Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-p6fvt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T12:15:47.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulating a Theory of Second Language Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bernard Spolsky
Bernard Spolsky
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is intended to establish a framework for the formulation of a comprehensive theory of second language learning in which theories of first and second language learning may combine to form a unified theory. It proceeds through a critical assessment of currently one of the foremost theories, the monitor model (Krashen, 1982). Each of Krashen's five hypotheses is considered, and counteropinions, fortified with the results of research, are presented. The article concludes with a call for a more comprehensive theory that accounts for the diverse ways in which people develop their ability to use a second language.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , October 1985 , pp. 269 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Adjemian, C. 1976. On the nature of interlanguage systems. Language Learning 26; 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. W. 1978. An implicational model for second language research. Language Learning 28; 221–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, J. J. 1964. Towards a neo-field theory of behavior. Journal of Humanistic Psychology; 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, J. J. 1981. The total physical response (TPR): Theory and practice. In Winitz, H. (ed.), Native and foreign language acquisition, pp. 324–31. The Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Volume 379.Google Scholar
Asher, J. J. 1984. Comprehension training: The “outrageous” hypothesis that works. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29–31.Google Scholar
Beebe, L. 1980. Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language acquisition. Language Learning 30; 433–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1978. A theoretical mode! of second language learning. Language Learning 28; 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1979. Explicit and implicit judgements of L2 grammatically. Language Learning 29; 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1981. The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4; 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1982. On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied Linguiitics 3; 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1982. Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3; 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brice Heath, S. 1982. Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In Spindler, G. (ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M.. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1; 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. B. 1981. Conscious and automatic processes in language learning. The Canadian Modem Language Review 37; 462–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C.B., Canoino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. H.. 1975. Second language acquisition in children, adolescents and adults. Final Report. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. Oxford, Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectura on government and binding. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences ofthe theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (ms). Changing perspectives on knowledge and use of language.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. 1982. Neurolinguistics and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 16; 305–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. 1985. Chomsky's universal grammar and second language learning. Applied Linguistics 6; 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1977. The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 5; 161–70.Google Scholar
Cross, T. 1978. Mothers' speech and its acquisition with rate of linguistic development in young children. In Waterson, N. & Snow, C. (eds.). The development of communication. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. J. 1974. The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly 9; 401–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, L. J. & Dickerson, W.. 1977. Interlanguage phonology: Current research and future directions. In S. P. Corder & E. Roulet (eds.), The notions of simplification, interlanguages, and pidgins: Actes du 5eme colloque de linguistique appliquee de Neuchatel, pp. 18–30.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S.. 1982. Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27; 315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1981a. On the naturalness of interlanguage phonological rules. Language Learning 31; 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1981b. On predicting phonological difficulty in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4; 18–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. 1984. The markedness differential. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29–31.Google Scholar
Edmondson, W., House, J., Kasper, G., & Stemmer, B.. 1984. Learning the pragmatics of discourse: a project report. Applied Linguistics 5; 113–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elis, R. 1982. The role of input in language acquisition: some implications for second language teaching. Applied Linguistics 2; 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elis, R. & Wells, G.. 1980. Enabling factors in adult-child discourse. First language. 1;Google Scholar
Galloway, L. M. 1981. The convolutions of second language: A theoretical artide with a critical review and some new hypotheses towards a neuropsychological model of bilingualism and second language performance. Language Learning 31; 439–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. C. 1979. Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In Giles, H. & Clair, R. St. (eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E.. 1959. Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13: 266–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, R. C. 1972. Attitudes and motivation m second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., & Pierson, R.. 1983. The socio-educational model of second language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL causal modeling. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2; 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29; 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genesee, F. 1982. Experimental neuropsychological research on second language processing. TESOL Quarterly 16; 315–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. R. 1984. Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics 5; 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiora, A. Z. & Acton, W. R.. 1979. Personality and language: A restatement. Language Learning 29; 1. 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, E. M. 1983. Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J., (eds.), Sociolinguistics. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (ms). Music and the modularity of mind.Google Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1979. The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies BulletinGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, E. 1984. Two constraints on transfer. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1980. The theoretical and practical relevance of simple codes in second language acquisition. In Scarcella, R. C. & Krashen, S. D. (eds.), Research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamen Institute of English.Google Scholar
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lado, R. 1984. “Total” approach to second language learning and teaching. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.Google Scholar
Lamendella, J. T. 1977. General principles of neurofunctional organization and their manifestation in primary and nonprimary language acquisition. Language Learning 27; 155–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, J. E. 1975. Speech addressed to children: issues and characteristics of parental input. Language Learning 25; 355–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerdahl, F. & Jackendoff, R.. 1983. A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Littlewood, W. T. 1983. Contrastive pragmatics and the foreign language learner's personality. Applied Linguistics. 4; 200–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1983a. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4; 126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1983b. Does second language instruction make a difference? A review of research. TESOL Quarterly 17; 359–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1983c. Linguistic and conversational adjustments to native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 5; 177–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B. 1978. The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28; 309–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemoianu, A. M. 1980. The boat's gonna leave: A study of children learning a second language from conversations with other children. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E. 1982. Talking lo children in Western Samoa. Language and Society 11; 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. H. 1977. A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisition in first language learners. Language Learning 27; 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rintell, E. 1979. Getting your speech act together: The pragmatic ability of second language learners. Working Papers on Bilingualism 17; 98–106.Google Scholar
Rosansky, E. 1976. Methods and morphemes in second language acquisition research. Language Learning 26; 409–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, W. E. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32; 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, C. P. 1982. Converging evidence for a dialectical model of function and form in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 3; 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, J. 1983. Nutritional needs of language learners. In Clark, M. A. & Handscombe, J. (eds.). On TESOL '82: Pacific perspective: on language learning and teaching, pp. 175–90. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Google Scholar
Schauber, E. & Spolsky, E.. 1986. The bounds of interpretation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. 1979. How Kaluli children learn what to say, what to do, and how to feel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. 1977. Coordinate structures and language universals in interlanguage. Language Learning 26; 397–416.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. & Richards, J. C.. 1980. Speech acts and language learning. Applied Linguistics 1; 129– 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. 1978. The Pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1984. The acculturation model: The evidence. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium, March 29–31.Google Scholar
Scovel, T. 1982. Questions concerning the applicability of neurolinguistic research to second language learning/teaching. TESOL Quarterly 16; 323–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, H. W. 1982. On the possible role of the right hemisphere in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 16; 307–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. S. 1983. Cross-linguistic aspects of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 4; 192–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, B. 1973. What does it mean to know a language, or how do you get someone to perform his competence? In Oiler, J. W. Jr., & Richards, J. C. (eds.), Focus on the learner: Pragmatic perspectives for the language teacher, pp. 164–76. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. 1979a. The comparative study of first and second language acquisition. In Eckman, F. R. & Hastings, A. J. (eds.), Studies in first and second language acquisition, pp. 167–84. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. 1979b. Contrastive analysis, error analysis, interlanguage and other useful fads. Modem Language Journal 62; 250–7.Google Scholar
Stauble, Anne-Marie. 1978. The process of decreolization: A model for second language development. Language Learning 28; 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1981. Time and timing in bilingual education. Language Learning 31; 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarallo, F. & Myhill, J.. 1983. Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning 33; 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarane, E. 1979. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29; 181–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarane, E. 1982. Systematicity and attention in interlanguage. Language Learning 32; 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarane, E. 1983. On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics 4; 142–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarane, E. 1984. The interlanguage continuum. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. 1984. Comprehension-based teaching: The natural approach. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4; 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Upshur, J. 1968. Four experiments on the relation between foreign language learning and teaching. Language Learning 18; 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varoins, E. M. & Gass, S.. 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6; 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Gough, J. & Hatch, E.. 1975. The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning 25; 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertheimer, M. 1938. Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In Ellis, W. D. (ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
White, L. 1984. Universal grammar ae a source of explanation in second language acquisition. Paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Linguistics Symposium.Google Scholar
Wode, H. 1981. Learning a second language: I. An integrated view of language acquisition. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. 1983. Markedness and the projection problem. Language ccLearning 33; 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar