This study places the predictions of the bilingual interactive activation model (Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998) and the revised hierarchical model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) in the same context to investigate lexical processing in a second language (L2). The performances of two groups of native English speakers, one less proficient and the other more proficient in Spanish, were compared on translation recognition. In this task, participants decided whether two words, one in each language, are translation equivalents. The items in the critical conditions were not translation equivalents and therefore required a “no” response, but were similar to the correct translation in either form or meaning. For example, for translation equivalents such as cara-face, critical distracters included (a) a form-related neighbor to the first word of the pair (e.g., cara-card), (b) a form-related neighbor to the second word of the pair, the translation equivalent (cara-fact), or (c) a meaning-related word (cara-head). The results showed that all learners, regardless of proficiency, experienced interference for lexical neighbors and for meaning-related pairs. However, only the less proficient learners also showed effects of form relatedness via the translation equivalent. Moreover, all participants were sensitive to cues to grammatical class, such that lexical interference was reduced or eliminated when the two words of each pair were drawn from different grammatical classes. We consider the implications of these results for L2 lexical processing and for models of the bilingual lexicon.The writing of this article was supported in part by NSF Doctoral Enhancement Grant BCS-0111733 to Gretchen Sunderman and Judith F. Kroll, and by NSF grants BCS-0111734 and BCS-0418071 and NIH grant RO1MH62479 to Judith F. Kroll. We thank Maya Misra for advice on computing measures of orthographic similarity and Rachel Varra and Asha Persaud for research assistance. We also thank the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful comments.

This quasi-experimental study investigated the potential benefits of two corrective feedback techniques (recasts and prompts) for learners of different proficiency levels. Sixty-four students in three intact grade 6 intensive English as a second language classes in the Montreal area were assigned to the two experimental conditions—one received corrective feedback in the form of recasts and the other in the form of prompts—and a control group. The instructional intervention, which was spread over a period of 4 weeks, targeted third-person possessive determiners his and her, a difficult aspect of English grammar for these Francophone learners of English. Participants' knowledge of the target structure was tested immediately before the experimental intervention, once immediately after it ended, and again 4 weeks later through written and oral tasks. All three groups benefited from the instructional intervention, with both experimental groups benefiting the most. Results also indicated that, overall, prompts were more effective than recasts and that the effectiveness of recasts depended on the learners' proficiency. In particular, high-proficiency learners benefited equally from both prompts and recasts, whereas low-proficiency learners benefited significantly more from prompts than recasts.This study is based on the first author's Ph.D. research (Ammar, 2003). We gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the participating teachers and students. We thank Patsy Lightbown, Roy Lyster, Pavel Trofimovich, and the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their valuable input and feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

Interaction research has come a long way since its beginnings nearly 25 years ago. The aim of this special issue is to demonstrate how the methodological boundaries of interaction research continue to be expanded with the use of new and interesting methodological angles and techniques. Our goal is to further our insights into the question that seems to be paramount in the interaction field at the moment—namely, how does interaction work to bring about positive effects on second language (L2) learning? The articles collected here suggest that new methodologies promise to open up avenues of research that will allow us to gain insights into the interaction-learning relationship.Our intent in this special issue is to show some of the current methodological techniques being used to provide insights about how interaction works to promote L2 learning. We would like to thank the contributing authors who have made interesting and worthwhile contributions to help us attain this goal as well as the SSLA editorial team for all their help in bringing this issue to completion.

This study examines effects of short, medium, and extended second language (L2) experience (3 months, 3 years, and 10 years of United States residence, respectively) on the production of five suprasegmentals (stress timing, peak alignment, speech rate, pause frequency, and pause duration) in six English declarative sentences by 30 adult Korean learners of English and 10 adult native English speakers. Acoustic analyses and listener judgments were used to determine how accurately the suprasegmentals were produced and to what extent they contributed to foreign accent. Results revealed that amount of experience influenced the production of one suprasegmental (stress timing), whereas adult learners' age at the time of first extensive exposure to the L2 (indexed as age of arrival in the United States) influenced the production of others (speech rate, pause frequency, pause duration). Moreover, it was found that suprasegmentals contributed to foreign accent at all levels of experience and that some suprasegmentals (pause duration, speech rate) were more likely to do so than others (stress timing, peak alignment). Overall, results revealed similarities between L2 segmental and suprasegmental learning.This research was partially supported by research grants from the University of Illinois and Brigham Young University. Many thanks are extended to Youngju Hong for her help in testing the Korean participants and to Molly Mack and James E. Flege for their advice throughout this research project. The authors gratefully acknowledge Randall Halter, Elizabeth Gatbonton, and five anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper as well as Randall Halter for his invaluable statistical assistance.

Recasts have continued to be the object of intensive empirical and theoretical inquiry following Nicholas, Lightbown, and Spada's (2001) review. The current article identifies a number of problems with this research and the supporting theory. These problems concern the fact that recasts can take many different forms and perform a variety of functions (not all corrective), which makes definition difficult. Also, recasts, when corrective, can vary in terms of whether they constitute an implicit or explicit corrective strategy and in whether they afford negative or positive evidence. Researchers have almost exclusively examined recasts from a cognitive perspective, ignoring their social and sociocognitive aspects. The significance of learner repair following recasts also remains controversial. Little is currently known about the role that the learner's developmental readiness plays in determining whether recasts work for acquisition. Researchers have not clearly distinguished between intensive and extensive recasts, nor have they considered their differential benefits. The acquisitional value of recasts in comparison to other forms of corrective feedback might have been overestimated. This article emphasizes the need for research that examines the specific properties of recasts and the social and instructional conditions in which they occur.We would like to thank various people for their comments on draft versions of this article: Rob Batstone, Shawn Loewen, Alison Mackey, Jenefer Philp, Elaine Tarone, and two anonymous SSLA reviewers.

A number of studies of second language (L2) sentence processing have investigated whether ambiguity resolution biases in the native language (L1) transfer to superficially similar cognate structures in the L2. When transfer effects are found in such cases, it is difficult to determine whether they reflect surface parallels between the languages or the operation of more abstract processing mechanisms. Wh-questions in English and Japanese present a valuable test case for investigating the relation between L1 and L2 sentence processing. Native speakers (NSs) of English and Japanese both show strong locality biases in processing wh-questions, but these locality biases are realized in rather different ways in the two languages, due to differences in word order and scope marking. Results from a sentence generation study with NSs of Japanese and advanced English-speaking L2 learners of Japanese show that the L2 learners show a strongly nativelike locality bias in the resolution of scope ambiguities for in situ wh-phrases, despite the fact that the closest analogue of such an interpretation is impossible in English. This indicates that L2 learners are guided by abstract processing mechanisms and not just by superficial transfer from the L1.This research was supported in part by grants to Colin Phillips from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0196004) and the Human Frontier Science Program (RGY-0134). We are also grateful to Ellen Lau, Kaori Ozawa, Rozz Thornton, and Masaya Yoshida for valuable discussions of the study, to Deborah Eastman, Gretchen Jones, Eiko Miura, Yoshiko Mori, and Lindsay Yotsukura for assistance with recruiting the Japanese learners, and to John Matthews for assistance with the testing of the Japanese NS group.

This study investigates the effects of meaningful input- and output-based practice on SLA. First-semester Spanish students (n = 45) were assigned to processing instruction, meaningful output-based instruction, or control groups. Experimental groups received the same input in instruction but received meaningful practice that was input or output based. Both experimental groups showed significant gains on immediate and delayed interpretation and production tasks. Repeated-measures analyses of variance showed that overall, for interpretation, both experimental groups outperformed the control group. For production, only the meaningful output-based group outperformed the control group. These results suggest that not only input-based but also output-based instruction can lead to linguistic development.We thank Ron Leow, Alison Mackey, and Cristina Sanz for their continual support and valuable input throughout the various phases of this research and for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Likewise, we express our gratitude to Bill VanPatten and the various anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We also thank the Linguistics Department for the use of its laboratory and equipment during data collection and Ru San Chen for assistance with statistical analyses. Special thanks to Gorky Cruz and Cristina Sanz for the use of digital photographs. Any errors or omissions are ours alone.

Interaction research about the role of language production in second language (L2) development has focused largely on modified output, specifically learners' responses to negative feedback (Iwashita, 2001; Loewen & Philp, in press; Mackey & Philp, 1998; McDonough, 2005; McDonough & Mackey, in press; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica, 1988; Shehadeh, 2001). However, other processes involved in language production might help account for the beneficial relationship between interaction and L2 development. This paper reports the findings of two experiments that examined the occurrence of syntactic priming—a speaker's tendency to produce a previously spoken or heard structure—during interaction between L2 English speakers. Both studies used confederate scripting to elicit dative constructions from advanced English L2 speakers. In experiment 1, the participants (n = 50) were exposed to both prepositional and double-object dative primes. The linear mixed-model analysis indicated that syntactic priming occurred with prepositional datives only. In experiment 2, the English L2 participants (n = 54) received double-object dative primes only; results showed no evidence of syntactic priming. The implications are discussed in terms of the potential role of syntactic priming in driving L2 development in interactive contexts.This research was supported by grants (03135 and 04184) from the campus research board at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I am grateful to Nick Ellis, Susan Gass, Alison Mackey, and Pavel Trofimovich for their insightful comments on this paper and to Ron Crawford for his assistance with the coding. Any errors, of course, are my own.

This study acoustically analyzed the production of single and geminate stops in Japanese by English-speaking children (N = 19) at three different grade levels in a Japanese immersion program. Results show that both their singletons and geminates were significantly longer than those of Japanese monolinguals and the bilinguals' immersion teachers, but all of the immersion groups have acquired the contrast between the two types of stop. This finding supports Flege's (1995) hypothesis that a phonetic category established for second language sounds by a bilingual might differ from that of a monolingual. Additionally, 52 native speakers of Japanese rated the contrast between the two stops produced by all of the bilingual children and a subset of the monolingual children. The accent ratings suggest that the contrast made by the immersion children was not nativelike despite some individual differences in their performance and that there was no statistical difference in accent ratings across the grade levels. The degree of the contrast correlated fairly highly with the closure duration ratio of geminates to singletons.Part of this article was presented at the 2000 AAAL Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia and the 2001 AAAL Conference, St. Louis, MO. I would like to thank Dr. R. Campbell, Dr. M. Celce-Murcia, Dr. S. Guion, Dr. S. Iwasaki, and Dr. S.-A. Jun as well as the anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. I am also grateful to the children and their teachers for their participation in this study, without whom it would not have been possible.

A number of interaction researchers have claimed that recasts might be ambiguous to learners; that is, instead of perceiving recasts as containing corrective feedback, learners might see them simply as literal or semantic repetitions without any corrective element (Long, in press; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). This study investigates learners' interpretations of recasts in interaction. Videotapes of task-based interactions including recasts and repetitions were shown to advanced English as a second language students (N = 34). Although both groups viewed the teacher's feedback (recasts, repetitions, or other), one group saw video clips that had been edited to remove the learners' nontargetlike utterances that had triggered the feedback, and another group saw the same video clips with the initial nontargetlike utterances included. After each clip, learners in both groups were asked to indicate whether they thought they were hearing a recast, a repetition, or something else. A subset of learners (n = 14) provided verbal reports while they evaluated the clips. Results show that learners who did not overhear initial learner utterances were significantly less successful at distinguishing recasts from repetitions. The verbal protocol data suggest that learners were not looking for nonverbal cues from the speakers. A post hoc analysis suggests that morphosyntactic recasts were less accurately recognized than phonological or lexical recasts in this study. These findings suggest that the contrast between a problematic utterance and a recast contributes to learners' interpretations of recasts as corrective.We are grateful to Bo Ram Suh for her help with data collection and coding and Rebecca Sachs for her help with editing. We would also like to thank Mohammed Louguit from the Center for Applied Linguistics for statistical assistance. We are grateful for the comments made by the anonymous SSLA reviewers who helped us to improve the paper. Despite the assistance of these individuals, any errors remain our own.

This article examines alternating verbs (such as quemar(se) “to burn”) in second language (L2) Spanish by considering the learnability problem from a sequence learning perspective (N. Ellis, 1996, 2002). In Spanish, verbs of the alternating class are obligatorily marked with the clitic se in their intransitive form. Errors of omission among English-speaking learners, who transfer zero-derived morphology from their native language, have been previously documented (Montrul, 2000). This study also examines a different kind of error—overgeneralization of se to transitive event scenes—that is hypothesized to result from chunking se with particular lexical items. The results of a picture description task reveal that learners frequently make this type of overgeneralization error, but that they are able to recover from it at more advanced levels of proficiency. These findings suggest that the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax is shaped by learners' familiarity with individual lexical items and the sequences in which they tend to appear.This study forms part of my dissertation research and was presented at AAAL in Portland, Oregon, in May 2004. I acknowledge the generous support of the University of California, Davis and the Humanities Research Grant that allowed me to conduct this research. I wish to thank Robert Blake for his guidance during the data collection phase of the project, Susan Gass and Charlene Polio for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article, and Lourdes Sánchez González for helping me collect the native-speaker data. The comments and suggestions of three anonymous SSLA reviewers were also tremendously useful. All remaining errors are my own. %Address correspondence to Eve Zyzik, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Michigan State University, 334 Old Horticulture Building, East Lansing, MI 48824; e-mail: [email protected].

This article considers the implications of two central constructs of sociocultural theory (SCT) for second language (L2) development: mediation and internalization. It first discusses Vygotsky's general theoretical claim that human mental activity arises as a consequence of the functional system formed by our biologically specified mental capacities and our culturally constructed symbolic artifacts. It then examines some of the L2 research that has investigated the extent to which L2 users are able to deploy their new language for cognitive mediation. Specific attention is given to the mediational function of L2 private speech and to the synchronization of gestures and speech from the perspective of Slobin's thinking for speaking framework, a framework that interfaces quite well with Vygotsky's theory. The second general topic addressed, internalization, is intimately connected to the first. It is argued that internalization of the features of a L2 takes place through imitation, especially as occurs in private speech. Imitation, based on recent neuroscience and child development research, is seen as an intentional and potentially transformative process rather than as rote mimicking. The research documents that L2 children and adults rely on imitation in their private speech when they encounter new linguistic affordances. What remains to be established is the connection between the linguistic features of private speech and those deployed by L2 speakers in their social performance. Finally, the article proposes that the study of how L2 learners internalize and develop the capacity to use conceptual and associated linguistic knowledge should move to the forefront of SCT L2 research and argues that a productive way of realizing this agenda is through the union of SCT and cognitive linguistics.

The production of unstressed vowels in English by early and late Korean- and Japanese-English bilinguals was investigated. All groups were nativelike in having a lower fundamental frequency for unstressed as opposed to stressed vowels. Both Korean groups made less of an intensity difference between unstressed and stressed vowels than the native speakers (NSs) of English as well as less of a difference in duration between the two types of vowel than the NSs. The Japanese speakers, whose native language has a phonemic length distinction, produced more nativelike durational patterns. Finally, the vowel quality (first and second formant frequencies) of unstressed vowels was different from the NS group's for the late bilinguals, for whom unstressed vowels were widely dispersed in the vowel space according to their orthographic representations, and from the early Korean bilinguals, who substituted the Korean high central vowel. The results are discussed in terms of the effect of the phonological status of first language phonetic features and age of acquisition.This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation (KRF-2003-042-A00048) and partially supported by the National Institutes of Health (DC05132). A draft of this research was presented at the English phonology workshop division held for the 50th anniversary of the English Language and Literature Association of Korea (June 2004). The authors would like to thank four anonymous SSLA reviewers and Jonathan Loftin for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

Implicit negative feedback has been shown to facilitate SLA, and the extent to which such feedback is given is related to a variety of task and interlocutor variables. The background of a native speaker (NS), in terms of amount of experience in interactions with nonnative speakers (NNSs), has been shown to affect the quantity of implicit negative feedback (namely recasts) in a classroom setting. This study examines the effect of experience and uses stimulated recall to attempt to understand the interactional patterns of two groups of NSs (with greater and lesser experience) interacting with second language (L2) learners outside of the classroom context. Two groups of NSs of English each completed an information exchange task with a L2 learner: The first group consisted of 11 preservice teachers with minimal experience with NNSs, whereas the second group included 8 experienced teachers with significant teaching experience. Immediately after the task, each NS participated in a stimulated recall, viewing a videotape of the interaction and commenting on the interaction. The quantitative results did not show a strong difference in the number of recasts used by the two groups, but it did show a difference in the quantity of NNS output between the two groups. This finding was corroborated by the stimulated recalls, which showed that those with experience—who clearly saw themselves as language teachers even outside of the classroom—had strategies for and concerns about getting the learners to produce output. Additionally, the experienced teachers showed greater recognition of student comprehension, student learning, and student problems. Those with little experience were more focused on themselves, on student feelings, and on procedural and task-related issues.

COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS, SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING. Michel Achard and Susanne Niemeier (Eds.). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2004. Pp. vi + 283. 98.00€, $118.00 cloth.

Achard and Niemeier “hope that the different chapters in this volume will help establish the cognitive linguistics model as a valuable framework for the investigation of second language learning and teaching phenomena and provide the methodology to further extend the research” (p. 9). Not all of the chapters included realize that hope.

When understanding or evaluating foreign-accented speech, listeners are affected not only by properties of the speech itself but by their own linguistic backgrounds and their experience with different speech varieties. Given the latter influence, it is not known to what degree a diverse group of listeners might share a response to second language (L2) speech. In this study, listeners from native Cantonese, Japanese, Mandarin, and English backgrounds evaluated the same set of foreign-accented English utterances from native speakers of Cantonese, Japanese, Polish, and Spanish. Regardless of native language background, the listener groups showed moderate to high correlations on intelligibility scores and comprehensibility and accentedness ratings. Although some between-group differences emerged, the groups tended to agree on which of the 48 speakers were the easiest and most difficult to understand; between-group effect sizes were generally small. As in previous studies, the listeners did not consistently exhibit an intelligibility benefit for speech produced in their own accent. These findings support the view that properties of the speech itself are a potent factor in determining how L2 speech is perceived, even when the listeners are from diverse language backgrounds.This work was supported by two grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first two authors. The authors thank J. E. Flege and three anonymous SSLA reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper as well as the listeners and speakers for their willingness to participate in the study. The listening stimuli used here were also used in a paper published in SSLA in 1997.

SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES. Diane J. Tedick (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2005. Pp. xxiv + 348. $79.95 cloth, $36.50 paper.

One of the most difficult, complex, and seemingly intractable problems facing second language (L2) educators, especially in the United States, has been the tendency to restrict discussions and interactions to particular areas of specialization: foreign language education, teachers of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL), bilingual education, and so on. The causes of this professional Balkanization are myriad and are beyond our concern here. What is important, in my view, is that language educators learn to cross these artificial boundaries that divide us and recognize the common concerns, themes, and issues that unite us. Tedick's edited volume is an invaluable contribution to this effort. It brings together language educators from a variety of specializations to examine the preparation of both pre-service and in-service language educators. In fact, it does even more than this because the contributors to this volume also represent a widely divergent international group as well as an interesting and valuable mix of both researchers and practitioners at different levels. The book contains a total of 18 chapters, divided into four thematic sections that deal, respectively, with the knowledge base of L2 teacher education, the contexts of L2 teacher education, collaborations in L2 teacher education, and L2 teacher education in practice. Each thematic section of the book is introduced by a brief essay by the editor, which provides both an overview of the chapters included and a sense of how the papers relate to each other and to the remainder of the volume. Although each chapter is placed in a particular thematic section of the book, it should be noted that it is clear that most, in fact, address issues that cross several—and, in some cases, all—of the four organizational themes.

A brief note on a review article by Valdman in SSLA 27, pp. 441–463.

This comparative analysis of teacher-student interaction in two different instructional settings at the elementary-school level (18.3 hr in French immersion and 14.8 hr Japanese immersion) investigates the immediate effects of explicit correction, recasts, and prompts on learner uptake and repair. The results clearly show a predominant provision of recasts over prompts and explicit correction, regardless of instructional setting, but distinctively varied student uptake and repair patterns in relation to feedback type, with the largest proportion of repair resulting from prompts in French immersion and from recasts in Japanese immersion. Based on these findings and supported by an analysis of each instructional setting's overall communicative orientation, we introduce the counterbalance hypothesis, which states that instructional activities and interactional feedback that act as a counterbalance to a classroom's predominant communicative orientation are likely to prove more effective than instructional activities and interactional feedback that are congruent with its predominant communicative orientation.This research was supported by Standard Research Grants (410-98-0175 and 410-2002-0988) awarded to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by a Nihon University Individual Research Grant for 2005 awarded to the second author. A version of this study was presented at the Second Language Research Forum held at Columbia University in October 2005. We are especially grateful to the participating teachers and their students and also to Yingli Yang for her role as research assistant in aggregating the datasets. We thank Sue Gass, Alison Mackey, Iliana Panova, Leila Ranta, and two SSLA reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

STRUCTURED INPUT: GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION FOR THE ACQUISITION-ORIENTED CLASSROOM. Andrew P. Farley. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Pp. vii + 123. $51.56 paper.

This volume for second language teachers builds on two principles of structured input (SI; VanPatten, 2004): the primacy of meaning principle and the first noun principle. After an overview of SI, Farley provides chapter-length explanations of teaching activities based on the two SI principles and concludes with a chapter on recent SI research. The three core SI activity-preparation chapters are organized around (a) an introduction to the SI principle focused on in the chapter, (b) a research review, (c) examples from various languages, (d) “principles in practice” to guide teachers in writing SI activities, (e) sample studies, and (f) suggested readings. The technique recommended for activities involves the creation of controlled tasks that limit information available to students so that only one grammatical point is salient. For example, an activity on English subject-verb agreement requires the learner to select the correct present tense verb for a given subject; one singular subject (“Sarah McLachlan”) and one plural subject (“Bono and the Edge”) are followed by only two choices: one with a verb in the singular (“travels all over the world”) and one with a verb in the plural (“play the guitar”). The logic of this activity is that language learners look to meaning first and, therefore, often overlook form, so activities can force focus on form by limiting content and restricting grammatical choice. (My own experience of this type of grammar drill is that students have a 50% chance of getting the correct answer without having to think about either meaning or form.)