Second Language Learning
Theories
Written by a team of leading experts working in different SLA specialisms, this
fourth edition is a clear and concise introduction to the main theories of second
language acquisition (SLA) from multiple perspectives, comprehensively
updated to reflect the very latest developments in SLA research in recent
years.
The book covers all the main theoretical perspectives currently active
in SLA and sets each chapter within a broader framework. Each chapter
examines the claims and scope of each theory and how each views language,
the learner and the acquisition process, supplemented by summaries of key
studies and data examples from a variety of languages. Chapters end with
an evaluative summary of the theories discussed. Key features to this fourth
edition include updated accounts of developments in cognitive approaches
to second language (L2) learning, the implications of advances in generative
linguistics and the “social turn” in L2 research, with re-worked chapters
on functional, sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives, and an entirely
new chapter on theory integration, in addition to updated examples using
new studies.
Second Language Learning Theories continues to be an essential resource for
graduate students in second language acquisition.
Rosamond Mitchell is Emeritus Professor of Applied Linguistics at the
University of Southampton, UK.
Florence Myles is Professor of Second Language Acquisition at the University
of Essex, UK.
Emma Marsden is Professor at the Centre for Research into Language
Learning and Use at the University of York, UK.
“This book continues to be a comprehensive and up-to-date introduction
to the ever-growing field of Second Language Learning research. With its
systematic structure and its numerous illustrations from empirical work, the
book will allow students and language teachers alike to compare and to
contrast the aims, the claims and the scopes of the leading L2 theories in
the field today. If you want to know something about the scientific study of
Second Language Learning, there is no better place to start than right here.”
Jonas Granfeldt, Lund University, Sweden
“This new edition is excellent news.The combined interests and ­expertise of
its authors ensure a very complete and balanced overview that will f­ascinate
students and strengthen their interest in the field.”
Carmen Muñoz, University of Barcelona, Spain
“Having used the previous three editions in my SLA courses, I ­enthusiastically
welcome the fourth edition of Second Language Learning Theories.
­Presenting new data from a range of languages, it clearly illustrates the major
theoretical approaches of the discipline.”
Julia Herschensohn, University of Washington, USA
Second Language Learning
Theories
Fourth Edition
Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles
and Emma Marsden
Fourth edition published 2019
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles and Emma Marsden
to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or
other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Hodder Arnold 1998
Third edition published by Routledge 2013
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-67140-9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-67141-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-61704-6 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
List of Illustrationsviii
Acknowledgementsx
Prefacexiii
1 Second Language Learning: Key Concepts and Issues
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 What Makes for a Good Theory? 2
1.3 Views on the Nature of Language 6
1.4 The Language Learning Process 11
1.5 Views of the Language Learner 21
1.6 Links with Social Practice 27
1.7 Conclusion 28
References 28
2 The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research
2.1 Introduction 39
2.2 The 1950s and 1960s 40
2.3 The 1970s 43
2.4 The 1980s: A Turning Point 57
2.5 Continuities and New Themes in the Research Agenda 60
2.6 Second Language Learning Timeline 63
References 77
3 Linguistics and Language Learning: The Universal
Grammar Approach
3.1 Introduction 81
3.2 Why a Universal Grammar? 82
3.3 What Does UG Consist Of? 89
3.4 UG and L1 Acquisition 98
3.5 UG and L2 Acquisition 102
3.6 Evaluation of UG-Based Approaches to L2 Acquisition 116
References 119
1
39
81
vi
Contents
4 Cognitive Approaches to Second Language
Learning (1): General Learning Mechanisms
4.1 Introduction 128
4.2 Input-Based Emergentist Perspectives 129
4.3 Processing-Based Perspectives 146
4.4 Evaluation of General Cognitive Approaches 154
References 158
5 Cognitive Approaches to Second Language
Learning (2): Memory Systems, Explicit Knowledge
and Skill Learning
5.1 Introduction 167
5.2 Memory Systems and Their Role in L2 Learning 169
5.3 Explicit Knowledge, Information Processing and Skill
Acquisition 175
5.4 Awareness and Attention in L2 Acquisition 186
5.5 Working Memory and L2 Learning 189
5.6 Evaluation of Cognitive Approaches (2): Memory Systems,
Explicit Knowledge and Skill Learning 195
References 198
6 Interaction in Second Language Learning
6.1 Introduction 209
6.2 The Revised Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996):
An Appeal to Cognitive Theory 211
6.3 Negotiation of Meaning and the Learning of Target L2
Structures and Vocabulary 213
6.4 The Role of Feedback during Oral Interaction 216
6.5 The Problem of “Noticing” 226
6.6 L2 Development in Computer-Mediated Interaction 229
6.7 Characteristics of Learners and of Tasks 231
6.8 Evaluation 232
References 236
7 Meaning-Based Perspectives on Second
Language Learning
7.1 Introduction 242
7.2 Early Functionalist Studies of SLL 243
7.3 Functionalism beyond the Case Study:The “Learner
Varieties” Approach 249
7.4 “Time Talk”: Developing the Means to Talk about Time 255
7.5 The Aspect Hypothesis 259
7.6 Cognitive Linguistics and “Thinking for Speaking” 263
128
167
209
242
Contents
vii
7.7 Second Language Pragmatics 269
7.8 Evaluation 276
References 279
8 Sociocultural Perspectives on Second Language Learning
8.1 Introduction 286
8.2 Sociocultural Theory 286
8.3 Applications of SCT to Second Language Learning 293
8.4 Evaluation 317
References 320
286
9 Sociolinguistic Perspectives
326
9.1 Introduction 326
9.2 Sociolinguistically Driven Variability in Second Language Use 326
9.3 Second Language Socialization 333
9.4 Conversation Analysis and Second Language Learning 342
9.5 Communities of Practice and Situated Learning 348
9.6 The Language Learner as Social Being: L2 Identity, Agency
and Investment 355
9.7 Evaluation:The Scope and Achievements of Sociolinguistic
Enquiry 363
References 365
10 Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on Second
Language Learning
10.1 Introduction 373
10.2 The MOGUL Framework 376
10.3 Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) 384
10.4 Conclusion 394
References 395
11 Conclusion
11.1 One Theory or Many? 399
11.2 Main Achievements of Second Language Learning Research 399
11.3 Future Directions for Second Language Learning Research 402
11.4 How to Do Research 403
11.5 Second Language Learning Research and Language
Education 405
References 407
373
399
Glossary410
Subject Index424
Name Index433
Illustrations
Tables
4.1
4.2
4.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.1
9.2
9.3
Input Profile of Difficult and Easy Constructions
131
Processability Hierarchy for English Questions
149
Predicted and Actual Degree of Difficulty Based on
Isomorphism154
Examples of Interactional Modifications in NS-NNS
Conversations212
Immersion Teachers’ Feedback Moves
218
Negative Feedback and Modified Output, Number of
224
Tokens per Group
Question Development, Number of Learners per Group
225
Pragmatic and Syntactic Modes of Expression
244
Paratactic Precursors of Different Target Language
Constructions248
Coding Scheme and Example Utterances from The
Finite Story254
Distribution of Commonest Forms for Future Expression
258
in L1/L2 Spanish
Number of Participants Producing Each Future Form
258
Summary of the Main Verbs Used for Danish and Spanish
268
Placement Events
Perceptions of PBLL Activity: Sample Participants’
Comments299
Regulatory Scale for Error Feedback: Implicit (Strategic) to
Explicit303
Microgenesis in the Language System
304
Methods of Assistance Occurring during Classroom Peer
Interaction307
[t]/[d] Deletion in Detroit African-American Speech
329
Varbrul Results for [t]/[d] Deletion by African-American
Speakers from Detroit: Hypothetical Data Inferred
from Table 9.1329
[t]/[d] Absence by Grammatical Category in ChineseEnglish Interlanguage and in Native English Dialects
330
Illustrations ix
Figures
1.1 Spolsky’s General Model of Second Language Learning
4
2.1 Acquisition Hierarchy for 13 English Grammatical
Morphemes for Spanish-Speaking and CantoneseSpeaking Children
50
2.2 Comparison of Adult and Child Acquisition Sequences for
51
Eight Grammatical Morphemes
5.1 Comparing Declarative and Procedural Memory Systems
172
of L1 and L2 Learners
6.1 Mean Accuracy of Three Groups on Test of Possessive
220
Determiners (Oral Picture Description Task)
6.2 Performance of (a) “Low” and (b) “High” Students on
Grammaticality Judgement Task (Written Error
221
Correction Task)
7.1 Expected Direction of Spread of Preterit and Imperfect
Forms in L2 Spanish across Lexical Classes
260
7.2 Diagrammatic Representation of Modal Verbs Will and May264
7.3 Distribution of Request Types by Learner Group
273
8.1 Model of an Activity System
293
8.2 Activity of L1 Arabic and L1 Korean Students Using
301
Web Tutor
8.3 Development of Self-Regulation over Time
306
8.4 Didactic Model for Mood Selection in Spanish
312
8.5 Sample Pedagogical Diagram: “Social Distance”
313
9.1 A Sample Individual Network of Practice (INoP): Liliana
352
10.1 The Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and
Teaching374
10.2 The General MOGUL Framework
377
10.3 The Wider Language System of MOGUL
377
10.4 Core Language Architecture within MOGUL
378
10.5 The Word Lamp as a Representational Chain
380
10.6 Moving Min-Max Graph Showing the Development of
389
Case Accuracy over Time
10.7 Development of Complexity on (a) the Morphological
390
Level, (b) the Noun Phrase Level and (c) the Sentence Level
Acknowledgements
The authors and publishers wish to thank the following for permission to
use copyright material:
Academic Press/Emerald Publishing: figure from “From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy”, by T. Givón, in Syntax and Semantics
12, 1979.
Cambridge University Press: table from “Corrective feedback and learner
uptake”, by R. Lyster and L. Ranta, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
19, 1996. Two tables from “Identifying the impact of negative feedback and
learners’ responses on ESL question development”, by K. McDonough,
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27, 2005. Two figures from “One size
fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning”, by A. Ammar and N. Spada, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 2006. Figure from “The role of dynamic
contrasts in the L2 acquisition of Spanish past tense morphology”, by
L. Dominguez, N. Tracy-Ventura, M.J. Arche, Rosamond Mitchell and Florence Myles, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 2013.Three figures from
Michael Sharwood Smith and John Truscott, The multilingual mind: A modular
processing perspective, © Michael Sharwood Smith and John Truscott 2014.
Figure from Michael Sharwood Smith, Introducing language and cognition:
A map of the mind, © Michael Sharwood Smith 2017.
Elsevier: figure from “Sociocultural influences on the use of a web-based
tool for learning English vocabulary”, by A. Juffs and B.E. Friedline, System
42, 2014.
Equinox Publishing Ltd: figure from “Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development”, by E. Negueruela, in Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, edited by J.P. Lantolf and
M. Poehner, © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2008. Figure from “Understanding
the revolutionary character of L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of
mediation matter”, by J.P. Lantolf, L. Kurtz and O. Kisselev, Language and
Sociocultural Theory 3, © Equinox Publishing Ltd 2016.
John Benjamins Publishing Company: Table from “Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese learners of English”,
by R.J. Bayley, in Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, edited by
R. Bayley and D.R. Preston, 1996.Two tables from “Variationist perspectives
Acknowledgements
xi
on second language acquisition”, by D.R. Preston, in Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, edited by R. Bayley and D.R. Preston, 1996. Table
from The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition: The multiple constraints hypothesis, by A. Lenzing, 2013. With kind permission by John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
www.benjamins.com.
John Wiley & Sons Inc.: figure from “Negative feedback as regulation
and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development”, by
A. Aljaafreh and J.P. Lantolf, The Modern Language Journal 78, 1994. Table
from “Some input on the easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical
study”, by L. Collins et al., The Modern Language Journal 93, 2009. Figure
from “A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world”, by
Douglas Fir Group, The Modern Language Journal 100 (S1), 2016. Figure from
“Instructed concept appropriation and L2 pragmatic development in the
classroom”, by R.A. van Compernolle and A. Henery, Language Learning 64,
2014. Table from “Semantic categorization of placement verbs in L1 and L2
Danish and Spanish”, by T. Cadierno, I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano and A. HijazoGascón, Language Learning 66, 2016.Two tables from “What we gain by combining variationist and concept-oriented approaches: The case of acquiring
Spanish future-time expression”, by M. Kanwit, Language Learning 67, 2017.
Table from “Beyond statistical learning: Communication principles and
­language-internal factors shape grammar in child and adult beginners learning Polish through controlled exposure”, by C. Dimroth, Language Learning
Early View, 2018.Table from “The impact of interaction on comprehension”,
by T. Pica, R. Young and C. Doughty, TESOL Quarterly 21, 1987. Figure
from “Academic English socialization through individual networks of practice”, by S. Zappa-Hollman and P.A. Duff, TESOL Quarterly 49, 2015.
MIT Press: Extract from Impossible languages, by A. Moro, 2016.
National Academy of Sciences: Figure from “Child first language and
adult second language are both tied to general-purpose learning systems”,
by P. Hamrick, J.A.G. Lum and M.T. Ullman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 2018.
Oxford University Press: two figures from Language two, by H. Dulay, M.
Burt and S. Krashen, reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press.
Copyright © 1982 Oxford University Press, Inc. Figure from Conditions for
second language learning, by B. Spolsky, reproduced by permission of Oxford
University Press. Copyright © B. Spolsky 1989. Table from “A note on
canonical word order”, by W. O’Grady and Y. Yamashita, Applied Linguistics
26, 2005. Two figures from “Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy
and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish”,
by M. Spoelman and M. Verspoor, Applied Linguistics 31, 2010. Figure from
“Enriching activity theory without shortcuts”, by Yrjö Engeström, Interacting
with Computers 20, 2008.
Taylor & Francis: Table from Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese, by A.S. Ohta, 2001. Figure from Cognitive linguistics
xii Acknowledgements
and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence, by
K. Tyler, 2012. Table from “Project-based language learning: An activity theory analysis”, by M. Gibbes and L. Carson, Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching 8, 2014.
Walter de Gruyter and Company: Figure from “Pragmatic development
in the Spanish as a FL classroom”, by J.C. Félix-Brasdefer, Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 2007.
Preface
0.1 Aims of This Book
This book is the result of collaboration between researchers interested
in second language (L2) learning from a range of perspectives: linguistic
(Myles), cognitive (Marsden) and social/educational (Mitchell). As in previous editions, our general aim is to provide an up-to-date, introductory
overview of the current state of L2 studies. Our intended audience is wide:
undergraduates following first degrees in language/linguistics, graduate students embarking on courses in foreign language education/English as a foreign language/applied linguistics, and a broader audience of teachers and
other professionals concerned with L2 education and development. Second
language learning is a field of research with potential to make its own distinctive contribution to fundamental understandings of, for example, the
workings of the human mind or the nature of language. It also has the
potential to inform the improvement of social practice in a range of fields,
most obviously in language education. We ourselves are interested in L2
learning from both perspectives, and are concerned to make it intelligible to
the widest possible audience.
All commentators recognize that while the field of L2 research has been
extremely active and productive in recent decades, we have not yet arrived
at a unified or comprehensive view of how second languages are learned,
although tentative models have regularly been proposed (see Chapter 10).We
have therefore organized this book as a presentation and critical review of a
number of different L2 theories, which can broadly be viewed as linguistic,
psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic. Indeed, the overall “map” of the field
we proposed in the first edition largely survives today, reflecting the fact that
key strands of research already active 20 years ago have continued to flourish and develop. No single theoretical position has achieved dominance, and
new theoretical orientations continue to appear. Whether this is a desirable
state of affairs or not has been an issue of some controversy (see discussion in
Chapter 1). On the whole, while we fully accept the arguments for the need
for cumulative programmes of research within the framework of a particular
theory, we incline towards a pluralist view of L2 theorizing. In any case, it is
xiv Preface
obvious that students entering the field today need a broad introduction to a
range of theoretical positions, with the tools to evaluate their goals, strengths
and limitations, and this is what we aim to offer.
In this fourth edition, our primary aim remains the same: to introduce the
reader to those theoretical orientations on language learning which seem
currently most productive and interesting for our intended audience. But we
have revised our text throughout to reflect the substantial developments that
have taken place in the field in the last few years, so that the work aims to
be fully up to date. In particular, the new edition takes account of substantial
recent developments in cognitive approaches to L2 learning, and we also
review the implications of recent advances in generative linguistics (Chomsky’s Minimalist Program); the strength of the ongoing “social turn” in L2
research has been acknowledged, with substantial revisions of later chapters
dealing with functional, sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives; and in
an entirely new chapter, we evaluate some contrasting recent proposals for a
more integrative approach to L2 theorizing. Throughout the book, key theoretical and methodological advances are presented and explained, greater
attention has been paid to research on internet-based language learning,
and new studies (in a range of languages, and with recent methodological
innovations) have been incorporated as examples. The evaluation sections in
each chapter have been expanded, and the book is rebalanced in favour of
newer material.
As one clear sign of the vigour and dynamism of L2 research, a very high
number of surveys, reviews and meta-analyses are available. Reflecting the
variety of the field, these vary in their focus and aims. Some are written from
the perspective of a single theoretical position, construct or issue (e.g. Cook &
Newson, 2007; Deters, Gao, Miller, & Vitanova, 2015; Duff & May, 2017; Gass,
Spinner, & Behney, 2018; Hawkins, 2001; Hulstijn, 2015; Lantolf & Poehner,
2014; Lardiere, 2007; Leung, 2009; Li, 2015; Mackey, 2007; MacWhinney &
O’Grady, 2015; Ortega & Han, 2017; Loewen & Sato, 2017; Paradis, 2009;
Rebuschat, 2015; Slabakova, 2016; Taguchi & Roever, 2017; Thomas, 2004;
Wen, Borges Mota, & McNeill, 2015); some are encyclopaedic in scope and
ambition (e.g. Atkinson, 2011; R. Ellis, 2015; Gass & Mackey, 2012; Gass,
Behney, & Plonsky, 2013; Herschensohn & Young-Scholten, 2013; Ortega,
2009; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2009; Robinson, 2013); some pay detailed attention
to research design and methods and data analysis (e.g. Barkhuizen, Benson, &
Chik, 2014; Duff, 2008; Kasper & Wagner, 2014; Li Wei & Moyer, 2008;
Mackey & Gass, 2015; Mackey & Marsden, 2016; Marsden, Morgan-Short,
Thompson, & Abugaber, 2018; Norris, Ross, & Schoonen, 2015; Phakiti, De
Costa, Plonsky, & Starfield, 2018; Plonsky, 2015).
This particular book is intended as a unified introduction to the field,
for students without a substantial prior background in linguistics. We begin
with an introduction to key concepts (Chapter 1) and a historical account of
how the second language learning field has developed (Chapter 2). In later
chapters (3–9) we have made a selection from across the range of L2 studies
Preface
xv
of a range of theoretical positions which we believe are most active and
significant. To represent linguistic theorizing, we have concentrated on the
Universal Grammar approach (Chapter 3). In Chapters 4 and 5 we deal with
a selection of cognitive theories: in Chapter 4 we examine the application to
L2 learning of general and implicit learning mechanisms, concentrating on
emergentist and processing perspectives, while in Chapter 5 we explore the
place of memory, explicit knowledge and attention, and their contribution
to L2 skill acquisition in particular. Chapter 6 explores the concept of L2
interaction, tracing earlier and later versions of the Interaction Hypothesis
and related theories. Chapter 7 examines a range of theoretical positions
which assume the centrality of meaning-making for second language learning (functionalism, “cognitive linguistics”, L2 pragmatics). Chapter 8 deals
with sociocultural theory and some of its more recent extensions (activity
theory, dynamic assessment, concept-based instruction). In Chapter 9 we
turn to the emergence of socially patterned variation in L2, and examine L2
socialization theory, as well as theories of L2 identity, agency and investment
as applied. Each of these theoretical positions is explained, and then illustrated by discussion of a small number of key empirical studies which have
been inspired by that approach. We use these studies to illustrate the methodologies which are characteristic of the different research traditions (from
controlled laboratory-based studies of people learning artificial languages to
naturalistic observation of informal learning in the community); the scope
and nature of the language “facts” which are felt to be important within
that family of theories; and the kinds of generalizations which are drawn.
Where appropriate, we refer our readers to parallels in first language acquisition research, and also to more comprehensive treatments of the research
evidence relevant to different theoretical positions. Each chapter concludes
with an evaluation section (see below). We have introduced an entirely new
chapter (10) which discusses prospects for more integrative approaches to L2
theorizing. We review contemporary calls for building shared, transdisciplinary frameworks within which to locate the various research traditions, and
we present two current integrative initiatives: the Modular Online Growth
and Use of Language (MOGUL) project, and Complexity Theory/Dynamic
Systems Theory (DST).
In addition to these revisions, we have updated our timeline of important milestones in the development of L2 research, as well as our glossary
explaining key terms used in the book.
0.2 Comparing Second Language Learning
Perspectives
We want to encourage our readers to compare and contrast the various
theoretical perspectives we discuss in the book, so that they can get a better
sense of the kinds of issues which different theories are trying to explain,
and the extent to which they are supported to date with empirical evidence.
xvi
Preface
In reviewing our chosen perspectives, therefore, we evaluate each systematically, considering the nature and extent of empirical support and paying
attention to the following factors:
The claims and scope of the theory;
The view of language involved in the theory;
The view of the language learning process;
The view of the learner.
In Chapter 1 we discuss each of these factors briefly, introducing key terminology and critical issues which have proved important in distinguishing
one theory from another.
References
Atkinson, D. (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and
learning research. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Cook, V., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2015). Theorizing and analyzing
agency in second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. A., & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course (4th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (Eds.). (2018). Salience in second language acquisition.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Herschensohn, J., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.). (2013). The Cambridge handbook of second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and
research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–42.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2
education:Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Abingdon: Routledge.
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Preface
xvii
Leung,Y. I. (Ed.). (2009). Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar
acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36,
385–408.
Li Wei, & Moyer, M. G. (2008). The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and
multilingualism. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Marsden, E. (Eds.). (2016). Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS
repository of instruments for research into second languages. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in
second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for
the field. Language Learning, 68, 321–391.
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady, W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence.
Chichester/West Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Norris, J. M., Ross, S., & Schoonen, R. (Eds.). (2015). Improving and extending quantitative reasoning in second language research [Special issue]. Language Learning, 65.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Ortega, L., & Han, Z.-H. (Eds.). (2017). Complexity theory and language development: In
celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave handbook of
applied linguistics research methodology. New York: Palgrave.
Plonsky, L. (Ed.). (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New
York: Routledge.
Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Ritchie,W.C., & Bhatia,T. K. (Eds.). (2009). The new handbook of second language acquisition.
Bingley: Emerald Group.
Robinson, P. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Thomas, M. (2004). Universal grammar in second language acquisition: A history. London:
Routledge.
Wen, Z., Borges Mota, M., & McNeill, A. (Eds.). (2015). Working memory in second language
acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
1
Second Language Learning
Key Concepts and Issues
1.1 Introduction
This preparatory chapter provides an overview of key concepts and issues
which will recur throughout the book. We offer introductory definitions of
a range of terms, and try to equip the reader with the means to compare the
goals and claims of particular theories with one another. We also summarize
key issues, and indicate where they will be explored in more detail later in
the book.
The main themes to be dealt with in following sections are:
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
What makes for a “good” explanation or theory
Views on the nature of language
Views of the language learning process
Views of the language learner
Links between language learning theory and social practice.
First, however, we must offer a preliminary definition of our most central concept, “second language learning” (SLL). We define this broadly, to
include the learning of any language, to any level, provided only that the
learning of the “second” language takes place sometime later than the learning by infants and very young children of their first language(s) (i.e. from
around the age of 4).
Simultaneous infant bilingualism from birth is of course a common phenomenon, but this is a specialist topic, with its own literature, which we do
not try to address in this book; for overviews see, for example, Serratrice
(2013) and Nicoladis (2018). We do, however, take account of the thriving
research interest in interactions and mutual influences between “first” languages (L1s) and later-acquired languages, surveyed, for example, in Cook
and Li Wei (2016) and Pavlenko (2011); aspects of this work are discussed in
later chapters.
For us, therefore, “second languages” are any languages learned later than
in earliest childhood. They may indeed be the second language (the L2) the
learner is working with, in a literal sense, or they may be his/her third, fourth
2
Second Language Learning
or fifth language. They encompass both languages of wider communication encountered within the local region or community (e.g. in educational
institutions, at the workplace or in the media) and truly foreign languages,
which have no substantial local uses or numbers of speakers. We include
“foreign” languages under our more general term of “second” languages
because we believe that many (if not all) of the underlying learning processes are broadly similar for more local and more remote target languages,
despite differing learning purposes, circumstances and, often, the quantity
and nature of experiences with the language. (And, of course, languages are
increasingly accessible via the internet, a means of communication which
cuts across any simple “local”/“foreign” distinction.)
We are also interested in all kinds of learning, whether formal, planned
and systematic (as in classroom-based learning) or informal and incidental to
communication (as when a new language is “picked up” in the community
or via the internet). Following the proposals of Stephen Krashen (1981),
some L2 researchers have made a principled terminological distinction
between formal, conscious learning and informal, unconscious acquisition.
Krashen’s “Acquisition-Learning” hypothesis is discussed further in Chapter 2; however, many researchers in the field do not distinguish between
the two terms, and unless specially indicated, we ourselves will be using
both terms interchangeably. (Note, in Chapters 4 and 5, where the distinction between conscious and unconscious learning is central, we will use the
terms “implicit” and “explicit” learning, which often broadly align with the
distinction between “acquisition” and “learning”.)
1.2 What Makes for a Good Theory?
Second language (L2) learning is an immensely complex phenomenon. Millions of human beings experience L2 learning and may have a good practical
understanding of activities that helped them to learn. But this experience
and common-sense understanding are clearly not enough to help us explain
the learning process fully. We know, for a start, that people cannot reliably
describe the language system that they have internalized, nor the mechanisms that process, store and retrieve many aspects of that new language. We
need to understand L2 learning better than we do, for two basic reasons:
1. Because improved knowledge in this domain is interesting in itself and
can contribute to a more general understanding about the nature of
language, human learning and intercultural communication, and thus
about the human mind itself, as well as how all these affect each other;
2. Because the knowledge will be useful. If we become better able to
account for both success and failure in L2 learning, there will be a payoff
for many teachers and their learners.
We can only pursue a better understanding of L2 learning in an organized and productive way if our efforts are guided by some form of theory
Second Language Learning 3
(Hulstijn, 2014; Jordan, 2013;VanPatten & J.Williams, 2015). For our purposes,
a theory is a (more or less) abstract set of claims about significant entities
within the phenomenon under study, the relationships between them, and
the processes that bring about change.Thus, a theory aims not just at description, but at explanation. Theories may be embryonic and restricted in scope,
or more elaborate, explicit and comprehensive. They may deal with different
areas of interest; thus, a property theory will be primarily concerned with
modelling the nature of the language system to be acquired, while a transition theory will be primarily concerned with modelling the developmental
processes of acquisition (Gregg, 2003; Jordan, 2004, Chapter 5; Sharwood
Smith, Truscott, & Hawkins, 2013). One particular property theory may deal
only with one domain of language (such as morphosyntax, phonology or
the lexicon). Likewise, one particular transition theory itself may deal only
with a particular stage of L2 learning or with the learning of some particular subcomponent of language; or it may propose learning mechanisms
that are much more general in scope. Worthwhile theories are collaboratively produced and evolve through a process of systematic enquiry in which
the claims of the theory are assessed against some kind of evidence or data.
This may take place through hypothesis-testing through formal experiment,
or through more ecological procedures, where naturally occurring data are
analysed. In addition, bottom-up theory development can happen, usually
through reflections on data (whether naturally or experimentally elicited),
from which theories can emerge and become articulated. (There is now a
considerable number of manuals offering guidance on research methods in
both traditions, such as Mackey & Gass, 2012; Phakiti, De Costa, Plonsky, &
Starfield, 2018. We will provide basic introductions to a range of research
procedures as needed, throughout the book and also in the Glossary.) Finally,
the process of theory building is a reflexive one; new developments in the
theory lead to the need to collect new information and explore different
phenomena and different patterns in the potentially infinite world of “facts”
and data. Puzzling “facts” and patterns that fail to fit with expectations in turn
lead to new, more powerful theoretical insights.
To make these ideas more concrete, an early “model” of L2 learning is shown
in Figure 1.1, taken from Spolsky (1989). This model represents a “general
theory of second language learning”, as the proposer described it (p. 14). The
model encapsulates this researcher’s theoretical views on the overall relationship between contextual factors, individual learner differences, learning opportunities and learning outcomes. It is thus an ambitious model, in the breadth
of phenomena it is trying to explain. The rectangular boxes show the factors
(or variables) which the researcher believes are most significant for learning,
that is, where variation can lead to differences in success or failure.The arrows
connecting the various boxes show directions of influence.The contents of the
various boxes are defined at great length, as consisting of clusters of interacting “Conditions” (74 in all: 1989, pp. 16–25), which make language learning
success more or less likely. These summarize the results of a great variety of
empirical language learning research, as Spolsky interprets them.
provides
Social context
leads to
Attitudes
(of various kinds)
which appear in the
learner as
Motivation
which joins with other personal
characteristics such as
Age
Personality
Capabilities
Previous
Knowledge
all of which explain the use the
learner makes of the available
Learning opportunities (formal or informal)
the interplay between learner
and situation determining
Linguistic and non-linguistic
outcomes for the learner
Figure 1.1 Spolsky’s General Model of Second Language Learning
Source: Spolsky, 1989, p. 28
Second Language Learning 5
How would we begin to evaluate this or any other model, or, even more
modestly, to decide that this was a view of the language learning process
we could work with? This would depend partly on the extent to which the
author has taken account of evidence and provided a systematic account
of it. It would also depend on rather broader philosophical positions: for
example, are we satisfied with an account of human learning which sees
individual differences as both relatively fixed and also highly influential for
learning? Finally, it would also depend on the particular focus of our own
interests, within L2 learning; this particular model seems well adapted for
the study of the individual learner, for example, but has relatively little to
say about the social relationships in which they engage, the way they process
new language, nor the kinds of language system they construct.
Since at least the mid 1990s, there has been debate about the adequacy of
the theoretical frameworks used to underpin research on L2 learning. One
main line of criticism has been that L2 research (as exemplified by Spolsky,
1989) has historically been too preoccupied with the cognition of the individual learner, and sociocultural dimensions of learning have been neglected.
From this perspective language is an essentially social phenomenon, and L2
learning itself is a “social accomplishment”, which is “situated in social interaction” (Firth & Wagner, 2007, p. 807) and discoverable through scrutiny
of L2 use, using techniques such as conversation analysis (Pekarek Doehler,
2010; Kasper & Wagner, 2011). A second—though not unrelated—debate
has concerned the extent to which L2 theorizing has become too broad.
Long (1993) and others argued that “normal science” advanced through
competition between a limited number of theories, and that the L2 field
was weakened by theory proliferation. This received a vigorous riposte from
Lantolf (1996) among others, advancing the postmodern view that knowledge claims are a matter of discourses. From this point of view, all scientific
theories are viewed as “metaphors that have achieved the status of acceptance by a group of people we refer to as scientists” (p. 721), and scientific
theory building is all about “taking metaphors seriously” (p. 723). For Lantolf, any reduction in the number of “official metaphors” debated could
“suffocate” those espousing different world views.
These debates about the nature of knowledge, theory and explanation
have persisted up to the present. It is probably fair to say that the majority of L2 researchers today adopt some version of a “rationalist” or “realist”
position ( Jordan, 2004; Long, 2007; Sealey & Carter, 2004, 2014). This position is grounded in the philosophical view that an objective and knowable
world exists (i.e. not only discourses), and that it is possible to build and test
successively more powerful explanations of how that world works, through
systematic programmes of enquiry and of problem-solving. Indeed, this is
the position we take in this book. However, like numerous others ( Jordan,
2004; Ortega, 2011; Rothman & VanPatten, 2013; Zuengler & Miller, 2006),
we acknowledge that a proliferation of theories is necessary to make better
sense of the varied phenomena of SLL, the agency of language learners, and
6
Second Language Learning
the contexts and communities of practice in which they operate. We believe
that our understanding advances best where theories are freely debated and
challenged. As later chapters show, we accommodate a range of linguistic,
cognitive, sociocultural and poststructuralist perspectives. But in all cases, we
would expect to find the following:
1. Clear and explicit statements about the ground the theory aims to cover
and the claims it is making;
2. Systematic procedures for confirming/disconfirming the theory,
through data gathering and interpretation: the claims of a good theory
must be testable/falsifiable in some way;
3. Not only descriptions of L2 phenomena, but attempts to explain why
they are so, and to propose mechanisms for change, i.e. some form of
transition theory;
4. Last but not least, engagement with other theories in the field, and
serious attempts to account for at least some of the phenomena which
are “common ground” in ongoing public discussion (VanPatten &
J. Williams, 2015). Remaining sections of this chapter offer a preliminary overview of numbers of these.
(For fuller discussion of rationalist evaluation criteria, see Gregg, 2003; Hulstijn, 2014; Jordan, 2004, pp. 87–122; Sealey & Carter, 2004, pp. 85–106; and
for a poststructuralist perspective on theory in second language acquisition
and applied linguistics, see McNamara, 2012; S. Talmy, 2014.)
1.3 Views on the Nature of Language
1.3.1 Levels of Language
Linguists have traditionally viewed language as a complex communication
system, which must be analysed on a number of levels (or subcomponents),
such as phonology, morphology, lexis, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse. (Readers unsure about this basic descriptive terminology will find
help from the Glossary, and in more depth from an introductory linguistics
text, such as Fromkin, Rodman, & Hyams, 2017.) They have differed about
the extent of interconnections between these levels; for example, while, e.g.,
Chomsky argued at one time that “grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning” (1957, p. 17), another tradition initiated by the British linguist Firth claims that “there is no boundary between lexis and grammar:
lexis and grammar are interdependent” (Stubbs, 1996, p. 36). (See also our
discussion of O’Grady’s work in Chapter 4.)
In examining different perspectives on SLL, we will first of all be looking at the levels of language which they attempt to take into account. (Does
language learning start with words or with pragmatics?) We will also examine the degree of integration or separation that the theories assume, across
Second Language Learning 7
various levels of language. We will find that the control of syntax and morphology is commonly seen as central to language learning, and that most
general L2 theories try to account for development in this area. Other levels
of language receive much more variable attention, and some areas are commonly treated in a semi-autonomous way, as specialist fields. This is often
true for L2 pragmatics, lexical development and phonology, for example:
see Kasper and Rose (2002), Bardovi-Harlig (2012, 2017) or Taguchi and
Roever (2017) on pragmatics; Daller, Milton, and Treffers-Daller (2007),
Kroll and Ma (2017), Meara (2009), Schmitt (2008) or Webb and Nation
(2017) on vocabulary; Colantoni, Steele, and Escudero (2015), Derwing and
Munro (2015), Eckman (2012) and Moyer (2013) on phonology and L2
pronunciation.
As a consequence of the focus on morphosyntax of many L2 theorists,
both those concerned with property theories and those concerned with
transition theories, our own attention in much of what follows reflects this.
Indeed, in our view, some of the most controversial and theoretically stimulating challenges have been thrown up in the area of learning morphosyntax.
However, as noted earlier, an increasing number of theories are more explicitly integrating the lexicon with morphosyntax (on this, see Chapters 3 and
4 in particular, and also the MOGUL framework discussed in Chapter 10).
1.3.2 Competence and Performance
Throughout the 20th century, theorists changed their minds about their
approach to language data. Should this be the collection and analysis of
actual attested samples of language in use, for example by recording and
analyzing people’s speech? The structuralist linguistics tradition of the early
20th century leaned towards this view. Or should it be to theorize underlying principles and rules which govern language behaviour, in its potentially
infinite variety? The linguist Noam Chomsky famously argued that it is the
business of theoretical linguistics to study and model underlying language
competence, rather than the performance data of actual utterances which
people have produced (Chomsky, 1965). By competence, Chomsky was
referring to an abstract representation of language knowledge hidden inside
our minds, with the potential to create and understand original utterances
in a given language (rather than sets of stored formulae or patterns). Much
of the Chomsky-inspired research discussed in Chapter 3 indeed concerns
itself with exploring L2 competence in this sense.
However, even if the competence/performance distinction is accepted,
there are clearly difficulties in studying competence. Performance data is
seen as only an imperfect reflection of competence; for Chomsky himself, the
infinite creativity of an underlying system can never adequately be reflected
in a finite sample of speech or writing (1965, p. 18). Researchers interested
in exploring underlying competence have not generally taken much interest in the analysis of linguistic corpora, for example (see below). Instead,
8
Second Language Learning
they are likely to believe that competence is best accessed indirectly and
under controlled conditions, through experimental tasks such as sentencecompletion, eye-tracking or grammaticality judgement tests (roughly, tests
in which people are offered sample sentences, which are in (dis)agreement
with the rules proposed for the underlying competence, and invited to
say whether they judge them to be acceptable or not: Ionin, 2012). What
exactly is being measured in such tasks is regularly debated (Gutiérrez, 2013;
Plonsky, Marsden, Crowther, Gass, & Spinner, in press).
This split between competence and performance has never been universally accepted, however, with, e.g., linguists in the British tradition of Firth
and Halliday arguing for radically different models. Firth himself described
such dualisms as “a quite unnecessary nuisance” (Firth, 1957, p. 2n, quoted
in Stubbs, 1996, p. 44). In the Firthian view, the only option for linguists is
to study language in use, and there is no opposition between language as
system and observed instances of language behaviour; the only difference is
one of perspective.
Of course, the abstract language system cannot be “read” directly off
small samples of actual text, any more than the underlying climate of some
geographical region of the world can be modelled from today’s weather
(a metaphor of Michael Halliday, quoted in Stubbs, 1996, pp. 44–45).The development of corpus linguistics has challenged the competence-performance
distinction and has revitalized the writing of observation-based, “probabilistic” grammars (Conrad, 2010; Hunston & Francis, 2000). In this form of
linguistics, very large corpora (databases) comprising millions of words of
running text are collected, stored electronically and analysed with a growing
range of software tools. New descriptions of English grounded in corpus
analysis have provided greatly enhanced performance-based accounts of the
grammar and vocabulary of spoken language and of variation among spoken and written genres (Biber & Reppen, 2015; Carter & McCarthy, 2006;
Dang, Coxhead, & Webb, 2017; O’Keefe & McCarthy, 2010). In L1 acquisition research, the CHILDES project has made extensive child language
corpora available in an increasing number of languages, and is a central tool
in contemporary research (MacWhinney, 2000, 2007).Within the field of L2
learning, large new learner corpora are also becoming available, which can
be analysed both from a bottom-up perspective (to find patterns in the data)
and from a top-down perspective (to test specific hypotheses) (Myles, 2008,
2015; Granger, Gilquin, & Meunier, 2015). More recently, emphasis is shifting towards the integration of experimental and corpus-based approaches in
computational linguistics (Rebuschat, Meurers, & McEnery, 2017).
In making sense of contemporary perspectives on SLL, then, we will also
need to be aware of the extent to which a competence/performance distinction is assumed. This will have significant consequences for the research
methodologies associated with various positions, for example the extent to
which these pay attention to naturalistic samples and databases of learner
language, spoken and written, or rely on more controlled and focused—but
Second Language Learning 9
more indirect—testing of learners’ underlying knowledge. (For further discussion of the relationship between language use and language learning, see
Section 1.4.8.)
1.3.3 Models of Language: Formalist, Functionalist and Emergentist
A further debate in contemporary linguistics which is relevant to SLL theorizing has to do with whether language is viewed primarily as a formal or a
functional system. From a formal linguistics perspective such as that adopted
in structuralist or Chomskyan theory, language comprises a set of abstract
elements (parts of speech, morphosyntactic features, phonemes and so on)
which are combined together by a series of rules or procedures. Semantics
forms part of this formal system, but does not drive it (for discussion see, for
example, Rispoli, 1999).
From a functionalist perspective, on the other hand, research and theorizing
must start with the communicative functions of language, and functionalists
seek to explain the structure of language as a reflection of meaning-making.
For example, a speaker’s intention to treat a particular piece of information
as already known to their interlocutor, or alternatively as new for them, is
seen by theories such as Halliday’s systemic functional grammar as motivating particular grammar phenomena such as clefting (fronting a piece of
information within a sentence: It was my mother who liked jazz). Theoretical linguists who have adopted this perspective in varying ways, and whose
work has been important for both L1 and L2 research, include Givón (e.g.
1979, 1985), Halliday (e.g. Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), Lakoff (1987),
Langacker (1987) and L. Talmy (2000) (and see Chapter 7 for discussion of
this perspective in L2 research).
A third theoretical perspective which is important in L2 research is that
of emergentism. From this viewpoint, language does not have fixed abstract,
underlying representations. Rather, language is conceived of as emerging in
a dynamic fashion from language use, and its form is strongly and continuously influenced by statistical patterns detected by the learner in the surrounding input. Emergentist perspectives are explored in Chapters 4 and 10.
1.3.4 Models of Language: Communicative Competence and CAF
Sociolinguists and many language educators have long been interested in
models of language proficiency which are somewhat broader than those
discussed so far, and which take full account of the ability to use language
appropriately in its social context. The most famous of these proposals is of
course the “communicative competence” concept proposed by Dell Hymes
(1972), and adapted for discussions of L2 learning by Canale and Swain
(1980). The ongoing influence of these ideas can be traced in L2 learning
research, in work on L2 pragmatics and on interactional competence, discussed here in Chapters 7 and 9.
10 Second Language Learning
A newer integrative framework which has become quite widely used in
L2 research to capture major aspects of L2 development is that of complexity, accuracy and fluency (the CAF framework). It reflects a general view that
L2 proficiency is best understood as having multiple components, and has
emerged as a leading framework which can be justified in terms of psycholinguistic theory (Skehan, 2009) and empirical support (Norris & Ortega,
2009). The components of CAF have been summarized as follows:
Complexity is commonly characterized as the ability to use a wide
and varied range of sophisticated structures and vocabulary in the L2,
accuracy as the ability to produce target-like and error-free language,
and fluency as the ability to produce the L2 with native-like rapidity,
pausing, hesitation, or reformulation.
(Housen, Kuiken, & Vedder, 2012, p. 2)
There are now quite extensive debates around the definition of each of
these CAF components and the best way to measure them: see, for example,
Pallotti (2009, 2015) on syntactic complexity, De Clercq (2015) on lexical complexity, Lambert and Kormos (2014) on accuracy and Segalowitz
(2010) on fluency. Versions of CAF are commonly used to conceptualize
the L2 proficiency of advanced learners (as, for example, in Mitchell, TracyVentura, & McManus, 2017), and are applied in Dynamic Systems Theory
research (see Chapter 10).
1.3.5 Debates around the Language Target
Much 20th century linguistics followed the Chomskyan notion that the
object of study should be the underlying competence of an “ideal speakerlistener” of each given language, and that the intuitions of the (educated)
native speaker provide access to this. In turn, much SLL research has assumed
that native speaker competence provides a convergent, single target for L2
development. However, as we shall see in Chapter 2, 1970s researchers urged
that learners’ developing L2 competence should be seen as a language system in its own right, and not merely a defective copy of the target (Selinker,
1972). (But note, the very term “interlanguage” proposed for L2 systems in
fact implied an in-between system in transition towards a native-like target:
Larsen-Freeman, 2014.)
These ideas were challenged in some quarters in later 20th century
linguistics, and in turn they have also been challenged increasingly in L2
research. Corpus linguistics, cognitive linguistics and sociolinguistics have
highlighted aspects of variability within “native speaker” usage (Hulstijn,
2015, Chapter 6), and complexity theorists have emphasized the dynamic
nature of all language knowledge, defined as a “dynamic set of graded patterns emerging from use”, with some “emergent stabilities”, but by definition never fully acquired (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, pp. 52–53). Proponents of
Second Language Learning 11
“multicompetence” have argued that multilingualism involves development
of a merged language system, in which different languages (L1, L2, L3 . . .)
mutually influence each other (Cook, 2008, 2016; Kroll & Ma, 2017).While
others continue to hold that multilingualism involves acquiring and using
(parts of) distinct language systems, there is general acknowledgement that
“parallel monolingualism” (Heller, 2006, p. 5), in which fully developed languages sit alongside each other without mutual interaction, is an implausible
way of thinking about language knowledge and language use.
Finally, an increasing number of researchers concerned with the learning of English as a global language have rejected altogether the notion of a
standard native speaker target, instead arguing that English as a lingua franca
(ELF) is the prime target for most learners, and that ELF itself does not offer
any fixed norm, but instead is “essentially hybrid and plurilingual in nature”
(Jenkins, 2014, p. 51). More generally, Larsen-Freeman (2014) among many
others argues that the prime goal of L2 learning is not to develop native
speaker competence, but to develop L2 “capacity” (p. 214), i.e. the language
resources needed to function effectively in a range of desired—and evolving—
contexts, genres and speaker roles. Duff (2012, p. 410) points out that new
terminology has emerged, reflecting this more open view of language learning goals and contexts: advanced L2 users, lingua franca speakers, multicompetent speakers and so on. These changing views of the language learning
target are important for how we conceptualize the learning process, to
which we now turn.
1.4 The Language Learning Process
1.4.1 Nature and Nurture
Discussions about SLL have always been coloured by debates on human
learning more generally. One of these is the nature-nurture debate. How
much of human learning derives from innate predispositions, i.e. some form
of genetic preprogramming, and how much of it derives from social and
cultural influences as we grow up? In the 20th century, the best-known
controversy on this issue concerning L1 learning involved the behaviourist
psychologist B.F. Skinner and the linguist Noam Chomsky. Skinner took
the view that language in all its essentials could be and was taught to the
young child, by the same mechanisms which he believed accounted for
other types of learning. (In Skinner’s case, the mechanisms were those envisaged by general behaviourist learning theory—essentially, the shaping of
“habits” through repeated trial, error and reward. From this point of view,
language could be learned primarily by imitating caregivers’ speech. More
details of this argument are given in Chapter 2.)
Chomsky, on the other hand, argued consistently that human language is
too complex to be learned in its entirety from the evidence actually available to the child; we must therefore have some innate predisposition to
12 Second Language Learning
expect natural languages to be organized in particular ways and not others. For example, all natural languages have word classes such as Noun and
Verb, and permissible operations (such as movement) which apply to these
word classes. It is this type of information which Chomsky doubts children
could discover from scratch in the speech they hear around them. Instead,
he argues that there must be some innate core of abstract knowledge about
language form, which provides a foundation for all natural human languages.
This core of knowledge is currently known as Universal Grammar (UG)
(see Chapter 3).
Here, it is enough to note that child language specialists now generally
accept the basic notion of some innate predisposition to language, though
views continue to differ as to whether the underlying grammatical core
of language is learned by the distinctive mechanisms of UG, or “emerges”
through exposure to and use of language using more general learning mechanisms. Other aspects of language development, not least which language(s)
is/are actually learned, and many aspects of vocabulary and pragmatics,
clearly must result from an interaction between innate and environmental
factors. Whatever view is taken of the learning of the grammatical core,
active involvement in language use is essential for the overall development
of communicative competence. (See Ambridge & Lieven, 2011; N. C. Ellis,
Römer, & O’Donnell, 2016; Foster-Cohen, 2009; Hawkins, 2008, for overviews of this debate.)
How does the nature-nurture debate impact on L2 learning theories? If
humans are endowed with an innate predisposition for language, then perhaps they should be able to learn as many languages as they need or want
to, provided (important provisos!) that the time, circumstances and motivation are available. On the other hand, the environmental circumstances for
L2 learning differ systematically from those for L1 learning, except where
infants are reared from birth in multilingual surroundings. Should we be
aiming to reproduce the “natural” circumstances of L1 learning as far as
possible for the later L2 learner? This was a fashionable view in the 1970s,
but one which downplayed some very real social, psychological, contextual
and linguistic obstacles. In recent decades there has been a closer and more
critical examination of “environmental” factors which seem to influence L2
learning; some of these are detailed briefly in Section 1.4.8, and elaborated
in later chapters.
1.4.2 Modularity vs Unitary Views of Cognition
A further issue of controversy for students of the mind has been the extent
to which it should be viewed as modular or unitary. That is, should we see
the mind as a single, flexible organism, with one general set of procedures for
learning and storing different kinds of knowledge and skills (Deák, 2014)?
Or is it more helpfully understood as a bundle of modules, with distinctive
mechanisms relevant to different types of knowledge (Fodor, 1983)?
Second Language Learning 13
The modular view has found significant support from within linguistics,
though linguists may disagree on the number and nature of language modules to be found within the mind (Jackendoff, 1997, 2002; Sharwood Smith,
2017; Smith & Tsimpli, 1995). Regarding language acquisition, Chomsky’s
general view is that not only is language too complex to be learned from
environmental exposure (his criticism of Skinner), it is also too distinctive in
its structure to be learnable by general cognitive means. UG is thus assumed
to be endowed with its own distinctive mechanisms for learning, though
there is continuing debate over their nature and relations with other, general mechanisms (Meisel, 2011; Yang, Crain, Berwick, Chomsky, & Bolhuis,
2017).
The alternative view, that language “emerges” as a symbolic system among
others through the working of general cognitive processes, has been further
developed by numerous child language researchers (see, e.g., Lieven, 2016;
MacWhinney & O’Grady, 2015; Tomasello, 2003). Neurolinguistic views
can vary about the components of the brain that are involved, and how far
specific subsystems and networks are responsible for different aspects of the
entire set of mechanisms involved in learning, storing and retrieving the different levels (components) of language and their functions. Different brain
networks are thought to come into play for different types, contexts and
even styles of learning (discussed a little more in Chapter 5).
1.4.3 Modularity and L2 Learning
The possible role of an innate, specialist language module in the mind that
supports L2 as well as L1 has been much discussed. If distinctive language
learning mechanisms indeed exist, there are four logical possibilities:
1. That they continue to operate during L2 learning, in the same way that
they make L1 learning possible;
2. That after the acquisition of the L1 in early childhood, these mechanisms cease to be operable, and the L2 must be learned by other means;
3. That the mechanisms themselves are no longer operable, but that the L1
provides a model of a natural language and how it works, which can be
“copied” in some way when learning the L2.
4. That distinctive learning mechanisms for language remain available, but
only in part, and must be supplemented by other means. (From a UG
point of view, this would mean that UG was itself modular, with some
modules still available and others not.)
The first position was popularized by Stephen Krashen in the 1970s, in
a basic form (see Chapter 2). This strand of theorizing has been revitalized by the continuing development of Chomsky’s UG proposals, and active
debates continue on the related points 3 and 4 (see Chapter 3). Proposals for
L2 transition theories compatible with UG pay increasing attention to the
14 Second Language Learning
psycholinguistics of L2 processing (Sharwood Smith et al., 2013; Slabakova,
2016, Chapter 12).
On the other hand, thinking about those general learning mechanisms
which may be operating at least for L2 adult learners (if not for all learners)
has also developed considerably further, since the proposals of McLaughlin
(1987, pp. 133–153).The work of the cognitive psychologist J.R. Anderson on
human learning, from an information processing perspective, and related proposals for a distinction between declarative and procedural forms of knowledge, have attracted longstanding interest and have been applied to various
aspects of SLL by different researchers (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Towell &
Hawkins, 1994; Ullman, 2015a, 2015b). Following their emergence in L1
acquisition, usage-based or emergentist learning theories are now prominent
also in L2 research. There is by now a family of such theories, which have in
common the view that L2 learning is primarily driven by exposure to L2
input, and that learners “induce” the rules of their L2 from the input by general learning mechanisms (N. C. Ellis & Wulff, 2015;Wulff & N. C. Ellis, 2018).
Usage-based theories include, for example, “construction learning”, that is,
the piecemeal learning of pairings of L2 forms and functions, from the level of
individual morphemes to phrases and idioms (N. C. Ellis, 2017; N. C. Ellis &
Ferreira-Junior, 2009; N. C. Ellis, Römer, & O’Donnell, 2016). Another version of usage-based theory is connectionism or “statistical learning” (Rebuschat, 2013; Rebuschat & J. N. Williams, 2012), which views acquisition as
“the absorption of statistical regularities in the environment through implicit
learning mechanisms” (J. N. Williams, 2009, p. 328). Such statistical learning
effects, tempered by the established L1 and individual differences, have been
demonstrated for phonology and for the identification and production of
words, morphosyntax and phrase structures. These general cognitive theories
of learning, along with others, are reviewed in Chapters 4 and 5.
1.4.4 Systematicity and Variability in L2 Learning
When the utterances produced by L2 learners are examined and compared
with traditionally accepted target language norms, they are often condemned as being full of errors or mistakes. Indeed, language teachers have
often viewed learners’ errors as the result of carelessness or lack of concentration. If only learners would try harder, surely their productions could
accurately reflect the target language rules which they had been taught! In
the mid 20th century, under the influence of behaviourist learning theory,
errors were often viewed as the result of “bad habits”, which could be eradicated if only learners did enough rote learning and pattern drilling using
target language models.
