Second Language Acquisition

Second Language Acquisition
An Introduction
PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:49:55 UTC
Contents
Articles
SLA
Second language acquisition 1 1 11 11 15 16 23 31 38 38 44 47 50 57 57 58 59 61
What is being acquired?

Syntax Lexicon Morphology (linguistics) Phonology Pragmatics
Learning Theories
Behaviorism Structural linguistics Cognitive revolution Second language acquisition theories
Analyzing learner language

Contrastive analysis Error analysis (linguistics) Focus on form Interlanguage
References
Article Sources and Contributors Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 64 66
Article Licenses
License 67
SLA
Second language acquisition
Second language acquisition or second language learning is the process by which people learn a second language. Second language acquisition (often capitalized as Second Language Acquisition or abbreviated to SLA) is also the name of the sub-discipline of applied linguistics devoted to studying that process. Second language refers to any language learned in addition to a person's first language; although the concept is named second language acquisition, it can also incorporate the learning of third, fourth or subsequent languages.[1] Second language acquisition refers to what learners do; it does not refer to practices in language teaching. The academic discipline of second language acquisition is broad-based and relatively new. It is closely related to several other disciplines, including linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, neuroscience, and education. To separate the academic discipline from the learning process itself, the terms second language acquisition research, second language studies, and second language acquisition studies are also used. SLA research began as an interdisciplinary field, and because of this it is difficult to identify a precise starting date. However, it does appear to have developed a great deal since the mid-1960s.[2] The term acquisition was originally used to emphasize the subconscious nature of the learning process,[3] but in recent years learning and acquisition have become largely synonymous. Second language acquisition can incorporate heritage language learning,[4] but it does not usually incorporate bilingualism. Most SLA researchers see bilingualism as being the end result of learning a language, not the process itself, and see the term as referring to native-like fluency. Writers in fields such as education and psychology, however, often use bilingualism loosely to refer to all forms of multilingualism.[5]
Comparisons with first language acquistion

People who learn a second language differ from children learning their first language in a number of ways. Perhaps the most striking of these is that very few adult second language learners reach the same competence as native speakers of that language. Children learning a second language are more likely to achieve native-like fluency than adults, but in general it is very rare for someone speaking a second language to pass completely for a native speaker. When a learner's speech plateaus in this way it is known as fossilization. In addition, some errors that second language learners make in their speech originate in their first language. For example, Spanish speakers learning English may say "Is raining" rather than "It is raining", leaving out the subject of the sentence. French speakers learning English, however, do not usually make the same mistake. This is because sentence subjects can be left out in Spanish, but not in French.[6] This influence of the first language on the second is known as language transfer. Also, when people learn a second language, the way they speak their first language changes in subtle ways. These changes can be with any aspect of language, from pronunciation and syntax to gestures the learner makes and the things she tends to notice.[7] For example, French speakers who spoke English as a second language pronounced the /t/ sound in French differently from monolingual French speakers.[8] When shown a fish tank, Chinese speakers of English tend to remember more fish and less plants than Chinese monolinguals.[9] This effect of the second language on the first led Vivian Cook to propose the idea of multi-competence, which sees the different languages a person speaks not as separate systems, but as related systems in their mind.[10]
Learner language
Learner language is the written or spoken language produced by a learner. It is also the main type of data used in second language acquisition research.[11] Much research in second language acquisition is concerned with the internal representations of a language in the mind of the learner, and in how those representations change over time. It is not yet possible to inspect these representations directly with brain scans or similar techniques, so SLA researchers are forced to make inferences about these rules from learners' speech or writing.[12]
Interlanguage
Originally attempts to describe learner language were based on comparing different languages and on analyzing learners' errors. However, these approaches weren't able to predict all the errors that learners made when in the process of learning a second language. For example, Serbo-Croat speakers learning English may say "What does Pat doing now?", although this is not a valid sentence in either language.[13] To explain these kind of systematic errors, the idea of the interlanguage was developed.[14] An interlanguage is an emerging language system in the mind of a second language learner. A learner's interlanguage is not a deficient version of the language being learned filled with random errors, nor is it a language purely based on errors introduced from the learner's first language. Rather, it is a language in its own right, with its own systematic rules.[15] It is possible to view most aspects of language from an interlanguage perspective, including grammar, phonology, lexicon, and pragmatics. There are three different processes that influence the creation of interlanguages:[13] Language transfer. Learners fall back on their mother tongue to help create their language system. This is now recognized not as a mistake, but as a process that all learners go through. Overgeneralization. Learners use rules from the second language in a way that native speakers would not. For example, a learner may say "I goed home", overgeneralizing the English rule of adding -ed to create past tense verb forms. Simplification. Learners use a highly simplified form of language, similar to speech by children or in pidgins. This may be related to linguistic universals. The concept of interlanguage has become very widespread in SLA research, and is often a basic assumption made by researchers.[15]
Sequences of acquisition A typical order of acquisition for English[16]

1. Plural -s 2. Progressive -ing 3. Copula forms of be Girls go. Girls going. Girls are here.
4. Auxiliary forms of be Girls are going. 5. Definite and indefinite articles the and a 6. Irregular past tense 7. Third person -s 8. Possessive 's The girls go.
The girls went. The girl goes. The girl's book.
Second language acquisition In the 1970s there were several studies that investigated the order in which learners acquired different grammatical structures.[17] These studies showed that there was little change in this order among learners with different first languages. Furthermore, it showed that the order was the same for adults as well as children, and that it did not even change if the learner had language lessons. This proved that there were factors other than language transfer involved in learning second languages, and was a strong confirmation of the concept of interlanguage. However, the studies did not find that the orders were exactly the same. Although there were remarkable similarities in the order in which all learners learned second language grammar, there were still some differences among individuals and among learners with different first languages. It is also difficult to tell when exactly a grammatical structure has been learned, as learners may use structures correctly in some situations but not in others. Thus it is more accurate to speak of sequences of acquisition, where particular grammatical features in a language have a fixed sequence of development, but the overall order of acquisition is less rigid.
Process of acquisition
There has been much debate about exactly how language is learned, and many issues are still unresolved. There have been many theories of second language acquisition that have been proposed, but none has been accepted as an overarching theory by all SLA researchers. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field of second language acquisition, this is not expected to happen in the foreseeable future. However, there are various principles of second language acquisition that are agreed on by most researchers.
Input, output, and interaction

The primary factor affecting language acquisition appears to be the input that the learner receives. Stephen Krashen took a very strong position on the importance of input, asserting that comprehensible input is all that is necessary for second language acquisition.[18] [19] Krashen pointed to studies showing that the length of time a person stays in a foreign country is closely linked with their level of language acquisition. Further evidence for input comes from studies on reading: large amounts of free voluntary reading have a significant positive effect on learners' vocabulary, grammar, and writing.[20] [21] Input is also the mechanism by which people learn languages according to the universal grammar model.[22] The type of input may also be important. One tenet of Krashen's theory is that input should not be grammatically sequenced. He claims that such sequencing, as found in language classrooms where lessons involve practicing a "structure of the day", is not necessary, and may even be harmful.[23] While input is of vital importance, Krashen's assertion that only input matters in second language acquisition has been contradicted by more recent research. For example, students enrolled in French language immersion programs in Canada still produced non-native-like grammar when they spoke, even though they had years of meaning-focused lessons and their listening skills were statistically native-level.[24] Output appears to play an important role, and among other things, can help provide learners with feedback, make them concentrate on the form of what they are saying, and help them to automatize their language knowledge.[25] These processes have been codified in the theory of comprehensible output.[26] Researchers have also pointed to interaction in the second language as being important for acquisition. According to Long's interaction hypothesis the conditions for acquisition are especially good when interacting in the second language; specifically, conditions are good when a breakdown in communication occurs and learners must negotiate for meaning. The modifications to speech arising from interactions like this help make input more comprehensible, provide feedback to the learner, and push learners to modify their speech.[27]
Form and meaning

The meaning of things being communicated is more important for second language acquisition than their form. There is a general agreement among researchers that learners must be engaged in decoding and encoding messages in the second language for the conditions to be right for second language learning.[28] [27] Learners must also be engaged in creating pragmatic meaning in order to develop fluency.[29] Some sort of focus on form does appear to be necessary for second language acquisition, however. Some advanced language structures may not be fully acquired without the opportunity for repeated practice.[30] Schmidt's noticing hypothesis states that conscious attention to specific language forms is necessary for a learner's interlanguage to develop. This attention does not have to be in the form of conscious grammar rules, however; the attention is on how each specific form affects the meaning of what is being said.[31]
Conscious and subconscious knowledge

Developing subconscious knowledge of the second language is more important than developing conscious knowledge. While conscious language knowledge is important for many aspects of second language acquisition, developing subconscious knowledge is vital for fluency. The knowledge that people use when they are speaking a language is mostly subconscious. It appears that learners can use conscious knowledge in speech if they have time and they are focused on form, but if these conditions are not met then they will fall back on subconscious knowledge.[32] However, if learners have time to plan their speech, grammatical accuracy can improve.[33] It is not certain exactly how subconscious language knowledge is developed in the mind. According to skill-building theory, subconscious language knowledge is gained by practicing language until it becomes automatic.[34] [29] However, according to emergentist theories subconscious knowledge develops naturally from input and communication.[18] [35] The nature of the interface between conscious and subconscious language knowledge in the brain is also not clear; that is, it is not clear how conscious knowledge can develop into subconscious knowledge. It appears that conscious knowledge and subconscious knowledge are not completely separate, and practice at various aspects of language can lead to language knowledge becoming subconscious.[29] However, studies have found that the two types of knowledge are stored differently in the brain,[36] and this has led to the idea that conscious knowledge merely primes language acquisition processes rather than being directly involved.[37] Both of these issues are still under debate.
Language processing
The way learners process sentences in their second language is also important for language acquisition. According to MacWhinney's competition model, learners can only concentrate on so many things at a time, and so they must filter out some aspects of language when they listen to a second language. Learning a language is seen as finding the right weighting for each of the different factors that learners can process.[38] [39] [40] Similarly, according to processability theory, the sequence of acquisition can be explained by learners getting better at processing sentences in the second language. As learners increase their mental capacity to process sentences, mental resources are freed up. Learners can use these newly freed-up resources to concentrate on more advanced features of the input they receive. One such feature is the movement of words. For example, in English, questions are formed by moving the auxiliary verb or the question word to the start of the sentence (John is nice becomes Is John nice?) This kind of movement is too brain-intensive for beginners to process; learners must automatize their processing of static language structures before they can process movement.[41]
Individual variation
There is considerable variation in the rate at which people learn second languages, and in the language level that they ultimately reach. Some learners learn quickly and reach a near-native level of competence, but others learn slowly and get stuck at relatively early stages of acquisition, despite living in the country where the language is spoken for several years. The reason for this disparity was first addressed with the study of language learning aptitude in the 1950s, and later with the good language learner studies in the 1970s. More recently research has focused on a number of different factors that affect individuals' language learning, in particular strategy use, social and societal influences, personality, motivation, and anxiety. The relationship between age and the ability to learn languages has also been a subject of long-standing debate. The issue of age was first addressed with the critical period hypothesis.[42] The strict version of this hypothesis states that there is a cut-off age at about 12 years old, after which learners lose the ability to fully learn a language. This strict version has since been rejected for second language acquisition, as adult learners have been observed who reach native-like levels of pronunciation and general fluency. However, in general, adult learners of a second language rarely achieve the native-like fluency that children display, despite often progressing faster than them in the initial stages. This has led to speculation that age is indirectly related to other, more central factors that affect language learning. There has been considerable attention paid to the strategies which learners use when learning a second language. Strategies have been found to be of critical importance, so much so that strategic competence has been suggested as a major component of communicative competence.[43] Strategies are commonly divided into learning strategies and communicative strategies, although there are other ways of categorizing them. Learning strategies are techniques used to improve learning, such as mnemonics or using a dictionary. Communicative strategies are strategies a learner uses to convey meaning even when she doesn't have access to the correct form, such as using pro-forms like thing, or using non-verbal means such as gestures.
Affective factors
The learner's attitude to the learning process has also been identified as being critically important to second language acquisition. Anxiety in language-learning situations has been almost unanimously shown to be detrimental to successful learning. A related factor, personality, has also received attention, with studies showing that extroverts are better language learners than introverts. Social attitudes such as gender roles and community views toward language learning have also proven critical. Language learning can be severely hampered by cultural attitudes, with a frequently cited example being the difficulty of Navajo children in learning English. Also, the motivation of the individual learner is of vital importance to the success of language learning. Studies have consistently shown that intrinsic motivation, or a genuine interest in the language itself, is more effective over the long-term than external motivation, as in learning a language for a reward such as high grades or praise.
In the classroom
While the majority of SLA research has been devoted to language learning in a natural setting, there have also been efforts made to investigate second language acquisition in the classroom. This kind of research has a significant overlap with language education, but it is always empirical, based on data and statistics, and it is mainly concerned with the effect that instruction has on the learner, rather than what the teacher does. The research has been wide-ranging. There have been attempts made to systematically measure the effectiveness of language teaching practices for every level of language, from phonetics to pragmatics, and for almost every current teaching methodology. This research has indicated that many traditional language-teaching techniques are extremely inefficient.[44] It is generally agreed that pedagogy restricted to teaching grammar rules and vocabulary lists does not give students the ability to use the L2 with accuracy and fluency. Rather, to become proficient in the second language, the learner must be given opportunities to use it for communicative purposes.[45] [46] Another area of research has been on the effects of corrective feedback in assisting learners.This has been shown to vary depending on the technique used to make the correction, and the overall focus of the classroom, whether on formal accuracy or on communication of meaningful content.[47] [48] [49] There is also considerable interest in supplementing published research with approaches that engage language teachers in action research on learner language in their own classrooms.[50] As teachers become aware of the features of learner language produced by their students, they can refine their pedagogical intervention to maximize interlanguage development.[51]
Notes
[1] Gass & Selinker 2008, p.7 [2] Gass & Selinker 2008, p.1. [3] Krashen (1982) made a sharp distinction between learning and acquisition, using learning to refer to the conscious aspects of the language learning process and acquisition to refer to the subconscious aspects. This strict separation of learning and acquisition is widely regarded as an oversimplification by researchers today, but his hypotheses were very influential and the name has stuck. [4] Gass & Selinker 2008, pp.2124 [5] Gass & Selinker 2008, pp.2425. [6] Cook 2008, p.13. [7] Cook 2008, p.232. [8] Flege 1987. [9] Cook 2008, p.8. [10] Cook 2008, p.15. [11] Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p.4. [12] Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005, p.6. [13] Mason, Timothy. "Didactics - 7 : Critique of Krashen III. Natural Order Hypothesis (2) :Interlanguage" (http:/ / www. timothyjpmason. com/ WebPages/ LangTeach/ Licence/ CM/ OldLectures/ L7_Interlanguage. htm). Lecture in the didactics of English, Universit of Versailles St. Quentin, a course run from 1993 to 2002. . Retrieved 2011-02-10. [14] Selinker 1972. [15] Gass & Selinker 2008, p.14. [16] Cook 2008, pp.2627. [17] These studies were based on work by Brown (1973) on child first language acquisition. The first such studies on child second language acquisition were carried out by Dulay and Burt(1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1975). Bailey, Madden & Krashen (1974) investigated the order of acquisition among adult second language learners. See Krashen (1977) for a review of these studies. [18] Krashen 1981a. [19] Krashen 1994. [20] Elley 1991. [21] Krashen 2004. [22] Cook 2008, p.215. [23] Krashen 1981b, pp.5455. [24] Swain 1991. [25] Skehan 1998. [26] Swain 1995. [27] Long 1996. [28] Prabhu 1987.

[29] DeKeyser 1998. [30] Harley 1989. [31] Schmidt 2001. [32] Krashen 1982. [33] Yuan & Ellis 2003. [34] Anderson 1992. [35] Ellis 1998. [36] Paradis 1994. [37] Ellis 1993. [38] Bates & MacWhinney 1981. [39] MacWhinney 1987. [40] MacWhinney 2005. [41] Cook 2008, pp.2829. [42] The critical period hypothesis was formulated for first language acquisition by Penfield & Roberts (1959) and popularized by Lenneberg (1967). [43] Canale & Swain 1980. [44] Lightbown 1990 cited in Ellis 1994. [45] Doughty & Williams 1998. [46] Ellis 2002. [47] Lightbown & Spada 1990. [48] Lyster & Ranta 1997. [49] Lyster & Mori 2006. [50] Allwright & Hanks 2009. [51] Tarone & Swierzbin 2009.
References
Allwright, Dick; Hanks, Judith (2009). The Developing Language Learning: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN9781403985316. Anderson, J. R. (1992). "Automaticity and the ACT* theory". American Journal of Psychology 105 (2): 165180. doi:10.2307/1423026. JSTOR1423026. PMID1621879. Bailey, N.; Madden, C.; Krashen, S. D. (1974). "Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning?". Language Learning 24: 235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00505.x. Bates, Elizabeth; MacWhinney, Brian (1981). "Second-Language Acquisition from a Functionalist Perspective: Pragmatic, Semantic, and Perceptual Strategies". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379: 190. Bibcode1981NYASA.379..190B. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42009.x. Brown, Roger (1973). A First Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN9780674303256. Canale, M.; Swain, M. (1980). "Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing". Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 147. doi:10.1093/applin/1.1.1. Cook, Vivian (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. ISBN978-0-340-95876-6. DeKeyser, Robert (1998). "Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar". In Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.4263. ISBN978-0-521-62390-2. Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica, eds (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-62390-2. Dulay, H. C.; Burt, M. K. (1973). "Should we teach children syntax?". Language Learning 23: 245. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x. Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974a). "Natural sequences in child second language acquisition". Language Learning 24: 3753. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00234.x. Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1974b). "You can't learn without goofing". In Richards, Jack. Error Analysis. New York: Longman. pp.95123. ISBN9780582550445.
Second language acquisition Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina (1975). "Creative construction in second language learning and teaching". In Dulay, Heidi; Burt, Marina. On TESOL '75: New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Bilingual Education: Selected Papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles, California, March 4-9, 1975. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp.2132. OCLC1980255. Elley, Warwick B. (1991). "Acquiring Literacy in a Second Language: the Effect of Book-Based Programs". Language Learning 41: 375. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00611.x. Ellis, Nick C. (1998). "Emergentism, Connectionism and Language Learning" (http://web.mac.com/ncellis/ Nick_Ellis/Publications_files/Emergentism.pdf). Language Learning 48: 631. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00063. Retrieved 2011-03-01. Ellis, Rod (1993). "Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus". TESOL Quarterly 27 (1): 91113. doi:10.2307/3586953. JSTOR3586953. Ellis, Rod (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN0194371891. Ellis, Rod (2002). "Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 223236. Ellis, Rod; Barkhuizen, Patrick (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780194316347. Flege, James Emil (1987). "The production of "new" and "similar" phones in a foreign language: evidence for the effect of equivalence classification" (http://jimflege.com/files/Flege_new_similar_JP_1987.pdf). Journal of Phonetics 15: 4765. Retrieved 2011-02-09. Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN978-0-805-85497-8. Harley, B. (1989). "Functional Grammar in French Immersion: A Classroom Experiment". Applied Linguistics 10: 331. doi:10.1093/applin/10.3.331. Krashen, Stephen (1977). "Some issues relating to the monitor model". In Brown, H; Yorio, Carlos; Crymes, Ruth. Teaching and learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice: On TESOL '77: Selected Papers from the Eleventh Annual Convention of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Miami, Florida, April 26-May 1, 1977. Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. pp.144158. OCLC4037133. Krashen, Stephen (1981a). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (http://www. sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html). New York: Pergamon Press. ISBN0080253385. Retrieved 2011-02-28. Krashen, Stephen (1981b). "The "fundamental pedagogical principle" in second language teaching" (http://www. li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Kirk/span4512rkKrashenSp2010.pdf). Studia Linguistica 35: 5070. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9582.1981.tb00701.x. Retrieved 2011-03-24. Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (http://www.sdkrashen. com/Principles_and_Practice/index.html). Pergamon Press. ISBN0-08-028628-3. Retrieved 2010-11-25. Krashen, Stephen (1994). "The input hypothesis and its rivals". In Ellis, Nick. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press. pp.4577. ISBN9780122374753. Krashen, Stephen (2004). The Power of Reading, Second Edition. Littleton: Libraries Unlimited. ISBN9781591581697. Lenneberg, Eric (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. ISBN0898747007. Lightbown, Patsy (1990). "Chapter 6: Process-product research on second language learning in classrooms". In Harley, Birgit. The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.8292. ISBN9780521384100. Lightbown, Patsy; Spada, Nina (1990). "Focus-on-Form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching: Effects on Second Language Learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12 (4): 42948.
Second language acquisition Long, M. (1996). "The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition". In Ritchie, William; Bhatia, Tej. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press. pp.413468. ISBN9780125890427. Lyster, R.; Ranta, L. (1997). "Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 3766. Lyster, R.; Mori, H. (2006). "Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 269300. MacWhinney, Brian (1987). "Applying the Competition Model to bilingualism" (http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/ papers/years/1987/CMbiling.pdf). Applied Psycholinguistics 8 (04): 315327. doi:10.1017/S0142716400000357. Retrieved 2011-03-02. MacWhinney, B. (2005). "Extending the Competition Model". International Journal of Bilingualism 9: 69. doi:10.1177/13670069050090010501. Paradis, M. (1994). "Nuerolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory: Implications for bilingualism and SLA". In Ellis, Nick. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. London: Academic Press. pp.393420. ISBN9780122374753. Penfield, Wilder; Roberts, Lamar (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN0691080399. Prabhu, N. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780194370844. Rounds, P. L.; Kanagy, R. (1998). "Acquiring linguistic cues to identify AGENT: Evidence from children learning Japanese as a second language". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20 (4): 509542. Schmidt, R. (2001). "Attention". In Robinson, Peter. Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.132. ISBN9780521802888. Selinker, L. (1972). "Interlanguage". International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209241. doi:10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209. Skehan, Peter (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780194372176. Swain, Merrill (1991). "French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one". In Freed, Barbara. Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath. pp.91103. ISBN978-0-669-24263-8. Swain, Merrill (1995). "Three functions of output in second language learning". In Cook, Guy. Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.125144. ISBN9780194421478. Tarone, Elaine; Bigelow, Martha; Hansen, Kit (2009). Literacy and Second Language Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780194423007. Tarone, Elaine; Swierzbin, Bonnie (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780194422918. Yuan, F.; Ellis, R. (2003). "The Effects of Pre-Task Planning and On-Line Planning on Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy in L2 Monologic Oral Production". Applied Linguistics 24: 1. doi:10.1093/applin/24.1.1.
10
Further reading
Cook, V. (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (4th ed). London: Hodder Arnold. Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod. (2007). Educational Settings and Second Language Learning. Volume 9 Asian EFL Journal. (http:// www.asian-efl-journal.com/Dec_2007_re.php) Ellis, Rod. (2005). Principles of Instructed Language Learning (http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_05_re. pdf). Volume 7 Asian EFL Journal. Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd edition. [ISBN 0-19-442224-0] Lin, G. H. C. (2008). "Lin, G. H. C. (2008). Pedagogies proving Krashens theory of affective filter , Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, Vol, 14, pp.113-131 ERIC Collection as ED503681 (http://www. eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503681.pdf) Ellis, Rod (1991). "The Interaction Hypothesis A critical evaluation" (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED338037). pp. 37 - on Michael H. Long's Interaction Hypothesis Mangubhai, F. (2006). "What do we know about learning and teaching second languages: Implications for teaching " Asian EFL Journal Vol 8. 2006 (http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_fm.php) McKay, Sharon; Schaetzel, Kirsten, Facilitating Adult Learner Interactions to Build Listening and Speaking Skills (http://www.cal.org/caelanetwork/resources/facilitating.html), CAELA Network Briefs, CAELA and Center for Applied Linguistics Mitchell, R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (2nd ed). London: Hodder Arnold. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2006). (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. John Benjamins: Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold. Ortega, L. (2010). Second language acquisition. Critical concepts in linguistics. London: Routledge. [ISBN 978-0-415-45020-1] Oxford, R,. & Lee, K. (2008). Understanding EFL Learners Strategy Use and Strategy Awareness. (http://www. asian-efl-journal.com/March_08_kl&ro.php) Robertson, P. & Nunn, R. (2007). The Study of Second Language Acquisition in the Asian Context (http://www. asian-efl-journal.com/Journal_E_Books.php) Tarone, E. & Swierzbin, B. (2009). Exploring Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
External links
Center for Applied Linguistics (http://www.cal.org) homepage Didactics of English (http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/LangTeach/Licence/CM/OldLectures/ L1_Introduction.htm). A lecture series in SLA by Timothy Mason, run from 1993 to 2002 at the Universit of Versailles St. Quentin. Second Language Acquisition Topics by Vivian Cook (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/): information on SLA, applied linguistics and language teaching research, including a large bibliography.
11
What is being acquired?

