Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:27:14.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Multidimensional Model, Linguistic Profiling, and Related Issues

A Reply to Hudson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Manfred Pienemann ,
Malcolm Johnston  and
Jürgen Meisel
Manfred Pienemann
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Malcolm Johnston
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Jürgen Meisel
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 495 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Bailey, C.-J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1971). Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language, 7, 457–492.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisition of German word order: A test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 219–242). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J. M., & Pienemann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & 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, 5, 93–119.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Muysken, P. (1989). The UG paradox in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 1–29.Google Scholar
Clauß, G., & Ebner, H. (1975). Grundlagen der Statistik für Psychologen, Pädagogen und Soziologen (2nd ed.). Zürich: Harri Deutsch.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
DeCamp, D. (1973). Implicational scales and sociolinguistic linearity. Linguistics, 73, 30–43.Google Scholar
duPlessis, J., Solin, D., Travis, L., & White, L. (1987). UG or not UG; that is the question: A reply to Clahsen and Muysken. Second Language Research, 3, 56–75.Google Scholar
Guttmann, L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 9, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Pienemann, M. (Eds.). (1985). Modelling and assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Jansen, L. (1991). The development of word order in natural and formal German second language acquisition. Australian Working Papers in Language Development, 5, 1–42.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1985a). Can language acquisition be altered by instruction? In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 101–112). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1985b). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1991). What have we here? Some observations on the role of instruction in second language acquisition. In Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood-Smith, M., & Swain, M. (Eds.), Foreign second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 197–212). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language training. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–100). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Pienemann, M., & Thornton, I. (1991). Rapid Profile: A second language screening procedure. Language and Language Education, 1, 61–82.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1980). Étapes et itinéraires d'acquisition d'une langue seconde. Champs éducatifs, 1, 48–58.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1983). Strategies of second language acquisition: More than one kind of simplification. In Andersen, R. W. (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 120–157). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1987). A note on second language speech production. In Dechert, H. W. & Raupach, M. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic models of production (pp. 83–90). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. (1991). Principles of Universal Grammar and strategies of language use: On some similarities and differences between first and second language acquisition. In Eubank, L. (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the second language (pp. 231–276). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. M., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages in natural second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1981). Der Zweitsprachenerwerb ausländischer Arbeiterkinder. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–76). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1988). Determining the influence of instruction on L2 speech processing. AILA Review, 5, 40–72.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1992a). Assessing second language acquisition through Rapid Profile (LARC Occasional Papers, No. 3). University of Sydney, Language Acquisition Research Centre.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1992b, September). Psycholinguistic mechanisms in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Working Meeting on Second Language Acquisition and Theory Construction of the Basic Behavioural and Cognitive Research Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–142). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & MacKey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children's ESL development and Rapid Profile. In McKay, P. (Ed.), ESL development: Language and literacy in schools (Vol. 2, pp. 115–259). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia and National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomaselli, A., & Schwartz, B. D. (1990). Analysing the acquisition of negation in German: Support for UG in adult SLA. Second Language Research, 6, 1–38.Google Scholar