Second Language Acquisition - 法政大学 [HOSEI …evans/courses/sla/ls.pdf · Second language acquisition / 1 ... Ortega, Lourdes. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition

Second language acquisition / 1

Second Language Acquisition

TextbookThe textbook is Patsy M. Lightbown and Nina Spada, How Languages Are Learned, 3rd ed.

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006; ISBN 0-19-442224-0). There’s a copy in the Common Room, but you must buy your own. (You can buy it wherever you wish; within amazon.co.jp it’s at http://snipurl.com/amj-lightbown . Of course you are welcome to buy a used copy; but if you do so, make sure it’s the 3rd edition and not the 1st or 2nd.)

Supplementary textsIf there’s something you can’t understand in the book (or in what I say or write), read it again

slowly or ask me, and also check that you’ve understood what preceded it. If you’re still in trouble, try looking in an additional book – sometimes a different perspective makes everything clear.

Below, I name a lot of books. You may not have to look in any of them, but it’s more helpful to let you choose among a large number than to specify just one or two books that are likely to have already been borrowed by somebody else.

For each of the books below, “[RR]”, “[L1]”, “[LB1]”, “[LB2]”, “[LB3]”, “[LB4]”, or “[TL]” means the GIS Research Room (or Common Room), 1st floor of the library, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th basement of the Ichigaya library, or Tama Library respectively.

What’s between “{” and “}” is the “call number”: the number on the label on the spine that says where on the shelves the book should be.

Books may have been moved from the Research Room to the Common Room, or vice versa. For some books, a copy of a newer edition, listed here, is in the Research Room and a copy of an older edition is in the Common Room. Try to find the newer one.

In Ichigaya library (or online), you can order books from Tama (or Koganei) library.

On second language acquisition

Here are some books about second language acquisition in general. Some are much bigger than others. You’ll find some quite a bit harder than others; but there’s useful stuff in each, and none is impossibly difficult.

Bialystok, Ellen, and Kenji Hakuta. 1994. In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of Second-Language Acquisition. New York: Basic. [LB4] {807/146}

Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. 4th ed. White Plains, N.Y.: Pearson. [LB4] {807/133} / 5th ed. White Plains, N.Y.: Pearson, 2006. [TL] {807/61/5}

Cook, Vivian. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 4th ed. London: Hodder, 2008. [LB4] {807/102/4}

Ellis, Rod. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [RR] {807/EL} / [L1] {807/EL}

Ellis, Rod. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [RR] {807/EL} / [LB4] {807/190}

Gass, Susan, and Larry Selinker. 2008. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. [RR] {801/GA} / [LB4] {807/100/3}


Johnson, Keith. 2001. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Harlow, Essex: Longman. [RR] {807/JO}

Mitchell, Rosamond, and Florence Myles. 2004. Second Language Learning Theories. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold. [RR] {807/MI} / [LB4] {807/143}

Ortega, Lourdes. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education. [RR] {807/OR} / [LB4] {807/191}

Saville-Troike, Muriel. 2005. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [RR] {807/SA}

VanPatten, Bill, and Alessandro G. Benati. 2010. Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition. London: Continuum. [RR] {807/VA}

Introductory books about language and linguistics

First, five textbooks. Blake’s is compact and easy. Language Files is large but easy. The other three go into things more deeply.

Akmajian, Adrian, et al. 2010. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. 6th ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. [RR] {801/AK}

Bergmann, Anouschka, et al., eds. 2007. Language Files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics. 10th ed. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. [RR] {801/BE}

Blake, Barry J. 2008. All about Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [RR] {801/BL}

O’Grady, William, et al. Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s. [RR] {801/OG}

Radford, Andrew, et al. 2009. Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [RR] {801/RA} / [LB4] {801/845/2}

The following are written not as textbooks but in order to interest their readers or to clear up misunderstandings. Among them, Pinker’s is by far the most substantial.

Bauer, Laurie, and Peter Trudgill, eds. 1998. Language Myths. London: Penguin. [RR] {801/BA}

Bauer, Laurie, et al. 2006. Language Matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [RR] {801/BA} / [LB4] {801/1181}

Napoli, Donna Jo, and Vera Lee-Schoenfeld. 2010. Language Matters: A Guide to Everyday Ques-tions about Language. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [RR] {801/NA}

Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial. [LB4] {801/583} The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Penguin, 1995. [RR] {801.01/PI} The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper, 2007. [LB4] {801/1338} (The same book, despite the varying subtitle.)

Rickerson, E. M., and Barry Hilton, eds. 2006. The 5 Minute Linguist: Bite-sized Essays on Lan-guage and Languages. London: Equinox. [RR] {804/RI}

Trask, R. L., and Bill Mayblin. 2000. Introducing Linguistics. Royston: Icon. [RR] {801/TR}

Reference books about English grammar

If you need a reference grammar book for any purpose, don’t use one that’s intended for high school, to help people enter university or to help native speakers write “correct” English. Books like these, even from good publishers, tend to repeat older misunderstandings or concentrate on trivia, or both. By contrast, here are some good ones.

Biber, Douglas, et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson. [RR] {835/BI} / [LB4] {R835/135}


Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [RR] {835/HU} / [LB4] {835/154}

Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2005. A Student’s Introduction to English Gram-mar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [RR] {835/HU}

Reference books about language and linguistics

Reference books ranging from the compact to the enormous. None – not even the largest – should be too difficult for an interested and fairly energetic beginner.

Bussmann, Hadumod. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Abingdon, Oxon: Rout-ledge, 2006. [RR] {803.3/BU}

Crystal, David. A Dictionary of Language. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. [RR] {803.3/CR}

Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed., ed. Keith Brown. 14 vols. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006. [LB1] {R803/28}

Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. Philipp Strazny. 2 vols. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2005. [LB1] {R803/29}

Finch, Geoffrey. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Macmil-lan, 2005. [RR] {801/FI}

International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 2nd ed., ed. William J. Frawley. 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. [LB1] {R803/9/2}

Trask, R. L. 2007. Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. [RR] {803.3/TR}

There’s no rule against using books in Japanese, of course.

How Languages Are Learned

1. Language Learning in Early Childhoodp. 11 playing with a dump truck: Playing with a toy dump truck, of course!

p. 16 Example (e): Italicize the word himself.

p. 16 Examples (i) and (j): of course “(non-finite clause)” and “(finite clause)” are outside the examples, and describe the examples. Briefly, a finite clause depends in some way on tense and person (e.g. “want” in “I want/wanted to be a pilot”), whereas a non-finite does not (e.g. “be” in “I want/wanted to be a pilot”).

p. 17 There’s a French film about Victor: L’Enfant sauvage. (In English-language markets, it’s either The Wild Boy or The Wild Child; in Japan, it’s 野性の少年.)

p. 18 whether either of them suffered from brain damage, developmental delays, or a specific language impairment: A specific language impairment (SLI) is a problem with a person’s first language that is not accompanied by any other mental problem or any damage to the brain. In short, people with SLI are normal and intelligent, except for lan-guage. The impairment need not be specific within language, but it’s specific to language.

p. 20 For Vygotsky, thought was essentially internalized speech, . . . We now know that


Vygotsky was wrong about this. People don’t normally use language when they are think-ing. See Chapter 3 (“Mentalese”) of Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct.

p. 24 including learning to “see”: This probably refers to the way that normal brains inter-pret visual cues as objects in space. If you’re interested, see Chapter 8 (“Learning how to see”) of Richard L. Gregory’s Eye and Brain.

Sources and Suggestions for Further Reading

Here and for the following chapters, I show you which among Lightbown and Spada’s recom-mendations are where in the library or on the internet, when I’ve found them. And I add a very few recommendations of my own. When there’s a copy of a book at Tama as well as Ichigaya, I don’t usually mention the one at Tama; when there’s a Japanese translation as well as the English original, I don’t mention the translation.

Baker, Colin. 2001. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 3rd ed. コリン・ベーカー著『バイリンガル教育と第二言語習得』東京: 大修館書店, 1996. [TL] {807/BA}

Berko Gleason, Jean, and Nan Bernstein Ratner. 2009. The Development of Language. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson. [LB4] {801/971/7}

Cummins, Jim. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Cleve-don, Avon: Multilingual Matters. [LB4] {371.5/26}

Elman, J. L., et al. 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Jeffrey L. Elman [ほか] 著『認知発達と生得性：心はどこから来るのか』東京: 共立出版, 1998. [LB2] {141/126}

Genesee, Fred, ed. 2006. Educating Second Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evid-ence. New York: Cambridge University Press. [TL] {830/97}

Ginsburg, Herbert, and Sylvia Opper. 1969. Piaget’s Theory of Intellectual Development: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. [TL] {371/2/NITTA}

Gregory, Richard L. Eye and Brain. リチャード・L ・グレゴリー著『脳と視覚 : グレゴリーの視覚心理学』東京：ブレーン出版, 2001. {L1] {141/GR}

Lust, Barbara. 2006. Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [RR] {801.04/LU}

Oller, D. Kimbrough, and Rebecca E. Eilers, eds. 2002. Language and Literacy Development in Bilingual Children. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. [LB4] {807/183}

Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial. [LB4] {801/583} / The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Penguin, 1995. [RR] {801.01/PI} The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper, 2007. [LB4] {801/1338} (The same book, despite the varying subtitle.)

Roeper, Tom. 2007. The Prism of Grammar: How Child Language Illuminates Humanism. Cam-bridge, Mass.: MIT Press. [LB4] {801/1329}

Schieffelin, Bambi B., and Elinor Ochs, eds. 1986. Language Socialization across Cultures. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press. [TL] {801/147}

2. Explaining Second Language Learningp. 36 the acquisition–learning hypothesis: Krashen is using “learning” to mean the result of

a conscious process (as opposed to the result of an unconscious process). This special use


of the word is not unusual, but other writers about SLA (including Lightbown and Spada themselves) use “learn” and “acquire” interchangeably.

p. 37 affective filter hypothesis: Lightbown and Spada explain “affective hypothesis”. Note that this is “affective” (with an “a”), not “effective” (a much commoner word). What “affects” you has an “effect” on you, which is confusing; but the noun “affect” (related to “affective”) means something quite different from “effect” (related to “effective”).

p. 45 La sigue el señor: Lightbown and Spada tell us what this means, but they don’t add that it’s Spanish.

p. 45 4th paragraph: from their own intuitions about language: There is a little truth in this description of “linguists working from an innatist perspective”, but it’s an exaggera-tion: many of these linguists use a lot of empirical research.


Block, David. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Washington, D.C.: George-town University Press. [LB4] {807/173}

Brooks, Nelson. 1960. Language and Language Learning. N. ブルックス著『言語と言語学習 : 理論と実際』東京: 大修館, 1972. [LB3] {E1/167}

Cook, V. 2003. “The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and structure-dependency in L2 learners of English.” In International Review of Applied Linguistics 41:201–21. [TL] {TA7c/12}

Doughty, Catherine J., and Michael H. Long, eds. 2003. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. [RR] {807/DO} / [LB4] {807/105}

Ellis, Rod. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [TL] {807/4}

Gass, Susan M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {807/169}

Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon. [LB3] {E1/354}

Lantolf, James P., and Matthew E. Poehner, eds. 2008. Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Language Development. London: Equinox. [LB4] {807/195}

Lantolf, James P., and Steven L. Thorne. 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {807/179}

MacWhinney, Brian. 1997. “Second language acquisition and the competition model.” In Annette M. B. de Groot and Judith F. Kroll, eds., Tutorials in Bilingualism. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {801/981}

McLaughlin, B., and R. Heredia. 1996. “Information-processing approaches to research on second language acquisition and use.” In Ritchie and Bhatia, eds, Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. [LB4] {807/28}

Mitchell, Rosamond, and Florence Myles. 2004. Second Language Learning Theories. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold. [RR] {807/MI} / [L4] {807/143}

Pienemann, Manfred. 2003. “Language processing capacity.” In Doughty and Long, eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. [RR] {807/DO} / [LB4] {807/105}

Ritchie, William C., and Tej K. Bhatia, eds. 1996. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic. [LB4] {807/28}


Robinson, Peter, ed. 2001. Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [LB4] {801/1259}

Skehan, Peter. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {801/771}

Towell, Richard, and Roger Hawkins. 1994. Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Cleve-don: Multilingual Matters. [LB4] {801/794}

VanPatten, Bill, ed. 2004. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {807/171}

White, Lydia. 2003. “On the nature of interlanguage representation: Universal Grammar in the second language.” In Doughty and Long, eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. [RR] {807/DO} / [LB4] {807/105}

3. Individual differences in second language learningp. 68 Joseph Conrad . . . became a major writer in the English language: However, he

spoke English with a strong foreign accent.

p 74 Teachers tended to teach to a lower common denominator: “Teachers tended to teach to the highest ability that was possessed by everybody in the class” (i.e. to a low ability).


Breen, Michael P., ed. 2001. Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research. Harlow, Essex: Longman. [LB4] {807/187}

Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {801/1142}

Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Peter Skehan. 2003. “Individual differences in second language learning.” In Doughty and Long, eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. [RR] {807/DO} / [LB4] {807/105}

Ganschow, Leonore, and Richard L. Sparks. 2001. “Learning difficulties and foreign language learning: A review of research and instruction.” In Language Teaching 34. [TL] {TA7c/11}

García Mayo, María del Pilar, and María Luisa García Lecumberri, eds. 2003. Age and the Acquisi-tion of English as a Foreign Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [LB4] {807/98/4}

Gardner, Howard. 1993. Multiple Intelligences.『多元的知能の世界: MI 理論の活用と可能性』大阪: 日本文教出版, 2003. [LB2] {371.4/115}

Hyltelstam, Kenneth, and Niclas Abrahamsson. “Maturational constraints in SLA.” In Doughty and Long, eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. [RR] {807/DO} / [LB4] {807/105}

Johnson, Jacqueline S., and Elissa L. Newport. 1989. “Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second lan-guage”. Cognitive Psychology 21, 60–99. Available at sciencedirect.com .

Masgoret, A.-M., and R. C. Gardner. 2003. “Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.” In Language Learning 53. Downloadable from http://snipurl.com/3o3mo

Norton, Bonny. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. Harlow, Essex: Longman. [LB4] {807/170}


Robinson, Peter, ed. 2002. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amster-dam: Benjamins. [LB4] {807/174}

Singleton, David, and Lisa Ryan. 2004. Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. 2nd ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [LB4] {807/989}

Toohey, Kelleen. 2000. Learning English at School: Identity, Social Relations and Classroom Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. [LB4] {375/188}

4. Learner languagep. 83 Foot of the page: learners may do well in supplying articles in certain obligatory

contexts but not others: A reminder about article use:

indefinite definite

singular a grain the grain

plural grains / some grains the grains

uncountable sand / some sand the sand

Some here is always pronounced /s m/ (unlike the /ɘ sʌm/ of “somebody”). Of course, the table says nothing about how to distinguish between the definite and the indefinite; a distinction that is not simple.

p. 85 No tienen muchos libros: This is Spanish, and means “They don’t have many books.”

p. 85 Foot of the page: German speakers, whose first language has a structure that places the negative after the verb may generalize [. . .]: Easier to understand if you put a comma between “verb” and “may”.

p. 87 In Stage 5: How do you say “proche”? It’s a French-speaking learner; proche is French for “near”.

p. 89 Second line: the possessive determiner: the French and Spanish equivalents of his, her, their, my, etc.

p. 89 Son chien: There’s actually a female form of this, sa chienne, his or her (female) dog.

p. 90 Table 4.2 and the description of relative clauses (RC) are a bit confused. The left column is titled “Part of speech”, but these are instead constituents. (“Parts of speech” are nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc.) Let’s just look at the top two rows under the titles in Table 4.2. With their subjects underlined, they are: The girl who was sick went home and The story that I read was long. In each, the relative clause is in the subject position. What’s relativized is different. So:


RC in subject position{The girl ...} went home.{The story ...} was long.

RC in direct object positionI miss {the girl ...}.I liked {the story ...}.

subject is relativizedthe girl who was sickthe story that won the prize

The girl who was sick went home.The story that won the prize was long.

I miss the girl who was sick.I liked the story that won the prize.

direct object is relativizedthe girl that I metthe story that I read

The girl that I met went home.The story that I read was long.

I miss the girl that I met.I liked the story that I read.

(Don’t worry about which is used among who, that, which, etc; or indeed about whether anything appears: we treat the girl that I met, the girl who(m) I met and the girl I met in the same way.) At the foot of p. 90, we read about sentences with relative clauses in the subject or object positions (at the top of the list). Literally, relative clauses in the sub-ject or object positions refers to the contrast between the second and third columns of the table above, which is something that is not shown in Table 4.2 of the book. Lightbown and Spada don’t really mean this; their Table 4.2 instead distinguishes among what is relativ-ized (the second and third rows of the table above).

p. 92 lexical aspect: First, within linguistics, aspect normally means the way grammar marks duration and other properties of time (aside from tense). He’s gone, He goes, and He’s going are all present tense but they differ in aspect. Lexical aspect (or, from German, Aktionsart) means the classification of verb phrases by their time-related meaning. Simply, there are four classes. A state is not thought of as an activity and is assumed to continue unless something happens: examples are wear jeans and be Japanese. If an activity is simi-larly assumed to continue, it’s called an activity. Examples are chat and walk. An accomp-lishment is an activity that is assumed to terminate: walk to the station, put on jeans. An achievement is something thought to occur instantaneously, such as wake up and burst. These four classes of verb tend to differ grammatically, although a description of the grammatical differences in English isn’t so simple.

p. 96 some would treat “teach, teacher, teaching, and taught” as separate words: I doubt it. Yes, although you can add either -er (or -or) or -ing to just about any verb, the rela-tionship of teacher to teach is not the same as that of, say, lifter and presser to lift and press; it instead suggests a job or social role. But there’s nothing special about teaching; it’s not separate. The tricky one here is taught: it’s simply the form of the past and past participle (cf drank and drunk), so it wouldn’t normally be a separate word; but (unlike “breached”, “beached”, “leached”, etc) it has an irregular form that must be learned specially, so in this sense it is separate.

p. 97 It is estimated that, in order to guess the meaning of a word even in a helpful con-text, one needs to know nearly all the other words in the text. The writers seem slightly disorganized. Just three pages later they cite research by Bhatia Laufer and others that say “95 per cent or more”; on p. 188 (and without any specific source) it’s “90 per cent or more”. (In order to make such precision meaningful, we’d have to agree on what “know” means. For example, a lullaby is a gentle song that’s intended to make a child fall asleep;


if you know that a lullaby is some kind of song but don’t know its purpose, or if you know what the purpose of a lullaby is but think it’s a story, do you “know the word lullaby”?)

p. 99 The definitions of cognate given here and in the glossary (p. 196) are wrong. Cog-nates are words that have the same origin. They may look similar but often do not; they may have the same meaning but often do not. Astre and étoile (both French), star (English) and seren (Welsh) are all cognates and have the same meaning. Skirt and shirt (both English) are cognates, though of course they don’t mean the same thing. Boy (Eng-lish) and 坊や have similar meanings and sound similar but are not cognates.

p. 99 words that look similar in the two languages but have different meanings: These pairs are called faux amis (French for “false friends”, and pronounced in English /f zami/) or (less often) “false friends”.ɘʊ

p. 100 Second line: Bisusteki is surely some kind of mistake. What do you think has hap-pened?

p. 103 Example near the top: It’s not “blue tack” but instead “Blu-Tack”, the trademark of a mild adhesive that is often used for sticking posters on walls.

p. 106 One of the controversial issues in pronunciation research is whether intelligibility rather than native-like ability is the standard that learners should strive toward. This would be research into language teaching rather than research into SLA. The latter ob-serves how and why learners progress, without discussing what they should do. Still, even in SLA there is often a comparison between learner language and the “target language”. The latter is often assumed to be the language as spoken by a native speaker. If that is not the target, then the “target language” changes, which has an effect on SLA research too.


Avery, Peter, and Susan Ehrlich. 1992. Teaching American English Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {831/53}

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2000. Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. [LB4] {807/180}

Dalton, Christiane, and Barbara Seidlhofer. 1994. Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {831/55}

Gass, Susan, and Larry Selinker. 2008. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge. [RR] {801/GA} / [L4] {807/100/3}

Hinkel, Eli. 2002. Second Language Writers’ Text: Linguistic and Rhetorical Features. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {830/277}

Kasper, Gabriele, and Kenneth R. Rose. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Language Learning 52, Supplement 1. Much of this is available at Google Books, http://snipurl.com/gb-kasper

Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. I.S.P. ネーション著『英語教師のためのボキャブラリーラーニング』東京: 松柏社, 2005. [L1] {834/NA}

Odlin, Terence. 2003. “Cross-linguistic influence.” In Doughty and Long eds. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. [RR] {807/DO} / [LB4] {807/105}

Robinett, Betty Wallace, and Jacquelyn Schachter, eds. 1983. Second Language Learning: Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis, and Related Aspects. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan


Press. [LB3] {E1/470}

Schmitt, Norbert. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [LB4] {807/185}

5. Observing learning and teaching in the second language classroom


p. 135 Unfortunately the second item in Lightbown and Spada’s list is not at Hosei. But if you want to look for it (e.g. via the library “Consortium”), note that the first author is not “Allright” but Allwright.

Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classrooms.クレイグ・ショードロン著『第 2言語クラスルーム研究』東京: リーベル出版, 2006. [LB2] {807/48}

Echevarria, Jana, et al. 2008. Making Content Comprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP Model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. [LB4] {830/313}

Goldstein, Tara. 2003. Teaching and Learning in a Multilingual School: Choices, Risks, and Di-lemmas. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {375/147}

Lynch, Tony. 1996. Communication in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {807/67}

Malamah-Thomas, Ann. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {807/71}

Wajnryb, Ruth. 1992. Classroom Observation Tasks: A Resource Book for Language Teachers and Trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [LB4] {807/112}

6. Second language learning in the classroompp. 171–72 The meaning of gender here is only tenuously related to what is now its com-

monest meaning in English. In many languages – and in most European languages (modern English is an exception) – nouns are divided into two or more classes, called “genders”. Various grammatical matters (e.g. the form of the words corresponding to a, the, this, that, and those) depend on the gender. Typically, the words corresponding to girl, woman, cow, etc are in one gender and those corresponding to boy, man, bull, etc are in another. These genders are then called feminine and masculine respectively. (However, there are exceptions. For example, the German word Mädchen, meaning girl, is neuter.) Gender fits the word, not the concept: for example, French has alternative words for bicycle – vélo (masculine) and bicyclette (feminine) – and there’s nothing “masculine” or “feminine” (in the everyday sense) about either.

a ... the ... this/that ... my ...

... brother un frère le frère ce frère mon frère

... sister une soeur la soeur cette soeur ma soeur

... bicycleun véloune bicyclette

le vélola bicyclette

ce vélocette bicyclette

mon véloma bicyclette

p. 172 it is safe to assume that words that end in “-ette” are feminine, while those that end in “-age” are masculine: The former assumption is indeed pretty safe, but remember


masculine squelette (skeleton). The latter assumption has several conspicuous exceptions: feminine plage (beach), page (page) and image (image).

