Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T18:25:20.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second-Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Barry McLaughlin  and
Michael Harrington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As H. Douglas Brown pointed out in his review (1980), the field of second language acquisition [SLA] has emerged as its own discipline in the 1980s. A somewhat eclectic discipline, research in SLA involves methodologies drawn from linguistics, sociolinguistics, education, and psychology. Theoretical models are equally diverse (McLaughlin 1987), but in general a distinction is possible between representational and processing approaches (Carroll in press). Representational approaches focus on the nature and organization of second-language knowledge and how this information is represented in the mind of the learner. Processing approaches focus on the integration of perceptual and cognitive Processes with the learner's second-languages knowledge. This distinction is used here for purposes of exposition, although it is recognized that some approaches combine both representational and processing features, as any truly adequate model of second-language learning must.

Information

Type
Language Pedagogy
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 10 , March 1989 , pp. 122 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, J. R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barton, G. E., Berwick, R. C. and Ristad, E. S.. 1987. Computational complexity and natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. and Townsend, D.. 1979. Perceptual mechanisms and formal properties of main and subordinate clauses. In Cooper, W. and Walker, E. (eds.) Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 159–226.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. In press. Achieving proficiency in a second language: A processing description. In Kelllerman, E. et al. , (eds.) Research in foreign language pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E and Kellerman, E.. 1987. Language strategies in the classroom. In Das, B. (ed.) Communication and learning in the classroom community. Singapore: Regional Language Centre. 858–74.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. 1989. Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.. In Press. The logical problem of foreign language learning. In Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds.) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. and Chaudron, C.. 1988. Review essay: A critique of Flynn's parameter-setting model of second language acquisition. University of Hawaii working papers in ESL. 7.1.67–107.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R., Felix, S., and Ioup, G.. 1988. The accessibility of universal grammar in adult language learning. Second language research. 4.1. 1–32.Google Scholar
Brown, H. D., 1980. Second language acquisition/learning: Psycholinguistic factors. In Kaplan, R. B. et al. , (eds.) Annual review of applied linguistics, I. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 108–113.Google Scholar
Carroll, S., In Press. Second language acquisition and the computational paradigm. Language learning.Google Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1983. Research on metalinguistic judgments: A review of theory, methods, and results. Language learning. 33.3. 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. 1987. Connectiong theories of language processing with (second) languages acquisition. In Pfaff, C. (ed.) First and second language acquisition processes. New York: Newbury House.1–29.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Muyskents, P.. 1989. The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second language research. 5.1. 1–29.Google Scholar
Clark, H. and Malt, B. 1984. Psychological constrains on language. In Kintsch, W., Miller, J. R. and Poulson, R. (eds.) Methods and tactics in the cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 191–241.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R., Karttunen, L., and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.) 1985. Natural language processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (eds.). 1983. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., 1984. A universal in L2 acquisition based on a PBD typology. In Eckman, F. (ed.) Universals in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 75–87.Google Scholar
Flynn, S. 1987. A paramenter-setting of L2 acquisition: Expermental studies in anaphora. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W.. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In Pinder, S. and Mehler, J. (eds.), Connections and symbols. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press. 3–71.Google Scholar
Frazier, L.. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D. R., Karttunen, L. K., and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.) Natural language processing. New York: Cambridge University Press. 129–187.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. and Fodor, J. D.. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 2. 15–48.Google Scholar
Gagne, E.. 1985. The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston: Little, Brown and company.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. 1987. The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied psycholinguistics. 8.4. 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. et al. , 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. 1987. Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation. Applied psycholinguistic. 8.4. 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.. In Press. Experiments with semi-artificial input in second language acquisition research. In Hammarberg, B. (ed.) Language learning and learner language. Stockholm: Center for Research on Billingualism.Google Scholar
Hummel, K. M. 1986. Memory for bilingual prose. In Vaid, J. (ed.) Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perpectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 47–64.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1988. Topic…comment: Why are they saying these things about us?. Natural language and linguistic theory. 6.4. 435–442.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E.. In Press. Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique, a revision, and some (non-) implications for the classroom. In Kellerman, E. et al. , (eds.) Research in foreign language pedagogy. Clevedon, Avon: Mulitilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B. L. 1988. Adult versus child L2 acquisition: An information-processing approach. Language learning. 38.4. 477–495.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. 1973. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition. 2. 15–48.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1987. Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism. Applied psycholinguistics. 8.4. 315–328.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., and Kliegl, R.. 1984. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior. 23.2. 127–150.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., and the PDP Research Group. 1986 Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridg, MA: Bradford/MIT Press. [Psychological and biological models]. Vol.2].Google Scholar
McGroarty, M. 1989. The “good learner” of English in two settings. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Language Education and Researchy. [Technical Report 12.]Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. In Press. Restructuring. Applied linguistics.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., and McLeod, B.. 1983. Second-language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language learning. 33.2. 135–158.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., and Pienemann, M.. 1981. On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisuition. Studies in second language acquisition. 3. 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, J., McLaughlin, B.. 1986. Experts and novices: An information-processing approach to the “good language learner” problem. Applied psycholinguistics. 7.1.41–56.Google Scholar
Nayak, N. et al. , In press. Language-learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual subjects. Language learning.Google Scholar
Oxford, R. L. 1986. Second language learning strategies: Current research and implications for practice. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Language Education and Research. [Technical Report3.]Google Scholar
Paradis, M.. 1981. Neurolinguistic organization of a bilingual's two languages. In Copeland, J. E. and Davis, P. (eds.) The seventh LACUS forum. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. and Johnston, M.. 1987. A predictive framework of SLA. Sydney:University of Sydney. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. and Prince, A.. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition. 28.1.73–193.Google Scholar
Ramsey, R. M. G. 1980. Language-learning approach styles of adult multilinguals and successful language learners. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 345.73–96.Google Scholar
Ross, J. 1967. Constrains on variability in syntax. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. 1989. A new look at an old classic. Second language research. 5.1.30–42.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. In press. Testing a proposed universal. In Gass, S. and Schachter, J. (eds.) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M. and Schneider, W.. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological review. 84.2.127–190.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammer. In Ferguson, C. and Slobin, D. (eds.) Studies in languages development. New York: Holt. 175–208.Google Scholar
White, L. 1985a. The acquisition of parameterized grammers: Subjacency in second language acquisition. Second language research. 1.1.1–17.Google Scholar
White, L. 1985b. The pro-drop parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language learning. 35.1.47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. 1988. Island effects in second language acquisition. In Flynn, S. and O'Neil, W. (eds.) Language theory in second language acquisiton. Dordrecht:Kluwer. 144–172.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. 1986. A functional approach to the attainability of typological targets in L2 acquisition. Second language research. 2.1.16–32.Google Scholar