As will be shown in more detail in Chapter 2, one of the big lessons
which was learned from early L2 research is that though learners’ L2 utterances may depart from target language norms, they are by no means lacking
in system. So-called errors and mistakes are often patterned. Some are due
Second Language Learning 15
to the influence of the L1 or other known languages, but this is by no means
true of all of them. Instead, there is a good deal of evidence that learners work their way along similar developmental pathways, from apparently
“simple” versions of the L2, distant from the target, to progressively more
elaborate and more target-like versions.
One clear example of a so-called developmental sequence, which has been
studied for a range of target languages since the 1970s, has to do with the
formation of negative sentences. It has commonly been found that learners
start off by tacking a negative particle of some kind on to the beginning
or the end of an L2 utterance (No you play here). Next, they learn to insert
a negative particle of some kind into the Verb Phrase (Mariana not coming
today); and, finally, they learn to manipulate modifications to auxiliaries and
other details of negation morphology, including placement of the negative particle following a finite verbal element (I can’t play that one) (English
examples from R. Ellis, 2008, pp. 92–93). This kind of data has commonly
been interpreted to show that, for parts of the L2 grammar at least, learners’
development follows a common route, even if the rate at which learners
actually travel along the route may be different.
Many commentators identify this systematicity as one of the key features which L2 learning theories are required to explain (e.g. VanPatten &
J. Williams, 2015, pp. 9–11), and we will refer to it repeatedly throughout
the book. (Ortega, 2014, reviews a series of studies of the acquisition of
negation, showing very effectively how the same or similar developmental
sequences can be interpreted rather differently, depending on the researcher’s theoretical perspective.)
However, learner language (or interlanguage: Han & Tarone, 2014;
Selinker, 1972) is not characterized only by systematicity. Learner language
systems are frequently unstable and in course of change; that is to say, they are
characterized also by degrees of variability (VanPatten & J. Williams, 2015,
p. 10). Developmental sequences have been described in some areas, such as
negation, English interrogatives or German word order (Meisel, 2011); however, in other domains, such as inflectional morphology, L2 developmental
routes are much less clear, and ultimate attainment itself very variable (unlike
in L1 acquisition). Furthermore, learners’ utterances may vary from moment
to moment, in the choices of forms which are made, so that learners seem
to switch between a selection of “optional” forms over lengthy periods of
time. A well-known example offered by R. Ellis involves a child learner of
L2 English who seemed to produce the utterances no look my card, don’t look
my card interchangeably over an extended period (1985). Myles, Hooper, and
Mitchell (1998) reported similar data from a classroom learner of L2 French,
who variably produced forms such as non animal, je n’ai pas de animal within
the same 20 minutes or so (to say that he did not have a pet; the correct
French form should be je n’ai pas d’animal). Here, in contrast to the underlying systematicity earlier claimed for the development of rules of negation,
we see performance varying quite substantially from moment to moment.
16 Second Language Learning
Like systematicity, variability is also found in child L1 development. However, the variability found for L2 learners is much greater than that found for
L1 learners; in later chapters we will see attempts to account for this phenomenon from different theoretical perspectives.These will include explanations
in terms of linguistic optionality/indeterminacy (discussed in Chapter 3),
the influence of processing loads, memory constraints, task-dependency and
the L1 (Chapters 4 and 5), changes in form-function mappings (Chapter 7),
interactional competence, social context and speech style (Chapter 9), and
the dynamism of individual learning trajectories (Chapter 10).
1.4.5 Creativity and Routines in L2 Learning
There is plenty of common-sense evidence that learners can put their L2
knowledge to creative use, even at the very earliest stages of L2 learning. It
becomes most obvious that this is happening when learners produce utterances like non animal (no animal = “I haven’t got any pet”), which they are
unlikely to have heard from any interlocutor. It seems most likely that the
learner has produced it through an early mechanism for marking negation,
in combination with some basic vocabulary.
But how did this same learner manage to produce the near-target je n’ai
pas de animal, with its negative particles correctly inserted within the Verb
Phrase, within a few minutes of the other form? One likely explanation is
that at this point the learner was reproducing an utterance that they have
indeed heard before, which has been memorized as an unanalysed whole, i.e.
a formulaic sequence or a prefabricated chunk.
Work in corpus linguistics has led to the increasing recognition that formulaic sequences play an important part in everyday language use; when
we talk, our utterances are a complex mix of creativity and prefabrication
(Biber & Reppen, 2015). That is to say: “a language user has available to
him or her a large number of semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute
single choices, even though they might appear to be analyzable into segments” (Sinclair, 1991, p. 100). L1 acquisition research has documented the
use of unanalysed chunks by young children (Lieven & Tomasello, 2008;
Wray, 2002, 2008), though for L1 learners the contribution of chunks seems
limited by processing constraints (i.e. the memory load involved in storing
long sequences). For older L2 learners, memorization of lengthy sequences
is more possible. (Think of those singers who successfully memorize and
deliver entire songs in different languages, without necessarily being able to
manipulate the language creatively for themselves.)
Analysis of L2 data produced by classroom learners, in particular, seems to
show extensive and systematic use of chunks to fulfil early communicative
needs (Myles, 2004; Myles, Hooper, & Mitchell, 1998; Myles, Mitchell, &
Hooper, 1999). Studies of informal learners also provide some evidence of
chunk use, and the contribution of formulaic sequences to the learning of
both L1 and L2 is now receiving more sustained attention, especially among
Second Language Learning 17
theorists of usage-based learning (Buerki, 2016; N. C. Ellis & Ogden, 2017;
N. C. Ellis, Simpson-Vlach, Römer, O’Donnell, & Wulff, 2015).
1.4.6 Incomplete Success, Fossilization and Ultimate Attainment
Infants learning their L1(s) embark on the enterprise in widely varying
social situations. Yet with remarkable uniformity, at the end of five years or
so, they have achieved a very substantial measure of success. Teachers and
students know that this is by no means the case with L2s, embarked on after
these critical early years, and that few, if any, adult learners ever come to
blend indistinguishably with a community of target language (monolingual)
“native speakers”, even if they are strongly motivated to do so.
If the eventual aim of the SLL process is to adopt native speaker usage,
therefore, it is typified by incomplete success. Indeed, while some learners
go on learning, and develop a language system very close to that of the L2
input, others seem to stabilize as users of an alternative system, no matter
how many language classes they attend, or how actively they use their L2
for communicative purposes. The term “fossilization” has been proposed to
describe this phenomenon (Han, 2014; Selinker, 1972), though this term
has been seen as objectionable by some (e.g. Jenkins, 2007), and more neutral terms such as “end state”, “ultimate attainment” and “L2 user” are also
regularly used.
These variable long-term L2 outcomes are also significant “facts” about
the process of L2 learning, which theory needs eventually to explain. As we
will see, explanations of two basic types have been offered.The first group of
explanations are psycholinguistic: the learning mechanisms available to the
young child cease to work (at least partly) or work less effectively for older
learners, and study and effort can rarely if ever recreate them. This is the
view taken by some UG theorists (such as Meisel, 2011) and also cognitive
theorists who believe that learning mechanisms change with age (DeKeyser,
2012) or who believe that the existence of an established language system
(the L1) influences the working of learning mechanisms (N. C. Ellis & Wulff,
2015; Sharwood Smith & Truscott, 2014). The second group of explanations are sociolinguistic: older L2 learners do not necessarily have either
appropriate opportunities for exposure and interaction or the motivation to
identify completely with the L1 user community, but may instead value their
distinctive identity as multilingual speakers, as members of an identifiable
transnational group or as “lingua franca” speakers (Benson & Cooker, 2013;
Block, 2007; Jenkins, 2007; Miller & Kubota, 2013).These ideas are discussed
in more detail in relevant chapters.
1.4.7 Cross-Linguistic Influences in L2 Learning
Everyday observation tells us that learners’ performance in a new language
is influenced by the language, or languages, that they already know. This is
18 Second Language Learning
routinely obvious from learners’ “foreign accent” (Moyer, 2013), i.e. pronunciation which bears traces of the phonology of their L1. It is also obvious when learners make certain characteristic mistakes, for example when
a native speaker of English says something in French like je suis douze, an
utterance parallel to the English “I am twelve”. (The correct French expression would be j’ai douze ans = I have twelve years.)
This kind of phenomenon has been called language transfer. But how
important is it, and what exactly is being transferred? SLL researchers have
been through several “swings of the pendulum” on this question, as Gass put
it (1996). Behaviourist theorists of the 1950s and 1960s viewed language
transfer as an important source of error in L2 learning, because L1 “habits” were so tenacious and deeply rooted. The interlanguage theorists who
followed in the 1970s downplayed the influence of the L1 in L2 learning,
however, because of their preoccupation with identifying creative processes
at work in L2 development; they pointed out that many L2 “errors” could
not be traced to L1 influence, and were primarily concerned with discovering patterns and developmental sequences on this creative front.
Theorists today, as we shall see, would generally accept once more that
cross-linguistic influences play an important role in L2 learning and use, on
all language levels from phonology to discourse (Ortega, 2009, pp. 31–54).
Montrul (2014) points out that transfer is not only “a very salient feature
of interlanguage grammar”, but may be multidirectional; that is, the grammar of the L2 may influence that of the L1 also; indeed, transfer can in
the longer term lead to the development of new language varieties and
language change more generally. However, we will still find widely differing views on the extent and nature of these cross-linguistic influences.
For example, in Chapter 7 we visit the issue from a functionalist perspective, and find one group of researchers studying informal adult learners
who argue that L1 influence is weak (Klein & Perdue, 1992), but also
others who argue for ongoing mutual influences between all the learner’s languages (Cook, 2016; Stam, 2017; Vanek & Hendriks, 2014). Other
researchers have claimed that learners with different L1s progress at somewhat different rates, and may follow different acquisitional routes, at least
in some areas of the target grammar. For example, Ringböm has shown
that L1 Swedish speakers can learn many aspects of L2 English at a faster
rate than L1 Finnish speakers (Ringböm, 2007). A more general effect has
also been observed in some multilingualism research (also known as “L3
acquisition research”), whereby learners of any third or fourth language
seem to do so with added efficiency, and to be able to draw on all of the
previous languages they may know, as sources of support for the newest
language (Berkes & Flynn, 2016; Hufeisen & Jessner, 2009). Nevertheless,
consistent with the idea that the amount of cross-linguistic influence is
affected by the extent of similarity between one’s languages, a landmark
study, with a staggering 39,300 multilingual speakers, found that typological distance between learners’ L1 and L3, and between their L2 and L3,
Second Language Learning 19
explained, to a substantial extent, the proficiency they reached in L3 Dutch
(Schepens, van der Slik, & van Hout, 2016).
A UG perspective has its own distinctive implications for the phenomenon of language transfer (Lardiere, 2012). If L2 learners have continuing
direct access to their underlying UG, L1 influence will affect only the more
peripheral areas of L2 development. If, on the other hand, learners’ only
access to UG is indirect, via the working example of a natural language
which the L1 provides, then L1 influence lies at the heart of L2 learning.We
review these alternatives in Chapter 3.
1.4.8 The Relationship between L2 Use and L2 Learning
In Section 1.3.2, we considered the distinction between language competence and performance. Here, we look more closely at the relationship
between using (i.e. performing in) an L2 and learning (i.e. developing one’s
competence in) that same language.
We should note first of all, of course, that “performing in” or “using” a
language not only involves speaking or writing it. Making sense of the language which we hear (and read) around us is an equally essential aspect of
performance/use. It is also obviously necessary to interpret and to process
(= analyse, make sense of) incoming language data in some form, for language development to take place.
There is thus general agreement around the common-sense view that
language input is essential for normal language learning. Indeed, during the
late 1970s and early 1980s, the more distinctive view was argued by Stephen
Krashen and others that input (at the right level of difficulty) was all that
was necessary for L2 acquisition to take place (Krashen, 1982, 1985: see discussion in Chapter 2). Input, and what learners do with it, has remained a
central issue in L2 theorizing ever since.
Krashen was unusual, however, in not seeing any central role for language production in his theory of L2 acquisition. Most other theoretical
viewpoints support in some form the equally common-sense view that
speaking a language is helpful for learning it. For example, behaviourist
learning theory saw regular (oral) practice as helpful in forming correct
language “habits”. A directly contrasting view to Krashen’s is the Output
Hypothesis, advanced by Merrill Swain and colleagues (Swain, 1985, 1995,
2005). Swain originally pointed out (1985) that much input is comprehensible, without any need for a full grammatical analysis, particularly as L2
learners can often successfully guess at the likely meanings being expressed
from contextual clues. If we don’t need to pay attention to the grammar,
in order to understand the message, why should we be compelled to learn
it? On the other hand, when we try to say something in the L2, we are
forced to try out our ideas about how the target grammar actually works
so as to express ourselves precisely. These ideas are covered in more detail
in Chapter 6.
20 Second Language Learning
Other contemporary theorists continue to lay stress on the “practice”
function of language production, especially in building up fluency and control of an emergent L2 system (DeKeyser, 2015; Lyster & Sato, 2013: see
Chapter 5 for fuller discussion.)
So far in this section, we have seen that theorists can hold different views
on the relative contributions of input and of output. However, another way
of distinguishing among current theories of L2 learning from a “performance” perspective has to do with their view of L2 interaction—that is,
their interpretation of the value for learning of events such as everyday L2
conversation, or online exchanges. Two major perspectives are found concerning SLL through interaction, one psycholinguistic, one sociolinguistic.
From a psycholinguistic point of view, L2 interaction is mainly interesting
because of the opportunities it seems to offer to individual L2 learners to
fine-tune the language input they are receiving, and adapt it to their current state of development. What this means is that learners need the chance
to talk with more fluent speakers in a fairly open-ended way, to ask questions and to clarify meanings when they do not immediately understand.
Following early proposals by Michael Long (1983), conversational episodes
involving the regular negotiation of meaning have been intensively studied
by many of the interactionist researchers discussed in Chapter 6.
Interaction is also interesting to linguistic theorists because of controversies over whether negative evidence is necessary or helpful for L2 development. By “negative evidence” is meant some kind of information that
lets the learner know that a particular interlanguage form is not acceptable
according to target language norms, such as a formal correction offered by
a teacher, or a misunderstanding that impedes successful communication.
Why is there a controversy about negative evidence in L2 learning? The
problem is that overt correction often seems ineffective—and not (only)
because L2 learners are lazy! It seems that learners cannot always benefit
from correction, but may continue to produce the same forms despite feedback being offered. Also, explicit negative evidence has been argued to be
largely absent from most L1 learning contexts. For some theorists, language
must therefore be learnable from positive evidence alone (evidence of what
is acceptable), and corrective feedback is largely irrelevant (Truscott, 2007).
Many others continue to see value in negative evidence, though its usefulness may differ for different aspects of the learner’s emerging L2 system
(Lyster, Saito, & Sato, 2013).
These different (psycho)linguistic views have one thing in common, however: they view the learner as operating and developing a relatively autonomous L2 system, and see interaction as a way of feeding that system with
more or less fine-tuned input data. Sociolinguistic views of interaction are
very different. Here, the language learning process is viewed as essentially
social; both the identity of the learner and their language knowledge are
collaboratively constructed and reconstructed in the course of interaction
(Duff, 2011; Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015). The details of how
Second Language Learning 21
this “interactional competence” is understood to develop vary from one
theory to another, as we shall see in Chapters 8 and 9.
1.5 Views of the Language Learner
Who is the L2 learner, and how are they introduced to us, in current L2
research?
We have already made it clear that the infant bilingual is not the subject of
this book. Instead, “L2” research generally deals with learners who embark
on the learning of an additional language at least some years after they have
started to acquire their L1. So, L2 learners may be children or adults; they
may be learning the target language formally in school or “picking it up” in
the playground, online or at work. They may be learning a highly localized
language, which will help them to become insiders in a local speech community; or the target language may be a language of wider communication
relevant to mobility and broader social aspirations, which gives access to
employment and public life.
Indeed, in the first part of the 21st century, the target language is highly
likely to be English; estimates suggest that while around 5% of the world’s
population (c. 350 million) speak English as their L1, between one and two
billion are using it as an L2 or a lingua franca, or learning to do so (Graddol,
2006, p. 98). Consequently, much research on L2 learning, whether with
children or adults, is concerned with English, or with a small number of
other languages with global reach (French, German, Japanese, Mandarin,
Spanish . . .).There are many multilingual communities today (e.g. townships
around fast-growing mega-cities, transnational communities arising from
global migration flows, or online gaming communities) where L2 learning
can involve a much wider range of languages. However, these have been
comparatively little studied.
It is possible to distinguish three main points of view among L2 researchers as far as the learner is concerned: the linguistic and psycholinguistic
perspective, which is concerned with modelling language structures and
processes within the mind; the social psychological perspective, which is
concerned with modelling individual differences among learners, and their
implications for eventual learning success; and the sociocultural perspective,
which is concerned with learners as social beings and members of social
groups and networks.
1.5.1 The Learner as Language Processor
Linguists and psycholinguists have typically been concerned primarily
with analyzing and modelling the inner mental mechanisms available to the
individual learner, for processing (making sense of), learning and storing
new language knowledge. Their general aim is to document and explain
the developmental route along which learners travel and their degree of
22 Second Language Learning
ultimate success. Researchers for whom this is the prime goal are less concerned with the speed or rate of development.Thus, they tend to minimize
or disregard social and contextual differences among learners; their aim
is to document universal mental processes available to all normal human
beings.
As we shall see, however, there is some controversy among researchers in
this psycholinguistic tradition on the question of age. Do child and adult
L2 learners learn in essentially similar ways? Or is there a critical age which
divides younger and older learners, a moment when early learning mechanisms atrophy and are replaced or at least supplemented by other compensatory ways of learning? Many L2 researchers agree with some version of a
view that “younger = better in the long run” (Singleton, 1995, p. 3), while
others argue that this debate is far from resolved (for recent accessible overviews, see Cook & Singleton, 2014, Chapter 3; R. Ellis, 2015, Chapter 2;
Jaekel, Schurig, Florian, & Ritter, 2017; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011). Some
possible explanations for age differences are discussed in Chapters 3 and 5.
1.5.2 Differences between Individual Learners
Real-life observation quickly tells us L2 learners differ greatly in their rate
of learning and ultimate attainment. Psychologists have argued consistently
that these differences must be due at least in part to individual differences
among learners, and many proposals have been made concerning these. For
fuller overviews of these proposals, and surveys of related research, we refer
the reader to sources such as Dewaele (2009), Dörnyei and Ryan (2015),
R. Ellis (2015, Chapter 3), Roberts and Meyer (2012) and M. Williams,
Mercer, and Ryan (2015). As Dewaele remarks, nobody has yet come up
with any “Grand Unified Theory of Individual Differences” (2009, p. 625).
Here we introduce a selection of the most prominent cognitive and affective
(emotional) factors which have been claimed to influence aspects of the L2
learning process and/or ultimate attainment.
Language aptitude: Is there really such a thing as a “gift” for L2 learning, distinct from general intelligence, as folk wisdom often holds? The most
famous formal test of language aptitude was designed in the 1950s, by Carroll
and Sapon (1957, in Skehan, 2012, p. 393).This “Modern Language Aptitude
Test” (MLAT) was grounded in a four-factor view of language learning
aptitude developed by the social psychologist John B. Carroll. The aptitude
factors proposed by Carroll were (a) phonetic coding ability, (b) grammatical
sensitivity, (c) inductive language learning ability and (d) associative memory
abilities. The Carroll view of aptitude reflected the behaviourist language
learning theory of the day, and its view of memory in particular is now outdated. However, the MLAT and more recent tests (Linck et al., 2013) have
remained broadly robust predictors of SLL success, for learners instructed
using varying methods including “communicative” approaches, and also
for informal language learners (Granena, 2013). In a recent meta-analysis,
Second Language Learning 23
Li (2016) has confirmed the existence of language aptitude as a distinct construct with strong predictive power for general L2 proficiency.
The general claim that a distinctive language aptitude exists has gained
further support from research investigating the relationship between L1
development, L2 proficiency and L2 aptitude, in classroom contexts. An early
longitudinal study by Skehan (1986) demonstrated a significant relationship
between early L1 development measures and L2 aptitude measures for the
same children when learning a foreign language 10 years later. Research by
Sparks and associates also tracked a cohort of American children through
early L1 literacy instruction and later foreign language instruction. These
scholars have shown through a series of repeated tests (including MLAT)
that L1 literacy skills are strong predictors of both L2 aptitude and eventual
L2 proficiency, at least in a classroom context, while factors such as general intelligence and classroom anxiety played a much more limited role.
(See Sparks, 2012, for a review.) Finally, new studies of classroom learning
by identical and non-identical twins have also suggested the existence of a
specific L2 aptitude somewhat distinct from both L1 ability and intelligence
(Dale, Harlaar, & Plomin, 2012).The concept of aptitude is given fuller consideration in Chapter 5.
Memory systems: Among the individual traits which have been seen
as part of the “language aptitude” construct, one type of memory system,
working memory (WM), has attracted a large amount of attention. Many
L2 researchers have worked with the proposals of Baddeley (2007), which
distinguish long-term memory and WM from each other and which visualize WM as “a limited capacity, mental workspace that regulates our ability
to consciously code, store, and process information” (Serafini, 2017, p. 371),
of course including language information. A number of studies reviewed
by Serafini (2017) have found that learners with stronger WM capacity (as
measured by various types of memory test) perform better in a range of L2
domains (oral production, processing morphosyntax and others).The role of
memory systems is central to current cognitive theories of L2 processing and
development, including the idea that individuals may have different capacities in different types of memory subsystems and that these can change over
time, examined further in Chapter 5.
Language learning strategies: Do more successful language learners
set about the task in some distinctive way? Do they have at their disposal
some special repertoire of ways of learning, or strategies? If this were true,
could these even be taught to other, hitherto less successful learners? From
the 1970s onwards, numerous researchers have tried to identify the strategies supposedly used by learners at different levels (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015,
Chapter 6). Early research was grounded in observation and interviews with
successful learners (Naiman, Fröhlich, & Todesco, 1978). Subsequent research
developed more detailed taxonomies of learning strategies, which were then
incorporated into questionnaires to elicit learners’ reported behaviours. The
best known are those of Oxford (1990, 2011a) and of O’Malley and Chamot
24 Second Language Learning
(1990). Oxford has defined learning strategies as “the learner’s goal-directed
actions for improving language proficiency or achievement, completing a
task, or making learning more efficient, more effective, and easier” (2011b,
p. 167). Her original taxonomy included six groups of strategies, illustrated
below:
Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
Compensation
strategies
Metacognitive
strategies
Affective strategies
Social strategies
e.g. “creating mental images”
e.g. “analyzing and reasoning”, “practising” (both
repetition and natural practice)
e.g. “guessing intelligently”, “adjusting the
message”
e.g. “setting goals and objectives”, “self-evaluating”
e.g. “taking risks wisely”, “rewarding yourself ”
e.g. “cooperating with peers”, “asking for
clarification or verification”
(Oxford, 1990, pp. 18–21)
Research on the usefulness of learning strategies for language development has been partly informed by information processing theory—the idea
that knowledge about a strategy can be learned as a “fact”, practised and
automatized—which is discussed further in Chapter 5.
Language attitudes: Social psychologists have long been interested in
the idea that the attitudes of the learner towards the target language, its
speakers and the learning context may all play some part in explaining success or lack of it. Research on L2 attitudes has largely been conducted within
the framework of broader research on motivation, and empirical research
has shown—unsurprisingly—that favourable attitudes alone are not a strong
predictor of achievement, unless accompanied by active engagement and
learning effort (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Similarly, attitudes have not
been shown to play any clear independent role in L2 attrition (Schmid &
Mehotcheva, 2012).
Motivation: Research into L2 motivation was pioneered from the 1970s
by the Canadian social psychologist Robert C. Gardner and associates (e.g.
Gardner, 1985, 2010). For these researchers, motivation is defined by three
main components: “desire to achieve a goal, effort extended in this direction,
and satisfaction with the task” (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993, p. 2). Gardner
and his Canadian colleagues carried out a long programme of work on motivation with English-Canadian school students learning French as an L2, and
developed a range of questionnaires to measure motivation. Over the years
consistent relationships have been demonstrated between language attitudes,
motivation and L2 achievement, with the strongest relationships obtaining
between motivation and achievement (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). These
researchers also proposed the well-known distinction between integrative
Second Language Learning 25
and instrumental motivation. Integrativeness has been defined as “an open
and accepting orientation toward the other language community and other
communities in general” (Gardner, 2010, p. 202); it has consistently shown
itself to be a powerful predictor of L2 learning success. Instrumental motivation reflects the belief that language learning will bring concrete benefits
(e.g. a better job).
More recently the Gardner tradition has been critiqued in a number of
respects, using ideas from general educational psychology. Greater attention
has been given to the importance of the learning context in shaping motivation, in particular to the motivation of classroom learners (Dörnyei, 1994,
2001; Dornyei & Kubanyiova, 2014; M. Williams et al., 2015). Increasing
attention has also been given to the idea that L2 motivation is dynamic and
alterable, and has a close relationship with learner identity (MacIntyre & Serroul, 2015). Indeed, Dörnyei, Ushioda and others now propose that motivation is best viewed within a broader “complex dynamic systems” perspective
on L2 learning (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry,
2015: see Chapter 10). In line with increased questioning of “native speaker”
competence as the ultimate target for L2 learning, the concept of integrative
motivation has also been questioned, and it is acknowledged that contemporary learners may be motivated by a desire for an international identity
as a lingua franca or plurilingual speaker, rather than specific aspirations to
integrate with a native speaker community. Dörnyei and Al-Hoorie (2017)
discuss these questions from the perspective of learners of languages other
than English; the motivation-identity link is discussed further in Chapter 9.
Finally, Dörnyei and associates have tried to sum up these developments
through their proposals for the “L2 motivational self system” (Csizér &
Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, Chapter 4; Henry,
2015). This model proposes that learners make their decisions about how to
act primarily with reference to an ideal self, i.e. the imagined person that
they would like to be; when this ideal self is a proficient L2 user, whether for
integrative, instrumental or transnational reasons, learners are more likely to
invest the necessary effort to become so.
Affect, anxiety and willingness to communicate: Heightened anxiety is a commonly reported experience for the L2 learner, whether in the
classroom or outside it. But is this anxiety solely a temporary phenomenon,
attaching to particular situations? Some social psychologists have viewed language anxiety as “a stable personality trait referring to the propensity for an
individual to react in a nervous manner when speaking . . . in the second language” (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993, p. 5). However, a special form of anxiety
can also attach to L2 use, i.e. “foreign language anxiety” (Horwitz, Horwitz, &
Cope, 1986), and it is this specific form of anxiety which has been shown
to affect academic, cognitive and social aspects of SLL (MacIntyre, 2017). As
M. Williams et al. (2015) remind us, “using a foreign language is closely connected with self-expression and if we feel limited in our ability to communicate
personally meaningful messages,then we may feel that we are not projecting ...an
26 Second Language Learning
accurate reflection of ourselves” (p. 87).The anxious learner may be less willing
to speak in class, or to engage target language speakers in informal interaction;
they may actually process the L2 less efficiently, with negative consequences
for development. This issue has typically been investigated through questionnaires, e.g. using the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz
et al., 1986). There are numerous studies which suggest that language anxiety
has a negative relationship with learning success (see review by MacIntyre,
2017). Some researchers have queried whether anxiety actually causes reduced
success, and suggested that it is equally likely that poor achievers/communicators will be anxious, a circular debate that is difficult to resolve through correlational, questionnaire-based studies. In a longitudinal study which tracked
L1 literacy development among American schoolchildren as well as their L2
aptitude, proficiency and anxiety, Sparks and Ganschow (2007) showed that
early L1 literacy achievement is a very strong predictor of both L2 proficiency
and L2 anxiety, in later schooling; from this they conclude that anxiety arises
primarily from poor achievement, and not the other way around. MacIntyre
(2017) remains sceptical about this conclusion, but agrees that more longitudinal and experimental research is needed to resolve such debates.
Finally, a broad construct “willingness to communicate” (WTC) has also
been proposed as a mediating individual factor in both L2 use and L2 learning (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998). The WTC construct
includes variables ranging from personality traits and general L2 confidence
to immediate contextual variables such as the desire to communicate with
a particular person. In combination, these variables produce “the intention
to initiate communication, given a choice” (MacIntyre et al., 1998). WTC is
clearly relevant to current versions of motivation theory. Like other areas of
research on individual differences, much WTC research is currently exploring more integrated and flexible models of learner development, within the
framework of Dynamic Systems Theory, which we discuss in Chapter 10
(MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011;Yashima, MacIntyre, & Ikeda, 2018).
1.5.3 The Learner as Social Being
The two perspectives on the learner which we have highlighted so far have
concentrated (a) on universal characteristics and (b) on individual characteristics. But the L2 learner is also a social being, taking part in structured social
networks and social practices. After early decades when psycholinguistic
and individualist perspectives on L2 learners predominated, recent research
is redressing the balance through the so-called social turn in L2 research
(Block, 2003; Douglas Fir Group, 2016: see Chapters 8 and 9).
Two major characteristics distinguish this social view of the learner from
the “individual differences” view which we have just dipped into.
Firstly, interest in the learner as a social being leads to the concept of
a multilingual identity, including a range of socially constructed dimensions of that identity, and their relationship with learning—so, for example,
Second Language Learning 27
social class, power, ethnicity and gender make their appearance as potentially significant for L2 research. Identity itself may be seen as in flux
throughout the language learning journey: “a dynamic and shifting nexus
of multiple subject positions or identity options” (Pavlenko & Blackledge,
2004, p. 35).
Secondly, the relationship between the individual learner and the social
context of learning is also viewed as dynamic, reflexive and constantly
changing, a matter of engagement in social and discourse practices.The classic “individual differences” tradition saw that relationship as being governed
by a bundle of learner traits or characteristics (such as aptitude, or anxiety),
which have been viewed as relatively fixed and slow to change. More socially
oriented researchers increasingly lay stress on learner agency, i.e. the learner’s
capacity to choose learning goals, and to shape their environment and learning opportunities (Deters, Gao, Miller, & Vitanova, 2014; Duff, 2012). These
views are most clearly expressed by “poststructuralist” researchers such as
Norton (2017), whose work is discussed in Chapter 9.
1.6 Links with Social Practice
Is L2 theory useful? Does it have any immediate practical applications in
the real world, most obviously in the L2 classroom? In our field, theorists
have been divided on this point. Beretta and associates argued for “pure”
theory building in SLL, uncluttered by requirements for practical application (1993). Van Lier (1994), Rampton (1995) and others have argued for
a socially engaged perspective, where theoretical development is rooted in,
and responsive to, social practice, and language education in particular, and
such calls continue (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). Many, from Krashen (1985)
onwards, have argued that L2 teaching in particular should be guided systematically by L2 research findings.
This tension has partly been addressed by the emergence of “instructed
language learning”, “task-based learning” and “processing instruction” as
distinct sub-areas of research (see, e.g., surveys and discussion by Bryfonski & McKay, 2017; R. Ellis, 2016, 2017; Loewen, 2015; Loewen & Sato,
2017; Long, 2017;VanPatten, 2017). Some of the research traditions surveyed
in later chapters also explicitly promote pedagogical applications of their
espoused theories; this is especially true of social psychological research on
motivation (discussed earlier in this chapter), of some interactionist perspectives (Chapter 6), of cognitive linguistics (Chapter 7) and of sociocultural
theory (Chapter 8). Overall, we think that language teachers who read this
book will themselves want to take stock of the relations between the theories we survey and their own beliefs and experiences in the classroom. They
will, in other words, want to make some judgement on the “usefulness”
of theorizing in making sense of their own experience and their practice,
while not necessarily changing it (Marsden & Kasprowicz, 2017). In our
general conclusions to this book, therefore, we will end with some brief
28 Second Language Learning
consideration of the connections we ourselves perceive between learning
theory and classroom practice.
1.7 Conclusion
This chapter has introduced a range of recurrent concepts and issues which
most theorists agree will have to be taken into account if we are to arrive
eventually at any complete account of SLL. In Chapter 2 we provide a brief
narrative account of the recent history of SLL research, plus a chronological timeline of key publications in the field. We then move in the remaining
chapters of the book to a closer examination of a number of broad perspectives, or families of theories, with their distinctive views of the key questions
to be answered and key phenomena to be explained. In each case, these
theories are illustrated with a small number of empirical research studies, followed by some evaluative commentary, which takes into consideration how
each family of theories views three key constructs: language, the learner and
learning. In making these choices we have inevitably been selective, with the
overall result that some areas (such as L2 vocabulary and phonology) receive
limited treatment.The book concludes with a short overall evaluation of the
field, and a Glossary providing brief definitions of key terms.
References
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass &
A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147–162).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224–245). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Benson, P., & Cooker, L. (Eds.). (2013). The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural
approaches to identity, agency and autonomy. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Beretta, A. (Ed.). (1993). Theory construction in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 14. [Special
Issue].
Berkes, É., & Flynn, S. (2016). Multi-competence and syntax. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 206–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A metaanalysis. Language Teaching Research. Online First, 1–30.
Second Language Learning 29
Buerki, A. (2016). Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English Studies, 20, 15–34.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Colantoni, L., Steele, J., & Escudero, P. (2015). Second language speech: Theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, S. (2010).What can a corpus tell us about grammar? In A. O’Keefe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 227–241). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Cook,V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition research? In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16–26).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multi-competence. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V., & Li Wei (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook,V., & Singleton, D. (2014). Key topics in second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation
and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language
Journal, 89, 19–36.
Dale, P. S., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (2012). Nature and nurture in school-based second
language achievement. Language Learning, 62(s2), 28–48.
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary
knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dang, T. N.Y., Coxhead, A., & Webb, S. (2017). The academic spoken word list. Language
Learning, 67, 959–997.
Deák, G. O. (2014). Interrelations of language and cognitive development. In P. J.
Brooks & V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language development (pp. 284–291).Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
De Clercq, B. (2015).The development of lexical complexity in second language acquisition: A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. In L. Roberts, K. McManus,
N. Vanek, & D. Trenkic (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. 15, pp. 69–94). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B.VanPatten & J.Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2014). Theorising and analyzing
agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
30 Second Language Learning
Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623–
647). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–284.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). The motivational foundation of learning languages other than global English: Theoretical issues and research directions. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 455–468.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building vision
in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language
learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dornyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual
world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Duff, P. A. (2011). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 564–586). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency and SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Eckman, F. (2012). Second language phonology. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 91–105). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usagebased language learning. Language Learning, 67(S1), 40–65.
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency,
frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.
Ellis, N. C., & Ogden, D. C. (2017). Thinking about multiword constructions: Usagebased approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 604–620.
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & Brook O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction
grammar [Special issue]. Language Learning, 66, 1–358.
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Wulff, S. (2015). Learner
corpora and formulaic language in second language acquisition research. In S. Granger,
G. Gilquin, & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research
(pp. 357–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.). Abingdon/
New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118–131.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Second Language Learning 31
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
Ellis, R. (2017). Task based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 108–127). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91,
800–819.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foster-Cohen, S. (Ed.). (2009). Language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2017). An introduction to language (11th ed.).
Boston: Cengage.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning:The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition:The socio-educational model.
New York: Peter Lang.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second language
learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11.
Gass, S. M. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language transfer. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 317–345). San Diego: Academic Press.
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón
(Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press.
Givón, T. (1985). Function, structure and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The
crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1005–1027). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.
Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner
corpus research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregg, K. (2003). SLA theory: Construction and assessment. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 831–865). Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Gutiérrez, X. (2013).The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures
of implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional
grammar (4th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Han, Z.-H. (2014). From Julie to Wes to Alberto: Revisiting the construct of fossilization. In
Z.-H. Han & E.Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 47–74).Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Han, Z.-H., & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hawkins, R. (Ed.). (2008). Current emergentist and nativist perspectives on second language acquisition [Special issue]. Lingua, 118, 445–642.
Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography (2nd ed.).
London: Continuum.
32 Second Language Learning
Henry, A. (2015). The dynamics of possible selves. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre & A.
Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 83–94). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hufeisen, B., & Jessner, U. (2009). Learning and teaching multiple languages. In K.
Knapp & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning
(pp. 109–138). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2014). Epistemological remarks on a social-cognitive gap in the study of second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 375–380.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers:Theory and research.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical
grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.),
Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 30–52). Oxford:Wiley
Blackwell.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaekel, N., Schurig, M., Florian, M., & Ritter, M. (2017). From early starters to late
finishers? A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in school. Language
Learning, 67, 631–664.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as an international lingua franca. In J. Jenkins (Ed.), Global Englishes: A resource book for students (3rd ed., pp. 50–53). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Jordan, G. (2013).Theoretical constructs in SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 635–641). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language
Learning, 52. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition
(pp. 117–142). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Kroll, J. F., & Ma, F. (2017). The bilingual lexicon. In E. M. Fernández & H. Smith Cairns
(Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 294–319). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Second Language Learning 33
Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2
research:Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!” Language Learning, 46, 713–749.
Lardiere, D. (2012). Linguistic approaches to second language morphosyntax. In S. M.
Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 106–
126). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 49–72). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Another step to be taken—rethinking the end point of the
language learning continuum. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty
years later (pp. 203–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, S. (2016).The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.
Lieven, E. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go
from here? Language and Cognition, 8, 346–368.
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usagebased perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics
and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Linck, J. A., Hughes, M. M., Campbell, S. G., Silbert, N. H., Tare, M., Jackson, S. R., . . .
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language
proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1993). Assessment strategies for SLA theories. Applied Linguistics, 14,
225–249.
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M. H. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1, 7–44.
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2
development. In M. d. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián
(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety:Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol: Multilingual matters.
MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of l2 confidence and affiliation.
The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
34 Second Language Learning
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to
communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect.
Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Serroul, A. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D.
MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition:
A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project:Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B. (2007).The TalkBank project. In J. C. Beal, K. P. Corrigan, & H. L. Moisl
(Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora:Volume 1, synchronic databases. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
MacWhinney, B., & O’Grady,W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Marsden, E., & Kasprowicz, R. E. (2017). Foreign language educators’ exposure to
research: Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. The
Modern Language Journal, 101, 613–642.
Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language
learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language
Learning, 53, 123–163.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McNamara, T. (2012). Poststructuralism and its challenges for applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 33, 473–482.
Meara, P. (2009). Connected words:Word associations and second language vocabulary acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meisel, J. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Miller, E. R., & Kubota, R. (2013). Second language identity construction. In M.YoungScholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 230–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad: Identity, social relationships and language learning. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Montrul, S. (2014). Interlanguage, transfer and fossilization: Beyond second language
acquisition. In Z.-H. Han & E.Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Moyer, A. (2013). Foreign accent: The phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muñoz, C., & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Language Teaching, 44, 1–35.
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory:The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in
SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.
Myles, F. (2008). Investigating learner language development with electronic longitudinal
corpora: Theoretical and methodological issues. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The
longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 58–73). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In
F. Meunier, G. Gilquin, & S. Granger (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus
research (pp. 309–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Second Language Learning 35
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic
language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323–363.
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for
creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49–80.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Education Series 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for the Study of Education.
Nicoladis, E. (2018). Simultaneous child bilingualism. In D. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman, & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across
its subfields (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in
instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
Norton, B. (2017). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
O’Keefe, A., & McCarthy, M. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand.
In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2014).Trying out theories of interlanguage: Description and explanation over
40 years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty
years later (pp. 173–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies:What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House/HarperCollins.
Oxford, R. L. (2011a). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow:
Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (2011b). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language
Teaching, 44, 167–180.
Pallotti. G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31,
117–134.
Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual settings.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse,
S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W.
Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–270).
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Phakiti, A., De Costa, P. I., Plonsky, L., & Starfield, S. (2018). The Palgrave handbook of
applied linguistics research methodology. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
36 Second Language Learning
Plonsky, L., Marsden, E., Crowther, D., Gass, S. M., & Spinner, P. (in press). A methodological
synthesis of judgment tests in second language research. Second Language Research.
Rampton, B. (1995). Politics and change in research in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 16, 233–256.
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Statistical learning. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia
of second language acquisition (pp. 612–614). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Rebuschat, P., Meurers, D., & McEnery, T. (2017). Experimental, computational, and
corpus-based approaches to language learning: Evidence and interpretation. [Special
issue]. Language Learning, 67, 1–287.
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (Eds.). (2012). Statistical learning and language acquisition.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ringböm, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Rispoli, M. (1999). Functionalist accounts of first language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of child language acquisition (pp. 253–269). London: Academic Press.
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2012). Individual differences in second language learning. [Special issue]. Language Learning, 62(S2), 1-212.
Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B. (2013). On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity:The case for
different SLA theories. In M. d. P. García Mayo, M. J. Gutierrez Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 243–256).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schepens, J. J., der Slik, F., & Hout, R. (2016). L1 and L2 distance effects in learning L3
Dutch. Language Learning, 66, 224–256.
Schmid, M. S., & Mehotcheva, T. (2012). Foreign language attrition. Dutch Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 1, 102–124.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum.
Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2014). Response to Elder-Vass: “Seven ways to be a realist about
language”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44, 268–281.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219–231.
Serafini, E. J. (2017). Exploring the dynamic long-term interaction between cognitive
and psychosocial resources in adult second language development at varying proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 369–390.
Serratrice, L. (2013). The bilingual child. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The
handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 85–108). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M., Truscott, J., & Hawkins, R. (2013). Explaining change in transition
grammars. In M. Young-Scholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 560–580). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Second Language Learning 37
Singleton, D. (1995). A critical look at the critical period hypothesis in second language
research. In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyet (Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition
(pp. 1–29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V. Cook (Ed.),
Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 81–94). Oxford: Pergamon.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity,
accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, N., & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sparks, R. (2012). Individual differences in L2 learning and long term L1-L2 relationships. Language Learning, 62(S2), 5–27.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language Annals, 40, 260–287.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stam, G. (2017).Verb-framed, satellite-framed, or in between? A L2 learner’s thinking for
speaking in her L1 and L2 over 14 years. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and
space across languages (pp. 329–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taguchi, N., & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, S. (2014). Toward an interpretivist turn in L2 studies: Reflexivity, the cognitivesocial divide, and beyond. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 383–389.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
Ullman, M. T. (2015a). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In B.VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 135–158). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Ullman, M. T. (2015b). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of
language learning, knowledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of
language (pp. 954–968). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
38 Second Language Learning
Vanek, N., & Hendriks, H. (2014). Convergence of temporal reference frames in sequential bilinguals: Event structuring unique to second language users. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 753–768.
Van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hope: Pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied
Linguistics, 15, 328–346.
VanPatten, B. (2017). Processing instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Introduction: The nature of theories. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 1–16).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language learning and
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wulff, S., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In D. Miller, F. Bayram,
J. Rothman, & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language:The state of the science
across its subfields (pp. 37–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of
language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119.
Yashima, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Ikeda, M. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate
in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research,
22, 115–137.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives:Two parallel
SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
Second Language Learning
Ambridge, B. , & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147–162).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224–245).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Benson, P. , & Cooker, L. (Eds.). (2013). The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural
approaches to identity, agency and autonomy. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
Beretta, A. (Ed.). (1993). Theory construction in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 14. [Special Issue].
Berkes, É. , & Flynn, S. (2016). Multi-competence and syntax. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 206–226). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. , & Reppen, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of English corpus
linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Bryfonski, L. , & McKay, T. H. (2017). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis.
Language Teaching Research Online First, 1–30.
Buerki, A. (2016). Formulaic sequences: A drop in the ocean of constructions or something
more significant? European Journal of English Studies, 20, 15–34.
Canale, M. , & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.
Carter, R. , & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Colantoni, L. , Steele, J. , & Escudero, P. (2015). Second language speech: Theory and
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, S. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about grammar? In A. O’Keefe & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 227–241). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language acquisition
research? In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 16–26).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multi-competence. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. , & Li, Wei (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. , & Singleton, D. (2014). Key topics in second language acquisition. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Csizér, K. , & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and
its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal, 89,
19–36.
Dale, P. S. , Harlaar, N. , & Plomin, R. (2012). Nature and nurture in school-based second
language achievement. Language Learning, 62(s2), 28–48.
Daller, H. , Milton, J. , & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and assessing
vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dang, T. N. Y. , Coxhead, A. , & Webb, S. (2017). The academic spoken word list. Language
Learning, 67, 959–997.
Deák, G. O. (2014). Interrelations of language and cognitive development. In P. J. Brooks &
V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language development (pp. 284–291). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.
De Clercq, B. (2015). The development of lexical complexity in second language acquisition:
A cross-linguistic study of L2 French and English. In L. Roberts , K. McManus , N. Vanek , &
D. Trenkic (Eds.), EUROSLA yearbook (Vol. 15, pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Derwing, T. M. , & Munro, M. J. (2015). Pronunciation fundamentals: Evidence-based
perspectives for L2 teaching and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Deters, P. , Gao, X. , Miller, E. R. , & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2014). Theorising and analyzing
agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2009). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie
& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 623–647).
Bingley: Emerald Group.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal, 78, 273–284.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. , & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). The motivational foundation of learning languages
other than global English: Theoretical issues and research directions. The Modern Language
Journal, 101, 455–468.
Dörnyei, Z. , & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building
vision in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. , MacIntyre, P. D. , & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language
learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. , & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z. , & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Douglas Fir Group . (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The
Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Duff, P. A. (2011). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti , E. Ochs , & B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 564–586). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency and SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Eckman, F. (2012). Second language phonology. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 91–105). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage-based
language learning. Language Learning, 67(S1), 40–65.
Ellis, N. C. , & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency,
frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.
Ellis, N. C. , & Ogden, D. C. (2017). Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-based
approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 604–620.
Ellis, N. C. , Römer, U. , & Brook O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-based approaches to
language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction
grammar [Special issue]. Language Learning, 66, 1–358.
Ellis, N. C. , Simpson-Vlach, R. , Römer, U. , O’Donnell, M. B. , & Wulff, S. (2015). Learner
corpora and formulaic language in second language acquisition research. In S. Granger , G.
Gilquin , & F. Meunier (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp.
357–378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. , & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J.
Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed.).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118–131.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
Ellis, R. (2017). Task based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 108–127).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Firth, A. , & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social
accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal,
91, 800–819.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foster-Cohen, S. (Ed.). (2009). Language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fromkin, V. , Rodman, R. , & Hyams, N. (2017). An introduction to language (11th ed.).
Boston: Cengage.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio-educational
model. New York: Peter Lang.
Gardner, R. C. , & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second language
learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11.
Gass, S. M. (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic theory: The role of language
transfer. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 317–345). San Diego: Academic Press.
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón
(Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press.
Givón, T. (1985). Function, structure and language acquisition. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The
crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1005–1027). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. London: British Council.
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language
acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.
Granger, S. , Gilquin, G. , & Meunier, F. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of learner
corpus research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gregg, K. (2003). SLA theory: Construction and assessment. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 831–865). Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of
implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.
Halliday, M. A. K. , & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional
grammar (4th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Han, Z.-H. (2014). From Julie to Wes to Alberto: Revisiting the construct of fossilization. In Z.H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later (pp. 47–74). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Han, Z.-H. , & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hawkins, R. (Ed.). (2008). Current emergentist and nativist perspectives on second language
acquisition [Special issue]. Lingua, 118, 445–642.
Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography (2nd
ed.). London: Continuum.
Henry, A. (2015). The dynamics of possible selves. In Z. Dörnyei , P. D. MacIntyre & A.
Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 83–94). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Horwitz, E. K. , Horwitz, M. B. , & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.
Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and
proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hufeisen, B. , & Jessner, U. (2009). Learning and teaching multiple languages. In K. Knapp &
B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp.
109–138). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2014). Epistemological remarks on a social-cognitive gap in the study of
second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36,
375–380.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and
research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S. , & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical
grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.),
Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 30–52). Oxford:
Wiley Blackwell.
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaekel, N. , Schurig, M. , Florian, M. , & Ritter, M. (2017). From early starters to late
finishers? A longitudinal study of early foreign language learning in school. Language
Learning, 67, 631–664.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as an international lingua franca. In J. Jenkins (Ed.), Global
Englishes: A resource book for students (3rd ed., pp. 50–53). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Jordan, G. (2013). Theoretical constructs in SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 635–641). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Kasper, G. , & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language
Learning, 52. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Kasper, G. , & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.
117–142). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Klein, W. , & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Kroll, J. F. , & Ma, F. (2017). The bilingual lexicon. In E. M. Fernández & H. Smith Cairns
(Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 294–319). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, C. , & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2
research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 35, 607–614.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!” Language Learning,
46, 713–749.
Lardiere, D. (2012). Linguistic approaches to second language morphosyntax. In S. M. Gass
& A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 106–126).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language
development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language
acquisition (pp. 49–72). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Another step to be taken—rethinking the end point of the
language learning continuum. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years
later (pp. 203–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 38, 801–842.
Lieven, E. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from
here? Language and Cognition, 8, 346–368.
Lieven, E. , & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based
perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition (pp. 168–196). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Linck, J. A. , Hughes, M. M. , Campbell, S. G. , Silbert, N. H. , Tare, M. , Jackson, S. R. , …
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language
proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York:
Routledge.
Loewen, S. , & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second
language acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1993). Assessment strategies for SLA theories. Applied Linguistics, 14,
225–249.
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Long, M. H. (2017). Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics,
methodological issues, and some major research questions. Instructed Second Language
Acquisition, 1, 7–44.
Lyster, R. , & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2
development. In M. d. P. García Mayo , M. J. Gutierrez Mangado , & M. Martínez Adrián
(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Lyster, R. , Saito, K. , & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its
development. In C. Gkonou , M. Daubney , & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into
language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol:
Multilingual matters.
MacIntyre, P. D. , Dörnyei, Z. , Clément, R. , & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of l2 confidence and affiliation. The
Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
MacIntyre, P. D. , & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to
communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied
Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
MacIntyre, P. D. , & Serroul, A. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining
approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei , P. D. MacIntyre ,
& A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A. , & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Research methods in second language
acquisition: A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MacWhinney, B. (2007). The TalkBank project. In J. C. Beal , K. P. Corrigan , & H. L. Moisl
(Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora: Volume 1, synchronic databases.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
MacWhinney, B. , & O’Grady, W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence.
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Marsden, E. , & Kasprowicz, R. E. (2017). Foreign language educators’ exposure to
research: Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. The
Modern Language Journal, 101, 613–642.
Masgoret, A.-M. , & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language
learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language
Learning, 53, 123–163.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
McNamara, T. (2012). Poststructuralism and its challenges for applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 33, 473–482.
Meara, P. (2009). Connected words: Word associations and second language vocabulary
acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meisel, J. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, E. R. , & Kubota, R. (2013). Second language identity construction. In M. YoungScholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 230–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R. , Tracy-Ventura, N. , & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad:
Identity, social relationships and language learning. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Montrul, S. (2014). Interlanguage, transfer and fossilization: Beyond second language
acquisition. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Moyer, A. (2013). Foreign accent: The phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Muñoz, C. , & Singleton, D. (2011). A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate
attainment. Language Teaching, 44, 1–35.
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in
SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.
Myles, F. (2008). Investigating learner language development with electronic longitudinal
corpora: Theoretical and methodological issues. In L. Ortega & H. Byrnes (Eds.), The
longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities (pp. 58–73). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Myles, F. (2015). Second language acquisition theory and learner corpus research. In F.
Meunier , G. Gilquin , & S. Granger (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus
research (pp. 309–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myles, F. , Hooper, J. , & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic
language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48, 323–363.
Myles, F. , Mitchell, R. , & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for
creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49–80.
Naiman, N. , Fröhlich, M. , & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in
Education Series 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for the Study of Education.
Nicoladis, E. (2018). Simultaneous child bilingualism. In D. Miller , F. Bayram , J. Rothman ,
& L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its
subfields (pp. 81–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Norris, J. M. , & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in
instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
Norton, B. (2017). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
O’Keefe, A. , & McCarthy, M. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
O’Malley, J. M. , & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In
D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ortega, L. (2014). Trying out theories of interlanguage: Description and explanation over 40
years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years
later (pp. 173–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House/HarperCollins.
Oxford, R. L. (2011a). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow:
Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (2011b). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language
Teaching, 44, 167–180.
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics,
30, 590–601.
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research, 31,
117–134.
Pavlenko, A. (Ed.). (2011). Thinking and speaking in two languages. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Pavlenko, A. , & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual
settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On
language and learning from a conversation analytic perspective on SLA. In P. Seedhouse , S.
Walsh , & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 105–126).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pekarek Doehler, S. , & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional
competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair
organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usagebased perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–270). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Phakiti, A. , De Costa, P. I. , Plonsky, L. , & Starfield, S. (2018). The Palgrave handbook of
applied linguistics research methodology. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Plonsky, L. , Marsden, E. , Crowther, D. , Gass, S. M. , & Spinner, P. (in press). A
methodological synthesis of judgment tests in second language research. Second Language
Research.
Rampton, B. (1995). Politics and change in research in applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 233–256.
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Statistical learning. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia
of second language acquisition (pp. 612–614). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Rebuschat, P. , Meurers, D. , & McEnery, T. (2017). Experimental, computational, and
corpus-based approaches to language learning: Evidence and interpretation. [Special issue].
Language Learning, 67, 1–287.
Rebuschat, P. , & Williams, J. N. (Eds.). (2012). Statistical learning and language acquisition.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ringböm, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Rispoli, M. (1999). Functionalist accounts of first language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.
K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of child language acquisition (pp. 253–269). London: Academic
Press.
Roberts, L. , & Meyer, A. (Eds.). (2012). Individual differences in second language learning.
[Special issue]. Language Learning, 62(S2), 1–212.
Rothman, J. , & VanPatten, B. (2013). On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity: The case for
different SLA theories. In M. d. P. García Mayo , M. J. Gutierrez Mangado , & M. Martínez
Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 243–256).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schepens, J. J. , der Slik, F. , & Hout, R. (2016). L1 and L2 distance effects in learning L3
Dutch. Language Learning, 66, 224–256.
Schmid, M. S. , & Mehotcheva, T. (2012). Foreign language attrition. Dutch Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 1, 102–124.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning.
Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
Sealey, A. , & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum.
Sealey, A. , & Carter, B. (2014). Response to Elder-Vass: “Seven ways to be a realist about
language”. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44, 268–281.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219–231.
Serafini, E. J. (2017). Exploring the dynamic long-term interaction between cognitive and
psychosocial resources in adult second language development at varying proficiency. The
Modern Language Journal, 101, 369–390.
Serratrice, L. (2013). The bilingual child. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook
of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 85–108). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. , & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. , Truscott, J. , & Hawkins, R. (2013). Explaining change in transition
grammars. In M. Young-Scholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 560–580). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singleton, D. (1995). A critical look at the critical period hypothesis in second language
research. In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyet (Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition
(pp. 1–29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V. Cook (Ed.),
Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 81–94). Oxford: Pergamon.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity,
accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
Skehan, P. (2012). Language aptitude. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 381–395). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, N. , & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sparks, R. (2012). Individual differences in L2 learning and long term L1-L2 relationships.
Language Learning, 62(S2), 5–27.
Sparks, R. , & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
measuring anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language Annals, 40, 260–287.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stam, G. (2017). Verb-framed, satellite-framed, or in between? A L2 learner’s thinking for
speaking in her L1 and L2 over 14 years. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space
across languages (pp. 329–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Taguchi, N. , & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, S. (2014). Toward an interpretivist turn in L2 studies: Reflexivity, the cognitive-social
divide, and beyond. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 383–389.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Towell, R. , & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
Ullman, M. T. (2015a). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated
theory of first and second language. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 135–158). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ullman, M. T. (2015b). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of
language learning, knowledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of
language (pp. 954–968). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Vanek, N. , & Hendriks, H. (2014). Convergence of temporal reference frames in sequential
bilinguals: Event structuring unique to second language users. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 18, 753–768.
Van Lier, L. (1994). Forks and hope: Pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied
Linguistics, 15, 328–346.
VanPatten, B. (2017). Processing instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B. , & Williams, J. (2015). Introduction: The nature of theories. In B. VanPatten &
J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 1–16).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Webb, S. , & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.
K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley:
Emerald Group.
Williams, M. , Mercer, S. , & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language learning and
teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wulff, S. , & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In D. Miller , F. Bayram , J.
Rothman , & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science
across its subfields (pp. 37–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yang, C. , Crain, S. , Berwick, R. C. , Chomsky, N. , & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of
language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119.
Yashima, T. , MacIntyre, P. D. , & Ikeda, M. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate in
an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 22,
115–137.
Zuengler, J. , & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel
SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
The Recent History of Second Language Learning Research
Aitchison, J. (2008). The articulate mammal (5th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Andersen, R. W. (1990). Models, processes, principles and strategies: Second language
acquisition inside and outside of the classroom. In B. VanPatten & J. Lee (Eds.), Second
language acquisition – foreign language learning (pp. 45–68). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Andersen, R. W. , & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition
principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133–156.
Bailey, N. , Madden, C. , & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a natural sequence in adult second
language learning? Language Learning, 24, 235–243.
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cazden, C. (1972). Child language and education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.
Chomsky, N. (1987). Transformational grammar: Past, present and future. In Studies in
English language and literature (pp. 33–80). Kyoto: Kyoto University.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cook, V. (2016). Where is the native speaker now? TESOL Quarterly, 50, 186–189.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5, 161–169.
de Bot, K. (2015). A history of applied linguistics 1980–2010. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
De Villiers, P. A. , & De Villiers, J. G. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the development of
grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1, 299–310.
Dittmar, N. (1984). Semantic features of pidginised learners of German. In R. Andersen (Ed.),
Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 243–270). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Dulay, H. , & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 24,
245–258.
Dulay, H. , & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 24, 37–53.
Dulay, H. , & Burt, M. (1975). Creative construction in second language learning and
teaching. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching,
and bilingual education (pp. 21–32). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Dulay, H. , Burt, M. , & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking and connectionism. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.
Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Flynn, S. (1987). A parameter-setting model of L2 acquisition: Experimental studies in
anaphora. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Frawley, W. , & Lantolf, J. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian perspective.
Applied Linguistics, 6, 19–44.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gass, S. M. (2009). A historical survey of SLA research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia
(Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 3–28). Bingley: Emerald
Group.
Gass, S. M. , Behney, L. , & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory
course (4th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Gass, S. M. , & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Givón, R. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón
(Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic
Press.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79–100.
Han, Z.-H. , & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hernández-Chávez, E. (1972). Early code separation in the second language speech of
Spanish-speaking children. Paper presented at the Stanford Child Language Research
Forum, Stanford University, Stanford.
Holme, R. (2013). Emergentism, connectionism and complexity. In J. Herschensohn & M.
Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
605–626). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houck, N. , Robertson, J. , & Krashen, S. (1978). On the domain of the conscious grammar:
Morpheme orders for corrected and uncorrected ESL student transcripts. TESOL Quarterly,
12, 335–339.
Howatt, A. P. R. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Huebner, T. (1983). The acquisition of English. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Hulstijn, J. H. , & Hulstijn, W. (1984). Grammatical errors as a function of processing
constraints and explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 34, 23–43.
Klima, E. , & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J. Lyons &
R. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistic papers (183–219). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Krashen, S. , & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in second language acquisition
and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283–300.
Lado, R. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state
grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.
Larsen-Freeman, D. , & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. Harlow: Longman.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.
Long, M. H. (1983a). Native speaker/non native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Myles, F. (2010). The development of theories of second language acquisition. Language
Teaching, 43, 320–332.
O’Malley, J. M. , & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance,
and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63, 1–24.
Ortega, L. (2014). Trying out theories of interlanguage: Description and explanation over 40
years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years
later (pp. 173–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. Columbia, OH: Columbia University Press.
Piaget, J. , & Inhelder, B. (1966). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (Ed.). (1980). Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget
and Noam Chomsky. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pica, T. , Young, R. , & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension.
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. London: Penguin Books.
Richards, J. (Ed.). (1974). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language learning.
London: Longman.
Rivers, W. M. (1964). The psychologist and the foreign-language teacher. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rivers, W. M. (1968). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Sato, C. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr Verlag.
Schumann, J. (1978a). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Schumann, J. (1978b). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.
Gingras (Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27–50).
Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. (1978c). Social and psychological factors in second language acquisition. In J.
Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and
approaches (pp. 163-178). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Sebba, M. (1997). Contact languages: Pidgins and creoles. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219–231.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. Harlow:
Longman.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1970). Universals of grammatical development in children. In G. Flores d’Arcais
& W. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
Slobin, D. I. (1979). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Slobin, D. I. (Ed.). (1985). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Tarone, E. (2015). Second language acquisition in applied linguistics: 1925–2015 and
beyond. Applied Linguistics, 36, 444–453.
Thomas, M. (2004). Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: A history.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Thomas, M. (2013). History of the study of second language acquisition. In M. YoungScholten & J. Herschensohn (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 26–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thorndike, E. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York: Columbia Teachers College.
Tran-Chi-Chau . (1975). Error analysis, contrastive analysis and students’ perception: A study
of difficulty in second language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 13,
119–143.
VanPatten, B. , & Williams, J. (2015). Early theories in SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 17–33). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Watson, J. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: Norton.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Linguistics and Language Learning
Abrahamsson, N. , & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second
language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306.
Adiv, E. (1984). Language learning strategies: The relationship between L1 operating
principles and language transfer in L2 development. In R. W. Andersen (Ed.), Second
languages: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 125–142). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Aitchison, J. (2008). The articulate mammal (5th ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ambridge, B. , & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Archibald, J. (1998). Second language phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Archibald, J. (2004). Interfaces in the prosodic hierarchy: New structure and the phonological
parser. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 8, 29–50.
Archibald, J. (2009). Phonological feature reassembly and the importance of phonetic cues.
Second Language Research, 25, 231–233.
Archibald, J. (2018). Transfer, contrastive analysis and interlanguage phonology. In O. Kang ,
R. Thomson , & J. Murphy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English
pronunciation (pp. 9–24). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In T. Biberauer (Ed.), The
limits of syntactic variation (pp. 351–374). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bartke, S. , & Siegmuller, J. (Eds.). (2004). Williams syndrome across languages.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Belikova, A. , & White, L. (2009). Evidence for the fundamental difference hypothesis or not?
Island constraints revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 199–223.
Bellugi, U. , Van Hoek, K. , Lillo-Martin, D. , & O’Grady, L. (1993). The acquisition of syntax in
young deaf singers. In D. Bishop & K. Mogford (Eds.), Language development in exceptional
circumstances (pp. 132–150). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Benati, A. , & Rastelli, S. (Eds.). (2018). Neurolinguistics and the language classroom
[Special issue]. Second Language Research, 34.
Berwick, R. C. , & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Birdsong, D. (2009). Age and the end state of second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie
& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 401–424).
Bingley: Emerald Group.
Bishop, D. (Ed.). (2001). Language and cognitive processes in developmental disorders.
Hove: Psychology Press.
Bishop, D. , & Mogford, K. (Eds.). (1993). Language development in exceptional
circumstances. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreign language learning? In S. Gass
& J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 41–68).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.
Boeckx, C. (2011). Approaching parameters from below. In A.-M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx
(Eds.), Biolinguistic approaches to language evolution and variation (pp. 205–221). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Carter, R. (1998). Mapping the mind. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Chaudron, C. (2003). Data collection in SLA research. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),
The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 762–828). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Choi, S. H. , Ionin, T. , & Zhu, Y. (2017). L1 Korean and L1 Mandarin L2 English learners’
acquisition of the count/mass distinction in English. Second Language Research, 34,
147–177.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.
Chomsky, N. (2007a). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H. Gärtner (Eds.),
Interfaces + recursion = language? (pp. 1–31). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. (2007b). Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, 9–27.
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In R. Freidin , C. Otero , & M.-L. Zubizaretta (Eds.),
Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49.
Clark, E. (1985). The acquisition of Romance, with special reference to French. In D. Slobin
(Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 687–782). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, V. (2016). Premises of multi-competence. In V. Cook & Li Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of linguistic multi-competence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. , & Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Cook, V. , & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child”. New York:
Academic Press.
de Villiers, J. , & Roeper, T. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of generative approaches to language
acquisition. Dordrecht: Springer.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Di Sciullo, A.-M. , Piattelli-Palmarini, M. , Wexler, K. , Berwick, R. C. , Boeckx, C. , Jenkins, L.
, … Bever, T. (2010). The biological nature of human language. Biolinguistics, 4, 4–34.
Domínguez, L. (2013). Understanding interfaces: Second language acquisition and first
language attrition of Spanish subject realization and word order variation. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Domínguez, L. (2018). Bridging the gap between selective and non-selective L1 attrition.
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 686–690.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dugarova, E. (2014). Russian speakers’ L2 Chinese acquisition of wh-topicalization at the
syntax—discourse interface. Second Language Research, 30, 411–437.
Eguren, L. , Fernandez-Soriano, O. , & Mendikoetxea, A. (Eds.). (2016). Rethinking
parameters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eubank, L. , & Gregg, K. (1999). Critical periods and (second) language acquisition: Divide et
impera. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis
(pp. 65–99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Felser, C. , & Cunnings, I. (2012). Processing reflexives in a second language: The timing of
structural and discourse-level information. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 571–603.
Flynn, S. (1996). A parameter-setting approach to second language acquisition. In W. C.
Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 121–158). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of
grammatical gender. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Friederici, A. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fukui, N. , & Speas, M. (1986). Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,
8, 128–172.
Gopnik, M. , & Crago, M. B. (1991). Familial aggregation of a developmental language
disorder. Cognition, 39, 1–50.
Grondin, N. , & White, L. (1996). Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of French.
Language Acquisition, 5, 1–34.
Guasti, M. (2009). Universal Grammar approaches to language acquisition. In S. FosterCohen (Ed.), Language acquisition (pp. 87–108). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Guasti, M. (2016). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Hamann, C. , Rizzi, L. , & Frauenfelder, U. (1996). On the acquisition of subject and object
clitics in French. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp.
309–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Hawkins, R. (2008a). Commentary: Can innate linguistic knowledge be eliminated from
theories of SLA? Lingua, 118, 613–619.
Hawkins, R. (2008b). The nativist perspective on second language acquisition. Lingua, 118,
465–477.
Hawkins, R. (2009). Second language acquisition of morphosyntax. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K.
Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–236). Bingley:
Emerald Group.
Hawkins, R. , & Chan, C. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second
language acquisition: The “failed functional features hypothesis”. Second Language
Research, 13, 187–226.
Hawkins, R. , & Franceschina, F. (2004). Explaining the acquisition and non-acquisition of
determiner-noun gender concord in French and Spanish. In P. Prévost & J. Paradis (Eds.),
The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories (pp. 175–205).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hawkins, R. , & Hattori, H. (2006). Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by
Japanese speakers: A missing uninterpretable feature account. Second Language Research,
22, 269–301.
Hawkins, R. , & Liszka, S. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in
advanced L2 English speakers. In R. van Hout , A. Hulk , F. Kuiken , & R. Towell (Eds.), The
lexicon-syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Haznedar, B. (2001). The acquisition of the IP system in child L2 English. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 23, 1–39.
Herschensohn, J. (2000). The second time around: Minimalism and second language
acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Herschensohn, J. (2007). Language development and age. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Herschensohn, J. (2013). Age-related effects. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 317–337). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hopp, H. (2017). Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence
processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 96–130.
Huang, C.-T. J. , & Roberts, I. (2017). Principles and parameters of Universal Grammar. In I.
Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of universal grammar (pp. 307–354). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ionin, T. (2012). Formal theory-based methodologies. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.),
Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 30–52). Oxford:
Wiley Blackwell.
Ionin, T. , Zubizarreta, M. L. , & Maldonado, S. B. (2008). Sources of linguistic knowledge in
the second language acquisition of English articles. Lingua, 118, 554–576.
Jenkins, L. (2000). Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, J. , & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The
influence of maturational state on the acquisition of ESL. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.
Juffs, A. (2009). Second language acquisition of the lexicon. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia
(Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 181–210). Bingley: Emerald
Group.
Juffs, A. , & Harrington, M. (1995). Parsing effects in second language sentence processing:
Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
17, 483–516.
Juffs, A. , & Harrington, M. (1996). Garden path sentences and error data in second language
sentence processing. Language Learning, 46, 283–323.
Kaltsa, M. , Tsimpli, I. M. , & Rothman, J. (2015). Exploring the source of differences and
similarities in L1 attrition and heritage speaker competence: Evidence from pronominal
resolution. Lingua, 164, 266–288.
Lai, C. , Fisher, S. , Hurst, J. , Vargha-Khadem, F. , & Faraneh, M. (2001). A fork-headdomain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature, 413, 519–523.
Laleko, O. , & Polinsky, M. (2016). Topic and case marking in heritage speakers and L2
learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 6, 396–439.
Lardiere, D. (1998a). Case and tense in the “fossilized” steady state. Second Language
Research, 14, 1–26.
Lardiere, D. (1998b). Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state
grammar. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.
Lardiere, D. (2000). Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In J.
Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 102–129). Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Lardiere, D. (2007). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.
Lardiere, D. (2012). Linguistic approaches to second language morphosyntax. In S. M. Gass
& A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 106–126).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Lee, D. (1992). Universal Grammar, learnability, and the acquisition of English reflexive
bindings by L1 Korean speakers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). The biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
Leung, Y. I. (Ed.). (2009). Third language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Lidz, J. , & Gagliardi, A. (2015). How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statistical
learning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 333–353.
Lightbown, P. M. , & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lorenzo, G. , & Longa, V. (2003). Minimizing the genes for grammar: The minimalist program
as a biological framework for the study of language. Lingua, 113, 643–657.
Mai, Z. , & Yuan, B. (2016). Uneven reassembly of tense, telicity and discourse features in L2
acquisition of the Chinese shì … de cleft construction by adult English speakers. Second
Language Research, 32, 247–276.
Meisel, J. (1997). The acquisition of the syntax of negation in French and German:
Contrasting first and second language development. Second Language Research, 13,
227–263.
Meisel, J. (2011). First and second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Montrul, S. (2015). The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Montrul, S. (2018). Heritage language development: Connecting the dots. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 22, 530-546.
Moro, A. (2016). Impossible languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Myles, F. (2005). The emergence of morpho-syntactic structure in French L2. In J.-M.
Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp.
88–113). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Özçelik, Ö. (2018). Interface hypothesis and the L2 acquisition of quantificational scope at the
syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface. Language Acquisition, 25, 213–223.
Özçelik, Ö. , & Sprouse, R. A. (2017). Emergent knowledge of a universal phonological
principle in the L2 acquisition of vowel harmony in Turkish: A “four”-fold poverty of the
stimulus in L2 acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 179–206.
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paradis, J. , Rice, M. , Crago, M. , & Marquis, J. (2008). The acquisition of tense in English:
Distinguishing child second language from first language and specific language impairment.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 689–722.
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of
French and English child grammars. London: Kluwer.
Pinel, P. , Fauchereau, F. , Moreno, A. , Barbot, A. , Lathrop, M. , Zelenika, D. , … Dehaene,
S. (2012). Genetic Variants of FOXP2 and KIAA0319/TTRAP/THEM2 locus are associated
with altered brain activation in distinct language-related regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32,
817–825.
Polinsky, M. (2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: New evidence in support of
attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–328.
Prévost, P. , & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (2004). The acquisition of French in different contexts:
Focus on functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prévost, P. , & White, L. (2000). Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language
acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 16, 103–133.
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: A minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rankin, T. , & Unsworth, S. (2016). Beyond poverty: Engaging with input in generative SLA.
Second Language Research, 34, 563–572.
Renaud, C. (2014). A processing investigation of the accessibility of the uninterpretable
gender feature in L2 French and L2 Spanish adjective agreement. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 4, 222–255.
Reuter, M. S. , Riess, A. , Moog, U. , Briggs, T. A. , Chandler, K. E. , Rauch, A. , … Zweier,
C. (2017). FOXP2 variants in 14 individuals with developmental speech and language
disorders broaden the mutational and clinical spectrum. Journal of Medical Genetics, 54,
64–72.
Roberts, I. (2012). Macroparameters and minimalism: A programme for comparative
research. In C. Galves , S. Cyrino , R. Lopez , F. Sândalo , & J. Avelar (Eds.), Parameter
theory and linguistic change (pp. 320–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. (2016). Object clitics. In A. Ledgeway & M. Maiden (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the
romance languages (pp. 786–801). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. (2017a). Introduction. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Universal
Grammar (pp. 1–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. (Ed.). (2017b). The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Roberts, I. , & Holmberg, A. (2010). Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In T.
Beiberauer , A. Holmberg , I. Roberts , & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null
subjects in Minimalist theory (pp. 1–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, L. , González Alonso, J. , Pliatsikas, C. , & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from
neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories
and translate to evidence-based applications? Second Language Research, 34, 125–143.
Rogers, V. (2009). Syntactic development in the second language acquisition of French by
instructed English learners. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK.
Roncaglia-Denissen, M. P. , Schmidt-Kassow, M. , Heine, A. , & Kotz, S. A. (2015). On the
impact of L2 speech rhythm on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research,
31, 157–178.
Rothman, J. , Bayram, F. , Cunnings, I. , & González Alonso, J. (in press). Formal linguistics
approaches to adult second language acquisition and processing. In J. W. Schwieter & A.
Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rothman, J. , & Slabakova, R. (Eds.). (2011). Acquisition at the linguistic interfaces [Special
Issue]. Lingua, 121.
Rothman, J. , & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in
modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–444.
Schachter, J. (1996). Maturation and the issue of Universal Grammar in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 159–193). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schlyter, S. (1986). Surextension et sous-extension dans l’acquisition des verbes de
mouvements/déplacement. In A Giacomi & D. Véronique (Eds.), Acquisition d’une langue
étrangère (pp. 475–491). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
Schmid, M. S. (2011). Language attrition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, M. S. (2014). The debate on maturational constraints in bilingual development: A
perspective from first-language attrition. Language Acquisition, 21, 386–410.
Schmid, M. S. , Gilbers, S. , & Nota, A. (2014). Ultimate attainment in late second language
acquisition: Phonetic and grammatical challenges in advanced Dutch—English bilingualism.
Second Language Research, 30, 129–157.
Schmid, M. , & Köpke, B. (2018). The relevance of first language attrition to theories of
bilingual development. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7, 637–667.
Schwartz, B. , & Sprouse, R. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language
acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B.
Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317–368).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B. , & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access
model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.
Schwartz, B. , & Sprouse, R. (2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus.
In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 137–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B. , & Sprouse, R. (2017). The role of Universal Grammar in nonnative language
acquisition. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar (pp. 289–304).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C. (2014). Bilingual language acquisition: Spanish and English in the first six
years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slabakova, R. (2006). Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research,
22, 302–338.
Slabakova, R. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Slabakova, R. (Ed.). (2009). The fundamental difference hypothesis twenty years later
[Special Issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31.
Slabakova, R. (2013). What is easy and what is hard in second language acquisition: A
generative perspective. In M. del Pilar García Mayo , M. Junkal Gutierrez-Mangado , & M.
Martínez Adrián (Eds.), contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 5–28).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Serratrice, L. , Sorace, A. , & Paoli, S. (2004). Crosslinguistic influence at the syntaxpragmatic interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual
acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 183–205.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, N. (1999). Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, N. , & Tsimpli, I. (1995). The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity.
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Smith, N. , Tsimpli, I. , Morgan, G. , & Woll, B. (2011). The signs of a savant: Language
against the odds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snape, N. , & Kupisch, T. (2016). Second language acquisition: Second language systems.
London: Palgrave.
Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sorace, A. (1996). The use of acceptability judgements in second language acquisition
research. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 375–409). San Diego: Academic Press.
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K. Corrigan
(Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sorace, A. (2011). Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 1, 1–33.
Sorace, A. , & Filiaci, F. (2006). Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian.
Second Language Research, 22, 339–368.
Sorace, A. , & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language
development: Beyond structural overlap. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 1–16.
Thomas, M. (1991). Universal Grammar and knowledge of reflexives in a second language.
PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Thomas, M. (2004). Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: A history.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Towell, R. , & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Towell, R. , & Hawkins, R. (Eds.) (2004). Empirical evidence and theories of representation in
current research in second language acquisition. [Special issue]. Transactions of the
Philological Society, 102.
Trahey, M. , & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and pre-emption in the second language
classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181–204.
Tsimpli, I. , & Dimitrakopoulou, M. (2007). The interpretability hypothesis: Evidence from whinterrogatives in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 23, 215–242.
Tsimpli, I. , & Sorace, A. (2006). Differentiating interfaces: L2 performance in syntaxsemantics and syntax-discourse phenomena. In D. Bamman , T. Magnitskaia , & C. Zaller
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston University conference on language
development (BUCLD) (pp. 653–664). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Vainikka, A. , & Young-Scholten, M. (1996a). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional
evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12, 140–176.
Vainikka, A. , & Young-Scholten, M. (1996b). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure.
Second Language Research, 12, 7–39.
Vainikka, A. , & Young-Scholten, M. (1998). The initial state in the L2 acquisition of phrase
structure. In S. Flynn , G. Martohardjono , & W. O’Neil (Eds.), The generative study of second
language acquisition (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vainikka, A. , & Young-Scholten, M. (2007). Minimalism vs. organic syntax. In S. Karimi , V.
Samiian , & W. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and
interpretation. In honor of Joseph Emonds (pp. 319–338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vainikka, A. , & Young-Scholten, M. (2011). The acquisition of German: Introducing organic
grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
van der Lely, H. K. J. (Ed.). (1998). Specific Language Impairment in children [Special Issue].
Language Acquisition, 7.
van Hout, R. , Hulk, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Towell, R. (Eds.). (2003). The lexicon-syntax interface
in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Véronique, D. (1986). L’apprentissage du français par des travailleurs marocains et les
processus de pidginisation et de créolisation. In A. Giacome & D. Véronique (Eds.),
Acquisition d’une langue étrangère (pp. 559–584). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects of positive
and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133–161.
White, L. (1992). Long and short verb movement in second language acquisition. Canadian
Journal of Linguistics, 37, 273–286.
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (2009a). Grammatical theory: Interfaces and L2 knowledge. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K.
Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 49–68). Bingley:
Emerald Group.
White, L. (2009b). Some questions about feature reassembly. Second Language Research,
25, 343–348.
White, L. , Travis, L. , & MacLachlan, A. (1992). The acquisition of wh-question formation by
Malagasy learners of English: Evidence for universal grammar. Canadian Journal of
Linguistics, 37, 341–368.
Whong, M. , Gil, K.-H. , & Marsden, H. (Eds.). (2013). Universal Grammar and the second
language classroom. Dordrecht: Springer.
Yang, C. , Crain, S. , Berwick, R. C. , Chomsky, N. , & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of
language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119.
Yuan, B. (2001). The status of thematic verbs in the second language acquisition of Chinese.
Second Language Research, 14, 248–272.
Zobl, H. (1980). The formal and developmental selectivity of L1 influence on L2 acquisition.
Language Learning, 30, 43–57.
Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Learning (1)
Altmann, G. T. M. , & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the
domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264.
Ambridge, B. , Kidd, E. , Rowland, C. F. , & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of
frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–273.
Ambridge, B. , & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical
approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ambridge, B. , Pine, J. M. , Rowland, C. F. , Jones, R. L. , & Clark, V. (2009). A semanticsbased approach to the “no negative evidence” problem. Cognitive Science, 33, 1301–1316.
Ambridge, B. , Pine, J. M. , Rowland, C. F. , Chang, F. , & Bidgood, A. (2013). The retreat
from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: Word learning, morphology, and verb
argument structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 47–62.
