The acquisition-learning distinction is the foundation for much current research in second language acquisition (SLA), yet we lack an analysis of the applicability of this distinction to the whole of the SLA process, including input, storage, retrieval, and performance. This article details the meaning of the acquisition-learning distinction in the Monitor Model and Neurofunctional Theory. It is argued that the two models provide complementary accounts of different components of the SLA process, with the Monitor Model employing the acquisition-learning distinction in an analysis of input and performance, and Neurofunctional Theory using the distinction to describe the formation of linguistic knowledge. Thus an integrated SLA model is proposed that carries the acquisition-learning distinction to all components of the SLA process and that incorporates the main elements of the Monitor Model and Neurofunctional Theory.

This study addresses the question of whether observed differences in the use of the strategy of monitoring (as defined by Krashen) is related to four rather stable cognitive styles. Subjects were 40 Spanish-speaking adults in a university ESL program. Each subject's use of monitoring was assessed by comparing the degree of correctness s/he demonstrated with respect to one morpheme, third-person-singular s, in elicited speech, taken to represent his/her acquired knowledge of the morpheme, and on three writing tasks—fill-in-the-blank, proofreading, and composition—taken to represent acquired knowledge modified by conscious application of the third-person-singular rule. It was hypothesized that the most monitoring would occur on the fill-in-the-blank test, and the least on the composition. The cognitive styles hypothesized to be related to monitor use were field independence, reflection, flexible control, and preference for processing information by written word.

No significant differences in the amount of monitoring on the three written tasks were noted. Field independence was positively related to the amount of monitoring on all written tasks, and reflection weakly but positively related to the amount of monitoring on the proofreading task. Implications for further research are discussed.

The question central to interlanguage research, and all language acquisition research, is ‘How do acquirers internalize linguistic patterns of the target language?’ Much research addressing this question is based on the hypothesis that the language of the second language acquirers represents a systematic linguistic continuum. The interlanguage hypothesis suggests two questions which are prerequisite to answering the central question cited above: 1) What are the form-function relationships of the interlanguage? and 2) How do those form-function relationships change as the acquirer revises the interlanguage?

The current paper reports on a one-year longitudinal analysis of the interlanguage of an adult acquiring English without formal instruction (Huebner 1983). It presents observations of the form-function relationships in the early interlanguage and of the ways these relationships change over the twelve months of the study.

It describes features of the early interlanguage related to presupposed-asserted information, topic-comment organization of information, and referentiality, which express both pragmatic/discourse functions and semantico-grammatical case functions (Pfaff 1982) in the interlanguage, and examines the changing functions of these forms with attention to the role of set phrases, quasi-spontaneous speech, and processes of neutralization in the changing interlanguage system. The paper concludes by proposing two ways in which hypotheses may be neutralized and speculates that these two processes are reciprocally linked.

Ninety undergraduate students enrolled in Foreign language courses in French, Spanish and German were asked to respond to a questionnaire concerning their engagement in certain selected learning behaviors culled from recent literature on good language learners. The data reported by the students are described and analyzed according to level of language course, and language. They are also related to student's grades and instructors' evaluations of students' progress, effort and voluntary classroom participation. The main finding is that there is some evidence for a link between certain behaviors and student achievement. However, links between learning behavior and achievement seem dependent on course level and methodology, and suggest the possibility of a learning behavior/treatment interaction.

Production of English grammatical morphemes has provided a fruitful data base for language acquisition research. However, questions have been raised as to how these data can best be analyzed to represent subjects' actual use of morphemes (Andersen 1977, Hakuta 1976, Hatch and Wagner-Gough 1976, Lightbown, Spada, and Wallace 1980, Stauble 1981). In the following study, application of different methods of morpheme quantification to the spontaneous speech data of 18 adults acquiring English as a second language led to conflicting interpretations regarding their morpheme production.

Application of two alternative methods of morpheme quantification—one by suppliance in obligatory contexts, the other by target-like use—resulted in substantially different percentages of accuracy for subjects' production of the morphemes progressive -ing, progressive auxiliary, and past irregular. Another set of methods, used to analyze plural -s—quantification by noun tokens and by noun types—yielded contradictory findings regarding subjects' production of this morpheme.

Results of this study demonstrate that data can be described in various ways depending on how morphemes are quantified. As a consequence of applying different analyses to the same data base, conflicting interpretations about subjects' interlanguage can occur.

This article presents the findings of a survey of ESL students' attitudes toward and preferences for the correction of spoken errors by native speaker friends. The 418 subjects reported generally positive attitudes toward error correction and claimed to prefer even more correction than their friends did. They saw correcting errors as facilitating—even being necessary—for the improvement of their oral English.