Syntax
In linguistics, syntax (from Ancient Greek "arrangement" from syn, "together", and txis, "an ordering") is the study of the principles and rules for constructing sentences in natural languages. In addition to referring to the discipline, the term syntax is also used to refer directly to the rules and principles that govern the sentence structure of any individual language, as in "the syntax of Modern Irish." Modern research in syntax attempts to describe languages in terms of such rules. Many professionals in this discipline attempt to find general rules that apply to all natural languages. The term syntax is also used to refer to the rules governing the behavior of mathematical systems, such as formal languages used in logicsee syntax (logic)and computer programming languagessee syntax (programming languages). Although there has been an interplay in the development of the modern theoretical frameworks for the syntax of formal and natural languages, this article surveys only the latter.
Early history
Works on grammar were written long before modern syntax came about; the Adhyy of Pini is often cited as an example of a premodern work that approaches the sophistication of a modern syntactic theory.[1] In the West, the school of thought that came to be known as "traditional grammar" began with the work of Dionysius Thrax. For centuries, work in syntax was dominated by a framework known as grammaire gnrale, first expounded in 1660 by Antoine Arnauld in a book of the same title. This system took as its basic premise the assumption that language is a direct reflection of thought processes and therefore there is a single, most natural way to express a thought. That way, coincidentally, was exactly the way it was expressed in French. However, in the 19th century, with the development of historical-comparative linguistics, linguists began to realize the sheer diversity of human language, and to question fundamental assumptions about the relationship between language and logic. It became apparent that there was no such thing as the most natural way to express a thought, and therefore logic could no longer be relied upon as a basis for studying the structure of language. The Port-Royal grammar modeled the study of syntax upon that of logic (indeed, large parts of the Port-Royal Logic were copied or adapted from the Grammaire gnrale[2] ). Syntactic categories were identified with logical ones, and all sentences were analyzed in terms of "Subject Copula Predicate". Initially, this view was adopted even by the early comparative linguists such as Franz Bopp. The central role of syntax within theoretical linguistics became clear only in the 20th century, which could reasonably be called the "century of syntactic theory" as far as linguistics is concerned. For a detailed and critical survey of the history of syntax in the last two centuries, see the monumental work by Graffi (2001).
Modern theories
There are a number of theoretical approaches to the discipline of syntax. One school of thought, founded in the works of Derek Bickerton,[3] sees syntax as a branch of biology, since it conceives of syntax as the study of linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind. Other linguists (e.g. Gerald Gazdar) take a more Platonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the study of an abstract formal system.[4] Yet others (e.g. Joseph Greenberg) consider grammar a taxonomical device to reach broad generalizations across languages. Andrey Korsakov's school of thought suggests philosophic understanding of morphological and syntactic phenomena. At foundations of their
Syntax linguistic ideas, lies classical philosophy which treats reality as consisting of things, their qualities and relationships. From here the followers of Korsakov's school assert the subdivision of words by the parts of speech.[5] Syntactic problems also get their enlightenment in the terms of philosophic processes.[6] Some more approaches to the discipline are listed below. Regarding the proliferation of theoretical linguistics frameworks, van Benthem and ter Meulen wrote in their 1997 (1st edition) of Handbook of Logic and Language:[7]
12
Generative grammar
The hypothesis of generative grammar is that language is a structure of the human mind. The goal of generative grammar is to make a complete model of this inner language (known as i-language). This model could be used to describe all human language and to predict the grammaticality of any given utterance (that is, to predict whether the utterance would sound correct to native speakers of the language). This approach to language was pioneered by Noam Chomsky. Most generative theories (although not all of them) assume that syntax is based upon the constituent structure of sentences. Generative grammars are among the theories that focus primarily on the form of a sentence, rather than its communicative function. Among the many generative theories of linguistics, the Chomskyan theories are: Transformational Grammar (TG) (Original theory of generative syntax laid out by Chomsky in Syntactic Structures in 1957[8] ) Government and binding theory (GB) (revised theory in the tradition of TG developed mainly by Chomsky in the 1970s and 1980s).[9] Minimalist program (MP) (a reworking of the theory out of the GB framework published by Chomsky in 1995)[10] Other theories that find their origin in the generative paradigm are: Generative semantics (now largely out of date) Relational grammar (RG) (now largely out of date) Arc Pair grammar Generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG; now largely out of date) Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) Lexical-functional grammar (LFG) Nanosyntax
Categorial grammar
Categorial grammar is an approach that attributes the syntactic structure not to rules of grammar, but to the properties of the syntactic categories themselves. For example, rather than asserting that sentences are constructed by a rule that combines a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP) (e.g. the phrase structure rule S NP VP), in categorial grammar, such principles are embedded in the category of the head word itself. So the syntactic category for an intransitive verb is a complex formula representing the fact that the verb acts as a functor which requires an NP as an input and produces a sentence level structure as an output. This complex category is notated as (NP\S) instead of V. NP\S is read as " a category that searches to the left (indicated by \) for a NP (the element on the left) and outputs a sentence (the element on the right)". The category of transitive verb is defined as an element that requires two NPs (its subject and its direct object) to form a sentence. This is notated as (NP/(NP\S)) which means "a category that searches to the right (indicated by /) for an NP (the object), and generates a function (equivalent to the VP) which is (NP\S), which in turn represents a function that searches to the left for an NP and produces a sentence). Tree-adjoining grammar is a categorial grammar that adds in partial tree structures to the categories.
Syntax
13
Dependency grammar
Dependency grammar is a different type of approach in which structure is determined by the relations (such as grammatical relations) between a word (a head) and its dependents, rather than being based in constituent structure. For example, syntactic structure is described in terms of whether a particular noun is the subject or agent of the verb, rather than describing the relations in terms of phrases. Some dependency-based theories of syntax: Algebraic syntax Word grammar Operator Grammar Meaning-Text Theory
Stochastic/probabilistic grammars/network theories

Theoretical approaches to syntax that are based upon probability theory are known as stochastic grammars. One common implementation of such an approach makes use of a neural network or connectionism. Some theories based within this approach are: Optimality theory Stochastic context-free grammar
Functionalist grammars
Functionalist theories, although focused upon form, are driven by explanation based upon the function of a sentence (i.e. its communicative function). Some typical functionalist theories include: Functional grammar (Dik) Prague Linguistic Circle Systemic functional grammar Cognitive grammar Construction grammar (CxG) Role and reference grammar (RRG) Emergent grammar
Notes
[1] Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Blackwell. p.186. ISBN1-4051-0315-9 (hb); 1-4051-0316-7 (pb). "[The Adhyy] is a highly precise and thorough description of the structure of Sanskrit somewhat resembling modern generative grammar[it] remained the most advanced linguistic analysis of any kind until the twentieth century." [2] Arnauld, Antoine (1683). La logique (http:/ / visualiseur. bnf. fr/ Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica& O=NUMM-57444) (5th ed.). Paris: G. Desprez. pp.137. . "Nous avons empruntce que nous avons ditd'un petit Livresous le titre de Grammaire gnrale." [3] See Bickerton, Derek (1990). Language and Species. University of Chicago Press. ISBN0-226-04610-9. and, for more recent advances, Derek Bickerton; Ers Szathmry, ed (2009). Biological foundations and origin of syntax. MIT Press. ISBN978-0-262-01356-7. [4] Ted Briscoe, 2 May 2001, Interview with Gerald Gazdar (http:/ / www. informatics. susx. ac. uk/ research/ nlp/ gazdar/ briscoe/ gpsg. html#SECTION00040000000000000000). Retrieved 2008-06-04. [5] The use of tenses in English. Korsakov, A. K. (Andre Konstantinovich). 1969. Korsakov, A. K. Structure of Modern English pt. 1. oai:gial.edu:26766 at http:/ / www. language-archives. org/ item/ oai:gial. edu:26766 [6] Korsakov A.K. Theoretical Foundations of Modern English Grammar. Part I. Syntax. 1982 [7] Talasiewicz (2009), p. 5 citing van Benthem and ter Meulen, Handbook of Logic and Language 1997, p. 3 [8] Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, p. 15. [9] Chomsky, Noam (1981/1993). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Mouton de Gruyter. [10] Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
Syntax
14
References
Brown, Keith; Jim Miller (eds.) (1996). Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. New York: Elsevier Science. ISBN0-08-042711-1. Carnie, Andrew (2006). Syntax: A Generative Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN1405133848. Freidin, Robert; Howard Lasnik (eds.) (2006). Syntax. Critical Concepts in Linguistics. New York: Routledge. ISBN0-415-24672-5. Graffi, Giorgio (2001). 200 Years of Syntax. A Critical Survey. Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 98. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ISBN90-272-4587-8. Mieszko Talasiewicz (2009). Philosophy of Syntax - Foundational Topics. Springer. ISBN9789048132874. An interdisciplinary essay on the interplay between logic and linguistics on syntactic theories.
Further reading
Martin Everaert, Henk Van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans and Bart Hollebrandse, ed (2006). The Blackwell companion to syntax. Blackwell. ISBN9781405114851. 5 Volumes; 77 case studies of syntactic phenomena. Brian Roark; Richard William Sproat (2007). Computational approaches to morphology and syntax. Oxford University Press. ISBN9780199274772. part II: Computational approaches to syntax. Isac, Daniela; Charles Reiss (2008). I-language: An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science (http:// linguistics.concordia.ca/i-language/). Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0199534203. Edith A. Moravcsik (2006). An introduction to syntax: fundamentals of syntactic analysis. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN9780826489456. Attempts to be a theory-neutral introduction. The companion Edith A. Moravcsik (2006). An introduction to syntactic theory. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN9780826489432. surveys the major theories. Jointly reviewed in The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 54(1), March 2009, pp. 172-175 (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/ canadian_journal_of_linguistics/v054/54.1.hewson.html)
External links
The syntax of natural language: An online introduction using the Trees program (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/ ~beatrice/syntax-textbook) -- Beatrice Santorini & Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania, 2007
Lexicon
15
Lexicon
In linguistics, the lexicon of a language is its vocabulary, including its words and expressions. A lexicon is also a synonym of the word thesaurus. More formally, it is a language's inventory of lexemes. Coined in English 1603, the word "lexicon" derives from the Greek "" (lexicon), neut. of "" (lexikos), "of or for words",[1] from "" (lexis), "speech", "word",[2] and that from "" (lego), "to say", "to speak".[3] The lexicon includes the lexemes used to actualize words. Lexemes are formed according to morpho-syntactic rules and express sememes. In this sense, a lexicon organizes the mental vocabulary in a speaker's mind: First, it organizes the vocabulary of a language according to certain principles (for instance, all verbs of motion may be linked in a lexical network) and second, it contains a generative device producing (new) simple and complex words according to certain lexical rules. For example, the suffix '-able' can be added to transitive verbs only, so that we get 'read-able' but not 'cry-able'. Usually a lexicon is a container for words belonging to the same language. Some exceptions may be encountered for languages that are variants, like for instance Brazilian Portuguese compared to European Portuguese, where a lot of words are common and where the differences may be marked word by word. When linguists study the lexicon, they study such things as what words are, how the vocabulary in a language is structured, how people use and store words, how they learn words, the history and evolution of words (i.e. etymology), types of relationships between words as well as how words were created. An individual's mental lexicon, lexical knowledge, or lexical concept is that person's knowledge of vocabulary. The role the mental lexicon plays in speech perception and production, as well as questions of how words from the lexicon are accessed, is a major topic in the fields of psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics, where models such as the cohort model have been proposed to explain how words in the lexicon are retrieved.
Further reading
Aitchison, Jean. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. Zuckermann, Ghil'ad (2003). Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew [4]. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN140391723X.
References
[1] (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=lecikos), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library [2] (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0057:entry=le/ cis), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library [3] (http:/ / www. perseus. tufts. edu/ hopper/ text?doc=Perseus:text:1999. 04. 0058:entry=le/ gw3), Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library [4] http:/ / www. palgrave. com/ products/ title. aspx?is=140391723X
Morphology (linguistics)
16
In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis and description of the structure of morphemes and other units of meaning in a language like words, affixes, and parts of speech and intonation/stress, implied context (words in a lexicon are the subject matter of lexicology). Morphological typology represents a way of classifying languages according to the ways by which morphemes are used in a language from the analytic that use only isolated morphemes, through the agglutinative ("stuck-together") and fusional languages that use bound morphemes (affixes), up to the polysynthetic, which compress lots of separate morphemes into single words. While words are generally accepted as being (with clitics) the smallest units of syntax, it is clear that in most languages, if not all, words can be related to other words by rules (grammars). For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog and dogs are closely related differentiated only by the plurality morpheme "-s," which is only found bound to nouns, and is never separate. Speakers of English (a fusional language) recognize these relations from their tacit knowledge of the rules of word formation in English. They infer intuitively that dog is to dogs as cat is to cats; similarly, dog is to dog catcher as dish is to dishwasher, in one sense. The rules understood by the speaker reflect specific patterns, or regularities, in the way words are formed from smaller units and how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word formation within and across languages, and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages. A language like Classical Chinese instead uses unbound ("free") morphemes, but depends on post-phrase affixes, and word order to convey meaning. However, this cannot be said of present-day Mandarin, in which most words are compounds (around 80%), and most roots are bound. In the Chinese languages, these are understood as grammars that represent the morphology of the language. Beyond the agglutinative languages, a polysynthetic language like Chukchi will have words composed of many morphemes: The word "tmeylevtptrkn" is composed of eight morphemes t--mey--levt-pt--rkn, that can be glossed 1.SG.SUBJ-great-head-hurt-PRES.1, meaning 'I have a fierce headache.' The morphology of such languages allow for each consonant and vowel to be understood as morphemes, just as the grammars of the language key the usage and understanding of each morpheme.
History
The history of morphological analysis dates back to the ancient Indian linguist Pini, who formulated the 3,959 rules of Sanskrit morphology in the text Adhyy by using a Constituency Grammar. The Greco-Roman grammatical tradition also engaged in morphological analysis. Studies in Arabic morphology, conducted by Mar al-arw and Amad b. al Masd, date back to at least 1200 CE.[1] The term morphology was coined by August Schleicher in 1859.[2]
Fundamental concepts
Lexemes and word forms
The distinction between these two senses of "word" is arguably the most important one in morphology. The first sense of "word", the one in which dog and dogs are "the same word", is called a lexeme. The second sense is called word form. We thus say that dog and dogs are different forms of the same lexeme. Dog and dog catcher, on the other hand, are different lexemes, as they refer to two different kinds of entities. The form of a word that is chosen conventionally to represent the canonical form of a word is called a lemma, or citation form.
Morphology (linguistics) Prosodic word vs. morphological word Here are examples from other languages of the failure of a single phonological word to coincide with a single morphological word form. In Latin, one way to express the concept of 'NOUN-PHRASE1 and NOUN-PHRASE2' (as in "apples and oranges") is to suffix '-que' to the second noun phrase: "apples oranges-and", as it were. An extreme level of this theoretical quandary posed by some phonological words is provided by the Kwak'wala language.[3] In Kwak'wala, as in a great many other languages, meaning relations between nouns, including possession and "semantic case", are formulated by affixes instead of by independent "words". The three word English phrase, "with his club", where 'with' identifies its dependent noun phrase as an instrument and 'his' denotes a possession relation, would consist of two words or even just one word in many languages. But affixation for semantic relations in Kwak'wala differs dramatically (from the viewpoint of those whose language is not Kwak'wala) from such affixation in other languages for this reason: the affixes phonologically attach not to the lexeme they pertain to semantically, but to the preceding lexeme. Consider the following example (in Kwakw'ala, sentences begin with what corresponds to an English verb):[4] kwixid-i-da bgwanmai--a q'asa-s-isi t'alwagwayu Morpheme by morpheme translation: kwixid-i-da = clubbed-PIVOT-DETERMINER bgwanma--a = man-ACCUSATIVE-DETERMINER q'asa-s-is = otter-INSTRUMENTAL-3SG-POSSESSIVE t'alwagwayu = club. "the man clubbed the otter with his club" (Notation notes: 1. accusative case marks an entity that something is done to. 2. determiners are words such as "the", "this", "that". 3. the concept of "pivot" is a theoretical construct that is not relevant to this discussion.) That is, to the speaker of Kwak'wala, the sentence does not contain the "words" 'him-the-otter' or 'with-his-club' Instead, the markers -i-da (PIVOT-'the'), referring to man, attaches not to bgwanma ('man'), but instead to the "verb"; the markers --a (ACCUSATIVE-'the'), referring to otter, attach to bgwanma instead of to q'asa ('otter'), etc. To summarize differently: a speaker of Kwak'wala does not perceive the sentence to consist of these phonological words: kwixid "clubbed i-da-bgwanma PIVOT-the-mani -a-q'asa hit-the-otter s-isi-t'alwagwayu with-hisi-club
17
A central publication on this topic is the recent volume edited by Dixon and Aikhenvald (2007), examining the mismatch between prosodic-phonological and grammatical definitions of "word" in various Amazonian, Australian Aboriginal, Caucasian, Eskimo, Indo-European, Native North American, West African, and sign languages. Apparently, a wide variety of languages make use of the hybrid linguistic unit clitic, possessing the grammatical features of independent words but the prosodic-phonological lack of freedom of bound morphemes. The intermediate status of clitics poses a considerable challenge to linguistic theory.
18
Inflection vs. word formation

Given the notion of a lexeme, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of morphological rules. Some morphological rules relate to different forms of the same lexeme; while other rules relate to different lexemes. Rules of the first kind are called inflectional rules, while those of the second kind are called word formation. The English plural, as illustrated by dog and dogs, is an inflectional rule; compounds like dog catcher or dishwasher provide an example of a word formation rule. Informally, word formation rules form "new words" (that is, new lexemes), while inflection rules yield variant forms of the "same" word (lexeme). There is a further distinction between two kinds of word formation: derivation and compounding. Compounding is a process of word formation that involves combining complete word forms into a single compound form; dog catcher is therefore a compound, because both dog and catcher are complete word forms in their own right before the compounding process has been applied, and are subsequently treated as one form. Derivation involves affixing bound (non-independent) forms to existing lexemes, whereby the addition of the affix derives a new lexeme. One example of derivation is clear in this case: the word independent is derived from the word dependent by prefixing it with the derivational prefix in-, while dependent itself is derived from the verb depend. The distinction between inflection and word formation is not at all clear cut. There are many examples where linguists fail to agree whether a given rule is inflection or word formation. The next section will attempt to clarify this distinction. Word formation is a process, as we have said, where you combine two complete words, whereas with inflection you can combine a suffix with some verb to change its form to subject of the sentence. For example: in the present indefinite, we use go with subject I/we/you/they and plural nouns, whereas for third person singular pronouns (he/she/it) and singular nouns we use goes. So this -es is an inflectional marker and is used to match with its subject. A further difference is that in word formation, the resultant word may differ from its source words grammatical category whereas in the process of inflection the word never changes its grammatical category.
Paradigms and morphosyntax

Linguistic typology
Morphological Isolating Synthetic Polysynthetic Fusional Agglutinative Morphosyntactic Alignment Accusative Ergative Split ergative Philippine Activestative Tripartite Inverse marking
19
Syntactic pivot Theta role Word Order VO languages Subject Verb Object Verb Subject Object Verb Object Subject OV languages Subject Object Verb Object Subject Verb Object Verb Subject Time Manner Place Place Manner Time
A linguistic paradigm is the complete set of related word forms associated with a given lexeme. The familiar examples of paradigms are the conjugations of verbs, and the declensions of nouns. Accordingly, the word forms of a lexeme may be arranged conveniently into tables, by classifying them according to shared inflectional categories such as tense, aspect, mood, number, gender or case. For example, the personal pronouns in English can be organized into tables, using the categories of person (first, second, third), number (singular vs. plural), gender (masculine, feminine, neuter), and case (subjective, objective, and possessive). See English personal pronouns for the details. The inflectional categories used to group word forms into paradigms cannot be chosen arbitrarily; they must be categories that are relevant to stating the syntactic rules of the language. For example, person and number are categories that can be used to define paradigms in English, because English has grammatical agreement rules that require the verb in a sentence to appear in an inflectional form that matches the person and number of the subject. In other words, the syntactic rules of English care about the difference between dog and dogs, because the choice between these two forms determines which form of the verb is to be used. In contrast, however, no syntactic rule of English cares about the difference between dog and dog catcher, or dependent and independent. The first two are just nouns, and the second two just adjectives, and they generally behave like any other noun or adjective behaves. An important difference between inflection and word formation is that inflected word forms of lexemes are organized into paradigms, which are defined by the requirements of syntactic rules, whereas the rules of word formation are not restricted by any corresponding requirements of syntax. Inflection is therefore said to be relevant to syntax, and word formation is not. The part of morphology that covers the relationship between syntax and morphology is called morphosyntax, and it concerns itself with inflection and paradigms, but not with word formation or compounding.
20
Allomorphy
In the exposition above, morphological rules are described as analogies between word forms: dog is to dogs as cat is to cats, and as dish is to dishes. In this case, the analogy applies both to the form of the words and to their meaning: in each pair, the first word means "one of X", while the second "two or more of X", and the difference is always the plural form -s affixed to the second word, signaling the key distinction between singular and plural entities. One of the largest sources of complexity in morphology is that this one-to-one correspondence between meaning and form scarcely applies to every case in the language. In English, we have word form pairs like ox/oxen, goose/geese, and sheep/sheep, where the difference between the singular and the plural is signaled in a way that departs from the regular pattern, or is not signaled at all. Even cases considered "regular", with the final -s, are not so simple; the -s in dogs is not pronounced the same way as the -s in cats, and in a plural like dishes, an "extra" vowel appears before the -s. These cases, where the same distinction is effected by alternative forms of a "word", are called allomorphy. Phonological rules constrain which sounds can appear next to each other in a language, and morphological rules, when applied blindly, would often violate phonological rules, by resulting in sound sequences that are prohibited in the language in question. For example, to form the plural of dish by simply appending an -s to the end of the word would result in the form *[ds], which is not permitted by the phonotactics of English. In order to "rescue" the word, a vowel sound is inserted between the root and the plural marker, and [dz] results. Similar rules apply to the pronunciation of the -s in dogs and cats: it depends on the quality (voiced vs. unvoiced) of the final preceding phoneme.
Lexical morphology
Lexical morphology is the branch of morphology that deals with the lexicon, which, morphologically conceived, is the collection of lexemes in a language. As such, it concerns itself primarily with word formation: derivation and compounding.
Models
There are three principal approaches to morphology, which each try to capture the distinctions above in different ways. These are, Morpheme-based morphology, which makes use of an Item-and-Arrangement approach. Lexeme-based morphology, which normally makes use of an Item-and-Process approach. Word-based morphology, which normally makes use of a Word-and-Paradigm approach. Note that while the associations indicated between the concepts in each item in that list is very strong, it is not absolute.
Morpheme-based morphology
In morpheme-based morphology, word forms are analyzed as arrangements of morphemes. A morpheme is defined as the minimal meaningful unit of a language. In a word like independently, we say that the morphemes are in-, depend, -ent, and ly; depend is the root and the other morphemes are, in this case, derivational affixes.[5] In a word like dogs, we say that dog is the root, and that -s is an inflectional morpheme. In its simplest (and most nave) form, this way of analyzing word forms treats words as if they were made of morphemes put after each other like beads on a string, is called Item-and-Arrangement. More modern and sophisticated approaches seek to maintain the idea of the morpheme while accommodating non-concatenative, analogical, and other processes that have proven problematic for Item-and-Arrangement theories and similar approaches. Morpheme-based morphology presumes three basic axioms (cf. Beard 1995 for an overview and references): 1. Baudoins SINGLE MORPHEME HYPOTHESIS: Roots and affixes have the same status in the theory, they are MORPHEMES.
Morphology (linguistics) 2. Bloomfields SIGN BASE MORPHEME HYPOTHESIS: As morphemes, they are dualistic signs, since they have both (phonological) form and meaning. 3. Bloomfields LEXICAL MORPHEME HYPOTHESIS: The morphemes, affixes and roots alike, are stored in the lexicon. Morpheme-based morphology comes in two flavours, one Bloomfieldian and one Hockettian. (cf. Bloomfield 1933 and Charles F. Hockett 1947). For Bloomfield, the morpheme was the minimal form with meaning, but it was not meaning itself. For Hockett, morphemes are meaning elements, not form elements. For him, there is a morpheme plural, with the allomorphs -s, -en, -ren etc. Within much morpheme-based morphological theory, these two views are mixed in unsystematic ways, so that a writer may talk about "the morpheme plural" and "the morpheme -s" in the same sentence, although these are different things.
21
Lexeme-based morphology
Lexeme-based morphology is (usually) an Item-and-Process approach. Instead of analyzing a word form as a set of morphemes arranged in sequence, a word form is said to be the result of applying rules that alter a word form or stem in order to produce a new one. An inflectional rule takes a stem, changes it as is required by the rule, and outputs a word form; a derivational rule takes a stem, changes it as per its own requirements, and outputs a derived stem; a compounding rule takes word forms, and similarly outputs a compound stem.
Word-based morphology
Word-based morphology is (usually) a Word-and-paradigm approach. This theory takes paradigms as a central notion. Instead of stating rules to combine morphemes into word forms, or to generate word forms from stems, word-based morphology states generalizations that hold between the forms of inflectional paradigms. The major point behind this approach is that many such generalizations are hard to state with either of the other approaches. The examples are usually drawn from fusional languages, where a given "piece" of a word, which a morpheme-based theory would call an inflectional morpheme, corresponds to a combination of grammatical categories, for example, "third person plural." Morpheme-based theories usually have no problems with this situation, since one just says that a given morpheme has two categories. Item-and-Process theories, on the other hand, often break down in cases like these, because they all too often assume that there will be two separate rules here, one for third person, and the other for plural, but the distinction between them turns out to be artificial. Word-and-Paradigm approaches treat these as whole words that are related to each other by analogical rules. Words can be categorized based on the pattern they fit into. This applies both to existing words and to new ones. Application of a pattern different from the one that has been used historically can give rise to a new word, such as older replacing elder (where older follows the normal pattern of adjectival superlatives) and cows replacing kine (where cows fits the regular pattern of plural formation).
Morphological typology
In the 19th century, philologists devised a now classic classification of languages according to their morphology. According to this typology, some languages are isolating, and have little to no morphology; others are agglutinative, and their words tend to have lots of easily separable morphemes; while others yet are inflectional or fusional, because their inflectional morphemes are "fused" together. This leads to one bound morpheme conveying multiple pieces of information. The classic example of an isolating language is Chinese; the classic example of an agglutinative language is Turkish; both Latin and Greek are classic examples of fusional languages. Considering the variability of the world's languages, it becomes clear that this classification is not at all clear cut, and many languages do not neatly fit any one of these types, and some fit in more than one way. A continuum of complex morphology of language may be adapted when considering languages.
Morphology (linguistics) The three models of morphology stem from attempts to analyze languages that more or less match different categories in this typology. The Item-and-Arrangement approach fits very naturally with agglutinative languages; while the Item-and-Process and Word-and-Paradigm approaches usually address fusional languages. The reader should also note that the classical typology mostly applies to inflectional morphology. There is very little fusion going on with word formation. Languages may be classified as synthetic or analytic in their word formation, depending on the preferred way of expressing notions that are not inflectional: either by using word formation (synthetic), or by using syntactic phrases (analytic).
22
References
[1] Arabic Morphology and Phonology (http:/ / www. brill. nl/ Default. aspx?partid=75& pid=9506) [2] Fr die Lehre von der Wortform whle ich das Wort "Morphologie" ("for the science of word formation, I choose the term 'morphology'", Mmoires Acad. Impriale 7/1/7, 35) [3] Formerly known as Kwakiutl, Kwak'wala belongs to the Northern branch of the Wakashan language family. "Kwakiutl" is still used to refer to the tribe itself, along with other terms. [4] Example taken from Foley 1998, using a modified transcription. This phenomenon of Kwak'wala was reported by Jacobsen as cited in van Valin and La Polla 1997. [5] The existence of words like appendix and pending in English does not mean that the English word depend is analyzed into a derivational prefix de- and a root pend. While all those were indeed once related to each other by morphological rules, this was so only in Latin, not in English. English borrowed the words from French and Latin, but not the morphological rules that allowed Latin speakers to combine de- and the verb pendere 'to hang' into the derivative dependere.
Further reading
(Abbreviations: CUP = Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; UP = University Press) Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. Aronoff, Mark. (1993). " Morphology by Itself (http://books.google.de/books?id=PFMH1qg-Z5kC& dq=morphology+by+itself&pg=PP1&ots=HKANzPIrQZ&sig=CXtHtx_Gr_cEW8Rz5hLglnw17f4& prev=http://www.google.de/search?q=Morphology+by+Itself&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org. mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail)". Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aronoff, Mark. (2009). " Morphology: an interview with Mark Aronoff (http://www.revel.inf.br/site2007/ _pdf/14/entrevistas/revel_12_interview_aronoff.pdf)". ReVEL, v. 7, n. 12, ISSN 1678-8931. Beard, Robert. (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/). Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-2471-5. Bauer, Laurie. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 0-87840-343-4. Bauer, Laurie. (2004). A glossary of morphology. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP. Bubenik, Vit. (1999). An introduction to the study of morphology. LINCON coursebooks in linguistics, 07. Muenchen: LINCOM Europa. ISBN 3-89586-570-2. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (Eds). (2007). Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Foley, William A. (1998). " Symmetrical Voice Systems and Precategoriality in Philippine Languages (http:// www.sultry.arts.usyd.edu.au/LFG98/austro/foley/frames/foley4.htm)". Workshop: Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian. University of Sydney. Haspelmath, Martin. (2002). Understanding morphology. London: Arnold (co-published by Oxford University Press). ISBN 0-340-76025-7 (hb); ISBN 0340760265 (pbk).
Morphology (linguistics) Katamba, Francis. (1993). Morphology. Modern linguistics series. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-10101-5 (hb). ISBN 0-312-10356-5 (pbk). Korsakov, A. K. (Andre Konstantinovich). (1969) The use of tenses in English. Korsakov, A. K. Structure of Modern English pt. 1. oai:gial.edu:26766 at http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:gial.edu:26766 Matthews, Peter. (1991). Morphology (2nd ed.). CUP. ISBN 0-521-41043-6 (hb). ISBN 0-521-42256-6 (pbk). Mel'uk, Igor A. (19932000). Cours de morphologie gnrale, vol. 1-5. Montreal: Presses de l'Universit de Montral. Mel'uk, Igor A. (2006). Aspects of the theory of morphology. Berlin: Mouton. Scalise, Sergio. (1983). Generative Morphology, Dordrecht, Foris. Singh, Rajendra and Stanley Starosta (eds). (2003). Explorations in Seamless Morphology. SAGE Publications. ISBN 0-7619-9594-3 (hb). Spencer, Andrew. (1991). Morphological theory: an introduction to word structure in generative grammar. No. 2 in Blackwell textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-16143-0 (hb); ISBN 0-631-16144-9 (pb) Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M. (Eds.) (1998). The handbook of morphology. Blackwell handbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-18544-5. Stump, Gregory T. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. No. 93 in Cambridge studies in linguistics. CUP. ISBN 0-521-78047-0 (hb). van Valin, Robert D., and LaPolla, Randy. (1997). Syntax : Structure, Meaning And Function. CUP Zuckermann, Ghil'ad. (2009). Hybridity versus Revivability: Multiple Causation, Forms and Patterns (http:// www.zuckermann.org/pdf/Hybridity_versus_Revivability.pdf), Journal of Language Contact, Varia 2: 40-67.
23
Phonology
Phonology (from Ancient Greek: , phn, "voice, sound" and , lgos, "word, speech, subject of discussion") is, broadly speaking, the subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with "the sounds of language".[1] That is, it is the systematic use of sound to encode meaning in any spoken human language, or the field of linguistics studying this use.[2] In more narrow terms, "phonology proper is concerned with the function, behaviour and organization of sounds as linguistic items".[1] Just as a language has syntax and vocabulary, it also has a phonology in the sense of a sound system. When describing the formal area of study, the term typically describes linguistic analysis either beneath the word (e.g., syllable, onset and rhyme, phoneme, articulatory gestures, articulatory feature, mora, etc.) or to units at all levels of language that are thought to structure sound for conveying linguistic meaning. It is viewed as the subfield of linguistics that deals with the sound systems of languages. Whereas phonetics is about the physical production, acoustic transmission and perception of the sounds of speech,[1] [3] phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages to encode meaning. The term "phonology" was used in the linguistics of a greater part of the 20th century as a cover term uniting phonemics and phonetics. Current phonology can interface with disciplines such as psycholinguistics and speech perception, resulting in specific areas like articulatory or laboratory phonology.
Overview
An important part of traditional forms of phonology has been studying which sounds can be grouped into distinctive units within a language; these units are known as phonemes. For example, in English, the [p] sound in pot is aspirated (pronounced [p]), while the word- and syllable-final [p] in soup is not aspirated (indeed, it might be realized as a glottal stop). However, English speakers intuitively treat both sounds as variations (allophones) of the same phonological category, that is, of the phoneme /p/. Traditionally, it would be argued that if a word-initial aspirated [p] were interchanged with the word-final unaspirated [p] in soup, they would still be perceived by native
Phonology speakers of English as "the same" /p/. (However, speech perception findings now put this theory in doubt.) Although some sort of "sameness" of these two sounds holds in English, it is not universal and may be absent in other languages. For example, in Thai, Hindi, and Quechua, aspiration and non-aspiration differentiates phonemes: that is, there are word pairs that differ only in this feature (there are minimal pairs differing only in aspiration). In addition to the minimal units that can serve the purpose of differentiating meaning (the phonemes), phonology studies how sounds alternate, i.e. replace one another in different forms of the same morpheme (allomorphs), as well as, e.g., syllable structure, stress, accent, and intonation. The principles of phonological theory have also been applied to the analysis of sign languages, even though the sub-lexical units are not instantiated as speech sounds. The principles of phonological analysis can be applied independently of modality because they are designed to serve as general analytical tools, not language-specific ones. On the other hand, it must be noted, it is difficult to analyze phonologically a language one does not speak, and most phonological analysis takes place with recourse to phonetic information.
24
Representing phonemes
The writing systems of some languages are based on the phonemic principle of having one letter (or combination of letters) per phoneme and vice-versa. Ideally, speakers can correctly write whatever they can say, and can correctly read anything that is written. However in English, different spellings can be used for the same phoneme (e.g., rude and food have the same vowel sounds), and the same letter (or combination of letters) can represent different phonemes (e.g., the "th" consonant sounds of thin and this are different). In order to avoid this confusion based on orthography, phonologists represent phonemes by writing them between two slashes: "//". On the other hand, reference to variations of phonemes or attempts at representing actual speech sounds are usually enclosed by square brackets: "[]". While the letters between slashes may be based on spelling conventions, the letters between square brackets are usually the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) or some other phonetic transcription system. Additionally, angled brackets "" can be used to isolate the
A diagram of the vocal tract
graphemes of an alphabetic writing system.
Phoneme inventories
Phonology
25
The vowels of modern (Standard) Arabic and (Israeli) Hebrew from the phonemic point of view. Note the intersection of the two circlesthe distinction between short a, i and u is made by both speakers, but Arabic lacks the mid articulation of short vowels, while Hebrew lacks the distinction of vowel length.
Doing a phoneme inventory

Part of the phonological study of a language involves looking at data (phonetic transcriptions of the speech of native speakers) and trying to deduce what the underlying phonemes are and what the sound inventory of the language is. Even though a language may make distinctions between a small number of phonemes, speakers actually produce many more phonetic sounds. Thus, a phoneme in a particular language can be instantiated in many ways. Traditionally, looking for minimal pairs forms part of the phonetic point of view. Note that the two circles are totally the research in studying the phoneme inventory of a separatenone of the vowel-sounds made by speakers of one language. A minimal pair is a pair of words from the language is made by speakers of the other. One modern theory is that Israeli Hebrew's phonology reflects Yiddish elements, not Semitic same language, that differ by only a single categorical ones. sound, and that are recognized by speakers as being two different words. When there is a minimal pair, the two sounds are said to be examples of realizations of distinct phonemes. However, since it is often impossible to detect or agree to the existence of all the possible phonemes of a language with this method, other approaches are used as well.
The vowels of modern (Standard) Arabic and (Israeli) Hebrew from
Phonemic distinctions or allophones

If two similar sounds do not belong to separate phonemes, they are called allophones of the same underlying phoneme. For instance, voiceless stops (/p/, /t/, /k/) can be aspirated. In English, voiceless stops at the beginning of a stressed syllable (but not after /s/) are aspirated, whereas after /s/ they are not aspirated. This can be seen by putting the fingers right in front of the lips and noticing the difference in breathiness in saying pin versus spin. There is no English word pin that starts with an unaspirated p, therefore in English, aspirated [p] (the [] means aspirated) and
Phonology unaspirated [p] are allophones of the same phoneme /p/. This is an example of a complementary distribution. The /t/ sounds in the words tub, stub, but, butter, and button are all pronounced differently in American English, yet are all intuited to be of "the same sound", therefore they constitute another example of allophones of the same phoneme in English. However, an intuition such as this could be interpreted as a function of post-lexical recognition of the sounds. That is, all are seen as examples of English /t/ once the word itself has been recognized. The findings and insights of speech perception and articulation research complicates this idea of interchangeable allophones being perceived as the same phoneme, no matter how attractive it might be for linguists who wish to rely on the intuitions of native speakers. First, interchanged allophones of the same phoneme can result in unrecognizable words. Second, actual speech, even at a word level, is highly co-articulated, so it is problematic to think that one can splice words into simple segments without affecting speech perception. In other words, interchanging allophones is a nice idea for intuitive linguistics, but it turns out that this idea cannot transcend what co-articulation actually does to spoken sounds. Yet human speech perception is so robust and versatile (happening under various conditions) because, in part, it can deal with such co-articulation. There are different methods for determining why allophones should fall categorically under a specified phoneme. Counter-intuitively, the principle of phonetic similarity is not always used. This tends to make the phoneme seem abstracted away from the phonetic realities of speech. It should be remembered that, just because allophones can be grouped under phonemes for the purpose of linguistic analysis, this does not necessarily mean that this is an actual process in the way the human brain processes a language. On the other hand, it could be pointed out that some sort of analytic notion of a language beneath the word level is usual if the language is written alphabetically. So one could also speak of a phonology of reading and writing.
26
Change of a phoneme inventory over time

The particular sounds which are phonemic in a language can change over time. At one time, [f] and [v] were allophones in English, but these later changed into separate phonemes. This is one of the main factors of historical change of languages as described in historical linguistics.
Other topics in phonology

Phonology also includes topics such as phonotactics (the phonological constraints on what sounds can appear in what positions in a given language) and phonological alternation (how the pronunciation of a sound changes through the application of phonological rules, sometimes in a given order which can be feeding or bleeding,[4] ) as well as prosody, the study of suprasegmentals and topics such as stress and intonation.
Development of the field

In ancient India, the Sanskrit grammarian Pini (4th century BC) in his text of Sanskrit phonology, the Shiva Sutras, discusses something like the concepts of the phoneme, the morpheme and the root. The Shiva Sutras describe a phonemic notational system in the fourteen initial lines of the Adhyy. The notational system introduces different clusters of phonemes that serve special roles in the morphology of Sanskrit, and are referred to throughout the text. Panini's grammar of Sanskrit had a significant influence on Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of modern structuralism, who was a professor of Sanskrit. The Polish scholar Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, (together with his former student Mikoaj Kruszewski) coined the word phoneme in 1876, and his work, though often unacknowledged, is considered to be the starting point of modern phonology. He worked not only on the theory of the phoneme but also on phonetic alternations (i.e., what is now called allophony and morphophonology). His influence on Ferdinand de Saussure was also significant. Prince Nikolai Trubetzkoy's posthumously published work, the Principles of Phonology (1939), is considered the foundation of the Prague School of phonology. Directly influenced by Baudouin de Courtenay, Trubetzkoy is
Phonology considered the founder of morphophonology, though morphophonology was first recognized by Baudouin de Courtenay. Trubetzkoy split phonology into phonemics and archiphonemics; the former has had more influence than the latter. Another important figure in the Prague School was Roman Jakobson, who was one of the most prominent linguists of the 20th century. In 1968 Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle published The Sound Pattern of English (SPE), the basis for Generative Phonology. In this view, phonological representations are sequences of segments made up of distinctive features. These features were an expansion of earlier work by Roman Jakobson, Gunnar Fant, and Morris Halle. The features describe aspects of articulation and perception, are from a universally fixed set, and have the binary values + or . There are at least two levels of representation: underlying representation and surface phonetic representation. Ordered phonological rules govern how underlying representation is transformed into the actual pronunciation (the so called surface form). An important consequence of the influence SPE had on phonological theory was the downplaying of the syllable and the emphasis on segments. Furthermore, the Generativists folded morphophonology into phonology, which both solved and created problems. Natural Phonology was a theory based on the publications of its proponent David Stampe in 1969 and (more explicitly) in 1979. In this view, phonology is based on a set of universal phonological processes which interact with one another; which ones are active and which are suppressed are language-specific. Rather than acting on segments, phonological processes act on distinctive features within prosodic groups. Prosodic groups can be as small as a part of a syllable or as large as an entire utterance. Phonological processes are unordered with respect to each other and apply simultaneously (though the output of one process may be the input to another). The second-most prominent Natural Phonologist is Stampe's wife, Patricia Donegan; there are many Natural Phonologists in Europe, though also a few others in the U.S., such as Geoffrey Nathan. The principles of Natural Phonology were extended to morphology by Wolfgang U. Dressler, who founded Natural Morphology. In 1976 John Goldsmith introduced autosegmental phonology. Phonological phenomena are no longer seen as operating on one linear sequence of segments, called phonemes or feature combinations, but rather as involving some parallel sequences of features which reside on multiple tiers. Autosegmental phonology later evolved into Feature Geometry, which became the standard theory of representation for the theories of the organization of phonology as different as Lexical Phonology and Optimality Theory. Government Phonology, which originated in the early 1980s as an attempt to unify theoretical notions of syntactic and phonological structures, is based on the notion that all languages necessarily follow a small set of principles and vary according to their selection of certain binary parameters. That is, all languages' phonological structures are essentially the same, but there is restricted variation that accounts for differences in surface realizations. Principles are held to be inviolable, though parameters may sometimes come into conflict. Prominent figures include Jonathan Kaye, Jean Lowenstamm, Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Monik Charette, John Harris, and many others. In a course at the LSA summer institute in 1991, Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky developed Optimality Theory an overall architecture for phonology according to which languages choose a pronunciation of a word that best satisfies a list of constraints which is ordered by importance: a lower-ranked constraint can be violated when the violation is necessary in order to obey a higher-ranked constraint. The approach was soon extended to morphology by John McCarthy and Alan Prince, and has become the dominant trend in phonology. Though this usually goes unacknowledged, Optimality Theory was strongly influenced by Natural Phonology; both view phonology in terms of constraints on speakers and their production, though these constraints are formalized in very different ways. Broadly speaking government phonology (or its descendant, strict-CV phonology) has a greater following in the United Kingdom, whereas optimality theory is predominant in North America.
27
Phonology
28
Notes
[1] Lass, Roger (1998. Digitized 2000), Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=aTsAt3D6H58C& printsec=frontcover& dq=phonology& hl=en& ei=eusoTdHBNZTovQPapKDgBA& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=3& ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage& q& f=false), Cambridge, UK; New York; Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press, p.1, ISBN0-521-23728-9, , retrieved 08 January 2011Paperback ISBN 0-521-28183-0 [2] Clark, John; Yallop, Colin; Fletcher, Janet (2007), An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=dX5P5mxtYYIC& printsec=frontcover& dq=introduction+ phonetics+ phonology& hl=en& ei=ZrsoTdKEGIn0vwPy3eHfBA& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=1& ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage& q& f=false) (3rd ed.), Massachusetts, USA; Oxford, UK; Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing, ISBN978-1-4051-3083-7, , retrieved 08 January 2011Alternative ISBN 1-4051-3083-0 [3] Carr, Philip (2003), English Phonetics and Phonology: An Introduction (http:/ / books. google. com/ books?id=p5a7mmpqbt0C& printsec=frontcover& dq=introduction+ phonetics+ phonology& hl=en& ei=wekoTdzTBoWgvQPkp6zgBA& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=2& ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage& q& f=false), Massachusetts, USA; Oxford, UK; Victoria, Australia; Berlin, Germany: Blackwell Publishing, ISBN0-631-19775-3, , retrieved 08 January 2011Paperback ISBN 0-631-19776-1 [4] Goldsmith 1995:1.
Bibliography
Anderson, John M.; and Ewen, Colin J. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloch, Bernard (1941). "Phonemic overlapping" (http://jstor.org/stable/486567). American Speech 16 (4): 278284. doi:10.2307/486567. Bloomfield, Leonard. (1933). Language. New York: H. Holt and Company. (Revised version of Bloomfield's 1914 An introduction to the study of language). Brentari, Diane (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (Eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy language (pp.91112). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Chomsky, Noam; and Halle, Morris. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Clements, George N. (1985). "The geometry of phonological features". Phonology Yearbook 2: 225252. Clements, George N.; and Samuel J. Keyser. (1983). CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Linguistic inquiry monographs (No. 9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-53047-3 (pbk); ISBN 0-262-03098-5 (hbk). de Lacy, Paul, ed. (2007), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology (http://books.google.com/ books?id=7sxLaeZAhOAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cambridge+Handbook+of+Phonology&hl=en& src=bmrr&ei=ifUoTbveJoi4vgOJzIzgBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1& ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false), Cambridge University Press, ISBN0-521-84879-2 (hbk), retrieved 08 January 2011 Donegan, Patricia. (1985). On the Natural Phonology of Vowels. New York: Garland. ISBN 0824054245. Firth, J. R. (1948). Sounds and prosodies. Transactions of the Philological Society 1948, 127-152. Gilbers, Dicky; de Hoop, Helen (1998). "Conflicting constraints: An introduction to optimality theory". Lingua 104: 112. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00021-1. Goldsmith, John A. (1979). The aims of autosegmental phonology. In D. A. Dinnsen (Ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory (pp.202222). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Goldsmith, John A. (1989). Autosegmental and metrical phonology: A new synthesis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Goldsmith, John A (1995). "Phonological Theory". In John A. Goldsmith. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Blackwell Publishers. ISBN1405157682. Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jacobs, Haike. "Understanding Phonology", Hodder & Arnold, 1998. 2nd edition 2005. Halle, Morris (1954). "The strategy of phonemics". Word 10: 197209. Halle, Morris. (1959). The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton. Harris, Zellig. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Phonology Hockett, Charles F. (1955). A manual of phonology. Indiana University publications in anthropology and linguistics, memoirs II. Baltimore: Waverley Press. Hooper, Joan B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press. Jakobson, Roman (1949). "On the identification of phonemic entities". Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5: 205213. Jakobson, Roman; Fant, Gunnar; and Halle, Morris. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kaisse, Ellen M.; and Shaw, Patricia A. (1985). On the theory of lexical phonology. In E. Colin and J. Anderson (Eds.), Phonology Yearbook 2 (pp.130). Kenstowicz, Michael. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ladefoged, Peter. (1982). A course in phonetics (2nd ed.). London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Martinet, Andr. (1949). Phonology as functional phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Martinet, Andr. (1955). conomie des changements phontiques: Trait de phonologie diachronique. Berne: A. Francke S.A. Napoli, Donna Jo (1996. Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Pike, Kenneth. (1947). Phonemics: A technique for reducing languages to writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sandler, Wendy and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Sapir, Edward (1925). "Sound patterns in language" (http://jstor.org/stable/409004). Language 1 (2): 3751. doi:10.2307/409004. Sapir, Edward (1933). "La ralit psychologique des phonmes". Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30: 247265. de Saussure, Ferdinand. (1916). Cours de linguistique gnrale. Paris: Payot. Stampe, David. (1979). A dissertation on natural phonology. New York: Garland. Swadesh, Morris (1934). "The phonemic principle" (http://jstor.org/stable/409603). Language 10 (2): 117129. doi:10.2307/409603. Trager, George L.; Bloch, Bernard (1941). "The syllabic phonemes of English" (http://jstor.org/stable/409203). Language 17 (3): 223246. doi:10.2307/409203. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. (1939). Grundzge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7. Twaddell, William F. (1935). On defining the phoneme. Language monograph no. 16. Language.
29
Some phonologists
Jan Baudouin de Courtenay Leonard Bloomfield Franz Boas Noam Chomsky George N. Clements Patricia Donegan John Rupert Firth John Goldsmith Mark Hale Morris Halle Bruce Hayes
Joan B. Hooper William Idsardi Roman Jakobson
Phonology Wyn Johnson Daniel Jones Jonathan Kaye Michael Kenstowicz Paul Kiparsky Mikoaj Kruszewski Jerzy Kuryowicz Andr Martinet John McCarthy David Odden Kenneth Pike Alan Prince Charles Reiss Jerzy Rubach Edward Sapir Ferdinand de Saussure Paul Smolensky
30
David Stampe Henry Sweet Nikolai Trubetzkoy
External links
Phonetics and phonology (http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/ Phonetics_and_Phonology//) at the Open Directory Project
Pragmatics
31
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, and linguistics.[1] It studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on.[2] In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.[1] The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. So an utterance describing pragmatic function is described as metapragmatic. Pragmatic awareness is regarded as one of the most challenging aspects of language learning, and comes only through experience.
Structural ambiguity
The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker, and their intent, it is not possible to infer the meaning with confidence. For example: It could mean you have green ambient lighting. Or that you have a green light to drive your car. Or it could be indicating that you can go ahead with the project. Or that your body has a green glow.
Similarly, the sentence "Sherlock saw the man with binoculars" could mean that Sherlock observed the man by using binoculars; or it could mean that Sherlock observed a man who was holding binoculars.[3] The meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the context and the speaker's intent. As defined in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract entity a string of words divorced from non-linguistic context as opposed to an utterance, which is a concrete example of a speech act in a specific context. The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that sentences do not have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea. The cat sat on the mat is a sentence of English; if you say to your sister on Tuesday afternoon: "The cat sat on the mat", this is an example of an utterance. Thus, there is no such thing as a sentence, term, expression or word symbolically representing a single true meaning; it is underspecified (which cat sat on which mat?) and potentially ambiguous. The meaning of an utterance, on the other hand, is inferred based on linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the non-linguistic context of the utterance (which may or may not be sufficient to resolve ambiguity). In mathematics with Berry's paradox there arose a systematic ambiguity with the word "definable". The ambiguity with words shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited.
Origins
Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist linguistics as outlined by Ferdinand de Saussure. In many cases, it expanded upon his idea that language has an analyzable structure, composed of parts that can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics first engaged only in synchronic study, as opposed to examining the historical development of language. However, it rejected the notion that all meaning comes from signs existing purely in the abstract space of langue. Meanwhile, historical pragmatics has also come into being.
Pragmatics
32
Areas of interest
The study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing on the phonetic or grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what the speaker's intentions and beliefs are. The study of the meaning in context, and the influence that a given context can have on the message. It requires knowledge of the speaker's identities, and the place and time of the utterance. The study of implicatures, i.e. the things that are communicated even though they are not explicitly expressed. The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order to understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said. The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning, i.e. that which is unsaid and unintended, or unintentional. Information Structure, the study of how utterances are marked in order to efficiently manage the common ground of referred entities between speaker and hearer Formal Pragmatics, the study of those aspects of meaning and use, for which context of use is an important factor, by using the methods and goals of formal semantics.
Referential uses of language

When we speak of the referential uses of language we are talking about how we use signs to refer to certain items. Below is an explanation of, first, what a sign is, second, how meanings are accomplished through its usage. A sign is the link or relationship between a signified and the signifier as defined by Saussure and Huguenin. The signified is some entity or concept in the world. The signifier represents the signified. An example would be: Signified: the concept cat Signifier: the word "cat" The relationship between the two gives the sign meaning. This relationship can be further explained by considering what we mean by "meaning." In pragmatics, there are two different types of meaning to consider: semantico-referential meaning and indexical meaning. Semantico-referential meaning refers to the aspect of meaning, which describes events in the world that are independent of the circumstance they are uttered in. An example would be propositions such as: "Santa Claus eats cookies." In this case, the proposition is describing that Santa Claus eats cookies. The meaning of this proposition does not rely on whether or not Santa Claus is eating cookies at the time of its utterance. Santa Claus could be eating cookies at any time and the meaning of the proposition would remain the same. The meaning is simply describing something that is the case in the world. In contrast, the proposition, "Santa Claus is eating a cookie right now," describes events that are happening at the time the proposition is uttered. Semantico-referential meaning is also present in meta-semantical statements such as: Tiger: omnivorous, a mammal If someone were to say that a tiger is an omnivorous animal in one context and a mammal in another, the definition of tiger would still be the same. The meaning of the sign tiger is describing some animal in the world, which does not change in either circumstance. Indexical meaning, on the other hand, is dependent on the context of the utterance and has rules of use. By rules of use, it is meant that indexicals can tell you when they are used, but not what they actually mean. Example: "I" Whom "I" refers to depends on the context and the person uttering it. As mentioned, these meanings are brought about through the relationship between the signified and the signifier. One way to define the relationship is by placing signs in two categories: referential indexical signs, also called
Pragmatics "shifters," and pure indexical signs. Referential indexical signs are signs where the meaning shifts depending on the context hence the nickname "shifters." 'I' would be considered a referential indexical sign. The referential aspect of its meaning would be '1st person singular' while the indexical aspect would be the person who is speaking (refer above for definitions of semantico-referential and indexical meaning). Another example would be: "This" Referential: singular count Indexical: Close by A pure indexical sign does not contribute to the meaning of the propositions at all. It is an example of a ""non-referential use of language."" A second way to define the signified and signifier relationship is C.S. Peirce's Peircean Trichotomy. The components of the trichotomy are the following: 1. Icon: the signified resembles the signifier (signified: a dog's barking noise, signifier: bow-wow) 2. Index: the signified and signifier are linked by proximity or the signifier has meaning only because it is pointing to the signified 3. Symbol: the signified and signifier are arbitrarily linked (signified: a cat, signifier: the word cat) These relationships allow us to use signs to convey what we want to say. If two people were in a room and one of them wanted to refer to a characteristic of a chair in the room he would say "this chair has four legs" instead of "a chair has four legs." The former relies on context (indexical and referential meaning) by referring to a chair specifically in the room at that moment while the latter is independent of the context (semantico-referential meaning), meaning the concept chair.
33
Non-referential uses of language

Silverstein's "pure" indexes
Michael Silverstein has argued that "nonreferential" or "pure" indexes do not contribute to an utterance's referential meaning but instead "signal some particular value of one or more contextual variables."[4] Although nonreferential indexes are devoid of semantico-referential meaning, they do encode "pragmatic" meaning. The sorts of contexts that such indexes can mark are varied. Examples include: Sex indexes are affixes or inflections that index the sex of the speaker, e.g. the verb forms of female Koasati speakers take the suffix "-s". Deference indexes are words that signal social differences (usually related to status or age) between the speaker and the addressee. The most common example of a deference index is the V form in a language with a T-V distinction, the widespread phenomenon in which there are multiple second-person pronouns that correspond to the addressee's relative status or familiarity to the speaker. Honorifics are another common form of deference index and demonstrate the speaker's respect or esteem for the addressee via special forms of address and/or self-humbling first-person pronouns. An Affinal taboo index is an example of avoidance speech and produces and reinforces sociological distance, as seen in the Aboriginal Dyirbal language of Australia. In this language and some others, there is a social taboo against the use of the everyday lexicon in the presence of certain relatives (mother-in-law, child-in-law, paternal aunt's child, and maternal uncle's child). If any of those relatives are present, a Dyirbal speaker has to switch to a completely separate lexicon reserved for that purpose. In all of these cases, the semantico-referential meaning of the utterances is unchanged from that of the other possible (but often impermissible) forms, but the pragmatic meaning is vastly different.
Pragmatics
34
The performative
Main articles: Performative utterance, Speech act theory J.L. Austin introduced the concept of the performative, contrasted in his writing with "constative" (i.e. descriptive) utterances. According to Austin's original formulation, a performative is a type of utterance characterized by two distinctive features: It is not truth-evaluable (i.e. it is neither true nor false) Its uttering performs an action rather than simply describing one However, a performative utterance must also conform to a set of felicity conditions. Examples: "I hereby pronounce you man and wife." "I accept your apology." "This meeting is now adjourned."
Jakobson's six functions of language

Roman Jakobson, expanding on the work of Karl Bhler, described six "constitutive factors" of a speech event, each of which represents the privileging of a corresponding function, and only one of which is the referential (which corresponds to the context of the speech event). The six constitutive factors and their corresponding functions are diagrammed below. The six constitutive factors of a speech event Context Message Addresser---------------------Addressee Contact Code The six functions of language Referential Poetic Emotive-----------------------Conative Phatic Metalingual The Referential Function corresponds to the factor of Context and describes a situation, object or mental state. The descriptive statements of the referential function can consist of both definite descriptions and deictic words, e.g. "The autumn leaves have all fallen now." The Expressive (alternatively called "emotive" or "affective") Function relates to the Addresser and is best exemplified by interjections and other sound changes that do not alter the denotative meaning of an utterance but do add information about the Addresser's (speaker's) internal state, e.g. "Wow, what a view!" The Conative Function engages the Addressee directly and is best illustrated by vocatives and imperatives, e.g. "Tom! Come inside and eat!" The Poetic Function focuses on "the message for its own sake"[6] and is the operative function in poetry as well as slogans.
The six factors of an effective verbal communication. To each one corresponds a communication function (not displayed in this [5] picture).
Pragmatics The Phatic Function is language for the sake of interaction and is therefore associated with the Contact factor. The Phatic Function can be observed in greetings and casual discussions of the weather, particularly with strangers. The Metalingual (alternatively called "metalinguistic" or "reflexive") Function is the use of language (what Jakobson calls "Code") to discuss or describe itself.
35
Related fields
There is considerable overlap between pragmatics and sociolinguistics, since both share an interest in linguistic meaning as determined by usage in a speech community. However, sociolinguists tend to be more interested in variations in language within such communities. Pragmatics helps anthropologists relate elements of language to broader social phenomena; it thus pervades the field of linguistic anthropology. Because pragmatics describes generally the forces in play for a given utterance, it includes the study of power, gender, race, identity, and their interactions with individual speech acts. For example, the study of code switching directly relates to pragmatics, since a switch in code effects a shift in pragmatic force.[6] According to Charles W. Morris, pragmatics tries to understand the relationship between signs and their users, while semantics tends to focus on the actual objects or ideas to which a word refers, and syntax (or "syntactics") examines relationships among signs or symbols. Semantics is the literal meaning of an idea whereas pragmatics is the implied meaning of the given idea. Speech Act Theory, pioneered by J.L. Austin and further developed by John Searle, centers around the idea of the performative, a type of utterance that performs the very action it describes. Speech Act Theory's examination of Illocutionary Acts has many of the same goals as pragmatics, as outlined above.
Pragmatics in philosophy
Pragmatics (more specifically, Speech Act Theory's notion of the performative) underpins Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity. In Gender Trouble, she claims that gender and sex are not natural categories, but socially constructed roles produced by "reiterative acting." In Excitable Speech she extends her theory of performativity to hate speech and censorship, arguing that censorship necessarily strengthens any discourse it tries to suppress and therefore, since the state has sole power to define hate speech legally, it is the state that makes hate speech performative. Jaques Derrida remarked that some work done under Pragmatics aligned well with the program he outlined in his book Of Grammatology. mile Benveniste argued that the pronouns "I" and "you" are fundamentally distinct from other pronouns because of their role in creating the subject. Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari discuss linguistic pragmatics in the fourth chapter of A Thousand Plateaus ("November 20, 1923--Postulates of Linguistics"). They draw three conclusions from Austin: (1) A performative utterance does not communicate information about an act second-handit is the act; (2) Every aspect of language ("semantics, syntactics, or even phonematics") functionally interacts with pragmatics; (3) There is no distinction between language and speech. This last conclusion attempts to refute Saussure's division between langue and parole and Chomsky's distinction between surface structure and deep structure simultaneously. [7]
Pragmatics
36
Significant works
J. L. Austin's How To Do Things With Words Paul Grice's cooperative principle and conversational maxims Brown & Levinson's Politeness Theory Geoffrey Leech's politeness maxims Levinson's Presumptive Meanings Jrgen Habermas's universal pragmatics Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson's relevance theory
Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001). Shaozhong, Liu. "What is pragmatics?" (http:/ / www. gxnu. edu. cn/ Personal/ szliu/ definition. html). . Retrieved 18 March 2009. http:/ / ocw. mit. edu/ OcwWeb/ Linguistics-and-Philosophy/ 24-903Spring-2005/ CourseHome/ Silverstein 1976 Middleton, Richard (1990/2002). Studying Popular Music, p. 241. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 0335152759. Duranti 1997 Deleuze, Gilles and Flix Guattari (1987) [1980]. A Thousand Plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things With Words. Oxford University Press. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. (1978) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press. Carston, Robyn (2002) Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Clark, Herbert H. (1996) "Using Language". Cambridge University Press. Cole, Peter, ed.. (1978) Pragmatics. (Syntax and Semantics, 9). New York: Academic Press. Dijk, Teun A. van. (1977) Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman. Grice, H. Paul. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. (2005) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell. Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press. Lin, G. H. C. (2007). The significant of pragmatics. Mingdao Journal, Vol, 3, 91-102 ERIC Collection as ED503682 <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/42/c1/95.pdf> Mey, Jacob L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell (2nd ed. 2001). Kepa Korta and John Perry. (2006) Pragmatics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatics/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Potts, Christopher. (2005) The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. (2005) Pragmatics (http://www.dan.sperber.com/pragmatics.htm). In F. Jackson and M. Smith (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP, Oxford, 468-501. (Also available here (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/deirdre/papers/Pragmatics2005.doc).) Thomas, Jenny (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman. Verschueren, Jef. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York: Arnold Publishers.
Pragmatics Verschueren, Jef, Jan-Ola stman, Jan Blommaert, eds. (1995) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Helmick Beavin and Don D. Jackson (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: Norton. Wierzbicka, Anna (1991) Cross-cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics (Oxford Introductions to Language Study). Oxford University Press. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. "Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description," in Meaning and Anthropology, Basso and Selby, eds. New York: Harper & Row Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2006). "An Introduction to Sociolinguistics". Blackwell. Duranti, Alessandro. (1997). "Linguistic Anthropology". Cambridge University Press. Carbaugh, Donal. (1990). "Cultural Communication and Intercultural Contact." LEA. Mira Ariel (2010). Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN9780521732031.
37
External links
Journal of Pragmatics (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505593/ description#description), An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies Liu, Shaozhong, "What is Pragmatics?", Eprint (http://www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu/definition.html) Dan Sperber discusses Pragmatics (http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/LanguageInAction.html) from Philosophy Talk Radio Program (http://www.philosophytalk.org) wiki project in comparative pragmatics: European Communicative Strategies (ECSTRA) (http://www1. ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/mediawiki/index.php/ELiX_Wiki:Projects/ECSTRA) (directed by Joachim Grzega)
38
Learning Theories
Behaviorism
Behaviorism (or behaviourism), also called the learning perspective (where any physical action is a behavior), is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition that all things that organisms doincluding acting, thinking and feelingcan and should be regarded as behaviors.[1] The behaviorist school of thought maintains that behaviors as such can be described scientifically without recourse either to internal physiological events or to hypothetical constructs such as the mind.[2] Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories should have observational correlates but that there are no philosophical differences between publicly observable processes (such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as thinking and feeling).[3] From early psychology in the 19th century, the behaviorist school of thought ran concurrently and shared commonalities with the psychoanalytic and Gestalt movements in psychology into the 20th century; but also differed from the mental philosophy of the Gestalt psychologists in critical ways. Its main influences were Ivan Pavlov, who investigated classical conditioning although he did not necessarily agree with Behaviorism or Behaviorists, Edward Lee Thorndike, John B. Watson who rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology to experimental methods, and B.F. Skinner who conducted research on operant conditioning.[3] In the second half of the 20th century, behaviorism was largely eclipsed as a result of the cognitive revolution.[4] [5] While behaviorism and cognitive schools of psychological thought may not agree theoretically, they have complemented each other in practical therapeutic applications, such as in cognitivebehavioral therapy that has demonstrable utility in treating certain pathologies, such as simple phobias, PTSD, and addiction. In addition, behaviorism sought to create a comprehensive model of the stream of behavior from the birth of the human to his death (see Behavior analysis of child development).
Versions
There is no generally agreed-upon classification, but some titles have been given to the various branches of behaviorism and they include: Methodological: The behaviorism of Watson; the objective study of behavior; no mental life, no internal states; thought is covert speech. Radical: Skinner's behaviorism; is considered radical since it expands behavioral principles to processes within the organism; in contrast to methodological behaviorism; not mechanistic or reductionistic; hypothetical (mentalistic) internal states are not considered causes of behavior, phenomena must be observable at least to the individual experiencing them. Willard Van Orman Quine used many of radical behaviorism's ideas in his study of knowing and language. Teleological: Post-Skinnerian, purposive, close to microeconomics. Focuses on objective observation as opposed to cognitive processes. Theoretical: Post-Skinnerian, accepts observable internal states ("within the skin" once meant "unobservable", but with modern technology we are not so constrained); dynamic, but eclectic in choice of theoretical structures, emphasizes parsimony. Biological: Post-Skinnerian, centered on perceptual and motor modules of behavior, theory of behavior systems. Psychological behaviorism: Arthur W. Staats' unifying approach to behaviorism and psychology. He merges psychological concepts like "personality" within a behavioral model like BBR Basic Behavioral Repertoires. Two subtypes are:
Behaviorism Hullian and post-Hullian: theoretical, group data, not dynamic, physiological; Purposive: Tolman's behavioristic anticipation of cognitive psychology
39
Definition
B.F. Skinner was influential in defining radical behaviorism, a philosophy codifying the basis of his school of research (named the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, or EAB.) While EAB differs from other approaches to behavioral research on numerous methodological and theoretical points, radical behaviorism departs from methodological behaviorism most notably in accepting feelings, states of mind and introspection as existent and scientifically treatable. This is done by identifying them as something non-dualistic, and here Skinner takes a divide-and-conquer approach, with some instances being identified with bodily conditions or behavior, and others getting a more extended "analysis" in terms of behavior. However, radical behaviorism stops short of identifying feelings as causes of behavior.[1] Among other points of difference were a rejection of the reflex as a model of all behavior and a defense of a science of behavior complementary to but independent of physiology. Radical behaviorism has considerable overlap with other western philosophical positions such as American pragmatism.[6]
Experimental and conceptual innovations

This essentially philosophical position gained strength from the success of Skinner's early experimental work with rats and pigeons, summarized in his books The Behavior of Organisms[7] and Schedules of Reinforcement.[8] Of particular importance was his concept of the operant response, of which the canonical example was the rat's lever-press. In contrast with the idea of a physiological or reflex response, an operant is a class of structurally distinct but functionally equivalent responses. For example, while a rat might press a lever with its left paw or its right paw or its tail, all of these responses operate on the world in the same way and have a common consequence. Operants are often thought of as species of responses, where the individuals differ but the class coheres in its function-shared consequences with operants and reproductive success with species. This is a clear distinction between Skinner's theory and SR theory. Skinner's empirical work expanded on earlier research on trial-and-error learning by researchers such as Thorndike and Guthrie with both conceptual reformulationsThorndike's notion of a stimulusresponse "association" or "connection" was abandoned; and methodological onesthe use of the "free operant", so called because the animal was now permitted to respond at its own rate rather than in a series of trials determined by the experimenter procedures. With this method, Skinner carried out substantial experimental work on the effects of different schedules and rates of reinforcement on the rates of operant responses made by rats and pigeons. He achieved remarkable success in training animals to perform unexpected responses, and to emit large numbers of responses, and to demonstrate many empirical regularities at the purely behavioral level. This lent some credibility to his conceptual analysis. It is largely his conceptual analysis that made his work much more rigorous than his peers, a point which can be seen clearly in his seminal work Are Theories of Learning Necessary? in which he criticizes what he viewed to be theoretical weaknesses then common in the study of psychology. An important descendant of the experimental analysis of behavior is the Society for Quantatative Analysis of Behavior.[9]
Relation to language
As Skinner turned from experimental work to concentrate on the philosophical underpinnings of a science of behavior, his attention turned to human language with Verbal Behavior[10] and other language-related publications;[11] Verbal Behavior laid out a vocabulary and theory for functional analysis of verbal behavior, and was strongly criticized in a review by Noam Chomsky.[12] Skinner did not respond in detail but claimed that Chomsky failed to understand his ideas,[13] and the disagreements between the two and the theories involved have been further discussed.[14] [15] In addition; innate theory is opposed to behaviorist theory which claims that language is a set of habits that can be acquired by means of conditioning. According to some, this process that the behaviorists
Behaviorism define is a very slow and gentle process to explain a phenomenon complicated as language learning. What was important for a behaviorist's analysis of human behavior was not language acquisition so much as the interaction between language and overt behavior. In an essay republished in his 1969 book Contingencies of Reinforcement,[16] Skinner took the view that humans could construct linguistic stimuli that would then acquire control over their behavior in the same way that external stimuli could. The possibility of such "instructional control" over behavior meant that contingencies of reinforcement would not always produce the same effects on human behavior as they reliably do in other animals. The focus of a radical behaviorist analysis of human behavior therefore shifted to an attempt to understand the interaction between instructional control and contingency control, and also to understand the behavioral processes that determine what instructions are constructed and what control they acquire over behavior. Recently a new line of behavioral research on language was started under the name of Relational Frame Theory.
40
Molar versus molecular behaviorism

Skinner's view of behavior is most often characterized as a "molecular" view of behavior; that is, behavior can be decomposed into atomistic parts or molecules. This view is inconsistent with Skinner's complete description of behavior as delineated in other works, including his 1981 article "Selection by Consequences".[17] Skinner proposed that a complete account of behavior requires understanding of selection history at three levels: biology (the natural selection or phylogeny of the animal); behavior (the reinforcement history or ontogeny of the behavioral repertoire of the animal); and for some species, culture (the cultural practices of the social group to which the animal belongs). This whole organism then interacts with its environment. Molecular behaviorists use notions from melioration theory, negative power function discounting or additive versions of negative power function discounting.[18] Molar behaviorists, such as Howard Rachlin, Richard Herrnstein, and William Baum, argue that behavior cannot be understood by focusing on events in the moment. That is, they argue that behavior is best understood as the ultimate product of an organism's history and that molecular behaviorists are committing a fallacy by inventing fictitious proximal causes for behavior. Molar behaviorists argue that standard molecular constructs, such as "associative strength", are better replaced by molar variables such as rate of reinforcement.[19] Thus, a molar behaviorist would describe "loving someone" as a pattern of loving behavior over time; there is no isolated, proximal cause of loving behavior, only a history of behaviors (of which the current behavior might be an example) that can be summarized as "love".
Behaviorism in philosophy
Behaviorism is a psychological movement that can be contrasted with philosophy of mind. The basic premise of radical behaviorism is that the study of behavior should be a natural science, such as chemistry or physics, without any reference to hypothetical inner states of organisms as causes for their behavior. A modern example of such analysis would be Fantino and colleagues' work on behavioral approaches to reasoning.[20] Other varieties, such as theoretical behaviorism, permit internal states, but do not require them to be mental or have any relation to subjective experience. Behaviorism takes a functional view of behavior. There are points of view within philosophy of language and analytic philosophy that have called themselves, or have been called by others, behaviorist. When language is investigated, life forms will be involved. Linguistical behavior is the 'intelligent design' of nature. It is sometimes argued that Ludwig Wittgenstein, defended a behaviorist position (e.g., the beetle in a box argument), but while there are important relations between his thought and behaviorism, the claim that he was a behaviorist is quite controversial. Mathematician Alan Turing is also sometimes considered a behaviorist, but he himself did not make this identification. In logical behaviorism (as held, e.g., by Rudolf Carnap and Carl Hempel), the meaning of psychological statements are their verification conditions, which consist of performed overt behavior. W.V. Quine made use of a type of behaviorism, influenced by some of Skinner's ideas, in his own work on language. Gilbert Ryle defended a distinct strain of philosophical behaviorism, sketched in his book
Behaviorism The Concept of Mind. Ryle's central claim was that instances of dualism frequently represented "category mistakes", and hence that they were really misunderstandings of the use of ordinary language. Daniel Dennett likewise acknowledges himself to be a type of behaviorist.[21] , though he offers extensive criticism of radical behaviorism and refutes Skinner's rejection of the value of intentional idioms and the possibility of free will. (see "Skinner Skinned" in Brainstorms)
41
21st century behavior analysis

As of 2007, modern-day behaviorism, known as "behavior analysis", is a thriving field. The Association for Behavior Analysis: International (ABAI) currently has 32 state and regional chapters within the United States. Approximately 30 additional chapters have also developed throughout Europe, Asia, South America, and Australia. In addition to 34 annual conferences held by ABAI in the United States and Canada, ABAI held the 5th annual International conference in Norway in 2009. The interests among behavior analysts today are wide ranging, as a review of the 30 Special Interest Groups (SIGs) within ABAI indicates. Such interests include everything from developmental disabilities and autism, to cultural psychology, clinical psychology, verbal behavior, Organizational Behavior Management (OBM; behavior analytic I/O psychology). OBM has developed a particularly strong following within behavior analysis, as evidenced by the formation of the OBM Network and the influential Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM; recently rated the 3rd highest impact journal in applied psychology by ISI JOBM rating). Modern behavior analysis has also witnessed a massive resurgence in research and applications related to language and cognition, with the development of Relational Frame Theory (RFT; described as a "Post-Skinnerian account of language and cognition").[22] RFT also forms the empirical basis for the highly successful and data-driven Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). In fact, researchers and practitioners in RFT/ACT have become sufficiently prominent that they have formed their own specialized organization, known as the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS). Some of the current prominent behavior analytic journals include the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB) JEAB website, the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), Behavior and Social Issues (BSI), as well as the Psychological Record. Currently, the U.S. has 14 ABAI accredited MA and PhD programs for comprehensive study in behavior analysis.
Behavior analysis and culture

Cultural analysis has always been at the philosophical core of radical behaviorism from the early days (As seen in Skinner's Walden Two, Science & Human Behavior, Beyond Freedom & Dignity, and About Behaviorism.) During the 1980s, behavior analysts, most notably Sigrid Glenn, had a productive interchange with cultural anthropologist Marvin Harris (the most notable proponent of "Cultural Materialism") regarding interdisciplinary work. Very recently, behavior analysts have produced a set of basic exploratory experiments in an effort toward this end.[23]
Behaviorism
42
List of notable behaviorists

Alan E. Kazdin Albert Bandura Edwin Ray Guthrie Richard J. Herrnstein Clark L. Hull Ivan Pavlov B.F. Skinner Edward Lee Thorndike Edward C. Tolman Murray Sidman John B. Watson Ole Ivar Lovaas Steven C. Hayes Donald Baer
Notes
[1] Skinner, B.F. (16 April 1984). "The operational analysis of psychological terms" (http:/ / cat. inist. fr/ ?aModele=afficheN& cpsidt=9212556). Behavioral and brain sciences (Print) 7 (4): 547581. . Retrieved 2008-01-10. [2] Baum, William M. (1994). Understanding behaviorism: science, behavior, and culture. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers. ISBN0-06-500286-5. [3] Fraley, LF (2001). "Strategic interdisciplinary relations between a natural science community and a psychology community" (http:/ / www. baojournal. com) (pdf). The Behavior Analyst Today 2 (4): 209324. . Retrieved 2008-01-10. [4] Friesen, N. (2005). Mind and Machine: Ethical and Epistemological Implications for Research. Thompson Rivers University, B.C., Canada. [5] Waldrop, M.M. (2002). The Dream Machine: JCR Licklider and the revolution that made computing personal. New York: Penguin Books. (pp. 139140). [6] Moxley, RA (2004). "Pragmatic selectionism: The philosophy of behavior analysis" (http:/ / www. baojournal. com) (pdf). The Behavior Analyst Today 5 (1): 108125. . Retrieved 2008-01-10. [7] Skinner, B.F. (1991). The Behavior of Organisms. Copley Pub Group. p.473. ISBN0-87411-487-X. [8] Cheney, Carl D.; Ferster, Charles B. (1997). Schedules of Reinforcement (B.F. Skinner Reprint Series). Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group. p.758. ISBN0-87411-828-X. [9] Commons, ML (2001). "A short history of the Society for the Quantitative Analysis of Behavior" (http:/ / www. baojournal. com) (pdf). Behavior Analyst Today 2 (3): 275279. . Retrieved 2008-01-10. [10] Skinner, Burrhus Frederick (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, Massachusetts: Copley Publishing Group. ISBN1-58390-021-7. [11] Skinner, B.F. (1969). An operant analysis of problem-solving. pp. 133157.; chapter in Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts. p.283. ISBN0-13-171728-6. [12] Chomsky, Noam; Skinner, B.F. (1959). "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior" (http:/ / www. chomsky. info/ articles/ 1967----. htm). Language 35 (35): 2658. doi:10.2307/411334. JSTOR411334. . [13] Skinner, B.F. (1972). "I Have Been Misunderstood.". Center Magazine (MarchApril): 63. [14] MacCorquodale, K. (1970). "On Chomsky's Review of Skinner's VERBAL BEHAVIOR" (https:/ / www. behavior. org/ computer-modeling/ maccorquodale/ maccorquodale2. cfm). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 13 (1): 8399. doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.13-83. . Retrieved 2008-01-10. [15] Stemmer N (1990). "Skinner's verbal behavior, Chomsky's review, and mentalism". J Exp Anal Behav 54 (3): 30715. doi:10.1901/jeab.1990.54-307. PMC1323000. PMID2103585. [16] Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts. p.283. ISBN0-13-171728-6. [17] Skinner, B.F (31 July 1981). "Selection by Consequences" (http:/ / www. psychology. uiowa. edu/ Classes/ 31174/ Documents/ Selection by Consequences. pdf). Science 213 (4507): 501504. doi:10.1126/science.7244649. PMID7244649. . Retrieved 14 August 2010. [18] Fantino E (2000). "Delay-reduction theorythe case for temporal context: comment on Grace and Savastano (2000)". J Exp Psychol Gen 129 (4): 4446. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.444. PMID11142857. [19] Baum, W.M. (2003). "The molar view of behavior and its usefulness in behavior analysis" (http:/ / www. doaj. org/ doaj?func=abstract& id=206927). Behavior Analyst Today 4: 7881. . Retrieved 2008-01-10. [20] Fantino, E.; Stolarz-Fantino, S.; Navarro, A. (2003). "Logical fallacies: A behavioral approach to reasoning" (http:/ / www. doaj. org/ doaj?func=abstract& id=207433). The Behavior Analyst Today 4: 10917. . Retrieved 2008-01-10.
Behaviorism
[21] Dennett, DC. "The Message is: There is no Medium" (http:/ / ase. tufts. edu/ cogstud/ papers/ msgisno. htm). Tufts University. . Retrieved 2008-01-10. [22] Hayes, S.C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001) Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Kluwer Academic: New York. [23] Ward, Todd.A.; Eastman, Raymond; Ninness, Chris (2009). "An Experimental Analysis of Cultural Materialism: The Effects of Various Modes of Production on Resource Sharing" (http:/ / www. uic. edu/ htbin/ cgiwrap/ bin/ ojs/ index. php/ bsi/ article/ view/ 1950/ 2185). Behavior and Social Issues 18: 123. .
43
Further reading
Baum, W.M. (2005) Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, Culture and Evolution. Blackwell. Ferster, C.B., and Skinner, B.F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Mills, John A., Control: A History of Behavioral Psychology, Paperback Edition, New York University Press 2000. Lattal, K.A. and Chase, P.N. (2003) "Behavior Theory and Philosophy". Plenum. Plotnik, Rod. (2005) Introduction to Psychology. Thomson-Wadsworth (ISBN 0-534-63407-9). Rachlin, H. (1991) Introduction to modern behaviorism. (3rd edition.) New York: Freeman. Skinner, B.F., Beyond Freedom & Dignity, Hackett Publishing Co, Inc 2002. Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B.F. (1945). "The operational analysis of psychological terms". Psychological Review 52 (270277): 290294. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior (ISBN 0-02-929040-6) Online version (http://www. bfskinner.org/f/Science_and_Human_Behavior.pdf). Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Skinner, B.F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: a theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B.F. (31 July 1981). "Selection by Consequences" (http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Classes/ 31174/Documents/Selection by Consequences.pdf). Science 213 (4507): 501504. doi:10.1126/science.7244649. PMID7244649. Retrieved 14 August 2010. Staddon, J. (2001) The new behaviorism: Mind, mechanism and society. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. pp. xiii, 1211. Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158177. ( on-line (http:/ /psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/views.htm)). Watson, J.B. (1919). Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist. Watson, J.B. (1924). Behaviorism. Zuriff, G.E. (1985). Behaviorism: A Conceptual Reconstruction (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o& d=86092256), Columbia University Press. LeClaire, J. and Rushin, J.P. (2010) Behavioral Analytics For Dummies. Wiley. (ISBN 978-0-470-58727-0).
Behaviorism
44
External links
Behaviorism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism) entry by George Graham in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Dictionary of the History of Ideas: (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-30) Behaviorism Books and Journal Articles On Behaviorism (http://www.questia.com/library/psychology/ other-types-of-psychology/behaviorism.jsp) Wuerzburg University: behaviourism (http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/genetics/behavior/learning/ behaviorism.html) B.F. Skinner Foundation (http://www.bfskinner.org) Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (http://www.behavior.org) Skinner's Theories (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Theories) APA Behaviour Analysis (http://www.apa.org/divisions/div25/) Association for Behavior Analysis (http://www.abainternational.org/) Theory of Behavioral Anthropology (Documents No. 9 and 10 in English) (http://homepage.uibk.ac.at/ ~c720126/humanethologie/ws/medicus/block1/inhalt.html) California Association for Behavior Analysis (http://www.calaba.org) Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (http://www.contextualpsychology.org)
Structural linguistics
Structural linguistics is an approach to linguistics originating from the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. De Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, published posthumously in 1916, stressed examining language as a static system of interconnected units. He is thus known as a father of modern linguistics for bringing about the shift from diachronic to synchronic analysis.[1] Philosopher Stephen Hicks[2] describes Structuralism as an outgrowth of European Kantianism, which must be considered in relation to Phenomenology: Neo-Kantianism evolved during the nineteenth century, and by the twentieth century two main forms had emerged. One form was Structuralism, of which Ferdinand de Saussure was a prominent exponent, representing the broadly rationalist wing of Kantianism. The other was Phenomenology, of which Edmund Husserl was a prominent representative, representing the broadly empiricist wing of Kantianism. Structuralism was a linguistic version of Kantianism, holding that language is a self-contained, non-referential system, and that the philosophical task was to seek out languages necessary and universal structural features, those features taken to underlie and be prior to the empirical, contingent features of language. Phenomenologys focus was upon careful examination of the contingent flow of the experiential given, avoiding any existential inferences or assumptions about what one experiences, and seeking simply to describe experience as neutrally and as clearly as possible. In effect, the Structuralists were seeking subjective noumenal categories, and the Phenomenologists were content with describing the phenomena without asking what connection to an external reality those experiences might have. Structural linguistics thus involves collecting a corpus of utterances and then attempting to classify all of the elements of the corpus at their different linguistic levels: the phonemes, morphemes, lexical categories, noun phrases, verb phrases, and sentence types.[3] One of Saussure's key methods was syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis that respectively define units syntactically and lexically, according to their contrast with the other units in the system.
Structural linguistics Structural linguistics is now overwhelmingly regarded by professional linguists as outdated and as superseded by developments such as cognitive linguistics and generative grammar: Jan Koster states, "Saussure, considered the most important linguist of the century in Europe until the 1950s, hardly plays a role in current theoretical thinking about language,"[4] while cognitive linguist Mark Turner[5] reports that many of Saussure's concepts were "wrong on a grand scale" and Norman N. Holland[6] notes that "Saussure's views are not held, so far as I know, by modern linguists, only by literary critics, Lacanians, and the occasional philosopher;" others have made similar observations.[7] [8]
45
History
Structural linguistics begins with the posthumous publication of Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics in 1916, which was compiled from lectures by his students. The book proved to be highly influential, providing the foundation for both modern linguistics and semiotics. After Saussure, the history of structural linguistics branches off in two directions. First, in America, linguist Leonard Bloomfield's reading of Saussure's course proved influential, bringing about the Bloomfieldean phase in American linguistics that lasted from the mid 1930s to the mid 1950s. Bloomfield "bracketed" all questions of semantics and meaning as largely unanswerable, and encouraged a mechanistic approach to linguistics. The paradigm of Bloomfieldean linguistics in American linguistics was replaced by the paradigm of generative grammar with the publication of Noam Chomsky's Syntactic Structures in 1957. Second, in Europe, Saussure influenced the Prague School of Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy, whose work would prove hugely influential, particularly concerning phonology, and the School of Louis Hjelmslev. Structural linguistics also had an influence on other disciplines in Europe, including anthropology, psychoanalysis and Marxism, bringing about the movement known as structuralism.
Basic theories and methods

The foundation of structural linguistics is a "sign," which in turn has two components: a "signified" is an idea or concept, while the "signifier" is a means of expressing the signified. The "sign" is thus the combined association of signifier and signified. Signs can be defined only in a state of contrast with other signs, in a manner that is either syntagmatic (i.e., syntax) or paradigmatic (i.e., as part of a related group). This idea contrasted drastically with the idea that signs can be examined in isolation from a language and stressed Saussure's point that linguistics must treat language synchronically. Paradigmatic relations are sets of units that exist in the mind, such as the phonological set cat, bat, hat, mat, fat, or the morphological set ran, run, running. The units of a set must have something in common with one another, but they must contrast too, otherwise they could not be distinguished from each other and would collapse into a single unit, which could not constitute a set on its own, since a set always consists of more than one unit. Syntagmatic relations are temporal and consist of a row of units that contrast with one another, like "the man hit the ball" or "the ball was hit by the man". What units can be used in each part of the row is determined by the units that surround them. There is therefore an interweaving effect between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. But whereas paradigms are always part of the langue (French for "Language;" or an abstract, Platonic ideal), syntagma can belong to parole ("everyday speech"), and so the linguist must determine how often they have been used before they can be assured that they belong to the latter. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations provide the structural linguist with a simple method of categorization for phonology, morphology and syntax. Take morphology, for example. The signs cat and cats are associated in the mind, producing an abstract paradigm of the word forms of cat. Comparing this with other paradigms of word forms, we can note that in the English language the plural often consists of little more than adding an S to the end of the word. Likewise, through paradigmatic and syntagmatic analysis, we can discover the syntax of sentences. For
Structural linguistics instance, contrasting the syntagma je dois ("I should") and dois je? ("Should I?") allows us to realize that in French we only have to invert the units to turn a sentence into a question. Saussure developed structural linguistics, with its idealized vision of language, partly because he was aware that it was impossible in his time to fully understand how the human brain and mind created and related to language: Saussure set out to model language in purely linguistic terms, free of psychology, sociology, or anthropology. That is, Saussure was trying precisely not to say what goes on in your or my mind when we understand a word or make up a sentence. [...] Saussure was trying to de-psychologize linguistics.[6]
46
Criticism
Linguist Noam Chomsky maintained that structural linguistics was efficient for phonology and morphology, because both have a finite number of units that the linguist can collect. However, he did not believe structural linguistics was sufficient for syntax, reasoning that an infinite number of sentences could be uttered, rendering a complete collection impossible. Instead, he proposed the job of the linguist was to create a small set of rules that could generate all the sentences of a language, and nothing but those sentences.[9] Chomsky's critiques led him to found generative grammar. One of Chomsky's key objection to structural linguistics was its inadequacy in explaining complex and/or ambiguous sentences. As Searle[3] writes: ..."John is easy to please" and "John is eager to please" look as if they had exactly the same grammatical structure. Each is a sequence of noun-copula-adjective-infinitive verb. But in spite of this surface similarity the grammar of the two is quite different. In the first sentence, though it is not apparent from the surface word order, "John" functions as the direct object of the verb to please; the sentence means: it is easy for someone to please John. Whereas in the second "John" functions as the subject of the verb to please; the sentence means: John is eager that he please someone. That this is a difference in the syntax of the sentences comes out clearly in the fact that English allows us to form the noun phrase "John's eagerness to please" out of the second, but not "John's easiness to please" out of the first. There is no easy or natural way to account for these facts within structuralist assumptions. By the latter half of the 20th century, many of Saussure's ideas were under heavy criticism. His linguistic ideas are now generally considered important in their time, but outdated and superseded by developments such as cognitive linguistics. In 1972, Chomsky described structural linguistics as an "impoverished and thoroughly inadequate conception of language,"[10] while in 1984, Marcus Mitchell declared that structural linguistics were "fundamentally inadequate to process the full range of natural language [and furthermore were] held by no current researchers, to my knowledge."[11] Holland[6] writes that it was widely accepted that Chomsky had "decisively refuted Saussure. [...] Much of Chomsky's work is not accepted by other linguists [and] I am not claiming that Chomsky is right, only that Chomsky has proven that Saussure is wrong. Linguists who reject Chomsky claim to be going beyond Chomsky, or they cling to phrase-structure grammars. They are not turning back to Saussure." In the 1950s as structural linguistics were fading in importance in linguistics, Saussure's ideas were appropriated by several prominent figures in continental philosophy, and from there were borrowed in literary theory, where they are used to interpret novels and other texts. However, several critics have charged that Saussure's ideas have been misunderstood or deliberately distorted by continental philosophers and literary theorists.[12] [13] For example, Searle[14] maintains that, in developing his deconstruction method, Jacques Derrida altered one of Saussure's key concepts: "The correct claim that the elements of the language only function as elements because of the differences they have from one another is converted into the false claim that the elements [...] are "constituted on" (Derrida) the traces of these other elements."
Structural linguistics
47
References
[1] Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, Open Court House. [2] Hicks, Stephen R.C. (2004). Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Tempe, AZ: Scholargy Press, ISBN 1-59274-646-5 P. 43-44. [3] John R. Searle, "Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics" (http:/ / www. chomsky. info/ onchomsky/ 19720629. htm), New York Review of Books, June 29, 1972. [4] Koster, Jan. (1996) "Saussure meets the brain", in R. Jonkers, E. Kaan, J. K. Wiegel, eds., Language and Cognition 5. Yearbook 1992 of the Research Group for Linguistic Theory and Knowledge Representation of the University of Groningen, Groningen, pp. 115-120. [5] Turner, Mark. 1987. Death is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. University of Chicago Press, p. 6. [6] Holland, Norman N. (1992) The Critical I, Columbia University Press, ISBN ISBN 0-231-07650-9 [7] Fabb, Nigel. (1988) Saussure and literary theory: from the perspective of linguistics. Critical Quarterly, Volume 30, Issue 2, pages 5872, June 1988. [8] Evans, Dylan. (2005) "From Lacan to Darwin", in The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative, eds. Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2005, pp.38-55. [9] Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics (http:/ / www. chomsky. info/ onchomsky/ 19720629. htm) [10] Chomsky, Noam. (1972) Language and Mind. Enlarged Ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, p. 20 [11] Marcus, Mitchell, (1984) "Some Inadequate Theories of Human Language Processing." Talking Minds: The Study of Language in Cognitive Science. Eds. Thomas G. Bever, John M. Carroll, and Lance A. Miller. Cambridge MA: MIT P, 1984. 253-77. [12] Tallis, Raymond. Not Saussure: A Critique of Post-Saussurean Literary Theory, Macmillan Press 1988, 2nd ed. 1995. [13] Tallis, Raymond. Theorrhoea and After, Macmillan, 1998. [14] Searle, John R. "Word Turned Upside Down." New York Review of Books, Volume 30, Number 16 October 27, 1983.
External links
The Structuralist Era (http://science.jrank.org/pages/9907/Language-Linguistics-Structuralist-Era.html)
Cognitive revolution
The cognitive revolution is the name for an intellectual movement in the 1950s that began what are known collectively as the cognitive sciences. It began in the modern context of greater interdisciplinary communication and research. The relevant areas of interchange were the combination of psychology, anthropology, and linguistics with approaches developed within the then-nascent fields of artificial intelligence, computer science, and neuroscience. A key idea in cognitive psychology was that by studying and developing successful functions in artificial intelligence and computer science, it becomes possible to make testable inferences about human mental processes. This has been called the reverse-engineering approach. Important publications in setting off the cognitive revolution include George A. Miller's 1956 Psychological Review article "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two"[1] (one of the most highly cited papers in psychology),[2] [3] [4] Donald Broadbent's 1958 book Perception and Communication,[5] Noam Chomsky's 1959 "Review of Verbal Behavior, by B.F. Skinner",[6] and "Elements of a Theory of Human Problem Solving" by Newell, Shaw, and Simon.[7] Ulric Neisser's 1967 book Cognitive Psychology[8] was a landmark contribution. By the early 1970s according to some accounts, the cognitive movement had all but "routed" behaviorism as a psychological paradigm,[9] [10] [11] and by the early 1980s the cognitive approach had become the dominant research line of inquiry in most psychology research fields.
48
Five major ideas from the cognitive revolution

In his book The Blank Slate (2002), psychologist Steven Pinker identified five key ideas that made up the cognitive revolution:[12] 1. "The mental world can be grounded in the physical world by the concepts of information, computation, and feedback."[12] 2. "The mind cannot be a blank slate because blank slates don't do anything."[13] 3. "An infinite range of behavior can be generated by finite combinatorial programs in the mind."[14] 4. "Universal mental mechanisms can underlie superficial variation across cultures."[15] 5. "The mind is a complex system composed of many interacting parts."[16]
Historical background
Response to behaviorism
The cognitive revolution in psychology took form as cognitive psychology, an approach in large part a response to behaviorism, the predominant school in scientific psychology at the time. Behaviorism was heavily influenced by Ivan Pavlov and E.L. Thorndike, and its most notable practitioners were John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, who proposed that psychology could only become an objective science were it based on observable behavior in test subjects. Behaviorists argued that because mental events are not publicly observable, psychologists should avoid description of mental processes or the mind in their theories. Cognitive psychologists argued in response that experimental investigation of mental states do allow scientists to produce theories that more reliably predict outcomes. This account of the "cognitive revolution" was challenged by Jerome Bruner who characterized it as: ...an all-out effort to establish meaning as the central concept of psychology []. It was not a revolution against behaviorism with the aim of transforming behaviorism into a better way of pursuing psychology by adding a little mentalism to it. [] Its aim was to discover and to describe formally the meanings that human beings created out of their encounters with the world, and then to propose hypotheses about what meaning-making processes were implicated. (Bruner, 1990, Acts of Meaning, p. 2) It should be noted however that behaviorism was to a large extent restricted to North America and the cognitive reactions were in large part a reimportation of European psychologies. George Mandler has described that evolutionary history.[17]
Criticism
Lachman, Lachman and Butterfield (1960) were one of the first to imply that cognitive psychology has a revolutionary origin. After this, proponents of information processing theory and later cognitivist believed that the rise of cognitivism constitutes a paradigm shift. Despite the belief many have stated both unwittingly and wittingly that cognitive psychology links to behaviorism. Bush (1974) said that cognitive scientists believe in a revolution because it provides them with an origin myth which constitutes a beginning that will help in legitimizing their science. Others have said that cognitivism is behaviorism with a new language, slightly bent model and new concerns which aim at description, prediction and control of behavior. It's obvious that the change from behaviorism to cognitivism was not a few days war which ended with the victorious cognitivist. Rather a slowly evolving science which took the origins of behaviorism and built on it.
49
Notes
[1] Miller, G. A. (1956). "The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information". Psychological Review 63 (2): 8197. doi:10.1037/h0043158. PMID13310704. ( pdf (http:/ / www. psych. utoronto. ca/ users/ peterson/ psy430s2001/ Miller GA Magical Seven Psych Review 1955. pdf)) [2] Gorenflo, Daniel W., McConnell, James V. (1991). "The Most Frequently Cited Journal Articles and Authors in Introductory Psychology Textbooks", Teaching of Psychology, 18: 8 12 [3] Kintsch W, Cacioppo JT.(1994). Introduction to the 100th anniversary issue of the Psychological Review (http:/ / psychology. uchicago. edu/ people/ faculty/ cacioppo/ jtcreprints/ kc94. pdf). Psychological Review. 101: 195-199 [4] Garfied E., (1985). Essays of an Information Scientist (http:/ / www. garfield. library. upenn. edu/ essays/ v8p187y1985. pdf), 8: 187-196; Current Contents, (#20, p.3-12, May 20) [5] Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and Communication. London: Pergamon Press. [6] Chomsky, N. (1959) Review of Verbal Behavior, by B.F. Skinner. Language 35: 26-57. [7] Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., and Simon, H. A. (1958) Elements of a Theory of Human Problem Solving. Psychological Review 23: 342-343. [8] Neisser, U (1967) Cognitive Psychology Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. [9] Friesen, N. (2005). Mind and Machine: Ethical and Epistemological Implications for Research. Thompson Rivers University, B.C., Canada. [10] Thagard, P. (2002). Cognitive Science (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ cognitive-science/ ). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [11] Waldrop M.M. (2002). The Dream Machine: JCR Licklider and the revolution that made computing personal. New York: Penguin Books. (p.139, p.140). [12] Pinker 2003, p.31 [13] Pinker 2003, p.34 [14] Pinker 2003, p.36 [15] Pinker 2003, p.37 [16] Pinker 2003, p.39 [17] Mandler, George (2002). "Origins of the cognitive (r)evolution". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 38: 339353.
References
Bruner (1990) Acts of Meaning. Chomsky (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior (http://chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm). Language 35(1):pp.2658. Pinker, Steven (2003). The Blank Slate. Penguin. ISBN0142003344. Mandler, G. (2007) A history of modern experimental psychology: From James and Wundt to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Skinner, B. F. (1989). Review of Hull's Principles of Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 287290
Further reading
Books
Baars, Bernard J. (1986) The cognitive revolution in psychology Guilford Press, New York, ISBN 0-89862-656-0 Gardner, Howard (1986) The mind's new science : a history of the cognitive revolution Basic Books, New York, ISBN 0-465-04634-7; reissued in 1998 with an epilogue by the author: "Cognitive science after 1984" ISBN 0-465-04635-5 Johnson, David Martel and Emeling, Christina E. (1997) The future of the cognitive revolution Oxford University Press, New York, ISBN 0-19-510334-3 LePan, Don (1989) The cognitive revolution in Western culture Macmillan, Basingstoke, England, ISBN 0-333-45796-X Murray, David J. (1995) Gestalt psychology and the cognitive revolution Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, ISBN 0-7450-1186-1 Olson, David R. (2007) Jerome Bruner: the cognitive revolution in educational theory Continuum, London, ISBN 978-0-8264-8402-4
Cognitive revolution Richardson, Alan and Steen, Francis F. (editors) (2002) Literature and the cognitive revolution Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, being Poetics today 23(1), OCLC 51526573 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/ 51526573) Royer, James M. (2005) The cognitive revolution in educational psychology Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, Connecticut, ISBN 0-8264-8402-6 Simon, Herbert A. et al. (1992) Economics, bounded rationality and the cognitive revolution E. Elgar, Aldershot, England, ISBN 1-85278-425-3 Todd, James T. and Morris, Edward K. (editors) (1995) Modern perspectives on B. F. Skinner and contemporary behaviorism (Series: Contributions in psychology, no. 28) Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, ISBN 0-313-29601-4
50
Articles
Cohen-Cole, Jamie (2005) "The reflexivity of cognitive science: the scientist as model of human nature" History of the Human Sciences 18(4): pp.107139 Greenwood, John D. (1999) "Understanding the "cognitive revolution" in psychology" Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 35(1): pp.122 Miller, George A (2003). "The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective". TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7 (3).
Second language acquisition theories

Second language acquisition theories are various theories and hypotheses in the field of second language acquisition about how people learn a second language. Second language acquisition research is closely related to several disciplines including linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, neuroscience, and education, and consequently most theories of second language acquisition can be identified as having roots in one of them. Each of these theories can be thought of as shedding light on one part of the language learning process; however, no one overarching theory of second language acquisition has yet been widely accepted by researchers.
Universal grammar
From the field of linguistics, the most influential theory by far has been Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar (UG). The UG model of principles, basic properties which all languages share, and parameters, properties which can vary between languages, has been the basis for much second language research. From a UG perspective, learning the grammar of a second language is simply a matter of setting the correct parameters. Take the pro-drop parameter, which dictates whether or not sentences must have a subject in order to be grammatically correct. This parameter can have two values: positive, in which case sentences do not necessarily need a subject, and negative, in which case subjects must be present. In German the sentence "Er spricht" (he speaks) is grammatical, but the sentence "Spricht" (speaks) is ungrammatical. In Italian, however, the sentence "Parla" (speaks) is perfectly normal and grammatically correct.[1] A German speaker learning Italian would only need to deduce that subjects are optional from the language he hears, and then set his pro-drop parameter for Italian accordingly. Once he has set all the parameters in the language correctly, then from a UG perspective he can be said to have learned Italian, i.e. he will always produce perfectly correct Italian sentences. Universal Grammar also provides a succinct explanation for much of the phenomenon of language transfer. Spanish learners of English who make the mistake "Is raining" instead of "It is raining" have not yet set their pro-drop parameters correctly and are still using the same setting as in Spanish.
Second language acquisition theories The main shortcoming of Universal Grammar in describing second language acquisition is that it does not deal at all with the psychological processes involved with learning a language. UG scholarship is only concerned with whether parameters are set or not, not with how they are set.
51
Acquisition-learning hypothesis
Stephen Krashen introduced the acquisition-learning hypothesis, which makes a distinction between conscious language learning and subconscious language acquisition.[2] Krashen argues that only subconscious acquisition can lead to fluency. A distinction closely related to that made by Krashen (1982) between acquisition and learning is one between implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge.[2] Learners gain implicit knowledge by processing target-language input without consciously giving attention to acquiring the forms and structures of the language. On the other hand, learners get explicit knowledge of a language when they process language input with the conscious intention of discovering the structural rules of the language. A distinction between the implicit learning involved in acquiring a first language (L1) and the mix of implicit and explicit learning that takes place in L2 acquisition has been one analytic route for understanding the virtually universal success of L1 acquisition versus the more limited success of L2 acquisition among adult learners (Hulstijn, 2005).[3] Ellis has found empirical confirmation for the distinct constructs of implicit and explicit language knowledge.[4]
Input hypothesis
Learners' most direct source of information about the target language is the target language itself. When they come into direct contact with the target language, this is referred to as "input." When learners process that language in a way that can contribute to learning, this is referred to as "intake." Generally speaking, the amount of input learners take in is one of the most important factors affecting their learning. However, it must be at a level that is comprehensible to them. In his Monitor Theory, Krashen advanced the concept that language input should be at the "i+1" level, just beyond what the learner can fully understand; this input is comprehensible, but contains structures that are not yet fully understood. This has been criticized on the basis that there is no clear definition of i+1, and that factors other than structural difficulty (such as interest or presentation) can affect whether input is actually turned into intake. The concept has been quantified, however, in vocabulary acquisition research; Nation reviews various studies which indicate that about 98% of the words in running text should be previously known in order for extensive reading to be effective.[5] In his Input Hypothesis, Krashen proposes that language acquisition takes place only when learners receive input just beyond their current level of L2 competence. He termed this level of input i+1. However, in contrast to emergentist and connectionist theories, he follows the innate approach by applying Chomskys Government and binding theory and concept of Universal grammar (UG) to second language acquisition. He does so by proposing a Language Acquisition Device that uses L2 input to define the parameters of the L2, within the constraints of UG, and to increase the L2 proficiency of the learner. In addition, Krashen (1982)s Affective Filter Hypothesis holds that the acquisition of a second language is halted if the leaner has a high degree of anxiety when receiving input. According to this concept, a part of the mind filters out L2 input and prevents uptake by the learner, if the learner feels that the process of SLA is threatening. As mentioned earlier, since input is essential in Krashens model, this filtering action prevents acquisition from progressing. A great deal of research has taken place on input enhancement, the ways in which input may be altered so as to direct learners' attention to linguistically important areas. Input enhancement might include bold-faced vocabulary words or marginal glosses in a reading text. Research here is closely linked to research on pedagogical effects, and comparably diverse.
52
Monitor model
Other concepts have also been influential in the speculation about the processes of building internal systems of second language information. Some thinkers hold that language processing handles distinct types of knowledge. For instance, one component of the Monitor Model, propounded by Krashen, posits a distinction between acquisition and learning.[2] According to Krashen, L2 acquisition is a subconscious process of incidentally picking up a language, as children do when becoming proficient in their first languages. Language learning, on the other hand, is studying, consciously and intentionally, the features of a language, as is common in traditional classrooms. Krashen sees these two processes as fundamentally different, with little or no interface between them. In common with connectionism, Krashen sees input as essential to language acquisition.[2] Further, Bialystok and Smith make another distinction in explaining how learners build and use L2 and interlanguage knowledge structures.[6] They argue that the concept of interlanguage should include a distinction between two specific kinds of language processing ability. On one hand is learners knowledge of L2 grammatical structure and ability to analyze the target language objectively using that knowledge, which they term representation, and, on the other hand is the ability to use their L2 linguistic knowledge, under time constraints, to accurately comprehend input and produce output in the L2, which they call control. They point out that often non-native speakers of a language have higher levels of representation than their native-speaking counterparts have, yet have a lower level of control. Finally, Bialystok has framed the acquisition of language in terms of the interaction between what she calls analysis and control.[7] Analysis is what learners do when they attempt to understand the rules of the target language. Through this process, they acquire these rules and can use them to gain greater control over their own production. Monitoring is another important concept in some theoretical models of learner use of L2 knowledge. According to Krashen, the Monitor is a component of an L2 learners language processing device that uses knowledge gained from language learning to observe and regulate the learners own L2 production, checking for accuracy and adjusting language production when necessary.[2]
Interaction Hypothesis
Long's interaction hypothesis proposes that language acquisition is strongly facilitated by the use of the target language in interaction. Similarly to Krashen's Input Hypothesis, the Interaction Hypothesis claims that comprehensible input is important for language learning. In addition, it claims that the effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning.[8] Interactions often result in learners receiving negative evidence.[9] [8] That is, if learners say something that their interlocutors do not understand, after negotiation the interlocutors may model the correct language form. In doing this, learners can receive feedback on their production and on grammar that they have not yet mastered.[8] The process of interaction may also result in learners receiving more input from their interlocutors than they would otherwise.[9] Furthermore, if learners stop to clarify things that they do not understand, they may have more time to process the input they receive. This can lead to better understanding and possibly the acquisition of new language forms.[8] Finally, interactions may serve as a way of focusing learners' attention on a difference between their knowledge of the target language and the reality of what they are hearing; it may also focus their attention on a part of the target language of which they are not yet aware.[10]
53
Output hypothesis
In the 1980s, Canadian SLA researcher Merrill Swain advanced the output hypothesis, that meaningful output is as necessary to language learning as meaningful input. However, most studies have shown little if any correlation between learning and quantity of output. Today, most scholars contend that small amounts of meaningful output are important to language learning, but primarily because the experience of producing language leads to more effective processing of input.
Competition model
Some of the major cognitive theories of how learners organize language knowledge are based on analyses of how speakers of various languages analyze sentences for meaning. MacWhinney, Bates, and Kliegl found that speakers of English, German, and Italian showed varying patterns in identifying the subjects of transitive sentences containing more than one noun.[11] English speakers relied heavily on word order; German speakers used morphological agreement, the animacy status of noun referents, and stress; and speakers of Italian relied on agreement and stress. MacWhinney et al. interpreted these results as supporting the Competition Model, which states that individuals use linguistic cues to get meaning from language, rather than relying on linguistic universals.[11] According to this theory, when acquiring an L2, learners sometimes receive competing cues and must decide which cue(s) is most relevant for determining meaning.
Connectionism and second language acquisition

These findings also relate to Connectionism. Connectionism attempts to model the cognitive language processing of the human brain, using computer architectures that make associations between elements of language, based on frequency of co-occurrence in the language input.[12] Frequency has been found to be a factor in various linguistic domains of language learning.[13] Connectionism posits that learners form mental connections between items that co-occur, using exemplars found in language input. From this input, learners extract the rules of the language through cognitive processes common to other areas of cognitive skill acquisition. Since connectionism denies both innate rules and the existence of any innate language-learning module, L2 input is of greater importance than it is in processing models based on innate approaches, since, in connectionism, input is the source of both the units and the rules of language.
Noticing hypothesis
Attention is another characteristic that some believe to have a role in determining the success or failure of language processing. Schmidt states that although explicit metalinguistic knowledge of a language is not always essential for acquisition, the learner must be aware of L2 input in order to gain from it.[14] In his noticing hypothesis, Schmidt posits that learners must notice the ways in which their interlanguage structures differ from target norms. This noticing of the gap allows the learners internal language processing to restructure the learners internal representation of the rules of the L2 in order to bring the learners production closer to the target. In this respect, Schmidts understanding is consistent with the ongoing process of rule formation found in emergentism and connectionism.
54
Processability
Some theorists and researchers have contributed to the cognitive approach to second language acquisition by increasing understanding of the ways L2 learners restructure their interlanguage knowledge systems to be in greater conformity to L2 structures. Processability theory states that learners restructure their L2 knowledge systems in an order of which they are capable at their stage of development.[15] For instance, In order to acquire the correct morphological and syntactic forms for English questions, learners must transform declarative English sentences. They do so by a series of stages, consistent across learners. Clahsen proposed that certain processing principles determine this order of restructuring.[16] Specifically, he stated that learners first, maintain declarative word order while changing other aspects of the utterances, second, move words to the beginning and end of sentences, and third, move elements within main clauses before subordinate clauses.
Automaticity
Thinkers have produced several theories concerning how learners use their internal L2 knowledge structures to comprehend L2 input and produce L2 output. One idea is that learners acquire proficiency in an L2 in the same way that people acquire other complex cognitive skills. Automaticity is the performance of a skill without conscious control. It results from the gradated process of proceduralization. In the field of cognitive psychology, Anderson expounds a model of skill acquisition, according to which persons use procedures to apply their declarative knowledge about a subject in order to solve problems.[17] On repeated practice, these procedures develop into production rules that the individual can use to solve the problem, without accessing long-term declarative memory. Performance speed and accuracy improve as the learner implements these production rules. DeKeyser tested the application of this model to L2 language automaticity.[18] He found that subjects developed increasing proficiency in performing tasks related to the morphosyntax of an artificial language, Autopractan, and performed on a learning curve typical of the acquisition of non-language cognitive skills. This evidence conforms to Andersons general model of cognitive skill acquisition, supports the idea that declarative knowledge can be transformed into procedural knowledge, and tends to undermine the idea of Krashen[2] that knowledge gained through language learning cannot be used to initiate speech production.
Declarative/procedural model
Michael T. Ullman has used a declarative/procedural model to understand how language information is stored. This model is consistent with a distinction made in general cognitive science between the storage and retrieval of facts, on the one hand, and understanding of how to carry out operations, on the other. It states that declarative knowledge consists of arbitrary linguistic information, such as irregular verb forms, that are stored in the brains declarative memory. In contrast, knowledge about the rules of a language, such as grammatical word order is procedural knowledge and is stored in procedural memory. Ullman reviews several psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic studies that support the declarative/procedural model.[19]
55
Memory and second language acquisition

