Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:19:41.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SLA: Models and Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Thom Huebner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Unlike first language acquisition, second language acquisition [SLA] is a phenomenon neither universally experienced nor uniformly successful. Yet an assumption underlying all of SLA research is that the phenomenon, whether aided by formal instruction or not, is guided by certain principles. The discovery of these principles is the over-riding goal of SLA research.

Type
Process and product in sla
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 9 , March 1988 , pp. 3 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, R. 1977. The improverished state of cross-sectional morpheme acquisition/accuracy methodology (or: the leftovers are more nourishing than the main course). Working papers on bilingualism. 14.47–82.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Becker, A., Perdue, C.. 1984. Just one misunderstanding: A story of miscommunication. In Extra, G. and Mittner, M. (eds.) Studies in second language acquisition. Tilburg: Tilburg University. 57–82.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. M. 1977. Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language learning. 30.2.433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beebe, L. M. 1982. The social psychological basis of style shifting. Plenary session paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeled, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. and Frölich, M.. 1977. Aspects of second language learning in classroom settings. Working papers on bilingualism. 13.1–26.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1975. Dynamics of a creole system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. 1988a. On the question of negative evidence in second language acquisition. In Bouchard, D. and Leffel, K. (eds.) Florida occasional contributions to the advancement of linguistics. 1.1.19–41.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. 1988b. Second-language acquisition theory and the logical problem of the data. Paper presented at the Eighth Second Language Research Forum. University of Hawaii at Manoa. 03.Google Scholar
Bely-Vroman, R. and Chaudron, C.. 1987. Review essay: A critique of Flynn's parameter setting model of second language acquisition. University of Hawaii at Manoa. [Mimeo.]Google Scholar
Brock, C., et al. 1986. The differential effects of corrective feedback in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In Day, R. R. (ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 229–236.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A frist language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. and Sapon, S. M.. 1959. Modern language aptitude test. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. and Sapon, S. M.. 1967. Modern language aptitude test, elementary form. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1985. Parameterized grammatical theory and language acquistion: A study of the acquisition of verb placement and inflection by children and adults. Paper presented at the Linguistic Theory and Second Language Acquisition workshop. Boston: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P.. 1986. The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners—a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second language research. 2.2.93–119.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. and Olshtain, E.. 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language learning. 31.1.113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. 1985. Chomsky's universal grammer and second language learning. Applied linguistics. 6.1.2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppieters, R. 1987. Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language. 63.3.544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learner's errors. International review of applied linguistics. 5.161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R. R. (ed.) 1986. Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
De Camp, D. 1971. Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole continuum. In Hymes, D. (ed.) Pidginization and creolization languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 349–370.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. and Dickerson, W.. 1977. Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions. In Corder, S. P. and Roulet, E. (eds.) The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy. Neuchatel: Faculté des Letters. 18–29.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. and Burt, M.. 1974.Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language learning. 24.1.37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 1985b. Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied linguistics. 6.2.118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eubank, L. 1988. Parameters in L2 learning: Flynn revisited. Paper presented at the Eighth Second Language Research Forum. University of Hawaii at Manoa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (eds.) 1983. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Felix, S. 1977. How reliable are experimental data? Paper presented at the Eleventh TESOL Convention. 04.Google Scholar
Felix, S. 1985. More evidence on competing cognitive system. Second language research. 1.1.47–72.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. 1985. Contrastive analysis: A linguistic hypothesis. In Jankowsky, K. R. (ed.) Scienctific and humanistic dimensions of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1974. How to be good empiricist—a plea for tolerance in matters epistemological. In Nidditch, P. H. (ed.) The philosophy of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 12–39.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. (eds.) 1988. Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W.. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. (eds.) 1985. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., et al. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basil Balckwell.Google Scholar
Genesee, F. and Hamayan, E.. 1980. Individual differences in second language learning. Applied psycholinguistics. 1.1.95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. R. To appear. Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition: What could they be, and where can we get them? In Gass, S. M. and Schachter, J. (eds.) Second language acquisition: A linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumpertz, J. J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, J. and Stansfield, C.. 1981. The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive styles to foreign language achievement. Language learning. 31.3.349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. 1986. Mirror of lauguage: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. (ed.) 1978. Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Huebner, T. 1979. Order-of-acquisition vs. dynamic paradigm: A comparison of method in interlanguage research. TESOL quarterly. 13.1.21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebner, T. 1983. A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative competence. In Holmes, J. (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269–293.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. and Tansomboon, A.. 1987. The acquisition of tone: A maturational perspective. In Ioup, G. and Weinberger, S. (eds.) Interlanguage phonology: The acquisition of a second language sound system. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 1987. SLA theory: Prolegomena to a theory of language acquisition and implications for theoretical linguistics. Paper presented at the conference on SLA: Contributions and Challenges to Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Klein, W. and Perdue, C. (eds.) 1988. Utterance structure: Final report to the European Science Foundation on the Second Language Acquisition by Adult Immigrants project. Vol. IV Nijmegen: Max Planck Institut für Psycholinguistik.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1981. Aptitude and attitude in relation to second language acquisition and learning. In Diller, K. C. (ed.) Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 155–175.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., et al. 1976. Adult performance on the SLOPE test: More evidence for a natural sequence in adult second language acquisition. Language learning. 28.2. 283–300.Google Scholar
Kumpf, L. 1983. A case study of temporal reference in interlanguage. In Campbell, C., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum. Vol. II. Los Angeles: University of California, Department of English, ESL Section.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1976. An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language learning. 26.2. 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1985. Theory construction in second language acquistion. Paper presented at the Sixth Second Language Research Forum. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Long, M. and Sato, C.. 1984. Methodological issues in interlanguage studies: An inter-actionist perspective. In Davies, A., et al. (eds.) Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 253–279.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1987. Applying the competition model to bilingualism. Applied psycholinguistics. 8.4.315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazurkewich, I. 1985. Syntactic markedness and language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition. 7.1.15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naiman, N., et al. 1978. The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.Google Scholar
Nemser, W. 1971. Approximate systems of foreing language learners. International review of applied linguistics. 9.115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neufeld, G. G. 1978. A theoretical perspective on the nature of linguistic aptitude. International review of applied linguistics. 16.15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 1987. The current convergence in linguistic theory: Some implications for second language acquisition research. Second language research. 3.1. 1–19.Google Scholar
Oller, J. W. Jr 1979. Language tests at school. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Olshtain, E. 1983. Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology. In Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (eds.) Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 232–249.Google Scholar
Pavone, J. 1980. Implicational scales and English dialectology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Perdue, C. 1987. Understanding and misunderstanding in adult language acquisition: Recent work on the ESF project. In Lüdi, G. (ed.) Devenir bilingue - parler bilingue: Actes du 2e col logue sur le bilinguisme. [Becoming bilingual-speaking bilingually: Proceedings of the second conference on bilingualism.] Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, P. 1966. Pimsleur language aptitute battery. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovitch.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. 1987. Implicational scaling and critical age limits in models of linguistic variation, acquisition, and change. Paper presented at the conference on SLA: Contributions and Challenges to Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. 1987. Relational grammer: Multistratalism is second language acquisition. Paper presented at the conference on SLA: Contributions and Challenges to Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. 1986. Grammatical theory and L2 acquisition: A brief overview. Second language research. 2.1.1–15.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G.. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 50.4.696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, C. 1985. The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Los Angeles, CA: University of California. ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. 1986. In search of systematicity in interlanguage production. Studies in second language acquisition. 8.2.119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1988. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Paper presented at the Eight Second Language Research Forum. University of Hawaii at Manoa. 03.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. and Frota, S.. 1986. Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portugues. In Day, R. R. (ed.) Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International review of applied linguistics. 10. 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. 1985/1986. Attempting comprehensive and comparative research in second language acquisition. Parts I and II of a two part review of Perdue, C. (ed.) Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: A field manual. Language learning. 35.4.567–584; 36. 1. 83–100.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 1987. Recent trends in syntactic theory. Paper presented at the conference on SLA: Contributions and Challenges to Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, R. M.. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1986. The role of foreign language aptitude in a model of school learning. Language testing. 3.2.188–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 1982. Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language learning. 32.1.69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E. 1985. Variability in interlanguage use: A study of style-shifting in morphology and syntax. Language learning. 35.3.373–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. 1984. The treatment of foreground-background information in the on-line descriptive discourse of second language learners. Studies in second language acquisition. 6.2.115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevise, A. 1987. Toward an analysis of the (inter)language activity of referring to time in narrativer. In Pfaff, C. (ed.) First and second language acquisition processes. Cambridge MA: Newbury House. 225–251.Google Scholar
Tucker, G. R., Hamayan, E., and Genesee, F.. 1976. Affective, cognitive and social factors in second language acquisition. Canadian modern language review. 32. 241–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. and Gass, S.. 1985. Miscommunication in native/nonnative conversation. Language in society. 14.3.327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Véronique, D. 1987. Reference to past events and actions in narratives in L2: Insights from North African workers' French. In Pfaff, C. (ed.) First and second language acquisition processes. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. 252–272.Google Scholar
von, Stutterheim C. 1986. Temporalität in der Zweitsprache: Eine Untersuchung zum Erwerb des Deutschen durch türkische Gastarbeiter. [Temporality in second language: An examination of the acquisition of German by Turkish guest-workers.] Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
White, L. 1985. The acquisition of parameterized grammars: Subjacency in SLA. Second language research. 1.1.1–17.Google Scholar