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 paper compares the foregrounding strategies of native speakers of English and advanced learners of ESL. Fifteen native speakers and thirty-five advanced learners produced on-line (play-by-play) descriptions of the unfolding action in an animated videotape. A methodology for the quantitative analysis of discourse production is described which permits the explicit identification of foreground-background information and its interaction with both native speaker and interlanguage syntaxes. Results show that: (1) Native speakers and learners exhibit one universal discourse strategy in retreating to a more pragmatic mode of communication under the severe communicative stress of on-line description, as revealed through the systematic loss of the coding relations ordinarily holding between foreground-background information and clause independence/tense-aspect; (2) Learners also exhibit a learner-specific general communication strategy in which significant events are described but nonsignificant events avoided.

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.

While the recent explosion of work on L2 discourse has provided researchers with a mass of data on the development of communicative abilities, we find that most of this work is predicated on a single (perhaps even curious) assumption: that all discourse, of which L2 discourse is taken as a subcategory, is intended by its speakers to be informative to some interlocutor (i.e., transmits a message via an acoustic or graphic conduit) and that the production of discourse entails the formulation of strategies on the part of speakers in order to maximize this transmission of data. That discourse is not communicative (i.e., sending and receiving information) by nature has, in fact, been long known, but overlooked, especially in L2 research. Malinowski pointed out as early as 1935 that:

Language is an activity the function of which is not an expression of thought or communication of ideas … the neglect of the obvious has often been fatal to the development of scientific thought. The false conception of language as a means of transferring ideas from the head of the speaker to that of the listener has, in my opinion, largely vitiated the philological approach to language (Malinowski, 1935, 9).

This paper investigates the question of whether the Wave Model of linguistic change can furnish a valid idealization for the patterning of variation in interlanguage systems and, thereby, a scale for the determination of their degree of naturalness. Using cross-sectional data from 162 French-speaking adult learners, the paper analyzes the variability in the evolution of the English possessive determiners HIS and HER. The main findings are as follows:

1. The Wave Model furnishes a valid idealization for acquisitional change.

2. The developmental continuum reveals that L2, acquisition appears to involve a greater scope of variability. Change may be initiated in a more marked environment at a point when the rule change process is not yet fully completed in the less marked environment. Nonetheless, the proportion of learners showing variable application of the mature rule in only one environment at a time as opposed to those with variable application in both is more than 2:1.

3. Less natural systems evidence rule blockage and/or compartmentalization of the marked environment; rule conflict between noncontiguous parts of the rule, and violation of markedness constraints.

4. Premature adoption of gender marking on the possessive determiners or, more generally, failure to approach the target language rule with an unmarked, initial hypothesis is one important source of unnaturalness in rule variability.

The data analysis leads up to a number of other issues in interlanguage research such as inter-learner variation, the ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction, and the relationship between the Simple Codes Hypothesis and unsuccessful L2, acquisition.

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.

This paper reports on the influence of formal instruction on L2 acquisition in an instructional experiment with child learners. The main tendency of the findings is that a structure can only be learned under instruction if the learner's interlanguage has already reached a stage one step prior to the acquisition of the structure to be taught.

My hypothesis for an explanation suggests that the teachability of L2 structures is constrained by the same processing restrictions that determine the developmental sequences of natural L2 acquisition: since the processing procedures of each stage build upon the procedures of the preceding stage there is no way to leave out a stage of the developmental sequence by the means of formal teaching. Following such a processing capacity approach I reject the assumption that the constraints on teachability can be explained on the basis of linguistic input.

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.

Gundel and Tarone (1981) studied the acquisition of pronouns by Chinese and Spanish speaking adults learning English. On the basis of this study it was proposed that when L1 and L2 differ in the relative order of object pronoun and verb, the acquisition of direct object pronouns proceeds in three stages: (1) direct transfer of the native language pattern; (2) zero anaphora, i.e. no overt form at all, in direct object position; (3) the correct L2 pattern. The present paper presents further evidence for this proposal, and hence for a hypothesis-testing view of second language acquisition, on the basis of longitudinal data from English speaking children learning French in the Toronto French Immersion Program.

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.