Perhaps certain psychological characteristics constrain language processing. One area of research is the role of memory. Williams conducted a study in which he found some positive correlation between verbatim memory functioning and grammar learning success for his subjects.[20] This suggests that individuals with less short-term memory capacity might have a limitation in performing cognitive processes for organization and use of linguistic knowledge.
Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Cook 2008, p.35. Krashen 1982. Hulstijn 2005. Ellis 2005. Nation 2001. Bialystok & Smith 1985. Bialystok 1994. Ellis, Rod (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. pp.47-48. ISBN978-0194372121. [9] Richards, Jack; Schmidt, Richard, eds (2002). "Interaction Hypothesis". Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London New York: Longman. p.264. ISBN978-0582438255. [10] Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. p.350. ISBN978-0-805-85497-8. [11] MacWhinney, Bates & Kliegl 1984. [12] Christiansen & Chater 2001. [13] Ellis 2002. [14] Schmidt 1990. [15] Pienemann 1998. [16] Clahsen 1984. [17] Anderson 1992. [18] DeKeyser 1997. [19] Ullman 2001. [20] Williams 1999.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1992). "Automaticity and the ACT* theory" (http://jstor.org/stable/1423026). American Journal of Psychology 105 (2): 165180. doi:10.2307/1423026. PMID1621879. Bialystok, E.; Smith, M. S. (1985). "Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition". Applied Linguistics 6 (2): 101117. doi:10.1093/applin/6.2.101. Bialystok, E. (1994). "Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16 (2): 157168. doi:10.1017/S0272263100012857. Christiansen, M. H.; Chater, N. (2001). "Connectionist psycholinguistics: Capturing the empirical data". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 (2): 8288. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01600-4. PMID11166638. Clahsen, Harald (1984). "The acquisition of German word order: a test case for cognitive approaches to second language acquisition". In Andersen, Roger. Second languages: a cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp.219242. ISBN9780883774403. Cook, Vivian (2008). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. ISBN978-0-340-95876-6. DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). "Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 195222. Ellis, N. (2002). "Frequency effects in language processing". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 143188.
Second language acquisition theories Ellis, R. (2005). "Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2): 141172. Hulstijn, J. H. (2005). "Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2): 129140. Krashen, Stephen (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (http://www.sdkrashen. com/Principles_and_Practice/index.html). Pergamon Press. ISBN0-08-028628-3. Retrieved 2010-11-25. MacWhinney, B.; Bates, E.; Kliegl, R. (1984). "Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian". Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23 (2): 127150. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90093-8. Nation, Paul (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-80498-1. Pienemann, Manfred (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN9781556195495. Ullman, M. T. (2001). "The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar". Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30 (1): 3769. doi:10.1023/A:1005204207369. PMID11291183. Williams, J. (1999). "Memory, attention and inductive learning". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 148.
56
57
Analyzing learner language

Contrastive analysis
Contrastive analysis is the systematic study of a pair of languages with a view to identifying their structural differences and similarities. Historically it has been used to establish language genealogies.
Contrastive Analysis and Second Language Acquisition

Contrastive Analysis was used extensively in the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) in the 1960s and early 1970s, as a method of explaining why some features of a Target Language were more difficult to acquire than others. According to the behaviourist theories prevailing at the time, language learning was a question of habit formation, and this could be reinforced or impeded by existing habits. Therefore, the difficulty in mastering certain structures in a second language (L2) depended on the difference between the learners' mother language (L1) and the language they were trying to learn.
History
The theoretical foundations for what became known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis were formulated in Lado's Linguistics Across Cultures (1957). In this book, Lado claimed that "those elements which are similar to [the learner's] native language will be simple for him, and those elements that are different will be difficult". While this was not a novel suggestion, Lado was the first to provide a comprehensive theoretical treatment and to suggest a systematic set of technical procedures for the contrastive study of languages. This involved describing the languages (using structuralist linguistics), comparing them and predicting learning difficulties. During the 1960s, there was a widespread enthusiasm with this technique, manifested in the contrastive descriptions of several European languages, many of which were sponsored by the Center of Applied Linguistics in Washington, DC. It was expected that once the areas of potential difficulty had been mapped out through Contrastive Analysis, it would be possible to design language courses more efficiently. Contrastive Analysis, along with Behaviourism and Structuralism exerted a profound effect on SLA curriculum design and language teacher education, and provided the theoretical pillars of Audio-Lingual Method.
Criticism
In its strongest formulation, the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed that all the errors made in learning the L2 could be attributed to 'interference' by the L1. However, this claim could not be sustained by empirical evidence that was accumulated in the mid- and late 1970s. It was soon pointed out that many errors predicted by Contrastive Analysis were inexplicably not observed in learners' language. Even more confusingly, some uniform errors were made by learners irrespective of their L1. It thus became clear that Contrastive Analysis could not predict all learning difficulties, but was certainly useful in the retrospective explanation of errors. These developments, along with the decline of the behaviourist and structuralist paradigms considerably weakened the appeal of Contrastive Analysis.
Contrastive analysis
58
References
Connor, Ulla M. (1996), Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437189-1 Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-437065-8
Error analysis (linguistics)

In second language acquisition, error analysis studies the types and causes of language errors. Errors are classified[1] according to: modality (i.e., level of proficiency in speaking, writing, reading, listening) linguistic levels (i.e., pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, style) form (e.g., omission, insertion, substitution) type (systematic errors/errors in competence vs. occasional errors/errors in performance) cause (e.g., interference, interlanguage) norm vs. system
Methodology
Error analysis in SLA was established in the 1960s by Stephen Pit Corder and colleagues.[2] Error analysis was an alternative to contrastive analysis, an approach influenced by behaviorism through which applied linguists sought to use the formal distinctions between the learners' first and second languages to predict errors. Error analysis showed that contrastive analysis was unable to predict a great majority of errors, although its more valuable aspects have been incorporated into the study of language transfer. A key finding of error analysis has been that many learner errors are produced by learners making faulty inferences about the rules of the new language. Error analysts distinguish between errors, which are systematic, and mistakes, which are not. They often seek to develop a typology of errors. Error can be classified according to basic type: omissive, additive, substitutive or related to word order. They can be classified by how apparent they are: overt errors such as "I angry" are obvious even out of context, whereas covert errors are evident only in context. Closely related to this is the classification according to domain, the breadth of context which the analyst must examine, and extent, the breadth of the utterance which must be changed in order to fix the error. Errors may also be classified according to the level of language: phonological errors, vocabulary or lexical errors, syntactic errors, and so on. They may be assessed according to the degree to which they interfere with communication: global errors make an utterance difficult to understand, while local errors do not. In the above example, "I angry" would be a local error, since the meaning is apparent. From the beginning, error analysis was beset with methodological problems. In particular, the above typologies are problematic: from linguistic data alone, it is often impossible to reliably determine what kind of error a learner is making. Also, error analysis can deal effectively only with learner production (speaking and writing) and not with learner reception (listening and reading). Furthermore, it cannot account for learner use of communicative strategies such as avoidance, in which learners simply do not use a form with which they are uncomfortable. For these reasons, although error analysis is still used to investigate specific questions in SLA, the quest for an overarching theory of learner errors has largely been abandoned. In the mid-1970s, Corder and others moved on to a more wide-ranging approach to learner language, known as interlanguage.
Error analysis (linguistics) Error analysis is closely related to the study of error treatment in language teaching. Today, the study of errors is particularly relevant for focus on form teaching methodology.
59
Notes
[1] Cf. Bussmann, Hadumod (1996), Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, London: Routledge, s.v. error analysis. A comprehensive bibliography was published by Bernd Spillner (1991), Error Analysis, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. [2] Corder, S. P. (1967). "The significance of learners' errors". International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 160170.
Focus on form
Focus on form (or FonF) is a concept in second language acquisition and language education, proposed by Michael Long,[1] in which, in the context of a communicative interaction, the attention of learners learning a second language is drawn to the form of specific language features. It is contrasted with focus on formS,[2] which is limited solely to the explicit focus on language features, and focus on meaning, which is limited to focus on meaning with no attention paid to form at all. For a teaching intervention to qualify as focus on form and not as focus on formS, the learner must be aware of the meaning and use of the language features before the form is brought to their attention.[3]
Motivation
The concept of focus on form was motivated by the lack of support for the efficacy of focus on formS on the one hand, and clear advantages demonstrated by instructed language learning over uninstructed learning on the other.[1] The research conflicting with focus on formS has been wide-ranging;[4] learners typically acquire language features in sequences, not all at once,[5] and most of the stages the learners' interlanguages pass through will exhibit non-native-like language forms.[6] Furthermore, the progression of these stages is not clean; learners may use language features correctly in some situations but not in others,[7] or they may exhibit U-shaped learning, in which native-like use may temporarily revert to non-native-like use.[8] None of these findings sit well with the idea that students will learn exactly what you teach them, when you teach it.[4] Teaching approaches based on focus on meaning have enjoyed more support in the second language acquisition literature than those based on focus on formS. In particular, in his Input Hypothesis, Krashen proposed that all that was needed to learn a second language was massive exposure to comprehensible language input.[9] The importance of language input has been backed up by studies linking language level to time spent in the country where it is spoken, and by studies on extensive reading.[10] However, in a review of the literature comparing instructed with uninstructed language learning, Long found a clear advantage for instructed learning in both the rate of learning and the ultimate level reached.[1] An important finding that supported Long's view came from French language immersion programs in Canada; even after students had years of meaning-focused lessons filled with comprehensible input, their spoken language remained far from native-like, with many grammatical errors. This is despite the fact that they could speak fluently and had native-like listening abilities.[11]
Focus on form
60
Notes
[1] Long 1991. This paper was originally presented at the European-North-American Symposium on Needed Research in Foreign Language Education, Bellagio, Italy, in 1988. [2] The capital S is intentional, and is widely used in second language acquisition literature to more readily distinguish it from focus on form. [3] Doughty & Williams 1998, p.4. [4] Long & Robinson 1998, pp.1617. [5] For review, see e.g. Gass & Selinker (2008, pp.126135). [6] Andersen 1984, Huebner 1983. [7] Pica 1983, Young 1988. [8] Kellerman 1985. [9] Krashen 1981. [10] Krashen 2004 [11] Swain 1991.
References
Andersen, Roger (1984). "What's gender good for, anyway?". In Andersen, Roger. Second languages: a cross-linguistic perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp.7799. ISBN978-0-883-77440-3. Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica, eds (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-62390-2. Gass, Susan; Selinker, Larry (2008). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN978-0-805-85497-8. Huebner, T. (2008). "Linguistic Systems and Linguistic Change in an Interlanguage". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 33. doi:10.1017/S0272263100000280. Kellerman, Eric (1985). "Input and second language acquisition theory". In Gass, Susan; Madden, Carolyn. Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp.345353. ISBN978-0-883-77284-3. Krashen, Stephen (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (http://www. sdkrashen.com/SL_Acquisition_and_Learning/index.html). New York: Pergamon Press. ISBN0080253385. Retrieved 2011-02-28. Krashen, Stephen (2004). The Power of Reading, Second Edition. Littleton: Libraries Unlimited. ISBN978-1-591-58169-7. Long, Michael (1991). "Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology". In De Bot, Kees; Ginsberg, Ralph; Kramsch, Claire. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp.3952. ISBN978-1-556-19345-3. Long, Michael; Robinson, Peter (1998). "Focus on form: Theory, research and practice". In Doughty, Catherine; Williams, Jessica. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.1541. ISBN978-0-521-62390-2. Pica, T. (1983). "Adult Acquisition of English As a Second Language Under Different Conditions of Exposure". Language Learning 33 (4): 465497. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00945.x. Swain, Merrill (1991). "French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one". In Freed, Barbara. Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath. pp.91103. ISBN978-0-669-24263-8. Young, R. (1988). "Variation and the Interlanguage Hypothesis". Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10 (3): 281302. doi:10.1017/S0272263100007464.
Interlanguage
61
Interlanguage
An interlanguage is an emerging linguistic system that has been developed by a learner of a second language (or L2) who has not become fully proficient yet but is approximating the target language: preserving some features of their first language (or L1), or overgeneralizing target language rules in speaking or writing the target language and creating innovations. An interlanguage is idiosyncratically based on the learners' experiences with the L2. It can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. The interlanguage rules are claimed to be shaped by several factors, including: L1 transfer, transfer of training, strategies of L2 learning (e.g. simplification), strategies of L2 communication (or communication strategies like circumlocution), and overgeneralization of the target language patterns. Interlanguage is based on the theory that there is a "psychological structure latent in the brain" which is activated when one attempts to learn a second language. Interlanguage theory is usually credited to Larry Selinker but others such as Uriel Weinreich have claimed to have formulated the basic concept before Selinker's 1972 paper. Selinker noted that in a given situation the utterances produced by the learner are different from those native speakers would produce had they attempted to convey the same meaning. This comparison reveals a separate linguistic system. This system can be observed when studying the utterances of the learner who attempts to produce meaning in using the target language; it is not seen when that same learner does form-focused tasks, such as oral drills in a classroom. Interlanguage can be observed to be variable across different contexts; for example, it may be more accurate, complex and fluent in one discourse domain than in another (Tarone, 1979; Selinker & Douglas, 1985). To study the psychological processes involved one should compare the interlanguage utterances of the learner with two things: 1. Utterances in the native language to convey the same message produced by the learner 2. Utterances in the target language to convey the same message, produced by a native speaker of that language. Interlanguage work is a vibrant microcosm of linguistics. It is possible to apply an interlanguage perspective to learners' underlying knowledge of the target language sound system (interlanguage phonology), grammar (morphology and syntax), vocabulary (lexicon), and language-use norms found among learners (interlanguage pragmatics). By describing the ways in which learner language conforms to universal linguistic norms, interlanguage research has contributed greatly to our understanding of linguistic universals in SLA. See below, under "linguistic universals".
Definition and relation to other types of language

The concept of interlanguage is closely related to other types of language, especially pidgins and creoles. Each of these languages has its own grammar and phonology. The difference is mostly one of variability, as a learner's interlanguage changes frequently as they become more proficient in the language. In addition, pidgins and creoles have many speakers and are developed as a group process. An interlanguage, on the other hand, is something that has only one speaker, the learner. At the very beginning of language learning, the learner has some idea of what the foreign language is like, and how it works. According to these ideas, they produce utterances, some of which may be correct, and others which may be wrong. Then, as the learner gains more knowledge about the language, they may come up with new and better ideas of how it works. That's what interlanguage is: the developing "idea of how the other language works".
Interlanguage
62
Variability
Though the interlanguage perspective views learner language as a language in its own right, this language systematically varies much more than native-speaker language. A learner may produce a target-like variant (e.g. 'I don't') in one context and a non-target like variant (e.g. 'me no') in another. Scholars from different traditions have taken opposing views on the importance of this phenomenon. Those who bring a Chomskyan perspective to SLA typically regard variability as nothing more than "performance errors", and not worthy of systematic inquiry. On the other hand, those who approach it from a sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic orientation view variability as an inherent feature of the learner's interlanguage, where the learner's preference for one linguistic variant over another depends on accompanying a) social (contextual) variables such as the status or role of the interlocutor (see Selinker & Douglas, 1985), or b) linguistic variables such as the phonological environment or neighboring features marked for formality or informality. Naturally, most research on variability has been done by those who presume it to be meaningful (Fasold & Preston, 2007; Tarone, 2009; Tarone & Liu, 1995). Research on variability in learner language distinguishes between "free variation", which has not been shown to be systematically related to accompanying linguistic or social features, and "systematic variation", which has. Of course, the line between the two is subject to debate. Free variation in the use of a language feature is usually taken as a sign that it has not been fully acquired. The learner is still trying to figure out what rules govern the use of alternate forms. This type of variability seems to be most common among beginning learners, and may be entirely absent among the more advanced. Systematic variation is brought about by changes in the linguistic, psychological, social context. Linguistic factors are usually extremely local. For instance, the pronunciation of a difficult phoneme may depend on whether it is to be found at the beginning or end of a syllable. Social factors may include a change in register or the familiarity of interlocutors. In accordance with Communication Accommodation Theory, learners may adapt their speech to either converge with, or diverge from, their interlocutor's usage. For example, they may deliberately choose to address a non-target form like "me no" to an English teacher in order to assert identity with a non-mainstream ethnic group (Rampton 1995). The most important psychological factor is usually taken to be attention to form, which is related to planning time. The more time that learners have to plan, the more target-like their production may be. Thus, literate learners may produce much more target-like forms in a writing task for which they have 30 minutes to plan, than in conversation where they must produce language with almost no planning at all. The impact of alphabetic literacy level on an L2 learner's ability to pay attention to form is as yet unclear (see Tarone, Bigelow & Hansen, 2009). Affective factors also play an important role in systematic variation. For example, learners in a stressful situation (such as a formal exam) may produce fewer target-like forms than they would in a comfortable setting. This clearly interacts with social factors, and attitudes toward the interlocutor and topic also play important roles. When learners experience significant restructuring in their L2 systems, they sometimes show what has been termed U-shaped behavior. For instance, Lightbown (1983) showed that a group of English language learners moved, over time, from accurate usage of the -ing present progressive morpheme, to incorrectly omitting it, and finally, back to correct usage. This is explained by theorizing that learners first acquired the -ing form as a chunk, second, lost control of this form as their knowledge system was disrupted by expanding understandings of the tense and aspect systems of English, and third, returned to correct usage upon gaining greater control of these linguistic characteristics and forms. These data provide evidence that learners were initially producing output based on rote memory of individual words containing the present progressive morpheme. However, in the second stage their systems apparently contained the rule that they should use the bare infinitive form to express present action, without a separate rule for the use of -ing. Finally, their systems did contain such a rule.
Interlanguage
63
Developmental patterns
Ellis (1994) distinguished between "order" to refer to the pattern in which different language features are acquired and "sequence" to denote the pattern by which a specific language feature is acquired.
Linguistic universals
Research on universal grammar (UG) has had a significant effect on SLA theory. In particular, scholarship in the interlanguage tradition has sought to show that learner languages conform to UG at all stages of development. A number of studies have supported this claim, although the evolving state of UG theory makes any firm conclusions difficult.
References
Fasold, R., & Preston, D. (2007). The psycholinguistic unity of inherent variability: Old Occam whips out his razor. In R. Bayley & C. Lucas (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Theory, methods, and applications (pp.4569). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between developmental and instructional sequences in L2 acquisition. In H. Seliger and M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp.217243). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and Ethnicity Among Adolescents. London: Longman. Selinker, L. (1972), Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-241. Selinker, L., & Douglas, D. (1985). Wrestling with 'context' in interlanguage theory. Applied Linguistics, 6, 190-204. Tarone, E. (1979). Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29(1), 181-191. Tarone, E., & Liu, G.-q. (1995). Situational context, variation and second-language acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in the Study of Language and Learning: A Festschrift for H.G. Widdowson (pp.107124). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E. (2009). A sociolinguistic perspective on interaction in SLA, in A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass. (pp.4156). New York: Routledge. Tarone, E., Bigelow, M. & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and Second Language Oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[1]
Further reading
Chambers, J.K. (1995), Sociolinguistic Theory, Oxford, England: Blackwell; p249-251. J. C. Richards, Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, Longman Press, 1974, pp.3436. Tarone, E. (2001), Interlanguage. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. (pp.475481) Oxford: Elsevier Science.
References
[1] http:/ / www. oup. com/ us/ catalog/ general/ subject/ EnglishLanguageLearningESL/ ?view=usa& ci=9780194423007
Article Sources and Contributors
64

Second language acquisition Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=426942097 Contributors: 55lannie11, A. B., Acerview54, Aeusoes1, Altenmann, Andycjp, Angr, Anticipator, Atesol, AthurDent, Baltshazzar, Barek, Beetstra, Ben Ben, Benkalt, Bloodshedder, Bookgrrl, Boston, BrainyBabe, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Ceoil, Ckatz, Cmdrjameson, Cnilep, Coching, Colonies Chris, Condem, Cuchullain, Cxz111, DDD DDD, Dakart, Darrellpenta, DawnWheeler, Dbachmann, Discospinster, Eaefremov, Eitch, Eklir, El aprendelenguas, EronMain, Espoo, Etarone, Fadesga, Fireinacrowdedtheatre, Frenchgeek, Fuseau, Gadgetzan, Garik, Gary Cziko, Gogo Dodo, GoodSirJava, Gossa, Hectorthebat, Hetar, Hoary, Hollygo, Howdidyoudawn, Hu, Icairns, Intelligentsium, Ish ishwar, Ixfd64, J Crow, Jaberwocky6669, Jahiegel, Jeanpol, Joseph Solis in Australia, Jsteph, King of Hearts, Kingdon, Langaq, Law soma, Leemorrison, LinguistAtLarge, Linguistics Learner, Lova Falk, Lpjurca, Lrose73, Lycurgus, M Mislevy, Magister Mathematicae, Malcolm Farmer, Mandarax, Marquez, Mattisse, Mcswell, Mindeye, Misterx2000, Mr. Stradivarius, MusicTree3, Nick Number, Nlu, Nocciola2008, Notyourbroom, Nposs, Ntennis, Openenglish, Paul500, Pdcook, Peter Isotalo, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Pier440, Pmbcomm, RUClimate, Rcb5, Rehnn83, Reinhard Hartmann, Retired username, Rich Farmbrough, Richwales, Rintaun, Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rklawton, Robbiemuffin, Rockoprem, Rpchase, Russky1802, SDC, Seqsea, Shimmera, Sinatra, Snyderkk, Sparkspill, SplineB, Suegass, Taw, Titoo058, Tomonori, Van helsing, Visviva, Wavelength, WenLaxton, WikHead, Wikiklrsc, Will Hen, Will McCulloch, Yitzuhuang, Youshouldask, Yug, 237 anonymous edits Syntax Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=427011312 Contributors: 16@r, 194.230.160.xxx, 195.186.148.xxx, 2bluey, 62.202.117.xxx, AK IM OP, Acb4341, Action potential, Adw2000, Ahoerstemeier, Airborne84, Aitias, Allan McInnes, Altenmann, Andre Engels, Andycjp, Angr, Angryafghan, Atlant, Aurista25, Beige Tangerine, Beland, Bellenion, Ben-Zin, BiT, Bobo192, Bogey97, Bogger, Brian the Editor, C.Fred, CJLL Wright, CR7, CWenger, Cadr, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CapnPrep, Cc116, Charles Matthews, Cherry blossom tree, Chronotox, Ciceronl, ClosedEyesSeeing, Coffeeassured, Comhreir, Conversion script, Cquan, Cromwellt, Crusio, CyrilThePig4, D6, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, David Kernow, David.Mestel, DerHexer, Derek farn, Discospinster, Dittaeva, Divespluto, Dmerrill, Donald Albury, Dude1818, Dungodung, Dwspig2, Ed g2s, Eilthireach, El C, Epbr123, Fattyjwoods, FilipeS, FlyHigh, Freedomlinux, FreplySpang, FromFoamsToWaves, Gbouzon, Ghiraddje, Giftlite, Gilliam, Glen, Glenn, Goudron, Graham87, Gregbard, Hadal, Haggen Kennedy, Hannes Hirzel, Haukurth, Hectorthebat, Hexham, Hippasus, Hippietrail, Hirzel, Hulten, Hyacinth, Hyad, IRP, Icek, Ish ishwar, J Crow, J. Spencer, Jasy jatere, Jauhienij, Jcarroll, Jdavidb, Jeff G., JeremyA, Jerry, Jimbo2222, Jmonk95, Joanjoc, JoanneB, Jobber, Joe Jarvis, Johan1298, John254, Jon Awbrey, JonnybrotherJr, Jonsafari, Joseph Solis in Australia, Joshuagross, Jwestbrook, K.lee, KEJ, Kajervi, Kallerdis, Kappa, Karl E. V. Palmen, Karl-Henner, Keta, Kjkolb, KnowledgeOfSelf, Kokoriko, Kornfan71, KrakatoaKatie, Krash, Kwertii, Leuko, Linguizic, Looxix, Lpjurca, Luna Santin, MER-C, Macetw, Mainstreet27, Malhonen, Mark Dingemanse, MarkSweep, MarkkuP, Marnanel, Martin Hinks, Mav, Mazeface, McSly, Mgreenbe, Michael Hardy, Miguelmrm, Mike Klaassen, Mikeo, Minna Sora no Shita, Morganiq, Mr.Z-man, Mrcool1122, Mukerjee, Mycomp, N-k, NatusRoma, Neilc, Neutral-en, Nguyen Thanh Quang, Niro5, Novangelis, Numbo3, Nuno Tavares, Nyoro n, Ojigiri, OlEnglish, Omnipaedista, Oneiros, OverlordQ, Oxymoron83, Palica, Pasta Salad, PaulTanenbaum, Pdblues, Physicist, Pi zero, Pigman, Pleckaitis, Poccil, Polyvios, Pprabhakarrao, Prabhakar P Rao, Quangbao, R'n'B, RJFJR, RandomP, Raymond Meredith, Reaper Eternal, RedWolf, Rich Farmbrough, Rijkbenik, Rik G., Rivertorch, Rjanag, Rmosler2100, Robin klein, Robzy213, Rollred15, RoseParks, Rursus, Rwessel, SJP, Semmelweiss, Simetrical, Skal, Sky1er, Smokizzy, Sonjaaa, Sopher99, Space Dracula, Spellbinder, Springindd, Starfire777, Stemonitis, Stevenmitchell, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, Sverdrup, Tautologist, Template namespace initialisation script, TheRingess, Thom2002, Thomas Blomberg, Tide rolls, Tijfo098, Tim Q. Wells, Tooki, Torgo, Triplejo2, TuukkaH, TwigsCogito, Vaganyik, Vanished 6551232, Versus22, Viriditas, Vishnava, Wavelength, Whimemsz, Will Hen, Willking1979, Wiredrabbit, Wknight94, Wooddoo-eng, Woohookitty, Wutsje, Xp54321, Yaxu, Yerpo, Youssefsan, Zack wadghiri, Zarel, Zerida, k, 357 anonymous edits Lexicon Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=426677569 Contributors: 13alexander, 205.180.71.xxx, A Macedonian, Alan Liefting, Ams80, Andrejj, Ante Aikio, Aristolaos, Aviados, Avoided, Backslash Forwardslash, BenFrantzDale, Birdie100, Blainster, Burschik, Cattus, Charles Matthews, Chris 73, Christian List, Clemmy, Conversion script, CuteHappyBrute, Cybercobra, David Shay, David91, Davidoff, Dbachmann, DennisDaniels, Donarreiskoffer, Enchanter, Erich, Explicit, Favonian, FilipeS, FinnWiki, Flux.books, Francopoulo, Gracenotes, Graham87, Hannes Hirzel, Iokseng, Ish ishwar, IvanLanin, J'onn J'onzz, Jauhienij, Javier Carro, Jeremy Bolwell, Joeshack112591, Joseph Solis in Australia, LinguistAtLarge, Macrakis, Michael Hardy, MikeGasser, Mladen.adamovic, Monedula, Mxipp, Nieske, Ninja247, Norm, Ocaasi, OlEnglish, Oliverdl, Orangemike, PGWG, PamD, Paul August, Poccil, Quiddity, Ranveig, Reverend Loki, Rich Janis, Rjanag, Roland Longbow, Ruhrjung, SailBoat1982, SarahStierch, Simlorie, Slyomszem, Tom Evans2, Tregoweth, Trondtr, Trylks, Vatrena ptica, Vincent Ramos, Wiki alf, Wonder al, Ws227, Yosri, Zinnmann, Zundark, 67 anonymous edits Morphology (linguistics) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=427165954 Contributors: AK IM OP, Abrasha, Ahoerstemeier, Alansohn, AnatNinio, Anclation, Andre Engels, Antonio Lopez, ArnoldReinhold, Arthena, Astronautics, Atatncnu, Auf, Azalea pomp, Babbage, Barticus88, Bdb484, Beland, Binadot, Bookgrrl, BrainMagMo, Brunton, Bryan Derksen, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, CanisRufus, Caoimhin, Cesine, Chrislk02, Cnilep, Conversion script, Corvun, Dale Gerdemann, David.Mestel, Dbachmann, Deagle AP, Democracy to information, Eclecticos, Ed menendez, Eequor, Ekotkie, El C, Elduderino, Emjaybee, Emw, Estevoaei, FilipeS, Folajimi, Francopoulo, Furrykef, Gabnh, Galaxiaad, Garik, Gdarin, Gilliam, Glen, Gonzonoir, Greysonyakabooty, Gritchka, Grstain, Gurch, Gutsul, Hannes Hirzel, Henrik.petaisto, Hirzel, Hoary, Hurmata, Ish ishwar, J. Spencer, JLC2, Jaberwocky6669, Jagged 85, Jamacfarlane, JamesBWatson, Jburr1985, JesseRafe, Jmabel, Jobber, Joehall45, Joelmills, Jorend, Jorge Stolfi, Joriki, Jpatokal, KF, Kevoconnor, KingTT, Ko'oy, Koty1905, Kusunose, Kwamikagami, L Kensington, La goutte de pluie, Laudaka, Laurens-af, LinguistAtLarge, Linguizic, LittleDan, Loudenvier, Lukedpotter, MC MasterChef, MIT Trekkie, MPerel, Magnus Bakken, Malhonen, Marnanel, Mdoff, Megalophias, Mike Dillon, Mindmatrix, Montrealais, Morta0918, Mrg3105, Nadia007ss, Nickshanks, Nohat, Pablo-flores, Pandammonium, Pascal.Tesson, Patche99z, Pedant17, Pi zero, Poppy, Pdraic MacUidhir, R'n'B, Rajiv.linguistics, RavShimon, Rbeard, Rcj007, Rik G., Rjanag, Rorrenigol, Ross Burgess, RoyBoy, Rror, Ruakh, Ryguasu, SRAnderson, Sacundim, Scalise, Shadowjams, Silverhand, Sirnickdon, Skittleys, Spellbinder, Spellcast, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, Suisui, Sundar, Sverdrup, Svick, Slyomszem, TFCforever, Tamfang, Template namespace initialisation script, Tide rolls, Tkeu, Toon05, Tregoweth, Trickstar, Trio, Trondtr, Tvarnoe, Twenex, Ulric1313, Universityuser, Versus22, Violetriga, Vivacissamamente, Waverley2000, Whimemsz, Wiggin15, Wiki alf, Wleman, Yahya Abdal-Aziz, Zeman, Zerunagerous, 202 anonymous edits Phonology Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=427120703 Contributors: 0, 13alexander, 65.68.87.xxx, 96.186, Aeusoes1, Alinguist, Altenmann, Anarkisto, Andre Engels, Andrewpmk, Andycjp, Angr, Atkinson 291, Avjoska, Benwing, Bissinger, Bobby D. Bryant, Brevam, Burzmali, CCLS, Cadr, Calliopejen1, CapnPrep, Cassowary, Cervello84, Charles Matthews, Conversion script, CyborgTosser, D6, Damian Yerrick, DanielCD, Denihilonihil, Diego UFCG, Djinn112, Doprendek, Duoduoduo, Dwo, EagleFan, Edward, El C, Eleassar, Felix Folio Secundus, Flamingspinach, Fon, Freelance Intellectual, Freethinker77, Friviere, Furrykef, Gailtb, Galoubet, Gandalf1491, Geoffrey S. Nathan, Ghirlandajo, Giftlite, Gjm, Godfrey Daniel, Gogo Dodo, Grblomerth, GregLee, Gum375, Haham hanuka, Hannes Hirzel, Hirzel, Honeybop, Hvn0413, Indeterminate, InfoCan, Ioscius, Ish ishwar, IstvanWolf, J Crow, J. 'mach' wust, J.delanoy, Jagged 85, JdeJ, Jlittlet, John Riemann Soong, Jonik, Jonnabuz, Joost.b, Jrdioko, Jsteph, Junglecat, KBYU, KakistocraticLaw, Kaobear, Karmosin, Kevin Steinhardt, Khoikhoi, Kikos, Kku, Kronecker, Ks 7508, Kwamikagami, LaggedOnUser, Lee Daniel Crocker, Lightmouse, LittleDan, Livajo, LokiClock, MER-C, Mack2, MagneticFlux, Makrai, Merfster, Mindmatrix, Mingwangx, Miskwito, Mrg3105, Msanford, Mxn, Mzajac, N-true, Nikai, Ninly, Obradovic Goran, Oghmoir, Onco p53, Pauldelacy, Paxse, PeepP, Pengkeu, Phil webster, Pinethicket, Pirtskhalava, Poccil, R'n'B, Rich Farmbrough, Richwales, Rik G., Rjanag, Rjwilmsi, Rosanne, Ryguasu, Sabraw1, Saterry, Scipius, SebastianHelm, Setok, Shlomital, Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, Spellbinder, SpuriousQ, Squidley, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, Sumgirl, SuperlativeHors, Swooningdisaster, Syllabology, Tassedethe, Template namespace initialisation script, The Wiki ghost, Thincat, Tim Q. Wells, Tom Hope, Velho, Wavelength, Wikipeditor40, Wikiwow, WmGB, Wooddoo-eng, Wotnow, Zack wadghiri, Zanimum, Zerida, , 174 anonymous edits Pragmatics Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=426713141 Contributors: 1ForTheMoney, 2bluey, Adam78, Ahoerstemeier, Alexkon, Anaphalis, Andre Engels, Andreasstokke, Angr, Antonielly, Ap, Ashfan83, AustralianMelodrama, Bdesham, Belovedeagle, C. A. Russell, Camw, Chris the speller, Cnilep, Cquan, Crnica, DCDuring, Dasternberg, Davidjobson, Dduck, Defyn, Dleonard, Dmacw6, Dorvaq, Dnadan, Eaefremov, Easterboxx, Edhubbard, Edward, ElKevbo, Eniarrol, EnisSoz, Erud, Facopad, Favonian, Flyte35, Fowler&fowler, GTBacchus, Garik, Giraffedata, Granitethighs, Grape1, Gregbard, Hakeem.gadi, Hamsterlopithecus, Ilselieve, Inwind, Ish ishwar, IvanLanin, Jdenen, JimD, Jon Awbrey, KC 12321, Kennetha, Khoikhoi, Kku, Knotwork, Ko'oy, LKNUTZ, Lindsay658, Lingrace us, Livajo, Lucidish, Luna Santin, MER-C, Maashatra11, Marek69, Matturn, Mekanik78, Michael Hardy, Michkalas, Micmachete, Milais, Mindmatrix, MissFrappell, Msasscts, Mu, Musiphil, Ngio, Notinasnaid, Ntennis, Nurg, Omnipaedista, Passing mouse, Peachlette, Philip Trueman, Pitan, Pupster21, Rdsmith4, RedHouse18, Reedy, Reinhard Hartmann, RekishiEJ, Reneeholle, Rjanag, Rursus, Samsara, Sethmahoney, Sinatra, Smartse, Smokesomedillweed, So-called Genius, Solitude, Spellbinder, Stevertigo, Stifynsemons, SummerWithMorons, Superabo, Supriyya, Szyslak, Taak, Teamprag, Template namespace initialisation script, The Anome, The Famous Movie Director, The Tetrast, The bellman, TheDJ, Tijfo098, Tinctorius, Typritc, Vaganyik, Verbum Veritas, Viverechristus, Wales, Wikiwlod, Woland37, Zerida, 159 anonymous edits Behaviorism Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=431610513 Contributors: 213.20.48.xxx, 213.253.40.xxx, 75th Trombone, APH, Aaron Kauppi, AaronSw, Aazn, AbsolutDan, Acroterion, Action potential, AdjustShift, Ahoerstemeier, Alan012, Aldux, Alienus, Allisonmarieanne, Amwaude, Andre Engels, Andres, Andries, Angela, Ann Stouter, Antandrus, ArneHD, Arsivis, Arthur3030, BD2412, BarretBonden, Barticus88, Beta Trom, Billayre, Bobo192, Boerdlein, Borgx, Buibjarmar, Butterfly ea, CDN99, CLW, Cadr, Catgut, Cedders, Chasingsol, Chessie45, Chuckiesdad, Clement Cherlin, Codetiger, Comet3, Cometstyles, Commons@tiac.net, Conversion script, Craptree, Crossmr, Cvata, Cyan, DNewhall, Dallas84, Dan1924, DanMS, DanielCD, DearisHoard, Den fjttrade ankan, Denisutku, Deus911, Dmr2, Doctahdrey, Docu, Dominic, Doncorto, Dpac007, Dpbsmith, Dr.S.A.Knight, DwayneP, E Wing, EPM, Ed Poor, Edward, El C, Elf, Elimisteve, Ellywa, Enochlau, Enviroboy, Epbr123, Epiphyllumlover, Escalona, Escp11, Espoo, Evil saltine, Extremophile, FJPB, Finereach, Fishfriend, Flmarlins337, Florkle, Flyguy649, ForesticPig, Fredrik, Frdrick Lacasse, Fuhghettaboutit, Gaius Cornelius, Gavin.collins, Georg Muntingh, Gracefool, Greg987, Gregbard, Grumpyyoungman01, Holizz, Hpvpp, Hu12, Hwfkerg, Ian Maxwell, IceUnshattered, Ikari, Insomniak, Iridescent, JWSchmidt, Jacqui M, Janna.kroupa, Jcautilli2003, Jcbutler, Jeff3000, Jengirl1988, Jezd, Jfitzg, Jiddisch, John FitzGerald, Johndburger, Johnkarp, Jonathanstray, Josh.Pritchard.DBA, Jtneill, Jussi Hirvi, JustinBlank, Karol Langner, Katalaveno, Kenneth M Burke, Kenny sh, Kilonum, Knowledge Seeker, Knucmo2, Kolm, Korizondo, Kpmiyapuram, Kungfuadam, Kzollman, L Kensington, Lacatosias, Lacrimosus, LeaveSleaves, Lee J Haywood, Lemonflash, Lensovet, Ling.Nut, Louis Waweru, Lradrama, Lucidish, M, M5bennett1, MC MasterChef, Mandarax, MarcoTolo, MartinHarper, MattieTK, Mattisse, Mav, Maxis ftw, Messlo, Mlang.Finn, Molindo, Mononomic, Moskvax, Mr Stephen, Mr. Billion, Mufka, Mussermaster, Nathraq, NawlinWiki, Nesbit, Newkai, Nibuod, Nigosh, Nihiltres, Niki K, Nk, Nosikmr1, Nsk92, Oberiko, Oxymoron83, Pais, Papapoo16, Pathoschild, Paulieraw, Peng1pete, Peterdjones, Piotrus, Plasticup, Ppntori, Presearch, Psychonaut, Queeste, Quywompka, R Lowry, Rahidz2003, Ranveig, Rfl, Rich Farmbrough, Richard001, RichardF, Rintrah, Rjwilmsi, Rmessenger, Robocoder, Roffe, Ryulong, S singh9, S t h 2007, Sa petite bourgeoise, Sam Spade, Santaduck, Sara Nora Ross, Sardanaphalus, ScAvenger lv,

Scientific29, Sean D Martin, Seegoon, Seglea, Sfmusicfan, Shanemash, Shoeofdeath, SilviaLalBeharie, SiobhanHansa, Skagedal, Smalljim, SmilesALot, Smith felix, Snowdog, Snoyes, Some standardized rigour, Squelle, SquidSK, Static7181, StaticGull, Steinsky, Stephenb, Stevertigo, Taak, Taco325i, Tasc, TehBrandon, Tekks, Template namespace initialisation script, The Anome, The Thing That Should Not Be, The Transhumanist, Thi, Thingg, Tiptoety, Titoxd, Tkynerd, Tosqueira, Trivelt, Tslocum, Tuspm, Uberon, Ubiq, Ucucha, Ulflarsen, Uncle G, VKokielov, Variant13, Vaughan, Vcelloho, Versus22, Viajero, Vishnava, WLU, Washburnmav, Wetman, Whc251, WikiPedant, Wikiklrsc, Wikiwikifast, William Avery, Wknight94, Wotnow, Yaybbq, Youssefsan, Yurik, Zoicon5, Zzuuzz, 568 anonymous edits Structural linguistics Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=435000684 Contributors: Angr, Cagri, Castagna, Daniel 1992, Enkyklios, Fadesga, Finell, G.broadwell, Galoubet, Giraffedata, GranD, Jobberknoll, Jomeara421, Le vin blanc, Mazca, Misarxist, Mpafp, Pianoface, Slowik, Vssun, Wprlh, 31 anonymous edits Cognitive revolution Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=433926350 Contributors: AdRock, Aleksd, Annaluv, Arnoutf, Bejnar, Blackvoid, Burns Ave., Cadr, Chasingsol, David Ludwig, Davidkinnen, Deaconse, DocteurCosmos, DoctorW, Drosboro, Electro Gypsy, Enduser, Gmandler, JTBurman, John0101ddd, Jokestress, Jonsafari, K-UNIT, La goutte de pluie, Leszek Jaczuk, Magioladitis, Mandler, Matrixnaz, Mr-Thomas, Petri Krohn, R E Costa, RichardF, Rjanag, Robertvan1, Schnitzi, SmartPatrol, Stevertigo, Viriditas, 35 anonymous edits Second language acquisition theories Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=430702698 Contributors: JHunterJ, Mr. Stradivarius Contrastive analysis Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=423348532 Contributors: Aelfthrytha, Andycjp, Antonielly, Connor4355, Craig Mayhew, DCDuring, Hpvpp, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, Laradoks, Luna Santin, Mr. Stradivarius, Reinhard Hartmann, TheArchon, Tslamers, Van helsing, 5 anonymous edits Error analysis (linguistics) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=402986084 Contributors: Bearcat, Mr. Stradivarius Focus on form Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=423681887 Contributors: Mr. Stradivarius Interlanguage Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=426503015 Contributors: 16@r, 55lannie11, Altenmann, Awien, Bitbut, Ccw0808, Cnilep, ConstantinetheGreat, Cuaxdon, Dbachmann, Dissident, Dwbarker, Etarone, GoingBatty, Guyjohnston, Hairy Dude, Hpvpp, John Reaves, Jorge Morejn, Licqua, Mattrogers, Mike Selinker, Moyogo, Mr. Stradivarius, Nbarth, Omg russ, Pne, Robby.is.on, Rogerhc, Talnat, Van helsing, Wavelength, Will Hen, 24 anonymous edits
65
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
66
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image:Places of articulation.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Places_of_articulation.svg License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: created by Ishwar (original .png deleted), .svg by Rohieb Image:Phonological Diagram of modern Arabic and Hebrew vowels.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phonological_Diagram_of_modern_Arabic_and_Hebrew_vowels.png License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: Javier Carro, Mo-Al, Moxfyre, Paradoctor, Shlomital Image:Phonetic Diagram of modern Arabic and Hebrew vowels.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Phonetic_Diagram_of_modern_Arabic_and_Hebrew_vowels.png License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Contributors: Conscious, Moxfyre, Paradoctor, Shlomital, WikipediaMaster File:Roma jakobson theory.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Roma_jakobson_theory.png License: Public Domain Contributors: Artist2426
License
67
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/

Second Language Acquisition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second Language Acquisition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Second Language Acquisition

What is being acquired?

Analyzing learner language

Comparisons with first language acquistion

Second language acquisition

Sequences of acquisition A typical order of acquisition for English[16]

The girls went. The girl goes. The girl's book.

Input, output, and interaction

Second language acquisition

Form and meaning

Conscious and subconscious knowledge

Second language acquisition

Second language acquisition

Second language acquisition

Second language acquisition

What is being acquired?

Stochastic/probabilistic grammars/network theories

Inflection vs. word formation

Paradigms and morphosyntax

A diagram of the vocal tract

graphemes of an alphabetic writing system.

Doing a phoneme inventory

Phonemic distinctions or allophones

Change of a phoneme inventory over time

Other topics in phonology

Development of the field

Joan B. Hooper William Idsardi Roman Jakobson

David Stampe Henry Sweet Nikolai Trubetzkoy

Referential uses of language

Non-referential uses of language

Jakobson's six functions of language

Experimental and conceptual innovations

Molar versus molecular behaviorism

21st century behavior analysis

Behavior analysis and culture

List of notable behaviorists

Basic theories and methods

Five major ideas from the cognitive revolution

Second language acquisition theories

Second language acquisition theories

Second language acquisition theories

Connectionism and second language acquisition

Second language acquisition theories

Second language acquisition theories

Memory and second language acquisition

Analyzing learner language

Contrastive Analysis and Second Language Acquisition

Error analysis (linguistics)

Definition and relation to other types of language

Article Sources and Contributors

Article Sources and Contributors

Article Sources and Contributors

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors

You might also like