p. 173 a “hybrid article” that could be interpreted as either masculine or feminine: This is about the definite article (the word corresponding to “the”). The masculine (le) is pro-nounced [l ] and the feminine (ɘ la) is pronounced [la]; a hybrid would be pronounced somewhere (/l / or /l /) between the two.ɜ ɐ

p. 178 students in French immersion may need guidance in distinguishing between French “avoir/être” and English “have/be”: Simply, avoir corresponds to “have” and être corres-ponds to “be”. However, there are some big differences that come up in elementary French classes for native speakers of English. For example, translated literally into English, the normal conversational French for “I wrote”, “I read”, “I slept,” etc is the literal equi-valent of “I have written”, “I have read”, “I have slept”, etc (using avoir); however, for “I came”, “I stayed”, etc, it is instead “I am gone”, “I am come”, “I am stayed”, etc (using être).

p. 179 the article system in English is both complex and abstract and notoriously difficult to teach: Part of the system is pretty easy (see the note above about p. 83). What’s diffi-cult is the concept of “definiteness” (or the distinction between the “definite” and the “indefinite”).


Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Peda-gogy. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman. [LB4] {807/132}

Brown, James Dean, and Theodore S. Rogers. 2002. Doing Second Language Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {897/182}

Christian, Donna, and Fred Genesee, eds. 2001. Bilingual Education. Alexandria, Va.: TESOL. [LB4] {830/321}

Crandall, JoAnn, and Doris Kaufman, eds. 2002. Content-Based Instruction in Higher Education Settings. Alexandria, Va.: TESOL. [LB4] {830/320}

Cummins, Jim. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Cleve-don, Avon: Multilingual Matters. [LB4] {371.5/26}

Doughty, Catherine, and Jessica Williams, eds. 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Lan-guage Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. [LB4] {807/79}

Gass, S., et al, eds. 1998. The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Modern Language Journal 82. [LB4] {A7c/46}

Hedge, Tricia. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford Univers-ity Press. [LB4] {830/274}

Hinkel, Eli, ed. 2005. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Mah-wah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {807/184}

Hinkel, Eli, and Sandra Fotos, eds. 2002. New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {807/131}

Lado, Robert. 1964. Language Teaching: A Scientific Approach. ラドー著『外国語教育 : 科学的学習指導法』東京: 明治図書出版, 1970. [LB3] {E1/134}

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2000. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford:


Oxford University Press. [LB4] {830/315}

Lightbown, Patsy M. 2000. “Anniversary article: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching.” In Applied Linguistics 21. [LB4] {A7c/153} http://snipurl.com/lightbown-anniv

Mackey, Alison, and Susan M. Gass. 2005. Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Erlbaum. [LB4] {807/172}

Pinter, Annamaria. 2006. Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [LB4] {830/312}

Spada, N. 1997. “Form-focussed instruction and second language acquisition: A review of class-room and laboratory research.” In Language Teaching 30. [TL] {TA7c/11}

VanPatten, Bill, ed. 2004. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. [LB4] {807/171}

Wong, Wynne. 2005. Input Enhancement: From Theory and Research to the Classroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill. [LB4] {807/181}

Wray, Alison, and Aileen Bloomer. 2006. Projects in Linguistics: A Practical Guide to Research-ing Language. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold. [RR] {807/WR}

7. Popular ideas about language learning revisitedp. 184 (Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors): Me and

Fred are going outside now: This is completely idiomatic in some lects. See Huddleston and Pullum, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, pp. 462–63

p. 185 Highly intelligent people are good language learners: As for first language acquisi-tion, of course people of normal intelligence are good language learners and high intelli-gence is not needed. Moreover, some people of very low intelligence can acquire language very well: see what Pinker writes in The Language Instinct about people with Williams syn-drome.

p. 186 The earlier a second language is introduced. . . . This discussion assumes that a considerable amount of the second language is introduced by native or near-native speakers of the language. The assumption won’t hold if “English” is introduced in primary schools by people who pronounce it as if it were gairaigo within Japanese, or if it’s intro-duced in small quantities (for each distinct sentence in English, five or more explanatory sentences in Japanese).

Documents

Second Language Acquisition - 法政大学 [HOSEI …evans/courses/sla/ls.pdf · Second language acquisition / 1 ... Ortega, Lourdes. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition