoxi?u¿aru1,’qsr¡8uE3o srasn Z’I ur fcuapuadap
-ernlf,nrts pue ruarun8Je snlnruns-aqr-3o-lrra,rod ag1,’8002 .¡'{oof,
‘
BV-|, 7, :Z l, I’ 2 r ua, r S pt ua ut dop n a g,’ u ondac ta d
qcaads aSen8ue¡-puof,es pu¿ -tsJgJo seJnseeu¡ urerg :fcuejur ur acuar¡adxa
a8enSue¡puof,asJo nedrul, ‘I I0Z’HnX’X U pue ‘q’g’foguo3
’08-999:r/lCg
[ltauanl TOS{J <'uollf,nJlsul z'I ur erulrJo uolrnglrrslp eqr pu" atulJ,
'666y'epvds'N puE 6u,noqrq8¡1't\J U
'ratlpH'H'U "f
(su¡¡¡o3
'
€, €-9 0 I : 1 ¡ gV r(1 t a u a
"Ó rc S E¿,'8urureal a8rn8ue¡
pue órsuarur rE >lool alrsualur uV ‘ I I 0Z ‘atH¿N'[ pue ‘1 (sur¡¡o3
‘, 6-eV : 1 ¡79 SututaaT aSanfluaT,’l8o¡oqd-roru produar3o uoIlISInb3E
aqr ur radsr ltrrxal put acuangul ITJo selor ar{L ‘2002’1’su¡¡¡o3
xdse’qcreag’sndro3¡sndJof, An’of, ‘sun¡ocznr,,’rru77:drrg
.ra¡dureg uop¿f,ollo3 prre af,rrpproruoD plr.nqo3 suIIIof,
‘rc-609 :E¡E7 [1″rat”ra”ó IOSE¿ ,’a8en8ue¡ puof,es E ur lueuralarr{f,e
f,rruepert uo r{rrtasarJo slsagtuls y ¿8uo¡ ¡1’oH, ‘686I ¿ n(ra¡¡¡o3
‘
60Z-0 6I :7 ¡ 77 [&op q ils¿ 1 tlt o g yua a&an&uaflo putnof ,’Át1et;u’
pue ‘sru.rou ‘txaluo:3o sDega agl :aBrnSuEI puoles e ur aleorunruruof,
or ssauSuq¡r¿6,’e007. ‘a.rfru¡cc¡4J’6¡ U pu”‘””T”9’C’S “U rluaur?l)
‘gg-92:1¡gE a3an3ua7
(‘JeuuDIS ‘C ‘g fq ((Jorltqag pqre¡,,Jo,&\el^a¡, ‘616I ‘N’Á1sruog3
‘ssar¿ órsra,rru¡ a8prrqrue3 :aSplrquea’sa8an8urT
n q t g to ua 4 a a dg ot t ¡ s lpuE to s# q r p aJ nt a ru atala¿ V : u o xt? n unu o,,t¿
Su1rpaa¿’966I ‘ulmpoo9 ‘IAI'[puE (uolurrg
“Í{‘C
(‘I
l
relf,ml
l-erlaD
[t¡druflouqry 6ZZ
230 Bibliography
Dalton-Puffe r, C. 200 6.’Questions in CLIL classrooms: Strategic
questioning to encourage speaking’ in A. Martinez-Flor and E. Uso (eds.):
New Perspectiues on Teaching the Language Processing Skills. Amsterdam:
Mouton de Gruyter. pp.187-213.
Day, R.,J. Bassett, B. Bowler, S. Parminter, N. Bullard, N. Prentice,
M. Furr, M. Mahmood, D. Stewart, and T Robb. 2011. Bringing
Extensiue Reading into the Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M. 1998. ‘Beyond focus on form: Cognitive Perspectives on
learning and practicing second language grammar’ in C. J. Doughry and
J. \lilliams (eds.): Focus on Form in Ckssroom Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42-63.
DeKeyser, R. M. 2000. ‘The robustness of critical period effects in
second language acquisition.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition22l4:
493-533.
DeKeyser, R. M. 2001. Automaticiry and automatization’ in P Robinson
(ed.): Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge
Universiry Press. pp. 125-51.
DeKeyser, R. M. 2007.’Introduction: Situating the concept of practice’ in
R. DeKeyser (ed.): Practice in a Second Lnngudge: Perspectiuesfom Applied
Linguistics and Cognhiue Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry
Press. pp. 1-18.
deVilliers,J. G. and P. A. deVilliers,lg73′ A cross-sectional study of the
acquisition of grammatical morphemes.’ Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
213:267-78.
Derwing, T. M. and M.J. Munro.2009′ ‘Putting accent in its place:
Rethinking obstacles to communication.’ Language Teaching 42 I 4: 47 6-90.
Derwing, T M. and M. Rossiter. 2003.’The effects of pronunciation
instruction on the accuracy, fuenc¡ and complexity of L2 accented
speech.’ App lied Language Learning I 3 I I : I -17 .
Donato, R.1994. ‘Collective scaffolding in second language learning’ in
J. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds.): VygoxkianApproaches to Second Language
Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp.33-56.
Dórnyei, 2.2007a. Motiuational Strategies in the Language Classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press.
Dórnyei, Z. 200Ib. Teach ing and Researc h ing Motiuation. Harlow:
Longman.
Dórnyei, 2.2005. The Psychologt of the Language Learner: Indiuidual
Dffirences in Second LanguageAcquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum and Associates.
‘ gg t- 6t I’dd’¡amlcelg-falyN
:VW ‘ueppt ü ‘&u1cyna¿ a8unSuaTto Woq?upH aql :gpa) 3uo1 .¡1 ‘7,q
pue lrq8noq ‘f ‘f, rl ,Sururea¡ pesnro;-ruroJ pue pe$q-a8esn ur
3ur¡dues pue lcuanbar¿ :rndur aqr Surznundo, ‘6002 .3 .N.slilg
‘zs-90€.:ztL7,
uotsnnbcV a&anSuaT puocag u! saryruS,’a8pa¡rtou1 a8en8ue¡ rnlldrur
pue rrcl¡dxa3o suonf,eJerur clrueulg :af,EJralur eqt tV ‘S0OT.D.N.slilg
.eu-€.9.dd
‘
IIa-{DITEI g : proJXO’ u o t I t n rc b ty a8anSuaT p u o t a g to ry o q ? u? H a q1 : $pa)
3uo1 ‘¡1 ‘htr pue lrg8noq ‘f ‘f .rl (ernlf,nns a8en8ue¡ puof,asJo acuaS¡arua
ar r, :ursruonf,euuof pue’8ul1unqf, ,suonrnJtsuo3,’e00Z
D.N,sIIIfl
’88 I -87 I :Z l rZ u oxtxsxnbtV aBanSuYT Puoras w sat?ruS
,’uonrslnble a8en8uel lcr¡dxa pue rrol¡dul Jo serJoe{p .ro1 suoneclldrur
tltl4A 1r\er^Jr y :uolrrsnbce a8en8uel ur slf,aJe buanbarg, ‘2007,.J.N .sIIIfl
’89-t8.’dd
‘ssar¿ &rsra,rru¡ a8prrque3 :a8plrqure)’uoxpnusu¡ aSan&uuT ?uoras
?up
uoutuSoS:(‘pa) uosurqo¡ A ul ,a8en8ue¡ ro3l.rouraytr, ‘I002 .f, .N.slilA
‘
OZ- I
:
I I 6 stuun&urT patl ddV,’ a?en?uu¡
puooas e se qsl¡8uE3o uorlrslnbr¿ eqt ur uononJrsur esnelf, e^nEIaJJo
uonezrleraua8 aqr uO, ‘886I ‘uosleN'(I put .llrg’T (g (uuurlcg
‘uosJsed
:uorsog 1a?ory ¿06 aql :t”4au.¿/a7 aSrn&uaT c¡s1puE ntalqtsuaqatdutoS
ruaru o ) 3u 7 4 a ¡1¡’ 100 Z’r.roq5′ [‘ q pre.rEoA’I4I ” f ‘e¡.r.ruraqcg
‘
Zr-I l, :E ¡ gy SurutaaT a3an3ua7 r’salroal{l elq¿rnsuauruorul
:stfnJlsuof, alqeJnsueruruof,ul : I +r sueqsur) pue ruarudola,raq
Ieurrxord Jo auoT s lxsro3út,’ gG¡.;¡ JIorurJ’d'[ put’fl ‘¿C\,uun(I
‘
Le-909 :E¡67 [\taua”Ó IOSE¿, drr8ung uI sruoorssels
uorsJaruurr ur uonefruntutuorJo lqderSouqle aV,’9661 A .Jnq¡
‘Bg-rI1 ‘dd ‘ssar¿ órsra,rru¡ a8prrque3 :a8prrqrue3
‘WS utoo$tal) ux uttol uo tnroi:(‘spa) suBrTIrlN ‘f pur lrq8no6l ‘f
ul ,ruJoJ uo snroJ a^nef,runurulo3, ‘866I ‘¿lalp ‘g puB ‘C ,ftqEnoq
‘
69-It, :, I €I uoxttsxrcbtV a7an&uaT
?uzJas ux sax?ws (‘uon¿zr^n¿lerlsJo lpnrs ¡rclrrdura uE tuog af,uappg
:eJuera5lp E a>leru saop uonrnrtsul e8en8uel puoras, ‘I66I ‘)’frgEnoq
‘
0e9-6BS’dd’¡ampzlg :proJXO’ uotu nnbtV a8an&uuT puotag to
yooq?u?H aql :$pa) 3uo1 ‘¡1 ‘ntr pu? lrq8noq ‘f ‘) rl ,Sururee¡ a8en8ue¡
puof,as ur saruaraglp Ienpr^rpul,’9007, ‘uBrlaIS ?J pue ‘7’rcÁutgq
‘ssar¿ Álsrartlun pJoJxO
:proJxo’ u o t y n n b cV a7a n&u a 7 p u o t a g to r(3 op q tG¿ a q1′ 6007,’ Z.raluroq
tcldatSouqq ttT
232 Bibliography
Ellis, N. C., R. Simpson-Vlach, and C. Maynard. 2008. ‘Formulaic
language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus
linguistics, and TESOL .’ TES O L Quarterly 42 I 3: 37 5-96.
Ellis, R. 2012. Language Tbaching Research and Language Pedagoglt. Malden,
MA: \Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R and G. Barkhuizen.2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., S. Loewen, C. Elder, R. Erlam,J. Philp’ and H. Reinders. 2009.
Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning: Testing and
Teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Erard, M.2012. Babel No More: Tlte Search for the World’s Most
Extraordinary Language Learners. NewYork Free Press.
Erlam, R. 2005. ‘Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional
effectiveness in second language acquisition.’ Language Teaching Research
912:147-171.
Ganschow, L. and R. L. Sparls .2001.’Learning difficulties and foreign
language learning: A review of research and instruction.’ Language Tbaching
3412:79-98.
Gardner, D.2004. ‘Vocabulary input through extensive reading:
A comparison ofwords found in children’s narrative and expository
reading materials.’ Applied Linguistics 251 l: l-37 .
Gardner, H.1993. Muhiple Intelligences: The Theorlt in Practice. NewYork:
Basic Books.
Gardner, R. C. andW. E. Lambert.lg72.Attitud.es andMotiuation in
Second Language Learning. Rowle¡ MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S. M. 1982. ‘From theory to practice’ in M. Hines and
‘W’. Rutherford (eds.): OnTESOL ’81’ \Washington, DC: TESOL.
pp.129-139.
Gass, S. M. 198S. ‘Integrating research areas: A framework for second
language studies.’ Applied Linguistics9I2: l9B-217 –
Gass, S. M.1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum andAssociates.
Gatbonton, E. and N. Segalowitz. 1988. ‘Creative automatization:
Principles for promoting fuencywithin a communicative framework.’
TE S O L Quarterly 22 I 3 : 47 3-9 2.
Gatbonton, E. and N. Segalowitz.2005- ‘Rethinking communicative
language teaching: A focus on access to fuenry.’ Canadian Modzrn
Language Reuiew 6l I 3: 325-53.
‘lI8. 16Z ‘dd’ssar¿
&rs;a,rru¡ qS.rnqurpE :q8rnqurpE’ a&an8uapatu¡ : (‘spa) ue,l\oH’V pue
‘radrr3 ‘J ‘sar^Eq ‘y ul ,Sulqcear a8enSue¡ puores JoJ suorleorldur su pur
sluapnls uorsreurur3o a8en8ue¡ralur aql, ‘786I ‘ur-B¡as’I I pue ‘g’fal¡eH
‘rzL-991’dd ‘ssa,r¿
Ársrar’ru¡ a8prrqrue3 :aBprrqrue3’uotltunbtV a3an3uu7 puotag uoolssal)
u! ru¿oi uo snrol:(‘spe) suErllr/N’Ipue lrq8nocl ‘f ur ponrsrnbct ¿1
p¡gc Sunouro¡d ur $lset ruroJ-uo-snroJJo alor eql ‘866I ‘g’fa¡.re¡¡
‘
Lg-e,T,l :y ¡yy &utu”rta7 a7un&uaT
,’a8en8ue¡ puof,as ¿ ur uonf,nJlsur uouezrlrreleJ ruo5 aluoppg ¿lerulxeru
pur lruorraJlplun uolrez¡p;aua8 ¡euorreor¡dtul \,’, GGI’¿ (uot¡ruru¡q
‘gg-I9T,te l0e wnas?ü
ulnn&ul ot¡ t[s¿ to putnof,’s¡epuarod urerg petelar-lue a ruo5 aruepl^E
¿Sulssarord a8enSue¡-puoras ur rueJeJlp ErEI{1¡., ‘I002 V ‘”t.I”H
‘ gZ- rcZ : 7 ¡ g g r{1 t at ta”ó rc S E¿,’s¡eluatu8aserdn s 3o Sutqcear aqr
el¿Anoru or r{rr¿ase¿ :Ar¡ql8r¡arul pu¿ ssarts llerurr¿, t7002’e’T’urIBH
‘
B- IZV
: g
¡ E 1 r(au\ c1 t [s¿ a at sua opt dru o 3
,’lpnts,ftore.roldxe uy:a8en8uel puof,es e ul lrr¡qe uonercunuo¡d
uo salers o8a ul sa8urqc pelnpul l¡¡eruaunredxa3o spagJ tqL,’ZL6I
‘la ors’I pu¿’¡¡nC’f, (uouue.lg ¡’¡ureqq¡eH-rleg’g’V (Brorn)
‘
LL-g g : 1 ¡ 7V Qnuu”ó lO SE¿ (‘uollelltour tuepnrs uo
sar8at¿¡ts leuonrlrtoru Jo srraga agrSo uorreSllse^ul palualJo-ruooJsself, V
: sreurcal a8en8ue¡ Sunenlro¡/q,’ g g g ¿’rafur g q’ Z pue’ [‘W (xnueloilr-n3
‘s6-e8t:llzz
putnof¿7V[ (‘urooJssel3 a8en8ue¡ a^Ile]IunulruoJ el{r ur JoIAeI{eq
Jo rolruoru prnrlnl asauedef y:o1lr{Jo safa ag¡, ‘0002 “I’q (.rea.rg
‘ gg-¡ : y ¡ 6 &urutra7 a8anSuzT (‘stueuruJelep
aldrr¡nu3o srsf¡eue-etaru y:qsr¡8ug ul uo¡llstnbce auagdroru Z’IJo t¿Pro
IErntBu agr Surure¡dxg,’ I 002’rasfayeq’W’U pu”‘¡4J’f (rap¡eurlrsPlog
‘sser¿ &rs.ra,rru¡ :8pl-rqrue3 :e8prrqur 3’atuaplrt7
quaav¿ lo s1saqtutg y : aautaaT a8anSuaT c¡ s43uE Suuutn?l’ 9002′ (‘tPt)
rrelrslrrl)'(I pue’s.rapuneg’¡4J 7¡¡’lreaf -urloqPulf ‘y’ g (eesauag
‘esnoH frnqrvra¡
qroÁ,&\eN’sa&anSuaT om¿ qSnotr’p SututraT’ Lg 6I'{.’aeseuag
‘ 0B- L9T, :7 ¡ 97 SututaaT a&an&uoT
,’Sururea¡ a8en8ue¡ puoJas ut acua8q¡atulJo elor eyL,’9L6I g (aassuag
‘lIt-GgV :g ¡69 [1tuw”ó IOSE¿ .’uone8rtsa,rur
rllsrn8urTol¡os y :frtrncJe uollelf,unuotd 71PuE uolr¿Ilge dno¡8
f,rur{ra (sreureaT, ‘E002 ‘pÉpw’I I PuE (rlrl^oruuor¡ tI “g’uoluoqrsg
,ft,¡dru&ouqtg Ee7,
234 Bibliography
Hatch, E.1978. ‘Discourse analysis and second language acquisition in
E. Hatch (ed.): Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readizgs. Rowle¡
MA: Newbury. pp. 401-35.
Heath, S. B. 1983. rYays uithWords. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hedge, T 2000. Tbaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hoare, P. and S. Kong. 2008. ‘Late immersion in Hong Kong: Still stressed
but making progress?’ in T \(4 Forrune and D. J. Tedick (eds.): Pathways to
Muhi lingualism: Emerging Perspectiues on Immersion Educatioz. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. pp. 242-66.
Horst, M. 2005. ‘Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading:
A measurement study.’ Canadian Modern Language Reuieu 6ll3:355-82.
Horwitz, E. K., M. B. Horwia,andJ. Cope. 1986. ‘Foreign language
class room anxiety.’ M o d.e r n L anguage Jo urna I 7 0 I 2: | 25 -32.
Howard, E. R.,J. Sugarman, D. Christian, K. Lindholm-Leary, and
D. Rogers. 2007 . Guiding Principles for Dual Language Educatioru Znd edn.
‘Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. http: //www. cal. org/twi/
guidingprinciples. htm
Hu, M. and I. S. P. Nation. 2000. ‘Unknown vocabulary density and
reading comprehension.’ Reading in a Foreign Language f3lL 403-30.
Hulstijn, J. and B. Laufer. 2001. ‘Some empirical evidence for the
involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition.’ Language Learning
5rl3:539-58.
HunterrJ. 2012. ‘Small talk developing fuenc¡ accuracy, and complexity
in speaking.’ ELT Journal 661 l: 3041
Itard, J. -M. -G. 1 9 62. Th e Wi ld B oy of Au ey ro n ( L’e nfant s auu age ). N ew York:
Meredith.
Jarvis, S. andd Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and
Cognitio n. New York Routledge.
Johnson, J. and E. Newport. 1989. ‘Critical period effects in second
language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of
English as a Second Language.’ Cognitiue Psychology 2llI: 60-99.
Johnson, R. K. 1997. ‘The Hong Kong education system: Late immersion
under stress’ in R. K. Johnson and M. Swain (eds.): Immersion Education:
International Perspectiuet Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp.17I-89.
‘ g0S- Lgrz ig I L, SuxuwaT aSan&uaT
.’Jorler{eq a8en8ue¡ u8laro3 pue’ssaua.re,re’uonuellv’ L66I’¿’¿ (ao.oa1
‘
1t-C’ dd’sserd oluoroJ3o lrrsra.tru¡
:EpBuEJ ‘oluo;ol ‘salpnry prrydruE :apauaS ux uoxwrn?g a7un8uaT puotag
qrua.ti:(‘pa) uqdq ‘S ur (tuaula alqle pue sepntruv:slapou qruer{
aro3 rceduoc3o fpnrs esEJ, ‘866I ‘fa¡re¡¡ ‘g pue ‘treH ‘O “S’u[xdBT
‘ssar¿ llsra,r.run pJoJxO :proJxo ‘&ututaa7
a&an&uaT puotag puo ttoaql f¿nxlnropos ‘OO0Z ‘(‘pr) U ‘[ ]¡orue1
Lrnqr’ra¡ :y¡n¡ fay’ro¡’ rya ruua dxE ua q rup7’8 a qL
:uatp11q3to uoxflrn?g pn3u71!g ‘lL6I.n>1prnL.U .5l pue .g
IN.lraqruuT
‘rzz-1il’dd
‘salerrossv pur urneglrg afuer^\¿T :[¡ ‘qe.aa.ge¡,1 ‘luautdoprtag ppos ?ua
‘ a nuru&o 3’ tg s7n3u77 to sua dsV : utsq an&u u r g p o o t/?/ ! eD : (‘spa) uosuorev’ C
pur’llp¿ ‘tr ü
qtltus poo.^arer{S ‘htr puB uturalle) ‘E ur rrorrxal ZT aquo ruaurdo¡arrap
aqr uo srulprlsuoJ onsln8urTssor3 :ala ue ro; afa uV ‘986I ‘g (ueru.ra¡¡ay
‘
66-t9
:
¡ ¡ g hmbul tusmSurT (‘Jeuruler)
Iesralrun pue lrr¡rqrssacoe ase;qd unoN, ‘LL6l’e¡.lrouo3 ‘g Pue ‘g (ueuaa¡¡
‘
1 ruaue¡ddns I Zg SuxutaaT a8an&uu7,’ e8en8uel
puores e ur luarudolaleq rneru3et¿,’7gg7 ‘aso¿’U’¡¡ pue’g’radsey
te¡da$onqry 9t.c
236 Bibliography
Li, S. 2010. ‘The effectiveness of corrective feedback in Sl,A: A meta-
analysis.’ Language Learning 60 I 2: 309-365.
Lieven, E. and M. Tomasello. 2008. ‘Children’s first language from a usage
perspective’ in P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis (eds.): Handbooh of Cognitiue
Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York Routledge.
pp. 168-96.
Lightbown, P. M. I983a. Acquiring English L2 in Quebec classrooms’
in S. Felix and H..W’ode (eds.): Language Deuelopment at the Crossroads.
Tübingen: GunterNarr. pp. l5l-75.
Lightbown, P. M. 1983b. ‘Exploring relationships between developmental
and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition’ in H.’W. Seliger and
M. H. Long (eds.): Classroom-Oriented Research in Second Language
Acquisition. Rowle¡ MA: Newbury House. pp.21745.
Lightbown, P. M. 1998. ‘The importance of timing in focus on forrn
in C. Doughty andJ. \{illiams (eds.): Focus on Form in Classroom
S e c o n d Language Ac q u i s i t i o n. Camb ridge : Camb ridge University Press.
pp. t77-96.
Lightbown, P. M. 2007 .’Fair trade: Two-way bilingual education.’
Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Ap licada 7 : 9-34.
Lightbown, P. M. 2008a. ‘Easy as pie? Children learning languages.’
ConcordiaWorhing Papers in Applied Linguistics 1:l-25.
http : //doe. concordia. calcopal/index. php/copal/volumes. html
Lightbown, P. M. 2008b. ‘Thansfer appropriate processing as a model for
classroom second language acquisitio n’ in Z. F{an (ed.) : Un de rs tan ding
Second Language Process. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. pP. 2744.
Lightbown, P. M. 2012.’Intensive L2 instruction in Canada:
-Vhy not
immersion?’ in C. Muñoz (ed.): Intensiue Exposure Experiences in Second
Language Le arning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters’ pp. 25 -44.
Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada” 1990. ‘Focus on form and corrective
feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language
learning.’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition I2l4: 429-48.
Lightbown, P. M. and N. Spada. L994.’Aninnovative program for
primary ESL in Quebec.’ TESOL Quarterly2Sl3:563-79′
Lightbown, P. M., R. Halter,J. L.White, and M. Horst. 2002.
‘Comprehension-based learning: The limits of “do it yourself”.’ Canadian
Modern Language Reuiew 58 I 3: 427 -64.
Lindholm-Leary, K. 2001. Dual Language Education. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
‘T,O7-S9Z i1l1g uoxitsxnbty a7anSup7 puoras ux sax?us ,’srsl¡eue-elaru y
:VIS uoorsself, ur IrEqPeeJ FrO, ‘0102’orIPS’X PuE ¡’rars,(1
‘D-Lg, ill6l uovxttrcbtV a7an8uaT
puoJas w sax?ws (‘surooJSSEIJ alllef,Iunururoo uI rr¡JoJJo uo¡reno8a¡
:e>¡erdn reur¿al pue >lleqpaeJ a^Iloerro3, ‘L66I “erlue¿’T Pue ¡ ‘.rars,(1
’00e-697, iZlSZ uouxsxnbty aSan8ua7 ?uoras u? saryas (‘ef,utleqratunof,
Ieuonf,nrtsur pue >lleqpaal lruoltf,Erarul’9002’Irohl’H PuE’¿ 6rarsfi
‘sunue fua g uqof : ruepra $wv’ 0p p or ddy p a t uap q ¿arun o ) V
:iuaiuo) c¡&no.tc¡t a8an&uoT &ulqcaa¿ pua Sutut?a7 ‘ L00Z \, (rarf1
‘Zer/-66€, :g l9Z uorilsrnbtV a8unSuvT ?uoras ux sax?ru5 ú’uollf,nJlsul PasnroJ
-ruroJ ur stsef,ar pue srdruo.rd1o slrege IEnuereJICI, ‘7002’U’ralsf1
‘I8-I I iI l0Z uoxixstnbtV aSon&u?7 ?uoras ry saryus (‘asrno3slP
ruooJssplf, ¿1 ur llnBrqru¿ PuE uo¡tnadat ‘slsef,a¡, ‘866I ‘U r.rarfl
‘Lg-egzte t9l
n7lsry3u17 paqddV,’acuatadu¡oc cnsn8ul¡otros (sluaPnls uolsJauJurl qluarC
3o srcadse uo Surgcear cril¡rue-¡uuorr3unJJo DeJa eI{L ‘766I ‘U (.rersft
‘ L0- 9 09 : g ¡ 61,(1 t at tanÓ I O S E ¿,’lcuarcgo.I d qsr¡3uE
parrurTJo sruepnls JoJ IIe,l.rEH uI sasst¡f, loor{fs q8rg clqnd ut uoltedlrp;rd
¡dnd uo aruF llervi pue suaned Suluo¡lsanb (srJqJtal;o rcage aql, ‘886I
‘t*qZ’S pur (rauo¿ 1 b>¡r¡aq’3’sa4oo.r3’D'{torg’3 (‘f (8uo1
‘Sg-g9Z ‘dd ‘asno11frnqua¡ :y¡zr¿
‘la¡mo¡ ‘uorunnbty a8an&uuT yuotag u! clstllsaü ?atuauo-ruoo¿ssrl) :(‘spa)
3uo1 ‘¡1 ‘W pue ra8qag ‘¿4.’H ut ,suottsanb (sJeqf,salJo suolpunJ PUE
sruJoC :asrnorslp 1¡er rau8raroj ruooJssel3, ‘886I ‘orBS’J PuE ‘nI’Euof
–
gz- L07. :7 ¡ 6 1 [1 u Ua”Ó rc S E ¿,’ u ottrsrnbce aSenSue¡ Puosas
pue ‘ller a8en8ue¡rarul ‘1ro,,n dno;g, ‘886I ‘Jarrod’d PuE’H’I^I €uo1
‘g9-e IV ‘dd ‘ssar¿ f,IruaPErV :>lroÁ .&\aN ‘uotltvnbtV aSun&uaT
puoeagto qooq?upH:(‘spa) EIIeI{g IPuE arI{311U ‘7¡¡ ut ,uotltsrnbce
aSen8ue¡ puoras uI lueuluorl.tua cttsrn8ull eIPJo eloJ eI{L ‘966I’W’E tI
‘
IT9T,1 :7 ¡ V scunn&ulT pa11 ddV.’lndut e¡q¡suaqarduof, Jo uollello8au aqr
pue uon€sreluor ra>1eads a Ileu-uou/.ra1eads aAIlEN, ‘986I ‘H’nI’8usI
‘ rz0 l-l 6 : ¡ ¡ E 6 putnof aSan&uaT uD? oW (‘uollf, aJJof, JoJJa PUE uollf, nJ]sul
¡etutue¡8 rnoqe sJeIIaq (srauJ”el a8enSuz¡ Puores, ‘6002’uarl3 X
pue (uqy’g’usrr¡ns¡u¡e¡’y’uosduroqt .y’Iaü U’n’S “S rua,raeol
‘9t-99s |il06
putnof a&an&u?7 ufipory (‘sseualllf,eJa PuE’sseullclTdxa’scrlsualceleqc
:sself, Z’I qsr¡8ug rlnPe eqt uI slsere¡, ‘9002’dlqd'[PuB’5 (uaaleol
,QdatSouqry LeT,
238 Bibliography
Maclntyre, P, 1995. ‘How does anxiety affect second language learning?
A reply to Sparks and Gansch ow.’ Modern Language Journal7g l I: 90-9 .
Macke¡ A.1999. ‘Input, interaction and second language development:
An empirical study of question formation in ESL.’ Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 2ll4: 557-87 .
Mackey, d and J. Goo. 2007 .’Interaction research in SLA: A meta-
analysis and research synthesis.’ in A. Mackey (ed.): Conuersational
Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Series of Empirical Studies.
Oxford: Oxford Universiry Press. pp. 407-452.
Mackeyr d andJ. Philp. 1998. ‘Conversational interaction and second
language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings.’ Modern
Language Journal 821 3: 338-56.
Macke¡ A., S. M. Gass, and K. McDonough. 2000. ‘How do learners
perceive interactional feedback?’ Studies in Second Language Acquisition
2214:471497.
Mac-Whinn ey, B. 1997 .’Second language acquisition and the competition
model’ in A. M. B. de Groot and J. F. Kroll (eds.): Tutoriak in Bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic Perspectiu¿s. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates. pp. 113-44.
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The C H ILDES Proj ect: Tbo k for Analyzing
Tdlh (zvolumes). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum andAssociates.
http: //childes.psy. cmu. edu/
MasgoretrA. M. and R. C. Gardnen2003, Attitudes, motivation, and
second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner
and associat es.’ Language Learning 531 l: 123-63 .
McCormick, D. E. and R. Donato. 2000. ‘Teacher questions as scaffolded
assistance in an ESL classroom’ in J. K. Hall and L. Verplaetse (eds.): Second
and Foreign Langaage Learning through Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. pp. 183-201,.
McDonough, K. 2004.’Learner-learner interaction during pair and small
Broup activities in a Thai EFL context.’ System 32:207-24.
Mclaughlin, B. 1987. Tlteories of Second Language Learning. London:
Edwardfunold.
Mclaughlin, B. 1990. ‘Restructuring.’ Applied Linguistics 11/1: I 13-28.
Meara, P. M. 19S0. ‘Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language
learning.’ Language Tbaching and Linguistics Abstracts 13:22146.
Meara, P. M. 2005. ‘Designing vocabulary tests for English, Spanish
and other languages’ in C. Butler, M. dos Angeles Gómez-Gonzales, and
puoras ux uoxlauvA:(‘sPa) ra>lullrs “I Pu¿ ‘uolserd ‘c
‘ gz-f I : I lrI aruaxrs aruilu8o2
,’Sururra¡ a8en8ue¡ uo sruleJtsuof IEuoIleJntEI tr, ‘066I ‘g’uodala¡
‘
S€y-6rzz’ dd : E ¡ g9 mama¿ a&an&u?7 u¿a?oq uax?aury
,’epEuEJ ur r{f,uerg e^Isuelul, ‘t002 ‘(‘sPe) u¡erurag ‘) PUE ‘f (uana¡
‘aSpapno¿ qroÁ./deN
‘u8lsae rurywx¿tnJ a8anSuuT’0I02 ‘ratslpce¡4J’f pue A’S’I (uope¡
‘T,l-I tlllSuupaa¿pua
&urutaa7 a8an&uaT ut uoxi?(touuJ (‘sPuerls JnoJ aql ‘LOOZ ¿’S’I (uoIrBN
‘ssar¿ ótsra.tlu¡ a8plrqrue3 :a8prrque3
z&an&uuT “raqpuv ux ,CtapqanlTSuxu’taa7’I002 A ‘5 ‘¡ ‘uo¡re¡
‘ g
t- e €,2
:
7 ¡ g7 Q nt tanj q ua a s a¿ 3u qpa a¿ (‘ lxalu of,
urorS sprornr Sulurta-L ‘186I ‘uosraPuv ‘U PuE (u”turaH
V A
r’g
2¡¡’lEe¡
‘
LZ-9 I e
: g ¡ yy 3u7 q w a¿ aSan&uuT (‘qf, reeser uollel)unuord ur lrr¡r glSnlarur
put luef,f,EJo suonEpunoJ erll ‘1 19¿ ‘Eupa.lec ‘w ‘I Pue ‘f ‘¡41 (orun¡4J
‘ 0r–l’ dd’srauetr l pn8ur¡n¡n14¡ :)n’uoPe^alC
‘&ututua7 aSan7uaT u7wo¡lo axay aql puv a7V,(Pe) zognry ‘3 ut ,naford
dvg aql :Sulurea¡ a8en8uel u8la.ro3 uo e8e jo slraJa agl, ‘9002’3 2or;rn14J
‘t€-60I :Zl€ uoxtxstnbty a&un&ua7 ?unas
w saxpruS,’uorlrsrnbce a8en8uel Puofas IEJnleu ul sa8¿ls ¡eruaudo¡a,rap
Sulururarap uO, ‘I 86I ‘urrerueuerd ‘I tr pue rues{EIJ ‘H “I I ‘f ‘¡as¡a¡4¡
‘asno11 ,finq/mN :VI/^{ ‘a8plrgue3 ‘tassaro”t¿ uotunnbtV aSan&uaT
?uoras ?uu istt¿ :(pe) yzlrJ ‘O ul ,uotttsmbre e8enSuel Puof,es lernleuJo
ruerudo¡a,rap aqr uI suolt)E Pue stuale rsed or af,uereJe¡, ‘/86I ‘W ‘f 6¡as¡a¡4¡
‘
t B- 692’dd 7s1oot71n’oc’srllsouSo¡’a,vtr’r7¡:drrr1
‘surue lua g uqof : ruep.ra $IJJV’s a nq J a d s “t a¿ n aa u,(q
?u? puotirunl :an a8anSuuTto ntruautq aql:(‘spa) zeryns-le^oq ‘S
,0¡dañouqry 6€,7
240 Bibliography
Language Acquisition, Vol. II: Psycholinguistic Issues. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters. pp.I4I-59.
Odlin, T 2003. ‘Cross-linguistic influence’ in C. J. Doughty and
M. H. Long (eds.): The Handbook of Second LanguageAcquisition. Oxford:
Blackwell. pp.436-86.
Ohta, A. 2000. ‘Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination
of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom’ in J. K. Hall and
L. Verplaetse (eds.): Second and Foreign Language Learning through
Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum andAssociates.
pp.47-7t.
Oliver, R. andA. Mackey. 2003. ‘Interactional context and feedback in
child ESL classrooms.’ Modern Language Journal 87 I 4: 5 19-33.
Ortega, L.2007. ‘MeaningfulL2 practice in foreign language classrooms:
A cognitive-interactionist SLA perspectiye’ in R. DeKeyser (ed.): Practice
in a Second Ldnguage: PerspectiuesfomApplied Linguistics and Cognitiue
Psychologt Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press. pp. IB0-207.
Paradis,J., E Genesee, and M. B. Crago. 2011. Dual Language
Deuelopment and Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second
Language Learning2ndedn. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Patkowski, M. 1980. ‘The sensitive period for the acquisition of syntax in a
second language.’ Language Learning 30 I 2: 449-7 2.
Pearson, B. Z. 2008 . Raising a Bilingual Child: A Step-by Sap Guide for
Parents. NewYork Living Language (Random House).
Piaget,J. 1951. Play DreAms, and Imitation in Childho¿l. NewYork:
Norton. (Originally published as Laformation du synnbole chez I’enfant.
Neuchátel: Delchaux et Niestlé.)
Pica, T. 1983. ‘Methods of morpheme quantification: Their effect on
the interpretation of second language data.’ Studies in Second Langudge
Acquisition 61 1: 69-7 B.
Pica, T 1994. ‘Research on negotiation: tVhat does it reveal about second
language acquisition? Conditions, processes, and outcom es’ Langaage
Learning 441 3: 493*527 .
Pienemann, M. 1988. ‘Determining the infuence of instruction on L2
speech processing.’ AIIA Reuiew 5ll:40-72.
Pienemann ,M. 1999. Language Processing and Second Language
Deuelopment: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ir77,
‘
V S-ge
:
1 ¡ 7 st tt nn&uu o t¡ tG¿ paa ddV
,’sluared3eapJo uaJplrq: Sulreaq oz’ltJo serpnts as¿J :lndur paprJlser
gryt Sururea¡ a8rn8uel, ‘I86I ‘uosuqof’W pue (p.reg ‘g (‘f (sqceg
‘y¡’uorg8r rg’ G 00 Z-H ) lg¿ SVflJNI
,’uoltrslnbce a8tn8ue¡ pllr{rJo lpnrs aqr ur suozrror{ 1treN, ‘6002 ‘C’,(o¿
‘tr/S-67r/’dd ‘a8pe¡rno¡ qroÁ
^\a ¡¡’uorlrunbty a8anSuaT puoras pup
nusmSut7 arturuSoSto ryoq?uvH:(‘spa) slllg ‘f, ‘N PuE uosulqo¡ A uI
-rr3J?eseJ JoJ senssr-uonf,nJlsur
Zj, pua’uolllslnble a8en8ur¡ puofas
‘srnsln8url arr,rluSo3 :uorsnlruo3, ‘8002 ‘slllfl’C ‘N put ¿’uosu¡go¿
‘sunue luag ugof :rueprasuty’&ututua7
a8un&uaT yattnutul ?u? saruata{tq pnpnryq’2007, ‘(‘pt) a’uosurqo¿
‘ZL-1g;1’dd’ssar¿ uorue8ra¿
qroÁ.&\eN ‘uorlrunbty a8an&uaT puotag ut atuanSfu¡ tgs7n3u71sso.t3
:(‘spa) qtFus poolv\reqs ‘htr pue ueurella) ‘g ul ,ssaco.rd Sulurea¡
e8en8ue¡ uSlaro3 er{r pur aruengur crrs¡n8ul¡ssor3, ‘986I ‘¡1 ‘ruoqEury
‘ gg-Z^’dd’ueuSuoT :uopuo’I’s1stlaua nttE’ (‘pa) spregcry'[
ul ,srsl¡eur rorre ol rprorddr e^nstnuor-uou V ‘7¿61 .[(spreqc¡¿
‘elureH PUE aluraH
:>lroÁ^/\aN ‘ruoo$sq) Tig/7sl aW ut sa{ag&uru.r?a7’;GGI ‘(‘pt) ‘[‘plaU
’08-6E I ‘dd ‘suru¡eluag ugof :ureprelsurv ‘&ututua7 aSan&uaT paunttsu¡
pua satuaufie pn?x(tx?uJ:(‘pa) uosurqo¿ A ul ruoorssel3 elll¿f,Iunultuof
aqr ur órtqe orrl¡zue a8en8uz¡ ,sreurealJo elor aql, ‘Z0OT,’-l (¿lrre¿
‘tl7-l6l igl6Z sruauor1¿to lautnof (?\el^er V izaue uI luef,f,e u8raroj3o
aa:3ap Suncage srorf,EC, ‘1gg¿ ‘eta¡g ‘g ‘[ pue ‘,fuyce¡41 ‘V ‘U ‘I ‘I ‘otlsld
‘r/rc-rce ‘dd
‘suruefuag uqof :ruepraruy ‘&urutaa7 qtaadg a3un3ua7 puoras u!
atuauadxE aSan&uuT:(‘spa) orunry ‘ntr pue uqog ‘O ur ,uoorss¿lc a8en8ue¡
u8raro3 aqr ro; r{f,ftaser s a8alg ‘g saruef3o suonecl¡duI,’ L00Z I’e{sld
‘
IIEH -ef, nuar¿ /lllrrel¡l : [¡ 5a,rr¡¡ alppes .radd¡
‘up¿ qtrz sfiaÁpoqrs ?up aruoH aql SututaaT pua aSan&uaT ‘9007,’L’rad¡¿
‘rnour,tof’aoer g’tJnof, JeH
qroÁ ./rcN rúasa g apnlg dV a7an&ua7 rn7 sut¿ a tll’ 99 Gl ¿’rne¡sru¡¿
‘
erz- Ll’, iZ | 0 I u oxtx sxn btV a&an&u?T ?u or aS
ur taryus <'tuerussess¿ a8en8ur¡ puof,es JoJ eJnpa3oJd paseg-uorrrs¡nbcr
ue 8un¡n¡lsuo3, '886i 'fa¡pu¡.rg'g pu? 'uoruqof '¡4¡ ('W (uuerueuerd
'
V I L- 6 L9'dd'¡a.,'qrelg :projxo
'uotusmbw a7an&uaT puotaglo Tooq?u?H aq1 :$pa) 3uo1 '¡1 'W PuE
óg8noq '['] rt ,bpede¡ Sursseoo¡d a8rn8uel, '€002'W (uueuraua¡¿
[qdatSouqry
242 Bibliography
SamudarV 2001. 'Guiding relationships berween form and meaning
during task performance: The role of the teacher' in M. Bygate, P. Skehan,
and M. Swain (eds.): Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning,
Teac hing, and Testing. London: Longman. pp. I 19-40.
Savignon, 5.1972. Communicatiue Competence: An Experiment in Foreign-
language Teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.
SchachterrJ.IgT4. An error in error analysis.' Language Learruing
2412:205-14.
SchachterrJ. 1990. 'On the issue of completeness in second language
acquisition.' Second Language Research 6 I I : 93-124.
Schieffelin, B. 1990. The Giue andThke of Eueryday Life: Language
Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schleppegrell,M.2004. The Langaage of Schooling. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, R. 1990. 'The role of consciousness in second language learning.'
Applied Linguistics | | I l: 17 -46.
Schmidt, R. 200 1 . 'Attention in P Robinson (ed.): Cognition and Second
Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-32.
Schulz, R. A. 2001. 'Cultural differences in student and teacher
perceptions concerning the role of grammar teaching and corrective
feedback USA-Colombia.' M o dern Language Journal 8 5 I 2: 244-58.
Schumann, J. 1979. 'The acquisition of English negation by speakers of
Spanish: a review of the literature' in R. \L Andersen (ed.): The Acquisition
and Use of Spanish and English as First and Second Languages. 'Washington,
DC: TESOL.
Schwartz, B.1993. 'On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting
competence and linguistic behavior.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition
15l2: t47-163.
Segalowitz, N. 2010. Cognitiue Basu of Second Language Fluency.
NewYork Routledge.
Seidlhofer, B. 201 l. UnderstandingEnglish as a Lingua Franca. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Selinker, L. I97 2.'Interlangua ge.' International Reuiew of App lied
Linguistics I0 I 2: 209-31.
Setter, J. and J. Jenkins. 2005.'Pronunciation.' Language Téaching
381 l: l-17 .
'rz-907,tT,19r
uoxtxsxnbJv a3?n3uu7 puotag m sax?us ('suJooJssEIJ Z-I ur suonsanb jo
ruaurdola,rep eql pue uorrrnJlsul, '966I 'rrraogrgEn.W U pue .¡.epedg
'uBIIrruc¿W :laupl5'suottaryddv
pua suoriuattuo7 3u7po2 :auaqrs uoxjpautqo SuTqtua¿ a&an&uaTlo
uoxtwuauo anuartunutÍao) aql'166I 'Ilrtlltgrd 'I I PuE 'N .epedg
'
9 €- tZZ :7 ¡ yV 3u 7 q n a¿ a&anSua 7 (' r{rrresal ernlnJ pue r uasa;d
'lsed uo suorpaga¡ :uononrtsur pasnf,oJ-ruroJ puolag, 'I I0Z .N (uped5
'
BZ-VI U ty I Grz ruarudopnaq pltr¡3
,'Sulurea¡ a8en8ur¡ puof,es ruo5 af,uapl,,rg :uortrsrnbce a8en8ue¡
ro3 porrad Ierrlrrf, ¿qL,'gL6I.elrlgHleEuuJeoH .I
tr pue .O .¡aous
' a,a n,u a 7 p1 !
D lo 4
o o q
?
u ? H a qr: (' sp a ) ;:Í;?il#H;: ',lri]:ü ?
ur (sesntJ l¡essacau pue 'sefueJaJ¡p ¡eruaudola^ep pue Fnpr^rpur
'Ár¡esra,uun '3urunl-aur¿ :rndul3o lpnrs agr ur sanssl, '966I .J (,llous
'lle,/vDlrelg :proJXO,(tTtapp o¡a¡ pua &urutaa7
aSan&uaT :juanas uto pug¡ aq1'E66i 'IIdruIsI'W'I pue 'N'rIrFuS
'salrrf,osry pue urneglJE aJuer,r\ET :f¡ 'qemqe7q
'l-I slo¡ 'a8an&uaTto [pwg tgsTn&ulssotJ ac['L661-SB6I 'I.1¡ ,ulgols
'B\z-t^'dd
' uolsur¿N pue'uer{eur¡¡'r1o¡1 qro¡,1r, a 6¡' I u a ru do1 a n a q a8a n&u a 7
?l?qJto saryas:('spa) ulqols 'I 'CI pue uosn8rag 'V'l ul ,reunurr8
3o rueurdola^ap eqr ro3 saus¡nba¡a¡d a,uuuSo J, ' g L6I 'I '6¡ 'qqols
'sr3or3-lrnrua3-u ora¡ddy qro¡ r'ra N u o x np rl a g I u q ¿
^'
LS 6 I g' g (.rauu¡x5
'PIourV Pr¿1r{Pg :uoPuoT
'&ututua7 aSun&uaT puotag ut satuata[tq !?n?!(ttpuJ'696I A .*.p{S
'surrue lua g uqof :y¿'erqd¡ape¡yrl
'&u1t¡caa¿ a&tnSuaT ur a"rod-to7 an oi moH 'rz0OZ'(pe) '¡4¡ 'f ..r¡e¡cu¡5
'o3ulerodrof,rla'esef,rru//:drrq 'ue8ryc1yr¡;o lrrsra.r.run ar{lJo srua8a¿ ag1
:JW 'roqrv uuv'(ESVf 1y¡l tlsu&uE ua4odg nruapwVlo sndtoS uu37c¡t7¡,r¡
aql '6661 'se1p¡as 'I4l '[ pue (suaag '[
'sEÍl¡.rg 'f 'S ") '¡ (uosdrur5
'r€.-e¡T:Zlze qr¿?atay Sulqtaa¿ a8anSuaT ('uroorssrlllsg eW ur
>llEqpaal a nrerror ualrrJ,r\ puB IEroJo srf,aJe IErruoraJICI, ‘0I02 X.uaaqs
’00t-€,9Tt8,18
c¡uaasa¿ &u1r,paa¿ a7an&u?1 ?uoJas,’s8uutas leuonf,nJlsur ssoJf,E sruooJSSEIf,
a^nrf,runruruoc ul a>prdn JauJEel pue >lleqpaeJ a uf,arro3, ‘9002 f,(ueaqs
‘6L-g9I :Zlgl uoxixsxnbty a3an3u?7 ?uoras ux sax?nts (‘sesrq lef,rreroeql
:V-IS parlnrlsul ur luaruaf,uer{ua rndu1, ‘e66I’W’qr¡u¡S poo¡arurls
,ft1dru&ouqry trTZ
244 Bibliography
Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbovm. 1999. ‘Instruction, Ll infuence and
developmental readiness in second language acquisition.’ Modern Language
JournalS3ll: I-22.
Spada, N. and P. M. Lightbown. 2002.’Ll andL2 in the education of
Inuit children in northern Quebec: Abilities and perceptions.’ Langtage
and Education 161 3: 21240.
Spada, N. andY. Tomita. 2010. ‘Interactions between type of instruction
and rype of language feature : A meta-analysis.’ Language Learning
6012:146.
Spada, N., P. M. Lightbown, andJ. L.’White. 2005.’The importance
of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focussed instruction in
A. Housen and M. Pierrard (eds.): Inuestigations in Instructed Second
Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 199-234.
Spada, N. andM. Santos Lima. 2010. ‘EFL and ESL teacher and learner
views about integrated and isolated form-focused instruction.’ Proceedings
of the IX International Conference of the Brazilian Association of Canadian
Studies: Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Spada, N., K. Barkaoui, C. Peters, M. So, and d Valeo ,2009.
‘Developing a questionnaire to measure learners’ preferences for isolated
and integrated form-focused instruction.’ System, 37 I I : 7 0-Bl.
Spada, N., L.Jessop,\ü[. Suzuki,Y. Tomita, anddValeo. 2009. The
Contributions of Isolated and Integrated Form-Focused Instruction
on DifferentAspects of L2 Knowledge and Use. Paper presented at the
American Association for Applied Linguistics: Denver, CO.
Spielmann, G. and M. J. Radnofslcy. 2001. ‘Learning language under
tension: New directions from a qualitative study.’ Mod.ern LanguageJournal
8512:259-78.
Storch, N. 2002. ‘Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work.’ Language
Learning52lI: ll9-58.
Swain, M. 1985. ‘Communicative competence: Some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development’
in S. Gass and C. Madden (eds.): Input in Second Language Acquisition.
Rowle¡ MA: Newbury House. pp. 235-53.
Swain, M. 198S. ‘Manipulating and complementing content teaching to
maximize second language learning.’ TESL Canada Journal 6 I l: 68-83.
Swain, M. 2000. ‘The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating
acquisition through collaborative dialogue’inJ. P. Lantolf (ed.):
Sociocubural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
Universiry Press. pp. 94-114.
‘Ir-gZZ ;ZltI uorlxsxnbty a3un3ua7 ?uoras w tax?us ,.Sursseoord
rndul pue uonf,nrlsur u:l¡dxg, ‘€66I .ourrlpuC .I pu” .g .uenu¿uu¡
‘Ig,-9’dd ‘saterf,ossvpue tunrglrg aruer^l.E I
:[¡ ‘qenqeyr¡ ‘tta1uaruruo7 ?up ‘tfr?asay ‘ttoaql :uotltntlsu¡ Suxstarot¿
:(‘pe) uarre¿ur¡’g q ,VIS ul Sulssaco¡d lndu1, ‘rz001.g6ua$e¿ue¡
‘6e-609 tvtr€
uotUvnbtV a&un&uaT puotag ux sax?us,’ruerSord Surprar pue Suluers¡ e ul
uoIlBIf, unuo ñ 71 3o ruaurdolartap aql :a3nf,Brd paseq-uolsuaga;duo3,
‘599¿’tuo5’H PuE’¡alPH’H “lI (u¡üogrqSn’W
u’a’qc¡,rougo.r¡
paqddy;Bu,urudprorn,ü-,p;lli;Í!i”ii?::’:(:3:#í
puof,es pue a^ntu ur Surssaro¡d proru.-ua>1ods, ‘1002 ¿ (qcr,rourgo.r¡
‘1207-IBI:T,l9I
uotlrsmbty aSan&uaT puotag ry saryus (‘ruooJsstlr a8enSue¡ puoles eql
u¡ uorldruaard pue eruepl^a e rlrsod, ‘866I ‘erlrltf,’-I pu?’I4I’fe{BJI
‘sJeuBW ¡rn8ur¡rr¡n¡rr¿ :uopJ al3 zJxpl¿¿ utoo”tsspl)
?u” tuotrylav ppos ,(rytuap¡ :lootps w qsnSuE Sututpa7 ‘ o00z 1¡ .faqoo¡
3pd’srsaqr-qr{d-90 I 1 6¿-olnse¡-etltuoJ
I I I Z6g6Z I L08 I /ueensrlg/ef, ‘otuororn dre.rgrT’arrdsr¡¡:sdrrq’otuorol
3o lrrsra,lru¡ ‘srsaqr paqsl¡qndu¡ ‘uorleJrunrutuo3 Z’I ur tuawtsalul
reurca’I :uorrrnrtsul pasnroC-rrrrogJo alo¡ erll ‘I 1g¿ ¡tr¡tuo¡
‘
9 6-egT :Y ¡ E ru u7 un3u11 1g
puy uotprnpg pn&ufllg,’oeqan| f,nf,rv ur asn put ÁUq” aSen8ue¡
pa,uarrad;o suralled, ‘ggg¿’au¡dl\frry’T pue (uo.ru3’I
I “C’.ro¡fu¡
‘ssar¿ &rs.ra,uun proJxo
:proJxo z&un&ua7 uutuaT &uuo1d*E ‘6OOZ ‘ulqzral¡as ‘g pue ‘g (auore¡
‘8Lt-99r t7,t6L
pumof a8un&u?7 uD?oW (‘sruooJsselJ uorsJarurur ul asn a8en8utl-puof,as
uo a.r.¡t:eds¡ad rrrsrn8ul¡orf,os V ‘166I ‘u¡e,ras’I I pue ‘g (euo.re¡
‘sraDEW ¡enSunr¡nyr¡
:
Iolslr g’ sa ru1 atn¡¡ t¡&n oil/ I u o x p n? o”tl uI uV : u o uw np E a8a n&upT ? u o r a S
pua ttoaql prrulwoxros’0I02 ‘ueruu¡ars’T pue (reauurv
U “I tr’ur-E¡as
‘
r0e-987, :r-c I Le qrwatau lyuott?rn?fl
to putnof puzxlnu#lul (‘uoItEInuJoJa¡ ol asuodsal (sJauJeal uolsJauruJl
r{ruerC orn¿:q8norgr u 8uq¡e¡, ‘7,007,’undtl1”S pue’¡r\¡ rure,rg
‘9t-gtt, :E ¡7g putnof a7un&uaT ura?ory
, raqtaSot 8uq¡ozvt sluepnts uorsJeruurr rlJueJC luaJselope ozvt¡ :Sulurea¡
e8enSuq puoras pur uonrtretul ‘866I ‘u¡rydu1’S pue’I [‘u¡u¡as
,ft1dat&ouqq svz
246 Bibliography
VanPatten, B. andJ.tülilliams (eds.). 2007. Theories in Second Ldnguage
Acquisition: An Introduction.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates.
Vygotslry, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
‘Wajnryb, R.1992. Classroom ObseruationTashs: A Resource Boohfor
Language Teac h ers and Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press.
‘W’alker, R. 2010. Tbaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vatson-Gegeo, K. L 1992. ‘Thick explanation in the ethnographic study
of child socialization: A longitudinal study of the problem of schooling
for Kwara ae (Solomon Islands) children’ in \í. A. Corsaro and P. J. Miller
(eds.): Interpretiue Approaches to Childreni Socialization. Special issue of New
Directionsfor Child Deuelopment 58: 5l-66.
Werker, J. E, W’. M. W’eikum, and K. A. Yoshida. 2006. ‘Bilingual
speech processing in infants and adults’ in P. McCardle and E. Hoff(eds.):
Childhood Bilingualism: Research on Infancy through School Age. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. pp. 1-l B.
Wesche, M. B. 1981. ‘Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching
students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems’ in K. Diller
(ed.): Indiuidual Dffirences and Uniuersals in Language LearningAptitude.
Rowle¡ MA: Newbury House. pp. 119*39.
rü7hite, J. 1998. ‘Getting the learners’ attention: A rypographical input
enhancement study’ in C. Doughry and J.
\Williams (eds.): Focus on Form in
Classroom SIA. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press. pp. 85-113.
White,J. 2008. ‘speeding up acquisition of his/her. Explicit LllL2
contrasts help’inJ. Philp, R. Oliver, andA. Mackey (eds.): Second Language
Acquisition and the Younger Learner: Child’s PlayiAmsterdam: John
Benjamins. pp. 193-228.
‘White,J.
and P. M. Lightbown.l9B4. ‘fuking and answering in ESL
classes.’ Canadian Modern Language Reuiew 4012:228-44.
White, L.1987. Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and
the development of L2 competence .’ Applied Llnguistics B: 95-110.
\ü7hite L. 1989. Uniuersal Grammar and Second LanguageAcquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
White, L. 1991. Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some
effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom.’ Second Language
Research T 12: 133-61 .
‘
lB-09 I tZ I 9 uoxtcxnbtV aSan&uaT ?uoras ux sar?as,’srualsls
a8en8uel;arul pue a8uegc orrsrn8utljo lapour e^r.^a aql ‘rg6l’g”lquz
‘
Lt-er/ :1 ¡ gg SututaaT a8an&uuT ,’uollrsrnbce Z-I uo
aruangur 113o lrr,rrnalas ptuaudola^aP PuE IEruroJ eq1. ‘086I ‘1¡’lqvz
‘ssar¿ llsra,uun proJxo :proJxo ‘yooqpupH
,¿aqrpal úalnqaco¡ V :a7papouy ?toA ‘G007, ‘g ‘3 (uerurevrurq
‘9t-6tS :V¡gy8uru.raa7
aSan&uaT (‘aloJ a^nJEJaruI pue bualcgo-rd3o lf,age erT, :uoIlJEJelut. Z-I
ur slrrguor lelruaraJar 8ut,rlosa¡, ‘066I ‘PPuoPf,tI J'(I Pu¿’g’eInL
‘OI-71Z i, | 6€ arxiror¿ otut [.roaq1 (¿peuraruor
eq srotef,npe ppoqs :sa8en8ue¡ fpuegSo sso-I, ‘0002 ‘T (arourllld Euo4(\
‘BZ-71T ‘dd ‘ssar¿ rrruapef,V :>lroÁ.^aeN
uotn?qag a8anSuaT pua [.t117qy a&rn&uaT ux sarua¿agxe pnru(tryul
:(‘spa) ra¡drua;¡ ‘CI pue ‘3ue7¡, Á’S-‘lA.’arourlll{ ‘[‘J tl ¡otttsnbce
a8enSue¡ puof,es ur seruaraglp lBnpr^rpul ,’6L61’1 (a.rourfiIü tuo4(l
‘re-|rz’dd’e Le
satuanglo [wapacV 4″to¡ ma¡¡ arpto slpuuv qro ./deN ‘uotvunbtya&an&uaT
uStato¿ pua aSan&uuT aa1ta¡¡ :(‘pe) alurlN’H u_l ,uoplslnbce a8rn8ue¡
Jo 1nrarl pagrun V :spsralrun ¡euotttsmbce a8en8uel, ‘I 86I ‘H ‘”Por1(\
‘
n- rcI’dd’asno¡1 l.rnqrc¡ :y¡t¡’falzu,o¡
s&uryaa¿lo 4oog V:uoxtrcmbtyaSan&u?7 ?uoras:(‘pa) rpe¡1 ‘ntr ‘E ul
.uonrsrnbce Z’I f,rlsrprnlru uI seruanbas ¡eruarudola^aq,’ g L(rI’¡¿.'”Po¿S.
‘T,e-gr,tilzl
sutnn&utT pa!1 ddy,’ uor.tr.slnbce 71 u,(tentre rlt¡eluls Pue tueuaf, uel{ua
rndu1, ‘I66I ‘¿tuEU’T pue’ulogrq8¡1’¡4J ¿ (upeds’N ”T’allrld(\
‘ssar¿ ólsre.tru¡ a8p¡rqrue3 :a8puqrue3
t?ururug ps¿aaxul) ?uv uoxlxsxnbcV a8an&ua7 ?uoras ‘8.007,’1 (arF[¿C\
[qdat3o71qq L’Z
9z (saa’IIHI)
urarsls eSuBr{f,xg ¿l¿C agengu¿’I pilr{J
ü€-f uonrsmb¡¿ a8en8uel p¡rgc
Ztn’ L-92 qraads parrarrp-p¡rqc
sf,nslJelf,¿J”r{f,
Jeuftel 2at sJeuJ”al Jo sf,JlsrJelf,?J?r{f,
lndur peUrporu
lgreads parca.rrp-plJrp rrr lIEt re{?teref,
z-rf (&uarcyo.rd
a8enSuzl rrruopef,” r nruSof,) dTVJ
31rc’€tt 8u¡8erur
frr a8en8ue¡ pue Suruonrury
UI?Jq
€9 spro.u,pe,v\orroq,
l-ül,r uorsraurur ¡enp
rf Sulgcl.tr.s apoc
9 uoltrsmbf,? a8en8ue¡ p¡rqc
€-o€ rusrTenSurlg pooqpp{l
3ürz rusl¡en8urtlq
31rc \Lt serurue¡8o¡d uonef,npe IEnBulIq
z-r€ (s¡rrs
uoDe)runu¡rrroc Teuos:ed;arur rlspq) SlIg
olt’t–o6 srrureel Jo sJaIIsq
t-(.ot ‘LS 8u1u:ea¡ a8enSue¡ puores ur
6r-ir uolrrsrnbce a8en8ur¡ rs;g ur
qreordde
pn8urlolpne os1u aas ?€rc usrrnor Er{ag
96 realord .rorre¿ a8y ruolarreg
8( ‘l’ (sarnrEeJ rlmulpJo) aruEplo^E
6-3or Anperuorne
6oz s¡erreteur f,lruar{rne
Ég srauea¡,lrolpne
?Ítz’ 9 uopeuyulrrsrp,Gor¡pne
31.rc’S6t
‘ 6-lSt’lot’99 qreordde ¡en8urrorpnr
g*l,g .sraurea¡ (sapntnr?
Srzz’6gr
‘l-tgr ‘LLr ‘lrr srsaqrodlq 8ur¡nou
6_s o r saunosa; *”.lrJ;lir,”
9-ll (sq:a,r3o) rcadse
L–og’ gL Surureal e8en8ue¡’apnrrrdr
9or’ror ‘oor ’98 ‘lg óaxue
B€rc ‘€z (15y) a8en8uq u8rg uerr.reury
lg uonenunuo.rd uo toage ‘lor{ol1e
9–26 nurce¡¡o
i”hr stserarSo uoneta.rd:atur pue
6-96 se?en?uel puof,es ur uorlrnrlsur pue
üÉ-l uortrsrnb:¿ a8enSuel p¡q:
9St ’96 ‘f6 sreur”al rlnpe
a3e
9or srsaqrodfil ratlg e^ntraJr
9Or ltraJ3
Sgr’l9t’6-9l ruatuareld grar’pe
L-92 u onte tatur p¡q>-rlnpe
lrraqnd osla aas 9-(.6’lg srau.rea¡ tuerselope
?trc’i.l ursqen8urnq a plpp?
6-g rsar ,8mr, aqr rno,{.rr
z–oet
stdr¡rsu¿¡t uoDf,Elatur tuapnts-JJq3eal
zr-nz uorurdo ¡nol r¡oddns
roz suotutdo ¡nol .¡tLana.¡
L_SL
a¡uauadxo Sulurea¡ a8en8ue¡ uo tf,3gel
66 ssac¡ns Surureel a8en8url
pue satruaraglP PnPplPu¡ uo rf,euar
ü-€ Sulu;ra1
eSen’uel rnoqe sr ua.”a.”¿;
;:.’.:”.tT*
Surg:ar qlr^{ sanrlrlf,¿ ¡errSo8epad qoeru
ro3 uonen o’au
=Í:í’,,’x#ií:t
eJualuas ot P”al sanf, ,,rrrrJ¡p
^oq
,” 1oo¡
lf Sururea¡
e8enSur¡ puof,rs roJ sueluoJ a.ro¡dxa
l,or ¡epo¡4¡ rorluotrAl ar{t eurüexe
l-üzr s¡xatuoo 3ururca¡ e¡¿druo¡
z-rl suonsanb,s;aureal asl¡eue
| -ft e?enBuq :aurea¡ asl¡eue
B €rc’ s 9rt”,”rrl’,. itjlil]i
31rc’lSt qf,r?eser uonf,”
Sltz’l6t’9or sseqrodfg SurureolTuonrsmbce
Bltz ‘g-9t rap:o óe;ncce
Sltz’ rgr’l-il lqrre.rarq lr¡¡qrssacce
Lrr (sruoru8a5 qcaadg
IBltuassa Jo slxaluo] 3^r]¿f,runluu¡o]
ur uopuzwruolnv) SSEIIV
16’o6’tL’oL-69 a3enBuel puof,es ur ‘lueroe
‘Jrqrunu aSed aql .rag.e .3, lg ur’toqs ere sornue lrrssolS
XECINI
250 Index
children
first language 5-34
second language 9z-9
choice motivation 87-8
chunks ro, fir, 2oz, zr4g see also formulaic
language
clarification requ€sts rr4, r4o, r88
classrooms
classroom instruction and individual
differences 9z-6
classroom learning 39
classroom observation schemes iz9-49,
214g
and learning pragmatics 67-8
methods of teaching and learning 153-99
motivation in the classroom 88-9
closed questions r47
co-construction Ir9
code switching 3r
cognates 61, zr4g
cognitive development, and the
interactionist perspective 24-t
cognitive linguistics z8-9, rro-rr, rr3-r8
cognitive maturity 37-8, zt4g
cognitive psychology ro8-r8
collaboration
collabo¡ative dialogues rt9, t89, zr4g
collaborative interaction r68
see a lso learner-learner interactions;
pair work
communicative confidence 86
CLIL (content and language-integrated
learning) r47, t7r, ztjg
CLI (communicative language teaching) zrSg
and aptitude testing 8o
compared to structure-based inst¡uction
r56-7
and phonolory 68
and pragmatics 67
reacher-student i n teraction transcripts
rj2-1
use ofdisplay questions r4t-6
Communicative Orientation of language
Teaching (COLI) rzq
competence, linguistic vs communicative
t58-9, zr5g
compedtion model rrr-r3
comprehensible input ro6, r65-7r
and authentic materials zog, zrjg
‘just listen … and read’ ry9-65
and modified interaction rr4
and the Monitor Model ro6-7
comprehensible output hypothesis Í4, rrg,
165, zr5g
comprehension-based instruction ry9-r65,
ztrg
comprehension checks rr4
conditional mood r7o, r88
connectionism z8-9, zt5g
content-based language teaching (CBLT)
zr5g see also immersion programmes
content and language-integrated learning
(CLIL) ryZ, r7r,2rrg
focus on usage r24, 127-9,2rt_ll
‘get two for one’ r7t-7
and increasing the time available for
language study r48
learning verb forms in science class r88
and pragmatics 67
and recasts (not noticing) r4r
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (C,AH)
41-t, 47, 57, 68, ro4, zr5g
control groups rj7, 2rjg
corpus linguistics 72, zoz, zt6g
corrective feedback z169 see also recxts
clarification requests r4o
contextual importance r43
effect on oral production r94
elicitation r4r
error correction in communicarive
instructional settings r27-8
explicit correction t4o, zo8, zro-rt
and first ianguage acquisition zoz-3
and’get it right in the end’r8z-95
and the innatist perspective Io5
and the interaction hypothesis r67
learner beliefs about 9r
metalinguistic feedback r4o-r, 41-4, rg-4
negative feedback in learner-learner
interactions r7o, r7l
positive reinforcement 14
repetition r4r
self-correction vs other correction I94
srudying corrective feedback in the
classroom r39-45
timing of corrective feedback r94
uptake rl9, 14r, r4z, t88, zz4g
written corrective feedback 144-5
correlation 77-8, z16g
counterbalance hypothesis r43, z16g
Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) zz-4,
9z-6, z169
cross-cultural research, into fi¡st language
acquisition z6-9
crossJinguistic influence 59-6o, zt6g see
also Contrxtive Analysis Hypothesis
(CAH)
bi-directional 59-6o
(ügC) Surqcear aSenSue¡ paseg
-lurtuof, :(Ill) Surqr¿er aSen8ue¡
a nef,runruruot osq aas SuynJru uo snroJ
uollrnJlsul PJsnf,oJ-ruJoJ aat utJoJ uo snf,oJ
z€ 3o uorrerardJelur ua>Ietsnü
l,Í saqreordde rlnef runruruo:)
ur l¡e¡nr¡e aro3aq Sulu;ea1
8rr ÁIf,It”tuotnE sE
lcuang
)ruengur crlsrnSu¡-sson aas o9-LS
Sururea¡ a8en8url puotres uo ef,uangur
09-61 (Duangur JusmSurl
-sso:r) a8en8uel puoras lq paruangur
loz’9Lt’SLt’fLt
‘L6’l–ze suonentrs tuer8runur ur r1
Jo lueuJdole eP PanuDuof Jo elwuodrur
tt-\ ,(1¡eteut? Jo uortrsrnbre
?Ln (a8en3uel
a,uteu ‘an8uol raqlou ‘r1) a3en3ue1 rs:g
3l,rz ‘€g sa/rs
Surureal rurpuodap p¡agTtuapuadapq plrg
olr s?laleJ
IregPeeJ r lttrrrro3 rrr PBqPraJ
É9 sareuSoc as¡e3
9-üg uors;arronx:
ztz’ (. 6r a8paytr.ou¡ l¡rldxa
3 Ltz’l-f3t sarpnrs Teruaurrradxa
3-Lg uorteallour a Dnf,axa
3 Ltz’tS-6tt fqde:Sougra
o6-69’rL’ol, uorrerlgre dnor8 rruqra
otr uo >If,?qPreJ rarp”al
zü s¡o¡.¡a p]ry1 ot J€purs
sJauJsJ] a8en8uel puocas fq Jp¿ru srolJe
lzl tpeotdde srslpue ro.r.ra
orr’95’tt ssarSo.rd3o uSrs e ag uer
gl ‘lü óuen5ord tou ‘of,uepro e
or Jnp og deru sro:ra3o a3uJsqe
>ll”qPaeJ a rDe.r.rof, os/p
‘as
sJotJe
9-lzr s8untas uonrsrnbrr ¡ernleu
l-iz a,urcads¡ad rs¡uop:erarur aqr pue
oz a,rlloads.rad tspeuur Jr{r pue
6r-ir a¡l¡ads.rad rs¡rnor,reqaq rr{r put
6-gtr’gzr’69
‘gÉ rwr.rodurr (aun) a.rnsodxaJo lunoure
rndul
Ísruoorsself, osla aas aBen?u¿l ‘tuaruuotrlua
3Ln
‘€-z9r lueruecu?qua tndur/ rndur pof,u?r{ua
r/ (C’IE) ecuer3 en8ur¡ e se rlsrt8uE
Ég rsar sa.rnSg papprqu¡a
ggr’rh uo¡rerlct1a
olr ’16 srxrluof,’ISE s ‘ICE
‘6-96’16 Sururea¡ a8en8uel ro3 uzis l¡.reo
xa?uI
l-iLr uorsraruur ¡enp
Soz’git uonf,nlsur or qreordde ,paa3 drrp,
g-1.fi s¡up a¡lr¿-rd u¡olr¿d
9ir suonsanb le¡dsrp elrllup
/rr saqreordde rsunor^eqaq pue
g-Llr sJlpp uraled pnSur¡orpne
31rc’ 6-Slt’orr r,rorrrr.rl r”l5li!
zg saSen8trel puoras Sulu;re1 ur
o€-62 uorrrsrnb:e a8en8ue¡ rs-rg ut
slelop ptre srrprosrp
sa8en8ue¡ 3o sauau?A,rJ slf,eprp
96t ‘zg-LLt,e]qer{f,Ert sr t¿rl1y\ r{rÉr, pue
LS-SV Álynut? uo¡trsmbr¿ aSen8ue¡ puocas
l-ül sasnep e nEIrrJo
zr-or uoDEurJoJ uoDsanb
69 uonenunuord
L-99 scneut3etd
É-zl s¡au¡ru¡a¡ap a,rrssassod
6-9l’ot uolt¿3au
l,-91 (ruaudo¡a.r.ap
a8en8ue¡ puocas) g8norqr tuetua our
g-LSr’g-9t’6-1, saruaqd:our ¡eoneruuzr8
r–ogr ‘L\ a8en8uel
puof,as uo aruangur a8en8uel rsrg
zt-9 ,(11etaua? uonrsmbf,? aSen8uel rs.rg
of-62 s(epp pu¿ sraprosrp
g-LSr
adÁ uorrcn¡¡sur or Sulprof,re rueraglp
3 Ltz’ L Lt sarnl?{ ¡eruarudole,rap
fl s¡o¡.ra ¡eruarudola,rep
li sanlre¡urs a8en8uel-sso-rc
?€tz ‘S-tS lgrrc;arq Ár¡rgrssacce
3l,rz saruanbes Teruauldola,rap
39rc’lh sarpnrs e,rndr:rsap
o€-62 ruaudola,rap a8en8ue¡ pa&¡ap
z8 uoDf,nJlsur a Df,nPaP
39tz ’16r ‘ Ltt ‘6ot eSpa¡r”rou¡ r^u¿re]rrp
Lz’tz nuand yap
8-lz uo’f”J,,u,
1? l1ilxl il:
Éz srsar¡rodf¡1 polrrd TErnrrJ eqr pu?
uerPlrqrJ?rP
39rc ’99
(8
srrpnts puorlras-ssorl
69 uonenunuord pue
9rr AUg¿dBr Surssarord pw
9-Soz’ 9gt’t8r’ l9r’ LV’S-W
‘zü ,sro:.ra, Sursner JáJsueJl a8en8ue¡ rsrg
9l-8t sesnEll
aane¡er’,tsed o¡ Jf,ueJaJar,’suonsenb
‘sa¡ussassod’uo¡re8au3o tuauldola ep
Surrragre saSenSw¡ tsrg ¡urreJrp
ogr sa8ets ¡eruarudo¡a,tap pur
t9z
252 Ind.ex
and the behaviourist perspective r8-r9
and the competition model rrr
‘get it right in the end’ r8z-95
and lack ofaccvfacy rg,
negotiation for meaning u4, rz8, t3o,
165-6, zzrg
and pronunciation 7o
foreigner talk 39, zrTg
Foreign tanguage Classroom Anxiety Scale 85
foreign language le:rr ning zt7 g
form-focused instruction zrSg see ako
corrective feedback
beneficial in content-based instruction r73
and’get it right in the end’r8z-95
useful in some circumstances 196-7
formulaic language ztSg see also chunks
at early stages oflearning 56
and information-processing model ro9
much language learned as rrr
in second language errors 44
and uh- questions 12
fossilization 43, t57, zrSg
fronting, question formation ry 49-5t, r78
function words 7, 43, ztSg
gende¡ grammatical,29, 523, t87
‘Geme’zz-3
generalisation 42, 44, ztSg
genuine qu€stions ryo,45-9, ztSg
gestural (sign) language z3
‘get it right from the beginning’154-9,
t66, t95
‘get it right in the end’ r8z-95
‘get two for one’ r7r-7
grammar
in babies’first utterances 7
grammatical gender 29,521, t87
gammadcality judgements 9i, 106, zrSg
grammatical morphemes, child
acquisition of 7-9, zr8g
grammatical morphemes, second
language acquisition of 46-8
learner beliefs about grammar instrucdon 9r
obligatory contexts 46-8, t58, zzrg
grammar translation methods 8o, tz6,
154-9, r95,2r8g
grammaticality judgement 9j, 106, 2rg1
group work r7o,2o9 see also p^r wotk
habits r4, ro4
human input, need for 6, z8
identiry 7o, 89-9o
imitation
and first language acquisition rt-r9
and the behaviourist perspective r4-r9
and second languages 4i, zor-L
immersion programmes 79-80, r28, r4z, t7r,
172-5, t87-g,2rgg
immigrants
importance of continued development of
Lr 3z-3, 97, r74, r75, 176, zo4
second language acquisition 79, 89-go,
94,9t’ r7r
implicit knowledge r93
individual differences 75-ror
inductive instruction 8r-z
information-processing model ro8-ro, zrgg
information questions (genuine questions)
13o, 145-9
inhibition 8+-t
Initiation/Response/Evaluation (IRE)
exchanges rz6
innatist perspecrive on child language
acquisition 2o-4, ro4*7, zrgg
inprr zrgg see aáa comprehensible input;
modified input
floodúz-1, zrgg
arnount of exposure (time) important 38,
69, tz8, t48-9
enhanced input/input enhancement 16z-3
frequency ofencounters with new
material is important 6z
in the innatist perspective on child
language acquisition zr
input flood t623, ztgg
input hypothesis ro6
input processing rr6
the ‘logical problem of second language
acquisition ro5
structured input 8r-z
instruction (teaching)
age and second language instruction 96-9
amount and distribution of time available
r48
‘drip feed’vs intensive r48, zo5
explicit instruction and pragmatics 67-8
explicit instruction and pronunciation
70-r
explicit instruction and vocabulary
learning 64
and the innatist perspective ro5
instructed vs uninstructed learners 46-7
instructional programmes and aptitude
profiles 8r
instructional seftings rz4-9 see also
classrooms
teachabiliry hypothesis r77-82
instrumental motivation 87, ztgg
inregrated Form-focused instruction r9r
integrative motivation 87, zrgg
intelligence 79-80, zoj
8-18
8uru.real a?en8url puotros ur rlqerrel sB
6-99 sacrreerd leuone DouJ .s]Jqreal
ü-foz ssamns 3o :otctpa:d t sle.,lrTe rou
g-l,g uorrradsortal uoll?Aporu
8OZ UOIIfeJJOf, e rSSaJxa PrrE
gl, Surqcreasa.r ur senprlglp
:3eneue¡ r’ g rrr rr’,a,:otrtTrlil:il
3rc2′ g-91′ 6-L lnnevsusu.rS’satuaqd:ou
gtt’ L-9ot (r+ z) ¡apo¡l¡ rotluory
S9r’6lr ‘lrr rndtno paglpotü
rndul pegrporu :I*qpaal a ltrarrol
oqa aas Sozz’lrr uon¡¿¡alur paypouJ
6€ lTer :ar¡rear
ürr lndul a¡g¡suaqarduroo pue
9zr s8urlas uoDrs¡nbor pJnt?u ur
rndur pegrporu :Ireqpaal r ntrarrof,
os1a aas Sozz’irr uonc¿¡elul pegporu
ol,r suoD¡e¡atur JeuJeel-Jeuleel ur
?Lrc’6ln¡u rauSraroS
3 Lrc’ É-z9t lndul pef,u?I{ua
9h’t-lLr (ffg¡)
Surqrear e8en8uel peseq-tuetuof, ur
g-Lzr (fi))
Surgeuar a8en8ue¡ a ltsf,runruruoJ ur
L1z rpeads por)arrp-plql
g-Loz 1o slyeueq
Sozz lndur pegryoru
o8
OVtru) rsa¡ apnrrrdy a8en8uel u:apoy4¡
Sozz’L9’99 uorre8ruu
uonetrurr oqa aas l-fot Lrcnurru
€r s.ra¡ooqcs-a.rd ur
gf s;aureal replo pue
t-egt’ Étt’r–oür ¡reqpaaS rnsrn8utptaur
r€ usr¡en8urtrg pue
Sozz sseue¡e¡tte r¡rs¡n8u¡Teraru
Sozz’ e6t srsf ¡euu-erau
r–og lrreedtr l¡ou¡au¡ 8ur¡.lo¡’t
ol, spro.,’r rtlau 3ur¡at.¡la¡
ü-€ot uonezr¡oruaru
or-6or
¡aporu Surssacord uoneruro3ur rql pu”
,Gouatu
Sulueau uo snf,oJrrs uo sn3oJ’Surueau
Bozz
‘6h’96 ’65’gg ‘6’g-1, serpnrs Teurpnrr8uo¡
rl, se qsrfug ‘ecuer3 rn8urt
rl,-f9r ¡Ter s,re1,
t6r’9ot uorr¡s¡nbcz s,r Suturea¡
oü-gf suorrrpuor Sururea¡
6oz’oL-L9t
‘ 6-S€t’ gzt’6rr suorDe¡elul lauJ€el-rauleal
€.sT, xzpul
l,-ll, spoqrau qf,rersal
I–O8I urBsl ol ssaurPsJJ
9-üg lrrTeuos-rad
ü-€3 sa¡lrs Suru:ea¡
o Lt’t–o6 sJarleg JauJ?al
€-og apnrnde Suru.rea¡ a8en8ue¡
o9-61, aoua8rqerur
o6-69’oL uonErIStB dno;8 pue lrrruapl
z6 uopcn.nsur ruooJsself, pue
6-Lg’oL uont rtoru pu? sepnrnte
9–26 e?e
g-Ll ‘(lptaua?
sf Dsrjetf, ElErlf JeuJ¿e]
Lz ¡t or.lYzr.lzrt os a8enSue¡,
Sozz’69r (sE¡1) saposrda pare¡ar-a8rn8url
f-og apnrnde Sururral a8en8url
af,uanuur
onsrn8urT-sso¡r osTo aas 69 af,u”lsrp a8rn8uel
oÉ-Gz lG-pp pu” srrprosrp a8en8uel
s¡¡urnb¡s
¡eruarudo¡arlap aas J¿pJo uorlrslnb:e aSen8uel
Ig srau;ea¡ f,llaql$¿uDl
S9-6St ,ptu pue “‘ uarsq rsnf,
r6r uontrnJlsul pJsnroJ-rüJoJ pJtelosr
Loz ‘og-gL (rua¡ronb arueSqerur) |¡
o6-69 (8uru.real ur;eurea¡3o) turunsr ur
É9 f:e1nqe:or’ leuon?uralur
iz,saerdope leuou¿uJelul,
uoDf,eJatur rrs slotnf, ollalur
9-19 sorreruSe.rd a8rn8uel.rarur
g-1,fi puruurSaq aqr tuo{ tq3¡.r u ra8, pue
ft,\¡enua?
Sozz a8en8uel.rarur
Jf, uJnuur trltsFSuJl-ssoJf ,rJ af,uaJeJJalur
61, Surgr.reasa; uagr’r’
tunof,f,E otu¡ Sunras prf,os J>l”r ol paau
rndur pagrpou rrr uonreretur pegporu
6oz ‘oL-69t ‘6-Stt
‘ gzt’ 6tt suonf,?laluI JauJEal*JauJEa]
l9-6fi sagerordde
.ppar pue ”’ uatsrl tsnl, urJo >pEI
l-üz uonrsrnbr¿ a8enSuel p¡qr
‘ar’n¡ads¡ad Teruarudo¡a,rap /tsruorpeJatur
36rz’ol-69t
‘L9t ‘S9t ‘grr ‘frr slsagrodfq uonr?raur
g-lz uonlsmbce
a8en8uel tsJg ur uorltrpJetu¡3o arueuodur
tL-S9t’tu üonf,?Jalur l¿uo]t”sJa uof,
6gt’6u sanSoplp a neroq?ilor
uollf,?Jelut
Soz’gtt
sloporu uonf,nJrsul ,paal drrp, srr, alrsuelul
36rz ‘z9r’8trISE a rsualur
rL uoner¡unuo.rd3o ¡eo8 se’ft¡rqr8rqarul
254 Index
Motivation Orientation of Language
Teaching (MOLT) 88
multicompetence (as better goal than native
abiliry) 96
multiple intelligences 8o
nadve language sra first language
narive-like abiliry 68, 7r, 96, zzrg
native speaker J, 24, 42, 5t, 67, 69, 7t, 94,
96, 97, u4, 126, t4S, zzrg
natural acquisition settings rz3-9
natural order hypothesis ro6, zxg see also
developmental sequences
negation
child acquisition of 9-ro
second language learning 48-9
negat¡ve feedback ¡¿r clarification requests:
corrective feedback
negotiation for meaning il4, r28, Vo, t6j-6,
2218
negotiation of form r19, zztg see also
form-focused instruction
neurological research rr3
noticing hypothesis ttj, r77, t83-4, r89, zzrg
object pronouns 164
obligatory contexts 46-8, r58, zztg
observation
ethnography r49-5r
observation schemes rz9-48
open quesdons r47
order of acquis ition zztg see developmental
sequences
overgeneralization errors zzrg
and the behaviourist perspective r8-I9
in first language acquisition rz
and the information processing model lo
in pronunciation 68-9
in second language learning generally 44
pair work 168-9, r7o, zo9
paraphrasing lr4, r47 see abo recxts
parent-child interaction z6-7
past tense 55-6, r73
pattern practice drills ry7-8, zztg
patterns in language, learning r8
peer group, learning from t9 see also
learner-learner i nteractions
perception ofsounds 69, 7o
perceptually-based learning styles 83
performance rz, 4j,7r,79,8j,94, 96, ro7,
rt7, 186, zztg
personal characteristics of learners see Iearner
characteristics
personaliry 84-6
phonemic distincdons zzzg
infants’ abiliry 6
second language learners 69
phonology 68-7r, zo6
polyglot savant 8l
positive reinforcement r4
possessive determiners 46-8, 521, 163
power relationships 7o, 89
Practice
and the behaviourist perspective r4-r9
and cognitive perspectiv€s rr7
pragmatics zzzg
importance of lear ning zo7
interlanguage pragmadcs 6t-6
polite pronouns ry3, t87
registers (different language for different
situations) 4, ry3, t87, zzzg
and second language learning 65-8
pre-school years, and language acquisition
t2-r3
private speech fi8 ) r4z, 2zzg
procedural knowledge rc9, rr7, ry3, zzzg
processabiliry theory t6-r7, r77, t8z, zzzg
processing capacity rt6
processing instrucdon ú2, 164-5, zzzg
proficiency
and bilingualism 3r-z
difHculties in researching 78-9
learner language and proficiency level
r67-8
Prompts
clarification Íequests rr4, r4o, r88
elicitation r4r, r88
encouraging self-correction ú8-9, 194
pronunciation 68-7r
psychological theories see behaviourism;
information processing model
puberty 94-5
questions
child acquisition of ro-rz, 19
display questions r3o
second language learning 49-jt, t8o
teacher questioning in the classroom 145-9
rate oflearning 96,97, zzzg
readiness to learn r8o-r
reading
efFect ofliteracy on first language
development r3
‘just listen … and read’ ry9-65
and practice n7
problems in learning to read z9-3o
reading as a source ofvocabulary growth
61-4, zo6
reading material for learners 16r-z
fecasts 2229
comparison offeedback that corrects vs
PromPts r94
in content-based classrooms 139-45
6-glt’ gzr’ 69′ gt tueuodurr a8en8uel
r”rau ur (arurf) arnsodxa3o lunourc
Sunuu
l,-9,sargeg’srf,ualurs,rlgderSa¡ar,
gz (g f,ruorDelJ
lou srj¿runq aq ol
spaau uonrsrnbre a8enSue¡ p¡qr ro3 rndul
z/ Sulldru¿s roJ sloor paseg–rarnduoo
l3o¡ouqcar
otz’zg-LLt
:uorl3nJtsur p:snroJ-ruJoJ :3ulu¿aru
uo snf,oJ f(J’ISl) Surqoear a8en8uel
prseq-ruaruor :(¡-13) Surgceer
e8enSuel e nerruntuulor :qeeo.rdde
¡en8uttotpne aar urooJssep’Surgrear
Stzz’ 6t. >l1er rrl{rerl
6-99 sar¡r:erd puone rlou,srrgrear
6-Stt
uJooJsse]f, aqt ur Suluortsanb raqreal
Sh’Se-6zt suonf,?retur raurea]-Jeqf,eal
üoz uolle,rnoru ur a¡or
sJar{f,841
3l.zz’oít
‘S9r’L9 (¡19¡) Surgrear e8en8uq paseq-Ise¡
3l.zz e?eníueln?rct
Sezz’ol,’89 spruru8ase¡dns
Slzz ‘LLt ‘t Lt ‘É-zt ruslpn8urlrq eluf,Blqns
zt sporp)ru uorsJerugns
suonf,EJJlur JauJEal
-Jertr¿)l aas suorltrEJJtur tuaPnls-tusPnls
B€zzBurpzt? prnDnrrs
iür sts¿¡¡¡ ur
tL’oL’69’99 lSolouoqd3o r:td se
90? Poorsl)Pun
3¡asrnof SuueuJ ur aJueilodul1
(rrposo.rd) ssa.rrs
9or’lg (lralxut) ssarrs
6gr s¡erar porelntuns
Stzz’lt lrarre,L prrpuers
sa¡uanbas ¡eruarudo¡a,rap a¿s sa8ets
oÉ-62 s.rap.rosrp a8en8ue¡ pue qcaads
r–olr e8uegf, pf,nrlodorf,os
8-L8r sluroJ f,Ilsln8ulTolf,os
Ér-zr a8en8ue¡
Jo sruroJ ¡enos Surureal sralooqcs-a.rd
sf,IlsInSuIIoIfos
Bezz’ 69r’ 9h’ 6t-gl.{-roaqr ¡ernrprorcos
ol-6fr e3¿n8uel’uollezlplf,os
l-üz e,ut:eds¡ad tsruon¡r.¡alur Jrlt pue
uollf,sJaluI lelfos
o€ spn8urlrg snoruellnurs
r9r srepeer pag¡dru¡s
s97, xa?uJ
3€zz’ftt’fF uorrergrldrurs
6tt ‘Ltt urooJsself, ur Jo esn (ef,uelrs
Bfzz’6gt ‘6fi aruaragrp rumgru8rs
€z a8en8uel u8rs
r-og .&oruaru ruJet-tJor{s
o[ s¡en8u¡rq pnuanb:s
9-46’r–az
(srsar¡rodl¡1 porred pf, nrr3) por.rad alltrsues
frr uolrnadar-31as
ü6r uon¡a.r¡o¡ Jor{lo sA uoDfJJJof,-JIas
3€zz ‘oL’g9 spruaru8as
tt-€t
uoursrnb:e a8zn8uel tsry pue ‘s:ral looqrs
Blzz’6\t ;3rn3ue1 puoras
Blzz’L-9h ‘8rr ‘lz SurploJprs
a8en8url
f,rcpruroJ rrr (aSen8ue¡ rrepur.roS) saunnor
Szzz’ ot-6ot 8ur¡nl:n¡s¡¡
g-1,1, srrtsuatrrJ”r{f JOuJ?)l Surfpnrs ro3
zl, sanssr Surldures
Sf-6zt
suoDf,EJalur ruJpnrs-Jar{feer Surqc;easa;
69r (lpnrs aqr
Suncage rar{l:eesal) xopered reqrleesel
Szzz’lSt’ 6zr’ 9g rpreasrr a¡u¿tnu¿nb
Szzz ‘lSt ‘6lt ‘6zt’98 q:rmsar aanrllpnb
6ü-6zr sauaqrs uone rasqo
98 srrpnts ¡eurpnrr8uo¡
ü-€fi sarpnrs Teluaurradxa
rl-6ir lgde:8ougr:
/_\t
sdno.¡3 uosr.¡eduroc Surpug ur lr¡n:grp
39rc’lbr sarpnrs a,rndrnsap
39tz’ 9g s)rpnts leuor]fas-ssoJf,
39rc ‘zoz’zl srnsrn8ur¡ sndror
gL uopelarro:
6ü-6zr saruarps uolle Jesgo (ruoorsselc)
Bltz’lSt r{rJEJsaJ uonre
sPoqleu r{frEás3r
99 rJnr”al ¡lleru8e¡d se’stsenbJJ
srdruo¡d Íuon?¡rrur oqa aas tlt uorlnada¡
z-tgt’S-lS sosnelf, a DEIar
Szzz’Lgr ‘€l,r ‘ür (suonenus
rurrarrP,*
“”1T’ l#:’JJll :1ffi I 6-Stt
‘oÉr (suorrsanb aurnuaS¡ suonsanb ler]uergrr
9-ll tsed 01 aruargrr
fFr (rrposo.rd) ssals
o8r .ssrPFrun, PUE .serpBeJ, Jo-t
rr–orz {rsgPaTJo PUH uoruruof lsoru
16r a¡nou lou ftru srauJeel
t/t ‘oLt suor¡ftJalul JaUJEJI-JJUJ?JI uI
6-9gr sruoo;sself, uorsJar¡JrrJr ur
256 Indrx
ofbeginning instrucdon in second
language y,96-9, zo4-5
of corrective feedback r94
of form-focused instruction r9r
transfer zz4g see cross-linguistic infuence
transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) rro,
191,2249
‘two for one’ r7r-7
rypographical enhancemenrs of input 163
UG (Universal Grammar) zo, to4-j,224g
uptake r39, t4r, 142, t88, zz4g
usage-based learning rro-n
usage-based perspectives on child language
acquisition z8-9
variables, personal zz4g see learner
characteristics
variational features rt6, 177-9, zz4g
varieties of languages 14, jr, 7r, 206, zz4g
‘Yictor’zz
visual learners 83
vocabulary
alnount needed for conversation 6r,
t6z, 206
can be taught any dme r78
first language development of r4
growth through reading t6z
learning strategies 64
second language learning 6o-4
wút time r47
wh-words rc-rz, 49-jI
willingness to communicate (\lTC) 86, zz4g
word identification 6vz
retrieval of word meanings ro9
word order
adverb placement t8-9
basic word o¡der and predictable
development paths ry7, ry\, r79
word order and meaning rrr-rz
working memory czpacit¡ 8o-t, zz5g
‘wug test’ 8-9
younger the better (for starting second
language instruction) y, 96-9, zo4-5
zone of proximal development (ZPD) zS,
tr8, zz5g
OXFORD
lJNIVERSITY IRBSS
www.oup.com/elt
lsBN 97a 0 t9 454126-A
il]il11ilililffiil[[illr
3iijfld.lk’
oxfordenglishtestinq.com