Auer, P. , & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2011). Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Boston: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Baten, K. (2013). The acquisition of the German case system by foreign language learners.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baten, K. , Buyl, A. , Lochtman, K. , & Herreweghe, M. V. (2015). Theoretical and
methodological developments in processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bates, E. , & Goodman, J. (1997). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon:
Evidence from acquisition, aphasia, and realtime processing. Language and Cognitive
Processes, 12, 507–584.
Bettoni, C. , & Di Biase, B. (Eds.). (2015). Grammatical development in second languages:
Exploring the boundaries of processability theory. Amsterdam: EUROSLA.
Bock, K. , & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or
implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 177–192.
Bonilla, C. (2015). From number agreement to the subjunctive: Evidence for processability
theory in L2 Spanish. Second Language Research, 31, 53–74.
Boyd, J. K. , & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. The
Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–429.
Boyd, J. K. , & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: Categorization and
preemption in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83.
Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Brooks, P. J. , & Kempe, V. (2013). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning:
The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory and Cognition, 41, 281–296.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Buyl, A. , & Housen, A. (2015). Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A
processability theory account. Second Language Research, 31, 523–550.
Cadierno, T. , & Eskildsen, S. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language
learning. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chambers, C. G. , Tanenhaus, M. K. , Eberhard, K. M. , Filip, H. , & Carlson, G. N. (2002).
Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of
Memory and Language, 47, 30–49.
Chang, F. , Dell, G. S. , & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113,
234–272.
Christiansen, M. H. , & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 31, 489–558.
Christiansen, M. H. , Conway, C. , & Onnis, L. (2012). Similar neural correlates for language
and sequential learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 27, 231–256.
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of
cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Science, 36, 181–204.
Cleeremans, A. , & Dienes, Z. (2008). Computational models of implicit learning. In R. Sun
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 396–421). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Collins, L. (2004). The particulars on universals: A comparison of the acquisition of tenseaspect morphology among Japanese- and French-speaking learners of English. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 251–274.
Collins, L. , & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of
frequency, form, and function. [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 93.
Collins, L. , Trofimovich, P. , White, J. , Cardoso, W. , & Horst, M. (2009). Some input on the
easy/difficult grammar question: An empirical study. The Modern Language Journal, 93,
336–353.
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native
language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253.
Dehaene, S. (2014). The signatures of a conscious thought. In Consciousness and the brain:
Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts (pp. 115–160). New York: Penguin.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a
miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.
Dienes, Z. , & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing structural
knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69, 338–351.
Dyson, B. , & Hakansson, G. (2017). Understanding second language processing: A focus on
processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for
theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 1–24.
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition:
Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and
perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.
Ellis, N. C. (2007). The associative-cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 77–95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Temporal cognition and temporal language the first and second times
around. Commentary on McCormack and Hoerl. Language Learning, 58, 115–121.
Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive systems.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 341–351.
Ellis, N. C. , & Cadierno, T. E. (Eds.). (2009). Constructing a second language. [Special
section]. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7.
Ellis, N. C. , & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency,
frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.
Ellis, N. C. , Hafeez, K. , Martin, K. I. , Chen, L. , Boland, J. , & Sagarra, N. (2014). An eyetracking study of learned attention in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics,
35, 547–579.
Ellis, N. C. , & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and
computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. [Special
issue]. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.
Ellis, N. C. , O’Donnell, M. , & Römer, U. (2015). Usage-based language learning. In B.
MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 163–180).
Boston: Wiley Blackwell.
Ellis, N. C. , Römer, U. , & Brook O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-based approaches to
language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction
grammar [Special issue]. Language Learning, 66, 1–358.
Ellis, N. C. , & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and
learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 553–580.
Ellis, N. C. , & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A
replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 33, 589–624.
Ellis, N. C. , & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer distance dependencies:
Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19,
145–171.
Ellis, R. , Loewen, S. , Elder, C. , Erlam, R. , Philp, J. , & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and
explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Elman, J. , Bates, E. , Johnson, M. , Karmiloff-Smith, A. , Parisi, D. , & Plunkett, K. (1996).
Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Ettlinger, M. , Morgan-Short, K. , Faretta-Stutenberg, M. , & Wong, P. C. M. (2016). The
relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cognitive Science, 40,
822–847.
Foucart, A. (2015). Prediction is a question of experience. Linguistic Approaches to
Bilingualism, 5, 465–469.
Freudenthal, D. , Pine, J. M. , Aguado-Orea, J. , & Gobet, F. (2007). Modeling the
developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish
using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 31, 311–341.
Gass, S. M. , Spinner, P. , & Behney, J. (Eds.). (2018). Salience in second language
acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive
Linguistics, 22, 131–153.
Goldschneider, J. , & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme
acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. [Special issue]. Language
Learning, 55, 26–77.
Granena, G. (2013). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language
acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.
Greve, A. , Cooper, E. , Kaula, A. , Anderson, M. , & Henson, R. (2017). Does prediction error
drive one-shot declarative learning? Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 149–165.
Grey, S. , Williams, J. N. , & Rebuschat, P. (2015). Individual differences in incidental
language learning: Phonological working memory, learning styles and personality. Learning
and Individual Differences, 38, 44–53.
Gries, S. , & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Currents in
Language Learning, 2, 228–255.
Grüter, T. , Lew-Williams, C. , & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production
or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.
Grüter, T. , Rohde, H. , & Schafer, A. (2014). The role of discourse-level expectations in nonnative speakers’ referential choices. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Boston University
Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), 179–191.
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical gender in adult L2 acquisition: Relations between lexical and
syntactic variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.
Hopp, H. (2015). Semantics and morphosyntax in L2 predictive sentence processing.
International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 277–306.
Hopp, H. (2016). Learning (not) to predict: Grammatical gender agreement in non-native
processing. Second Language Research, 32, 277–307.
Hopp, H. , & Lemmerth, N. (2018). Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender
processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 171–199.
Housen, A. , & Simoens, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and
complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
Huettig, F. , & Mani, N. (2015). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably
not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 19–31.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit
second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 129–140.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and
research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2018). An individual-differences framework for comparing non-native with
native speakers: Perspectives from basic language cognition. Language Learning, Early
View, pp. 1–27.
Indrarathne, B. , Ratajczak, M. , & Kormos, J. (2018). Modelling changes in the cognitive
processing of grammar in implicit and explicit learning conditions: Insights from an eyetracking study. Language Learning, 68, 669–708.
Isabelli, C. A. (2008). First noun principle or L1 transfer principle in SLA? Hispania, 91,
465–478.
Jackendoff, R. , & Audring, A. (2016). Morphological schemas: Theoretical and
psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 467–493.
Jackson, C. N. (2007). The use and non-use of semantic information, word order, and case
markings during comprehension by L2 learners of German. The Modern Language Journal,
91, 418–432.
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic
information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.
Kaan, E. (2015). Knowing without predicting, predicting without learning. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 482–486.
Keßler, J.-U. , Lenzing, A. , & Liebner, M. (Eds.). (2016). Developing, modelling, and
assessing second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kidd, E. , Donnelly, S. , & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language
acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 154–169.
Klein, W. , & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Lenzing, A. (2013). The development of the grammatical system in early second language
acquisition: The multiple constraints hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lenzing, A. (2015). Exploring regularities and dynamic systems in L2 development.
Language Learning, 65, 89–122.
Leung, J. H.-C. , & Williams, J. N. (2011). The implicit learning of mappings between forms
and contextually derived meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 33–55.
Lew-Williams, C. , & Fernald, A. (2010). Real-time processing of gender-marked articles by
native and non-native Spanish speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 447–464.
Luk, Z. P.-S. , & Shirai, Y. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes
impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and
possessive ‘s . Language Learning, 59, 721–754.
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll & G. de Groot
(Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of
cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 341–371). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
MacWhinney, B. (2012). The logic of the unified model. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
MacWhinney, B. (2015). Introduction: Language emergence. In B. MacWhinney & W.
O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 1–32). Chichester/West
Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
MacWhinney, B. , & O’Grady, W. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of language emergence.
Chichester/West Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Marsden, E. , Williams, J. N. , & Liu, X. (2013). Learning novel morphology: The role of
meaning and orientation of attention at initial exposure. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 619–654.
Martin, C. D. , Thierry, G. , Kuipers, J. R. , Boutonnet, B. , Foucart, A. , & Costa, A. (2013).
Bilinguals reading in their second language do not predict upcoming words as native readers
do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 574–588.
McDonough, K. , & Fulga, A. (2015). The detection and primed production of novel
constructions. Language Learning, 65, 326–357.
McDonough, K. , & Nekrasova-Becker, T. (2014). Comparing the effect of skewed and
balanced input on EFL learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 419–444.
McDonough, K. , & Trofimovich, P. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced and
skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 654–662.
McDonough, K. , & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Structural priming and the acquisition of novel
form meaning mappings. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives
on second language learning (pp. 105–123). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
McDonough, K. , & Trofimovich, P. (2016). The role of statistical learning and working
memory in L2 speakers’ pattern learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 428–445.
Misyak, J. B. , & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual
differences study. Language Learning, 62, 302–331.
Murakami, A. (2016). Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second language
development: The case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning, 66,
834–871.
Murakami, A. , & Alexopoulou, T. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English
grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
38, 365–401.
Nakamura, D. (2012). Input skewedness, consistency, and order of frequent verbs in
frequency-driven second language construction learning: A replication and extension of
Casenhiser and Goldberg (2005) to adult second language acquisition. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 50, 1–38.
Norman, E. , Price, M. C. , Duff, S. C. & Mentzoni, R. A. (2007). Gradations of awareness in a
modified sequence learning task. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 809–837.
O’Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Grady, W. (2007). The syntax of quantification in SLA: An emergentist approach. In M.
O’Brien , C. Shea , & J. Archibald (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th generative approaches to
second language acquisition conference (GASLA 2006): The Banff conference (pp. 98–113).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
O’Grady, W. (2008a). The emergentist program. Lingua, 118, 447–464.
O’Grady, W. (2008b). Language without grammar. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.),
Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 139–167).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
O’Grady, W. (2010a). An emergentist approach to syntax. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 257–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Grady, W. (2010b). Fundamental universals of language. Lingua, 120, 2707–2712.
O’Grady, W. (2012). Language acquisition without an acquisition device. Language Teaching,
45, 116–130.
O’Grady, W. (2015). Anaphora and the case for emergentism. In B. MacWhinney & W.
O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 100–122). Chichester/West
Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
O’Grady, W. , Kim, K. , & Kim, C.-H. (2018). The role of salience in linguistic development: A
contrarian view. In S. M. Gass , P. Spinner , & J. Beheney (Eds.), Salience and SLA (pp.
64–86). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
O’Grady, W. , Kwak, H.-Y. , Lee, O.-S. , & Lee, M. (2011). An emergentist perspective on
heritage language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 223–245.
O’Grady, W. , Lee, M. , & Kwak, H.-Y. (2009). Emergentism and second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 69–88). Bingley: Emerald Group.
O’Grady, W. , Yamashita, Y. , & Lee, S.-Y. (2005). A note on canonical word order. Applied
Linguistics, 26, 453–458.
Phillips, C. , & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language
acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 409–453.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language acquisition:
Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2010). A cognitive view of language acquisition: Processability theory and
beyond. In P. Seedhouse , S. Walsh , & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising “learning” in
applied linguistics (pp. 69–88). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pienemann, M. , & Kessler, J. L. (Eds.). (2011). Studying processability theory. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. & Lenzing, A. (2015). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition, (2nd ed.) (pp. 159–179). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Pine, J. M. , Conti-Ramsden, G. , Joseph, K. L. , Lieven, E. V. M. , & Serratrice, L. (2007).
Tense over time: Testing the agreement/tense omission model as an account of the pattern
of tense-marking provision in early child English. Journal of Child Language, 34, 1–21.
Pozzan, L. , & Quirk, E. (2014). Second language acquisition of English questions: An elicited
production study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 1055–1086.
Rabagliati, H. , Gambi, C. , & Pickering, M. (2016). Learning to predict or predicting to learn?
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 94–105.
Riches, N. , & Jackson, L. (2018). differences in syntactic ability and construction learning: An
exploration of the relationship. Language Learning, 68, 973-1000.
Robenalt, C. , & Goldberg, A. E. (2016). Nonnative speakers do not take competing
alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning, 66,
60–93.
Roberts, L. , González Alonso, J. , Pliatsikas, C. , & Rothman, J. (2018). Evidence from
neurolinguistic methodologies: Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories
and translate to evidence-based applications? Second Language Research, 34, 125–143.
Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit
artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, & Hernstadt
(1991) and Knowlton & Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27, 235–268.
Robinson, P. , & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Rogers, J. , Révész, A. , & Rebuschat, P. (2016). Implicit and explicit knowledge of L2
inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 781–812.
Rowland, C. F. , Pine, J. M. , Lieven, E. V. M. , & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of
acquisition order in wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of
Child Language, 30, 609–635.
Sagarra, N. (2008). Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In
Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 133–147). Cleveland:
Multilingual Matters.
Sagarra, N. , & Ellis, N. C. (2013). From seeing adverbs to seeing morphology. Language
experience and adult acquisition of L2 tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35,
261–290.
Schepens, J. J. , van der Slik, F. , & van Hout, R. (2016). L1 and L2 distance effects in
learning L3 Dutch. Language Learning, 66, 224–256.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B. , & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access
model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.
Shanks, D. (2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 291–309.
Sharwood Smith, M. , & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shintani, N. , & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese
children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons: A process-product study.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 607–637.
Spinner, P. (2013). Language production and reception: A processability theory study.
Language Learning, 63, 704–739.
Spinner, P. , & Jung, S. (2018). Production and comprehension in processability theory: A
self-paced reading study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 295–318.
St Clair, M. C. , Monaghan, P. , & Christiansen, M. H. (2010). Learning grammatical
categories from distributional cues: Flexible frames for language acquisition. Cognition, 116,
341–360.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2008). Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative
evidence. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 513–531.
Street, J. , & Dąbrowska, E. (2014). Lexically specific knowledge and individual differences in
adult native speakers’ processing of the English passive. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35,
97–118.
Thordardottir, E. , Weismer, S. , & Evans, J. (2002). Continuity in lexical and morphological
development in Icelandic and English speaking 2-year-olds. First Language, 22, 3–28.
Tokowicz, N. , & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to
violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Trenkic, D. , Mirkovic, J. , & Altmann, G. (2014). Real-time grammar processing by native and
non-native speakers: Constructions unique to the second language. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 17, 237–257.
Tyler, A. , & Ortega, L. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language and language learning:
An introduction to the special issue. Language and Cognition, 8, 335–345.
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language:
The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.
van Bergen, G. , & Flecken, M. (2017). Putting things in new places: Linguistic experience
modulates the predictive power of placement verb semantics. Journal of Memory and
Language, 92, 26–42.
van den Bos, E. , Christiansen, M. H. , & Misyak, J. B. (2012). Statistical learning of
probabilistic nonadjacent dependencies by multiple-cue integration. Journal of Memory and
Language, 67, 507–520.
Van Geert, P. , & Verspoor, M. (2015). Dynamic systems and language development. In B.
MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 537–547).
Chichester/West Sussex/Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 113–134).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Westergaard, M. (2009). Usage-based vs. rule-based learning: The acquisition of word order
in Wh-questions in English and Norwegian. Journal of Child Language, 36, 1023–1051.
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27, 269–304.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.
K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley:
Emerald Group.
Williams, J. N. (2010). Initial incidental acquisition of word order regularities: Is it just
sequence learning? [Special issue]. Language Learning, 60, 221–244.
Williams, J. N. , & Kuribara, C. (2008). Comparing a nativist and emergentist approach to the
initial stage of SLA: An investigation of Japanese scrambling. Lingua, 118, 522–553.
Year, J. , & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive
construction: The role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. The Modern
Language Journal, 93, 399–417.
Zarcone, A. , van Schijndel, M. , Vogels, J. , & Demberg, V. (2016). Salience and attention in
surprisal-based accounts of language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 844.
Cognitive Approaches to Second Language Learning (2)
Abutalebi, J. , & Green, D. (2008). Control mechanisms in bilingual language production:
Neural evidence from language switching studies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23,
557–582.
Altarriba, J. , & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2009). An information-processing approach to second
language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second
language acquisition (pp. 115–136). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Altarriba, J. , & Isurin, L. (Eds.). (2014). Memory, language, and bilingualism: Theoretical and
applied approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Andringa, S. , & Curcic, M. (2015). How explicit knowledge affects online L2 processing:
Evidence from differential object marking acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 37, 237–268.
Andringa, S. , & Rebuschat, P. (Eds.). (2015). New directions in the study of implicit and
explicit learning [Special issue]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37.
Avery, N. , & Marsden, E. (under review). Estimating the magnitude of sensitivity to
morphosyntax and first language influence during self-paced reading in a second language.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second
Language Research, 33, 299–311.
Baddeley, A. D. , & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of
learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York:
Academic Press.
Bak, T. H. (2015). Beyond a simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Cortex, 73, 332–333.
Bak, T. H. , Long, M. , Vega-Mendoza, M. , & Sorace, A. (2016). Novelty, challenge, and
practice: The impact of intensive language learning on attentional functions. PLos One, 11,
e0153485.
Bell, N. (2012). Comparing playful and nonplayful incidental attention to form. Language
Learning, 62, 236–265.
Bell, P. (2017). Explicit and implicit learning: Exploring their simultaneity and immediate
effectiveness. Applied Linguistics, 38, 297–317.
Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11.
Bialystok, E. , Martin, M. , & Viswanathan, M. (2005). Bilingualism across the lifespan: The
rise and fall of inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 103–119.
Bialystok, E. & Poarch, G. J. (2014). Language experience changes language and cognitive
ability. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17, 433–446.
Bird, S. (2010). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English
syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 635–650.
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 175–198.
Bowles, M. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Bowles, A. , Chang, C. , & Karuzis, V. (2016). Pitch ability as an aptitude for tone learning.
Language Learning, 66, 774–808.
Brooks, P. J. , & Kempe, V. (2013). Individual differences in adult foreign language learning:
The mediating effect of metalinguistic awareness. Memory and Cognition, 41, 281–296.
Brown, H. , & Gaskell, M. G. (2014). The time-course of talker-specificity and lexical
competition effects during word learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29,
1163–1179.
Cepeda, N. J. , Pashler, H. , Vul, E. , Wixted, J. T. , & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice
in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132,
354–380.
Chen, C. , & Truscott, J. (2010). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental
vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31, 693–713.
Chen, L. , Shu, H. , Liu, Y. , Zhao, J. , & Li, P. (2007). ERP signatures in subject-verb
agreement in L2 learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 161–174.
Cintrón-Valentín, M. , & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-form
instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 37, 197–235.
Cintrón-Valentín, M. , & Ellis, N. C. (2016). Salience in second language acquisition. Physical
form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology, Section Language
Sciences, 7, 1284.
Clahsen, H. , & Felser, C. (2006a). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
Clahsen, H. , & Felser, C. (2006b). How native-like is non-native language processing?
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 564–570.
Clahsen, H. , & Felser, C. (2018). Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 40, 693–706.
Clahsen, H. , Felser, C. , Neubauer, K. , Sato, M. , & Silva, R. (2010). Morphological structure
in native and non-native language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43.
Conway, A. R. A. , Jarrold, C. , Kane, M. J. , Miyake, A. , & Towse, J. N. (Eds.). (2007).
Variation in working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conway, A. R. A. , Kane, M. J. , Bunting, M. F. , Hambrick, D. Z. , Wilhelm, O. , & Engle, R.
W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide.
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.
de Jong, N. I. (2005). Can second language grammar be learnt through listening? Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 27, 205–234.
de Jong, N. I. , & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom. An
experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61,
533–568.
Dehaene, S. (2014). The signatures of a conscious thought. In S. Dehaene (Ed.),
Consciousness and the brain: Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts (pp. 115–160).
New York: Penguin Random House.
DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language
morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.
DeKeyser, R. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of
issues. Language Learning, 55(Suppl), 1–25.
DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied
linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2015a). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2015b). Why less is eventually more in second language acquisition. Linguistic
Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 454–458.
DeKeyser, R. (2017a). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. (2017b). Age in learning and teaching grammar. In H. Nassaji (Ed.), TESOL
encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York: Wiley. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0106
DeKeyser, R. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill
acquisition theory. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27–41).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
DeKeyser, R. , Alfi-Shabtay, I. , & Ravid, D. (2010). Cross-linguistic evidence for the nature of
age effects in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 413–438.
DeKeyser, R. , Alfi-Shabtay, I. , Ravid, D. , & Shi, M. (2017). The role of salience in the
acquisition of Hebrew as a second language: Interaction with age of acquisition. In S. M.
Gass , P. Spinner , & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience and SLA (pp. 131–146). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. , & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 395–406).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
DeKeyser, R. , & Prieto Botana, G. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction in L2
grammar acquisition: A narrative review. Applied Linguistics, 36, 290–305.
Doughty, C. , & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dussias, P. E. , & Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of reading span and plausibility in the reanalysis of
wh-gaps by Chinese-English L2 speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 443–472.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for
theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language
Learning, 54, 227–275.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A
psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141–172.
Ellis, R. , & Loewen, S. (2007). Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit
knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 29, 119–126.
Ellis, R. , Loewen, S. , Elder, C. , Erlam, R. , Philp, J. , & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and
explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Faretta-Stutenberg, M. , & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual differences
and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development.
Second Language Research, 34, 67–101.
Felser, C. , & Roberts, L. (2007). Processing wh-dependencies in English as a second
language: A cross-modal priming study. Second Language Research, 23, 9–36.
Gass, S. , & Lee, J. (2011). Working memory capacity, inhibitory control, and proficiency in a
second language. In M. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.), Modelling bilingualism: From structure to
chaos (pp. 59–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the
relationship. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 513–543.
Gathercole, S. E. (2007). Working memory and language. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford
handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 757–770). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gathercole, S. E. , Willis, C. , Emslie, H. , & Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Phonological memory
and vocabulary development during the early school years: A longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 887–898.
Godfroid, A. , Loewen, S. , Jung, S. , Park, J.-H. , Gass, S. , & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and
untimed grammaticality measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement
patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 269–297.
Gor, K. (2010). Introduction. Beyond the obvious: Do second language learners process
inflectional morphology? Language Learning, 60, 1–20.
Granena, G. , Jackson, D. , & Yilmaz, Y. (2016). Cognitive individual differences in second
language processing and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grundy, J. G. , & Timmer, K. (2017). Bilingualism and working memory capacity: A
comprehensive meta-analysis. Second Language Research, 33, 325–340.
Grüter, T. , Lew-Williams, C. , & Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical gender in L2: A production
or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.
Gutiérrez, X. (2013). The construct validity of grammaticality judgment tests as measures of
implicit and explicit knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 423–449.
Hamada, M. , & Koda, K. (2011). The role of the phonological loop in English word learning:
A comparison of Chinese ESL learners and native speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 40, 75–92.
Hamrick, P. (2015). Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in incidental
language learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 9–15.
Hamrick, P. , Lum, J. , & Ullman, M. (2018). Child first language and adult second language
are both tied to general-purpose learning systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 115, 1487–1492.
Hanan, R. E. (2015). The effectiveness of explicit grammar instruction for the young foreign
language learner: A classroom-based experimental study. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of York, York, UK.
Havik, E. , Roberts, L. , Van Hout, R. , Schreuder, R. , & Haverkort, M. (2009). Processing
subject-object ambiguities in L2 Dutch: A self-paced reading study with German L2 learners
of Dutch. Language Learning, 59, 73–112.
Hayashi, Y. , Kobayashi, T. , & Toyoshige, T. (2016). Investigating the relative contributions
of computerised working memory training and English language teaching to cognitive and
foreign language development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 196–213.
Holmes, J. , Gathercole, S. E. , & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12, F9–F15.
Housen, A. , & Simeons, H. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and
complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
Hulstijn, J. H. , Van Gelderen, A. , & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in secondlanguage acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics,
30, 555–582.
Indefrey, P. (2006). It is time to work toward explicit processing models for native and second
language speakers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 66–69.
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic
information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.
James, E. , Gaskell, M. G. , Weighall, A. , & Henderson, L. (2017). Consolidation of
vocabulary during sleep: The rich get richer? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77,
1–13.
Jiang, N. , Novokshanova, E. , Masuda, K. , & Wang, X. (2011). Morphological congruency
and the acquisition of L2 morphemes. Language Learning, 61, 940–967.
Juffs, A. , & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language
Teaching, 44, 137–166.
Just, M. , & Carpenter, P. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences
in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
Kane, M. J. , Conway, A. R. A. , Hambrick, D. Z. , & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working
memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway , C.
Jarrold , M. J. Kane , A. Miyake , & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp.
21–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasprowicz, R. E. , & Marsden, E. (2018). Towards ecological validity in research into inputbased practice: Form spotting can be as beneficial as form-meaning practice. Applied
Linguistics, 39, 886-911.
Keating, G. , & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 1–32.
Kidd, E. , Donnelly, S. , & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language
acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 154–169.
Kim, J. , & Nam, H. (2016). Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time
pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 431–457.
Klingberg, T. (2010). Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 14, 317–324.
Kroll, J. F. , & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism for
language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 497–514.
Leow, R. P. (2000). A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behavior: Aware
versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 557–584.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centred approach.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and
individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern
Language Journal, 97, 634–654.
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar
acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36,
385–408.
Li, S. (2016). The construct validity of language aptitude. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 38, 801–842.
Li, M. , & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Perception practice, production practice, and musical ability in
L2 Mandarin tone-word learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 593–620.
Lim, H. , & Godfroid, A. (2014). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A
partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 36, 1247–1282.
Linck, J. A. , Hughes, M. M. , Campbell, S. G. , Silbert, N. H. , Tare, M. , Jackson, S. R. , …
Doughty, C. J. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language
proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.
Linck, J. A. , Osthus, P. , Koeth, J. T. , & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second
language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review, 21, 861–883.
Linck, J. A. , Schwieter, J. W. , & Sunderman, J. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language
switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,
15, 651–662.
Linck, J. A. , & Weiss, D. J. (2011). Working memory predicts the acquisition of explicit L2
knowledge. In C. Sanz & R. P. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning:
Conditions, processes, and knowledge in SLA and bilingualism (pp. 101–114). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Loewen, S. , & Sato, M. (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
Marsden, E. (2006). Exploring input processing in the classroom: An experimental
comparison of processing instruction and enriched input. Language Learning, 56, 507–566.
Marsden, E. , & Chen, H.-Y. (2011). The roles of structured input activities in processing
instruction and the kinds of knowledge they promote. Language Learning, 61, 1058–1098.
Marsden, E. , Thompson, S. , & Plonsky, L. (2018). Self-paced reading in second language
research: A methodological synthesis and recommendations for the field. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 39, 861–904.
Marsden, E. , Williams, J. N. , & Liu, X. (2013). Learning novel morphology: The role of
meaning and orientation of attention at initial exposure. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 619–654.
Martin, K. I. , & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working
memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
34, 379–413.
McLaughlin, B. , & Heredia, R. (1996). Information-processing approaches to research on
second language acquisition and use. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 213–228). San Diego: Academic Press.
McManus, K. , & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline
performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.
McManus, K. , & Marsden, E. (2018). Online and offline effects of L1 practice in L2 grammar
learning: A partial replication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 459–475.
McManus, K. & Marsden, E. (in press). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit
instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied
Psycholinguistics.
MacWhinney, B. (2017). A shared platform for studying second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 67, 254–275.
Miyake, A. , & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active
maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan-Short, K. , Faretta-Stutenberg, M. , Brill, K. A. , Carpenter, H. , & Wong, P. (2014).
Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 56–72.
Norris, J.M. , & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and
quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
O’Brien, I. , Segalowitz, N. , Freed, B. , & Collentine, J. (2007). Phonological memory predicts
second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29,
557–582.
O’Malley, J. M. , & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Park, E. S. , & Han, Z.-H. (2008). Learner spontaneous attention in L2 input processing: An
exploratory study. In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp.
106–132). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A metaanalysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.
Plonsky, L. , Marsden, E. , Crowther, D. , Gass, S. , & Spinner, P. (in press). A
methodological synthesis and meta-analysis of acceptability judgement tests. Second
Language Research.
Rai, M. , Loschky, L. , Harris, R. , Peck, N. , & Cook, L. (2011). Effects of stress and working
memory capacity on foreign language readers’ inferential processing during comprehension.
Language Learning, 61, 187–218.
Rebuschat, P. (Ed.). (2015). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Rebuschat, P. , & Williams, J. N. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language
acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different
L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
Roberts, L. (2016). Self-paced reading and L2 grammatical processing. In A. Mackey & E.
Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for
research into second languages (pp. 58–72). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Roberts, L. , Gullberg, M. , & Indefrey, P. (2008). Online pronoun resolution in L2 discourse:
L1 influence and general learner effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30,
333–357.
Roberts, L. , & Meyer, A. (2012). Individual differences in second language sentence
processing: Introduction. Language Learning, 62, 1–4.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing hypothesis”. Language Learning,
45, 283–331.
Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and automaticity of second language learning under
implicit, incidental, enhanced, and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 223–247.
Robinson, P. (2007). Task complexity, theory of mind, and intentional reasoning. Effects on
L2 speech production, interaction, uptake and perceptions of task difficulty. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 193–213.
Robinson, P. , Mackey, A. , Gass, S. M. , & Schmidt, R. (2011). Attention and awareness in
second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 247–267). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Roehr, K. (2007). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2
learners. Applied Linguistics, 29, 173–199.
Roehr, K. (2008). Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning.
Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 67–106.
Roehr, K. , & Gánem-Gutiérrez, A. (2013). The metalinguistic dimension in instructed second
language learning. London: Bloomsbury.
Rogers, J. (2015). Learning second language syntax under massed and distributed
conditions. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 857–866.
Rogers, J. (2017a). Awareness and learning under incidental learning conditions. Language
Awareness, 26, 113–133.
Rogers, J. (2017b). The spacing effect and its relevance to second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 38, 906–911.
Rohrer, D. (2015). Student instruction should be distributed over long time periods.
Educational Psychology Review, 27, 635–643.
Sagarra, N. (2008). Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In
Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 133–147). Cleveland:
Multilingual Matters.
Sagarra, N. (2017). Longitudinal effects of working memory on L2 grammar and reading
abilities. Second Language Research, 33, 341–363.
Sagarra, N. , & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in
gender and number processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua, 120, 2022–2039.
Sanz, C. , & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and
explicit negative feedback). A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35–78.
Sanz, C. , Lin, H. J. , Lado, B. , Stafford, C. A. , & Bowden, H. W. (2016). One size fits all?
Learning conditions and working memory capacity in Ab initio language development.
Applied Linguistics, 37, 669–692.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied
linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
Segalowitz, N. , & Segalowitz, S. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation
of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 369–385.
Sekerina, I. A. , & Brooks, P. J. (2006). Pervasiveness of shallow processing. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27, 84–88.
Sharwood Smith, M. (Ed.). (2017). Working with working memory and languages [Special
issue]. Second Language Research, 33.
Shiffrin, R. M. , & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information
processing II: Perceptual learning, automatic, attending, and a general theory. Psychological
Review, 84, 127–190.
Shintani, N. (2015). The effectiveness of processing instruction and production-based
instruction on L2 grammar acquisition: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36, 306–325.
Shiu, L.-J. , Yalçın, Ş. , & Spada, N. (2018). Exploring second language learners’
grammaticality judgment performance in relation to task design features. System, 72,
251–255.
Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity,
accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
Solovyeva, K. , & DeKeyser, R. (2017). Response time variability: Signatures of novel word
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 225–239.
Spada, N. , Shiu, J. L.-J. , & Tomita, Y. (2015). Validating an elicited imitation task as a
measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language
Learning, 65, 723–751.
Spada, N. , & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of
language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–308.
Speciale, G. , Ellis, N. C. , & Bywater, T. (2004). Phonological sequence learning and shortterm store capacity determine second language vocabulary acquisition. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 25, 293–320.
Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Sunderman, G. , & Kroll, J. F. (2009). When study abroad fails to deliver: The internal
resources threshold effect. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 79–99.
Suzuki, Y. (2017a). The role of procedural learning ability in automatization of L2 morphology
under different learning schedules: An exploratory study. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, First View, 1–15.
Suzuki, Y. (2017b). Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: Distinguishing implicit
knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1229–1261.
Suzuki, Y. (2017c). The optimal distribution of practice for the acquisition of L2 morphology: A
conceptual replication and extension. Language Learning, 67, 512–554.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (2015). Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as
measures of implicit knowledge. Language Learning, 65, 860–895.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (2017a). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in
second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language
Learning, 67, 747–790.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (2017b). Effects of distributed practice on the proceduralization
of morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 38, 27–56.
Suzuki, Y. , & DeKeyser, R. (2017c). Exploratory research on L2 practice distribution: An
aptitude-by-treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 27–56.
Terrell, T. (1991). The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach. The Modern
Language Journal, 75, 52–63.
Tokowicz, H. , & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit sensitivity to violations in
second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204.
Tolentino, L. , & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across languages, space, and time: A review of the
role of cross-language similarity in L2 morphosyntactic processing as revealed by fMRI and
ERP methods. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 91–125.
Trude, A. , & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Negative transfer from Spanish and English to Portuguese
pronunciation: The roles of inhibition and working memory. Language Learning, 61, 259–280.
Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness and second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Tsai, N. , Au, J. , & Jaeggi, S. (2016). Working memory, language processing, and
implications of malleability for second language acquisition. In G. Granena , D. Jackson , & Y.
Yilmaz (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language learning and processing
(pp. 69–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ullman, M. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural
model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.
Ullman, M. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition:
The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in second language
acquisition. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Ullman, M. (2006). The declarative/procedural model and the shallow structure hypothesis.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 97–105.
Ullman, M. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language
learning, knowledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp.
953–968). Amsterdam: Academic Press.
Ullman, M. , & Lovelett, J. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for
improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second
Language Research, 34, 39–65.
Vafaee, P. , Suzuki, Y. , & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests:
Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
39, 59–95.
VanDen Noort, M. , Bosch, P. , & Hugdahl, K. (2006). Foreign language proficiency and
working memory capacity. European Psychologist, 11, 289–296.
VanPatten, B. (2012). Input processing. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 268–281). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
VanPatten, B. (2017). Processing instruction. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 166–180). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Vatz, K. , Tare, M. , Jackson, S. R. , & Doughty, C. J. (2013). Aptitude-treatment interaction
studies in second language acquisition: Findings and methodology. In G. Granena & M. H.
Long (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 273–292).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Walter, C. (2004). Transfer of reading skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text
and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25, 315–339.
Wen, Z. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Towards an integrated
approach. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Wen, Z. , Borges Mota, M. , & McNeill, A. (Eds.). (2015). Working memory in second
language acquisition and processing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
Williams, J. N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27, 269–304.
Williams, J. N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T.
K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Bingley:
Emerald Group.
Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Williams, J. N. , & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language
Learning, 53, 67–121.
Interaction in Second Language Learning
Akiyama, Y. , & Saito, K. (2016). Development of comprehensibility and its linguistic
correlates: A longitudinal study of video-mediated telecollaboration. The Modern Language
Journal, 100, 585–609.
Allwright, D. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner
error. In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in language learning, teaching and
bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language
morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183–210.
Ammar, A. , & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online
versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom:
A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’
errors. Language Learning, 27, 29–46.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive
competence. System, 22, 17–31.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46,
529–555.
de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learner’s interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.),
Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 249–268). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner
responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1–21.
Ellis, N. C. (2009). The psycholinguistics of the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio
(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 11–40). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures.
In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 339–360).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20, 405–428.
Ellis, R. , & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575–600.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Gass, S. M. , & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language
acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition:
An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 180–206). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M. , & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated recall methodology in second language
research (2nd ed.). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Gass, S. M. , & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283–302.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445–474.
Goo, J. , & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 35, 127–165.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (Ed.). (2017). Expanding individual difference research in the interaction
approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. , & Baralt, M. (2014). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based
interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36,
1–37.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. , & Baralt, M. (2015). A closer look at learner responses to feedback and
their effect on noticing in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420.
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. M. Hatch
(Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In
search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24,
168–196.
Jeon, K. S. (2007). Interaction-driven L2 learning: Characterising linguistic development. In A.
Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 379–407).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kartchava, E. , & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective
feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18, 428–452.
Keck, C. M. , Iberri-Shea, G. , Tracy-Ventura, N. , & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the
empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris
& L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–132).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kim, Y. , Payant, C. , & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task
complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory
setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 549–581.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the
linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18, 373–396.
Li, S. (2017). The effects of cognitive aptitudes on the process and product of L2 interaction.
In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference research in the interaction
approach (pp. 41–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lin, W.-C. , Huang, H.-T. , & Liou, H.-C. (2013). The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A
meta analysis. Language Learning and Technology, 17, 123–142.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. New York:
Routledge.
Loewen, S. , & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2
knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition
(pp. 361–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S. , & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-art article: Interaction and instructed second
language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
Loewen, S. , & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S.
Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and
research agenda (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.
Long, M. H. (1983a). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
Long, M. H. (1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to nonnative speakers.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Lyster, R. , & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Lyster, R. , & Saito, K. (2010a). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Lyster, R. , & Saito, K. (2010b). Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of
classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1, 276–297.
Lyster, R. , Saito, K. , & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study
of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–588.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 405–430.
Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007a). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. (2007b). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In
A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 1–28).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mackey, A. , Abbuhl, R. , & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S. M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7–23).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mackey, A. , Adams, R. , Stafford, C. , & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship
between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60, 501–533.
Mackey, A. , Gass, S. , & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471–497.
Mackey, A. , & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research
synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.
407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. , & Polio, C. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple perspectives on interaction. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Mackey, A. , & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working
memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses
on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity
verbs in English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition (pp. 323–338). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, K. , Crawford, W. J. , & Mackey, A. (2015). Creativity and EFL students’
language use during a group problem-solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 188–199.
McDonough, K. , & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production,
and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693–720.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A
synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.
Nicholas, H. , Lightbown, P. M. , & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language
learners. Language Learning, 51, 719–758.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork.
Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
Pawlak, M. (2017). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on
the process and outcome of L2 interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual
difference research in the interaction approach (pp. 19–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pica, T. , Young, R. , & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension.
TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in
NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99–126.
Philp, J. , Adams, R. , & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Pienemann, M. , & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language
proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisition research (pp. 45–141).
Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
Plonsky, L. , & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses
of L2 research (Or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second
Language Research, 31, 267–278.
Plonsky, L. , & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes:
The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.
Ranta, E. , & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral
language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.),
Practice in a second language (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language
development. System, 41, 472–483.
Révész, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–470.
Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A
classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181.
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different
L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
Russell, J. , & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition
of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.),
Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Saito, K. , & Akiyama, Y. (2017). Video-based interaction, negotiation for comprehensibility,
and second language speech learning: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 67, 43–74.
Sato, M. , & Ballinger, S. (Eds.). (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning:
Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sepehrinia, S. , Nemati, M. , & Khomijani Farahani, A. A. (2017). Studies on oral error
correction: Do they provide counterevidence against nativist arguments? The Language
Learning Journal, First View, 1–17.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Sheen, Y. , & Lyster, R. (Eds.). (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in
SLA. Special Issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32.
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for
acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597–647.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G.
Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they
generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
Trofimovich, P. , Ammar, A. , & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of
attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in
second language acquisition (pp. 171–196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 55, 437–456.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 113–134). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
VanPatten, B. , & Rothman, J. (2015). What does current generative theory have to say
about the explicit-implicit debate? In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of
languages (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yang, Y. , & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese
EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 235–264.
Yanguas, I. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary
acquisition. Calico Journal, 29, 507–531.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A metaanalysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.
Meaning-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning
Al-Gahtani, S. , & Roever, C. (2012). Proficiency and sequential organization of L2 requests.
Applied Linguistics, 33, 42–65.
Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction. Language
Learning, 34, 77–95.
Andersen, R. W. (1991). Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in
second language acquisition. In T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in
second language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 305–324). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Andersen, R. W. , & Shirai, Y. (1994). Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition
principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 133–156.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning
and use. Language Learning, 50(Supplement 1).
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2008). Recognition and production of formulas in L2 pragmatics. In Z.-H.
Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 205–222). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2009). Conventional expressions as a pragmalinguistic resource:
Recognition and production of conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. Language
Learning, 59, 755–795.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2012). Pragmatics in second language acquisition. In S. M. Gass & A.
Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 147–162).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63, 68–86.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2015). One functional approach to second language acquisition: The
concept-oriented approach. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second
language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 54–74). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017a). Beyond individual form-meaning associations in L2
Tense—Mood—Aspect research. In M. Howard & P. Leclercq (Eds.),
Tense—Aspect—Modality in a second language: Comparative perspectives (pp. 27–52).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017b). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224–245).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Barron, A. , & Black, E. (2015). Constructing small talk in learner-native speaker voice-based
telecollaboration: A focus on topic management and backchanneling. System, 48, 112–128.
Bayley, R. (1994). Interlanguage variation and the quantitative paradigm: Past tense marking
in Chinese-English. In S. M. Gass , A. Cohen , & E. Tarone (Eds.), Research methodology in
second language acquisition (pp. 157–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berman, R. A. , & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic
developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bischoff, S. T. , & Jany, C. (Eds.). (2013). Functional approaches to language. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, S. , House, J. , & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and
integration. Language Teaching, 46, 208–224.
Boers, F. , & Lindstromberg, S. (2008). How cognitive linguistics can foster effective
vocabulary teaching. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Applications of cognitive
linguistics: Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp.
1–61). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bremer, K. , Roberts, C. , Vasseur, M.-T. , Simonot, M. , & Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving
understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. Harlow: Longman.
Bylund, E. , & Athanasopoulos, P. (2015). Introduction: Cognition, motion events, and SLA.
The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–13.
Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and
Vygotsky. London: Continuum.
Cadierno, T. (2017). Thinking for speaking about motion in a second language: Looking back
and forward. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space across languages: Theory and
applications (pp. 279–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cadierno, T. , & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2014). Cognitive linguistic approaches to second
language Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language
acquisition (pp. 96–110). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Cadierno, T. , Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. , & Hijazo-Gascón, A. (2016). Semantic categorization of
placement verbs in L1 and L2 Danish and Spanish. Language Learning, 66, 191–223.
Choi, S. , & Lantolf, J. P. (2008). Representation and embodiment of meaning in L2
communication: Motion events in the speech and gesture of advanced L2 Korean and L2
English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 191–224.
Comajoan Colomé, L. (2014). Tense and aspect in second language Spanish. In K. L.
Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5, 161–169.
Cruse, A. (2010). Meaning in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dietrich, R. , Klein, W. , & Noyau, C. (Eds.). (1995). The acquisition of temporality in a second
language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dimroth, C. (2002). Topics, assertions and additive words: How L2 learners get from
information structure to target language syntax. Linguistics, 40, 891–923.
Dimroth, C. (2006). The finite story. Nijmegen: The Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Dimroth, C. (2018). Beyond statistical learning: Communication principles and languageinternal factors shape grammar in child and adult beginners learning Polish through
controlled exposure. Language Learning, 68, 863–905.
Dimroth, C. , Rast, R. , Starren, M. , & Watorek, M. (2013). Methods for studying the
acquisition of a new language under controlled input conditions: The VILLA project.
EUROSLA Yearbook, 13, 109–138.
Dittmar, N. (1984). Semantic features of pidginised learners of German. In R. Andersen (Ed.),
Second languages: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 243–270). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Dittmar, N. , & Reich, A. (1993). Modality in language acquisition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Domínguez, L. , Arche, M. , & Myles, F. (2017). Spanish Imperfect revisited: Exploring L1
influence in the reassembly of imperfective features onto new L2 forms. Second Language
Research, 33, 431–457.
Domínguez, L. , Tracy-Ventura, N. , Arche, M. J. , Mitchell, R. , & Myles, F. (2013). The role
of dynamic contrasts in the L2 acquisition of Spanish past tense morphology. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 16, 558–577.
Evans, V. , & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A
cross-sectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4, 253–286.
Freleng, F. (Dir.). (1950). Canary row. New York: Time Warners.
García, L. (2013). Systemic functional approaches to second language acquisition in school
settings. In M. D. P. García Mayo , M. J. Gutierrez Mangado , & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.),
Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 29–48). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón
(Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press.
Gullberg, M. (2011a). Thinking, speaking and gesturing about motion in more than one
language. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 143–169).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gullberg, M. (2011b). Language-specific encoding of placement events in gestures. In J.
Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition (pp.
166–188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gullberg, M. , de Bot, K. , & Volterra, V. (2010). Gestures and some key issues in the study of
language development. In M. Gullberg & K. de Bot (Eds.), Gestures in language development
(pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Han, Z.-H. , & Tarone, E. (Eds.). (2014). Interlanguage: Forty years later. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Huebner, T. (1983). The acquisition of English. Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (Ed.). (2017). Motion and space across languages: Theory and
applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kanwit, M. (2017). What we gain by combining variationist and concept-oriented approaches:
The case of acquiring Spanish future-time expression. Language Learning, 67, 461–498.
Kasper, G. (2009). L2 pragmatic development. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The
new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 259–295). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Kasper, G. , & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Language
Learning, 52(Supplement 1). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Kim, E. Y. , & Brown, L. (2014). Negotiating pragmatic competence in computer mediated
communication: The case of Korean address terms. Calico Journal, 31, 264–284.
Kita, S. , & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination
of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking
and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 16–32.
Klein, W. (1995). The acquisition of English. In R. Dietrich , W. Klein , & C. Noyau (Eds.), The
acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 31–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Klein, W. , Dietrich, R. , & Noyau, C. (1995). Conclusions. In R. Dietrich , W. Klein , & C.
Noyau (Eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 261–280).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Klein, W. , & Dimroth, C. (2009). Untutored second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie &
T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp.
503–522). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Klein, W. , & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kopecka, A. , & Narasimhan, B. (Eds.). (2012). Events of putting and taking: A crosslinguistic
perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P.
Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language
instruction (pp. 66–88). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Malt, B. C. , & Majid, A. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 583–597.
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in
SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.
Niemeier, S. (2013). A Cognitive Grammar perspective on tense and aspect. In M. R.
Salaberry & L. Comajoan Colomé (Eds.), Research design and methodology in studies on L2
tense and aspect (pp. 11–56). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993a). Adult language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Volume
1, Field methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993b). Adult language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Volume
2, The results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (2000). The structure of learner varieties. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 22 [Special Issue].
Perdue, C. (2002). Development of L2 functional use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2
user (pp. 121–144). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Perdue, C. , & Klein, W. (1993). Concluding remarks. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language
acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Volume 2, the results (pp. 253–272). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, P. , & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second
language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Rose, K. R. (2013). Pragmatics. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second
language acquisition (pp. 501–504). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Ryshina-Pankova, M. , & Byrnes, H. (2013). Writing as learning to know: Tracing knowledge
construction in L2 German compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 179–197.
Salaberry, M. R. (1999). The development of past tense verbal morphology in classroom L2
Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 20, 151–178.
Salaberry, M. R. (2002). Tense and aspect in the selection of past tense verbal morphology.
In M. R. Salaberry & Y. Shirai (Eds.), Tense—aspect morphology in L2 acquisition (pp.
397–415). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Salaberry, M. R. (2003). Tense aspect in verbal morphology. Hispania, 86, 559–573.
Salaberry, M. R. (2008). Marking past tense in second language acquisition: A theoretical
model. London: Continuum Books.
Salaberry, M. R. (2011). Assessing the effect of lexical aspect and grounding on the
acquisition of L2 Spanish past tense morphology among L1 English speakers. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14, 184–202.
Salaberry, M. R. (2017). The grammatical representation of aspect. In M. Howard & P.
Leclercq (Eds.), Tense-aspect-modality in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Salaberry, M. R. , & Comajoan, L. (Eds.). (2011). Research design and methodology in
studies on L2 tense and aspect. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Salaberry, M. R. , & Shirai, Y. (Eds.). (2002). The L2 acquisition of tense—aspect
morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sato, C. (1990). The syntax of conversation in interlanguage development. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr Verlag.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 219–231.
Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.
Shirai, Y. (2009). Temporality in first and second language acquisition. In W. Klein & P. Li
(Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 167–194). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shively, R. L. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of
Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818–1835.
Shively, R. L. (2014). Language in context. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The handbook of Spanish
second language acquisition (pp. 331–350). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Shively, R. L. (2015). Developing interactional competence during study abroad: Listener
responses in L2 Spanish. System, 48, 86–98.
Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic
competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356–382.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. Gumperz &
S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity: Studies in the social and cultural
foundations of language (Vol. 17, pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D. I. (2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and
determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp.
107–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the
expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in
narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I. (2017). Typologies and language use. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and
space across languages (pp. 419–446). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D. I. , Bowerman, M. , Brown, P. , Eisenbeiss, S. , & Narasimhan, B. (2011). Putting
things in places: Developmental consequences of linguistic typology. In J. Bohnemeyer & E.
Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition (pp. 134–165). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stam, G. (2015). Changes in thinking for speaking: A longitudinal case study. The Modern
Language Journal, 99, 83–99.
Stam, G. (2017). Verb-framed, satellite-framed, or in between? A L2 learner’s thinking for
speaking in her L1 and L2 over 14 years. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.), Motion and space
across languages (pp. 329–366). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of
semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2014). “Contextually” speaking: A survey of pragmatic learning abroad, in class,
and online. System, 48, 3–20.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are
and should be going. Language Teaching, 48, 1–50.
Taguchi, N. , & Roever, C. (2017). Second language pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Taguchi, N. , & Sykes, J. M. (Eds.). (2013). Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research
and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen
(Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume 3: Grammatical categories and
the lexicon (pp. 36–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (2017). Past, present and future of motion research. In I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Ed.),
Motion and space across languages: Theory and applications (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In P. Robinson & N.
C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.
456–489). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and
experimental evidence. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Vanek, N. , & Hendriks, H. (2014). Convergence of temporal reference frames in sequential
bilinguals: Event structuring unique to second language users. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 18, 753–768.
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in adult SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 113–134).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (Ed.), Linguistics and philosophy (pp.
97–121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Verspoor, M. (2017). Cognitive linguistics and its application to second language teaching. In
J. Cenoz , D. Gorter , & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism (3rd ed., pp.
55–66). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Watorek, M. , Benazzo, S. , & Hickmann, M. (Eds.). (2012). Comparative perspectives on
language acquisition: A tribute to Clive Perdue. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Watorek, M. , Durand, M. , & Starosciak, K. (2016). L’impact de l’input et du type de tâche sur
la production de la morphologie nominale en polonais par des apprenants francophones
débutants. Discours [online], 18.
Sociocultural Perspectives on Second Language Learning
Aljaafreh, A. , & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language
learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Bozalek, V. , Ng’ambi, D. , Wood, D. , Herrington, J. , Hardman, J. , & Amory, A. (Eds.).
(2015). Activity theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Brunak, J. , Fain, E. & Villoria, N. (1976). Conversations with Rafaela. Second Language
Acquisition Project, University of California, Los Angeles.
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.),
Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 21–34). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.
Daniels, H. (2007). Pedagogy. In H. Daniels , M. Cole , & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The
Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 307–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, H. , Cole, M. , & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.). (2007). The Cambridge companion to
Vygotsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, H. , Edwards, A. , Engeström, Y. , Gallagher, T. , & Ludvigsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2010).
Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Davin, K. J. (2013). Integration of dynamic assessment and instructional conversations to
promote development and improve assessment in the language classroom. Language
Teaching Research, 17, 303–322.
Davin, K. J. (2016). Classroom dynamic assessment: A critical examination of constructs and
practices. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 813–829.
de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2005). Inner speech—L2: Thinking words in a second language. New
York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Del Río, P. , & Álvarez, A. (2007). Inside and outside the Zone of Proximal Development: An
ecofunctional reading of Vygotsky. In H. Daniels , M. Cole , & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The
Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 276–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues.
Language Teaching, 40, 309–319.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y.
Engeström , R. Miettinen , & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp.
19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theory
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work. In H. Daniels , M. Cole , & J. V. Wertsch
(Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers,
20, 256–259.
Engeström, Y. , Miettinen, R. , & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity
theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. , Sannino, A. , & Virkkunen, J. (2014). On the methodological demands of
formative interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21, 118–128.
Erlam, R. , Ellis, R. , & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two
approaches compared. System, 41, 257–268.
Frawley, W. , & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian perspective.
Applied Linguistics, 6, 19–44.
Gedera, D. S. P. , & Williams, P. J. (Eds.). (2016). Activity theory in education: Research and
practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Gibbes, M. , & Carson, L. (2014). Project-based language learning: An activity theory
analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 171–189.
Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. M. Hatch
(Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Hulstijn, J. H. , & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load
hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.
Itoh, H. (1973). A Japanese child’s acquisition of two languages. Unpublished MA
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
John-Steiner, V. P. (2007). Vygotsky on thinking and speaking. In H. Daniels , M. Cole , & J.
V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 136–152). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Juffs, A. , & Friedline, B. E. (2014). Sociocultural influences on the use of a web-based tool
for learning English vocabulary. System, 42, 48–59.
Kang, Y.-S. , & Pyun, D. O. (2013). Mediation strategies in L2 writing processes: A case
study of two Korean language learners. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26, 52–67.
Kozulin, A. , & Gindis, B. (2007). Sociocultural theory and education of children with special
needs: From defectology to remedial pedagogy. In H. Daniels , M. Cole , & J. V. Wertsch
(Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 332–362). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kramsch, C. , & Thorne, S. L. (2002). Foreign language learning as global communicative
practice. In D. Cameron & D. Block (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp.
83–100). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching,
33, 79–96.
Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. In D.
Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–47). London:
Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. M.
Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
57–72). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language
research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Beckett, T. G. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition.
Language Teaching, 42, 459–475.
Lantolf, J. P. , Kurtz, L. , & Kisselev, O. (2016). Understanding the revolutionary character of
L2 development in the ZPD: Why levels of mediation matter. Language and Sociocultural
Theory, 3, 153–171.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Poehner, M. E. (Eds.). (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of
second languages. London: Equinox.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian
praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 11–33.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative
in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second
language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. , Thorne, S. L. , & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second
language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language
acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 207–227). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Zhang, X. (2015). Response to Pienemann’s critique of Zhang and Lantolf
(2015). Language Learning, 65, 752–760.
Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives.
TESOL Quarterly, 48, 201–213.
Lee, J. (2008). Gesture and private speech in second language acquisition. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 30, 169–190.
Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated
actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 217–236.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress
Publishers.
Littleton, K. , & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
McCafferty, S. G. (1992). The use of private speech by adult second language learners: A
cross-cultural study. Modern Language Journal, 76, 179–189.
McCafferty, S. G. (1994). Adult second language learners’ use of private speech: A review of
studies. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 421–436.
McCafferty, S. G. , Roebuck, R. F. , & Wayland, R. P. (2001). Activity theory and the
incidental learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Teaching Research, 10,
289–294.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, N. , & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning:
The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1,
12–21.
Mercer, N. , & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A
sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Miller, R. (2011). Vygotsky in perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nassaji, H. , & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The
effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language
Awareness, 8, 34–51.
Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language
development. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of
second languages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in
the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning
Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ohta, A. S. (2017). Sociocultural theory and second/foreign language education. In N. Van
Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Second and
foreign language education (pp. 57–68). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Olson, D. R. (1995). Writing and the mind. In J. V. Wertsch , P. Del Río , & A. Alvarez (Eds.),
Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 95–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, J.-H. , & De Costa, P. (2015). Reframing graduate student writing strategies from an
Activity Theory perspective. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2, 25–50.
Pienemann, M. (Ed.). (2005). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Pienemann, M. (2015). An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other
approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and
promoting L2 development. New York: Springer.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three place: Participatory appropriation,
guided participation and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch , P. Del Río , & A. Alvarez (Eds.),
Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Song, S. , & Kellogg, D. (2011). Word meaning as a palimpsest: A defense of sociocultural
theory. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 589–604.
Stone, A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 344–364.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language
proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and
Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
Swain, M. , Kinnear, P. , & Steinman, L. (2015). Sociocultural theory in second language
education: An introduction through narratives (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
Swain, M. , Lapkin, S. , Knouzi, I. , Suzuki, W. , & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University
students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal,
93, 5–29.
Thinking Together . (2012). Thinking together. Retrieved from
http://thinkingtogether.educ.cam.ac.uk/
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language
Learning and Technology, 7, 38–67.
Thorne, S. L. (2009). “Community”, semiotic flows, and mediated contribution to activity.
Language Teaching, 42, 82–94.
Thorne, S. L. , & Lantolf, J. P. (2006). A linguistics of communicative activity. In S. Makoni &
A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 170–195). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and
experimental evidence. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian
perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Compernolle, R. A. , Gomez-Laich, M. P. , & Weber, A. (2016). Teaching L2 Spanish
sociopragmatics through concepts: A classroom-based study. The Modern Language
Journal, 100, 341–361.
van Compernolle, R. A. , & Henery, A. (2014). Instructed concept appropriation and L2
pragmatic development in the classroom. Language Learning, 64, 549–578.
van Compernolle, R. A. , & Williams, L. (2013). Group dynamics in the language classroom:
Embodied participation as active reception in the collective Zone of Proximal Development.
Classroom Discourse, 4, 42–62.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech: Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3). New
York: Plenum Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2009). The meaning makers: Learning to talk and talking to learn (2nd ed.). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winsler, A. (2009). Still talking to ourselves after all these years: A review of current research
on private speech. In A. Winsler , C. Fernyhough , & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech,
executive functioning and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp. 3–41). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wood, D. , Bruner, J. , & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
Yu, S. , & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer
feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11.
Zhang, X. , & Lantolf, J. P. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route of L2 development
teachable? Language Learning, 65, 152–180.
Zhu, W. , & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination
of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 362–386.
Zinchenko, V. P. (1995). Cultural-historical psychology and the psychological theory of
activity: Retrospect and prospect. In J. V. Wertsch , P. Del Río , & A. Alvarez (Eds.),
Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 37–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Barton, D. , & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices.
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Barton, D. , & Potts, D. (2013). Language learning online as a social practice. TESOL
Quarterly, 47, 815–820.
Barton, D. , & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: Language, power
and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bayley, R. (1996). Competing constraints on variation in the speech of adult Chinese learners
of English. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic
variation (pp. 97–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bayley, R. , Cameron, R. , & Lucas, C. (Eds.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of
sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bayley, R. , & Preston, D. R. (Eds.). (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic
variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bayley, R. , & Schecter, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Language socialization in bilingual and
multilingual societies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bayley, R. , & Tarone, E. (2012). Variationist perspectives. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 41–56). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Block, D. (2015a). Social class in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
35, 1–19.
Block, D. (2015b). Structure, agency, individualization and the critical realist challenge. In P.
Deters , X. Gao , E. R. Miller , & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in
second language learning (pp. 17–36). Bristol: Multilingual matters.
Bolander, B. (2017). Language and identity on Facebook. In S. L. Thorne & S. May (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language, education and technology
(pp. 143–154). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Bremer, K. , Roberts, C. , Vasseur, M.-T. , Simonot, M. , & Broeder, P. (1996). Achieving
understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. Harlow: Longman.
Burch, A. R. (2014). Pursuing information: A conversation analytic perspective on
communication strategies. Language Learning, 64, 651–684.
Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 45–62.
Cekaite, A. (2017). What makes a child a good language learner? Interactional competence,
identity, and immersion in a Swedish classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37,
45–61.
Cheng, T. P. (2013). Codeswitching and participant orientations in a Chinese as a foreign
language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 869–886.
Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community. Language
Learning and Technology, 18, 85–100.
Creese, A. (2005). Mediating allegations of racism in a multiethnic London school: What
speech communities and communities of practice can tell us about discourse and power. In
D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice (pp. 55–76). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Davies, B. , & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43–63.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). Retention or omission of the ne in advanced French interlanguage:
The variable effect of extralinguistic factors. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 433–450.
Dörnyei, Z. , & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505–537.
Duff, P. A. (1996). Different languages, different practices: Socialization of discourse
competence in dual-language school classrooms in Hungary. In K. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.),
Voices from the language classroom (pp. 407–433). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues.
Language Teaching, 40, 309–319.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Sociolinguistics and
language education (pp. 427–454). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. (2011). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti , E. Ochs , & B. Schieffelin
(Eds.), Handbook of language socialization (pp. 564–586). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Duff, P. A. (2012). Identity, agency and SLA. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Duff, P. A. (2015). Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 35, 57–80.
Duff, P. A. (2017). Social dimensions and differences in instructed SLA. In S. Loewen & M.
Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp.
379–395). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. A. , Anderson, T. , Ilnyckyj, R. , VanGaya, E. , & Wang, R. (2013). Learning Chinese:
Linguistic, sociocultural and narrative perspectives. Boston/Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Duff, P. A. , & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (second) language socialization
research. In P. Deters , X. Gao , E. Miller , & G. Vitanova (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches
to theorizing and analyzing agency and second language learning (pp. 54–72). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. A. , & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition:
Language socialization. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Duff, P. A. , & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language
acquisition: Social cultural and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson
(Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Duran, C. S. (2014). Theorizing agency among young language learners through the lens of
multilingual repertoires: A socio-cultural perspective. In P. Deters , X. Gao , E. R. Miller , & G.
Vitanova (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning:
Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 73–90). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Duran, C. S. (2017a). “You not die yet”: Karenni refugee children’s language socialization in a
video gaming community. Linguistics and Education, 42(Supplement C), 1–9.
Duran, C. S. (2017b). Language and literacy in refugee families. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Eckert, P. , & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992). Think practically and look locally: Language and
gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 461–490.
Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2
learning of English questions. Language Learning, 65, 33–62.
Eskildsen, S. W. , Cadierno, T. , & Li, P. (2015). On the development of motion constructions
in four learners of English as L2. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based
perspectives on second language learning (pp. 207–232). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Eskildsen, S. W. , & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language
Learning, 65, 268–297.
Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and
conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–259.
Fogle, L. W. , & King, K. A. (2017). Bi- and multilingual family language socialization. In P. A.
Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 79–95). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Foley, W. A. (1997). Anthropological linguistics: An introduction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
García-Sánchez, I. , & Nazimova, K. (2017). Language socialization and immigration in
Europe. In P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition:
Language socialization (pp. 441–456). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gee, J. P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to
today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice:
Language, power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geeslin, K. L. , Fafulas, S. , & Kanwit, M. (2013). Acquiring geographically-variable norms of
use: The case of the present perfect in Mexico and Spain. In C. Howe (Ed.), Selected
proceedings of the 15th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 205–220). Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Geeslin, K. L. , & Long, A. Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition:
Learning to use language in context. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Giroir, S. (2014). Narratives of participation, identity, and positionality: Two cases of Saudi
learners of English in the United States. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 34–56.
Goodwin, M. H. , & Kyratzis, A. (2011). Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti , E. Ochs ,
& B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 365–390). Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell.
Gudmestad, A. (2014). Variationist approaches to second language Spanish. In K. L. Geeslin
(Ed.), The handbook of Spanish second language acquisition (pp. 80–95). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Gudmestad, A. , & Edmonds, A. (2016). Variable future-time reference in French: A
comparison of learners in a study-abroad and a foreign-language context. Canadian Journal
of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 61, 259–285.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. In B.
Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 97–124).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (2011). Language socialization in art and science. In A. Duranti , E. Ochs , & B.
Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 425–442). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography (2nd
ed.). London: Continuum.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Hellermann, J. (2014). Community of practice. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 98–100). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Holmes, J. , & Wilson, N. (2017). An introduction to sociolinguistics (5th ed.). Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Howard, K. M. (2011). Language socialization and hierarchy. In A. Duranti , E. Ochs , & B.
Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 341–364). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Howard, K. M. (2017). Language socialization, language ideologies, and language shift
among school-aged children. In P. A. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and
education, 3rd edition: Language socialization (pp. 169–181). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Howard, M. (2012). The advanced learner’s sociolinguistic profile: On issues of individual
differences, second language exposure conditions, and type of sociolinguistic variable. The
Modern Language Journal, 96, 20–33.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D.
Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71).
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kanwit, M. (2017). What we gain by combining variationist and concept-oriented approaches:
The case of acquiring Spanish future-time expression. Language Learning, 67, 461–498.
Kasper, G. , & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.
117–142). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Kasper, G. , & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 34, 1–42.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2014). Social positioning, participation, and second language learning:
Talkative students in an academic ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 686–714.
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in
France. Supplement to Modern Language Journal, 92, 1–124.
Koike, D. A. , & Blyth, C. S. (Eds.). (2015). Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal
communities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and
local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 44–65.
Lam, W. S. E. (2009). Multiliteracies on instant messaging in negotiating local, translocal, and
transnational affiliations: A case of an adolescent immigrant. Reading Research Quarterly,
44, 377–397.
Lam, W. S. E. , & Smirnov, N. (2017). Identity in mediated contexts of transnationalism and
mobility. In S. L. Thorne & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd
edition: Language, education and technology (pp. 105–117). Cham: Springer International
Publishing.
Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Y.-A. , & Hellermann, J. (2014). Tracing developmental changes through conversation
analysis: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 763–788.
Li, X. (2010). Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of learners of Chinese as a second
language. Language Learning, 60, 366–408.
Li, X. (2017). Stylistic variation in L1 and L2 Chinese: Native speakers, learners, teachers,
and textbooks. Chinese as a Second Language, 52, 55–76.
Lin, M.-C. A. (2015). Toward a relationship-oriented framework: Revisiting agency by
listening to the voices of children. In P. Deters , X. Gao , E. R. Miller , & G. Vitanova (Eds.),
Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches
(pp. 252–270). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Moore, L. C. (2017). Multilingual socialization and education in non-Western settings. In P. A.
Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 155–168). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Mori, J. (2013). Conversation analysis. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of
second language acquisition (pp. 131–134). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Mougeon, F. , & Rehner, K. (2015). Engagement portraits and (socio)linguistic performance:
A transversal and longitudinal study of advanced L2 learners. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 37, 425–456.
Mougeon, R. , Nadasdi, T. , & Rehner, K. (2010). The sociolinguistic competence of
immersion students. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mougeon, R. , Rehner, K. , & Nadasdi, T. (2004). The learning of spoken French variation by
immersion students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 408–432.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.
Harlow: Longman.
Norton, B. (2015). Investment. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encylopedia of second
language acquisition (pp. 343–344). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Norton, B. (2017). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language
socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. , & Schieffelin, B. B. (1995). The impact of language socialization on grammatical
development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp.
73–94). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Ochs, E. , & Schieffelin, B. B. (2011). The theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti , E.
Ochs , & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–22).
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Ochs, E. , & Schieffelin, B. B. (2017). Language socialization: An historical overview. In P. A.
Duff & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3nd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 3–16). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ohta, A. S. (1999). Interactional routines and the socialization of interactional style in adult
learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1493–1512.
Palmer, D. K. , Martínez, R. A. , Mateus, S. G. , & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the
debate on language separation: Toward a vision for translanguaging pedagogies in the dual
language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 757–772.
Pavlenko, A. (1998). Second language learning by adults: Testimonies of bilingual writers.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 9, 3–19.
Pekarek Doehler, S. , & Berger, E. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability
for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39,
555–578.
Pekarek Doehler, S. , & Fasel Lauzon, V. (2015). Documenting change across time:
Longitudinal and cross-sectional CA studies of L2 classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.),
The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 409–424). Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell.
Pekarek Doehler, S. , & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional
competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair
organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usagebased perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–270). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Preston, D. (1996). Variationist perspectives on second language acquisition. In D. Preston &
R. Bayley (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 1–45).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Preston, D. , & Bayley, R. (2009). Variationist linguistics and second language acquisition. In
W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
89–113). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Reder, S. , Harris, K. , & Kristen, S. (2003). A multimedia adult learner corpus. TESOL
Quarterly, 37, 546–557.
Regan, V. (1996). Variation in French interlanguage: A longitudinal study of sociolinguistic
competence. In R. Bayley & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic
variation (pp. 177–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Regan, V. , Howard, M. , & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in
a study abroad context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rehner, K. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by
advanced second language learners of French. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada.
Rehner, K. , Mougeon, R. , & Nadasdi, T. (2003). The learning of sociolinguistic variation by
advanced FSL learners: The case of nous versus on in immersion French. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 25, 127–156.
Reinhardt, J. , & Thorne, S. L. (2017). Language socialization in digital contexts. In P. A. Duff
& S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 397–409). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Romaine, S. (2003). Variation. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 409–435). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. A. , & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sauro, S. (2017). Fandom and online interest groups. In S. L. Thorne & S. May (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language, education and technology
(pp. 131–142). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2001). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of
action. In D. Schiffrin , D. Tannen , & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse
analysis (pp. 229–249). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation
analysis (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of Kaluli
children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schieffelin, B. B. , & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 15, 163–191.
Schreiber, B. R. (2015). “I am what I am”: Multilingual identity and digital translanguaging.
Language Learning and Technology, 19, 69–87.
Schumann, J. (1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. , & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The
Modern Language Journal, 91, 820–836.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analyzing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation.
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13,
65–93.
Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of ESL students at Tradewinds High: Contingency,
multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied Linguistics, 29, 619–644.
Talmy, S. (2013). Second language socialization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 571–575). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Talmy, S. (2015). A language socialization perspective on identity work of ESL youth in a
superdiverse high school classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse
and interaction (pp. 353–368). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Thorne, S. L. , Black, R. W. , & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and
learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal,
93, 802–821.
Thorne, S. L. , Sauro, S. , & Smith, B. (2015). Technologies, identities and expressive
activity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 215–233.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom
practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Toohey, K. (2001). Disputes in child L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 257–278.
Trentman, E. (2017). Oral fluency, sociolinguistic competence, and language contact: Arabic
learners studying abroad in Egypt. System, 69(Supplement C), 54–64.
Umino, T. , & Benson, P. (2016). Communities of practice in study abroad: A four-year study
of an Indonesian student’s experience in Japan. The Modern Language Journal, 100,
757–774.
van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian
perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vandergriff, I. (2016). Second-language discourse in the digital world. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Vickers, C. H. (2007). Second language socialization through team interaction among
electrical and computer engineering students. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 621–640.
Wardhaugh, R. , & Fuller, J. M. (2015). An introduction to sociolinguistics (7th ed.).
Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. , & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language socialization in SLA. In C. Doughty &
M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, G. (2017). Language socialization: A systemic functional perspective. In P. A. Duff
& S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd edition: Language
socialization (pp. 33–47). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Young, R. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. New York: Peter Lang.
Zappa-Hollman, S. , & Duff, P. A. (2015). Academic English socialization through individual
networks of practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49, 333–368.
Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on Second Language Learning
Amaral, L. , & Roeper, T. (2014). Multiple grammars and second language representation.
Second Language Research, 30, 3–36.
Cameron, L. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 226–240.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chan, L. , Dörnyei, Z. , & Henry, A. (2015). Learner archetypes and signature dynamics in the
language classroom: A retrodictive qualitative modelling approach to studying L2 motivation.
In Z. Dörnyei , P. D. MacIntyre , & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language
learning (pp. 238–259). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Chan, H. , Verspoor, M. , & Vahtrick, L. (2015). Dynamic development in speaking versus
writing in identical twins. Language Learning, 65, 298–325.
de Bot, K. (2017). Complexity theory and dynamic systems theory: Same or different? In L.
Ortega & Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development (pp. 51–58).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K. , & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Researching second language development from
a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. Verspoor , K. De Bot , & W. Lowie (Eds.), A
dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 5–24).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K. , Lowie, W. , Thorne, S. L. , & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic systems theory as a
comprehensive theory of second language development. In M. D. P. García Mayo , M. J.
Gutierrez Mangado , & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second
language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Bot, K. , Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M. H. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to
second language acquisition. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: “Qualitative retrodictive
modelling” in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80–91.
Dörnyei, Z. , MacIntyre, P. D. , & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language
learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Douglas Fir Group . (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The
Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: Cycles of language use,
language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 232–249.
Ellis, N. C. (2014). Cognitive and social language usage. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 36, 397–402.
Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S.
W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–73).
Berlin: De Gruyter Inc.
Foster-Cohen, S. (2017). Making the most of MOGUL: Reflections on interlanguage in
childhood language disorders. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 55, 349–364.
Henry, A. (2015). The dynamics of L3 motivation: A longitudinal interview/observation-based
study. In Z. Dörnyei , P. D. MacIntyre , & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language
learning (pp. 315–342). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei , P. D. MacIntyre , & A. Henry (Eds.),
Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 20–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Housen, A. , Kuiken, F. , & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and
proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). Fundamental issues in the study of second language acquisition.
EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 191–203.
Hulstijn, J. H. , Young, R. F. , Ortega, L. , Bigelow, M. , DeKeyser, R. , Ellis, N. C. , … Talmy,
S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language
learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 361–421.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lantolf, J. P. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!” Language Learning,
46, 713–749.
Lantolf, J. P. (2014). A bridge not needed: The sociocultural perspective. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 36, 368–374.
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second
language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 18, 140–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complexity theory. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 73–87). Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Complexity theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.),
Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 227–244). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z.-H.
Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane LarsenFreeman (pp. 11–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D. , & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lowie, W. (2017). Lost in state space? Methodological considerations in complex dynamic
theory approaches to second language development research. In L. Ortega & Z.-H. Han
(Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane LarsenFreeman (pp. 123–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lowie, W. , & Verspoor, M. (2015). Variability and variation in second language acquisition
orders: A dynamic reevaluation. Language Learning, 65, 63–88.
MacIntyre, P. D. , MacKay, E. , Ross, J. , & Abel, E. (2017). The emerging need for methods
appropriate to study dynamic systems: Individual differences in motivational dynamics. In L.
Ortega & Z.-H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of
Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 97–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marsden, H. , Whong, M. , & Gil, K.-H. (2018). What’s in the textbook and what’s in the mind:
Polarity item “any” in learner English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 91–118.
Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In
D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180).
Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Piniel, K. , & Csizér, K. (2015). Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy during the
course of an academic writing seminar. In Z. Dörnyei , P. D. MacIntyre , & A. Henry (Eds.),
Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 164–194). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rothman, J. , & VanPatten, B. (2013). On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity: The case for
different SLA theories. In M. D. P. García Mayo , M. J. Gutierrez Mangado , & M. Martínez
Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 243–256).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmid, M. S. , Verspoor, M. , & MacWhinney, B. (2011). Coding and extracting data. In M.
Verspoor , K. De Bot , & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language
development: Methods and techniques (pp. 39–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing language and cognition: A map of the mind.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. , & Truscott, J. (2008). MOGUL and crosslinguistic influence. In D.
Gabryś-Barker (Ed.), Morphosyntactic issues in second language acquisition studies (pp.
63–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sharwood Smith, M. , & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shirai, Y. , & Juffs, A. (2017). Introduction: Convergence and divergence in functional and
formal approaches to SLA. Second Language Research, 33, 3–12.
Spoelman, M. , & Verspoor, M. (2010). Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and
complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics, 31,
532–553.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Towell, R. , & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness in SLA: A modular perspective. Second Language
Research, 31, 413–434.
Truscott, J. (2017). Modularity, working memory, and second language acquisition: A
research program. Second Language Research, 33, 313–323.
Truscott, J. , & Sharwood Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective
on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 1–20.
Truscott, J. , & Sharwood Smith, M. (2016). Representation, processing and code-switching.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 903–916.
van Dijk, M. , Verspoor, M. , & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability and DST. In M. Verspoor , K. de
Bot , & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and
techniques (pp. 55–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition:
An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 179–199.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language
acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Verspoor, M. H. , de Bot, K. , & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to second
language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verspoor, M. , Lowie, W. , & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in L2 development from a
dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231.
Whong, M. (2011). Language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. , & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in
writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy and complexity. Honolulu, Hawaii: Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Yang, C. D. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8,
451–456.
Yang, C. , Crain, S. , Berwick, R. C. , Chomsky, N. , & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of
language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119.
Zuengler, J. , & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel
SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58.
Conclusion
Ahmadian, M. J. , & García Mayo, M. D. P. (Eds.). (2017). Recent perspectives on taskbased language learning and teaching. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.
Brumfit, C. J. (1997). Theoretical practice: Applied linguistics as pure and practical science.
AILA Review, 12, 18–30.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Notes from the Editor. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 105–108.
Derrick, D. J. (2016). Instrument reporting practices in second language research. TESOL
Quarterly, 50, 132–153.
Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 781.
Douglas Fir Group . (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The
Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–47.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gudmestad, A. , House, L. , & Geeslin, K. L. (2013). What a Bayesian analysis can do for
SLA: New tools for the sociolinguistic study of subject expression in L2 Spanish. Language
Learning, 63, 371–399.
Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-toface interaction. Applied Linguistics, 16, 206–232.
Han, Z.-H. (2015). Striving for complementarity between narrative and meta-analytic reviews
Applied Linguistics, 36, 409–415.
Howatt, A. P. R. (2004). A history of English language teaching (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Krashen, S. , & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
Linck, J. , & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second
language research. Language Learning, 65, 185–207.
Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Loewen, S. , & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook of instructed second
language acquisition. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden,
MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Mackey, A. , & Marsden, E. (Eds.). (2016). Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS
repository of instruments for research into second languages. Abingdon/New York:
Routledge.
Marsden, E. , & Kasprowicz, R. E. (2017). Foreign language educators’ exposure to
research: Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. The
Modern Language Journal, 101, 613–642.
Marsden, E. , Morgan-Short, K. , Thompson, S. , & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in
second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for the
field. Language Learning, 68, 321–391.
Marsden, E. , Morgan-Short, K. , Trofimovich, P. , & Ellis, N. (2018). Introducing registered
reports at language learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the
language sciences [Editorial]. Language Learning, 68, 309–320.
Marsden, E. , Thompson, S. , & Plonsky, L. (2018). Self-paced reading in second language
research: A methodological synthesis and recommendations for the field. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 39, 861–904.
MacWhinney, B. (2017). A shared platform for studying second language acquisition.
Language Learning, 67(S1), 255–276.
Morgan-Short, K. , Marsden, E. , Heil, J. , Issa II, B. I. , Leow, R. P. , Mikhaylova, A. , …
Szudarski, P. (2018). Multisite replication in second language acquisition research: Attention
to form during listening and reading comprehension. Language Learning, 68, 392–437.
Murakami, A. (2016). Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second language
development: The case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning, 66,
834–871.
Norris, J. M. , Ross, S. J. , & Schoonen, R. (Eds.). (2015). Improving and extending
quantitative reasoning in second language research [Special issue]. Language Learning, 65.
Norouzian, R. , de Miranda, M. A. , & Plonsky, L. (2018). The Bayesian revolution in second
language research: An applied approach. Language Learning, 68, 1032-1075.
Ortega, L. (2014). Trying out theories of interlanguage: Description and explanation over 40
years of L2 negation research. In Z.-H. Han & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years
later (pp. 173–201). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Paquot, M. , & Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner
corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3, 61–94.
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological
synthesis and call for reform. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 450–470.
Plonsky, L. (Ed.). (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Plonsky, L. , & Gass, S. M. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and
outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325–366.
Plonsky, L. , & Oswald, F. L. (2017). Multiple regression as a flexible alternative to ANOVA in
L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 579–592.
Rothman, J. , & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in
modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 417–442.
Slabakova, R. , Leal, T. , & Liskin-Gasparro, J. (2015). Rumors of UG’s demise have been
greatly exaggerated. Applied Linguistics, 36, 265–269.
Song, S. , & Kellogg, D. (2011). Word meaning as a palimpsest: A defense of sociocultural
theory. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 589–604.
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A metaanalysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.