Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-rj9fg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-08T23:17:19.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Language Instruction Does Make a Difference

Evidence from an Empirical Study of SL Relativization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Catherine Doughty
Catherine Doughty
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A number of studies on second language (SL) instruction point to the hypothesis that instruction is effective, but determining the effect experimentally has been problematic. Overall, three difficulties with previous attempts to demonstrate a causal relationship between SL instruction and second language acquisition can be identified: (a) inappropriate or inadequate research design, (b) failure to operationalize or even to describe the instructional treatment, and (c) choice of SL assessment measures. This article presents the findings of a recent empirical study which (a) show that SL instruction is effective; (b) show that attention to form, either via detailed analysis of structure or highlighting of target language (TL) structures in context, promotes acquisition of interlanguage (IL) grammar, but that only the latter comes hand-in-hand with comprehension of input; and (c) replicate earlier findings suggesting an important role for markedness theory in instructed IL development.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 431 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

Aho, A., Kernighan, B., & Weinberger, P. (1988). The AWK programming language. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bailey, K., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a natural sequence in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 28, 235–243.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex structures. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (pp. 285–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1973). The comparison of language development in native children and foreign adults. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 13–28.Google Scholar
Day, R. (1986). Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1987). Relating second language acquisition theory to CALL. In Smith, W. F. (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 133–168). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1988). The effects of instruction on the acquisition of relativization in English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 24, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, P., & Heike, A. (1985). Building fluency in English. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1–11.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (1981). The effect of formal instruction on second language acquisition. Language Learning, 31, 87–112.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1981, 03). From theory to practice. Paper presented at the 15th annual TESOL convention, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. In Hines, M. & Rutherford, W. (Eds.), On TESOL '81 (pp. 129–139). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198–217.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1980). L2 data: Their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Madden, C. (1985). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. (1983). Psycholinguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1984). The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition: The case of pronomial copies in relative clauses. In Andersen, R. (Ed.), Second languages: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 39–60). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ioup, G. (1983). Acquiring complex sentences in English. In Bailey, K., Long, M., & Peck, S. (Eds.), Second language acquisition studies (pp. 25–40). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Ioup, G., & Kruse, A. (1977). Interference vs. structural complexity in second language acquisition: Language universals as a basis for natural sequencing. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL '77—Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 159–171). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1979). Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language, 55, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, G. (1973). Conditions for language learning. In Oiler, J. & Richards, J. (Eds.), Focus on the learner (pp. 66–80). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In Brown, H., Yorio, C., & Crymes, R. (Eds.), On TESOL '77—Teaching and learning English as a second language: Trends in research and practice (pp. 145–158). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Krashen, S., Scarcella, R., & Long, M. (1982). Child-adult differences in SLA. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117–136.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1981, 07). Acquiring English 12 in Quebec classrooms. Paper presented at the conference on Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Language Acquisition Research, Passau, Germany.Google Scholar
Lightbown, P. (1983). Acquiring English L2 in Quebec classrooms. In Wode, H. & Felix, S. (Eds.), Language development at the crossroads (pp. 101–120). Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Does second language instruction make a difference? TESOL Quarterly, 17, 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1988 a, 06). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Paper prepared for the National Foreign Language Center/European Cultural Foundation Conference on Empirical Research on Second Language Learning in Institutional Settings, Bellagio, Italy.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1988 b). Instructed interlanguage development. In Beebe, L. (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–142). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Meisel, J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental stages of second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and in an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38–55.Google Scholar
Pedersen, K. (1987). Research on CALL. In Smith, W. F. (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 99–131). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
Perkins, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). The effect of formal language instruction on the order of morpheme acquisition. Language Learning, 25, 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language in different language contexts. Language Learning, 33, 465–497.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Doughty, C., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do interactional modifications help? I.T.L Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1–25.Google Scholar
Pica, R., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–758.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In Hyltenstam, K. & Pienemann, M. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–76). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters.Google Scholar
Prideaux, G., & Baker, W. (1986). Strategies and structures: The processing of relative clauses (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 46). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1984). Relative clauses in child language, pidgins and Creoles. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 257–281.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood, Smith M. (1988). Grammar and second language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, K. (1981). The nature of first language transfer: English as 12 in a foreign language setting. Paper presented at the first European-North American Workshop on Second Language Acquisition Research, Lake Arrowhead, CA.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In Day, R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in a second language (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. (1980). The acquisition of English relative clause by second language learners. In Scarcella, R. & Krashen, S. (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Selected papers from the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum (pp. 118–131). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 272–281). New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Soermarmo, M. (1987). Animated grammar [Unpublished software]. Ohio University, Athens.Google Scholar
Stauble, A. (1978). A frequency study of restrictive relative clause types and relative pronoun use in English. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1981). Language-acquisitional universal: A unified view of language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 218–234.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1983). Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning, 33, 292–313.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1985). Grammars in search of input and intake. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329–344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar