FLA 515 LaffordSuggested Sources for Critical Papers (revised)

Here are some articles/chapters that you might want to use for your critical paper. If you choose a source not included in the list below you will need to provide me with a copy of the article/chapter you review when you turn in your critical papers.

What is Second Language Acquisition (SLA)? (What is the object of our study? What are some of the major approaches to SLA data?)

Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5:160-70.

Gass, S. et al. 1998. Ahistoricity revisited: Does SLA have a history? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20:407-21.

Kramsch, C. 2000. Second language acquisition, applied linguistics and the teaching of foreign languages. Modern Language Journal 84.3:311-26.

Lado, R. 1957. The necessity for a systematic comparison of languages and cultures. Linguistics across cultures, 1-8. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Nemser, W. 1971. Approximative systems of foreign language learners.IRAL 9:115-23.

Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10:209-30.

Thomas, M. 1998. Programmatic ahistoricity in second languageacquisition theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20:387-405.

What are the processes involved in SLA? (role of the individual, context of the language acquisition process, linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural approaches to the study of SLA processes)

Role of the Individual: non-linguistic

Demographic factors: (learner as member of a larger demographic group)

Age: Critical Period Hypothesis

Ioup, G., E. Boustagui, M. el Tigi and M. Moselle. 1994. Reexamining the critical period hypothesis: a case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic environment. SSLA 16:73-98.

FLA 515 -2- Lafford

Krashen, S. 1982. Accounting for child-adult differences in second language rate and attainment. Child-adult differences in second language acquisition, ed. S. D. Krashen, R. C. Scarcella and M. H. Long, 202-26. Rowley, MA: Newbury House

Moyer, A. 1999. Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: the critical factors of age, motivation and instruction. SSLA 21:81-108.

Sex:

Ehrman, M. and R. Oxford. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 73.1:1-13.

Gass, S. and E. M. Varonis. 1986. Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions. Talking to learn: conversations in second language acquisition, ed. R. Day,

327-51. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ludwig, J. 1983. Attitudes and expectations: a profile of female and male students of college French, German and Spanish. Modern Language Journal 67: 216-27.

Meunier L. 1994. Native genderlects and their relation to gender issues in second language classrooms: the sex of our students as a sociolinguistic variable. Faces in a crowd: the individual learner in the multi-section classroom, ed. C. Klee, 47-77. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Internal factors: (learner as an individual)

Personality/Learning styles

Dewaele, J-M. and A. Furnham. 1999. Extraversion: the unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning 49.3:509-44.

Ehrman, M. and R. Oxford. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learningstrategies. Modern Language Journal 73.1:1-13.

Ehrman, M. and R. Oxford. 1995. Cognition plus: correlates of language learning success. Modern Language Journal 79:67-89.

FLA 515 -3- Lafford

Meunier, L. 1998. Personality and motivational factors in electronic networking. New Ways of Learning and Teaching: Focus on Technology and Foreign Language Education, ed. J. Muyskens, 145-97. AAUSC Series: American Association of University Supervisors, Coordinators, and Directors of Foreign Language Programs. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Robinson, P. 2001. Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 17.4:368-92.

Wakamoto, N. 2000. Language learning strategy and personality variables: Focusing on extroversion and introversion. IRAL 38:71-81.

Background Knowledge

Barry, S. and A. A. Lazarte. 1995. Embedded clause effects on recall: doeshigh prior knowledge of content domain overcome syntactic complexity instudents of Spanish? Modern Language Journal 79:491-504.

Gass, S. and E. M. Varonis. 1986. The effect of familiarity on thecomprehensibility of nonnative speech. Language Learning 34.1:65-89

Hauptman, P. 2000. Some hypotheses on the nature of difficulty and ease in second language reading: an application of schema theory. Foreign Language Annals 33.6:622-31.

Anxiety/attitudes

Bacon, S. and M. Finnemann. 1990. A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral and written input. Modern Language Journal 74:459-73.

Dodick, D. 1996. A study of attitudes and motivation of high school foreign language students. The Canadian Modern Language Review 52.4: 577-95.

Gardner, R.C. and P. McIntyre. 1993. A Student's Contributions to Second-Language Learning, II: Affective Variables. Language Teaching 26.1: 1-11

Young, D. J. 1992. Language anxiety from the foreign language specialists’ perspective: interviews with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin. Foreign Language Annals 25.2:157-72.

FLA 515 -4- Lafford

Learning styles/strategies

Oxford, R. and M. Nykios. 1989. Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal

73.3:291-300.

Reid, J. M. 1987. The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21.1:87-111.

Role of the individual: linguistic

How do learners learn? (epistemological approaches)

Cognitive Approaches: UG vs. connectionism

Ellis, N. 1996. Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. SSLA 18:91-126.

Schachter, J. 1988. Second language acquisition and its relationship to universal grammar. Applied Linguistics 9:219-35.

How do the similarities or differences between L1 and L2 affect the acquisition process?

L1 vs. L2

Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27.2:315-30.

Rutherford, W. 1982. Markedness in L2 acquisition. Language Learning 32.1:85-108.

What role does context play in SLA?

Pica, T. 1983. Adult acquisition of English as a second language underdifferent conditions of exposure. Language Learning 33.4:465-97.

Input

Ellis, R. 1999. Input-based approaches to teaching grammar: a review of classroom-oriented research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19:64-80.

Krashen, S. 1985. The input hypothesis. The input hypothesis: issues and implications, 1-32. New York: Longman.

FLA 515 -5- Lafford

McLaughlin, B. 1978. The Monitor Model: some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28:309-32.

Attention/Noticing/Focus-on-form/Saliency

Bayley, R. 1994. Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: past tense marking in Chinese-English. Research methodology in second -language acquisition, ed. Elaine E. Tarone, Susan M. Gass and Andrew D. Cohen, 157-81. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Collentine, J. 1997. The effects of irregular stems on the detection of verbs in the subjunctive. Spanish Applied Linguistics 1.1:3-21.

Fotos, S. 1993. Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: grammar task performance vs. formal instruction. Applied Linguistics 14:385-

Leow, R. P. 1998. Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA:Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics 19.1:133-59.

Leow, R. P. 2000. A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware versus unaware learners. SSLA 22.4:557-84.

Robinson, P. 1995. Review Article: Attention, memory and the ‘Noticing Hypothesis.’ Language Learning 45.2:283-331.

Tomlin, R. S. and V. Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. SSLA 15:183-203.

Truscott, J. 1998. Noticing in second language acquisition: a critical review.Second Language Research 14.2:103-35.

Wolfram, W. 1989. Systematic variability in second-language tense marking. The dynamic interlanguage: empirical studies in second language variation, ed. M.R. Eisenstein, 187-97. New York: Plenum.

Modality

Leow, R. P. 1995. Modality and intake in second language acquisition. SSLA 17:79-89.

Mecartty, F.H. 2001. The effects of modality, information type and language experience on recall by foreign language learners of Spanish. Hispania 84.2:

265-78.

FLA 515 -6- Lafford

Murphy, V. 1997. The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgment task. Second Language Research 13.1:34-65.

Input Processing

VanPatten, B. 1989. Can learners attend to form and context while processing input? Hispania 72:409-17.

VanPatten, B. 1993. The case for psycholinguistics. Beyond methods:components of second language teacher education, ed. KathleenBardovi-Harlig and Beverly Hartford, 1-17. New York: McGraw-Hill.

VanPatten, B. and T. Cadierno. 1993. Explicit instruction and input processing. SSLA 15:225-43.

VanPatten, B. and T. Cadierno. 1995. Formal instruction from a processing perspective: an investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal 79:179-93.

VanPatten, B. and S. Oikkenon. 1996. Explanation versus structured input in processing instruction. SSLA 18:495-510.

Intake

Leow, R. P. 1993. To Simplify or Not to Simplify: A Look at Intake. SSLA 15. 3:333-55.

Leow, R. P. 1995. Modality and intake in second language acquisition. SSLA 17:79-89.

Leow, R. P. 1997. Simplification and Second Language Acquisition. World Englishes 16.2:291-96.

Leow, R. P. 1997. The Effects of Input Enhancement and Text Length on AdultL2 Readers' Comprehension and Intake in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8.2:151-82.

Acquisition principles

Andersen, Roger W. 1984. The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning 34.4:77-95.

FLA 515 -7- Lafford

Andersen, R. W. 1990. Models, processes, principles and strategies: second language acquisition inside and outside of the classroom. Second language acquisition—foreign language learning, ed. B. VanPatten and J. Lee, 45-68. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Andersen, R. and Y. Shirai. 1994. Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. SSLA 16:133-56.

Effect of Task

Leow, R. P. 1996. Grammaticality judgment tasks and second-language Development. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 126-39.

Winitz, H. 1996. Grammaticality judgment as a function of explicit andimplicit instruction in Spanish. Modern Language Journal 80:32-46.

Immersion

Lyster, R. 1994. The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics 15.3:263

-87.

URL: information on immersion programs in the US: www.cal.org/db/2way

Tarone, E. and M. Swain. 1995. Sociolinguistic perspectives on secondlanguage use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal 79.2:166-78.

Output

Kellerman, E. 1985. If at first you do succeed… Input in second language acquisition, ed. Susan M. Gass and Carolyn G. Madden, 345-53.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. 1993. The Output Hypothesis. Canadian Modern Language Review 50:158-64.

Focus on form/noticing

Izumi, S., M. Bigelow, M. Fujiwara and S. Fearnow. 1999. Testing the output hypothesis; effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition.

SSLA 21:421-52.

Leow, R. P. 1997. Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior.

Language Learning 47.3:467-505.FLA 515 -8- Lafford

Leow, R. 2000. Attention, awareness, and focus on form research: A critical review. Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives, ed. J. Lee & A. Valdman,

69-96. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Ortega, L 1999. Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. SSLA 21:109-48.

Robinson, P. 1995. Review article: attention, memory and the “Noticing” Hypothesis. Language Learning 45.2:283-331. Salaberry, R. and N. López-Ortega. 1998. Accurate L2 production across language tasks: focus on form, focus on meaning and communicative control. Modern Language Journal 82.4:515-31.

Tomlin, R. and V. Villa. 1994. Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. SSLA 16:283-302.

Input vs. Intake

Leow, R. P. 1993. To Simplify or Not to Simplify: A Look at Intake. SSLA 15.3:333-55.

Leow, R. P. 1995. Modality and intake in second language acquisition. SSLA 17:79-89.

Interaction

Braidi, S. 1995. Review article: reconsidering the role of interaction and input in second language acquisition. Language Learning 45.1:141-75.

Doughty, C. and T. Pica. 1986. “Information Gap” Tasks: do theyfacilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 20.2:305-25.

Dunn, W. E. and J. P. Lantolf. 1998. Review article: Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and Krashen’s I + 1: incommensurable constructs;incommensurable theories. Language Learning 48.3:411-42.

García, P. and Y. Asención. 2001. Interlanguage development of Spanish learners: Comprehension, production and interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review 57.3:377-401

García Mayo, M. del P. and T. Pica. 2000. L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed? IRAL 38:35-58.

FLA 515 -9- Lafford

Gass, S. and E. Varonis. 1994. Input, interaction and second language production. SSLA 16:283-302.

Long, M. H. and P. A. Porter. 1985. Group work, interlanguage talk and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19.2:207-28.

McLaughlin, B. 19??. Theory and research in second language learning: an emerging paradigm. Language Learning 331-50.

Nakahama, Y., A. Tyler and L. Van Lier. 2001. Negotiation of Meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly 35.3:377-45.

Pica, T. 1987. Second-language acquisition, social interaction and the classroom. Applied Linguistics 8.1:3-21.

Pica, T. 1996. Language learner’s interaction: How does it address the input, output and feedback needs of language learners? TESOL Quarterly 30:59-84. Varonis, E. M. and S. Gass. 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: a model

for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 8:95-110.

Feedback

Ayoun, D. 2001. The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé compose and imparfait. Modern Language Journal 85.2:226-43.

Lyster, F., and L. Ranta. 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19:37-66.

Mackey, A., S. and K. McDonough. 2000. How do learners perceive interactional feedback? SSLA 22:471-97.

Nichols, H., P. M. Lightbown and N. Spada. 2001. Language Learning 51.4:719-58.

Communication strategies

De Keyser, R. M. 1991. Foreign language development during a semester abroad. Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom, ed. B. Freed, 104-119. Boston: D.C. Heath.

FLA 515 -10- Lafford

Dörnyei, Z. and M. L. Scott. 1997. Review Article: Communication strategies in a second language: definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning 47.1:173-210.

Faerch, C. L. and G..Kaspar. 1984. Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning 34:45-63.

Kaspar, G. 1985. Repair in foreign language teaching. SSLA 7:200-15.

Kormos, J. 1999. Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning 49.2:303-42.

Lafford, B. A. 1995. Getting into, through and out of a simple survival situation: a comparison of communicative strategies used by students studying Spanish-abrod and ‘at home.’ Second language acquisition in a study abroad context, ed. B. F. Freed, 97-121. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Liskin-Gasparro, J. 1996. Circumlocution, communication strategies, and the ACTFL proficiency guidelines: an analysis of student discourse. Foreign Language Annals 29.3:317-30.

Poulisse, N. Bongaerts, T and E. Kellerman. 1987. The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. Introspection in second language research, ed. C. Faerch and G. Kaspar, 213-29. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Tarone, E. 1980. Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30.2:417-31.

Sociocultural approaches

Dunn, W. E. and J.P. Lantolf. 1998. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Krashen’s i+1: incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories. Language Learning 48.3:411-42.

Ferris, D. R. 1997. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31.2:315-39.

Sans, C. and B. Van Patten. 1998. On input processing, processinginstruction and the nature of replication tasks: a response to Salaberry.Canadian Modern Language Review 54.2:263-73.

FLA 515 -11- Lafford

Salaberry, R. 1998. On input processing, true language competence, andpedagogical bandwagons: a reply to Sanz and VanPatten. CanadianModern Language Review 54.2:274-85.

What are the products of the SLA processes?

Phonology

Elliot, R. 1995. Foreign language phonology: field independence, attitude and the success of formal instruction in Spanish pronunciation. Modern Language Journal 79:530-42.

MacDonald, D., G. Yule and M. Powers. 1994. Attempts to improve English L2 pronunciation: the variable effects of different types of instruction. Language Learning 44.1:75-100..

Major, R. 1987. A model for interlanguage phonology. Interlanguage phonology: the acquisition of a second language sound system, ed. G. Ioup and S. H. Weinberger, 101-24. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.

Zampini, M. 1994. The role of native language transfer and task formality in the acquisition of Spanish spirantization. Hispania 77.3:470-81.

Morphology

Tense/aspect

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1995. A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect system in SLA. SSLA 17.2.263-91.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1997. Another piece of the puzzle: the emergence of the present perfect. Language Learning 47.3:375-422.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1998. Narrative structure and lexical aspect: conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. SSLA 20:471-508.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1999. From morpheme studies to temporal semantics: tense/aspect research in SLA. SSLA 21:341-82.

Cadierno, T. 1995. Formal Instruction from a processing perspective: an investigation into the Spanish past tense. Modern Language Journal 79:179-93.

Salaberry, R. 1998. The development of aspectual distinctions in L2 French classroom learning. Canadian Modern Language Review 54.4:508-42.

FLA 515 -12- Lafford

Shirai, Y. and A. Kurono. 1998. The acquisition of tense-aspect marking in Japanese as a second language. Language Learning 8.4:245-79.

Subjunctive

Terrell, T. D., B. B. and C.P. 1987. The subjunctive in Spanish interlanguage: accuracy and comprehensibility. Foreign Language Learning, ed. B.VanPatten,

T. R. Dvorak and J. F. Lee, 19-32. New York: Newbury House.

Semantics/Lexicon

Ellis, R. et al., 1994. Classroom interaction, comprehension and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning 44.3: 449-91

Guntermann, G. 1992. An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part I, POR and PARA. Hispania 75:177-87.

Guntermann, G. 1992. An analysis of interlanguage development over time: Part II, SER and ESTAR. Hispania 75:1294-303. Lafford, B. and J. Ryan. 1995. The acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad context: the Spanish prepositions POR and PARA. Hispania 75:528-47.

Ryan, J.and B Lafford. 1992. Acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad environment: SER and ESTAR and the GRANADA Experience.

Hispania 75:714-22.

Sanaoui, R. 1995. Adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages. Modern Language Journal 79.1:15-28.

Tinkham, T. 1997. The effects of semantic and thematic clusteringon the learning of second language vocabulary. Second LanguageResearch 13.2:138-63.

Syntax

Braidi, S. 1995. Reconsidering the role of interaction and input in SLA. Language Learning 45.1:141-75.

FLA 515 -13- Lafford

Discourse/pragmatics

Discourse Flowerdew, J. and S. Tauroza. 1995. The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture comprehension. SSLA 17:435-58. Siskin, H. J. 1987. Achieving communicative competence through gambits and routines. Foreign Language Annals 20.5:393-401

Pragmatics

Cohen, A. D. and E. Olshtain. 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural competence the case of apology. Language Learning 31.1:113-34.

Di Pietro, R. J. 1987. Strategic Instruction. London: Cambridge UP.

Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. NFLRC NetWork#6.

www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/NW6references.html

Kasper, G. 1997. The role of pragmatics in language teacher education. Beyond methods: components of second language teacher education, ed. K. Bardovi-Harlig and B. Hartford, 113-36. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kaspar, G. 2001. Four perspectives on pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics 22.4:502-30.

Kasper, G. and M. Dahl. 1991. Research methods in interlanguage pagmatics. SSLA 13:215-47.

Kasper, G. and R. Schmidt. 1996. Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA 18:149-69.

Koike, D. 1989. Pragmatic competence and adult L2 Acquisition: speech acts in interlanguage. Modern Language Journal 73:279-89.

Olshtain, E., and A.D. Cohen. 1991. Teaching Speech Act Behavior to Nonnative Speakers. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, ed. M. Celce-Murcia, 154-65. New York: Newbury House.

FLA 515 -14- Lafford

Wildner-Bassett. M. E. 1990. Coexisting discourse worlds: the development ofpragmatic competence inside and outside the classroom. Second language acquisition/foreign language learning, ed. B. VanPatten and J. Lee, 140-52. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Wildner-Bassett. M. E. 1994. Intercultural pragmatics and proficiency: ‘polite’ noises for cultural appropriateness. IRAL 32.1:3-17

How can the insights of SLA research be applied to Foreign/Second Language teaching and language policy issues?

L2 Pedagogy

Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1997. The place of second language acquisition theory in language teacher preparation. Beyond methods: components of second language teacher education, ed. K. Bardovi-Harlig and B. Hartford, 18-41. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Van Patten, B. 1992. Second language acquisition research and foreign language teaching, Part 1. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages Bulletin 23: 52-56.

Whitley, M. S. 1993. Communicative language teahcing: an imcomplete revolution. Foreign Language Annals 26.2:137-54.

Language Policy Issues

Research articles cited in or chapters from:

Krashen, S. 1999. Condemned without a trial: bogus arguments against bilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wiley, T. 1996. Language Planning and Policy. Sociolinguistics and language teaching, ed. S. L. McKay and N. H. Hornberger, 103-47. New York: Cambridge University Press.

CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) (Also see recent issues of Language Learning and Technology www.llt.msu.edu)

Beauvois, M. H. 1997. Computer-mediated communication (CMC): technology for improving speaking and writing. Technology-enhanced language learning,

ed. M. Bush, 165-84. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

FLA 515 -15- Lafford

Blake, R. 1998. The role of technology in second language learning. Learning foreign and second languages: perspectives in research and scholarship, ed. H. Byrnes, 208-37. New York: MLA

Collentine, J. and K. Collentine. 1997. The compatibility of computer -mediated communication solutions with beginning level foreign language curricula. Computer Assisted Language Learning 105:411-25. .

Chapelle, C. A. 1997. CALL in the year 2000: still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology 1.1:19-43.

Chapelle, C. A. 1999. Research questions for a CALL research agenda: a reply to Rafael Salaberry. Language Learning & Technology 3.1:108-13.

Meunier, L. 1996. Human factors in a computer assisted foreign language environment: the effects of gender, personality and keyboard control. CALICO Journal 13.2: 47-72.

Salaberry, R. 1999. CALL in the year 2000: still developing the research agenda Language Learning & Technology 3.1:104-107.