Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:58:41.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the use of miniature artificial languages in second-language research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Barry McLaughlin
Barry McLaughlin*
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
*
Barry McLaughlin, Stevenson College, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article the hypothesis is advanced that the learning of a miniature artificial language (MAL) is second-language (L2) learning writ small. Recent research from MAL experiments is reviewed which, if the hypothesis is correct, throws light on inductive L2 learning, suggesting that in the “creative construction” process both “implicit” learning and analogic generalization are possible strategies. The argument is made that MAL experiments are heuristically valuable for L2 research and that more creative use of MAL methods can have pedagogical implications, since teaching, like MAL research, involves systematic manipulation of input.

Type
Research Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , November 1980 , pp. 357 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bialystok, E.A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 1978, 28, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. Two models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Brooks, L. Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.Google Scholar
Brown, R.A first language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.A good book about the human mind. Contemporary Psychology, 1979, 24, 551–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. J.Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior. 1972, 12, 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danks, J. H., & Gans, D. L.Acquisition and utilization of a rule structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1975, 104, 201–208.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. Some remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. (Ed.), Second language research: Issues and implications. New York: Academic Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. An overview of theories of grammatical development. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. A.The inductive-deductive controversy revisited. Modern Language Journal, 1979, 63, 98–105.Google Scholar
Foss, D. J.Learning and discovery in the acquisition of structured material: The effect of number of items and their sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 337–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E.Individual differences in second language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1980, 1. 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J.The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.Google Scholar
Hatch, E.Second language acquisition – universals? Working Papers in Bilingualism, 1974, 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., & Reber, A. S.Locus of control and the learning of an artificial language. Journal of Research in Personality, 1979, 13, 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. Second language acquisition. In Dingwall, W. (Ed.), Survey of linguistic science (2nd ed.). Stamford, Conn.: Greylock, 1978.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B.“Intentional” and “incidental” learning under conditions to learn and motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63, 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B.The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 1978a, 28, 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B.Second-language acquisition in childhood. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978b.Google Scholar
Miller, G.The psychology of communication. New York: Basic Books, 1967.Google ScholarPubMed
Moeser, S. D. Semantics and miniature artificial languages. In Macnamara, J. (Ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Palermo, D., & Parrish, M.Rule acquisition as a function of number and frequency of exemplar presentations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1971, 10, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I. Abstraction and the process of recognition. In Bower, G. H. and Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S.Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 855–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S.Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Learning and Memory, 1976, 2, 88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S., & Allen, R.Analogic and abstraction strategies in synthetic grammar learning: A functionalist interpretation. Cognition, 1978, 6, 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. S., & Lewis, S.Implicit learning: An analysis of the form and structure of a body of tacit knowledge. Cognition, 1977, 5, 333–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotter, J. B.Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 1966, 80 (No. 609).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesinger, I. M. Miniature artificial languages as research tools. In Macnamara, J. (Ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Seliger, H. W.Inductive method and deductive method in language teaching: A re-examination. IRAL, 1975, 13, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L.Interlanguage. IRAL, 1972, 10, 209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. On the learning of morphological rules: A reply to Palermo and Eberhart. In Slobin, D. I. (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1979.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E.Mothers' speech, to children learning languages. Child Development, 1972, 43, 549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M.Individual differences in second language ability: A factor analytic study. Language and Speech, 1979, 22, 151–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walberg, H. J., Hase, K., & Rasher, S. P.English acquisition as a diminishing function of experience rather than age. TESOL Quarterly, 1978, 12, 427–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W.Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47, 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong-Fillmore, L. W. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In Fillmore, C. J. and Wang, W. S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar