Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T19:24:55.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological Mechanisms Underlying Second Language Fluency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Richard Schmidt
Richard Schmidt
Affiliation:
The University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fluency in a second language is considered important by both learners and teachers but is not well understood. This paper describes what is known about second language fluency and describes a number of psychological learning mechanisms that might explain how fluency develops. These include the mechanisms underlying the contrast between automatic and controlled processing, the learning mechanisms postulated within Anderson's ACT* theory of cognition, Bialystok's conception of the control dimension of language development, the notion of restructuring, recent proposals for the redefinition of automaticity as retrieval from memory (both instance and strength versions), and chunking theories. The paper concludes with some suggestions for research into the development of second language fluency itself that can fill gaps in existing knowledge and reduce our dependence on other fields for explanatory principles, while contributing simultaneously to discussion of the mechanisms responsible for skill development in general.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 357 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Abraham, R. (1984). Patterns in the use of the present tense third person singular -s by university level ESL speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1980). Cognitive psychology and its implications. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1981). A theory of language acquisition based on general learning mechanisms. Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 97–103). Vancouver, British Columbia: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1986). Knowledge compilation: The general learning mechanism. In Michalski, R. S., Carbonell, J. G., & Mitchell, T. M. (Eds.), Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. 2, pp. 289–310). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1989). Practice, working memory, and the ACT* theory of skill acquisition: A comment on Carlson, Sullivan, and Schneider. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 527–530.Google Scholar
Arevart, S., & Nation, P. (1991). Fluency improvement in a second language. RELC Journal, 22, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1982). On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied Linguistics, 3, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1985). The compatibility of teaching and learning strategies. Applied Linguistics, 6, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1990a). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., (1990b). The dangers of dichotomy: A reply to Hulstijn. Applied Linguistics, 11, 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Bouchard Ryan, E. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. In Forrest-Pressley, D., MacKinnon, G., & Waller, T. (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 207–252). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Mitterer, J. (1987). Metalinguistic differences among three kinds of readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 37–70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bohn, O.-S. (1986). Formulas, frame structures, and stereotypes in early syntactic development: Some new evidence from L2 acquisition. Linguistics, 24, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, patterns and rules in interaction? Formulaic speech in adult learners' L2 Swedish. In Hyltenstam, K. & Obler, L. (Eds.), Bilingualism across the life span: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss (pp. 73–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1975). Hesitation and semantic planning in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 108–135). Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, R. A., & Schneider, W. (1990). Practice effects and composition: A reply to Anderson. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 531–533.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. A., Sullivan, M., & Schneider, W. (1989). Practice and working memory effects in building procedural skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 517–526.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1980). Some reasons for hesitating. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 169–180). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, P. W. (1985). Restructuring versus automaticity: Alternative accounts of skill acquisition. Psychological Review, 92, 414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookes, G. (1991). Second language speech production research: A methodologically-oriented review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1981). Item-learning and system learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 10, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
Dechert, H. W. (1980). Pauses and intonation as indicators of verbal planning in second-language speech productions: Two examples from a case study. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 271–285). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechert, H. W. (1983). How a story is done in a second language. In Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dechert, H. W., Möhle, D., & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1984). Second languageproductions. T¨bingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Dechert, H. W., & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1980a). Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dechert, H. W., & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1980b). Towards a cross-linguistic assessment of speech production. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.Google Scholar
Dechert, H. W., & Raupach, M. (Eds.). (1987). Psycholinguistic models of production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, G. S. (1989). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. In Marslen-Wilson, W. (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 136–165). Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Pragmatic knowledge: Rules and procedures. Applied Linguistics, 5, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In Fillmore, C., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 85–101). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gasser, M. (1990). Connectionism and universals of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1964). Discussion and further comments. In Lenneberg, E. H. (Ed.), New directions in the study of language (pp. 109–131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Gregg, K. R. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E., Flashner, V., & Hunt, L. (1986). The experience model and language teaching. In Day, R. R. (Ed.). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 5–22). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E., & Hawkins, B. (1987). Second-language acquisition: An experiential approach. In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Vol. 2. Reading, writing and language learning (pp. 241–283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, A., Goldman-Eisler, F., & Skarbek, A. (1966). Sequential temporal patterns in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 9, 207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, W., Spelke, E. S., Reaves, C. C., Caharack, G., & Neisser, U. (1980). Dividing attention with alternation or automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 98–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1989a). Experiments with semi-artificial input in second language research. In Hammarberg, B. (Ed.), Language learning and learner language (Scandinavian Working Papers on Bilingualism No. 8, pp. 28–40). The University of Stockholm, Centre for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1989b). Implicit and incidental second language learning: Experiments in the processing of natural and partly artificial input. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Interlingual processes (pp. 49–73). Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. (1990). A comparison between the information-processing and the analysis/control approaches to language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). From meta-processes to conscious access: Evidence from children's metalinguistic and repair data. Cognition, 23, 95–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kihlstrom, J. (1984). Conscious, subconscious, unconscious: A cognitive perspective. In Bowers, K. & Meichenbaum, D. (Eds.), The unconscious reconsidered (pp. 149–211). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. (1984). Transition processes in quantitative development. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 101–139). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
Kramer, A. F., Strayer, D. L., & Buckley, J. (1990). Development and transfer of automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 505–522.Google ScholarPubMed
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, K., & Tillis, F. (1986). The chant of the tobacco auctioneer. American Speech, 60, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBerge, D. (1981). Automatic information processing: A review. In Long, J. & Baddeley, A. (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 173–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Leeson, R. (1975). Fluency and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lennon, P. (1989). Introspection and intentionality in advanced second-language learners. Language Learning, 39, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1977). Skill theory and language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Linde, C. (1987). The life story: A temporally discontinuous discourse type. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Psycholinguists models of production (pp. 189–206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1985). Skill and automaticity: Relations, implications, and future directions. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39, 367–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1988a). Automaticity, resources, and memory: Theoretical controversies and practical implications. Human Factors, 30, 583–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logan, G. D. (1988b). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1991). Automaticity and memory. In Hockley, W. E. & Lewandowski, S. (Eds.), Relating theory and data (pp. 347–367). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D., & Klapp, S. T. (1991). Automatizing alphabet arithmetic: I. Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 179–195.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D., & Stadler, M. A. (1991). Mechanisms of performance improvement in consistent mapping memory search: Automaticity or strategy shift? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 478–496.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1982). The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy tradeoff in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89, 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1989). Competition and connectionism. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.). The crosslin-guistic study of sentence processing (pp. 422–457). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication (pp. 115–132). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McClelland, J., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 159–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33, 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A. (1958). Free recall of redundant strings of letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Möhle, D. (1984). A comparison of the second language speech production of different native speakers. In Dechert, H. W., Mohle, D., & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Second language production (pp. 26–49). Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Morrison, D. M., & Low, G. (1983). Monitoring and the second language learner. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 228–250). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. R. (1990). Prefabricated speech for language learning. In VanPatten, B. & Lee, J. F. (Eds.), Second language acquisition, foreign language learning (pp. 198–206). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Anderson, J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Norman, D., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In Davidson, R., Schwartz, G., & Shapiro, D. (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Walker, C. (1987). Some applications of cognitive theory to second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, J. G., & Hughes, B. G. (1988). Internal consistency of the concept of automaticity. In Colley, A. M. & Beech, J. R. (Eds.), Cognition and action in skilled behaviour (pp. 317–331). Amsterdam: Elsevier (North-Holland).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S., & Mehler, J. (Eds.). (1988). Connection and symbols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, C. B., & MacWhinney, B. (1983). Error assimilation as a mechanism inlanguage learning. Journal of Child Language, 10. 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In Solso, R. L. (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Raupach, M. (1980). Temporal variables in first and second language speech production. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 263–270). The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M. (1984). Formulae in second language production. In Dechert, H. W., Mohle, D., & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Second language productions (pp. 114–137). Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reason, J. (1984). Lapses of attention in everyday life. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 515–549). Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S., Allen, R., & Regan, S. (1985). Syntactical learning and judgment: Still unconscious and still abstract. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reese, H. W. (1989). Rules and rule-governance: Cognitive and behavioristic views. In Hayes, S. C. (Ed.). Rule-governed behavior: Cognition, contingencies, and instructional control (pp. 3–84). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, J. (1987). On fluency in second language speech. In Dechert, H. W. and Raupach, M. (Eds.), Psycholin-guistic models of production (pp. 97–105). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L., & Okuda, S. (1987). Modular patterns in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggenbach, H. (in press). Towards an understanding of fluency: A microanalysis of nonnative speaker conversation. Discourse Processes.Google Scholar
Roitblat, H. L. (1988). A cognitive action theory of learning. In Delacourt, J. & Levy, J. C. S. (Eds.), Systems with learning and memory abilities (pp. 13–26). Amsterdam: Elsevier (North-Holland).Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, P., & Newell, A. (1987). Learning by chunking: A production system model of practice. In Klahr, D., Langley, P., & Neches, R. (Eds.), Production system models of learning and development (pp. 221–286). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & the PDP Research Group, Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the micro-structure of cognition: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K. (1987). Second language speech production: Factors affecting fluency. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models ofproduction (pp. 45–75). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 137–174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1988). The potential of parallel distributed processing for S.L.A. theory and research. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 7(1), 55–66.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. N. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–322). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. (1985). Toward a model of attention and the development of automatic processing. In Posner, M. & Maris, O. (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 475–492). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1988). The role of practice in dual-task performance: Toward workload modeling in a connectionist/control architecture. Human Factors, 30, 539–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., Dumais, S., & Shiffrin, R. (1984). Automatic and control processing and attention. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, D. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 1–27). Orlando, FL: Academic.Google Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1985). Categorization (restructuring) and automatization: Two separable factors. Psychological Review, 92, 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. H. (1990). Extending the scope of the acculturation/pidginization model to include cognition. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (1991). Does advanced skill in a second language reduce automaticity in the first language? Language Learning, 41, 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 592–608.Google Scholar
Shallice, T. (1978). The dominant action system: An information-processing approach to consciousness. In Pope, K. & Singer, J. (Eds.), The stream of consciousness: Scientific investigations into the flow of human experience (pp. 117–157). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239–256.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing II: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sincoff, J. B. & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Two faces of verbal ability. Intelligence, 11, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokolik, M. E. (1990). Learning without rules: PDP and a resolution of the adult language learning paradox. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J. P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In Ellis, A. W. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 143–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stillings, N. A., Feinstein, M. H., Garfield, J. L., Rissland, E. L., Rosenbaum, D. A., Weisler, S. E., & Baker-Ward, L. (1987). Cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strayer, D. L., & Kramer, A. F. (1990). An analysis of memory-based theories of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 291–304.Google ScholarPubMed
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman, R. & Davies, R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10, 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In Fillmore, C. J., Kempler, D., & Wang, W. S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yorio, C. A. (1980). Conventionalized language forms and the development of communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar